anti-discrimination laws are the antithesis of freedom

[fncceo]

Bullshit. Your discrimination reduces the freedom of those you discriminate against.

Once upon a time that would have been true. Now, not so much. Practically speaking, there is no shortage of businesses that are happy to serve ALL segments of society.

That is equivalent to saying we should remove anti-slavery laws because there is no more slavery.

If, at some point in the future, society evolves to a point where anti-discrimination laws never need to be enforced again, they would still need to remain on the books to illustrate how far we've come.

 

[K9Buck]

That is equivalent to saying we should remove anti-slavery laws because there is no more slavery.

Not analogous.

Slavery obviously removes another's freedom. Refusing to make them a cake is an exercise in freedom. Your position actually "enslaves" a baker to do something that he doesn't want to do.

 

[K9Buck]

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you.

I agree with that statement. Obviously, others do not.

 

[fncceo]

That is equivalent to saying we should remove anti-slavery laws because there is no more slavery.

Not analogous.

Slavery obviously removes another's freedom. Refusing to make them a cake is an exercise in freedom. Your position actually "enslaves" a baker to do something that he doesn't want to do.

If he didn't want to do it ... he shouldn't claim to offer it.

There was a time when people thought it was their right to not serve blacks at their lunch counters, to not rent apartments to Jews, or not let Asians swim in public pools.

It took public accommodation laws to prevent all those discriminatory actions that businesses believed were their rights.

If you're going to offer a product, you have to be prepared to sell that product to whomever can pay for it. That's the American way.

 

[SweetSue92]

Bullshit. Your discrimination reduces the freedom of those you discriminate against.

Once upon a time that would have been true. Now, not so much. Practically speaking, there is no shortage of businesses that are happy to serve ALL segments of society.

That is equivalent to saying we should remove anti-slavery laws because there is no more slavery.

If, at some point in the future, society evolves to a point where anti-discrimination laws never need to be enforced again, they would still need to remain on the books to illustrate how far we've come.

The Supreme Court did not really settle the anti-discrimination vs. religious freedom debate. They punted on it. And I think it will come back, and I think religious freedom might very well win, especially if, as in the case of almost all Christian vendors, it can be proven that the vendors "discriminated" on the event, not the person.

 

[K9Buck]

This thread, thus far, is an example of a quality, message board discussion. I shared my perspective. fncceo disagreed and expressed his. Good talk. This place needs more of this and less of that.

 

[fncceo]

The Supreme Court did not really settle the anti-discrimination vs. religious freedom debate.

The Supreme Court actually said the case itself was discriminatory, it was clearly raised not just with an anti-religous bias, but with a specifically anti-xtian bias. The decision of the lower court was in violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[SweetSue92]

The Supreme Court did not really settle the anti-discrimination vs. religious freedom debate.

The Supreme Court actually said the case itself was discriminatory, it was clearly raised not just with an anti-religous bias, but with a specifically anti-xtian bias. The decision of the lower court was in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Right. The Supreme Court considered the religious angle. Do not for a moment think this is an open-and-shut case. Especially with the makeup of the Court now and with RBG in who knows what kind of shape.

 

[fncceo]

The Supreme Court did not really settle the anti-discrimination vs. religious freedom debate.

The Supreme Court actually said the case itself was discriminatory, it was clearly raised not just with an anti-religous bias, but with a specifically anti-xtian bias. The decision of the lower court was in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Right. The Supreme Court considered the religious angle. Do not for a moment think this is an open-and-shut case. Especially with the makeup of the Court now and with RBG in who knows what kind of shape.

I actually think this is a good example of the system working how it was intended to work. I maintain that accommodation laws are vital our our freedoms.

I also believe that the prosecutions raised by state anti-discriminatory agencies against the bakers were misguided, selectively punitive, and being used in a way they were never intended to be used. A higher court saw this and reversed the decision.

 

[K9Buck]

On another note, some might find it ironic that I advocate this position, especially if they've seen my numerous posts on here criticizing members for making racist and other bigoted remarks.

Just because I believe that people should be free to discriminate, I don't necessarily believe that they should.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Equal accommodation is the cornerstone of freedom.

I disagree. A baker can't decline to bake a cake because of the government. That's not "freedom", that's totalitarianism.

Besides, discrimination laws aren't needed. If a business engaged in blatant, ugly discrimination, word would spread quickly and that business would suffer and probably cease to exist.

How many employees does the fed, state and local governments employ to make sure that baker has to make that cake? As a society, is this really necessary? Worse case scenario is the gay guy goes somewhere else and gets his cake.

