Boycott Indiana? (1 Viewer)

[BigJohn]

I do think it's an interesting question on how to deal with these two scenarios:

1. Ultra-religious baker who is offended by a gay couple getting married. Does he/she have to bake the wedding cake for them?

2. Gay person working at Kinkos who is offended by an ultra-religious person who wants to print signs that say "God Hates ####". Does the gay Kinkos employee have to print the sign?

i.e. Should we have laws that force people to put aside their personal beliefs and provide goods and services to any and all that want them? Or, should we allow business owners to discriminate and only serve those that they don't personally find offensive?

Again, I think we've seen that the latter fails. Can you imagine planning a road trip across America and having to avoid certain states because they won't fill up your tank or sell you lunch because you're traveling with a gay companion, or a black companion, or a Muslim???

My problem with 1 (not my only problem...but one of them) is that the ultra religious baker likely does not turn down someone who has committed other sins and makes their cake but will typically turn down gays. I doubt the baker is doing background checks to make sure she is not making a cake for an adulterer. Does she make cakes for gluttons too? Well, probably...it is cake after all.

The gay kinkos employee could likely appeal to his/her boss and say he/she would rather not make such copies. How it works after that...I don't know.

Since the bakery is the popular example, I'll address it.

If a gay couple comes into a Christian bakery and order a birthday cake, in no way shape or form, should the baker be allowed to refuse service to them. But, if they order a cake with a pro-lgbt message, they should be able to refuse, based on the service, not the people he's serving.

The refusal should be based on the service requested, not the individual's beliefs.

This just happened in Bexley Ohio (about a 5 minute drive west of downtown Columbus).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998274/Videographer-refuses-film-sex-couple-s-wedding-spiritual-beliefs.html

And, while I don't agree with his choice, I support his right to decide on his own, what services he does or does not provide. Replace the cake in the bakery example with his pictures in this case and it's the same thing.

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Pandora's box is about to be opened, and I'm ok with that, but here goes...

Race is not a choice, so, no, I don't believe a business owner should be allowed to discriminate based on race.

Ready.....go!

 

[Scoresman]

silly gays should just choose to be straight.

 

[The Commish]

Evidence has shown it takes courts and laws. The public shaming helps, for sure, but it's not everything.

What laws were enacted in the case of Chick-fil-a or any of the other situations like theirs? If public pressure can work on Chick-fil-a in this part of the country (Bible belt) it can work anywhere.

The Chick-Fil-A flap is a poor example. Chick-Fil-A never denied to serve gays. Also: the company's sales actually increased due to the incredible popularity in some circles of their CEO's viewpoint. So really, the free market told them they had a lot of public support.

For a day, because Mike Huckabee wanted to "support" them. That's what you're talking about isn't it? Sorry, I can't have a discussion this way. Cathy changed his POV because of this whole thing. He admitted that he finally got it. I can't give you more clear evidence of progress that was driven by the public

 

[Koya]

Where do you stand on the new legislation signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence?

Link

Hopefully, most everyone agrees that LBGT folks should not be turned away from the lunch counter, as opponents of this new legislation say the law allows for. But, a Libertarian friend of mine posed this argument, which has me thinking about where all of this leads:

My (essentially libertarian) position is... when government limits freedom (the freedom of idiot, bigoted business owners to choose not to make money from someone because they are gay, for example) a valuable piece of information is removed from society: namely, "who are the idiot, bigoted business owners!" The law itself should be unnecessary. Let business owners who are racists, bigots, homophobes, etc., discriminate. Why would you want to do business with them anyway? If I was part of a discriminated class, I would be worried sick if government forced business owners to serve me. "Which ones are the bad ones? That guy glared at me weird. Is he going to pee in my wedding cake batter?" etc. Stangely, and counterintuitively, allowing people to act on their bigotry does a service for society. It shows who the idiots are and allows the good folks to fight them (peacefully) with boycotts and campaigns.

Both you and I don't have a right to force someone to sell us stuff. If you're a gay kinkos owner, do you have to print the Westboro Baptist Church's order for the God Hates #### protest signs?

As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I have thought long and hard about this. At least as of now, I would be 100% ok with a private business owner calling his/her own rules, including outright discrimination... with one key caveat. NO governmental / public sector assistance. No grants, no tax breaks, no city funding or assistance in any way.

