Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[JakeStarkey]

Comparing PP with KKK is an ad hom. Let's try that again.

 

[Foxfyre]

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The only activity the baker is participating in, is baking and assembling a cake.

So you are saying that the baker must be required to see that as you see it? Or does tolerance allow him to see it as he sees it which is quite diferent?

He can see anything any way he wants. He is only required to provide the same service he would provide to anyone else.

Which he does. Nobody is discriminated against who comes in to buy products or services he has for sale. It is only when he is asked to participate in an activity and provide a product and/or service for it when he considers the activity offensive or immoral or unethical that he should have the ability to opt out.

 

[sakinago]

Here is your example:

A baker is minding his own business when a person of a 'constitutionally protected group' comes in and demands that the baker decorate cupcakes with a symbol for an upcoming major event--a symbol offensive to the baker. The customer will even furnish the symbols. The baker refuses on grounds that he does not wish to participate in or be associated with that event. The baker is sued and is forced to pay a huge fine if he does not participate in and contribute to the activity by making and decorating the cupcakes for it.

The baker is forced to at least go through the motions of tolerance for the person and his/her event. But where is the tolerance for the baker's sense of right and wrong?

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

No one is forcing the baker into opening a business, which is open to the public. No one is forcing him to put a business on a road in which we've all paid for.

So your opinion is that a person who goes into business is consenting to immoral and unethical activities as he sees those and is consenting to participate in and contribute to them? Or that anybody who goes into business should understand that he is consenting to that?

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

So based on the fact that the business is next to a road, the right to property and to consciousness disappears. So A gay baker would not be able to refuse a cake that says god hates gays? Or because the cake has discrimination on it, the baker is allowed to refuse the cake. And I suppose the government is to decide what can and cannot be seen as discrimination?

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The baker was opposed to setting up a cake? Sounds odd because that is normally part of a baker's duties. What other duties was he required to do that he opposed? Did they want him to be a bridesmaid, or usher?

Again it does not matter what the activity is. If a business owner does not wish to be associated with it either personally or as a business, should he have the right to refuse to participate in or contribute to the activity that he finds offensive or unethical or immoral?

He is required to do nothing more or less than is required of every other person doing business with the public. Remember how I explained that society, as a whole, set up rules for us all to go by? That's one of them.

 

[Esmeralda]

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

To assemble a cake is not the same as participating in an event. It is simply doing your job which is open to the public. When a baker assembles a cake at a Jewish wedding, that does not mean he's now Jewish.

I don't believe racists and bigots are a protected class.

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for any reason. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

All that sidesteps the issue in question. In this case it is not a case of picking and choosing who somebody does business with, though that also could be debated under the umbrella of liberty, but it is a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral.

This question is far too vague and general to be debated on a rational level. Do you think a child should not be forced to eat his vegetables because he is offended by vegetables? Kids are, you know. Should a sexual predator not be forced to abstain from his/her behavior because he is offended by the idea it's wrong? Your OP is not well put: it's general, vague, and rather silly. If you want people to debate only this question: "a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral" then you cannot have a rational debate. What defines what activities we are talking about? What defines what is unethical or immoral to any one person? Don't you see? The topic of the OP does not lend itself to the discussion you envision, unless you limit it to what you want to be addressed and want to hear, and that is definitely not debate.

And BTW, millions of people in the US and around the world are forced via their tax dollars to 'participate in an activity they find offensive, unethical and/or immoral.' The idea individuals can choose what they want to support when it is governed by the state is ludicrous. If you don't like it, change the laws. And this is about laws. It cannot be not about laws.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

To assemble a cake is not the same as participating in an event. It is simply doing your job which is open to the public. When a baker assembles a cake at a Jewish wedding, that does not mean he's now Jewish.

I don't believe racists and bigots are a protected class.

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for any reason. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

All that sidesteps the issue in question. In this case it is not a case of picking and choosing who somebody does business with, though that also could be debated under the umbrella of liberty, but it is a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral.

As an individual you have that right.

As a business, which is a state regulated entity, it must comply with PA laws irrespective of whatever an individual may believe.

 

[Coyote]

Unfortunately, the word restrictions in poll options limit our ability to include qualifiers and nuance.

The point I hoped to make is, that we all have our point of view about all those things in the poll options as well as in many other things, but can we allow others to have a different point of view without fear of harassment or bullying or organized punishment?

