# question for liberals; you've won, now what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915 "2014-10-20T14:23:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/281 "2014-10-22T05:44:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > To protect the delicate sensitivities of the bigots you would seem to support reopening of segregated lunch counters and hotels. And hospitals. It’s kind of noticeable in these arguments how the “delicate sensitivities” of bigots are the _only_ sensitivities that matter. They on the other hand are apparently supposed to be able to trample over everyone else regardless of the consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/282 "2014-10-22T05:55:16Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > . . . I don’t like having this position…I don’t like defending people who are discriminating (I especially don’t like defending people who are discriminating against me), but I don’t really like the other alternative either. I can respect this. It could legitimately feel galling to good people to have private enterprise regulated in this way. But as you note, the alternative isn’t particularly admirable either. Many of us hold that the alternative is much worse, as it allows society to be turned against itself. It allows bigotry to become expressed in the marketplace. It allows “No Irish Need Apply” signs to go up in windows. It creates classes and castes, self-perpetuating divisions in society. If the libertarians were right, the problem would be self-correcting, as competitors would leap at the opportunity to serve the customers that others turn away. If Joe the Baker won’t sell cakes to gays, I will – your dollars are very welcome in my bakery! But…that isn’t how it turns out. Instead, the competition gets re-cast as “gay vs. straight” and I get labeled “The Queer Baker.” Churchmen recite sermons against me, and church groups organize boycotts against me. It’s just trouble all around. The libertarian ideal doesn’t work in real life. An ounce of regulation is better than a hundredweight of social disturbance. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/283 "2014-10-22T06:15:28Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yeah, discrimination against a specific _action_, not against an individual. For the proof of that, let’s reconsider the gay guy I mentioned earlier. And let’s say he wears a jacket with the rainbow flag on it, and a patch that says “Gay Pride”. He comes in to a cake shop and orders a birthday cake for his sister. No problem. He comes back next week and orders a birthday cake for himself, requesting the rainbow flag as a design. Again, no problem. He comes back again and says he wants a wedding cake for himself and his boyfriend. The cake shop owner declines. So, the cake shop owner has expressed no discrimination or animosity against Joe due to his sexual orientation. But he has chosen to not be part of an action he thinks immoral. You could excuse any act of discrimination with that logic. The Montgomery bus laws weren’t discriminating against black people, just against the action of a black person sitting at the front of the bus. Neighborhoods that wouldn’t sell houses to Jews weren’t discriminating against Jews, just against the action of a Jew buying a house there. The Chinese Exclusion Acts didn’t discriminate against Chinese people, just the action of Chinese people living in the US. Very few examples of historical discrimination - outside of actual genocide - apply to every member of a disadvantaged group at every possible moment. Most bigots are okay with their victims being around, so long as the “mind their place.” A lot of misogynists are okay with women, so long as they don’t get ideas about working outside the home. A lot of racists are okay with black people, so long as they don’t try to date white women. And a lot of homophobes are okay with gays, just so long as we don’t try to pass our relationships off as equivalent to straight relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/284 "2014-10-22T07:19:21Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > Question: It is becoming increasingly obvious that the right has lost the culture war, and this nation is going to become another European-style, liberal society. Soon the moderately conservative majority on the Supreme Court will be replaced with liberals and conservates will be minorities. Liberals will have their way in all three brances of the federal govt. > > My question is this: in the America ruled by Reid, Pelosi, Obama, etc., will there be a place for fundamentalist groups to believe and live as they see fit (provided they are non-violent)? I think there will be. The US has pretty extensive protections for religious observance and even today there are parts of the country where you can live your life without coming into contact with minorities of various sorts. In urban areas there will be more mixing of people with different backgrounds and you will find ministers eating in the same restaurant or even breaking bread with hookers and tax collectors. But I have no doubt that American Christian Fundamentalists will find a way to avoid such indignities. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/285 "2014-10-22T12:31:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think a person’s right to follow his own religious beliefs is trumps all. I have been patiently holding my breath waiting for **magellan01** to respond to this little gem. Many others have asked for the same. I fear if we collectively exhale, we’ll set off an atmospheric disturbance. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/286 "2014-10-22T13:40:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This brings up two interesting points. One is that there is a difference between actual religious doctrine and made up religious doctrine. The other is that it can be very difficult to draw a line between the two. Actually, this whole thing is based on made-up religious doctrine. It’s total bullshit. The bible says that if two people have homosexual sex, you have to kill them. That is the religious belief. And don’t try to tell me that that law was repealed by Jesus; first of all, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality or gay marriage, and second, Jesus specifically said that people were still to follow every jot and tittle of the law. Not to mention that christians continue to cite New Testament texts that supposedly forbid homosexuality. The bible doesn’t say “if people have gay sex, don’t bake them a cake.” It says “if people have gay sex, kill them.” So if these bakers were saying that they should be able to stone to death any gay couple that walked in the door, they would at least have a point that they were following their religion. But refusing to bake a cake has nothing to do with religion, and I wish people would stop pretending that there is any truth behind these objections. It’s bigotry, pure and simple, masquerading as religion just as bigotry has for hundreds of years. When are people going to realize that it’s just more of the same? