The New California Republic wrote:Greater Catarapania wrote:
Would you blame a flag maker if he decided not to make a Confederate flag for a skinhead?
Not what you said. Those goalposts stay right the fuck where they are. You said that the products that a craftsman makes somehow reflects the craftsman's own views. They don't.
A baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple because he disapproves of homosexuality.
A flag maker refuses to make a Confederate flag for a skinhead because he disapproves of racism.
The two cases are exactly parallel, the goalposts haven't moved an inch.
From the looks of things, you're failing to see that because (as usual) you have no patience for even the least modicum of nuance in the position of someone who disagrees with you. But, in the (probably vain) hope that you'll be willing to read through the upcoming wall of text, I'll attempt to break things down for you.
The question here is whether or not someone who disapproves of someone else's lifestyle and/or principles has the right to refuse service to that someone else on the basis of that disapproval. I've asserted that the answer is yes, when the service in question has a positive symbolic value. My reasoning is that, under such circumstances (ie, the service provided has a positive symbolic value), such a person may feel as if providing that service constitutes a stamp of approval on the would-be consumer's lifestyle.
Now, I agree that that it may not, in fact, be the case that providing said service constitutes a stamp of approval. A flag-maker can make a Confederate flag for a consumer without approving of racism. But if his conscience bugs him for the provision of a symbol of institutional racism to an obvious racist, then he should have the right to deny service to the skinhead. There's nothing particularly complicated here. If he feels as if providing the service would be a betrayal of his principles, then he should have the right to not provide it.
There's a part of me that wants to point out that you subscribe to a much stronger version of this principle than I do. As far as I'm concerned, its scope is limited to the right of conscience. If your beliefs (religious or political) make you feel uncomfortable doing something, then you shouldn't have to do it. You expand its scope dramatically, by asserting that people should have the right to be anything they feel like they should be, even to the extent of asserting that a man who "feels as if" his "true self" is a woman should have the right to emasculate himself and undergo a surgery that allows him to participate in the sex act in a more feminine manner. I consider this point of view absurd and dangerous in the extreme (what's next? Liposuction for anorexics?). But I digress.
The right of conscience is in no way problematic in the case of the flag-maker and the skinhead (and if you think that it is, then you're an idiot). So why should it be problematic in the case of a baker and a gay couple?
