It could get very messy if everyone could decide who they don’t want to work with based on their belief systems.
Jefferson also owned slaves and didn’t think women should vote. Obviously, his views weren’t the end all and be all of what a perfect government looks like.
And your point here is…? You can’t seriously expect liberals to defend that kind of thing either. Because that guy’s wrong too.
You open a business, you’re required to serve the public despite your aversion to race, religion, sex, age, or sexual orientation. Don’t like it? Don’t open a business. This isn’t a libertarian society, it’s a democratic republic.
It certainly could be. But I think that a business owner should have the right to decide who he or she wants to do business with in that regard, and that the consumer should have the same right. I understand that’s not what the law says now. And I also understand that this has, in the past, led to some problematic situations, which is unfortunate. This doesn’t mean I support discrimination, just the right of individuals to discriminate, although I realize it’s a fine distinction there.
Is it really the case that you are concerned about freedom in a very general sense of principle, or is it just the case that the boundaries of freedom that are currently being crossed happen to be those that you have a stake in?
So a baker ought to be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple (because in some absurd sense he thinks he’s participating in homosexuality). OK…
Should another baker be able to refuse to make cakes for black people because he considers black people to be subhuman?
Should a third baker be able to refuse to make a cake for disabled people, for some reason motivated by… I dunno… whatever?
Should he be allowed to refuse to make cakes for women because he truly and earnestly believes women are inferior and undeserving of cake?
If you answer yes to all of these, then I guess we should all concede that you really are arguing about general principles.
Eh…then again, not all “Liberals” are in lockstep, either. I’m in favor of cab drivers and pharmacists serving everyone, because they hold licenses from the state that allow protected services to be provided by them only. With great power, comes great responsibility and all that. If they don’t want to fulfill the duties of the license or medallion (or whatever your city’s equivalent is) they should give it up to someone who will serve *all *the people of the city.
I’m in favor of judges and j.o.p’s being required to do marriages for everyone, because they’re quite literally agents of the state, and the state must not discriminate. For the rights and responsibilities of marriage to be equal, then the administration of marriages must be available; I don’t see a need or Constitutional means to force churches to marry people they don’t want to, but that means the state must.
I’m in favor of diners, gas stations, mechanics, grocery stores and anywhere with a public bathroom being required to do dealings with everyone, because these are necessities of life and supporting oneself by employment. It’s outrageous to force someone to hold their piss or commit a misdemeanor (public urination) because of the color of their skin. No one should go hungry or unable to get to work because of bigotry.
I’m fuzzier on the baker, to be honest. A baker, a florist, a wedding dress seller - these are not licensed or limited occupations in 49 of the 50 states (wtf, Louisiana?). They’re not representing the state. They’re not vital to health and livelihood. Anyone who likes (and has the capital) can become a baker, florist or wedding dress seller and serve anyone they like. I think those sorts of things are best left to the free market to decide.
tldr: Needs = non-discrimination should be enforced. Wants = don’t care so much. In this bleeding liberal’s humble opinion.
Your “hence” does not follow. It’s not a question of anybody forcing two unwilling parties to enter into this transaction.
One party wants the transaction, and one does not. No matter what the government does, somebody’s freedom is going to be compromised, because they both can’t get what they want. Your argument is that is okay to compromise a gay’s rights (or a black, or a Catholic, or whoever the baker really doesn’t like), because the baker’s religious scruples are more important.
So what does your argument say about the remainder of my questions? If I can refuse to sell you a cake, can I refuse to sell you flour and sugar and eggs to make your own cake? What about other groceries? What if I’m the only grocery store (or baker) in town?
If I have the only gas station open at this time of night on this lonely stretch of highway, can or should I be compelled to compromise my religious beliefs to sell fuel to whatever group I think is ungodly? Why or why not?
You’re forgetting such things as needing a business license, health code inspections, other things I’m forgetting.
