Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Capitalism does not trump democracy. It exists within democracy. Democratic laws set the boundaries for capitalism. At least that's the way it's supposed to work but, particularly in the US, the democratic system has been co-opted by corporations. Corporations move globally, while governments can only act nationally--as the Panama Papers reveal.
Why anyone would want to hand over more power to corporations is beyond me.
What's funny to me is that this is one of those spots where democracy and capitalism are on the same side.
Democracy is supposed to protect the rights of all, including minorities. Capitalism functions most capably when there is a free market, which laws like this one restrict. Both systems are functionally damaged when laws like this are introduced into the system.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Keep on with the bullying and then don't be surprised when a majority of the people eventually get tired of the bullshit and they vote in laws and leaders to put a stop to this nonsense.
Entirely true. Which is why the USA now has laws protecting gay people, gay marriage was passed, and the Civil Rights Act was brought into existence. Victims of bullies got their protection each and every time. Who are the bullies, the one's following the same universal protections everyone gets, or the ones trying to worm their way past that so they can give one last hurrah to telling gay people that fags shouldn't get married before kicking them out of a store?
Eventually the people who went through the holocaust, were chemically castrated, beaten on the street, curb stomped, murdered (with a "gay panic" defense), ostracized, disowned from their families, attacked as mentally unstable deviants, used as an insult, marked as unclean, denied service because of orientation, kicked out of their homes, banned from military and public service, and limited from religious access are protected by the law.
I'm extremely glad the country I live in has moved past the mass majority of that, even if gay people continue to experience much of that in large swaths of the world. My fellow Canadians are amazingly awesome in every single way as a result. Those who disagree with the laws set forth in this country tend to be remarkably respectful in their dissent.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
xerxes xerxes:
I'd be more sympathetic to some businesses if they really followed their Christian beliefs. Are people refusing services to unmarried couples? People on their second marriage? Kids with single parents?
No it's just the gays. That's why these laws are BS and why they'll be struck down every time.
It doesn't matter.
The problem occurs when force is used to compel someone to do something they don't wish to do.
The libertarian in me has long advocated for the
Right Not To Act. Meaning that anything I don't want to do you can't make me do.
Fuck you, fuck society, fuck your court order:
If I don't want to do it I have the right not to.
I keep agitating for this to come up at the Convention of the States and I keep agitating the ACLU to support it, too. Even though it is not enumerated in the Constitution there's a good chance it can be argued to exist under the 10th Amendment.
This is important because the government that can force you at gunpoint to bake a cake for someone can then argue that they can force you do to anything else they want you to do.
Why not have compulsory work details in the city parks? We can make you bake a fucking cake so what's wrong with making you rake some leaves?
And, no, it's not the same thing as refusing to give gay people a service you give to everyone else. I'm sure the Christian bakers won't bake penis shaped cakes for women's parties. Do the women get to force the Christian baker to bake a penis shaped cake now?
I think they do. I think a court would agree.
Which is why it is important to me that we do not force people to do things they object to.
Even if that means letting some people be bigots. Let them be bigots. I won't buy anything from them if they're just ignorant 'tards and I imagine a lot of other people will speak with their wallet, as well.
Meaning that gay people are free to boycott Christian bakeries.
Not that the Christian bakery would care, but you're free to do so.
And if the Christian bakery is not afraid of losing gay business that they didn't have anyway then that begs the question of why gay people keep seeking out Christian businesses for this kind of thing?
If they were trying to provoke a reaction then they've succeeded.
They provoked a spate of states to pass laws to protect people from being predated upon by assholes who weren't actually customers.
It does matter, because the outcomes are what we judge here. If the only outcome of this situation is that gays get told they are not allowed access to some stores that all other Americans do, then it's a clear abrogation of the rights of a minority and have to be stopped. If enforcement mechanisms do not exist to provide protections, than any group, religious, racial or sexual, can find themselves facing the tyranny of the majority (or, given polls on the topic of gay marriage and protections, tyranny of the minority). If there was not a way to ensure that desegregation ended, then black people would still have found themselves unable to vote, find themselves in upper education, or unable to access myriad stores in the south. Their freedoms would have been significantly curtailed. Would you consider this acceptable?
Libertarians allow any man or woman to enter his shop because he believes in freedom and liberty for all and not for a chosen few to use against a minority. These situations are all the same; some gay people are told that their freedom, liberties, and right to pursue happiness are entirely dependent on the personal beliefs of others and are compelled to exist in a state of lower rights and freedoms. That kind of restriction of liberty is not acceptable in any society which holds value in freedom. The state in this case is not being onerous, but stepping in to ensure all Americans are able to engage with the market and protect freedoms of all by providing the same universal protections to all, and ensuring all Americans are able to find recourse in the judicial system. Christians have those same protections.
I find many things and people objectionable, but I am not allowed to restrict their engagement in society or the economy because of my personal beliefs. My objections based in my beliefs end in me, and I will not see my beliefs restrict freedoms others have. On the balance, I believe laws like this do the most to extend that freedom as a whole, by ensuring no one can infringe or take away those rights because they feel like it or believe it's necessary. To quote JJ, the fairest fix to questions of competing rights is as it’s always been — a broad constitutional guarantee of equality of all citizens, with alleged violations weighed on a case-by-case basis by a pragmatic and independent judiciary.