Ok...this seems to be primarily about free speech. You can't allow free speech for one and deny it for another. So if someone expresses their point of view and someone else disagrees - that too is free speech.

When you label that disagreement "harrassment, bullying or 'organized punishment'" - what exactly do you mean? Is one person's "bullying" another person's free speech?

Everything has consequences. A person may refuse to serve gays in his establishment - that's his right. Likewise, members of the public who disagree have the right to protest or boycott with out that being labled "harrassment, bullying or organized punishment"

To pull one example from the many but attaching no superior importance to it, a person may feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. But can he accept that others feel just as strongly that creationism and intelligent design are prevalent beliefs in our culture and should be discussed and allowed along with other science? When it comes to accreditation, who should be the authority to do that? The school systems themselves? (my vote) Or a faceless bureaucracy that may or may not be qualified to know what good education is?

If a person where arguing for different creationalal stories to be presented in a comparitive religion class - then you'd have a point on this one. But the issue here is what constitutes science? Should we be teaching a theory that martians colonized earth and that led to the human race? Should churches be forced to teach evolution in Sunday school?

The "faceless" bureaucracy takes input from educators, politicians representing constituencie, etc to create a set of standards - they represent a very broad perspective. Given the huge disparities amongst schools and performance - why would schools be the best authority?

The other thing is the main job of public schooling is to prepare young people to enter the workforce or higher education. If you have no common minimum standards then what is that going to mean for kids when they enter college? They got good grades, they think they are doing fine and know everything they need to know and suddenly - that's not the case. Their first year is full of remedial math, science, etc.

Another example but attaching no superior importance to it, can tolerance include a belief that the developing baby in the womb is a human life from conception but not declare evil those who feel it personally necessary to destroy it? Or can those who believe that the woman's choice takes precedence over any right of the baby in the womb even to the point to declaring that baby to not be a person also accept that there are those who consider that developing life to be sacred? And allow each group to reflect their convictions in the societies they develop?

I'm thinking that here...the way you frame this is already indicating a pretty strong bias by saying those who "feel it personally necessary to destroy it" and that makes it difficult to be "tolerant". Can tolerance include the belief that a woman has the right to make choices over her own body without being declared evil if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy?

To be honest - I wish there could be more respect and tolerance from both sides on this, but it's an intensely emotional (not logical) issue that impacts individual personal rights. If they develop a society where women are robbed of the choice to end and unwanted pregnancy or a society where human life is so cheap it can be ended at any point - is it reasonable to ask for tolerance for either?

When it comes to discrimination, does the right of somebody to have a product decorated in a specific way take precedence over the right of somebody to not participate in such a decoration they consider to be immoral or offensive? Why can't discrimination laws allow for protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are?

Or must everything be a one size fits all dictated by a central government.

I think when it comes to basic rights they must be even across the board - not a checkerboard of rights depending on where you live.

If discrimination laws allow for the protection of EVERYBODY to be who and what they are how do you handle that when who and what they are causes discrimination against another?

No it is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of what tolerance is. Most here are taking the position that anybody has the First Amendment right to say pretty much anything, but everybody else has the right to organize and punish that person for whatever they speak. That to me is not tolerance.

That is where I disagree because imposing what you think is tolerance is very much limiting one sides free speech. You want to allow one person to express their feelings but forbid another person from responding.

When it comes to a highly emotional politically charged issue like abortion, should not tolerance include allowing a woman to believe she should have the choice of her own body and she should be able to choose without fear of harrassment or punative action and also include the right of a community to believe all life is worthy of respect and care and to disallow abortion within their own group? Why is it so threatening to either group that another group sees it differently?

I think this is very very sticky because you talking about fundamental rights. If a group was a voluntary association of people - for example a religious group...they shouldn't be able to "disallow" a person from getting a legal portion but they should be allowed to expel the person from their group or shun them or whatever. That's part of freedom of religion. But if you are using "groups" as proxies for states then forbidding abortion to all women who live in that state as as wrong as forcing women to have an abortion. That's different from respecting the other's point of view - it's imposing it.

What gives one group superior insight into what good education is and power to assign inferior status to another group along with requirements that they do education differently? For example, if the pro-public school group was given power and were convinced government education was the only viable education, they could shut down the parochial schools and forbid home schooling despite the superior performance from the latter.

