A solution for the homosexual hating florists

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by slackercruster, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry if I wasn't clear.

    The problem with your approach, versus supporting anti-discrimination laws, is that it doesn't take a majority of the population to choose to discriminate for it to have a serious effect on economic access for the disfavored group.

    Even if only 25% discriminate, that is 25% of the economy the group is shut out of.

    Thus I find the prospect of voter-sanctioned discrimination to be less-problematic than that of widespread individual discrimination, because while it would be widespread, it is significantly harder to achieve in our republican system.

    The balance shifts even further when talking about small communities, where there are few enough providers that it doesn't take "widespread" discrimination to severely harm another person's economic access.

    The word "right" is used both to describe innate human rights and legal rights. For instance, in some countries, new mothers have a "right" to 12 months of paid parental leave. Is that an "innate" right? Of course not.

    Don't be argumentative about stuff we agree on.

    What are constitutions but a collection of laws, approved by majority vote? They are not some magical self-enforcing document.

    And constitutions can be changed by, yes, democratic means. That's what amendments are. We could pass an amendment repealing the First Amendment, as long as large enough majorities agree to do so.

    I'll deal with the business owner bit lower down. Just want to make clear the point here, which you have helped prove with your own examples: the idea of innate rights is a fine PHILOSOPHICAL principle, one with which I agree. But as a PRACTICAL matter, rights do not exist unless secured by law. If the majority is enlightened enough to make it very hard for certain legal rights to be taken away, great! That is awesome. But they can STILL be taken away. And even rights that still exist on paper can fail to exist in practice if a sufficiently large majority is willing to ignore the paper.

    For example, you should read the old Soviet constitution someday. It is an AWESOME document.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Soviet_Constitution

    Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, a right to privacy ... the works.

    Remember how free the Soviet Union was? Me neither. Because the Constitution was meaningless, because the people in power could and did ignore it.

    Yep. That's a great philosophical argument.

    Yes, you do. See above.

    Nonsense. If there were no laws, you're rights would be just as meaningless as if a law took them away. You would be living in the state of nature, where might makes right. You need laws to secure and enforce your rights. Unless you are willing to simply ignore human nature, and pretend that everyone would be nice and respectful of your rights absent legal protection.

    Wow, you are pulling out all the stale libertarian slogans. Tell me, if there were no laws, and you started mouthing off, and a guy who was bigger than you beat you to a pulp until you shut up, would you say your rights were violated by a LAW?

    I agree that is a general right. But I would make two arguments, which I will deal with separately.

    1. In a free-market economy, access to the economy is also a right, being a prerequisite for survival. When you have two rights in conflict, compromises have to be made.
    2. While there is an innate right to engage in business, there is no innate right to engage in business within a given society (i.e., a polity ruled by a particular government). If you wish to open a business within a particular society, you agree to abide by that society's rules. There is nothing "violent" about that; it is a voluntary arrangement. If that society decides (via law) that you cannot discriminate, then you have a choice: don't discriminate, or don't open a business within that society. Find another society that is more to your liking.

    What you have just done there, besides destroyed the very idea of society, is said that one person has the right to kill another by withholding commerce. I disagree; that is murder, however indirectly achieved.

    When rights conflict, there must necessarily be compromise. That may be distasteful, and we may wish it wasn't so, but it is simply the reality.

    I agree in principle. The issue here is not that what you describe is not a reasonable right. It is that it conflicts with another right. And that the storeowner voluntarily gave it up in exchange for the right to open a business in this society.

    And if the shopkeeper decided to kill you by withholding medical care, or food? Did you agree to that?

    From an individual perspective, perhaps. From a societal perspective, no. And if you wish to avail yourself of the benefits of society -- say, a set of laws and protections that allows you to open a shop and peaceably conduct commerce -- then it is reasonable for society to make sure you are serving society's interests to some extent.

    Before they even got to that point, they made the choice to open a business in the society they lived in, and take advantage of the protections and benefits that society provides, knowing that the society requires something in return in order to ensure that ALL members of society are served.

    Not at all. I want them to abide by the terms they VOLUNTARILY agreed to when they decided to open a business.

    See above. Society has the right to set some rules to ensure that ALL members of society have equal access to economic necessities. When opening a business, storeowners agree to those rules. This is a VOLUNTARY transaction: nobody is forcing the person to open a business.

