Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Robert163

Didn’t I ask you to name a society that practiced open sanctioned discrimination that was also a successful productive society? Provide examples of this and I will be glad to talk with you about whether or not people “have no right to not be offended”.

America in the 1950s was pretty productive. Equity and efficiency are not joined at the hip.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Trinopus

Being forced to do so on the grounds of bigotry. That kinda makes a difference.

I find it difficult to believe that there is anyone who can’t tell the difference between “There isn’t an Arby’s in this town, so I’ll have to drive a few miles to the nearest one,” and “The Arby’s in this town refuses to allow Jews inside their doors.” And yet here you are, pretending the two cases are exactly the same.

Jews are a protected class

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Robert163

I see no problem with this. Their religious ideals are not rooted in reality.

But they are protected by the constitution (at least to some yet to be determined extent)

[Ann_Hedonia]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So there is a bakery nearby called the new Canaan Bakery. The owners are deeply religious and there are crosses and scripture all over the bakery. Can they be forced to make a cake celebrating Satan?

:smack::smack::smack::smack:

No, no one can force them to carry any products that they would not normally carry. If they want to only make chocolate Jesus cakes, that’s their prerogative.

But if a Satanist walks in the door and wants a chocolate Jesus cake, they should sell her one. Chances are, they would. I’ve never had anyone at a bakery ask me about my religious beliefs before selling me baked goods.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Robert163

I meant successful in that any and all people felt comfortable living there.

Can you name a country in the history of the world for which this was true?

[quote]
They don’t. They have the right not to be discriminated against.

Maybe they SHOULD have that right but they don’t. The constitution does not provide that right.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Robert163

I’ll tell you exactly where the line should be drawn. I am free to dislike religious people all I want. But I am not free to refuse them service if I run a business.

So lets say you are the owner operator of a printing shop. You are pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-science. Do you have to take an order to design and print fliers that you find deeply offensive?

[Uncle_Jocko]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Race is a protected class. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class everywhere, that’s true. But it is a protected class in some states and localities.

As I understand it, that was the issue with the Oregon bakery that is facing the $135,000 fine/judgement for refusing a cake to a lesbian couple. Sexual orientation is protected in Oregon; the bakery broke the law.

(They also showed their true “Christian” colors by publicizing the couple’s names and address on social media, encouraging like-minded “Christians” to harass them for their sinful ways. Which is exactly what Jesus would do if he ran a bakery, I guess.)

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Gyrate

They can view it any way they like, but it’s still discrimination. The same justifications have been used to avoid doing business with black people, and with Jews. And those justifications have been shown to be without sufficient merit.

Or is it okay for me to do whatever I “feel” as long as I can claim a religious reason for it?

As long as you do not run afoul of any other laws, I think that is probably right. Of course the religious objection has to be sincere but I suppose you can fake that to some extent.

Heck you can even ignore some laws based on religious objection (see Hobby Lobby).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elbows

So baking a wedding cake makes you somehow complicit but not selling them a bed or making them sheets? I’m not buying it. It makes zero sense.

What about the people who rent them the hall for the reception, or the caterers, or the people who print the invitations? Some of them are surely Christian, after all.

So again I say, show where your book or your preacher is demanding this behaviour, or what consequence you suffer as a result. If you can’t come up with one I’m left thinking that really, you’ve just created a convenient individual interpretation, to claim a ‘religious exercise’ exemption to legitimize your own bigotry. And it’s extremely transparent I think.

I think everyone from the photographer to the caterer wants in on this one, its not just the baker.

[kaylasdad99]

@D_Anconia

You failed to answer the question. Why would anyone go through the trouble and expense of a lawsuit over a cake?

Anyway, why wasn’t the lawsuit dismissed as de minimis? What harm did the plaintiffs suffer?

After a google search, I notice that these complaints are often brought before such things as the “Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries”. Mid-level bureaucrats are making these decisions, not actual judges, which explains a lot.

It’s not a lawsuit over a cake; it’s a lawsuit over a civil tort.

(No, not a torte; a TORT…)

[Robert163]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Freedom of religion.

Freedom to practice your religion the way you want to, not to tell other people what to do. Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one. It’s not your right to try and deny another from doing so.

[AHunter3]

As soon as businesses begin utilizing currency in their transactions, they are participating in socially structured institutions. They will be paying taxes (or if not will be risking federal charges). I think it’s reasonable for constraints to be imposed upon the participants in that socially structured game. No such business is private as far as I’m concerned.

If it’s barter between someone with goodies and whoever wishes to barter with them, that is private business.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@DrFidelius

And your acceptance of this as “normal” and dismissal of any empathy for those who are actually experiencing it is what makes you present yourself as a morally bankrupt, small-minded bigot.

You should know better than to insult another poster.

Warning issued. Don’t do it again.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@DrFidelius

Ludicrous examples are a useful tool for recognizing ludicrous positions.

They’re called corner cases. You test how your theory would work in these corner cases and it helps clarify what your theory actually means.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Uncle_Jocko

They also showed their true “Christian” colors by publicizing the couple’s names and address on social media, encouraging like-minded “Christians” to harass them for their sinful ways. Which is exactly what Jesus would do if he ran a bakery, I guess.

To be fair, I can totally see him baking a passive-aggressive Go And Sin No More cake.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@boytyperanma

If you are going to force the courts to decide if your religion should allow you to violate the law, making sense to the rest of society goes a long way.

What law are you talking about?

In some cases you are in fact allowed to violate the law based on religious beliefs (see hobby lobby)

[Robert163]

@Damuri_Ajashi

What law are you talking about?

In some cases you are in fact allowed to violate the law based on religious beliefs (see hobby lobby)

I can’t believe that passed!!! This is supposed to be a democracy, not a theocracy. Religion should have no influence on the law.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@msmith537

"Actually it’s not. At least not in the way you think it is.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

IOW, you can go practice your religion all you want, much in the same way you are free to assemble and talk about most anything. But the State does not exist to ensure that you have the ability to practice your religion. It’s a subtle distinction. But one that erroneously leads people to conclude that just because something is a “religious belief” it automatically overrides or otherwise treated as an exception to the law.

IOW, there is no “religious protection” and for intents and purpose your religion is “just another group that feels bad”.

See hobby Lobby

Maybe you should join a religion that doesn’t promote bigotry? “It’s my religious belief” doesn’t give a person a free pass on being an asshole.

Sure it does. See Hobby Lobby.

The issue I have with religion has nothing to do with whether it is or is not “silly”. It’s that religious people, because they believe they serve a higher universal power, feel that their beliefs and values are inherently superior to everyone else’s and deserve special consideration.

Most people feel that way, not just those with religious convictions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Trinopus

The problem is that some people assert an interest in someone else’s right to do business, based on their own (usually non-canonical) religious beliefs.

Ordinarily, the baker should have no moral interest in the customer he bakes a cake for. But some bigots have been demanding that they do have an interest, and that they should be allowed to discriminate in public accommodation on the basis of that pretended interest.

One of the problems with this is that there isn’t any way to contain this madness, and slippery slope objections begin to pertain. If a baker can refuse to bake for a gay customer, why couldn’t he also refuse to bake for a Jewish customer, a black customer, a Catholic customer, a divorced customer, etc., all of which are offensive (!) to some religious denominations.

Those other things you mention are protected classes. That is why it was significant that Kennedy did not declare sexual orientation a protected class. They still might do it one day but they have not done so yet.

[Robert163]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Those other things you mention are protected classes. That is why it was significant that Kennedy did not declare sexual orientation a protected class. They still might do it one day but they have not done so yet.

And when they do I guess you’ll be really really really unhappy