Again, horseshit. Would you uphold the rights of a member of the KKK to not allow blacks into his establishment or of a town to dis-allow blacks from attending the same schools as whites? As for your baker, he was sued for discrimination.
Frankly, I’d have sued him too…and then made sure that via social media that people were aware of what an asshole he is and boycotted his establishment, using the market to drive the ass out of business, since I seriously doubt his christian friends would make up for all the customers he’d lose because of his dickish behavior and discrimination. He actually got off light, IMHO.
ten years ago, I wouldn’t have hesitated. Now I think differently. Now, I would support the right of the racist idiot to not serve races he doesn’t like. and the reason I take this line is precisely b/c I don’t trust the govt to protect the rights of African-Americans, gays, Muslims, Christians, women, etc. It hasn’t done it in the past and there are increasing signs that it isn’t going to do it in the future. frankly, I trust the free-market to punish business owners (like the one you mention) far more than I trust the govt to do so. right now, the govt is very much anti-racism. but that could change and then every true liberal would beg for the rights I described above. I think we are all just plain mistaken if we think that the powers-that-be are going to respect the rights of the minorities of whatever color or religion. History shows the opposite to be the case.
Let me get this straight: racists should be able to refuse service to black people because the government might stop making racists serve black people one day. Is that what you’re saying?
A third point is that liberals are apparently not believed when we say we want people and organizations to be treated equally. Personally I think the IRS investigations, for instance, did not go far enough regarding those sorts of organizations and I would like all organizations–whether I otherwise agree with them or not–that violate that section of the law to lose tax-exempt status.
Why is that right so precious- to not bake a cake for someone who’s life choices affect you? I agree that allowing the KKK to march serves a higher purpose of allowing public dissent and public free speech. However, the baker has chosen to open a store and cannot pick and choose who’s morality they find offensive for protected classes. Society as whole benefits from these protected classes NOT being discriminated against.
The burden of the argument is on you that allowing people to perform business functions at their whims is better for society.
I do think it’s a bit odd that you would lump Muslims and Mormons with the KKK and flat-earthers. But let’s just assume for argument’s sake that all views are equally valid forms of expression, regardless of how absurd or offensive they may or may not be.
Yes, you have the right to assemble and discuss God or Ayn Rand or how much you hate the coloreds as much as you like. However, you do not have the right to start planning jihad or attacks against minorities. Also a bit of a gray area, but when people go to work in the morning, they have a right to not be subject to religious prophesizing or bigoted hate speech. It’s like Kevin Spacey’s admonition to Peter Facinelli in The Big Kahuna. You’re not here to talk about God. You’re here to sell industrial lubricants.
He doesn’t have to have any part of it. They’re just people buying a cake.
Selling a cake is not participating in a wedding.
This is already the case for bakers that are against interracial marriage. And this isn’t new – it’s been around for decades. Do you think bakers should be allowed to refuse to sell cakes to couples because of their race? I think gay couples should have the same protection.
It is important because it was a contention you made, here, today, in this very thread. You really should back up your contentions with facts rather than pushing half-truths and misinformation to make your points.
Funny, the only actual cases kinda sorta like this I can think of went the other way entirely. Conservative pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and abortion drugs. Churches (not for profit businesses run by pastors) can refuse to marry gay couples. Businesses that provide comprehensive health care for women are being shut down by TRAP laws if they provide medical, non-surgical abortions.
Seems to me the “Liberals” are not the ones winning here. Wee may be winning the cultural war by making people feel guilty for voicing unpopular bigoted opinions, but at the moment, Conservatives are winning the legal war that actually impacts people’s lives.
Yes it has. The government ended slavery, ended Jim Crow, segregation, etc.
What signs?
I certainly don’t – there’s no reason why we would trust the free-market to do so. In fact, past “free-market solutions” included things like Sundown towns. If there are enough racists, and I think history has proven that there are and probably always will be, some will get together and use market forces (like informal boycotts) to enforce things like Sundown-town rules (no business that serves black people, for example, will get white customers) in some communities.
While the “powers-that-be” have, at various times, taken all sides of this issue at various times, so has the free market and society at large. When the free market can’t protect minority rights – and it couldn’t in the decades preceding Civil Rights – the government must step in.
I think it’s of particular note that it was pointed out quite extensively to you that you didn’t read your sources very well and that your arguments were based on misinterpretations of what was actually going on, and you didn’t seem to care. Why not?
Because that’s totally what’s happening, right? I wonder, which is the more serious problem in America, the system oppression and abuse of homosexuals, or a vast, politically powerful, rich majority needing to follow the rules? :rolleyes: Nobody is taking the megaphone away from the jackass who thinks homosexuality is an abomination. Hell, nobody is even telling that person that he can’t spout that shit in church without losing tax-exempt status. It’s just that as a society, we’ve collectively decided that protecting the ability of minorities to function is valuable. Do you even know why we have laws about things like serving protected minorities? It’s because in the civil rights era, towns would often drive black people out by shunning them and refusing them service.
