Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Meanwhile in Colorado:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake

Denver's Azucar Bakery wins right to refuse to make anti-gay cakes

DENVER - Colorado's legal battles between religious freedom and gay rights continue to play out in the not-so-sweet arena of bakery cake requests.

Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver's Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.

The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.

...

Here I am making the mistake of dipping my toe into a 19 page long thread...

But has anyone here discussed the simple issue of free speech and just leaving religion out of it? I don't think even the 1964 Civil Rights Act compels any person to actually speak on behalf of something or someone they do not believe in.

 

[squistion]

Another bakery under attack and is receiving death threats, this time in Florida. Could this again be the work of those intolerant liberals and homosexuals?

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/4/3/casselberry_bakery.html

Bakery threatened for refusing to put anti-gay message on cake

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Joshua Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Why does no one ever challenge the notion that Holding a Christian faith dictates that you have to oppose homosexuality? Christ never said word one about homosexuality but did say whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me. None of these mouth breathing ####tards can legitimately oppose serving a homosexuality based on Christianity. If they want to claim Orthodox Judaism they could have an argument, but the religion based on The teachings of Jesus has no basis for opposition.

If I were a judge and faced with ruling in this law, I would never allow someone to use Christianity as their basis for opposition. It's stupid.

Judges should (and generally do) ignore the "Christian" argument. States have to justify discrimination by demonstrating a legitimate public purpose AND that it is the least restrictive means of accomplishing it. Pretty much an impossible task IMO.

This is no BS: Kentucky's AG actually argued in his brief that Kentucky doesn't discriminate against gays by prohibiting gay marriage since the prohibition applies to heterosexuals who want to have a gay marriage too.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Another bakery under attack and is receiving death threats, this time in Florida. Could this again be the work of those intolerant liberals and homosexuals?

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/4/3/casselberry_bakery.html

Bakery threatened for refusing to put anti-gay message on cake

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Joshua Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

Did she post a link to the site where folks can donate money to them like those pizza guys?

 

[BigJohn]

147 people were just slaughtered for not being a particular religion and we're pissing and moaning about some ####ing cakes.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

147 people were just slaughtered for not being a particular religion and we're pissing and moaning about some ####ing cakes.

By that rationale, we ought not care about anyone's civil rights until it rises to the level of mass killings.

 

[BigJohn]

147 people were just slaughtered for not being a particular religion and we're pissing and moaning about some ####ing cakes.

By that rationale, we ought not care about anyone's civil rights until it rises to the level of mass killings.

Just adds some perspective.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

147 people were just slaughtered for not being a particular religion and we're pissing and moaning about some ####ing cakes.

By that rationale, we ought not care about anyone's civil rights until it rises to the level of mass killings.

Just adds some perspective.

Not really. Thousands have been killed in Ukraine. Why worry about "just" 147? A guy just killed his 2 kids and wife outside of Philly. By comparison that's no biggie.

 

[squistion]

Another bakery under attack and is receiving death threats, this time in Florida. Could this again be the work of those intolerant liberals and homosexuals?

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/4/3/casselberry_bakery.html

Bakery threatened for refusing to put anti-gay message on cake

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Joshua Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

Did she post a link to the site where folks can donate money to them like those pizza guys?

No, but someone did set up a GoFundMe account for the cake shop, which I found at Daily Kos. A little over $3k has been donated so far.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/04/1375604/-HELP-My-Local-Bakery-Getting-Death-Threats-for-Refusing-to-Make-Anti-Gay-Cake

HELP! My Local Bakery Getting Death Threats for Refusing to Make Anti-Gay Cake!

[...] I am asking the community to please counter-act the hurtful messages Sharon's bakery has received on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/...

She is also fighting for survival since the hatemongers have made it their mission to destroy her business. Dana Loesch generated half a million for a hateful pizza parlor in Indiana, so we can at least send some a few bucks to someone who is being physically threatened for not wanting to participate in hate: http://www.gofundme.com/cutthecake

 

[MaxThreshold]

Another bakery under attack and is receiving death threats, this time in Florida. Could this again be the work of those intolerant liberals and homosexuals?

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/4/3/casselberry_bakery.html

Bakery threatened for refusing to put anti-gay message on cake

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Joshua Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

Did she post a link to the site where folks can donate money to them like those pizza guys?

No, but someone did set up a GoFundMe account for the cake shop, which I found at Daily Kos. A little over $3k has been donated so far.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/04/1375604/-HELP-My-Local-Bakery-Getting-Death-Threats-for-Refusing-to-Make-Anti-Gay-Cake

HELP! My Local Bakery Getting Death Threats for Refusing to Make Anti-Gay Cake!

