martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 82,941
- 34,297
- 2,300
Wrong. You appear to not have the facts of this case in hand. The owner lost their business before the case was even over. Are you actually arguing that you should be able to ignore the law and not pay your fines when you are caught ignoring the law? The baker really did suck. Are you actually saying government should force people to buy baked goods from shitty bakers because they are bigots?I respectfully disagree. All of your points are based on discrimination that so permeates the economy that it leads to a severe disadvantage to those discriminated against. Again, gays are not blacks, and today's cities are not 1880's to 1950's Birmingham. A baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not forcing someone in public to ride at the back of the bus, eat in a back alley, or use another toilet. There are plenty of other options for the gay couple to partake of.
And if bigotry is to be punished, it should be by the people as individuals, not the people as government. You may hide it in lofty words, or long explanations of what you mean, but in the end, what you are saying is that people who have opinions differing from the group-think have to shut up and take it, or find work of livelihood in a business that allows them to make no moral choices. Both are far more tyrannous when mandated by government then a gay couple feeling bad for 5 minutes before moving on to the next baker.
Your argument amounts to saying it's not like there are as many gays as blacks... so anti-gay discrimination isn't as important as racial discrimination was back in the day.
Yes there are more options, yes this is not as big an issue as racial discrimination was "back in the day". Yes, this is not watts riots.
Do I have your argument right? Your argument amounts to excusing this particular type of public bigotry because gay's don't deserve the same rights as do other minority groups. Do I have that right? If so which other non-violent small groups don't deserve protection from discrimination? Jews? Hispanics? Let's list out the smaller groups that it's ok to discriminate against. Then put together a list of more violent larger groups that it's not ok to discriminate against. Is that your argument?
As for the move on ya homos argument... what if there's only one baker.. what if all the bakers in the county join up to get rid of the homos? If you forgive one baker why not forgive everyone? Hell I'll bet you could easily create entire counties where gays are not welcome, correct?
First, this "bigotry" is, unlike racism, actually a part of the religious texts of the main religions in our society. And its not the 1/2 assed justifications in favor of slavery we got from Southerners before the Civil war, this is clear cut text.
My argument is that at this point the market can and will handle this situation. Government intervention is not needed. We are talking about a cake for a wedding, or photographs for a wedding, or a hall for a wedding. Not the essentials of life, or the ability for ease of transportation, and we are not talking about government ordinances that REQUIRE all businesses to discriminate, which was what Jim Crow was all about.
The negative effects of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this) outweigh any benefit society gets from either 1)forcing these people to comply, or 2) forcing them out of business.
So that's your justification for discrimination against gays, religious text? Really? Do you eat pork? Do you work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to people who eat pork and/or work on the Sabbath? Do you sell to harlots? Do you sell to fornicators? How about people who wear tattoos and/or jewelry that indicates they are sinners who worship idols?
No you are talking about discriminating against people based on their adherence or not to your religion.
What is the negative effect of using government to force businesses to serve people they do not want to serve (in non-essential businesses such as this)?
The company was not forced out of business. The company chose to fight public accommodation laws and lost. The public voted with their pocket book. This company was not forced out of business. The company lost it's customers because the goods sucked and the owners were bigots to boot.
The government fining them, and threatening to continue to fine them is not "the public talking with their pocketbook". Its the government telling you to "shut up and sell cakes" And now their stuff sucks? why are you searching for rationalizations to fuck people over?
In actuality, it would be far easier to not sell to someone with tattoos,as they are not a "protected class"
and your example of eating pork is apt. Should I be able to force a jewish butcher to sell me pork?
The negative effect of using government is IN the use of government to force people to do these things. Government force should only be used in serious matters, not to placate a vocal litigious minority.
No jewish butchers are not forced to sell pork, so your strawman fails. If however, they do sell pork public accommodation laws would force them to sell to black people and heaven forbid islamics.
Are you actually trying to say that a wedding cake for a gay couple is a "gay cake?"
Are you actually saying our laws should discriminate against gays to adhere to your religious views? FYI I'm a christian, and I disagree with your opinion that the bible tells me to discriminate against and defend discrimination against gays.
Lots of words being put in my mouth here....
if they lost their business before the case was over, why do we need laws that would make it happen then? The only force being applied here is by the government, and you seem to condone it, of course, only as long as it's reasons agree with you politically.
The law should never discriminate, but this isn't the case here. This a is a case of the State being able to dictate to a person choose your morality or your livelihood, when the state shouldn't be able to decide it at all.