Only if you’re paranoid and ill-informed. Paranoid in that you see jackbooted thugs around every corner; ill-informed in that you actually believe this crap. No, the IRS did not “go after” tea party groups. At least, not in a politically motivated manner. This issue has been done to death. Similarly, the mayor of Houston is not “going after” fundamentalist Christian pastors. What she’s doing is ensuring that certain fundamentalist Christian pastors aren’t breaking the law by trying to foist a political agenda onto their congregation. This is not some overarching scheme to shut Christians up. The fact is, you are not allowed to and never were allowed to attempt to directly influence the politics of your congregation. Telling them who to vote for, telling them which petitions to sign, that sort of shit is completely out of line for a church that is tax-exempt. That’s what they’re going after. You don’t have to be Christian to be worried about the direction things seem to be headed. You just have to be ill-informed and paranoid.
Well… No. Again, the issue here is tax-exempt status and what that implies. What you had was a massive explosion of political organizations filing for tax-exempt status as 501(c)(3)s. It’s worth noting that political lobbying is forbidden for 501(c)(3)s. The IRS went after these groups to ensure that they were not, in fact, participating in political lobbying. In other words, it’s the IRS ensuring that they aren’t practicing tax evasion. Exactly what the IRS is meant to do.
No! No it does not! Again, churches and 501(c)(3) get their tax-exempt status on certain grounds, and included in those grounds are things such as “not lobbying politically”! If the DNC tried to register as a 501(c)(3) and the IRS (correctly) told them to fuck off, would that be attempting to shut down political speech? No! It would not!
Seriously dude, spend a little time thinking about what’s actually going on. You’re really paranoid about this, to a degree that’s absolutely unwarranted. Especially when you consider that the people the government is “going after” are all well-funded, politically powerful, popular majority groups.
[QUOTE=iiandyiiii]
While the “powers-that-be” have, at various times, taken all sides of this issue at various times, so has the free market and society at large. When the free market can’t protect minority rights – and it couldn’t in the decades preceding Civil Rights – the government must step in.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly this. This isn’t new, and we don’t WANT to allow this sort of slippery slope (which is why this sort of thing needs to be stamped on, hard, when it rears it’s ugly head) because if you allow such a precedent it will be a crack that can be used by racists and bigots to do all manner of harm down the road.
Basically, if you care about who eats your cake and for what reason then you should get out of the cake making business and do something else where you don’t cater to the public. Or open a members only cake club for bigots and racists only.
If he were an actual pastor of an actual church, he would not have been forced to compromise his religious beliefs. However, he’s a businessman, running a for-profit business, and therefore subject to the same laws as every other business. And those laws include anti-discrimination laws.
Do you think the law should permit a businessman, who owns a large, privately-held company (like, for example, Koch Industries) to refuse to hire women if he deeply believes, based on religious belief, that women should be at home, subject to the authority of their husbands? Or hire them only if they submit a letter from their husbands permitting them to work outside the home?
Of the things on the OP’s list, this is the only one that I think a significant portion of Liberals (myself included) would like to see enacted, but I would have a slight quibble with your wording.
I believe that as a parent you do have the right to cram whatever shit you want to into their brains. Any restriction on what a parent teaches to their child is Orwellian in the extreme. However the parents don’t have the right to prevent the child from hearing a more accurate world view. Any parent has the right that that the grand canyon was created in 40 days by a great flood, but they don’t have the right to prevent the child from hearing that the evidence strongly opposes that view.
Let’s just get this straight: you think capitalism is better than the Constitution at protecting civil rights.
So you’re saying the reason that racism exists is that hotel and restaurant owners are required by law to serve minorities, otherwise they would not be racists? That’s just freakin’ nonsense.
Let me ask you something personal: do you consider yourself a minority in your community? Have you ever lived in a community where you were a minority that was actually treated differently because of your intrinsic characteristics? Can you explain your experience?
I assume we’re talking about US society/government. Please provide evidence that shows the gov’t is restricting rights of minorities. Because recent events and history indicates quite the opposite.
Unless you’re really just talking about Christian Right rights and you included all the others to appear more fair minded. And even if it’s just Christian Right rights you’re concerned about, please elaborate on how keeping religious racists and zealots from abrogating minority rights is an impingement on Christian Right’s rights.
How did the free market punish segregationists?
Again, given the social trends of the past 100 years or so, please provide a compelling argument for this, other than just your own scary ‘I say so’ predictions.
I, for one, am glad that liberals are taking over. Liberal domination represents the best way the most freedoms can be protected. Unfortunately, its not happening fast enough
