Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[stitches]

Those kinds of policies(allowing discriminatory practices by privately owned businesses) are as good as the society you live in.

Think pre-Jim Crow situation or worse. Imagine a society where no one thinks discriminating against race for example is reprehensible. Imagine a situation where say 90% of the businesses refused to hire or serve black people. Now imagine that nobody objected to that and noone punished those businesses by not doing business with them. A lot of libertarian ideas have never been implemented to full extent and thus we can't really know if they'd work. This one is not one of them - this one is an idea that has been shown to not work and to produce horrible results both for the people discriminated against(unable to get jobs/services/etc. with everything that it entails) and to the society as a whole(increased crime rates, violence, etc.).

Again, the question is not "so what if one bakery shop refused to bake me a cake?", the question is "what if all of them refused?" and "what's stopping them?"(substitute bakery with hospital if you think acquiring a cake is trivial and non-important). What's stopping them is the law, what's allowing it is the societal tendencies.

 

[Stoked]

Those kinds of policies(allowing discriminatory practices by privately owned businesses) are as good as the society you live in.

Think pre-Jim Crow situation or worse. Imagine a society where no one thinks discriminating against race for example is reprehensible. Imagine a situation where say 90% of the businesses refused to hire or serve black people. Now imagine that nobody objected to that and noone punished those businesses by not doing business with them. A lot of libertarian ideas have never been implemented to full extent and thus we can't really know if they'd work. This one is not one of them - this one is an idea that has been shown to not work and to produce horrible results both for the people discriminated against(unable to get jobs/services/etc. with everything that it entails) and to the society as a whole(increased crime rates, violence, etc.).

Again, the question is not "so what if one bakery shop refused to bake me a cake?", the question is "what if all of them refused?" and "what's stopping them?"(substitute bakery with hospital if you think acquiring a cake is trivial and non-important). What's stopping them is the law, what's allowing it is the societal tendencies.

I get that but we no longer live in that society. Have not for a long time (yes there are still problems but 2010s America is not 1920s America). I see the purpose of the law and get the good it does. So it is a mixed bag. Don't care for it over all but I won't fight to overturn it either.

 

[stitches]

I get that but we no longer live in that society. Have not for a long time (yes there are still problems but 2010s America is not 1920s America). I see the purpose of the law and get the good it does. So it is a mixed bag. Don't care for it over all but I won't fight to overturn it either.

That's the thing, even in the current society it presents problems. I set up the example to the extreme, just so people could more easily see the shortcomings of the proposed policy. In the current society such discrimination is to a huge extent hidden and a lot of people condemn it when it is in the open, but it still exists and it still creates clearly noticeable problems.

 

[Stoked]

That's the thing, even in the current society it presents problems. I set up the example to the extreme, just so people could more easily see the shortcomings of the proposed policy. In the current society such discrimination is to a huge extent hidden and a lot of people condemn it when it is in the open, but it still exists and it still creates clearly noticeable problems.

Problems either way imo.

But at this point its jsut rehashing the same points.

 

[stitches]

Problems either way imo.

But at this point its jsut rehashing the same points.

true...

 

[♪alt13]

Personally I think that a private business (using private in the sense that they are not taking government subsides and are not city/state/federal offices...) has the right to be a hate filled place if they want to be. Society will respond accordingly.

Like that photog in NM that got sued for not doing a Homo wedding. That photog shouldn't have to imo. But if I was in that community I would not take my business to them as a result of their decision.

I think this kind of argument with regards to gay marriage is a bit of a straw man. Those laws can be addressed without banning gay marriage. If people don't like those laws then they should focus on those laws but they shouldn't use them as their reason to oppose others exercising their rights. Further weighing the concerns of the baker against those of the couple it is clear that exclusion from marriage has a greater negative effect on the couple than forced baking for profit has on the baker.

 

[Stoked]

I think this kind of argument with regards to gay marriage is a bit of a straw man. Those laws can be addressed without banning gay marriage. If people don't like those laws then they should focus on those laws but they shouldn't use them as their reason to oppose others exercising their rights. Further weighing the concerns of the baker against those of the couple it is clear that exclusion from marriage has a greater negative effect on the couple than forced baking for profit has on the baker.