[...] I am asking the community to please counter-act the hurtful messages Sharon's bakery has received on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/...

She is also fighting for survival since the hatemongers have made it their mission to destroy her business. Dana Loesch generated half a million for a hateful pizza parlor in Indiana, so we can at least send some a few bucks to someone who is being physically threatened for not wanting to participate in hate: http://www.gofundme.com/cutthecake

Daily Kos?

Didn't realize you were that extreme left. That's normally TGunz/Todd Andrews territory. Duly noted.

 

[squistion]

Daily Kos?

Didn't realize you were that extreme left. That's normally TGunz/Todd Andrews territory. Duly noted.

You say that every time I post a Kos link. Supposedly, memory is the first thing to go.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Another bakery under attack and is receiving death threats, this time in Florida. Could this again be the work of those intolerant liberals and homosexuals?

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/4/3/casselberry_bakery.html

Bakery threatened for refusing to put anti-gay message on cake

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Joshua Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

Did she post a link to the site where folks can donate money to them like those pizza guys?

No, but someone did set up a GoFundMe account for the cake shop, which I found at Daily Kos. A little over $3k has been donated so far.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/04/1375604/-HELP-My-Local-Bakery-Getting-Death-Threats-for-Refusing-to-Make-Anti-Gay-Cake

HELP! My Local Bakery Getting Death Threats for Refusing to Make Anti-Gay Cake!

[...] I am asking the community to please counter-act the hurtful messages Sharon's bakery has received on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/...

She is also fighting for survival since the hatemongers have made it their mission to destroy her business. Dana Loesch generated half a million for a hateful pizza parlor in Indiana, so we can at least send some a few bucks to someone who is being physically threatened for not wanting to participate in hate: http://www.gofundme.com/cutthecake

because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Has this country ever at any time asked that someone write or do anything artistic in favor of anyone? Have we ever actually compelled anyone to do so?

 

[3C's]

Another bakery under attack and is receiving death threats, this time in Florida. Could this again be the work of those intolerant liberals and homosexuals?

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/4/3/casselberry_bakery.html

Bakery threatened for refusing to put anti-gay message on cake

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Joshua Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

Did she post a link to the site where folks can donate money to them like those pizza guys?

No, but someone did set up a GoFundMe account for the cake shop, which I found at Daily Kos. A little over $3k has been donated so far.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/04/1375604/-HELP-My-Local-Bakery-Getting-Death-Threats-for-Refusing-to-Make-Anti-Gay-Cake

HELP! My Local Bakery Getting Death Threats for Refusing to Make Anti-Gay Cake!

[...] I am asking the community to please counter-act the hurtful messages Sharon's bakery has received on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/...

She is also fighting for survival since the hatemongers have made it their mission to destroy her business. Dana Loesch generated half a million for a hateful pizza parlor in Indiana, so we can at least send some a few bucks to someone who is being physically threatened for not wanting to participate in hate: http://www.gofundme.com/cutthecake

They had no hesitation baking a Jesus cake, you'd think that would please the religious types. https://www.facebook.com/CutTheCake/photos/a.716470198370309.1073741825.124542587563076/1097654840251841/?type=1&theater

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You've got to feel for bakers, you'd think if anyone thought they were choosing a well-loved, appreciated, harmless profession....

 

[rockaction]

Just got word of Tennessee_Nobrow and CompulsoryBaGeL taking shots at me in the Revenge Porn thread, calling me a segregationist and saying that's my shtick. A) that ignores every point I've made about RFRAs in this thread B) it's historically inaccurate.

Julian Sanchez, leading left libertarian, has this to say about the distinction between Jim Crow and the refusal of service for marriage ceremonies of gays.

As I argued in Newsweek a few years back, the “purist” libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregation—which had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated “private” discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.

Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some don’t. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We don’t see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while I’ve seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.


The point is that treating private discrimination as either a categorical wrong committed by troglodytes with no liberty interests meriting consideration or an utterly inviolable right of conscience, divorced from either historical context or practical consequence, seems like a stupid way to approach the issue.

 

[squistion]

because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Has this country ever at any time asked that someone write or do anything artistic in favor of anyone? Have we ever actually compelled anyone to do so?

