martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 85,271
- 35,722
- 2,300
So even public accommodation laws represent 'big government'? Aside from assuring rights, defending the coasts, delivering the mail, what else should government be doing? And doesn't this fall squarely in the 'assuring rights' category?How does a customer, cash in hand, ruin a business? Seems that the business is shooting itself in the foot and claiming victimization at the hands of others.As long as you walk around with a sign saying "I support ruining people because I disagree with them (but only when government does the dirty work for me).
Then let the market handle it, and keep government out of it. Its not the customer, its the $150k fine the government imposes that ruins it.
When PA laws are applied to something as trivial as a baker for a wedding cake, yes, it is Big Government. The question is what is the more hurtful impact, A gay couple having to find another baker, or a baker being forced out of business because of their beliefs.
The whole concept of PA laws was for gross economic impact, whole portions of the population (blacks) being denied equal access to whole sectors of an economy, i.e not "a" cake, but all cakes of a given quality. To apply them to every transaction without determining the actual economic impact (not just hurt feeewwings, as in the Oregon case) is bringing a neutron bomb to a knife fight.
It isn't about the baker...
reframing an argument does not mean the reframing is exact.
People have mentioned beliefs. If the baker sells cakes to gays and then doesn't want to sell only wedding cakes, it is about the idea of the wedding. It is none of their business what the couple will be doing with the cake. The baker is NOT being asked to be part of the wedding or support same sex weddings. The baker is being asked to sell a cake -- a wedding cake. What business is it of the baker's how a customer uses his cake -- her cake that THEY paid for?
Its not re framing the argument, its going back to the intent of PA laws, and what they were intended to fight.
But going to your argument, the cake is part of a ceremony, and is being used as part of the expression of commitment between two people, a type of commitment some people disapprove of. This is usually a customized product, and the expression of the bakers skill and own person. Saying that isn't the case is mind games at best.
A counter question, should a religious store be forced to sell a statue they know will be defaced by the buyer?