I had left the gay marriage argument on a tangent when I made this.

 

[♪alt13]

I had left the gay marriage argument on a tangent when I made this.

Yes I know but this argument is one you often here from those that oppose gay marriage. It has been used in this thread as a reason for opposition. Yours just happened to be the most recent post addressing a private companies concerns.

 

[Stoked]

Yes I know but this argument is one you often here from those that oppose gay marriage. It has been used in this thread as a reason for opposition. Yours just happened to be the most recent post addressing a private companies concerns.

oh ok, and i think they are legit concerns. It is simply an area that where everyone wont be happy. But I can see a distinction between having gay marriage legal and forcing people to participate in it.

 

[DutchJazzer]

The law that protects persons from balh blah blah bklah blah blah blah bnlah .

whatever, fact is if i go to a bakery and he denies me a request. i say good day sir and move on to a next bakery.

thing is with these lbgt **** is they force people and society to do stuff they are not comfortable with.


they are shoving their way of live down our throat, that's not how acceptance works. that only creates a polarizing society.

if baker a doe not want to make a fabulous gay wedding cake. move on. sooner or later society will accept you by choice(or not) and all bakeries will make fabulous gay pink wedding cakes.
so **** the gay movement.
again not the gays, but their movment trying to shove **** down my throat.



what the gays are oding is the same muslims are doing.
Muslim: we dont eat PORK we are in a predominantly christian pork loving country so stop serving porks at public schools!
****: we need a wedding cake and a wedding photgrapher so get the **** over her bake me a cake and photograph while i make a mockery of what you define as mariage.

jews as a group dont go in countries forcing schools to stop serving pork and shelfish and all other stuff. we decline politly, dont eat it and stfu. and go to a place of business that does serve to our dietary restrictions.



forcing bakeries photographers and all other wedding services to perform gay ****.
is like jews demanding all restaurants start serving to our dietary restrictions.


how would you like it if we went around the country and outlawed pork. or demanded every single restaurant starts offering kosher

 

[stitches]

It's not the same and that's why it most probably won't be successful in the case of Muslims trying to force schools not to serve pork, and it will be successful in cases where the state has enumerated sexual orientation as a protected characteristic in their civil rights statutes. The reason is simple - one breaks the law and the other doesn't. Lets take the specific case in Oregon. There is clearly a law broken, while in the case with Muslims seeking to RESTRICT what's being served there isn't a law broken(if that's exactly what they want, I haven't read on it so I am not sure, taking your word for it). Their rights have not been violated, and they have not been discriminated against. They can order everything that any other non-muslim can order, or they can choose not to order it. In the case of the bakery, the discrimination comes from refusal of service that is available to everybody else and that's why it's against the law.

Plus public schools fall into a different category and they are not private businesses.

In short - one aims to RESTRICT what all others eat, the other seeks to be allowed to have what others are allowed to have. One seeks suppression of rights and freedoms, the other one seeks lifting the suppression of rights.

It would be the same if gay people were trying to force the bakery not to make cakes for hetero weddings, which they are not...

P.S. I can actually see a case where the Muslims might have a case if pork was the only meal that was served in the public school, in which case there would be de facto discrimination, if not in intent - in result(BTW practices can be discriminatory even if you don't intend it, but it results in a protected class suffering adverse impact and is punishable by the same laws - disparate treatment vs disparate impact). In this case the solution would be to either include other types of meal or change the existing one with something that doesn't violate the rights of any protected groups.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Again, the question is not "so what if one bakery shop refused to bake me a cake?", the question is "what if all of them refused?" and "what's stopping them?"(substitute bakery with hospital if you think acquiring a cake is trivial and non-important). What's stopping them is the law, what's allowing it is the societal tendencies.

if gay is as normal as they claim. sure there would be some gay bakery.
or some guy wanting to make money hand over fist and accept their money.