Gay wedding cakes
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.
We accept a much broader interference from the state into the personal sphere. Then again, trust towards the state and its institutions is also much, much higher in my country than in the US.
Does it work? Well, we score higher than the US on the human freedom freedom index and we score higher on happiness indexes.
Though I'm fairly sure privileged groups (socio-economically speaking) in the US would score higher than equivalent groups in my country. You accept greater disparity, for good and for worse. In my country, the acceptance of unfairness is extremely low.
But no, we do not put an equivalency between nazis and gays in terms of protection by law. Then again, unlike the nazis, a gay state has yet to invade my country. Nor have we had political traitors willing to cooperate with such invaders. We had nazis who did, we used the law and shot most of them afterwards.
I will get back to Doordonot if at some point a gay state with feverish dreams of genocide arises.
If there ever was a "pro-business" bias in a law it's one which prohibits turning away profit in the form of customers. 🤣
What social justice cause's lack of acceptance is causing straight teen suicide?
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.
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 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.
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.
Here's the second half of my first post on this:
I think America during the 60s is a likely situation where the social good that came from the Civil Rights Act was both justified and a positive good. The difference perhaps is that I view it more as a kind of remedial law
I think America during the 60s is a likely situation where the social good that came from the Civil Rights Act was both justified and a positive good. The difference perhaps is that I view it more as a kind of remedial law
Technically, but not historically, black American citizens had just as many rights as white Americans and the civil rights act set that straight in a remedial way. Is that necessary for every single 'group' of people in history who have ever been persecuted, as an homage to the victims of the wrongs of our ancestors? It seems only progressivism requires this.
I'm not sure how to take seriously the notion that I need to treat homosexuals and Nazis the same in specific regards. I mean, in a general sense, Nazis get all sorts of rights. But, in spite of the efforts to define the groups in the broadest possible sense to make them equal, homosexuals and Nazis are not the same thing. They are easily distinguishable in their traits. I am under no obligation to pretend that it's an all or nothing deal when it comes to protected groups.
I am also not buying into the notion that you can just shop elsewhere because, well, we actually know how the world looks for discriminated groups under that model. It isn't some abstract economic argument, there's actual real world data. Turns out it sucked for them separate but equal folk who could just walk on to the next business.
I am also not buying into the notion that you can just shop elsewhere because, well, we actually know how the world looks for discriminated groups under that model. It isn't some abstract economic argument, there's actual real world data. Turns out it sucked for them separate but equal folk who could just walk on to the next business.
I'm not sure how to take seriously the notion that I need to treat homosexuals and Nazis the same in specific regards. I mean, in a general sense, Nazis get all sorts of rights. But, in spite of the efforts to define the groups in the broadest possible sense to make them equal, homosexuals and Nazis are not the same thing. They are easily distinguishable in their traits.
I am under no obligation to pretend that it's an all or nothing deal when it comes to protected groups.
I am also not buying into the notion that you can just shop elsewhere because, well, we actually know how the world looks for discriminated groups under that model. It isn't some abstract economic argument, there's actual real world data. Turns out it sucked for them separate but equal folk who could just walk on to the next business.
1) recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another
2) the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people
Of course, every individual is unique and individuals have rights, not groups.
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.
Doordonot: If I understand you accurately, you think individuals should have the freedom to discriminate but you don’t want laws to discriminate or protect from discrimination any group. Is that right?
I think this is only the best solution if most citizens have reached an ethical standard that we have yet to reach. Tribalism is still far too rampant currently.
I think this is only the best solution if most citizens have reached an ethical standard that we have yet to reach. Tribalism is still far too rampant currently.
The solution not to take in this case is for the government to step in and require one person to do something he doesn't want to do. That is the definition of tyranny. The only solution is peaceful avoidance.
I think this is only the best solution if most citizens have reached an ethical standard that we have yet to reach. Tribalism is still far too rampant currently.