If they can clear that hurdle, best to them. Otherwise, take some of the public dole and accept that your pathetic hatred can not be expressed by illegal discrimination.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Pandora's box is about to be opened, and I'm ok with that, but here goes...

Race is not a choice, so, no, I don't believe a business owner should be allowed to discriminate based on race.

Ready.....go!

lol.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Pandora's box is about to be opened, and I'm ok with that, but here goes...

Race is not a choice, so, no, I don't believe a business owner should be allowed to discriminate based on race.

Ready.....go!

oof.

 

[BigJohn]

Cliff disagrees. Shocker.

 

[pantagrapher]

Evidence has shown it takes courts and laws. The public shaming helps, for sure, but it's not everything.

What laws were enacted in the case of Chick-fil-a or any of the other situations like theirs? If public pressure can work on Chick-fil-a in this part of the country (Bible belt) it can work anywhere.

The Chick-Fil-A flap is a poor example. Chick-Fil-A never denied to serve gays. Also: the company's sales actually increased due to the incredible popularity in some circles of their CEO's viewpoint. So really, the free market told them they had a lot of public support.

For a day, because Mike Huckabee wanted to "support" them. That's what you're talking about isn't it? Sorry, I can't have a discussion this way. Cathy changed his POV because of this whole thing. He admitted that he finally got it. I can't give you more clear evidence of progress that was driven by the public

Uh, no. Not for a day:

Sales soared following the controversy. Sales increased "12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders." "These latest sales data are just further proof that all that negative coverage didn't hurt demand for chicken sandwiches among Chick-fil-A's core consumers."

Sorry you can't have the conversation this way.

 

[Koya]

Sorry, but if anyone thinks that CFA did not capitulate due to the outcry, they are either blind, ignorant or unwilling to see the reality of the situation.

Regardless of the Huckabee hate filet day or the subsequent couple of months, the clear change in tact by the company is a 100% admission that they were running against the market and the mores of the nation as a whole - and recognizing their growth into areas outside of the South and their more conservative strongholds, the company changed how they approached things.

If you think that was not a direct result of the public pressure then you are either a fool, or fooling yourself.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Sounds like most of us agree on the end game, just differ on the approach. We all want to "force" bigots to not discriminate against minorities. Some want to use legislation, while others prefer social pressure or the free market. But, in the end, we want the bigots "forced" out of business or "forced" to change their ways. Right?

What I'm still unsure about is when its not a clear cut case of bigotry, but rather just different beliefs.

 

[beavers]

Evidence has shown it takes courts and laws. The public shaming helps, for sure, but it's not everything.

What laws were enacted in the case of Chick-fil-a or any of the other situations like theirs? If public pressure can work on Chick-fil-a in this part of the country (Bible belt) it can work anywhere.

The Chick-Fil-A flap is a poor example. Chick-Fil-A never denied to serve gays. Also: the company's sales actually increased due to the incredible popularity in some circles of their CEO's viewpoint. So really, the free market told them they had a lot of public support.

For a day, because Mike Huckabee wanted to "support" them. That's what you're talking about isn't it? Sorry, I can't have a discussion this way. Cathy changed his POV because of this whole thing. He admitted that he finally got it. I can't give you more clear evidence of progress that was driven by the public

Uh, no. Not for a day:

Sales soared following the controversy. Sales increased "12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders." "These latest sales data are just further proof that all that negative coverage didn't hurt demand for chicken sandwiches among Chick-fil-A's core consumers."

Sorry you can't have the conversation this way.

Is it due to those in an anti-marriage equality stance or due to the fact that Chick-fil-A's profits have grown positively for 40 years? Cathy's POV changed toward inclusion and retreated from the negative publicity which most likely gained him a short term explosion of sales of those supporting his anti-equality beliefs. Cathy changed his position to inclusion and acceptance, which possibly bridged the franchise into a long-term growth model.

 

[pantagrapher]

Sorry, but if anyone thinks that CFA did not capitulate due to the outcry, they are either blind, ignorant or unwilling to see the reality of the situation.

Regardless of the Huckabee hate filet day or the subsequent couple of months, the clear change in tact by the company is a 100% admission that they were running against the market and the mores of the nation as a whole - and recognizing their growth into areas outside of the South and their more conservative strongholds, the company changed how they approached things.