No, but I don't think that is relevant. People on the right here have been saying that a Christian bake shop making a cake for a gay wedding they are opposed to, would be forcing them to do something against their religion. The baking, frosting, etc. of the cake is artistic expression (at least every baker I know thinks it is) but that is not the issue, it is the denial of service to a recognized minority from a business that is supposed to be open all members of the general public.

And not putting a specific message on a cake that the baker finds offensive is not the same as refusing to provide the cake at all because the buyer wants it for a gay wedding.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Has this country ever at any time asked that someone write or do anything artistic in favor of anyone? Have we ever actually compelled anyone to do so?

No, but I don't think that is relevant. People on the right here have been saying that a Christian bake shop making a cake for a gay wedding they are opposed to, would be forcing them to do something against their religion. The baking, frosting, etc. of the cake is artistic expression (at least every baker I know thinks it is) but that is not the issue, it is the denial of service to a recognized minority from a business that is supposed to be open all members of the general public.

And not putting a specific message on a cake that the baker finds offensive is not the same as refusing to provide the cake at all because the buyer wants it for a gay wedding.

Well that's them, what about you? You would prioritize access over free speech?

And as a practical matter, what would we do with all these Christians, muslims and Jewish business owners who refused to provide access? What would be the punishment and the means?

The state would be compelling that these business owners bend, and if they do not what would be the penalty? What do you think would be fair? Close the business? A $10K fine, what?

 

[Psychopav]

Why does a hobby lobby get to deny birth control to its employees but a Christian baker doesn't get to deny Congratulations Brad and Abdul?

What about churches? Should they be forced to perform gay weddings if gay marriage is legal and they are in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class?

 

[Psychopav]

FTR, I'm really conflicted about this. I'd like to think we have some good legal minds who can suss out a nuanced approach here.

 

[the moops]

What about churches? Should they be forced to perform gay weddings if gay marriage is legal and they are in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class?

Of course not. This has been discussed ad nauseum here.

 

[squistion]

What about churches? Should they be forced to perform gay weddings if gay marriage is legal and they are in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class?

What about churches. Inter-racial marriage is legal, but churches can't be forced to perform them if they don't want to (and race is a protected class) And Catholic churches have never been forced to marry non-Catholics or Catholics who have been divorced. The list goes on if you want take the time and Google it.

 

[Courtjester]

So I am not going to go back through this 19 pages to see what has been said and what hasn't but for those that believe a company should be forced to cater an event they don't support due to their beliefs, could not an argument be made that by having their name associated with the event, this could further impact their business reputation?

I will unpack that a little. If I am bigot. I don't want to cater a same sex marriage but I am forced to. When patrons at the event ask who did the catering and my name is used, then could I not claim that my future reputation has been affected because of my name and the event being associated together.

A similar but unrelated to this law type example would be a lawyer takes a case for a gang member. He does well. Then other gang members start retaining him. Granted most lawyers would pretty much take money wherever they could find it, but he now has this reputation as a gang friendly lawyer and may actually see his reputation with law enforcement types go down because they hate his clientele.

I cater a same sex marriage I am now known as caterer to the gays and this ultimately drives away business I may have received from religious types. I don't know, something I was thinking about today.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So I am not going to go back through this 19 pages to see what has been said and what hasn't but for those that believe a company should be forced to cater an event they don't support due to their beliefs, could not an argument be made that by having their name associated with the event, this could further impact their business reputation?

I will unpack that a little. If I am bigot. I don't want to cater a same sex marriage but I am forced to. When patrons at the event ask who did the catering and my name is used, then could I not claim that my future reputation has been affected because of my name and the event being associated together.

A similar but unrelated to this law type example would be a lawyer takes a case for a gang member. He does well. Then other gang members start retaining him. Granted most lawyers would pretty much take money wherever they could find it, but he now has this reputation as a gang friendly lawyer and may actually see his reputation with law enforcement types go down because they hate his clientele.

I cater a same sex marriage I am now known as caterer to the gays and this ultimately drives away business I may have received from religious types. I don't know, something I was thinking about today.

Great argument. Sounds like something from a message board in the early 60s.

 

[Courtjester]

So I am not going to go back through this 19 pages to see what has been said and what hasn't but for those that believe a company should be forced to cater an event they don't support due to their beliefs, could not an argument be made that by having their name associated with the event, this could further impact their business reputation?

I will unpack that a little. If I am bigot. I don't want to cater a same sex marriage but I am forced to. When patrons at the event ask who did the catering and my name is used, then could I not claim that my future reputation has been affected because of my name and the event being associated together.