This is where I think it's gets to a ridiculous extreme because the law has to be considered since we mandate education and people have long established freedom of school choice. Parochial schools can teach religious values and creationism and that should not be messed with. By the same token - because schooling is mandated, public schools have to meet certain criteria and those criteria should be fairly uniform. They should teach history, language, writing skills, math, geography...as a core requirement. The core requirements should not be the history of comic books, how to be a super hero, perspectives on eskimo culture and the religious belief systems of the hotentotts.

The concept of the OP for me is that nobody has a leg up on what is best for everybody else, and this nation was conceived under a concept that each person would be allowed to be who and what he/she is and live as he/she chooses short of violating rights of any others.

Each person IS allowed to be who and what they want. Schooling is necessary to provide a basic fundamental education and it's paid for by all. Once you are past that you can be free to learn what you wish.

And...we get back to the same basic question - what happens when a person's "freedom" results in the discrimmination of another person (which then limits that persons freedom)?

Who is smart enough in Washington DC or Philadelphia or anywhere else to know what is best for the people of Muleshoe Tx? Once you give a tiny central oligarchy power to dictate what sort of society everybody must have there is no more liberty. There is only dictatorship however benevolent it might be advertised.

So should a town's education be determined by Billy Bob in the trailor park who dropped out in 8th grade? Children - in a sense - belong to all of us. They are our future. Don't we owe it to them to give then the education they need to have that future? Beyond that - it's free choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, I see, you're not talking about people forced into going fishing, or to a baseball game against their will.

I think that if the baker in question has a business permit, and he's too stupid to get familiar with or go by the laws in his state, then he takes the chance on losing his business. If he cannot bring himself to serve the public, he might want to consider opening a church instead of a business. There is a reason we have Civil Rights and Commerce laws.

The tolerance for the baker is that he's allowed to feel same sex marriage is wrong. He can bitch and moan as much as he wants about gay marriage. He can refuse to participate in gay weddings, even if the person getting married is his own child. He can mock gay people all day long on facebook if he wants. He is entitled to his own opinion about gay marriage.

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

No one is forcing the baker into opening a business, which is open to the public. No one is forcing him to put a business on a road in which we've all paid for.

So your opinion is that a person who goes into business is consenting to immoral and unethical activities as he sees those and is consenting to participate in and contribute to them? Or that anybody who goes into business should understand that he is consenting to that?

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

So based on the fact that the business is next to a road, the right to property and to consciousness disappears. So A gay baker would not be able to refuse a cake that says god hates gays? Or because the cake has discrimination on it, the baker is allowed to refuse the cake. And I suppose the government is to decide what can and cannot be seen as discrimination?

This gets to the heart of it. No Jewish baker should be required to make cupcakes with swastikas on them. No gay baker should have to set up a cupcake display at a Westboro Baptist church event. And a strongly pro choice florist shouldn't have to set up the flower displays for a anti-abortion convention. I would be a strong advocate for any of these people who wanted to refuse participation in and contribution to an event they find offense or unethical or immoral or just plain wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The baker was opposed to setting up a cake? Sounds odd because that is normally part of a baker's duties. What other duties was he required to do that he opposed? Did they want him to be a bridesmaid, or usher?

Again it does not matter what the activity is. If a business owner does not wish to be associated with it either personally or as a business, should he have the right to refuse to participate in or contribute to the activity that he finds offensive or unethical or immoral?

You are absolutely right. Nobody should be forced to participate in anything he sees as offensive or unethical or immoral. That's probably why some preachers would not be a good choice for piano player at a whore house. However, if he does take that job, he has to play for the ugly girls just as well as he does for the pretty ones. If there is a problem setting up cakes, he should not be a baker.

 

[Esmeralda]

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

To assemble a cake is not the same as participating in an event. It is simply doing your job which is open to the public. When a baker assembles a cake at a Jewish wedding, that does not mean he's now Jewish.

I don't believe racists and bigots are a protected class.

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for any reason. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

All that sidesteps the issue in question. In this case it is not a case of picking and choosing who somebody does business with, though that also could be debated under the umbrella of liberty, but it is a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral.

I am not in any way sidestepping the issue at hand. You just don't like posts you disagree with. Talk about tolerance, or lack of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

To assemble a cake is not the same as participating in an event. It is simply doing your job which is open to the public. When a baker assembles a cake at a Jewish wedding, that does not mean he's now Jewish.

I don't believe racists and bigots are a protected class.

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for any reason. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

All that sidesteps the issue in question. In this case it is not a case of picking and choosing who somebody does business with, though that also could be debated under the umbrella of liberty, but it is a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral.