If you think that was not a direct result of the public pressure then you are either a fool, or fooling yourself.

This is another pitfall of using CFA as an example. It's a national chain that people in many states had access to. Of course large chains are going to have a hard time maintaining a bad PR footing.

 

[pantagrapher]

Evidence has shown it takes courts and laws. The public shaming helps, for sure, but it's not everything.

What laws were enacted in the case of Chick-fil-a or any of the other situations like theirs? If public pressure can work on Chick-fil-a in this part of the country (Bible belt) it can work anywhere.

The Chick-Fil-A flap is a poor example. Chick-Fil-A never denied to serve gays. Also: the company's sales actually increased due to the incredible popularity in some circles of their CEO's viewpoint. So really, the free market told them they had a lot of public support.

For a day, because Mike Huckabee wanted to "support" them. That's what you're talking about isn't it? Sorry, I can't have a discussion this way. Cathy changed his POV because of this whole thing. He admitted that he finally got it. I can't give you more clear evidence of progress that was driven by the public

Uh, no. Not for a day:

Sales soared following the controversy. Sales increased "12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders." "These latest sales data are just further proof that all that negative coverage didn't hurt demand for chicken sandwiches among Chick-fil-A's core consumers."

Sorry you can't have the conversation this way.

Is it due to those in an anti-marriage equality stance or due to the fact that Chick-fil-A's profits have grown positively for 40 years? Cathy's POV changed toward inclusion and retreated from the negative publicity which most likely gained him a short term explosion of sales of those supporting his anti-equality beliefs. Cathy changed his position to inclusion and acceptance, which possibly bridged the franchise into a long-term growth model.

CFA is a poor example of "the free market will prevent bigotry." Let's leave it at that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's interesting to me that some of the very same people who constantly tell us that religion is important because it sets moral guidelines, and that without religious values there can be no morality, are now telling us that laws that enforce good behavior aren't necessary because people can either decide by themselves, or they will be pressured by "society" to behave in a moral fashion. Seems to be a contradiction here.

This is the old small government / big government problem. People who like small government feel government regulation is necessary to protect their'n; people who say that big government is necessary to protect civil rights come back and also say government should stay out of recreational weed use and marriage. Everybody's at cross purposes these days.

 

[BigJohn]

Sounds like most of us agree on the end game, just differ on the approach. We all want to "force" bigots to not discriminate against minorities. Some want to use legislation, while others prefer social pressure or the free market. But, in the end, we want the bigots "forced" out of business or "forced" to change their ways. Right?

What I'm still unsure about is when its not a clear cut case of bigotry, but rather just different beliefs.

Where is the line?

 

[njherdfan]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

Fair enough. I disagree, and I think that Heart of Atlanta was correctly decided, but I can at least understand consistent arguments to the contrary. I think that's the argument Rand Paul was essentially making last year or 2 years ago before the public backlash got too strong.

 

[timschochet]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

OK. But the next question is: if laws are already on the books which prohibit discrimination based on race, and if those laws aren't going anywhere, is it then fair to attempt to apply libertarian principles ONLY to homosexuality when they are not being applied elsewhere?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Without making any effort to boycott Indiana I have not been there in 37 years.

Really, someone needs to start with a good list of reasons to go to Indiana in the first place.

Add Arkansas to your list.

Not kidding, I try to stay out of Arkansas.

 

[timschochet]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

Fair enough. I disagree, and I think that Heart of Atlanta was correctly decided, but I can at least understand consistent arguments to the contrary. I think that's the argument Rand Paul was essentially making last year or 2 years ago before the public backlash got too strong.

It's only a consistent argument if one lives in an idealistic, completely libertarian society which we do not (and never have.)

 

[mr roboto]

Sounds like most of us agree on the end game, just differ on the approach. We all want to "force" bigots to not discriminate against minorities. Some want to use legislation, while others prefer social pressure or the free market. But, in the end, we want the bigots "forced" out of business or "forced" to change their ways. Right?

What I'm still unsure about is when its not a clear cut case of bigotry, but rather just different beliefs.