This is stupid. I’ve raised plenty of stinks when it’s not my group that’s being targeted. I raised a stink when a black dude got maced in Fuquay Varina. I raised a stink when women gamers got death threats in Gamergate. I raised a stink when lesbians were denied marriage in North Carolina. I’m not black, female, or lesbian.
I don’t raise a stink when bakers are asked to bake wedding cakes without thinking about the sex of the happy couple, even though I’m a baker. It has nothing to do with whether I’m a member of the group, and everything to do with whether it’s a real injustice or some piddling bullshit.
Whining about how you have the right to discriminate against people is pathetic, and I don’t have time for that.
Right. Because up until this point, none of the blacks, and Jews, and gays, and women, and Hispanics in the Democratic party have had any experience at all with living in a society which discriminates against them.
Then it’s up against the wall for you fascist pigs. What the fuck do you expect? :rolleyes:
Well, libertarians, as a group, are greedy idiots with no realistic concept of how the world works, so there’s always plenty to bash.
No, not really. Because anyone can get those. You don’t have to have any specialized training, and you don’t get any protection from the gov’ment that those who don’t have your training can’t legally provide your services, greatly and legally limiting your competition.
But this isn’t really the thread to debate that; believe me, we’ve had that one, more than once. I brought it up only to demonstrate for our open minded OP that his notion of liberals as all thinking the same thing and wanting the same laws is patently false, and how one can be a liberal without supporting the liberal “agenda”.
Mandatory dog and cat marriage. Bill Murray and Chevy Chase will be required to co-star in a Broadway production and then movie re-make of The Odd Couple. Piers Morgan will be deported to the UK, Rupert Murdoch to Australia. Splinter sects of Mormonism will be required to have women with multiple husbands, none of whom will be allowed to watch football with her on Sundays, they will be required to clean house and make sammiches. The war on Christmas will be enforced with Sean Hannity and Bill-O Reilly required to do service as shopping mall Santas.
Oh, and the minimum wage will be increased to $17.00 per hour and Congressman will only be paid that for all their services spent actually attending committee meetings and full chamber business.
Don’t forget the mandatory two abortions before having a “keeper” child.
Are you saying that everyone should be allowed to do anything they want? Because that’s what that implies.
Suppose someone held the conviction that anyone who blasphemes against god should be stoned to death, and that person stoned to death someone who blasphemed. Should that person be imprisoned for murder? Or should they be allowed to do that because they were acting consistently with their convictions?
I believe in and defend freedom of belief. You should be able to believe anything you want. But I don’t think that should imply that you should be allowed to do anything you want, because that would just be anarchy.
And I hope that I do not see any more threadshitting posts, particularly from posters who have been around long enough to know better.
[ /Moderating ]
Isn’t there a distinction between your first point and all of the others? Presumably, the baker would have no problems baking a cake for a gay person for a birthday party or some such thing. He doesn’t refuse to serve a customer based upon sexual orientation. He simply refuses to bake a cake related to a particular activity.
Yes, that particular activity is related to sexual orientation, but I’ve never understood discrimination laws to reach to the “related to” level. If a baker refused to bake a pro-KKK cake for a rally, that would affect whites much more than other races, but nobody would seriously argue that it is discrimination based on race.
If a heterosexual black man tried to buy a cake for his previously divorced brother’s interracial SSM is the baker refusing service based upon race, remarriage after divorce, or sexual orientation? It cannot be sexual orientation because the customer is not himself homosexual; it would be hard to say that he is being denied service because of his heterosexuality.
What group is being “targeted or coerced against their will” as a result of civil rights legislation?
Until you can answer this question, you have lost the argument. Discrimination is not freedom.
Help! I’m being oppressed!
Liberals win the country and a portion of the voting public realizes that this isn’t what they wanted. So the pendulum swings the other way in increments.
The pendulum swings the other way, and a portion of the voting public realize this isn’t what they wanted. So the pendulum swings the other in increments.