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/287 "2014-10-22T14:13:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > It’s their _place of public accommodation_. **NOT** their personal private dwelling. > > If we were talking about the right of individuals to refuse hospitality to interracial couples in their personal private dwelling, I’d be right with you. Private individuals are free to discriminate against others in their private lives, no matter how loathsome the prejudices prompting such discrimination may be. If, say, you stop inviting your favorite niece for weekend visits once she marries a guy of a different race because you don’t want race mixing under your roof, that’s entirely up to you: your niece and nephew-in-law are not entitled to be under your roof if you don’t want them there. > > But if you’re a hotelier running a **commercial enterprise** offering services for money to the general public? _Hell to the NO_, you don’t get to pick and choose which racial combinations among the general public are allowed to enter into that contract with you. > > Too many people have the mistaken notion that privately owned businesses are or should be as completely controlled by their owner as private homes are. No, that’s not the way it works. The government regulates commerce for the good of the public, and it has decreed that there are certain kinds of arbitrary restrictions that business owners may not apply to the customers they serve. > > When you register as a business, you are making a deal with the government that they will recognize your commercial entity in exchange for your following their rules. If you want to say “This is **MY** place and I alone get to decide who’s allowed to be here!”, save it for your own private dwelling, not your public business. You know how every so often there’s a thread about “things the SDMB has changed your mind about”? Score one on your tally sheet, please. 🙂 I’d want to make sure we still allow people to throw out disruptive assholes, stalking exes and shoplifters, and ban them from the premises permanently if so desired, though. That’s the slippery slope I fear - that forcing total inclusiveness means that if a customer is being a jerk, and he happens to fall into a protected class category, the shopowner will be unable to see him escorted off the premises for good, out of a legitimate fear that he’ll be sued into oblivion. I imagine it would be awfully hard to prove “I kicked him out 'cause he was a jerk” rather than “I kicked him out 'cause I’m uncomfortable with gay black atheists”. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/288 "2014-10-22T14:16:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This brings up two interesting points. One is that there is a difference between actual religious doctrine and made up religious doctrine. The other is that it can be very difficult to draw a line between the two. And again I ask you: > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And what would that difference be? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/289 "2014-10-22T14:29:56Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > But nobody needs a wedding cake. Nobody needs to bake wedding cakes, either. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/290 "2014-10-22T14:31:54Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I imagine it would be awfully hard to prove “I kicked him out 'cause he was a jerk” rather than “I kicked him out 'cause I’m uncomfortable with gay black atheists”. Actually, that’s pretty easy to do, which is why discrimination lawsuits are very difficult to win. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/291 "2014-10-22T14:48:06Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Nobody needs to bake wedding cakes, either. Nobody needs to get married, either. Why are the gays so persistent on doing it? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/292 "2014-10-22T14:49:24Z")
The point is that equality and nondiscrimination ought to apply to most things that aren’t strictly needed for survival. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/293 "2014-10-22T14:51:38Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It’s their hotel. They should have the right to refuse service to whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to. I mean, I don’t like the idea. I doubt I’d patronize a business that did that. I’d tell the people I knew not to patronize a business like that. But it’s their hotel. Well, at least you’re consistent. How far are you prepared to take this, though? Should a hospital be able to refuse service to blacks (or gays)? What about a private train operator? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/294 "2014-10-22T14:58:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The point is that equality and nondiscrimination ought to apply to most things that aren’t strictly needed for survival. I tried (and failed) to sound sarcastic. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/295 "2014-10-22T15:23:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It’s their hotel. They should have the right to refuse service to whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to. It seems to me that some people here on both sides of this question have lost sight of the purpose and scope of anti-discrimination laws. On one hand, some people think it’s OK for a business owner to choose who he serves under any circumstances. On the other hand, some are advocating that it’s never allowable for a business to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. Neither of these is the actual state of the law. Businesses are free to discriminate for various reasons. I can have a cake-baking service that refuses to sell to people who smoke. It might be dumb and arbitrary for me to operate it that way, but it’s my business and I can do that. **So it’s not true that a public business has to serve equally any person who walks through the door.** However, our society many years ago decided that certain classes of people had been discriminated against so much that it wasn’t acceptable anymore. Civil rights laws were passed to help remedy this - a business that’s a public accommodation can’t discriminate based on a list of criteria, including race and religion. We decided that a business owner should be able to choose whom to serve _up to a point_, but that it’s not OK to use race or religion as a criteria anymore. Increasingly, many states and municipalities are extending these civil rights laws to include sexual orientation in that list. If we’re talking about a business in one of those places, then a business can’t refuse to serve someone using sexual orientation as a criteria any more than they could use race as a criteria. I guess the debate is whether the criteria of sexual orientation _should_ be added to the list in those places that haven’t added it already. It’s inevitable that it will be done everywhere eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/296 "2014-10-22T16:35:20Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > You know how every so often there’s a thread about “things the SDMB has changed your mind about”? Score one on your tally sheet, please. 