I personally don't believe that an individual who chooses not to support homosexual marriage is bigotry. It's an increasingly unpopular opinion and legislatively changing every year but I fail to see how a person unwilling to contribute their products or services to gay people rises to the level of bigotry. To me it's similiar to free speech - I hate that WBC pickets military and gay funerals. I vehemently disagree with both their message and their tactics. But unless their speech rises to the level of threatening others I simply must defend the right for them to speak freely. IMO the mode of opposition is critically important.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Cliff disagrees. Shocker.

Not my fault you're always wrong

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

I think everyone is stuck on this.

Race discrimination is a million times more painful and destructive, sorry, it is. That's not the determining factor of course, it just makes for a bad comparison to bring up 400+ years of slavery, 100 years of segregation, slavery itself, civil war, etc. x1000.

But that aside it really doesn't matter the degree of "pain" or "suffering."

I don't think society has decided (as a society) if sex and marriage and orientation are just "behavior" or something immutable and inherent in the human condition. If it's the former it's not protected, if it's the latter it is.

Arguably if a biracial or bireligious couple walks into a bakery and if the owner objects it's not over sex, it's over race (protected) or their religion (protected). That's the argument. Not my argument, that's just the issue.

 

[BigJohn]

Cliff disagrees. Shocker.

Not my fault you're always wrong

 

[The Commish]

Evidence has shown it takes courts and laws. The public shaming helps, for sure, but it's not everything.

What laws were enacted in the case of Chick-fil-a or any of the other situations like theirs? If public pressure can work on Chick-fil-a in this part of the country (Bible belt) it can work anywhere.

The Chick-Fil-A flap is a poor example. Chick-Fil-A never denied to serve gays. Also: the company's sales actually increased due to the incredible popularity in some circles of their CEO's viewpoint. So really, the free market told them they had a lot of public support.

For a day, because Mike Huckabee wanted to "support" them. That's what you're talking about isn't it? Sorry, I can't have a discussion this way. Cathy changed his POV because of this whole thing. He admitted that he finally got it. I can't give you more clear evidence of progress that was driven by the public

Uh, no. Not for a day:

Sales soared following the controversy. Sales increased "12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders." "These latest sales data are just further proof that all that negative coverage didn't hurt demand for chicken sandwiches among Chick-fil-A's core consumers."

Sorry you can't have the conversation this way.

Sorry....I thought the point we were discussing was the social impact on a corporation's policy? Is the only way to evaluate that by looking at the pocket book? It'd seems to me the change in behavior is what's most important. I guess not. We can move on. We have two different measures of success it appears.

 

[The Commish]

Sorry, but if anyone thinks that CFA did not capitulate due to the outcry, they are either blind, ignorant or unwilling to see the reality of the situation.

Regardless of the Huckabee hate filet day or the subsequent couple of months, the clear change in tact by the company is a 100% admission that they were running against the market and the mores of the nation as a whole - and recognizing their growth into areas outside of the South and their more conservative strongholds, the company changed how they approached things.

If you think that was not a direct result of the public pressure then you are either a fool, or fooling yourself.

Apparently not GB

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

OK. But the next question is: if laws are already on the books which prohibit discrimination based on race, and if those laws aren't going anywhere, is it then fair to attempt to apply libertarian principles ONLY to homosexuality when they are not being applied elsewhere?

I think so, yes.

If it were up to me, I would abolish all laws against discrimination and let people do what they want. Like you said, that obviously isn't going to happen. I agree that sometimes the second-best solution is to go to the other extreme and apply a "bad" law as broadly as possible, but I don't think this is one of those instances. I'd rather just refrain from creating any more protected classes.

 

[The Commish]

Sounds like most of us agree on the end game, just differ on the approach. We all want to "force" bigots to not discriminate against minorities. Some want to use legislation, while others prefer social pressure or the free market. But, in the end, we want the bigots "forced" out of business or "forced" to change their ways. Right?

What I'm still unsure about is when its not a clear cut case of bigotry, but rather just different beliefs.

Neither approach will change "the ways" of anyone. People have to decide for themselves to change their ways. Society in general is a better teacher than the gov't ever could be IMO. Gov't intervention in things like this simply puts a layer between the student and the teacher and that layer does nothing but muddy the message.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women." She then gets engaged to the guy from Vegas.

Lesbian goes back to the bakery in her neighborhood where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

 

[The Commish]

CFA is a poor example of "the free market will prevent bigotry." Let's leave it at that.

Of course it is. No one said it was an example of a way to prevent bigotry. However, it's a pretty good example of society's power can shape behaviors we find unacceptable, which was the initial point.

 

[The Commish]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women."

Lesbian goes back to the bakery where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

sure?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women."

Lesbian goes back to the bakery where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

sure?

Is this any different than what we're talking about in Indiana?

 

[The Commish]

It's interesting to me that some of the very same people who constantly tell us that religion is important because it sets moral guidelines, and that without religious values there can be no morality, are now telling us that laws that enforce good behavior aren't necessary because people can either decide by themselves, or they will be pressured by "society" to behave in a moral fashion. Seems to be a contradiction here.

Which people are you referring to?

 

[The Commish]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women."

Lesbian goes back to the bakery where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

sure?

Is this any different than what we're talking about in Indiana?

I haven't seen a link to the law, only opinion pieces (from both sides), so I don't know. My comments are around the philosophy of gov't shaping behavior or society shaping behavior. Philosophically, I don't see a difference.

 

[pantagrapher]

CFA is a poor example of "the free market will prevent bigotry." Let's leave it at that.

Of course it is. No one said it was an example of a way to prevent bigotry. However, it's a pretty good example of society's power can shape behaviors we find unacceptable, which was the initial point.

I obviously used bigotry in the context of the conversation. I actually almost went back and edited that in, but decided it was too obvious to be necessary.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women." She then gets engaged to the guy from Vegas.

Lesbian goes back to the bakery in her neighborhood where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

Only if the bride is demanding white icing.

 

[Scoresman]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women." She then gets engaged to the guy from Vegas.

Lesbian goes back to the bakery in her neighborhood where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

what if the new groom identifies as pre-op transsexual experimenting? also, are the lesbians hot?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women." She then gets engaged to the guy from Vegas.

Lesbian goes back to the bakery in her neighborhood where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

what if the new groom identifies as pre-op transsexual experimenting? also, are the lesbians hot?

On no. 1, assume 'no', it's just a regular guy straight from the guy store. - On no. 2, yes the marrying lesbian is very hot, a lipstick lesbian with a short skirt and garter belt.... [uh], NM.

 

[timschochet]

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Of course. It's literally the exact same principle.

OK. But the next question is: if laws are already on the books which prohibit discrimination based on race, and if those laws aren't going anywhere, is it then fair to attempt to apply libertarian principles ONLY to homosexuality when they are not being applied elsewhere?

I think so, yes.

If it were up to me, I would abolish all laws against discrimination and let people do what they want. Like you said, that obviously isn't going to happen. I agree that sometimes the second-best solution is to go to the other extreme and apply a "bad" law as broadly as possible, but I don't think this is one of those instances. I'd rather just refrain from creating any more protected classes.

It seems to me that by stating that "this isn't one of those instances" you're allowing for discrimination against homosexuals that you would not allow for other classes. That's the part I can't agree with.

 

[timschochet]

It's interesting to me that some of the very same people who constantly tell us that religion is important because it sets moral guidelines, and that without religious values there can be no morality, are now telling us that laws that enforce good behavior aren't necessary because people can either decide by themselves, or they will be pressured by "society" to behave in a moral fashion. Seems to be a contradiction here.

Which people are you referring to?

the religious Christian legislators who wrote this bill.

 

[The Commish]

It's interesting to me that some of the very same people who constantly tell us that religion is important because it sets moral guidelines, and that without religious values there can be no morality, are now telling us that laws that enforce good behavior aren't necessary because people can either decide by themselves, or they will be pressured by "society" to behave in a moral fashion. Seems to be a contradiction here.

Which people are you referring to?

the religious Christian legislators who wrote this bill.

The people who wrote this also said these things? I don't know a single one of them or their religious beliefs. Have a link? If true, it's simple hypocrisy in politics, but I think you already know that.

 

[njherdfan]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women." She then gets engaged to the guy from Vegas.

Lesbian goes back to the bakery in her neighborhood where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

This doesn't really make a lot of sense. Is this lesbian baker denying service to anyone who wants to participate in a heterosexual marriage? Is her decision predicated on some form of religion?

 

[timschochet]

It's interesting to me that some of the very same people who constantly tell us that religion is important because it sets moral guidelines, and that without religious values there can be no morality, are now telling us that laws that enforce good behavior aren't necessary because people can either decide by themselves, or they will be pressured by "society" to behave in a moral fashion. Seems to be a contradiction here.

