Interesting lesson in that first one...

The argument that someone acting in such a prejudice manner toward a protected class is "only hurting themselves" and "their business will fail". To that I reply: http://kdvr.com/...es-service-to-gay-couple/

In other words, such bias is so alive and well today that it can actually improve your business. Just as refusing to allow blacks to enter your premise in the south used to attract more business from like-minded whites.

Incidentally, both of those cases are still working their way through the legal process (appeals) and are not yet fully resolved.

It is great that we're sorting through this. It will take time. But anyone who chooses to ignore how an individual decision is related to a societal construct is being willfully ignorant. Racism in the South isn't about a single person's exercise of belief, it is about the resulting systematic inequality in society that results from the aggregate of those individual actions. You cannot agree with eliminating racism yet at the same time argue that every individual's racist actions must be protected. It doesn't work.

Freedom of association is not the same as the laws regulating public commerce.

Here is a hypothetical:



Now, let's say the owners of this road put up a sign that says "no blacks or gays allowed to use this road".

1. Should that be within their rights?
2. If so, should the enforcement of their policy be a public burden (i.e. police called to arrest trespassers)?
3. Does the fact that they operate a public commercial service change those rights vs. the property rights they enjoy on private non-commercial purposed land? (i.e. their home)

Now, depending on how you answer the above, if 90% of roads in this country were likewise privately owned and operated and they all chose to refuse to serve blacks and gays, how would your perception of the equality change?

An individual's rights ARE more protected when there is less (or no) public / societal impact. Protected classes (race, nationality, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation) exist because of the net effect possible via systematic actions of many individuals (people or businesses) which create societal inequalities.

Another example...

Wal-Mart could choose to no longer serve gays. Sure, you might say, that is protected and the gays can just go shop at Target.

But wait, Target could ALSO choose not to serve gays. And so on and so on.

Do you see how the individual actions in the public realm of commerce lead to a systematic societal inequality?

Because the guy named himself niggardly knowing how people would take it, and his intention was for them to take it that way and be offended. An eastern dude presumably doesn't have a swastika up on his wall because he's a Nazi, or because he wants people to think he's a Nazi so he can lol at them. He's probably using it as a symbol meaning wealth and prosperity. Just thought Supertodd might want to know that. There's a difference between an innocent usage's meaning being lost, and an intentionally malicious usage hiding behind a cloak of innocence.

"cloak of innocence" lol. i think my diablo character has a Cloak of Innocence +3

Nice post. I also wonder why a person's right to act with prejudice based on race/creed/origin is something supertodd thinks is a valuable right somehow in the first place. such a blindly dogmatic ideologue's position, protecting something of no redeeming value and with great potential for systemic harm based on stringent adherence to "principle." some people seriously need to re-approach their beliefs

Oh you gayzells want a cake,I'll Bake you a cake alright.Worst tasting cake in the history of mankind.Recommend me to your friends. Catskinning 101 i.e. multiple methods of skinning a cat.

my discussion then about the privately owned roads would center around the law agreed upon by the "colonies" at the start of statehood/america actually be a country, where they revised their state legislatures only ever to allow freedom of transport, goods or people, through state lines and never be inflicted there within any tax or toll or tarrif or the like.. ?

give me a second, i'll see if i can't rustle it up somewhere (lets hope wikipedia :P)
from what i can tell, above, i reference the privileges and immunities clause.. (please correct me where i may be wrong) which from what i read right now applies mostly to out of state residents, not so much intrastate transport.. but if a law says you can ride one road in the state to the same road out of state, it's maybe a little bit absurd ever to argue that they can't use the same road within the state.. not sure if the law talks about that, though..

a lawyer i will never be, so grain of salt, please :P but if i do indeed own a road, i'm the owner of BTR&W, (bradens transportation roads and ways, LLC), and i do not wish to pay for the fixing of the highway because of the damage from eighteen wheelers, i am also not allowed to, with my privately owned property, state that more than six wheels are not welcome?

If the road is fubar'd and somebody dies, i'm liable for not keeping it safe, yes? then am i allowed to limit tonnage on my road? again, a lawyer i will never be, i'm asking not fighting :P

Well, eighteen-wheelers are not a protected class, so its kinda off-topic.

In your first example, there are some pretty huge differences between that and what most people have been discussing in this thread so far.

Most obvious among these, is that the private highway makes up part of a publically owned state highway. And besides that, road building is one of the very few powers which the founders of this country specifically granted to the Federal Government in The Constitution. Freedom of movement is an absolutely essential human freedom which the Federal Government is right to protect. That's also why I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of our immigration system. Now I'm in danger of getting off track though, so back to the point..... freedom of cake-buying or photo-purchase is not essential.

Your second example does bring up some good points. I believe that in the old thread which blid keeps trying to use to defame me, I even mentioned that perhaps it was necessary, due to the abhorrent (government-created) system of segregation, to curtail the freedoms of some people in order to fix the problem. However, we do not today have a situation anywhere in this country where it is impossible for anyone of any race or creed to live equally with any other. As such, I cannot see that it is any longer necessary to continue to assault people's freedoms.

And another key distinction which just occurred to me a few minutes ago: In all of the examples of supposed anti-gay bigotry which have been making news lately, what the supposed bigots are objecting to is not a person, not even a sexual orientation. They are objecting to - and refusing to participate in - an act which they find morally repugnant. Gay marriage. Now, I don't agree with them.. I don't think gay marriage should be banned. I don't think that government agencies have any business recognizing or refusing to recognize anyone's chosen mate. If two men, two women, or two men AND a woman want to swear fidelity to each other, then that is their business and theirs alone. But no one who believes that the Bible (or Koran, or Torah) teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman should be forced to participate in a ceremony which violates that belief.

So, now I have a couple questions. Let's say that you own a photography business. Let's also say that you are of the belief that circumcision is a morally repugnant act of mutilation, especially when performed on children. A Jewish family asks you to take photographs at a bris. If you refuse to participate, does that make you anti-Semitic? And whether or not it makes you anti-Semitic, should the government have the power to force you to violate your own principles and participate in the ceremony?

And if your answer to those questions is "no", then how does that example differ from that of a Christian refusing to participate in a gay wedding ceremony?

yepp, i wasnt asking in relation to civil rights acts or laws, but as the owner am i allowed to restrict the use of the thoroughfare?

should have.prefaced my question with that to begin with, sorry ;p

Saying the market will will correct for discrimination seems a little obtuse. Did the market also correct for slavery? Is that what that little kerfuffle you guys had in the 1860's was, a market correction?

qz, in your example, was there an external force hindering the market?

hint: the answer is yes

hint #2: That force was government, proclaiming that one race was superior to another.

hint #3: Supertodd is always right :)

hint #4: Anyone who took hint #3 seriously needs to chill out.

First of all, the photographer is a FAR better example than the cake. I don't see how selling a cake is "participating" in the ceremony. Heck, the cake isn't usually even part of the "ceremony" itself. The photographer actually has to be present and, to a degree, involved.

I have a hard time seeing the moral burden here. I suppose all our war photographers are horrible immoral people because they choose to be present and photograph atrocities? Or reporters covering a public execution? A photographer is essentially a documentarian. They aren't the priest or the one giving the bride/groom away.

The service provider could turn down a job for a million reasons. Too busy. Don't drive to that part of town. Need to spend that day with the family. The question here is if there is a _law_ protecting a class of citizens from being the "reason" for the refusal. And in these cases, there is such a law (state law). As mentioned before, these are in appeal. The law itself would need to be challenged and the question would go on to SCOTUS.



I don't think anyone is forcing a wedding photographer to photograph funerals, book-burnings, high school proms, etc. Now, if you specialized in child photography and refused to photograph a child because the child was Jewish, that would be a problem under these existing state laws. Likewise, and more narrowly, if you regularly photographed surgery on babies but refused to photograph a bris _because of the religious context_, that might also cause problem under these state laws.

At some point, SCOTUS may have to try to draw a clearer line. I don't think they want to though. There is a good chance they'll keep kicking this back down to the states. Maybe that is best, I'm not sure.

An example of that "blurriness":

- A caterer refuses to serve at a gay wedding
- A restaurant refuses to host the reception after the gay wedding
- A pizza delivery service refuses to deliver to a known gay married couple's house (for that reason)
- A grocery store refuses to allow the gay couple to enter the premise
- A community food bank refuses to allow gay homeless into the line for food
- A government health inspector worker refuses to visit a restaurant that hosts gay wedding receptions

I could go on and on. Does it matter whether each of the above is a sole proprietorship or a large corporation? Whether the government worker's choice is individual or department policy?

Chic-Fil-A can choose to be closed on Sunday. Because they are closed for EVERYONE on Sunday. But they can't declare they'll only serve Christians on Sundays.

Hahahaha. Far-right free market ideologues are so delusional

We're just arguing in circles now. For some Christians, homosexuality is an afront to God. Can you really not see the moral burden in forcing such a person to facilitate or participate in a ceremony which he or she views as tantamount to spitting in God's face? To say that we can force someone to do such a thing means that freedom of religion only applies when we agree with it. Which means it doesn't exist at all.

The example of the war photographer is completely irrelevant. A war photographer voluntarily chooses to document war. Nobody is forcing him or her to do so. I'm glad you brought it up though, because it made me think of another example.

Why do we recognize conscientious objectors during times of war, and exempt them from military conscription? They believe that murder - even in the cotext of war - is wrong. We allow them to hold this belief, and do not force them to violate their conscience. We do not force them to participate in the state's game of mass murder.

You and I agree that murder is wrong, and we can therefore understand and accept the refusal of the conscientious objector to participate in war, even if we consider war-related killing to be justified.

You and I do not agree with those who believe that gay marriage is wrong, so we force them to violate their conscience.

You and I will decide what are valid moral objections and what objections are invalid. You and I will decide which religious views are reasonable, and which are not.