    Now, if there were other ways to ensure access to economic necessities while still allowing shopkeepers to discriminate, that might remove the objection. So maybe a "discrimination tax", whereby if you wish to exclude people from your store, you pay a surcharge so that the government can either provide the economic access itself, or help fund competitors or alternatives that will.

    But I suspect you will consider such a tax to be "violence" as well.
     
  2. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,107
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any business which offers goods or services to the general public is subject to pubic accomidation laws in most states.
     
  3. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is absurd.
     
  4. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    13,212
    Likes Received:
    5,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's just as easy to create a for profit members only club than it is to open a business that serves the general public. Why is it "absurd" for people to abide by the laws of their jurisdiction?
     
  5. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say it was absurd to follow the law. I said the laws are absurd.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  6. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,475
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am advocating the repealing of certain parts of the civil rights act. Places of business should have the right to refuse anyone for service. Though, to harken back to the bakery, they didn't refused service to gay people. They refused service to cater a gay wedding. They were more than willing to (a) direct them to a bakery that will cater them and (b) serve them as a regular customer asking for a dozen donuts.
     
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,852
    Likes Received:
    6,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The person that makes the cake isn't the caterer.
    The couple should have just let it go and gone to another bakery.
     
  8. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,475
    Likes Received:
    749
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My bad. However they were asked to make the cake for the wedding and that was what I meant.

    I agree.
     
  9. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,852
    Likes Received:
    6,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From the transcripts I read one of the lesbians acted like a child. And then filed a complaint with the city.
     
  10. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,107
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have to agree that it's absurd to tell businesses that they can't refuse service to people.

    and the liberals who support it do a 180 when it is reversed. They will happily attack a Christian business owner who refuses service to someone a gay cutomer. But if a black business owner refused to sell to a klansman, they would happily support it. Their whole argument is that being made uncomfortable by a customer doesn't give abusiness owner the right to refuse service, but they don't want that enforced universally.

    I understand having laws against discrimination in utilities, housing, etc,,,,but the idea that a business owner should be barred from refusing service is idiotic. The whole idea behind it is the false premise that it somehow prevents the customers from every attaining those goods or services, but that is absurd. There are always far more businesses which do not refuse service than those who do. The purpose is liberals wanting business owners punished for not agreeing with them.
     
  11. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    13,212
    Likes Received:
    5,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that many public accomidation laws run afoul of the constitution however many of the people calling for the ability to be able to discriminate want to hold on to the religious protections they enjoy, which is hypocritical at best. If we are talking about the revocation of pa laws then those protections should be removed for all groups, not just against one particular minority. These business should also have to display publicly which groups they will deny service to as causing a patron to waste their time is a much injury as a business owner having to serve them.
     
  12. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    16,329
    Likes Received:
    6,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So people are against pulling advertising $$? If a florist has to sell to anyone then a business can't refuse to advertise on Rush's radio show!

    It's weird how certain people want it only their way.
     
  13. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    50,895
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not if its a public water fountain. The Constituion prohibits discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT, not private individuals
     
  14. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    28,852
    Likes Received:
    6,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certain forms of discrimination are prohibited to private individuals
     
  15. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    4,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Gay or straight, just go and spend your money with those that wish to take it or to whom you wish to give it too. If a florist or bakery doesn't wish to accept a sale from a homosexual, go to a shop that will. Also, if a homosexual couple only wants to stop at a B&B that are owned by homosexuals, then by all means, go and stop there and don't give your money to a heterosexual B&B owner.

    It's not rocket science.
     
  16. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,658
    Likes Received:
    3,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No its not rocket science. People liked to say that kind of thing in the rural south to blacks who wanted a chocolate malt on a hot day. They did not mention there were only three diners in town and none of them intended to serve blacks who were uppity enough to want to sit at the counter. They did not mention that blacks were in for the same kind of luck in the next town, and the next for a radius of 50 miles. They did not mention it might complicate business if Bills Diner was caught serving those blacks right along side whites. Bill might not get his next food delivery. He might not get a plumber when the toilet backed up. Bill might not find anyone who wanted to post his advertizements or coupons. Bill might not feel too welcome at the local church and if he wasn't careful about towing the local line, the health dept might visit a little more often than the other two diners.

    Hey if gays happen to live in New York or San Francisco or other big cities, this might be good advice.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  17. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,564
    Likes Received:
    4,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The topic is regarding homosexuals.
     