I don't think laws can even protect groups, because groups are made up of individuals and are defined only very loosely on one loosely defined characteristic. So saying 'christians are a protected class' is not only wrong, it's extremely dangerous to individual liberty, because the group 'christians' is simply a group of individuals with widely disparate beliefs some of which might even be illegal (such as stoning to death someone who commits adultery). Protecting groups cannot be the goal of someone who believes in freedom, it can only be the goal of someone who is discriminating against the groups he doesn't agree with. Similary, saying 'blacks are a protected class' is absurd. Each individual has rights that are not removed because of skin color, or religion, or sexual preference or whatever. Individuals cannot be discriminated against. Certain situations such as this cake baking thing, where one individual wants another to make a cake for their wedding, is a clash of individual rights. The christian baker should not be forced to exercise creativity towards a ceremony he doesn't believe in, and the gay person should not be discriminated against for being gay. If left up to the courts, they cannot make a ruling on this case without infringing upon someones rights. However, if 'gays are a protected class' then their rights supersede that of the christian individual even if they were an ******* to him, or were being deliberately provocative, which is quite clearly wrong.
No, why are you assuming that? Do you believe that politics is the path to getting rid of the tribalist mentality by only operating at the individual level? As a Christian, you’re putting the onus on politics to lead us on morality?
Saying someone refusing to act creatively for someone else is discrimination is ridiculous. Like I said, Dairy Queen won't make me a penis shaped ice cream cake. It's not discrimination against penises or people with penises if they refuse to do so.
No, why are you assuming that? Do you believe that politics is the path to getting rid of the tribalist mentality by only operating at the individual level?
What is "peaceful avoidance"? I don't understand how this answers the legal question here.
I think America during the 60s is a likely situation where the social good that came from the Civil Rights Act was both justified and a positive good. The difference perhaps is that I view it more as a kind of remedial law that responds to the particularly racist history and laws of the US. But I don't really regard non-discrimination laws of this sort as a sort of neutral positive that I would support absent such a history and situation.
Although, if it was possible, your view seems misplaced here. I'm fairly sympathetic of federalist views on quite a few issues, but protecting minorities is one of the best places for federal level laws. This is because the smaller localities with the most extreme racist/homophobic/etc views likely to do the most damage, are exactly the places least likely to pass meaningful protections. Regardless, I think you could say something like "it would be better if federal protections against firing black people were state level. But wherever they happen to be protected, we ought to enumerate sexual orientation as well. "
How can it be anything but that? This group identity politics trend is extremely dangerous to our society. On the left we have people who think it's ok to take campaign signs because they don't personally like the candidate who is democratically elected and require obedience to political doctrine or lose your livelihood and on the right we have people who actually believe jews should be eliminated from society. Neither side will listen to the other and calls each other names in place of arguments which causes more and more people to be drawn to the extremes. Take one guess what that will eventually result in.
You think I’m part of the problem because I think it’s necessary for a pragmatic political response that is realistic with where we currently in terms of our morality? Because I think the solution to tribalism is at the level of the conscience rather than the political level? I recommend you reevaluate the strength of your faith.
C’mon man, you’re no truth teller to me. You keep talking down to me when I’m trying to have a discussion with you, as if I need to be educated on the potential dangers of the current political climate and tribalism in general. Inflamed, emotional responses are part of the problem.
You think I’m part of the problem because I think it’s necessary for a pragmatic political response that is realistic with where we currently in terms of our morality? Because I think the solution to tribalism is at the level of the conscience rather than the political level? I recommend you reevaluate the strength of your faith.
Like I said earlier, the US is based on a much more stringent interpretation of private property and individual rights than my country. Principle before consequence.
We accept a much broader interference from the state into the personal sphere. Then again, trust towards the state and its institutions is also much, much higher in my country than in the US.
Does it work? Well, we score higher than the US on the human freedom freedom index and we score higher on happiness indexes.
Though I'm fairly sure privileged groups (socio-economically speaking) in the US would score higher than equivalent groups in my country. You accept greater disparity, for good and for worse. In my country, the acceptance of unfairness is extremely low.
We accept a much broader interference from the state into the personal sphere. Then again, trust towards the state and its institutions is also much, much higher in my country than in the US.
Does it work? Well, we score higher than the US on the human freedom freedom index and we score higher on happiness indexes.
Though I'm fairly sure privileged groups (socio-economically speaking) in the US would score higher than equivalent groups in my country. You accept greater disparity, for good and for worse. In my country, the acceptance of unfairness is extremely low.
In what way was I emotional or inflamed? I was merely making a point, not against you at all, in an attempt to suss out what you believe.
Nah I don't think you're part of any problem, nor did I say that. Tribalism is more at the level of basic biology. I don't think it's a matter of conscience or ethics, but is actually a fundamental part of human nature.
