Ninja Scooter
Member
The circumstances don't have to be exactly the same for a precedence to be set that allows businesses to start running again just like the whites only ones did 75 years ago.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Court: Baker who refused to make gay wedding cake can't cite beliefs
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
- Status
The circumstances don't have to be exactly the same for a precedence to be set that allows businesses to start running again just like the whites only ones did 75 years ago.
You probably shouldn't base your argument around it then.
You can't say you serve gay people and then turn around and refuse to serve for a wedding of two gay people.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I made two arguments against your position. First, the resources provided to businesses are generally provided for their private use. It makes no sense to insist they now owe some additional duty simply because they used those resources in the manner for which they were provided. Second, the businesses pay taxes, and so, they've arguably already paid for their use of those resources. I did not merely say, "Nuh-uh."
I'll add that I wonder on what basis you claim that the majority of tax benefits provided to businesses are funded by non-business taxes. I'd be interested in seeing your source for that claim, though it doesn't really change the above arguments.
What you call a "fun intellectual exercise" is often instead referred to as "thinking." I find it's a better tool in making decisions than emotions. In any event, many issues will have some practical aspect as well as more general or abstract aspects. Unless we're to limit discussion to only the most visceral, single-word emotive reactions, you'll just have to live with the fact that some people will be interested in discussing different aspects of any issue than the one you'd prefer they discuss.
For fuck's sake, dude.
family_guy
Member
I'd personally be offended if I were in the same situation, but I wouldn't still want to buy a cake from the place even if it was ordered by law. Why would you want to give money to someone who offended you like that? Also just because the law is in your favor, I'd be reluctant to do business there after the fact because who knows what the business owner might do out of spite like spit in the cake or something else? People will be who they are regardless of the legal consequences.
No. Not that that has anything to do with this ruling.
Good because I just turned one down
So serving an interracial couple and refusing a cake for an interracial marriage would be fine.
Do you think that this couple still needs a cake, and have put off their wedding until this lawsuit is resolved? Or is it possible that there's another reason for this that is not "we must have a cake from this specific bakery"?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I am so glad the courts don't agree with you. You have clearly never personally encountered racism/xenophobia/oppression in any form.
Sir Abacus
Member
Being a fan of the confederacy isn't a protected class. You can refuse it all you want.
No because race is a protected class.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
Religion is a choice. Being able to invent a belief whole cloth and use that as a reason to discriminate is nonsense. People did the same thing in the 'whites only age' as well.
There is no difference between a gay wedding cake and a hetero wedding cake. Same ingredients, same procedure for delivery, etc. They don't 'celebrate' or approve jack wedding wise. Heck, they don't even stick around for it.
If religious belief negates discrimination laws, then there is basically nothing it can't be used to negate.
That doesn't address the post at all. Or are you saying they should just move?
It's Ryuelli.
Businesses utilize these benefits at a much higher rate than individual people and are more costly to these benefits. Roadwork isn't a one-time fee. Businesses use them to transport their goods at a much higher rate than people. Even things like education make industries possible for these businessmen. The amount of taxes paid by businesses is not anywhere near comparable to the 200+ million tax payers. I can't give you statistics on that, but I do not think it is a crazy assumption that the people pay more taxes than businesses since the people so greatly outnumber businesses. It simply cannot be denied that private business owners are taking greater advantage of the funding of the people. And those people are not aiding in these businesses in order to be discriminated against. If I open up a shop, I am being aided in a million ways because of the people. To try and claim that my business is exclusively mine and has absolutely no restrictions by the people that helped me make it possible is simply false. That isn't how business works in America and it certainly isn't how it should work.
Our disagreement seems to stem from this. I believe businesses have a deserved restriction to how they can operate their business because of the disproportional amount of advantages given to them by public funding and their disproportionate usage of it. You believe that businesses put in their share just fine and have unlimited usage of those public funded benefits because they are intended to be public. To me, that's like somebody going to a party, bringing their share of food, but then eating 5x more than they brought because "the food is meant for us all to eat."
He believes that no private business should be forced to do anything for a customer. Under his ideas this should be perfectly fine.
It's simple.
Bill and Jennifer can come into this bakery, order the exact cake for their wedding and the baker will make it, no questions asked.
Bill and Mark can come into this bakery, order this exact cake for their wedding and the baker won't make it due to his religious beliefs.
The difference isn't the cake, the difference is that one couple is gay and one isn't.
That's the issue and that's why it's wrong.
shadowsdarknes
Member
You fail to understand the idea ofs discriminating against people vs. refusing service on a moral ground.
If they were to bake the confederate flag for a Christian, but not a Jew, that's discrimination. Refusing to bake that cake for anyone does not discriminate against anyone.
blitzcloud
Banned
nevermind the post, should've thought twice
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
What to eat for breakfast is a choice. Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, "I'm going to be a Christian today." True, religion is not an immutable characteristic, but neither is it a whim to be dispensed with at a moment's notice. Nor are the defendants in cases like the one covered in the OP "invent[ing] a belief whole cloth" to justify discrimination. Both allegations are demeaning to the deep convictions of millions of Americans and, on that basis, grossly offensive. I think this debate would be well-served if people on both sides would shut up for a moment, recognize the common humanity of those on the other side, and spend some time listening to each other.
Your entire argument is based on speculation about facts. Without the actual data to work from, you have no reason to believe the things you claim and no way to support your assertions. It suffers from some other flaws, too. If you had the data, you'd presumably be content to simply compare the total taxes paid by businesses and by individuals on non-business income. But does that make sense? Why should a tiny corner store be required to bear additional legal burdens because, e.g., Halliburton received huge government benefits? What if some businesses pay more in taxes than the value of government benefits they receive?* Should they now be entitled to impose restrictions on society?
That last point brings me back to my earlier point: roads, infrastructure, and other government benefits have nothing to do with whether the government should impose new obligations on businesses or anyone else. To use your analogy, the host doesn't need to point to the benefits conferred on the guest to require that the guest take his hat off indoors (for instance). He can make him take his hat off because the house is the host's. The whole discussion of benefits vs. burdens is a red herring that detracts from actually discussing the merits of a proposed policy.
(Finally, to the extent that your argument is that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against those who fund the businesses' benefits, your argument proves too much (in addition to the other problems I've identified with such "But roads!" arguments before). Doesn't the unshod, bare-chested customer pay taxes, after all? So why let businesses discriminate on that basis? Or, for that matter, on any of the other innumerable bases on which businesses may lawfully discriminate against taxpayers?)
*And how do we value these benefits? Are we really going to pretend that only business benefits from an educated populace, even though the primary beneficiaries are the people who have been educated?
DontBeThatGuy
Member
".... in defense of bigotry"
You wouldn't say this if you have been on the receiving end of that kind of discrimination.
True story: when I was in Japan, my friends and I entered a bar only to be told harshly by its owner that while I can come in, my friends can't because they're white.
Bro, he did his mea culpa and apologized
User 73706
Banned
we shall resume in an hour
- Status