A similar but unrelated to this law type example would be a lawyer takes a case for a gang member. He does well. Then other gang members start retaining him. Granted most lawyers would pretty much take money wherever they could find it, but he now has this reputation as a gang friendly lawyer and may actually see his reputation with law enforcement types go down because they hate his clientele.

I cater a same sex marriage I am now known as caterer to the gays and this ultimately drives away business I may have received from religious types. I don't know, something I was thinking about today.

Great argument. Sounds like something from a message board in the early 60s.

Well just thinking in the wedding/catering business, you are only as good as your yelp/facebook/word of mouth rep, I think it is relevant.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So I am not going to go back through this 19 pages to see what has been said and what hasn't but for those that believe a company should be forced to cater an event they don't support due to their beliefs, could not an argument be made that by having their name associated with the event, this could further impact their business reputation?

I will unpack that a little. If I am bigot. I don't want to cater a same sex marriage but I am forced to. When patrons at the event ask who did the catering and my name is used, then could I not claim that my future reputation has been affected because of my name and the event being associated together.

A similar but unrelated to this law type example would be a lawyer takes a case for a gang member. He does well. Then other gang members start retaining him. Granted most lawyers would pretty much take money wherever they could find it, but he now has this reputation as a gang friendly lawyer and may actually see his reputation with law enforcement types go down because they hate his clientele.

I cater a same sex marriage I am now known as caterer to the gays and this ultimately drives away business I may have received from religious types. I don't know, something I was thinking about today.

Great argument. Sounds like something from a message board in the early 60s.

Well just thinking in the wedding/catering business, you are only as good as your yelp/facebook/word of mouth rep, I think it is relevant.

"That restaurant serves the blacks?! We'll never eat there again."

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Just got word of Tennessee_Nobrow and CompulsoryBaGeL taking shots at me in the Revenge Porn thread, calling me a segregationist and saying that's my shtick. A) that ignores every point I've made about RFRAs in this thread B) it's historically inaccurate.

Julian Sanchez, leading left libertarian, has this to say about the distinction between Jim Crow and the refusal of service for marriage ceremonies of gays.



As I argued in Newsweek a few years back, the purist libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregationwhich had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated private discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.



Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some dont. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We dont see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while Ive seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.



The point is that treating private discrimination as either a categorical wrong committed by troglodytes with no liberty interests meriting consideration or an utterly inviolable right of conscience, divorced from either historical context or practical consequence, seems like a stupid way to approach the issue.

Ah yes.

There's a reason why the party of "The government should let me do anything I want, including discriminate" is 94% white.

 

[rockaction]

Just got word of Tennessee_Nobrow and CompulsoryBaGeL taking shots at me in the Revenge Porn thread, calling me a segregationist and saying that's my shtick. A) that ignores every point I've made about RFRAs in this thread B) it's historically inaccurate.

Julian Sanchez, leading left libertarian, has this to say about the distinction between Jim Crow and the refusal of service for marriage ceremonies of gays.

As I argued in Newsweek a few years back, the purist libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregationwhich had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated private discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.



Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some dont. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We dont see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while Ive seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.



The point is that treating private discrimination as either a categorical wrong committed by troglodytes with no liberty interests meriting consideration or an utterly inviolable right of conscience, divorced from either historical context or practical consequence, seems like a stupid way to approach the issue.

Ah yes.

There's a reason why the party of "The government should let me do anything I want, including discriminate" is 94% white.

That's not a very good comment considering both he and I support the CRA of 1964 for the exact same reasons. I've explained my reasoning for supporting the CRA in the same terms he has, yet you call me a segregationist? Weird.



eta* I don't mean to be a jerk, and nobody can read everybody's comments within a thread, but I pretty much stated my position to Tobias and timschochet, and I meant it.

Sanchez happened to have the same reasoning, of which I was unaware.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

So I am not going to go back through this 19 pages to see what has been said and what hasn't but for those that believe a company should be forced to cater an event they don't support due to their beliefs, could not an argument be made that by having their name associated with the event, this could further impact their business reputation?

I will unpack that a little. If I am bigot. I don't want to cater a same sex marriage but I am forced to. When patrons at the event ask who did the catering and my name is used, then could I not claim that my future reputation has been affected because of my name and the event being associated together.

A similar but unrelated to this law type example would be a lawyer takes a case for a gang member. He does well. Then other gang members start retaining him. Granted most lawyers would pretty much take money wherever they could find it, but he now has this reputation as a gang friendly lawyer and may actually see his reputation with law enforcement types go down because they hate his clientele.

