Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute in Oregon

[BigBoxaJunk]

Who are we talking about?

Who is on first?

 

[TiMMaY]

Can the state deny gun owners access to state lands while allowing access to non gun owners?

I do not think "gun owner" is the right qualifier. Whether or not you own a gun would not prohibit you from access to State lands, but whether or not you attempted to access State land while possessing a gun is a different story. For the sake of discussion, I am going to assume your use of the words State land means land under the control of the Indiana DNR. In fact, you can carry on your person a loaded handgun as long as you hold a valid LTCH while on property under the control of the Indiana DNR.

 

[hornadylnl]

I do not think "gun owner" is the right qualifier. Whether or not you own a gun would not prohibit you from access to State lands, but whether or not you attempted to access State land while possessing a gun is a different story. For the sake of discussion, I am going to assume your use of the words State land means land under the control of the Indiana DNR. In fact, you can carry on your person a loaded handgun as long as you hold a valid LTCH while on property under the control of the Indiana DNR.

I'm not talking about the gun in your holster. I'm talking about owning a gun period. If the state can offer a good or service to one group while denying another, why can't they do the same to gun owners?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So you're convinced that the laws caused the change. I thought we agreed that at least we can't know that for sure.

Would you agree that "the change" coincided pretty well with "the laws" in some areas?

 

[jamil]

Would you agree that "the change" coincided pretty well with "the laws" in some areas?

Hard to say when or why attitudes change when it happens over time.

When I moved to Mississippi I thought I'd be moving to an area where the culture was like what I read in books and seen on TV. I was pleasantly surprised that for the most part, it really wasn't that bad. There are still pockets of old attitudes and prejudices on both sides, but I didn't encounter much of that. Mostly races were better integrated than many cities in the North. At least that was the case in the area where I lived.

I commented to some neighbors about it and they said that they just didn't want to be like the people those movies portrayed them to be. You can force people's outward behavior to change to a point, but that doesn't change inward attitudes as much as a focused mirror can.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hard to say when or why attitudes change when it happens over time.

That's a different question. When the law was passed, did it have an affect then? You're conflating two arguments, the affect of the law on the treatment of blacks then and now. I said we couldn't know if the attitudes would have been different toward blacks today or not and you couldn't say for sure the law was what affected the attitudes today. That's a separate question than did it affect living conditions for a segment of the citizenry when it went into affect. We can show that segregation was ended in some areas by the law, unless you believe those people suddenly had an ethical shift at the exact same time.

Most of society would be shocked if someone put up a "no blacks allowed" on the door of a restaurant today, just as we'd be shocked by a "no Irish need apply" in the want ads. Confusing the fact that those particular overt prejudices have fallen out of favor with the idea that no group is (or will be) subject to the same treatment. Look at the reaction to the "No Muslims allowed" firing range and tell me there aren't communities who wouldn't cheer if they could keep Muslims from shopping, working, or living in their neighborhood. You don't suppose there are some communities that are so tired of illegal immigration, they'd be just as happy to not allow any Hispanics at all?

How much power would you like to put in corporate hands? How many people would it take to say "Irish need not apply" with whatever group is currently not in favor to hamper their ability to work in any given area? This particular issue is about a cake, but the importance of everyone having equal access to a lot more, to be able to live and work where they choose to within their economic means to do so, is still something to be guarded and is IMO more congruent with the ideals of liberty.

 

[jamil]

That's a different question. When the law was passed, did it have an affect then? You're conflating two arguments, the affect of the law on the treatment of blacks then and now. I said we couldn't know if the attitudes would have been different toward blacks today or not and you couldn't say for sure the law was what affected the attitudes today. That's a separate question than did it affect living conditions for a segment of the citizenry when it went into affect. We can show that segregation was ended in some areas by the law, unless you believe those people suddenly had an ethical shift at the exact same time.

Most of society would be shocked if someone put up a "no blacks allowed" on the door of a restaurant today, just as we'd be shocked by a "no Irish need apply" in the want ads. Confusing the fact that those particular overt prejudices have fallen out of favor with the idea that no group is (or will be) subject to the same treatment. Look at the reaction to the "No Muslims allowed" firing range and tell me there aren't communities who wouldn't cheer if they could keep Muslims from shopping, working, or living in their neighborhood. You don't suppose there are some communities that are so tired of illegal immigration, they'd be just as happy to not allow any Hispanics at all?