If you so choose to open a bakery and provide that service to society, it's to society, and not to "whom you decide to be worthy." If you are not in the service of raking leaves, society will not force you to rake leaves. However, if you are, you rake the leaves you are paid to rake, regardless of if your clients are black or white, or if there are Muslims wandering through the park.
As I said previously in another thread,
"If I say I specialize in traditional cakes, then sure, you can reject people who want modern cakes, because that's not a service you provide. That's your freedom. However, if a gay couple wants a traditional cake or wedding, they should be able to pay for those services like a straight couple. Because they have freedom too, and it's not onerous to expect services paid will mean services rendered." If you specifically do not provide the product of erotic cakes, then you can argue you don't produce that. If you specifically claim to produce wedding cakes, then you produce wedding cakes for all Americans and not just those you deem worthy of marriage. Last I checked cakes are not holy, nor do they convey the power of God's word to their creator.
On bigots, I agree. Let people be bigots. That is their first amendment right in the USA. Do not allow bigots to control access of others, do not empower them to have control over another's rights. That's a violation of the fourteenth amendment rights of all other Americans. Bigotry ends at the bigot. He doesn't get to use his bigotry against others. Bigotry tends to be shredded in the marketplace of ideas.
Boycotts are allowed regardless. Boycotts can and do exist without bigotry.
The response at the end of the day will be in line with the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage and gay rights; the law will be rejected by the courts, the majority of Americans will move on with their days, and the liberty of all Americans will be assured.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
This is a representative quote of the remainder of Bart's posts within this thread
Bart, why is it that whenever this is brought up, you use the same arguments, get the same responses, proceed not to respond, and then use the exact same arguments in another thread? I'm asking because I want to know why you view them as wrong, otherwise this debate get's very repetitive fast, and we aren't doing anything to foster understanding or discussion.
You've asked whether or not the Westboro Baptist Church could get a "God hates gays" cake baked at a bakery run by a gay person. The answer to you repeatedly has been yes. Why do you ask this time and again?
You've asked if the same thing would extend to Jews and Muslims, and the answer, once again, has been yes. There is no inconsistency here; the people fighting to allow access for gay people consistently believe access should be there for all. Again, why do you ask this when the answer has always been the same from every poster you've posed it to?
For the record, gay people do not get the "right" to deny service to anyone under this new law. It's a "religious belief" law, which means you are allowed to discriminate on the basis of your personally held religious beliefs. Basically, only gays and potentially those of minority denominations are being fucked over by this, and only the religious are empowered to restrict the rights of others on the basis of their personally held beliefs. Your comment that "the gay baker has the same protection as the Christian baker in refusing to make something they find personally offensive" is entirely wrong. This law shouldn't be in effect anyway and will no doubt be challenged and removed, as it's only purpose is to allow the bullying, segregation, and assault on the freedoms of gays to be sanctioned by the state.
You then often say that it's a good thing Muslims aren't being asked to do this, often implying violence. So far there's been no case of violence (and very few cases of rejection, such as the Dairy Queen example, which did result in the man losing his store for discriminating against Hindus); it may just be because there's fewer stores and services run by Muslims, but there are gay adherents to Islam, and they haven't been complaining about a lack of service. Nor do I believe that Muslims in the USA would be any more violent than other people in the USA.
The reality is that gays would get service from all places with a religious person running it. This includes Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and what have you. This does not specifically target Christians, and the gay community and our supporters (which now constitute the majority of Americans) are not backing off on the basis of who has what faith. Just as that guy with the Dairy Queen lost his job because he was Muslim and was using his faith as a cudgel to beat others down, so to do Christians face the same challenge. I'm not sure why you bring it up when the answer is always the same.
Your own Constitution and the Civil Rights Act clearly lay out that these challenges have all been legal. Laws such as those being drawn up by Mississippi (and veto'd in Georgia) will be challenged and summarily tossed out like their brethren have been in the past. There is no legal basis for this, and multiple courts, including a Supreme Court that was dominated by conservatives and many other courts with appointees who were Republican-picks, have upheld the free market and the civil rights of GLBT Americans.
Even in terms of access, we've discussed this. What happens if you live in a rural or small town area, where your access is dependant on the local owner not banning you from his shop? What if multiple places decide you are not allowed to use their premises. What if your family has a long history of using a place, or you want to get married in the same place your family has been getting married for generations? What if you want the wedding to occur where you grew up, rather than 100 or more miles away? "Just go to another shop" doesn't always work. These people have freedom and liberty too regardless, and it's an assault on their freedoms. Again, nary a response.
This is not the first time you've brought up any of this, Bart. Each time you get the same responses and move on to a different argument. Why are you still making them, if you never respond to the responses you get and the answers are the same? How are those answers wrong? If you aren't buying them, I'd like to know why for the next time we engage on this topic.
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