I cater a same sex marriage I am now known as caterer to the gays and this ultimately drives away business I may have received from religious types. I don't know, something I was thinking about today.

Great argument. Sounds like something from a message board in the early 60s.

Well just thinking in the wedding/catering business, you are only as good as your yelp/facebook/word of mouth rep, I think it is relevant.

I feel pretty confident that the "my reputation will be ruined amongst the bigots because I complied with the law" argument isn't going to gain much traction.

The gay marriage ship is sailing. I've never seen an issue switch so fast before. In 2008 you had to denounce gay marriage lest you commit political suicide. In 2012 Obama was accused of "pandering" by supporting it. 3 years later the frigging youth in the GOP supports it by a fairly big margin (60% of GOP'ers under 30). A law in a conservative state got stomped out of existence within days of passage because it would protect discrimination against gays. A similar piece of legislation in an even more conservative state won't even be signed by a conservative governor. The move has been so fast that the old guard of the GOP can't figure out how to backtrack fast enough without looking like clowns falling over each other.

 

[McGarnicle]

The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.

Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Who puts negative messages on a damn cake?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

Just got word of Tennessee_Nobrow and CompulsoryBaGeL taking shots at me in the Revenge Porn thread, calling me a segregationist and saying that's my shtick. A) that ignores every point I've made about RFRAs in this thread B) it's historically inaccurate.

Julian Sanchez, leading left libertarian, has this to say about the distinction between Jim Crow and the refusal of service for marriage ceremonies of gays.

As I argued in Newsweek a few years back, the purist libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregationwhich had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated private discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.



Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some dont. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We dont see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while Ive seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.



The point is that treating private discrimination as either a categorical wrong committed by troglodytes with no liberty interests meriting consideration or an utterly inviolable right of conscience, divorced from either historical context or practical consequence, seems like a stupid way to approach the issue.

Ah yes.There's a reason why the party of "The government should let me do anything I want, including discriminate" is 94% white.

That's not a very good comment considering both he and I support the CRA of 1964 for the exact same reasons. I've explained my reasoning for supporting the CRA in the same terms he has, yet you call me a segregationist? Weird.



eta* I don't mean to be a jerk, and nobody can read everybody's comments within a thread, but I pretty much stated my position to Tobias and timschochet, and I meant it.

Sanchez happened to have the same reasoning, of which I was unaware.

Dude, just because you feel sorry for blacks because the history of the U.S. makes it impossible to give them a fair economic shake w/o civil rights protection doesn't mean you don't turn a blind eye towards minority rights.

Obviously "segregationist" is an overstatement and not a term I would have used, but the general gist is legit.

You can't advocate for a system that ALLOWS legal discrimination against any minority group, then get offended when someone calls you out on it. The majority will always trample the minority unless rules are in place to protect the minority. Do you really think a business in the rural south is particularly worried about economic backlash if it discriminates against, say, Muslims? Allowing a mosque literally cost local officials their jobs in Murfreesboro.

The libertarian social ideal is no less divorced from reality than those touchy-feely communes in the 60's were divorced from economic reality.

So yeah, if you think requiring business to not discriminate against any minority group is repugnant to their freedom to discriminate against minority groups and should never be required, then you're at some level a "segregationist".

Like I said before "You serve the homos, he'll serve the Hebes, I'll serve the straight Christians" That's segregation.

 

[Yenrub]

Tom Cotton has weighed in: "“I think it’s important we have a sense of perspective,” Cotton said. “In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay.”

So is the Senator suggesting that because “In Iran they hang you for the crime of being gay” it’s okay to “only” discriminate against gay people here in the United States?

 

[Mister CIA]

FTR, I'm really conflicted about this. I'd like to think we have some good legal minds who can suss out a nuanced approach here.

It's too bad that the word of Jesus left lingering so much confusion and doubt about how we should treat one another.

 

[Psychopav]

What about churches? Should they be forced to perform gay weddings if gay marriage is legal and they are in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class?

What about churches. Inter-racial marriage is legal, but churches can't be forced to perform them if they don't want to (and race is a protected class) And Catholic churches have never been forced to marry non-Catholics or Catholics who have been divorced. The list goes on if you want take the time and Google it.

Have these been tested in court yet?Two years ago, no one had been forced to decorate a cake for a gay wedding before, right?

 

[Psychopav]

What about churches? Should they be forced to perform gay weddings if gay marriage is legal and they are in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class?

