The whole point of the invisible hand shtick is that it converts private avarice into public good. Conservatives once assured us they shared the same benevolent ends as liberals: they just disagreed about the means. I guess the mask has fallen. The public good or public health or welfare are no longer something that’s considered desirable. Markets are not the servants of the conservative: they are now the master.
I must say libertarianism is looking better and better: I fully support the formation of libertarian states on the ocean, in the arctic, in Chile or perhaps in Western Sahara. Drain the intellectual swamp I say.
I don’t know? Except that I’m uncomfortable with setting up a situation where someone has to make a choice between their moral beliefs and their livelihood. And, sure, in cases of health and safety of the public and things like that, sometimes you have to, like the example given earlier of the person who’s religion requires human sacrifice. And I can even see extending that to the examples of the hotel room or whatever. People need a place to sleep, people need to be able to buy gas, people need to be able to get groceries, so I can see saying that the public good requires somebody’s religion to bend on that score. But nobody needs a wedding cake.
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.
To say that “commerce exists for the good of the public as a whole” is not the same thing as “every individual participating in commerce is consciously doing so with the primary or exclusive goal of creating a better world.”
That was a pretty impressive libertarian knee-jerk you did there, though. “Oh no, a statement that seems to imply the possibility of a social function transcending individual self-interest! Repudiate! Distort and repudiate!”
That’s one of the side benefits to having the law prescribe equal access to public accommodations. The business owner doesn’t have to endure an agonizing struggle between their desire to make money and their religious conscience telling them to refuse this customer’s business. They simply have to follow the law that requires them to treat all their customers equally.
Very true. And consequently, nobody needs to go into business as a wedding cake baker.
But if somebody does go into that business, and advertises wedding cakes for sale to the general public, then they’re not entitled to stipulate that certain members of the general public aren’t allowed to purchase their wares just because the baker’s religion says that those people shouldn’t be getting married.
Nobody needs artisan bread either, but plain ol’ bread probably falls under the groceries you mentioned. Do we make a rule: white bread must be sold to all comers, but you don’t have to sell brioche if you don’t approve of the customer? How many rules are you figuring you’ll need, and how many people will you need to enforce them?
Or maybe we just say: everything you sell, you sell regardless of creed, color, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.
That’s how statements of principle are generally expressed (ETA: as Miller noted). Are you really confused about how to tell an abstract statement about the fundamental purpose of commerce from a specific assertion of a particular verifiable fact?
Because if so, I’m afraid it’s going to need more than a few subjective modifiers to solve your reading comprehension problems.
The Augusta National Golf Club, where the Masters Tournament is held, refused to admit African-American members until 1990 and female members until 2012. There was also a point when they refused to admit Jewish members, but I don’t know when that was revoked.
I repeat: Are you really confused about how to tell an abstract statement about the fundamental purpose of commerce from a specific assertion of a particular verifiable fact?
Because if not, then you understood my clear meaning perfectly well, and you are just playing Recreational Cite Holler for your own amusement.
Okay, I’m starting to get a headache. For the sake of the rest of us, could you please just state directly what your version of the purpose of commerce is so we can move on to consider and debate those merits rather than the minutiae of Grand Debate Style?
A quick google gets multiple recent examples of churches refusing to marry interracial couples. The idea that the government forces churches to marry people is nonsense.
Which implies that trading goods and services is something people in general want to do. In other words, it exists because it’s good for the public as a whole.
Sheee-eesh. You really thought it was worth making a big dumb fuss about this?
Most people are capable of figuring out the difference between a statement of fact, and an opinion, without needing the writer to clue them in ahead of time.
You still seem to be missing the point that not every declarative sentence is an assertion of objective fact. But I’m going to have to leave you to wrestle with it on your own from now on.
To protect the delicate sensitivities of the bigots you would seem to support reopening of segregated lunch counters and hotels. And hospitals. IIRC integrated bands didn’t tour the south because it was too much of a hassle to be split up whenever they stopped.