I'm not confusing the two arguments. But I do see them distilling into similar enough concepts. Regardless of the new law, people found ways to get around it much like they find ways to subvert any law. Some behaviors changed outwardly, sure. People who were coerced into not serving blacks could then be protected from local groups that threatened them. There was then a federal system to prosecute local corrupt officials. But laws could have been enacted to fix the systematic abuses while still protecting individual property rights. But effectively, in some areas, things didn't change until the underlying attitudes changed.

People who hated other people still found ways to discriminate against them, and socially disenfranchise them. Mississippi even decades after the CRA is a good example of that. Even the North had examples of that. I grew up in the 60s and 70s in Michigan. I remember the attitudes and discriminative behavior of individuals in businesses and schools. I remember the race riots that were largely a result of that. I remember the attitudes of my parents, who were business owners themselves during that time. And I remember watching their attitudes change as events revealed to their consciences the wrongness of their prejudice.

I think rather than advocating for laws that strip away the rights of property owners, there are other ways to get at the root of the social behavior that deprives individuals of basic needs. And, the subject of this thread isn't race, but I get the feeling that you think anti-discrimination laws should apply just as much to the trivial nature of this thread. Wedding cakes are not basic needs.

We're talking about forcing bakers to serve something that offends their religious conscience. Is the couple seeking the wedding cake socially disenfranchised so much that it's better to deny the business owner's right to adhere to his belief, than for the gay couple to just find another baker?

The racial issues of the civil rights movement were systematic. Racial segregation was supported individually, but was largely enforced by coercion and local government corruption, as much or more than just by individual's beliefs. The CRA did help end the systematic nature of discriminatory behavior, which could have been ended by different legislation. But the individual acts still continued because people found ways around it.

But the CRA is the law of the land today. And today, no one that anyone takes seriously is talking about segregating gays. No one's talking about advocating signs for "gay" public facilities and and "straight" public facilities. How can anyone justify taking one individual's legitimate, constitutionally guaranteed negative right, in favor of another individual's contrived positive right. It's a lousy cake. An individual should not be compelled to serve another individual. If there are any laws we should adopt regarding that, it should be that no law should protect a business owner who has discriminatory practices from the social consequences of that.

How much power would you like to put in corporate hands? How many people would it take to say "Irish need not apply" with whatever group is currently not in favor to hamper their ability to work in any given area? This particular issue is about a cake, but the importance of everyone having equal access to a lot more, to be able to live and work where they choose to within their economic means to do so, is still something to be guarded and is IMO more congruent with the ideals of liberty.

A person does not have the right to protection, or subsistence, or shelter. A person does have the right to pursue those needs. A person doesn't have the right to oblige others. A person does have the right to seek out those who will oblige them. Systematic elimination of those who might oblige anyone is collusion.

Your examples are largely examples of collusion, which is different from individuals simply exercising their conscience. Equal access is irrelevant and is applied as a wedge issue. No one truly has equal access. Not everyone has something against Irish, or Hispanics, or blacks or whites. But if one or more social group has such power or influence that they can coerce business owners to refuse service, I see that as something that is in the Government's wheel house. That needs a legal remedy. That situation has actual victims. Actual rights are violated. In those situations individual business owners are deprived the right to serve anyone they please.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A person does not have the right to protection, or subsistence, or shelter.

Then does a person have a right to operate a business?

]A person does have the right to pursue those needs.

Exactly. And here's where we fundamentally differ. If you are effectively excluded from participating in the economy because people will not do business with you based on your (insert classification here), you cannot pursue those needs in any fair sense. Its a caste system at that point.

But if one or more social group has such power or influence that they can coerce business owners to refuse service, I see that as something that is in the Government's wheel house. That needs a legal remedy. That situation has actual victims. Actual rights are violated. In those situations individual business owners are deprived the right to serve anyone they please.

So let's say I'm Wal-mart. I tell my suppliers if they sell to a gay owned business, I won't buy from them any longer. I can effectively black ball people and coerce others into doing the same by simply doing what you said I have the right to do, refusing to do business with others. Would that require a legal remedy, and if so why?

 

[jamil]

Then does a person have a right to operate a business?

Yes and no. Owning a business is a right. Operating it depends on their own abilities. So I can't say a person has a right to an operating business. THEY have to make it work.

Exactly. And here's where we fundamentally differ. If you are effectively excluded from participating in the economy because people will not do business with you based on your (insert classification here), you cannot pursue those needs in any fair sense. Its a caste system at that point.

I think you favor at least some positive rights, rights that require someone else to act. I don't. That is the crux of the disagreement. I think people can work out "caste system" problems for themselves without having to infringe on people's rights.