Of course not. This has been discussed ad nauseum here.

It has?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Another bakery under attack and is receiving death threats, this time in Florida. Could this again be the work of those intolerant liberals and homosexuals?

http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/4/3/casselberry_bakery.html

Bakery threatened for refusing to put anti-gay message on cake

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Joshua Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

Did she post a link to the site where folks can donate money to them like those pizza guys?

No, but someone did set up a GoFundMe account for the cake shop, which I found at Daily Kos. A little over $3k has been donated so far.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/04/1375604/-HELP-My-Local-Bakery-Getting-Death-Threats-for-Refusing-to-Make-Anti-Gay-Cake

HELP! My Local Bakery Getting Death Threats for Refusing to Make Anti-Gay Cake!

[...] I am asking the community to please counter-act the hurtful messages Sharon's bakery has received on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/...

She is also fighting for survival since the hatemongers have made it their mission to destroy her business. Dana Loesch generated half a million for a hateful pizza parlor in Indiana, so we can at least send some a few bucks to someone who is being physically threatened for not wanting to participate in hate: http://www.gofundme.com/cutthecake

Daily Kos?

Didn't realize you were that extreme left. That's normally TGunz/Todd Andrews territory. Duly noted.

Daily Kos? Dont read it.

But I love your Stormfront links, MaxKooK.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Pretty sure we should all just start calling in death threats to all bakeries at this point.

 

[Bucky86]

I disagree with the message, but I'd still eat the anti-gay cake. I like cake.

 

[cstu]

The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.

Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Who puts negative messages on a damn cake?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

What about churches? Should they be forced to perform gay weddings if gay marriage is legal and they are in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class?

What about churches. Inter-racial marriage is legal, but churches can't be forced to perform them if they don't want to (and race is a protected class) And Catholic churches have never been forced to marry non-Catholics or Catholics who have been divorced. The list goes on if you want take the time and Google it.

Have these been tested in court yet?Two years ago, no one had been forced to decorate a cake for a gay wedding before, right?

Not even remotely kinda an issue. Churches can discriminate based on their religious beliefs. To be safe the safest course for them is to make sure their fundamental tenets are clear and well-established.

That exception doesn't apply to commercial for-profit entities. Just religious organizations.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I disagree with the message, but I'd still eat the anti-gay cake. I like cake.

Agreed. But can a hater bake a good cake? My mom would have said "no" because according to her what makes a cake good is the love that goes into it. She did bake the best cakes in the history of the world.

 

[3C's]

Pretty sure we should all just start calling in death threats to all bakeries at this point.

Apparently they're all gay so I guess it depends on which side you're on.

 

[jon_mx]

Does the boycott start after the Final Four is over?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I am no bible expert but didn't it say somewhere to love thy neighbor? There are lots of contradictions in the interpretations of the bible and organized religion but I'm pretty sure in my limited reading it clearly stated that the most important thing, above all the other teachings, was to love one another. It would seem that serving food/flowers/photos/whatever to someone who is a sinner (in your eyes) would be a demonstration of love, not a compromise of your religious values.

This is totally true and I like this post. But on the other hand, we probably shouldn't start passing laws requiring people to act in accordance with the Bible.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not serving gay people and not catering a gay wedding are not the same thing.

Well they kind of are, because catering is a form of service. But it doesn't really matter, that's just semantics. They're both discrimination and they both should be condemned.

Should a person who disagrees with get marriage be condemned? Or only if it causes them to not want to participate in a gay wedding? What if they are willing to participate in a gay wedding but in their minds they feel that homosexuality is 'wrong'?I'm always confused if the outrage is just for the 'discrimination' ie action or the difference in belief itself.

Assuming you meant "gay" here, the answer is yes. If you don't think gay people should have the right to marry you should be condemned.

That sort of attitude was wrong but kind of understandable ten or even five years ago before the public debate and the litigation really kicked into gear. But now that opponents have had years to make their case in courts and to the public over and over and still have failed to come up with even one rational argument for denying equal treatment to homosexuals under the law, the position is worthy of condemnation.

Ok, fair enough. And yes I meant gay marriage.Abortion is legal. Many religions teach that abortion is immoral. Because a legal argument has been made (and succeeded) that abortion is legal does that mean those who oppose abortion in most cases are worthy of condemnation? Legal pot. If someone feels it's not a good idea to allow people to smoke weed legally but their state has decriminalized it should they be condemned because they disagree with the law?

