| Author |
|
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6103
|
| Posted: 17 June 2019 at 11:29pm | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Good advice.
Edited by Mark Haslett on 17 June 2019 at 11:45pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jani Evinen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 09 May 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1104
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 12:59am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
I always found this case to be a bit odd. If I understood correctly, the baker had no trouble baking that couple a cake, he just does not want to make a gay wedding cake because that goes against his beliefs. Its his business, and I am sure the couple had other options.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1648
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 1:28am | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
Neil Lindholm wrote:
| "In the interests of the community". Now that is a slippery slope. Which community? Who decides the interests? The majority? |
|
|
Who currently decides community interests, in terms of building schools and setting their curriculum, maintaining hospitals, catching criminals and generally keeping social cohesion? Which entity currently has the power to incarcerate, even execute, you if you breach an arbitrary set of rules?
Neil Lindholm wrote:
| Huge difference for providing an optional service and providing a life-saving service. Before you were hired, you would have needed to sign a contract stating that you were not allowed to refuse service to anyone for personal reasons. No such contract eists for baking a cake or being a wedding singer or any other optional service. |
|
|
Where do we draw the line between something that's directly life-saving, vs. indirectly - e.g., you enter a small town running on fumes, the sole gas station in that town refuses you service because you're black/gay/foreign/too short etc., as does the sole hotel/motel/campsite owner. You try to make it to the next town, break down, die overnight in the cold of the desert.
If we're talking contracts, by living together, we have all implicitly entered into a social contract - we reap the benefits of a closely-integrated society, such as specialization, in return for giving up some freedoms: in this case, the freedom to discriminate against others on an illogical basis, even for relatively minor services. Allowing personal superstition to supersede this contract is the thin end wedge.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Eric Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 October 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 2292
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 1:52am | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
I belong to a group of artists and writers who meet monthly. One of our members expresses her art through baking and has brought (or shown pictures of) some really magnificently decorated cakes that she poured her heart and time into.
There are a lot of atheists here. Picture yourselves as bakers. You have the store part of your bakery where you sell ready-made goods to everyone who walks in. You also offer your artistic specialty cake-decorating skills on a job-by-job basis. (Not all bakeries offer made-to-order items.) Someone comes in and orders you to make a cake and decorate the top with a picture of your own face and a word balloon saying "I love Jesus!" And if you don't want to expend your art skills in that particular commission, the government will come down on you hard and/or someone will sue you for an amount that will ruin your business. Or they demand something vilely racist or homophobic or something about your mother, etc. Still think the artist should have no say in turning down the commission?
And does that extend to painters, musicians, comic book artists, people who do stained glass windows or what have you? Why does the cake artist have less personal freedom than any of these others?
Edited by Eric Jansen on 18 June 2019 at 2:00am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132284
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 3:55am | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Where do we draw the line between something that's directly life-saving, vs. indirectly - e.g., you enter a small town running on fumes, the sole gas station in that town refuses you service because you're black/gay/foreign/too short etc., as does the sole hotel/motel/campsite owner. You try to make it to the next town, break down, die overnight in the cold of the desert.••• You imagine not being able to get this cake was life-threatening?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132284
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 4:23am | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Some Context
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 6:46am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
The surgical skill required for drawing this line seems beyond human capability. So I think broad strokes are required. I don't think government has any business telling people they must do something they disagree with doing or don't wish to do. Any caveats to that general rule should be weighed against harm caused, alternatives, etc. We should rule and make laws for people to be safe, responsible, just, etc. and hope they have the sense to be decent on their own.
If I was in a similar situation I would have sought out a different bakery and made sure everyone I knew or came into contact with understood the bakery in question was discriminatory. I don't think this case does much good being at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is being leveraged to determine what is good manners. I also think the bakery is wrong for turning away a customer and ignoring the opportunity to be a good human being in favor of being a bad christian. It seems to me they could have applied the golden rule from the very faith they claim to be upholding. I wish they were better people, but I see a problem forcing them to be decent and kind to others.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1648
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 7:31am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
| You imagine not being able to get this cake was life-threatening? |
|
|
If a person is diabetic, maybe :)
The cake dilemma is, unfortunately, being used as a proxy war for the real issue, precisely because it's so frivolous. The real issue (in my opinion) is as I said: do we give people the right to discriminate based on illogical beliefs, and if so, where will that lead.
I disagree with you Eric, this isn't a decency issue, it undermines social cohesion and the very concept of laws based on reason.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Eric Ladd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4506
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 8:03am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
I agree with you Koroush that this dispute undermines the social bond and/or contract that allows groups of people to form society. Laws are based on reason, but half of this equation is religion which directly opposes reason. I would say that decency toward others is required and part of the social cohesion you are describing. I'm on the same page you are on, but trying pull farther back in describing it.
Edited by Eric Ladd on 18 June 2019 at 8:03am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3008
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 9:28am | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
This issue risks turning me into a radical capitalist. Businesses don't just forgo income from specific customers by practicing discrimination -- a single entity with such practices acts to drive entire groups of customers away from the community, harming their neighbors and the market as a whole. Markets should be free, if not obligated, to prohibit discriminatory practices which depress their customer base and reduce income. If an entity wants access to a market that forbids discrimination, then tough shit;they can set up shop somewhere else. If that market encompasses the entirecountry, then tougher shit.
I'd be all for leaving this to local communities but if 75 years of constitutional jurisprudence forces a nationwide choice between outlawing anti-gay discrimination on Constitutional grounds, or outlawing anti-discrimination laws on religious grounds, I'd prefer the former. Personally, I think the issue could be better addressed by requiring businesses to prominently display any discriminatory policies in their signage, advertising, and possibly name, and let the invisible hand of the market do the rest.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132284
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 9:41am | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
Personally, I think the issue could be better addressed by requiring businesses to prominently display any discriminatory policies in their signage, advertising, and possibly name, and let the invisible hand of the market do the rest. •• Many businesses do display the old "We Reserve the Right" signs. Personally, I have never seen a problem with that. (All right, I did draw a Get Out of Jail Free card when it comes to racial/ethnic/economic conditions that might compel a store owner to refuse service to someone else. But I think I am aware enough to know what's going on with the rest of the world.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3008
|
| Posted: 18 June 2019 at 10:11am | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
I don't think anybody has a problem with general "We Reserve the Right" signs. Except Christians, who expect to be congratulated for telling their discriminatory targets exactly why they're being turned away.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the old "No Black No Jews No Dogs No Irish" signs, which would let customers of all color, creed and species know exactly the kind of shop they should avoid. "Masterpiece No Gay Wedding Cake Shop" for instance.
Edited by David Miller on 18 June 2019 at 10:14am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