As an individual you have that right.

As a business, which is a state regulated entity, it must comply with PA laws irrespective of whatever an individual may believe.

Once again existing laws are not to be used as arguments in this thread. Argue the concept but don't pretend that existing law is the final word on what is right and wrong.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The only activity the baker is participating in, is baking and assembling a cake.

So you are saying that the baker must be required to see that as you see it? Or does tolerance allow him to see it as he sees it which is quite different?

He's allowed to see it any way he wants. He is not allowed to break laws.

 

[Esmeralda]

Remember that existing law is not a valid argument for this thread. So I don't care what the law is. I want to know the argument for tolerance when a baker is forced to participate in an activity he neither advertises nor would ever choose to do on his own and in which he views as morally or ethically repugnant. And I said absolutely nothing about gay marriage in the post that offered you an example so let's leave that out of it too please and just focus on the principle involved.

No one is forcing the baker into opening a business, which is open to the public. No one is forcing him to put a business on a road in which we've all paid for.

So your opinion is that a person who goes into business is consenting to immoral and unethical activities as he sees those and is consenting to participate in and contribute to them? Or that anybody who goes into business should understand that he is consenting to that?

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

So based on the fact that the business is next to a road, the right to property and to consciousness disappears. So A gay baker would not be able to refuse a cake that says god hates gays? Or because the cake has discrimination on it, the baker is allowed to refuse the cake. And I suppose the government is to decide what can and cannot be seen as discrimination?

This gets to the heart of it. No Jewish baker should be required to make cupcakes with swastikas on them. No gay baker should have to set up a cupcake display at a Westboro Baptist church event. And a strongly pro choice florist shouldn't have to set up the flower displays for a anti-abortion convention. I would be a strong advocate for any of these people who wanted to refuse participation in and contribution to an event they find offense or unethical or immoral or just plain wrong.

And poof! There goes a free society.

 

[Foxfyre]

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The baker was opposed to setting up a cake? Sounds odd because that is normally part of a baker's duties. What other duties was he required to do that he opposed? Did they want him to be a bridesmaid, or usher?

Again it does not matter what the activity is. If a business owner does not wish to be associated with it either personally or as a business, should he have the right to refuse to participate in or contribute to the activity that he finds offensive or unethical or immoral?

You are absolutely right. Nobody should be forced to participate in anything he sees as offensive or unethical or immoral. That's probably why some preachers would not be a good choice for piano player at a whore house. However, if he does take that job, he has to play for the ugly girls just as well as he does for the pretty ones. If there is a problem setting up cakes, he should not be a baker.

I disagree. The preacher should be able to supplement his income as a piano player without having to play for anybody at a whore house. And a baker should be able to be a baker and still be true to his moral and ethical convictions. Nobody should have to throw their moral center out the door just because they go into business.

 

[Foxfyre]

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The only activity the baker is participating in, is baking and assembling a cake.

So you are saying that the baker must be required to see that as you see it? Or does tolerance allow him to see it as he sees it which is quite different?

He's allowed to see it any way he wants. He is not allowed to break laws.

The OP expressly states that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread. So what the existing law is is immaterial to the OP and the concepts being argued. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Coyote]

No one is forcing the baker into opening a business, which is open to the public. No one is forcing him to put a business on a road in which we've all paid for.

So your opinion is that a person who goes into business is consenting to immoral and unethical activities as he sees those and is consenting to participate in and contribute to them? Or that anybody who goes into business should understand that he is consenting to that?

I don't think baking a damn cake is consenting to anything, it's simply baking a damn cake. An no, I don't believe people should be able to use their religion to discriminate in their place of business that was built on the roads all of us have paid for.

If it was just baking a damn cake that anybody would order I would agree. But in this case it required set up and assembly at an event the business owner did not wish to participate in. It required participation in and contribution to an activity the business owner believed to be wrong. As a business owner I would not want to be forced to put anti-gay or racists symbols on a cake just because that is what the customer wanted.

To refuse service or products to somebody who comes in and orders what is for sale as any other customer is one thing. To require extra activity for something the business owner would not normally provide or participate in is something quite different.

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

I was recently reading a memoir by Condaleeza Rice. She grew up under segregation. She would write about how their families had to plan trips in exhaustive detail in order to find place that would allow blacks. Often they packed picnic lunches and slept in the car because they knew there would be establishments that would allow them to eat or get a hotel room.