So let's say I'm Wal-mart. I tell my suppliers if they sell to a gay owned business, I won't buy from them any longer. I can effectively black ball people and coerce others into doing the same by simply doing what you said I have the right to do, refusing to do business with others. Would that require a legal remedy, and if so why?

Not the same thing. Also, freedom to choose your business associations works both ways. If walmart does business in a way that you disagree with, you shouldn't shop at walmart. If you're a corporate customer of Walmart, you can do the same thing to them. If you're supplier of walmart who is being squeezed, document what they're doing and go public with walmart's tactics. You have the right to expose their practices and raise awareness. Picket them. Picket/boycot their suppliers that cave to their tactics. Make sure everyone knows what they're up to. You get the freedom to caveat the hell out of that emptor.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Owning a business is a right.

How so?

Not the same thing.

"But if one or more social group has such power or influence that they can coerce business owners to refuse service, I see that as something that is in the Government's wheel house."

How is it not the same thing? In both instances power and influence is being used to coerce business owners to refuse service. Why is one worthy of government intervention while the other should be handled via a PR campaign? Would it be fair to say that any minority that would be on the receiving end of such treatment wouldn't likely be rescued by a PR campaign? Again, I'd point out the range owner who has said she won't allow Muslims vs, say the diner owner who chucked out the veteran with a service animal. As long as a sufficient swathe of society shares your particular bigotry, its ok to exclude that group...but not one that enjoys more popular support?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Double tap.

 

[steveh_131]

How so?

Owning a business is covered under basic property rights.

This is not to be confused with having a right to the provision of that business by another person.

 

[rambone]

If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it.

If I have a litter of puppies for sale, may I discriminate to find them good homes?

 

[Rookie]

No, if Michael Vick wants them, you have to sell them to him.

 

[jamil]

How so?

We have the right to own property.

"But if one or more social group has such power or influence that they can coerce business owners to refuse service, I see that as something that is in the Government's wheel house."

How is it not the same thing? In both instances power and influence is being used to coerce business owners to refuse service. Why is one worthy of government intervention while the other should be handled via a PR campaign? Would it be fair to say that any minority that would be on the receiving end of such treatment wouldn't likely be rescued by a PR campaign? Again, I'd point out the range owner who has said she won't allow Muslims vs, say the diner owner who chucked out the veteran with a service animal. As long as a sufficient swathe of society shares your particular bigotry, its ok to exclude that group...but not one that enjoys more popular support?

I was referring to what happened in the South. Bigots banded together to use their collective influence, including local government officials, to use fear and intimidation to ensure that no one would break rank. That's a different situation than the one you're describing.

A business owner has no more right to someone's patronage, as a consumer has a right to be served. Business is a mutual agreement, circumstances notwithstanding.

In the case of one company using its buying power to leverage suppliers, that's crappy business. And they should not be shielded from the consequences of those kinds of business practices. In the case of social groups like, say, the klan, who used its member's positions of power in communities to keep white businesses from serving blacks, that's a different thing altogether. Those kinds of practices should have a legal remedy.

I submit that if the CRA had addressed that problem and had not introduced a system of positive rights, race relations would probably have progressed no worse than they did otherwise. If it weren't for the fear and intimidation against businesses, more businesses would have willingly served blacks.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We have the right to own property.

The right to own property and the right to own a business aren't the same, and the "right" to own a business isn't unfettered. Businesses are subjected to reasonable restrictions. If I want to manufacture missile guidance systems, I'm restricted in who I can sell them to. Limiting my customers is a huge intrusion into my right to run a business, but the consequences of allowing me to sell to North Korea (for example) are also huge, so its a reasonable restriction. I can buy land in a residential neighborhood. I probably can't turn it into a hog farm. Again, most would agree this is a reasonable restriction on my "right" to own a business.

Now, let's take a look at what I proposed. For brevity, I'll simply use "group" for race/sexual orientation/religion/handicap status/etc. I'll also requote the most basic form of my original post:

If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it....
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you....

The "restriction" that you cannot categorically refuse to do business with a group of people is so minor that I fail to see how it can be considered reasonable when weighed against allowing all citizens to full participate in the economy. There is no harm in requiring you to do the business you are in business to do. If you accept the idea that supply and demand run the economy, artificially limiting supply to one group while they have the same demand creates a 2nd class citizen with reduced buying power based solely on the group they belong to.

The idea of collusion strikes me as specious. "Your examples are largely examples of collusion, which is different from individuals simply exercising their conscience." So if the baker won't serve gays, that's ok...but if the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker all simply exercise their conscience...it becomes wrong? So my ability to exercise my conscience is dependent on others not sharing my viewpoint and similarly exercising there conscience? If we do collude, but have the right to not serve a group we don't like, then what's the remedy? Even you admit there is the potential for harm and at some point it comes into the "government's wheel house."

