I get the sense that you are mocking or denigrating me. Thats why I havent responded


ok, thanks for acknowledging that. dont you find that interesting? Would you agree that we should have rational principles behind our beliefs, that are rationally and consistently applied?



To be clear, I never stated that principles should NEVER conflict ( although that would be the ideal), but that, in this specific case, my principle of free association removes all the conflicts to do with freedom of expression and artisanal goods.

heres what I said

perhaps I could have been more specific, but it was clear to me that I was referring to the conflicts of principle and grey areas that we had been referring to throughout the discussion

I love a good backtrack. You said these:
All of this makes it sound like you hold a ridiculously extreme interpretation of principles where they apply not in some, or in most, but in ALL cases, without grey areas or conflicts of principles. In particular, while every western democracy has explicit laws preventing discrimination based on religion, race, gender, etc, you instead think I CAN fire you, or block you from my golf course, or refuse to sell you oreos, because of your race or religion etc.

But then in this new post you say oh no, i'm not saying they never conflict, i'm only talking about "this specific case". You were talking before how as long as you could symbolically substitute things in, you had to do it otherwise it wasn't universal. There was just never a hint of specificity in anything you have previously typed about "universal principles".

Let's test this new found specificity in a specific case with more punch than wedding cakes. It's the 1940s. Racial discrimination and segregation that systematically bars blacks from civil society is rampant. I for one would like to try and reduce the harmful consequences of this racism. And so I support anti-discrimination laws that force you to open your hotel to blacks, or sell your product to blacks, or not fire an employee because he is black. That is a massive step forward!

However, these laws aren't "universal" in most senses. They aren't written to apply to every single imaginable category, they enumerate specific protected classes like religion, race, gender, etc. While I'm motivated to try and "reduce" discrimination, they don't come close to preventing all discrimination. But they make a meaningful step forward. And it is in this context where I can argue that the enumerated list should ALSO include LGBT people and I agree with the 21 states who have so added these kinds of anti-discrimination laws. If you want to actually make improvements, you aren't going to get anywhere with the kind of sweeping universal statement you imagine.

Nice try at making me look like the one who is inconsistent and illogical.

I don't really know that inconsistent or illogical is my main criticism. The main criticism is that you are upholding a standard of "principle" that is just not useful in the real world, and one that is too strict and rejected by the laws of all western democracies. While you have waffled a bit on that recently, you've actually been pretty consistent, even rejecting, it seems, anti-discrimination laws that prevent systemic racism blocking blacks from civil society. I think that is a really bad idea more than I think you inconsistently or illogically applying it.

I've tried a variety of approaches to get you to actually substantively respond to the criticisms raised, but it doesn't seem like you are willing to do so.

At least, you can't provide an objective standard to determine what is wrong.

It's hilarious you think so, given almost every commenter in the thread refusing to even consider the possibility that discrimination against gays and nazis could ever have anything in common.


Picture this. A homophobic Nazi groom wants to get married to his homophobic Nazi bride (they're straight), and wanders into a gay Jewish guys wedding store to get a Hitler cake made for their homophobic Nazi wedding taking place a few months down the road. Should the gay Jewish baker be forced to make a wedding cake for them, or can he deny them service?

Well, it wouldn't fly in my country. Here you are not permitted to discriminate based on religion, gender, sexuality or ethnicity in any kind of deal-making or business. You can't stray from that by contract either (iow. it isn't even allowed to negatively discriminate on these grounds versus someone even if they are willing to be discriminated against).

Of course, different strokes for different folks. In the US the right of the individual for self-determination and similarly property-rights are much broader in scope than in my country. It's an interesting debate in itself. Freedom is the result of two things after all... principle and consequence, how much should each weigh? Rights aren't worth much if in practice you don't experience their positives, and similarly to be currently free isn't necessarily worth much if it can be taken away by legislators' whims.