Which people are you referring to?

the religious Christian legislators who wrote this bill.

The people who wrote this also said these things? I don't know a single one of them or their religious beliefs. Have a link? If true, it's simple hypocrisy in politics, but I think you already know that.

I have no idea. They seem like the same sort of people. I could be wrong about that. I wasn't arguing hypocrisy, only a logical inconsistency. It's not a dishonest inconsistency IMO.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Indiana is a terd

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

Yeah, I hate the "market will decide" argument. There's always a lag time in market responsiveness and that lag time =a lot of interim harm.

That "lag time" is getting shorter and shorter, but for sake of this argument, let's assume it's still like it was in the 1950s. How does one quantify "a lot" of interim harm? Is there a significant difference between a gay man knowing that X establishment doesn't like his kind because they say so by not serving him and a gay man being being by an establishment he knows doesn't like his kind but have to serve him because the government says so?

Yeah, I'd say there's a significant difference. In your first scenario the customer suffers the burden of being denied the service/transaction/product he desired. In your second scenario the customer is not denied the transaction and therefore suffers less of a burden.

Whether or not the customer is aware of the disapproval involved in denying or carrying out the transaction seems irrelevant to me. Maybe you were making some other point and I missed it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hypothetical Example:

- Lesbian woman gets divorced from her wife, whom she married a mere year before.

- Lesbian then meets a guy on the fly in Las Vegas. She declares to her friends and those who know here that she is "done with women." She then gets engaged to the guy from Vegas.

Lesbian goes back to the bakery in her neighborhood where she got her first wedding cake, but the bakery owner, who is herself a militant lesbian and LGBT advocate, is disgusted that she has gotten divorced and married so quickly and to a man on top of that.

May the lesbian bakery owner deny to make the wedding cake for the 2nd marriage?

This doesn't really make a lot of sense. Is this lesbian baker denying service to anyone who wants to participate in a heterosexual marriage? Is her decision predicated on some form of religion?

I assure you (some) lesbians/gays can be very much offended when someone in their group becomes hetero. - No she does not object to all hetero marriages, just to gays who "switch." - And, yes, assume the baker is religious and this falls within her view of "love" and moral integrity, but her reasoning is both moral and political.

 

[The Commish]

It's interesting to me that some of the very same people who constantly tell us that religion is important because it sets moral guidelines, and that without religious values there can be no morality, are now telling us that laws that enforce good behavior aren't necessary because people can either decide by themselves, or they will be pressured by "society" to behave in a moral fashion. Seems to be a contradiction here.

Which people are you referring to?

the religious Christian legislators who wrote this bill.

The people who wrote this also said these things? I don't know a single one of them or their religious beliefs. Have a link? If true, it's simple hypocrisy in politics, but I think you already know that.

I have no idea. They seem like the same sort of people. I could be wrong about that. I wasn't arguing hypocrisy, only a logical inconsistency. It's not a dishonest inconsistency IMO.

I'd probably go find something out about them before presenting your opinions as fact then. If they were that sort of people, then they have a hypocrisy issue at best. At worst, they are playing politics and using religion as a rock to hide behind in an attempt to mask their bigotry.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah, I hate the "market will decide" argument. There's always a lag time in market responsiveness and that lag time =a lot of interim harm.

That "lag time" is getting shorter and shorter, but for sake of this argument, let's assume it's still like it was in the 1950s. How does one quantify "a lot" of interim harm? Is there a significant difference between a gay man knowing that X establishment doesn't like his kind because they say so by not serving him and a gay man being being by an establishment he knows doesn't like his kind but have to serve him because the government says so?

Yeah, I'd say there's a significant difference. In your first scenario the customer suffers the burden of being denied the service/transaction/product he desired. In your second scenario the customer is not denied the transaction and therefore suffers less of a burden.

Whether or not the customer is aware of the disapproval involved in denying or carrying out the transaction seems irrelevant to me. Maybe you were making some other point and I missed it?

But then the other side has a burden they didn't have before. To me, there's very little difference from a social standpoint, but if one takes the "whatver, I got from him what I wanted even if he's a two bit fool" approach, I can see your point.

