Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[ALMF]

Of course it can.

You've refused to give a reason why it can't.

Because the victim was able to find another person who was willing to offer the service, then the government's interest was accomplished without needing to force the other person to offer the service instead. This is clearly a less restrictive means of accomplishing the state's interest.

Having just one shop that refuses to sell to a gay man or a black man.

[ALMF]

Uh... what? The government's interest is to end discrimination, which causes unnecessary burden on those discriminated against.

How does allowing them to be discriminated, the exact opposite of the government's interest, accomplish the state's interest?

The government's interest is not ending discrimination as an end in and of itself. If that were the case, than the law would contain no exceptions whatsoever. Rather, the government's interest in ending public accommodations discriminationis ensuring that minorities have access to public accommodations.as an end in itself

[The Emerald Dawn]

Just the chicken will be fried instead of broiled, and there will be watermelon instead of apples.

Don't forget the purple drink!

Damn it, show some respect.

It's "drank". God, learn some cultural peculiarities.

[ALMF]

And in their own words:

What is the rational basis for eliminating discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation, though? To ensure that everyone has equal access to those amenities. If that goal was accomplished, then the state's interest was accomplished, too.

The 14th provides the principle that discrimination is WRONG IN IT'S SELF, so " eliminating discrimination in employment, housing and places of public accommodation" is an ligate purpose IN AND OF ITS-SELF.

[ALMF]

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

But it does in creating a private sector hostel to discrimination.

[ALMF]

Everybody doesn't have equal access to services if you outlaw discrimination?

Yes, but what is the rational basis for eradicating all discrimination when everyone already has equal access to services with limited private sector discrimination?

Like rape and murder, discrimination is mala en se; wrong in and of itself.

[Caninope]

Yes, but what is the rational basis for eradicating all discrimination when everyone already has equal access to services with limited private sector discrimination?

Like rape and murder, discrimination is mala en se; wrong in and of itself.

No.

Bigoted discrimination is wrong in and of itself. Some discrimination is necessary.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Like rape and murder, discrimination is mala en se; wrong in and of itself.

No.

Bigoted discrimination is wrong in and of itself. Some discrimination is necessary.

Nobody wants me on the front lines.

[Caninope]

No.

Bigoted discrimination is wrong in and of itself. Some discrimination is necessary.

Nobody wants me on the front lines.

Nobody wants dumb people at Yale.

Nobody wants hostile customers in their store.

Nobody wants 12 year olds unsupervised in bars.

Discrimination is perfectly acceptable in some instances.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nobody wants me on the front lines.

Nobody wants dumb people at Yale.

Nobody wants hostile customers in their store.

Nobody wants 12 year olds unsupervised in bars.

Discrimination is perfectly acceptable in some instances.

Blind bus drivers.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Nobody wants dumb people at Yale.

Nobody wants hostile customers in their store.

Nobody wants 12 year olds unsupervised in bars.

Discrimination is perfectly acceptable in some instances.

Blind bus drivers.

Blind 12 year old paraplegic bus drivers attending Yale.

[Maqo]

Blind bus drivers.

Blind 12 year old paraplegic bus drivers attending Yale.

So we have:
1) A club membership where the applicant does not meet the requirements. Not discrimination.
2) A person who is actively making your job more difficult, possibly causing you to lose business, through their own actions. Not discrimination.
3) Age-based discrimination against minors is somewhat arbitrary on where the dividing line should be (that's another thread), but is legally required in bars.
4) Blind bus drivers would presumably be unable to perform their required duties. Not discrimination.

I seriously can't believe the rhetoric I'm hearing here. How can you be so convinced of the 'rights' of a business yet be blind to the horrors such practices have caused in the very recent past?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Blind 12 year old paraplegic bus drivers attending Yale.

So we have:
1) A club membership where the applicant does not meet the requirements. Not discrimination.
2) A person who is actively making your job more difficult, possibly causing you to lose business, through their own actions. Not discrimination.
3) Age-based discrimination against minors is somewhat arbitrary on where the dividing line should be (that's another thread), but is legally required in bars.
4) Blind bus drivers would presumably be unable to perform their required duties. Not discrimination.

I seriously can't believe the rhetoric I'm hearing here. How can you be so convinced of the 'rights' of a business yet be blind to the horrors such practices have caused in the very recent past?

The flaming balls are you on about?