As for personal opinion, I think the US as a culture has an unhealthy relationship with religion. You are quick to defend its rights and slow to defend its victims.

See personally I think it's 'disgusting' to force the gay jewish baker to serve Nazis, and similarly I think it's 'disgusting' to force Christians to bake cakes for gays. It's not discrimination in the least, in either case. It's a conflict of belief that can easily be satisfied with everyones rights intact by simple avoidance.

Of course, that's easier said than done for a movement has to keep pushing boundaries to stay relevant.

Nazis are not a protected group in my country, you don't have to bake cakes with swastikas. So your example is irrelevant.

As for the cay-cake controversy. If people in my country value these principles or lack of principles more highly than their work, they are free to find other work or to purse another career to begin with. Nobody forces a person to be a baker. If your religion forbids you to touch blood, you shouldn't be a trauma nurse. If you can't follow the law on discrimination, you shouldn't run a business where such cases will come up.

And of course not making these cakes is discrimination. It is an exact textbook-case of negative discrimination.

Perfect, so you have your double standard and you're ok with it. At least you can admit your bias. No problem at all here, right?

That's a pretty passive and roundabout way to describe non-freedom lol. "You're free not to pay your taxes, you'll just go to jail."

And if you can't handle the fact you're living in a society with a wide diversity of beliefs and opinions that conflict with your own, you should move to another society.

There's no greater threat to this society today than people who think the very existence of conflicting opinions is discrimination.

Do you think the government granting certain groups protected class status inherently requires an unjustified and biased double standard? Isn't this grant of protected status to religious beliefs also what protects the baker from being forced to sell wedding cakes for same-sex weddings? The US Constitution grants special rights and protections to religious practice and beliefs that non-religious practices and beliefs don't have. Do you think that is a mistake?

It requires resolution of conflict between two classes of protected rights. Unless of course you believe that there is never any conflict between discordant beliefs?

Yes, so how to you resolve conflicts between the two? Which one is protected more than the other?

All I'm asking for is consistency, as well as a resolution when these protected values conflict. If the Christian baker has to bake cakes for gay weddings, then the gay jewish baker has to bake cakes for nazi homophobes (or muslim homophobes, or hindu bovinophobes, or whatever the hell example you want that conflicts two values). Either that, or there is a legal gray area that is best enforced by avoidance (my suggestion) and not the courts.

Of course, the real beliefs of progressives is that Christians shouldn't have rights, because they don't believe it's possible to oppress anything that isn't a small minority.

I look at this pragmatically. A customer request for a customized cake is a negotiation, in which the baker should be legally protected to refuse. However, there should be legal protections for all customers to be allowed to purchase an already completed cake.

Of course there is potential conflict. Resolving those cases is the job of the courts.

You accused tame_deuces of using a double standard because he distinguished between "protected groups" and groups that are not protected. I took you to be saying that singling out some groups as "protected" was itself a sign of a double standard and thus criticizing his statement on that ground. If that is incorrect, and you don't have a problem in principle with some group's characteristics having a protected status under the law, then what about tame_deuces' statement did you think demonstrated a double standard?

My view is that you should resolve conflicts between conflicting rights or interpretations of the law by hiring experts who have dedicated their lives to studying these kinds of conflicts and who have a demonstrated ability to find solutions that are broadly acceptable and consistent with prior law to resolve them.

It is a consistent principle to claim that bakers should not be able to legally discriminate against customers because they are members of a protected class, but should be able to legally discriminate against customers who are not a member of a protected class. This of course leaves open whether sexual orientation should be a protected class, if you want to argue against it. But that is a substantive argument your opponent is wrong, not an argument that your opponent is being inconsistent.

As for resolution, there's always some legal gray area (provably so) where a judge has to use their own judgement. I agree with you that a good legal system will try to minimize this aspect.

Lol. You should check out what progressives say about how large majorities of people, including Christians, are oppressed by the 1%. It'll blow your mind.