🙂 > > I’d want to make sure we still allow people to throw out disruptive assholes, stalking exes and shoplifters, and ban them from the premises permanently if so desired, though. That’s the slippery slope I fear - that forcing total inclusiveness means that if a customer is being a jerk, and he happens to fall into a protected class category, the shopowner will be unable to see him escorted off the premises for good, out of a legitimate fear that he’ll be sued into oblivion. I imagine it would be awfully hard to prove “I kicked him out 'cause he was a jerk” rather than “I kicked him out 'cause I’m uncomfortable with gay black atheists”. You know that we’ve had laws like this for more than forty years, right? I don’t think the slope is going to start now, just because we’ve added gays to the list. ---
**Author:** ![Hooleehootoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/eada6e/32.png) [@Hooleehootoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hooleehootoo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/297 "2014-10-22T19:05:31Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > No, but the baker would be forced to assist something he does not religiously support - a homosexual wedding. > [@babygoat666](#): > > No one forced him to open a place of public accommodation. There you are with a bunch of savings. No one thinks you are morally compelled to build a public place of accommodation with it, you could buy take all your money and buy beanie babies and then light them on fire. But instead you decide to build a hotel. Or, there you are, a person with great cake-making ability, not making any cakes, yet you are not morally condemned for not exercising your baking talents. However, once you **do** decide to open a bakery, you are morally condemned for …\. If you do open a yoga studio, you must allow the smelly, the noisy, the gay, the Lutheran, etc. all to enter. Why the switch from not being morally obligated to do anything, to being morally obligated to do everything those in power demand? (I don’t think Steven Landsburg would say I have mis-characterized this, his argument.) What! Allow racial discrimination! I think if pressed I can find evidence to show that Jim Crow discrimination was not a universal preference of all (possible) business in the South. There were entrepreneurs that wanted to open diners, hotels, and other businesses allowing both black and white customers. They were prevented from this policy (i.e. they were forced to discriminate) by the law. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/298 "2014-10-22T19:09:21Z")
> [@Hooleehootoo](#): > > There you are with a bunch of savings. No one thinks you are morally compelled to build a public place of accommodation with it, you could buy take all your money and buy beanie babies and then light them on fire. But instead you decide to build a hotel. Or, there you are, a person with great cake-making ability, not making any cakes, yet you are not morally condemned for not exercising your baking talents. However, once you **do** decide to open a bakery, you are morally condemned for …\. If you do open a yoga studio, you must allow the smelly, the noisy, the gay, the Lutheran, etc. all to enter. > > Why the switch from not being morally obligated to do anything, to being morally obligated to do everything those in power demand? (I don’t think Steven Landsburg would say I have mis-characterized this, his argument.) I can’t figure out what your argument is. The people in power–that is, elected legislators–have decided that you may not exercise your bigotry against protected classes in the context of public accommodation. They don’t tell you what kind of cake to make, what flavors, how much, where to set up your bakery; but if you do make cakes, you can’t make your decisions about whom to serve based on race, religion, sex, sexual preference, and similar traits. In no way is this “being morally obligated to do everything those in power demand,” except in the most tautological way imaginable. > [@](#): > > What! Allow racial discrimination! I think if pressed I can find evidence to show that Jim Crow discrimination was not a universal preference of all (possible) business in the South. There were entrepreneurs that wanted to open diners, hotels, and other businesses allowing both black and white customers. They were prevented from this policy (i.e. they were forced to discriminate) by the law. So what? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/299 "2014-10-22T19:15:07Z")
> [@Hooleehootoo](#): > > What! Allow racial discrimination! I think if pressed I can find evidence to show that Jim Crow discrimination was not a universal preference of all (possible) business in the South. There were entrepreneurs that wanted to open diners, hotels, and other businesses allowing both black and white customers. They were prevented from this policy (i.e. they were forced to discriminate) by the law. In many cases they were prevented from this policy by the free market. If most of a town doesn’t want you to serve black people, and won’t give you business if you do, then you go out of business. Many business owners were _forced by the market_ into racist policies. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915/300 "2014-10-22T19:23:24Z")
> [@Hooleehootoo](#): > > However, once you **do** decide to open a bakery, you are morally condemned for …\. Opening the bakery is not the source of any condemnation, except from the very, very small number of celiac-rights extremists who carry out acts of considerable violence against the gluten-industrial complex. But, the thing is, that acting like a bigot is the source of the condemnation for acting like a bigot, and that’s what we’re talking about here. You really don’t help your argument by making up silly arguments to the effect of “opening a bakery makes liberals mad at you.” > [@](#): > > If you do open a yoga studio, you must allow the smelly, the noisy, the gay, the Lutheran, etc. all to enter. Smelly and noisy are not protected classes. But yes, you should not kick Lutherans out of your yoga studio on the basis that you don’t favor their religion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-liberals-youve-won-now-what/701915.md?page=16)