So, not only are such laws contrary to the principles of freedom, they're also costly and unnecessary.

It's always amazed me that for all the hoopla over the 'gay cake' issue, not one ever thought of the simple answer.

Simply don't offer custom cakes. Limit your customer choices to a list of set phrases, as long a list as you like, and don't offer alternative. No one can force a company offer a product it doesn't purport to provide. You can't sue Home Depot into selling ladies lingerie (although it would certainly make shopping there more interesting).

There is a reason why Carvel hasn't been forced to make a rainbow Cookiepuss ... it's just isn't on the menu.

However, if you're going to offer any variety of cake on demand, you must be prepared to serve anyone who asks for your wares, regardless of how you feel about them personally.

If I was allowed to only do business with people I liked, I would literally have no customers.

Indeed, and if you choose to make such a stupid business decision, then you choose the consequences as well. But it should be your choice, not the government's.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Supposedly free people should be able to discriminate against anyone they like for any reason or no reason. anti-discrimination laws allow the government to dictate to private people. Unfortunately, I doubt that the U.S. will ever eliminate such laws. Now, sing it with me..."And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free..."

Bullshit. Your discrimination reduces the freedom of those you discriminate against.

Forced association reduces the freedom of those whose beliefs are negated by such forced association.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There's a old legal saying that 'Your right to swing your fist ends at the nose of another man'.

What you believe in private, or espouse in public, is simply your business.

However, when your beliefs turn into actions that actively do harm to others, you've reached the other man's nose.

Equal accommodation is the cornerstone of freedom. In the land of the free, you're not free to do harm to others without consequences.

I have to side with K9 on this one. The very concept of “protected classes” violates the constitutional promise of equal protection. You cannot have the latter as long as the former exist.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[fncceo]

The very concept of “protected classes” violates the constitutional promise of equal protection.

Accommodation doesn't imply, or even support, protected classes. All public services must be available to all member of the public. That is the intent and working of accommodation laws.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The very concept of “protected classes” violates the constitutional promise of equal protection.

Accommodation doesn't imply, or even support, protected classes. All public services must be available to all member of the public. That is the intent and working of accommodation laws.

Yet even accommodation laws allow banning of certain groups (over 21 to go into a bar for example)


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[fncceo]

over 21 to go into a bar for example

Which bars prohibit over 21-year-olds from entering? That would seem counter-productive?

 

[TNHarley]

Segregated businesses is ugly, unjust, illegal, and worst of all un-American.

I think there was a time and a place for such laws. I also believe that we've "evolved" to the point that they are no longer needed.

For that matter, a black person will be given FAR more leeway when making a bigoted statement than would a white person.

And when was the last time the DOJ sued a Muslim bakery for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?

Have you tried to order a wedding cake at a Muslim owned and operated bakery? Let me know how that works out for you.

Nope. Did you ever see the video of Steven Crowder going into Muslim bakeries in Dearborn, pretending to be gay and trying to order a wedding cake for his gay marriage? It was pretty funny. Several bakeries declined to make such a cake. As far as I know, the DOJ never complained. You see, Islam trumps LGBT.

Michigan doesnt have gay public accommodation laws.

 

[K9Buck]

Businesses can discriminate against people wearing MAGA hats. So, yes, the government DOES condone discrimination, as long as it's not based on race, religion or sexual orientation. That seems contradictory and hypocritical.

 

[TNHarley]

I completely agree with the OP.
A govt telling a person what to do with their private property is totalitarianism.
Refusing service or jobs isnt impeding on the other persons rights. They have NO rights to said persons property. None.

 

[K9Buck]

Segregated businesses is ugly, unjust, illegal, and worst of all un-American.

I think there was a time and a place for such laws. I also believe that we've "evolved" to the point that they are no longer needed.

For that matter, a black person will be given FAR more leeway when making a bigoted statement than would a white person.

And when was the last time the DOJ sued a Muslim bakery for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?

Have you tried to order a wedding cake at a Muslim owned and operated bakery? Let me know how that works out for you.

Nope. Did you ever see the video of Steven Crowder going into Muslim bakeries in Dearborn, pretending to be gay and trying to order a wedding cake for his gay marriage? It was pretty funny. Several bakeries declined to make such a cake. As far as I know, the DOJ never complained. You see, Islam trumps LGBT.

Michigan doesnt have gay public accommodation laws.

Is it legal to discriminate against gays in Michigan?