I've been a bit surprised that this is where quite a number of people have drawn the line. That is there is any form of customization, it drops from being a "public good or service". Like, if you have to chat with a gay person and maybe sign their names on the top, that is where public good or service stops? But then, I'd presume chatting with a hotel clerk who prints a custom invoice with their names on it or whatever, that is back to public good or service. Ya, it's a spectrum (I used the "sculpture" example earlier which is clearly in free expression category), I dunno just seems a bit weird so many people are picking that exact point on the spectrum.

Why? I don't know enough about the law to have a strong legal opinion, but my moral view is that business owners should typically be allowed to sell to, or not sell to, whoever they want. Consumers have this option, and use it frequently for their own political and moral ends (eg boycotts), so it seems to me that business owners should have the same right. That being said, I don't think of this as an inviolable right, and it seems plausible to me that in some societies some social groups are so unfairly ostracized that it is good for the government to outlaw discrimination against consumers of that social group.

Yes, and my prediction is that we will see more and more stepping back of religious freedom, in particular Christian religious freedom, as time goes on. Homosexual rights and certain Christian religious expression rights are in direct conflict with each other, and one has to give. Petitioning chicken restaurants and bakeshops is just the first step in the process to remove Christian expressive rights. The astounding fact is that most progressives agree with these things in principle yet preach out of the other side of their mouths tolerance for differing opinions. That tolerance only extends so far though. It often stops at male, it often stops at white, and it often stops at Christian. Progressivism is the most dangerous thing I've seen in my lifetime. It directly threatens freedom and individual liberty in every way imaginable, and does so in the guise of protecting it.

Political affiliation is protected. Regardless, it's irrelevant because one could easily come up with situations where religious expression is directly in conflict with other protections, which is the heart of the matter.

Not sure what this sentence means.

Because he's biased towards one protection over another and is inconsistent in the application of his supposed values.





Ya, and fairly soon Christians will be removed as a protected class altogether.

I've already brought up the difference between person discrimination and discrimination against certain held beliefs. He is being inconsistent, because he's making a category mistake between person discrimination and discrimination against opposing beliefs. In the homosexual vs. baker case, from a strictly philosophical point of view, it is opposition of belief over the morality of same-sex sexual behaviors (not attractions).

1)It is not discrimination to hold beliefs about what is moral.
2)It is not discrimination to oppose in expression that which you do not believe is moral.
3)Preventing someone from expressing, or forcing them to express in a particular way, that which they believe is immoral is itself discrimination.

Saying someone can quietly hold a view but cannot express it in word or deed (or must express the opposite) is a direct infringement upon free speech and freedom of expression. This right supersedes the right of consumers. Period.

Progressives disagree, which is why the words 'disgusting' and 'homophobic' get thrown around so lightly whenever someone brings up the point.

Of course aside from that fact, group identity politics is the most discriminatory, racist, and prejudiced thing there is by associating to entire groups of people based on skin color, religious label, sexual proclivity, etc, one set of beliefs and opinions in a universal way when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no 'gays' or 'blacks' or 'Christians.' At least, that is the goal of equal rights, to eliminate group legal distinctions!

Progressives think everyone belongs to a group, first and foremost, and that every group is oppressed, but only if that group is in a minority. In your example everyone is a monetary minority to the 'top 1%.' This of course is just another group conspiracy theory, as the top 1% have widely differing individual opinions of everything you can think of as well as widely diverse reasons for having as much individual wealth as they do.

I sort of presumed the civil rights act was common knowledge. Privately owned businesses can't discriminate in public accommodation on the basis of race, religion, nationality etc. That's federal, but most states have similar laws (and most other western democracies). And a large minority of states have added LGBT to the enumerated list of protected classes for public accommodation. These laws are instrumental in the civil rights era from moving away from discrimination against blacks that systematically barred them from civil society.