 

[mcintyre1]

I do think it's an interesting question on how to deal with these two scenarios:

1. Ultra-religious baker who is offended by a gay couple getting married. Does he/she have to bake the wedding cake for them?

2. Gay person working at Kinkos who is offended by an ultra-religious person who wants to print signs that say "God Hates ####". Does the gay Kinkos employee have to print the sign?

i.e. Should we have laws that force people to put aside their personal beliefs and provide goods and services to any and all that want them? Or, should we allow business owners to discriminate and only serve those that they don't personally find offensive?

Again, I think we've seen that the latter fails. Can you imagine planning a road trip across America and having to avoid certain states because they won't fill up your tank or sell you lunch because you're traveling with a gay companion, or a black companion, or a Muslim???

My problem with 1 (not my only problem...but one of them) is that the ultra religious baker likely does not turn down someone who has committed other sins and makes their cake but will typically turn down gays. I doubt the baker is doing background checks to make sure she is not making a cake for an adulterer. Does she make cakes for gluttons too? Well, probably...it is cake after all.

The gay kinkos employee could likely appeal to his/her boss and say he/she would rather not make such copies. How it works after that...I don't know.

Since the bakery is the popular example, I'll address it.

If a gay couple comes into a Christian bakery and order a birthday cake, in no way shape or form, should the baker be allowed to refuse service to them. But, if they order a cake with a pro-lgbt message, they should be able to refuse, based on the service, not the people he's serving.

The refusal should be based on the service requested, not the individual's beliefs.

This just happened in Bexley Ohio (about a 5 minute drive west of downtown Columbus).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998274/Videographer-refuses-film-sex-couple-s-wedding-spiritual-beliefs.html

And, while I don't agree with his choice, I support his right to decide on his own, what services he does or does not provide. Replace the cake in the bakery example with his pictures in this case and it's the same thing.

What if you replace the lesbian couple with an interracial heterosexual couple. Putting aside the fact that it's illegal to discriminate based on race, should a business owner be allowed to discriminate based on race?

Pandora's box is about to be opened, and I'm ok with that, but here goes...

Race is not a choice, so, no, I don't believe a business owner should be allowed to discriminate based on race.

Ready.....go!

Whenever someone brings up the "choice" argument I can't help but think of my own family. My grandmother is a lesbian, but made the "choice" to be straight and have a family. I could spend hours detailing how little "choice" there really was in that decision made in 1940's Nebraska, but no one wants to hear that. She married a Methodist pastor and had four kids. It wasn't a particularly loving home, as one might expect of such a situation. The kids grew up and moved out, and my grandma couldn't live the lie anymore. She separated from my grandfather and finally spoke the truth, if only to our family. My grandfather killed himself shortly thereafter. Our family was shattered so deeply that, 30 years on, they will likely never be fully repaired. My grandmother isn't open even to our family, anymore. I doubt that most of my cousins know that part of our history.

I've seen first hand the fallout of making the "choice" to be straight when everything in your being tells you otherwise. I wouldn't wish that upon my worst enemies. I'm just glad my grandmother lived long enough to see the tide turning.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Pandora's box is about to be opened, and I'm ok with that, but here goes...

Race is not a choice, so, no, I don't believe a business owner should be allowed to discriminate based on race.

Ready.....go!

oof.

The part I don't get is, even IF you think being gay is a choice, why do you care so much what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Sounds like most of us agree on the end game, just differ on the approach. We all want to "force" bigots to not discriminate against minorities. Some want to use legislation, while others prefer social pressure or the free market. But, in the end, we want the bigots "forced" out of business or "forced" to change their ways. Right?

What I'm still unsure about is when its not a clear cut case of bigotry, but rather just different beliefs.

I personally don't believe that an individual who chooses not to support homosexual marriage is bigotry. It's an increasingly unpopular opinion and legislatively changing every year but I fail to see how a person unwilling to contribute their products or services to gay people rises to the level of bigotry. To me it's similiar to free speech - I hate that WBC pickets military and gay funerals. I vehemently disagree with both their message and their tactics. But unless their speech rises to the level of threatening others I simply must defend the right for them to speak freely. IMO the mode of opposition is critically important.

If you can't see bigotry when a place of business refuses service to someone they just met based on a singular aspect of who they are as a person, then I'm not sure I can help you see it.