Nah I don't think you're part of any problem, nor did I say that. Tribalism is more at the level of basic biology. I don't think it's a matter of conscience or ethics, but is actually a fundamental part of human nature.
Tribalism IS a human nature issue and the best we can do at a political level is symptom management, but we need a sustainable solution, or a cure.
Please explain how it's even possible to protect one group over another without practicing some form of discrimination.
Are any two individuals exactly alike? What makes you think individuals within a group are any different from individuals outside that group? I thought you were anti-discrimination? Whether x is 'black skin color' or 'christian beliefs about homosexuality' or 'homosexual attraction' is irrelevant; separating people into groups because of x, y, or z is precisely the definition of discrimination.
1) recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another
2) the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people
Of course, every individual is unique and individuals have rights, not groups.
1) recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another
2) the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people
Of course, every individual is unique and individuals have rights, not groups.
The distinction between individual rights and group rights is a bit nonsensical. All rights apply to individuals but refer to groups. At the very least, "individuals" is a plural.
The distinction between individual rights and group rights is a bit nonsensical. All rights apply to individuals but refer to groups. At the very least, "individuals" is a plural.
Instead of doing that, you should look at each individual case independently without regard to race, sexuality, or religion. Only when you have exhausted all other possibilities or there is direct evidence of discrimination by one party can you even remotely bring it up. When you're always looking at individuals based on the group they're in, discrimination becomes the default position of every human interaction, which is absurd. The entire point of equal rights is to eliminate the relevance of group identity.
No rather individuals all share the same rights. If LGBT have rights for having an uncontrolled sexual desire, then every other uncontrolled sexual desire on earth needs the same rights,
btw here is a map showing the various states and their laws in terms of whether you can fire employees for being gay. One curious thing is whether we will see an uptick in the "block local government from passing LGBT anti-discrimination laws" at the state level strategy, still fairly minimal
https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937...g-gay-or-trans
https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937...g-gay-or-trans
Of course not, because bias is part of human nature that will arguably never be eliminated. So when one person says 'this group with this uncontrollable sexual preference is protected' and 'it's bigotry to compare that group with this other group, even though they also have an uncontrolled sexual preference,' he is being biased.
What is true is that individual rights exist for everyone according to the law and discrimination is remedied to a pretty reasonable extent by the courts when there is evidence of it happening.
The real problem is that by assuming there are groups that have special rights as opposed to individuals who have equal rights is that they propagate the very discrimination they intend to diminish.
What is true is that individual rights exist for everyone according to the law and discrimination is remedied to a pretty reasonable extent by the courts when there is evidence of it happening.
The real problem is that by assuming there are groups that have special rights as opposed to individuals who have equal rights is that they propagate the very discrimination they intend to diminish.
Ok. What, then, do you think of this: today I can't legally fire you for being black or muslim, but I CAN fire you for being gay (in a majority of states + federally). All forms of discrimination are massively down compared to civil rights era, but not nonexistent and indeed harm to the gay community (ex teen suicide rate) is nontrivial. So what do you think we should do? We could REMOVE the laws enumerating protections based on race and religion given there isn't this particularly racist period any more (and be an extreme outlier among western democracy that all, more or less, protect against this kind of stuff). Or we could - as I advocate - include sexual orientation among the enumerated classes, such as Canada did back in the 90s. Or, I suppose, just live with the inconsistency that some major groups with long history of oppression are protected while this other group is not.
Great. Since there is no chance of the enumeration of LGBT people in anti-discrimination statutes at the federal level, all recent movement has been at the state level.
Although, if it was possible, your view seems misplaced here. I'm fairly sympathetic of federalist views on quite a few issues, but protecting minorities is one of the best places for federal level laws. This is because the smaller localities with the most extreme racist/homophobic/etc views likely to do the most damage, are exactly the places least likely to pass meaningful protections. Regardless, I think you could say something like "it would be better if federal protections against firing black people were state level. But wherever they happen to be protected, we ought to enumerate sexual orientation as well. "
Although, if it was possible, your view seems misplaced here. I'm fairly sympathetic of federalist views on quite a few issues, but protecting minorities is one of the best places for federal level laws. This is because the smaller localities with the most extreme racist/homophobic/etc views likely to do the most damage, are exactly the places least likely to pass meaningful protections. Regardless, I think you could say something like "it would be better if federal protections against firing black people were state level. But wherever they happen to be protected, we ought to enumerate sexual orientation as well. "
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE