|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2015 00:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 00:24 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 00:04 zlefin wrote:
re: zasz
churches can already refuse to perform gay weddings, because freedom of religion.
as to your point 3, if they're professionals, then they should be able to. That's part of being a professional. I don't know if you're operating in the ideal world rather than the real world, but not all professionals are professional. I will admit that for most services, you do not need to "agree" with gay marriage in order to serve someone a pizza or bake them a cake. But I think photography is an interesting exception. If you're the sort of person that would refuse to work a gay wedding, if you were allowed to, but are instead forced to photograph it, I think it would be a real struggle to capture the moments that they would want you to capture. Which loops back on why on earth a gay couple would want that photographer for their wedding, but I digress. But this pizzeria is proof that the free market isn't capable of solving this problem on its own, we do need anti-discrimination measures. And "freedom of religion" should not give license to discriminate, that's a freedom you don't get regardless of your personal beliefs. Sorry Christians. Not sure I agree. Had they not been turned into martyrs, they never would've made a million dollars on GoFundMe. If you want to crush a bigoted business, making them a martyr for other bigots doesn't seem like a good idea to me. And yet that's exactly what the media circus did.
I agree with you on that. I'm sure the vast majority of people who donated have never, and will never eat at that pizzeria. So are the vast majority of people that raised hell over it. All of these people would have had no effect on the bottom line of this business had it not made the news like it did.
But I don't see how you can confidently say that in every part of this country, the free market will root out discriminatory business practices. There are places in the U.S. (I've been there) where people don't bat an eye at racism, let alone homophobia. I don't know why marginalized groups would want to live there, but we don't always have an easy choice to leave or go somewhere else. The free market only works to battle discrimination in business when the people making up the market for that business disagree with the business practice. You're essentially relying on majority rule to solve this, and that has never been a good method for battling discrimination, because it's a minority being discriminated against.
Yeah, the business may receive national scrutiny for discrimination if it ever gets out of their small town to the media, but we've seen that just makes them money, not the other way around. If I owned that pizzeria in Indianapolis I'd be telling all the protesters to go fuck themselves because I just made a million dollars off of my bigotry and my pizzeria is still in business.
|
On April 09 2015 00:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 00:24 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 00:04 zlefin wrote:
re: zasz
churches can already refuse to perform gay weddings, because freedom of religion.
as to your point 3, if they're professionals, then they should be able to. That's part of being a professional. I don't know if you're operating in the ideal world rather than the real world, but not all professionals are professional. I will admit that for most services, you do not need to "agree" with gay marriage in order to serve someone a pizza or bake them a cake. But I think photography is an interesting exception. If you're the sort of person that would refuse to work a gay wedding, if you were allowed to, but are instead forced to photograph it, I think it would be a real struggle to capture the moments that they would want you to capture. Which loops back on why on earth a gay couple would want that photographer for their wedding, but I digress. But this pizzeria is proof that the free market isn't capable of solving this problem on its own, we do need anti-discrimination measures. And "freedom of religion" should not give license to discriminate, that's a freedom you don't get regardless of your personal beliefs. Sorry Christians. Not sure I agree. Had they not been turned into martyrs, they never would've made a million dollars on GoFundMe. If you want to crush a bigoted business, making them a martyr for other bigots doesn't seem like a good idea to me. And yet that's exactly what the media circus did.
the thing is that making them a martyr obviously didn't work like you said.
And not making them a martyr doesn't work either because there's no possible backlash/boycott on it if noone knows about it either.
No matter what you do they (apparently) would have been fine as we can see. You could argue that making the same as happened but in a lot smaller scale (local newspaper coverage only, without the threats and all that) might have worked to drive them out of business but than again you have the issue that there's probably a decent amount of people who are perfectly fine with that statement locally.
It's just no matter what you do it's not how it should have been dealt with for people who are against this.
Boycotting large scale won't work because of too much media coverage.
Boycotting small scale won't work for reasons above.
Fining them if the theoretical situation ever were to happen isn't okay either to a lot of people because "omg you can't force people to serve them!" (and yeah you can't physically force them to do that, but you can make them live with the consequences)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong
Because I agree gay marriage is fine and the pizzeria owners are scum. The free market isn't right or wrong. The actors in it are the ones who can be right or wrong. And given the current trend of gay marriage being more and more accepted, the majority of actors in the free market either are ok with gay marriage, or will be shortly. It's a problem that will fix itself.
|
On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong
Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy.
The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance.
|
On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance.
But it is not all that uncommon for there to be little or no competition for certain business in mainly rural areas, i.e. the very places that discrimination is likely to occur. If a business decides to discriminate against gays in San Francisco, they get the double whammy of their market likely being very unhappy with that stance and the likelihood that there is a business providing their service just a few blocks down. Rural businesses see neither of those effects. How far does a gay couple have to drive to a business that will accommodate them before people recognize that the free market can fail in this particular circumstance?
|
On April 09 2015 01:24 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Because I agree gay marriage is fine and the pizzeria owners are scum. The free market isn't right or wrong. The actors in it are the ones who can be right or wrong. And given the current trend of gay marriage being more and more accepted, the majority of actors in the free market either are ok with gay marriage, or will be shortly. It's a problem that will fix itself.