Doesn't matter what you see
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way
If its done just how I say

I wish the bill had been signed in order to protect people from what happened with the photographer in New Mexico. She opted not to serve as photographer at a gay wedding due to her religious beliefs and got sued and had to pay, as opposed to the gay couple simply choosing a different photographer. That is horrible, in my opinion. Perhaps this bill went too far in that it created the possibility of denying service at places of public accommodation, but I believe the intent was to prevent what happened to the New Mexico photographer.

Well, my argument is that it won't be you and I, it will be SCOTUS.

SCOTUS often has to weigh the best of two bad options. You cannot make everyone happy (or else we'd be arguing to protect satanists rights to sacrifice humans). In abortion cases we argue the rights/beliefs/choices of the mother vs. the religious belief of many in America that the fetus has rights and a soul as well.

You didn't really address the blurry line question. But that is what the SCOTUS decision would get to. At what point do you draw a bright line between "protecting the religious rights" of one party and the potential for societal /systematic discrimination of the other party.

I don't decide. You don't decide. We do get to elect leaders who appoint judges who decide. ;)

I FAIL TO SEE THE BLURRINESS IN THESE EXAMPLES. TO WIT THEY CAN ALL BE REPHRASED (WITH THE ADDED BONUS OF LETTERS OF POWER!!)

- A caterer refuses to serve at a gay wedding
A CATERER REFUSES TO TAKE PART IN A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY WHICH IS IN OPPOSITION TO HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. THE WEDDING CAKE (OR FOR AN EXAMPLE FROM MY HOMETOWN, THE FLORIST) EXAMPLE TENDS TO FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY. AT FIRST I KNEE-JERKED LIKE MANY AND THOUGHT "THEY CAN'T DO THAT!!!" HOWEVER UPON FURTHER REFLECTION I FOUND MYSELF REFINING MY VIEW. A WEDDING CAKE IS NOT TYPICALLY A "GO TO THE GROCERY STORE AND PICK OUT A CAKE" PURCHASE, NOR ARE THE FLORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR A WEDDING. THE BAKER/FLORIST IS *INVOLVED* AND AS SUCH BECOMES A *PARTICIPANT* IN THE CEREMONY.

- A restaurant refuses to host the reception after the gay wedding
HERE I WOULD CONCEDE A TINIEST BIT OF BLURRALITY -- AND YOUR POINT ABOUT SCOTUS OR OTHER COURT BEING THE BEST PLACE FOR DISAMBIGUATION OF THAT IS CORRECT IMHO. IS THE RECEPTION THAT IS AT A SEPARATE LOCATION AND TIME ACTUALLY "PART OF" THE "CEREMONY?" PROBABLY DEPENDS ON HOW IT IS PRESENTED. MY GUT FEELING IS NO, A RESTAURANTEUR REFUSING THIS (ASSUMING IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE OTHER THAN THE ORDINARY SERVICES THEY WOULD PROVIDE TO ANY OTHER GATHERING OF CUSTOMERS) IS NOT WITHIN HIS/HER RIGHTS TO DO SO AS HE/SHE IS AT THAT POINT USING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS A MEANS TO DISCRIMINATE AND REFUSE WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE A "PUBLIC" SERVICE.

- A pizza delivery service refuses to deliver to a known gay married couple's house (for that reason)
THIS PIZZA DELIVERY SERVICE, UNLESS IT IS A MEMBERS-ONLY CLUB SERVICE, IS A BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE BY REFUSING SERVICE BASED ON COLOR, RELIGION, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, OR THEY ARE VIOLATING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE CUSTOMER. CASE CLOSED.

- A grocery store refuses to allow the gay couple to enter the premise
SAME AS PIZZA DELIVERY SERVICE. CASE CLOSED.

- A community food bank refuses to allow gay homeless into the line for food
SAME AS PREVIOUS TWO. THIS FOOD BANK IS PROVIDING A PUBLIC SERVICE. TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS OPEN TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IT MAY NOT BE RESTRICTED BASED ON GENDER, RACE, CREED ETC, AS PEOPLE WITH THOSE TRAITS ARE PART OF THE PUBLIC, AND EXCLUDING THEM VIOLATES THEIR RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS EQUAL CITIZENS.

- A government health inspector worker refuses to visit a restaurant that hosts gay wedding receptions
CARRYING OUT HIS DUTIES DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY ENDORSEMENT OR PARTICIPATION IN GAY WEDDINGS LET ALONE THE RECEPTIONS (WHICH ARE MOST LIKELY FURTHER REMOVED FROM THE CEREMONIAL ASPECT -- SEE PREVIOUS ANSWER ABOUT RESTAURANT). HE HAS NO BASIS FOR HIS CLAIMS, AND IS JUST A LAZY DO-NOTHING WHO IS TRYING TO AVOID DOING HIS JOB. HE CAN AND SHOULD BE TERMINATED AND REPLACED WITH A PERSON WHO WANTS TO ACTUALLY PERFORM THE JOB AS ASSIGNED.

ALSO, BONUS.

fluff off bill

I STAND CORRECTED.

HA!

:)