I think I agree with you. Like I said, I think it should be the most pragmatic solution. If there are no significant unintended consequences in allowing business owners to refuse service whenever they choose, then that seems best. If a group gets targeted with that freedom, and it becomes costly to the targeted group, then it seems wise to take that freedom away from those business owners in order to reduce the costs to the discriminated group.

Sure. And historically, this is exactly right. There was a massive "consequence" to the black community and so the civil rights act took away the freedom of business owners to discriminate against black people to reduce the costs. That was a moral leap forward in my mind. Today the question is whether LGBT should ALSO be in the enumerated list of protected classes, and I think more or less they should be.

Homophobia in america today still costs many lives. Teens are 5 times as likely to attempt suicide if they are LGB (and worse if transgender). But if you are from an unsupporting family, that level is 8 times worse than LGB kids from accepting families. There are many stats like this, but the point is we are not yet at a place in society where acceptance of LGBT is where it needs to be. We only recently got marriage equality. Given the current suffering, I think including LGBT people in enumerated list of protected categories just makes sense.

There are potential unintended consequences to govt intervention and there is the cost placed on business owners in not allowing them the freedom to discern which individuals of a protected group that they choose to do business with in the same way they can discern which members of an unprotected group to do business with. That needs to be weighed on the other side in my view.

I think it is likely that the US continues to become more secular going forward. I don't think this is in direct conflict with Christian religious freedom, although traditional Christians will have to become more used to not having so many of their religious beliefs as the background assumptions of American society. I think for many of them, this happening will seem like a loss of religious freedom, and in some cases it will be. What are the major losses of religious freedom for Christians you foresee coming?

I don't agree. Obviously some ways of cashing this out will lead to conflict, but I think there are possible legal systems that can give adequate protection to both homosexual rights and Christians rights of expression.

Okay.

No it isn't, at least not in federal law.

If it is irrelevant, then you should withdraw your accusation.

I originally took you to be criticizing the idea that some groups should have special legal protections that other groups don't have (i.e. whether we should have protected classes at all).

It is not inherently a bias to think that Nazis should not be a protected class and homosexuals should be.

You think the First Amendment will be overturned fairly soon?

Okay. So he wasn't being inconsistent, you just put in "double standard" when you meant "category mistake." Fair enough.

Lol. "Monetary minority." Your understanding of progressivism seems sound.

I'm familiar with the Civil Rights Act, I just don't have a strong opinion about how the court should rule in penumbra cases like this one.

Ok. I'm a bit confused....do you think the CRA is, in broad terms, wrong? You said: Perhaps the "typically" in there is doing a lot of work by implicitly referencing all the ways the government DOES force private businesses to sell to protected classes?

I agree the current case is an edge case, but mainly because "gay wedding cakes" are an edge case for whether they are public goods or not. But I'm not so concerned with this. When I would advocate that states join those that enumerated LGBT in anti-discrimination provisions along with gender, religion, etc the main protection is for things like firing on the basis of being LGBT, not allowing clear and obvious public goods like a room in your hotel, that kind of thing.

I think every individual has rights. I don't believe it's even possible for a 'group' to have rights. When those rights are infringed upon, then there is legal remedy. When two individuals rights conflict with each other as in this case, it's not up to a court to decide who is 'in the wrong' because neither one is in the wrong. If one baker won't bake your cake, you go to one who will. Simple. I can't get a lot of things I want at certain shops. Dairy Queen won't make me a penis ice cream cake but it's not ****ing discrimination against penises or me personally because I have a penis if they refuse.



Progressivism is a political belief as much as nazism.



It already is effectively destroyed in pretty much every sphere of life except court situations.






I wouldn't presume.

This is too strong. This is (I think) DoOrDoNot's point. We can either ban any discrimination, including of Nazis, or we have to have a substantive theory of why some groups deserve protection and other groups don't. I don't, however, think it is inconsistent, or sign of a double standard that you hold a moral/political theory that says that homosexuals and Christians deserve special group protection (qua Christian or homosexual), but Nazis don't.