I don't get why disagreeing with a law or policy should be the basis for whether or not a belief is worthy of condemnation. Clearly in this case the condemnation cones from the fact that pro-gay marriage folks find the basic beliefs of anti-gay marriage folks worthy of condemnation (mainly that homosexuality is a 'wrong' sexual expression). That's what people are really upset about. Which is fine but then let's admit that the outrage has more to do with a cultural groundswell of righteous indignation against those who feel that homosexuality is wrong. Not that gay people are discriminated against because a couple businesses in Indiana hypothetically wouldn't sell their products or services to a gay couple.

A lot of pro-lifers -- I would say nearly all of them, in fact -- have their hearts in the right place. They're not pro-life because they're trying to be mean to women; they're pro-life because they're trying to be nice to unborn babies. In my opinion, pro-lifers are probably wrong about how to make an appropriate trade-off between the fetus's interests and the mother's interest, because they're probably wrong about how much value one should rationally place on the life of an unwanted fetus. But it's a difficult issue on which goodhearted people can differ. I don't think the pro-life position merits condemnation -- just simple disagreement.

Same with legal weed. I think most people who support the war on drugs generally have good intentions. They believe that drugs are bad, and that legalizing drugs, even pot, will have social consequences that are more bad than good. I think they are mistaken about this -- but lots of good people are mistaken about lots of things. Disagreement may be appropriate, but probably not condemnation.

Gay marriage is different. Some people say that they oppose gay marriage because people will be having sex with their dogs or whatever, but those arguments are too stupid to take seriously. People who oppose gay marriage, as far as I can tell, do not take that position because they are legitimately worried about negative real-world consequences. Maybe some were a few years ago, but now that a number of states have allowed gay marriage for a while and society hasn't fallen apart because of it -- people aren't having sex with their dogs or anything like that -- the only reason left to oppose gay marriage seems to be some kind of animus toward homosexuality. Pro-lifers and drug-warriors have their hearts in the right place because they're generally trying to be nice to people, even if they're mistaken about which course of action will produce nicer results. But people who oppose gay marriage don't seem like they're trying to be nice to people; it seems like they're trying to be mean to people. That does merit condemnation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I never got an answer from a page or two back... is it bigoted to believe homosexual sexual activity is immoral if that person does not actively discriminate against gays in any tangible or subtle way? I'm affraid the answer to this will reveal whether or not conservative religious belief is really part of the 'tolerate' paradigm.

I guess I'll be Hippling this thread. I'm on page 13, working my way forward.

Is it bigoted to believe that homosexual sexual activity is immoral? As a matter of English semantics, if we're interested only in being accurate, I'd lean towards saying that it is bigoted. I'm not 100% sure that I'm correct -- I could be argued out of it if someone makes a strong case in the other direction. But I think "bigoted" is generally how we describe beliefs that cast others in a negative light without a good reason (where "because the Bible says so" doesn't count as a good reason).

But if we are interested in pragmatism rather than accuracy, I would not call people with such beliefs "bigots." I think it's important to try to change people's minds on the issue, and you will pretty much never convince someone that he is wrong if you lead off by calling him a bigot. He will just get all defensive. In fact, as a matter of human psychology, when you call someone a bigot, he becomes more likely to act like a bigot. If you want to get him to change his mind, you should call him open-minded instead. The name-calling thing that both sides so often engage in is really counterproductive -- and worse, it is tedious.

 

[Steve Tasker]

A lot of pro-lifers -- I would say nearly all of them, in fact -- have their hearts in the right place. They're not pro-life because they're trying to be mean to women; they're pro-life because they're trying to be nice to unborn babies. In my opinion, pro-lifers are probably wrong about how to make an appropriate trade-off between the fetus's interests and the mother's interest, because they're probably wrong about how much value one should rationally place on the life of an unwanted fetus. But it's a difficult issue on which goodhearted people can differ. I don't think the pro-life position merits condemnation -- just simple disagreement.

Same with legal weed. I think most people who support the war on drugs generally have good intentions. They believe that drugs are bad, and that legalizing drugs, even pot, will have social consequences that are more bad than good. I think they are mistaken about this -- but lots of good people are mistaken about lots of things. Disagreement may be appropriate, but probably not condemnation.