Which is the ultimate failing of the free market, where something like 20-40 years can be described as "shortly" when such a notion is ridiculous in the context of a human lifespan.
|
On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance.
that's not always true though.
Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people.
Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance.
southern libertarians would take offense at you calling their ideas a troll
see eg
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2220702
|
On April 09 2015 00:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 00:24 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 00:04 zlefin wrote:
re: zasz
churches can already refuse to perform gay weddings, because freedom of religion.
as to your point 3, if they're professionals, then they should be able to. That's part of being a professional. I don't know if you're operating in the ideal world rather than the real world, but not all professionals are professional. I will admit that for most services, you do not need to "agree" with gay marriage in order to serve someone a pizza or bake them a cake. But I think photography is an interesting exception. If you're the sort of person that would refuse to work a gay wedding, if you were allowed to, but are instead forced to photograph it, I think it would be a real struggle to capture the moments that they would want you to capture. Which loops back on why on earth a gay couple would want that photographer for their wedding, but I digress. But this pizzeria is proof that the free market isn't capable of solving this problem on its own, we do need anti-discrimination measures. And "freedom of religion" should not give license to discriminate, that's a freedom you don't get regardless of your personal beliefs. Sorry Christians. Not sure I agree. Had they not been turned into martyrs, they never would've made a million dollars on GoFundMe. If you want to crush a bigoted business, making them a martyr for other bigots doesn't seem like a good idea to me. And yet that's exactly what the media circus did.
Your whole argument boils down to:
The free market could have fixed this, if it weren't for those actions of free market actors in their own economic selfinterest (i.e. the media).
|
On April 09 2015 02:05 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 00:53 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 00:24 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 00:04 zlefin wrote:
re: zasz
churches can already refuse to perform gay weddings, because freedom of religion.
as to your point 3, if they're professionals, then they should be able to. That's part of being a professional. I don't know if you're operating in the ideal world rather than the real world, but not all professionals are professional. I will admit that for most services, you do not need to "agree" with gay marriage in order to serve someone a pizza or bake them a cake. But I think photography is an interesting exception. If you're the sort of person that would refuse to work a gay wedding, if you were allowed to, but are instead forced to photograph it, I think it would be a real struggle to capture the moments that they would want you to capture. Which loops back on why on earth a gay couple would want that photographer for their wedding, but I digress. But this pizzeria is proof that the free market isn't capable of solving this problem on its own, we do need anti-discrimination measures. And "freedom of religion" should not give license to discriminate, that's a freedom you don't get regardless of your personal beliefs. Sorry Christians. Not sure I agree. Had they not been turned into martyrs, they never would've made a million dollars on GoFundMe. If you want to crush a bigoted business, making them a martyr for other bigots doesn't seem like a good idea to me. And yet that's exactly what the media circus did. Your whole argument boils down to: The free market could have fixed this, if it weren't for those actions of free market actors in their own economic selfinterest (i.e. the media).
Except 1 pizzeria getting tons of attention and even a million dollars will not help, similarly-thinking people who turn down, cumulatively millions of dollars in business (in theory, the reality is that no one really wants the homophobe doing things for the gay wedding, they just want to advance their agenda through the courts). And, if there was a rural grocer who didn't serve someone, and they were the only grocer in town, you could have a need-based civil rights law. But thats a fiction, so it doesn't serve people who want to force their views upon others through the law.
|
On April 08 2015 21:24 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 20:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 08 2015 13:25 OuchyDathurts wrote:
If you're a business that is open to and serves the general public, you serve the general public. You've chosen to make a company that deals with people through a product or service, no one made you start your bakery. You decided to start a bakery, as such you've explicitly decided that you will take public customers in all their forms. Bi, christian, muslim, black, mexican, FLAMING, man, woman, doesn't matter. If you or your religion make it such that you can't deal with people from all walks of life maybe you should go work in a factory or a warehouse or something. Get a job in a position where you don't have to deal with the public at large. But if you want to be an entrepreneur and reap the potential monetary benefits of serving the public, you WILL serve the public. That is the price of admission to play ball. While I support gay rights and find the current battle between the religious right and the gay community both stupid and appalling, I also recognize that other people than gas also have rights. And this argument that you are forced to serve all groups does not make sense. A barber who sets up his business to cut men's hair is not a bigot when he refuses to cut a woman's hair: it simply isn't his business model. He is explicitly choosing to not cater to half the potential clients, and that's OK. Similarly, a bakery should be able to choose the events that he caters to. If he feels unequipped to bake a cake for gay weddings, I don't really see the problem. As long as he still bakes birthday cakes for gay people. Or bar mitzvah cakes for children of fay couples. He isn't refusing gays service based on their sexuality. If a barber said "I don't serve woman" he'd get the shit sued out of him so fast his head would spin. He could make a case for being a terrible candidate to cut women's hair. I don't keep up with the styles, I've only used a buzz clipper for 40 years, but if you're dead set on me cutting your hair sure, but it's going to look like shit. If you want to exclude members of the public what you're going to want is a private club.