  18. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,658
    Likes Received:
    3,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know. This may stretch your imagination a bit ( its not rocket science!) but try to see how this same scenario plays out in rural towns across the red states when the local Fundamentalist Pastor pounds the podium every other week about' Christians' who enable Satan and sin. There are not a lot of options out there for gay couples who are refused a cake in the only bakery for 50 miles - and that one is sitting in a small rural town no different from the one they came from. We don't all live in San Fransisco, New York or LA.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  19. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,947
    Likes Received:
    7,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moving is always an option. Why would you stay somewhere you're 'not welcome'? Who does that?

    If you're born in a place which doesn't hold with the gay, and find yourself with a touch of the gay once puberty kicks in, then focus your efforts on your future and prepare for an early independence somewhere more favourable. Direct your energies to your own survival and peace of mind, instead of standing on ceremony for nothing (ie, it won't work) and remaining miserable. I once lived in a place where white folk weren't super welcome (at least, they saw me as white), so I focused on getting out of there. I didn't imagine myself some kind of saviour and authority, with the power to demolish centuries of antipathy. I left.
     
  20. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,947
    Likes Received:
    7,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Private enterprises are also subject to a law which allows them to refuse access or service to anyone, at any time, for any reason - and no reason need be provided for doing so.

    Where businesses get into trouble, is in actually telling the person why they're being refused service. That's a very very stupid thing to do, and is often a result of self-righteous vanity. All you have to do is politely decline to serve. Tell them you have an emergency and have to close up (after all, it's not a lie - you have a 'moral' emergency).
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  21. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,658
    Likes Received:
    3,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You go ahead and stay a gutless coward, willing to be driven away by bigots. That's evidently what you want to be when you grow up. Many people want and expect more. I think courageous people who refuse to run, are often much happier than those that run and hide. They do not get 'peace of mind' from running away from injustice. They perceive their future as connected to changing the status quo so that others won't need to run.

    See the idea is that people should be welcome wherever they choose to live, regardless of their race, their creed, their orientation or disability. Some people 'with the touch of a gay' will insist that they have a right to live in small rural towns and to the same nice floral arrangement at their legally recognize wedding that anyone else gets at theirs, if they go to a business that commits to sell to the general public regardless of their bigotry vis a vis their application for a bone fide business license.

    Win or lose, people like me will not be miserable. We could not stand to look ourselves in the mirror, if we behaved as you evidently would.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  22. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    32,947
    Likes Received:
    7,616
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Self preservation is always a win. I don't care if 'running' is involved, if it improves my life. ALL positive changes we make to our lives require effort and adjustment. And my courage was in understanding that my future would be adversely impacted if I stayed (for ANY reason), and then acting on that.

    2) Your idea (that everyone should be welcome wherever they choose to live) is benevolent at first glance, but do you really want Nazis and Paedophiles and Kitten Torturers to be made welcome in your neighbourhood? Unless you do, you can't claim any kind of moral high ground.
     
  23. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,107
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In states which have public accomodation laws, a business which markets to the general public can not discriminate against protected classes without legitimate cause.

    For example, a white supremacist who owns a grocery store, which falls under public accomodation, in such a state can't legally refuse service to a black person simply because they don't like black people. They can not refuse to serve anyone who belongs to a protected class under federal law, without just cause. The business has to register as a private club, sell memberships to shoppers (ie Costco and Sam's Club), in order to discriminate in these states

    However, technically homosexuals are not actually a protected class, so It's unclear whether or not refusing to serve gays would even be prohibited under these laws.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  24. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,658
    Likes Received:
    3,345
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That you can't figure out that there are moral plateaus between a pedophile and a Nazi a kitten torturer and a black person or a gay person, or a Jew and those plateaus are miles apart in altitude, means nobody in this forum wants you to talk about morality at all. We hired public officials who did a lot better than you. They are called legislators and they did not write laws banning discrimination against Nazis or pedophiles or kitten torturers. Of the three, only one is not criminalized in all fifty states based on defined behaviors. (The Nazi is a member of a political party and our constitution prohibits govt action against based on political affiliation) This isn't just an example of false equivalence. Its suggests a moral pathology in you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  25. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,107
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1; There are no laws against expressing beliefs, but there are damn sure laws against torturing kittens.
    2; When it comes to pedophiles and Nazis, you can't regulate what something thinks about, but the moment they do something that effects others, there are laws that regulate those actions, and criminalize them in some cases.
     

Share This Page