[The Liberated Territories]

The Baker is bigoted, yes, but it's perfectly in his right to discriminate where he believes his assets to go to. Civil rights my foot - what about business rights? Is the contract not sacred?

I keep seeing people come in saying he was within his rights to do this, and yet, clearly by law he was not.

You might as well be arguing Jeffery Dahmer was within his right to kill guys and stick their body parts in his freezer... it's has the same validity.

The law can be changed.

Natural rights were originally property rights.

[Liriena]

Natural rights were originally property rights.

Source?

[Dyakovo]

I keep seeing people come in saying he was within his rights to do this, and yet, clearly by law he was not.

You might as well be arguing Jeffery Dahmer was within his right to kill guys and stick their body parts in his freezer... it's has the same validity.

The law can be changed.

True. There's no good reason to change it though.

[The Liberated Territories]

Natural rights were originally property rights.

Source?

Locke. Can't remember exactly where...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Source?

Locke. Can't remember exactly where...

Natural Law is so flawed, but it does represent a good framework for certain things.

Discrimination is not one of them.

[Ifreann]

Tough shit. He doesn't get exempted from the law because of his religious beliefs.

But, but he's being oppressed! Because he can't do whatever he wants whenever he wants!

The suffering will bring him closer to Jesus.

---

Tough shit. He doesn't get exempted from the law because of his religious beliefs.

Well that explains your concern over the bakers freedom. Tough shit, he can do something against his faith when the couple has numerous alternatives.

Yes. If his personal beliefs conflict with the laws he is required to abide by as a business operator, then he must either act contrary to his beliefs or stop operating a business. It's a simple as that. Religion is not a free pass to break the law.

---

No.

Bigoted discrimination is wrong in and of itself. Some discrimination is necessary.

Nobody wants me on the front lines.

I'm afraid you don't have the bulk we're looking for from participants in Operation: Human Shield.

[Dyakovo]

Nobody wants me on the front lines.

I'm afraid you don't have the bulk we're looking for from participants in Operation: Human Shield.

He is well suited for Operation Human Cannonball though...

[Tel]

I keep seeing people come in saying he was within his rights to do this, and yet, clearly by law he was not.

You might as well be arguing Jeffery Dahmer was within his right to kill guys and stick their body parts in his freezer... it's has the same validity.

The law can be changed.

Natural rights were originally property rights.

The law, in this case, should not be changed.

[Ifreann]

I'm afraid you don't have the bulk we're looking for from participants in Operation: Human Shield.

He is well suited for Operation Human Cannonball though...

Ah, Operation: Human Cannonball. Moving people from REMF to combat in one graceful ballistic arc.

[Yaltabaoth]

As I write this, the thread poll is showing 51% supporting the couple, 40% supporting the baker, 8% supporting neither (and 1% lost, through rounding I assume).

For the purpose of this post I am going to add the 51%, 8% and 1%, for a simpler 60% support the ruling, 40% oppose it. I'm being generous to those I disagree with by doing so, as I'll demonstrate.

Now apply those numbers to the businesses in a theoretical town, if the law didn't exist.

2 out of 5 bakers refuse to make cakes for [insert protected group here].
2 out of 5 real estate agencies refuse to rent to [insert protected group here].
2 out of 5 car mechanics refuse service to [insert protected group here].
etc.
fucking.
etc.

If I just take the 51% supporting, those numbers effectively become 1 out of 2.

I'd fucking hate to be a minority in that town.

The whole "they can go to another shop" argument just shows why these laws need to exist.

I really have to wonder how many of the people arguing for the baker's right to discriminate actually face discrimination themselves on a routine basis.

You argue as though the incident is wholly discrete from any other bigotry the gay couple have experienced.
And from the perspective of the perpetrator, it would be.

But from the perspective of the gay couple, it's just yet another in an endless parade of other people believing that they have the right to impose their beliefs on the gay couple, while screaming bloody murder at the thought that they might similarly have to respect the rights of the gay couple to exist and live normally.

The baker signed a contract that required him to serve all customers equally, he broke that contract, he's been punished for doing so, end of fucking story.

[Farnhamia]

He is well suited for Operation Human Cannonball though...

Ah, Operation: Human Cannonball. Moving people from REMF to combat in one graceful ballistic arc.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Ah, Operation: Human Cannonball. Moving people from REMF to combat in one graceful ballistic arc.

I do indeed "Love the bomb".