As a technical point, there are lots of mens-only barbers. Plenty of others charge different prices for men and women.
On April 09 2015 00:10 Plansix wrote:
And growing up in a town of 900 people, it would only take a couple businesses refusing to serve a gay couple to make life very difficult. The law doesn't protect against just weddings, it protects against any religious objection someone feels is reason to refuse service. Like “I don’t want to go into their house or interact with them” or “serve/sell them food.”
The argument I think everyone here is making applies specifically to gay weddings. Refusing service to people because of who they are is wrong. Refusing service to an event you have moral objections to should be allowed.
On April 08 2015 20:14 coverpunch wrote:
Your answer was basically that nobody cares about religious controversies in Canada, not even Canadians.
Although ironically it might be a Christian value to get self righteous and feel we have to lecture others about why their culture is wrong and they should embrace a new belief that will bring salvation.
New York State plus New England is about the same population as Canada and hasn't really had a religious freedom controversy of note other than that circumcision thing for a long while.
Also, I think I remember the bit where Jesus says, "be self-righteous and judgmental about those motherfuckers".
Matthew 7:1-5+ Show Spoiler +And, ya know, basically the rest of the Gospels.
|
On April 09 2015 01:55 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. southern libertarians would take offense at you calling their ideas a troll see eg http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2220702
Political libertarian arguments are completely distinct from a free market argument. The point in that paper is to argue that individual liberty should necessarily include the freedom to discriminate, or more precisely, that the government in a free society cannot mandate protections from segregation and force people to interact with those they don't want. It seems you didn't read it fully because the paper points out this is patently a legal loser of an argument, to the point that courts dismiss such arguments as frivolous. It is valuable in the context of history, not for its merit.
Edit: also, i read your saying "the choice of argument here" as being the TL forum, not SSRN papers from 2013. Where is this coming from?
|
On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general.
The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far.
The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 09 2015 02:23 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:55 oneofthem wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. southern libertarians would take offense at you calling their ideas a troll see eg http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2220702 Political libertarian arguments are completely distinct from a free market argument. The point in that paper is to argue that individual liberty should necessarily include the freedom to discriminate, or more precisely, that the government in a free society cannot mandate protections from segregation and force people to interact with those they don't want. It seems you didn't read it fully because the paper points out this is patently a legal loser of an argument, to the point that courts dismiss such arguments as frivolous. It is valuable in the context of history, not for its merit.
it is a piece of legal history, documenting the effect of individual right to discriminate in maintaining jim crow after on the books legal discrimination was dismantled.
the simple logical fact is that if individual relations are in order then so is the aggregate. it is one of the characteristics of property right based theory of society
|
On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job.
I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it 
But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes.
Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here
Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"?
|
On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"?
Discrimination is also force. So I don't know why you brought it up.
|
On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"?
You misunderstood me. I am perfectly fine with forcing SOMETHING on them, as should everyone. Either they do their job or live with the consequences like a fine. What those consequences are is up for discussion, I'm obviously not going to tell you to throw someone in prison for something like this.
You just obviously can't call a police officer in to force their arms into baking a cake. It's their choice to be fined, which is a force like you said or to just get a cake.
For all I care the bakery can charge the gay couple for baking a cake, meet another bakery guy they know who's not against this and ask them to do the job instead, buy that cake over there and deliver it to the gay couple without them knowing all that. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from the innitial bakery if they want to refuse in this specific case and get out of it without punishment of some sort.
If that's not reasonable to expect from the bakery because the next bakery is a 60 minutes drive away and as such he can't just ask a friend to take over the job it's not reasonable to expect it from the gay couple either and he should not be allowed to refuse service.
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 09 2015 03:17 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"? Discrimination is also force. So I don't know why you brought it up.
How? The gay person won't go to jail for attempting to buy a cake from the anti gay marriage bakery.
On April 09 2015 03:20 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"? You misunderstood me. I am perfectly fine with forcing SOMETHING on them, as should everyone. Either they do their job or live with the consequences like a fine. What those consequences are is up for discussion, I'm obviously not going to tell you to throw someone in prison for something like this. You just obviously can't call a police officer in to force their arms into baking a cake. It's their choice to be fined, which is a force like you said or to just get a cake. For all I care the bakery can charge the gay couple for baking a cake, meet another bakery guy they know who's not against this and ask them to do the job instead, buy that cake over there and deliver it to the gay couple without them knowing all that. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from the innitial bakery if they want to refuse in this specific case and get out of it without punishment of some sort.
And if they don't pay the fine? Then all you're really left with is jail.
I like your idea though, about getting a different baker. I think it'd be wiser for the first bakery to just refer the gay couple to the second, instead of all the middleman stuff, but it seems like a good solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