Gay marriage is different. Some people say that they oppose gay marriage because people will be having sex with their dogs or whatever, but those arguments are too stupid to take seriously. People who oppose gay marriage, as far as I can tell, do not take that position because they are legitimately worried about negative consequences. Maybe some were a few years ago, but now that a number of states have allowed gay marriage for a while and society hasn't fallen apart because of it -- people aren't having sex with their dogs or anything like that -- the only reason left to oppose gay marriage seems to be some kind of animus toward homosexuality. Pro-lifers and drug-warriors have their hearts in the right place because they're generally trying to be nice to people, even if they're mistaken about which course of action will produce nicer results. But people who oppose gay marriage don't seem like they're trying to be nice to people; it seems like they're trying to be mean to people. That does merit condemnation.

:GREATPOSTING:

 

[TPW]

"Don't compare yourself to a Selma marcher when you're unleashing the dogs and firehoses."

 

[urbanhack]

"Don't compare yourself to a Selma marcher when you're unleashing the dogs and firehoses."

OK

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think the more people talk about Big Gay and make light of people asked an innocent question, the less I respect them. I think that this sort of virtual mob, replete with death threats, arson threats, explicit gay penetration on their Yelp! page, etc. is disgusting and subhuman.

Sadly, and lost on many of the supporters of these actions within this very board, it actually solidifies the fears of those deeply concerned about their own religious freedom in running their business that the virtual mobs, media, and other institutions will stop at absolutely nothing to codify their agenda. In other words, the actions prove the very fear being made light of.

A couple was asked a question by a reporter. These past few days have showed us the response and the tactics used.

I think it's a joke. I have no trouble speaking out against "Big Gay." Mobs are mobs. Threats are threats. Organized thugs are organized thugs. It's sickening, disgusting, immoral, and shouldn't be given any heed in a representative democracy.

That's a bit over the top, but I largely agree with the general sentiment.

We all think that death threats, arson threats, and fake Yelp! reviews are wrong, I hope.

The more interesting question, IMO, is whether a boycott is appropriate. If the pizza place were actually discriminating, refusing to serve certain classes of people on stupid grounds, I think a boycott would absolutely be appropriate. Fight action with action, and a boycott would be an appropriate action in that case, both legally and morally.

But in this case, the pizza place didn't really discriminate against anybody. They said hypothetically that they would, but the hypothetical situation is very unlikely to come up -- and if it did come up, it might force them to rethink their position and they may change their mind.

Should we boycott a pizza place because of the distasteful views of the owner, even if the pizza place itself never engages in discriminatory practices? I wouldn't boycott it, myself. I thought the Chick-Fil-A boycott was kind of lame; I thought the Dixie Chicks boycotts were kind of lame; and I generally think boycotting people based only on viewpoints that are not put into action are kind of lame.

I like it when good ideas prevail. But I think the best mechanism for consistently achieving that goal is to let people voice their ideas openly and honestly, and then debate those ideas on the merits. A boycott is sort of the opposite of that. A boycott is saying "you should not express your ideas or you will be financially harmed." People have the right to boycott for any reason they want -- don't get me wrong. I just don't personally agree with boycotts that are designed to suppress the expression of certain ideas rather than to refute them on their merits. Because when boycotts are designed to suppress certain ideas, the overall effect is not necessarily for good ideas to prevail, but only for popular ideas to prevail. The idea behind a free marketplace of ideas is not to declare winners based on the amount of economic force that can be mobilized in their favor, but to declare winners after a thorough hearing of both sides' best evidence and arguments.

One of the benefits of capitalism is that it brings people of different backgrounds, including ideological backgrounds, together to do business with one another. People who may not be predisposed to like each other very much based on their respective ethnicities, religions, what have you, have incentives to become business partners when one of them wants to sell a pizza and the other one wants to eat a pizza. The overall effect, ideally, is to increase familiarity with different types of people with different types of views, and thus to reduce ignorance and, ultimately, bigotry.

I think we do harm to that beneficial effect when we refuse to do business with people we disagree with. If the pizza place had actually refused service to gays, I'd blame it for thwarting the beneficial effect I mentioned, and I'd be on board with boycotting them. But if the pizza place hasn't actually acted in any discriminatory way, I blame the boycotters for the breakdown.

Boycotting (along with the more violent forms of protest) is an attempt to silence the other side as a substitute for a debate on the merits. As long as everyone is playing by the rules and not actually discriminating, I'd prefer to fight words with more words, not with an economic threat designed to make the other side shut up.

Of course, that's something that everyone can decide for himself. I'm just giving my own view.

 

[rockaction]

In response to the above comment by Maurile (I don't want to use the quote function because we wrote long posts), Conor Friedersdorf directly addressed that point in the Atlantic two or so days ago. Maurile's is probably a better read, but some might enjoy this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/