My proposal both allows everyone to participate in the economy on equal footing at least as concerns to "group status", while not requiring a business owner to do anything that shocks their conscience by modifying their product in a way they find offensive. If, as a business owner, your conscience is shocked by simply having to deal with the public regardless of their "group" on equal footing, then you are trying to open a hog farm in a residential and your "right" to own a business is not sufficient to overcome the harm done to the liberty of your fellow citizens.


Now, I'm sure this has convinced you to the rightness of my proposal and how superior it is to either existing law or other hypotheticals out there. Or we'll have to simply disagree. Either way (we both know its the first) I think I've stated my position as compellingly as I can and will not drop the mic and walk off stage on a high note.

 

[rambone]

If I want to sell political consulting services, may I discriminate in who I sell to?

 

[jamil]

The right to own property and the right to own a business aren't the same, and the "right" to own a business isn't unfettered. Businesses are subjected to reasonable restrictions. If I want to manufacture missile guidance systems, I'm restricted in who I can sell them to. Limiting my customers is a huge intrusion into my right to run a business, but the consequences of allowing me to sell to North Korea (for example) are also huge, so its a reasonable restriction. I can buy land in a residential neighborhood. I probably can't turn it into a hog farm. Again, most would agree this is a reasonable restriction on my "right" to own a business.

Now, let's take a look at what I proposed. For brevity, I'll simply use "group" for race/sexual orientation/religion/handicap status/etc. I'll also requote the most basic form of my original post:



The "restriction" that you cannot categorically refuse to do business with a group of people is so minor that I fail to see how it can be considered reasonable when weighed against allowing all citizens to full participate in the economy. There is no harm in requiring you to do the business you are in business to do. If you accept the idea that supply and demand run the economy, artificially limiting supply to one group while they have the same demand creates a 2nd class citizen with reduced buying power based solely on the group they belong to.

The idea of collusion strikes me as specious. "Your examples are largely examples of collusion, which is different from individuals simply exercising their conscience." So if the baker won't serve gays, that's ok...but if the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker all simply exercise their conscience...it becomes wrong? So my ability to exercise my conscience is dependent on others not sharing my viewpoint and similarly exercising there conscience? If we do collude, but have the right to not serve a group we don't like, then what's the remedy? Even you admit there is the potential for harm and at some point it comes into the "government's wheel house."

My proposal both allows everyone to participate in the economy on equal footing at least as concerns to "group status", while not requiring a business owner to do anything that shocks their conscience by modifying their product in a way they find offensive. If, as a business owner, your conscience is shocked by simply having to deal with the public regardless of their "group" on equal footing, then you are trying to open a hog farm in a residential and your "right" to own a business is not sufficient to overcome the harm done to the liberty of your fellow citizens.


Now, I'm sure this has convinced you to the rightness of my proposal and how superior it is to either existing law or other hypotheticals out there. Or we'll have to simply disagree. Either way (we both know its the first) I think I've stated my position as compellingly as I can and will not drop the mic and walk off stage on a high note.

I can't take the time to go point for point. It's not that arguing with you isn't fun. But Destiny is waiting, and it's slightly more fun than you. Xur is peddling slightly less worthless crap this week. I must buy the Aclophage Symbiote hunter mask upgrade. I must do the daily grind's worth of bounties. I must achieve at least a 4 Kill/Death ratio in crucible. I must do a Crota's End raid for each character today (I just realized what an unfortunate name for that raid). So it's a busy day and I'll just make a few points.

1) That a right comes with restrictions is irrelevant. There are restrictions for owning many kinds of property. Owning a business has restrictions. Owning a house has restrictions. Owning a deadly weapon has restrictions. Owning a car has restrictions. Owning a nuclear warhead has restrictions.

2) You know I wasn't talking about the butcher, baker and candlestick maker exercising their own consciences individually. But if they conspire with each other to prevent other butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers from exercising their own consciences, then there must be a legal remedy for that.

3) Your proposal is much more likely to be accepted in this society than mine. We can't just willy, nilly let people freely chose their associations. Someone might have to go two doors down to the progressive bakery to get the right cake.

 

[rambone]

If I'm a wedding planner, may I discriminate in how I choose my clients?

I don't want to spend dozens of hours with people I can't stand.

 

[Dead Duck]

I almost ate a gay cake once.....................I really don't want to talk about it.