What happens when so many "opt out" as you say, that there are no or few places that will serve them? Are those establishments required to post signs that they will not serve xyz or, do hopeful customers only find out when they are rejected?

 

[Foxfyre]

To assemble a cake is not the same as participating in an event. It is simply doing your job which is open to the public. When a baker assembles a cake at a Jewish wedding, that does not mean he's now Jewish.

I don't believe racists and bigots are a protected class.

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for any reason. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

All that sidesteps the issue in question. In this case it is not a case of picking and choosing who somebody does business with, though that also could be debated under the umbrella of liberty, but it is a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral.

I am not in any way sidestepping the issue at hand. You just don't like posts you disagree with. Talk about tolerance, or lack of it.

What I do or do not like is not an appropriate subject for discussion in this thread. I illustrated specifically the issue you sidestepped. So either address it or let it go. Any further ad hominem or personal insult will be reported. Thanks for understanding.

 

[BULLDOG]

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The baker was opposed to setting up a cake? Sounds odd because that is normally part of a baker's duties. What other duties was he required to do that he opposed? Did they want him to be a bridesmaid, or usher?

Again it does not matter what the activity is. If a business owner does not wish to be associated with it either personally or as a business, should he have the right to refuse to participate in or contribute to the activity that he finds offensive or unethical or immoral?

You are absolutely right. Nobody should be forced to participate in anything he sees as offensive or unethical or immoral. That's probably why some preachers would not be a good choice for piano player at a whore house. However, if he does take that job, he has to play for the ugly girls just as well as he does for the pretty ones. If there is a problem setting up cakes, he should not be a baker.

I disagree. The preacher should be able to supplement his income as a piano player without having to play for anybody at a whore house. And a baker should be able to be a baker and still be true to his moral and ethical convictions. Nobody should have to throw their moral center out the door just because they go into business.

Playing at a whorehouse is pretty much required if you are a whore house piano player.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Did the business owner have a problem with the specific location? Would he refuse to setup a cake at that location if any other customer required it?

It is not the customer or the location that was the issue. It was the activity the baker is asked to participate in. I say tolerance allows anybody, baker, barber, Indian Chief, anybody, to opt of of participation in or contribution to any activity they believe to be offensive and/or immoral and/or unethical.

The only activity the baker is participating in, is baking and assembling a cake.

So you are saying that the baker must be required to see that as you see it? Or does tolerance allow him to see it as he sees it which is quite different?

He's allowed to see it any way he wants. He is not allowed to break laws.

The OP expressly states that existing law is not to be used as an argument in this thread. So what the existing law is is immaterial to the OP and the concepts being argued. Thanks for understanding.

But I believe there should be laws.

 

[Esmeralda]

So is your argument that the baker is not allowed the strength of his convictions or his moral values but must agree to be in servitude to those he believes to be engaged in immoral or unethical acts or else he cannot be a baker? How do you equate that with tolerance of all points of view?

Only if he wants to be in business which is open to the public. If he wants to spend the day strengthening his morals and convictions, and only allow others with the same morals and convictions, he should open a church instead of a place of business, yes. I do not believe business owners should be allowed to use their religion to discriminate against gay people, no.

Or anyone else. It's a slippery slope. If you allow people to pick and choose who they do business with, the idea of a free society is gone. Anyone can be denied service for any reason and the business owner can say it's for any reason. Hypothetically, let's say they don't like fat people, that they find it spiritually unethical to be a gluten. So you deny service to fat people. Or, let's say that the cable company won't put in service to your house because you are going to watch porn, and the owner thinks porn is evil. It goes on and on and is a universally widespread issue. You cannot just say I don't like you or I don't agree with you and you offend my ethics and values, so I won't do business with you. That's so completely un-American.

All that sidesteps the issue in question. In this case it is not a case of picking and choosing who somebody does business with, though that also could be debated under the umbrella of liberty, but it is a very narrow issue of whether any person, no matter who or what he/she is, should be forced to participate in or contribute to an ACTIVITY that he/she finds offensive, unethical, and/or immoral.

I am not in any way sidestepping the issue at hand. You just don't like posts you disagree with. Talk about tolerance, or lack of it.

What I do or do not like is not an appropriate subject for discussion in this thread. I illustrated specifically the issue you sidestepped. So either address it or let it go. Any further ad hominem or personal insult will be reported. Thanks for understanding.

I did not sidestep any issue.