Author Topic: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.  (Read 5800 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #165 on: August 21, 2018, 01:56:15 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
  • Tommy Points: 142
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.

I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses; trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.

It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses with other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2018, 02:05:42 PM by gift »

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #166 on: August 21, 2018, 01:59:19 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36009
  • Tommy Points: -27661
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

I find it strange that a large number of people in our society can't wrap their minds around the plain language of the First Amendment.
First Amendment does not pertain to businesses. Roy pointed out the laws that govern businesses.

I want to clarify this.  Congress can regulate businesses through laws passed under the Commerce Clause -- and has broad discretion -- but that doesn't mean that the First Amendment doesn't pertain to businesses.

The infamous Citizens United case found that corporations are subject to Free Speech protections.  The Hobby Lobby decision found that closely-held businesses and corporations can have Free Exercise protection.  Freedom of the Press applies to businesses (such as the NY Times, Fox News, etc.), and I think the right to freely assemble is probably implicit in the idea of businesses and corporations in the first place. 

Just like freedom of religion / freedom of speech versus the equal rights of LGBT individuals, there can be a tension between Congress' enumerated rights vs. a corporation's legitimate freedoms. 


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #167 on: August 21, 2018, 02:03:28 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Forgot about Citizen's United. What a horrible decision that was.

So, yes, businesses are granted some 1st Amendment rights but those rights do not allow them to infringe upon other's 1st Amendment rights by violating the Civil Rights Act, right?

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #168 on: August 21, 2018, 02:08:14 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19047
  • Tommy Points: 8945
On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.

I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses, trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.

It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses to other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
2 thoughts on this:
1. Businesses DO have the same rights as consumers when they are acting as consumers.  They have every right to make their purchases where they choose.
I think instead of referring to the entities as Businesses and Consumers, we might have a better definition of the entities by calling the Buyers and Sellers.
2. As for the idea that Sellers should have the same rights as Buyers, why?  How exactly would that work?  it's been mentioned that if a Seller cannot pick and choose who to sell to that it should apply to Buyers as well but how?  Would you make Buyers buy from every Seller?  In what quantity/proportion --> would you base that requirement on volume of items, dollars spent or something else?  How many Sellers would have to be included in a purchase?  At what point do Buyers have the right to not spend money on something?

Not singling you out for an answer -- just didn't feel like copying in all the sub-posts and having the originals drop off.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #169 on: August 21, 2018, 02:15:43 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
  • Tommy Points: 142
On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.

I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses, trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.

It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses to other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
2 thoughts on this:
1. Businesses DO have the same rights as consumers when they are acting as consumers.  They have every right to make their purchases where they choose.
I think instead of referring to the entities as Businesses and Consumers, we might have a better definition of the entities by calling the Buyers and Sellers.
2. As for the idea that Sellers should have the same rights as Buyers, why?  How exactly would that work?  it's been mentioned that if a Seller cannot pick and choose who to sell to that it should apply to Buyers as well but how?  Would you make Buyers buy from every Seller?  In what quantity/proportion --> would you base that requirement on volume of items, dollars spent or something else?  How many Sellers would have to be included in a purchase?  At what point do Buyers have the right to not spend money on something?

Not singling you out for an answer -- just didn't feel like copying in all the sub-posts and having the originals drop off.

I think you are illustrating my point that we are perspective-biased when talking about this.
Anyone who is a buyer is also a seller, and a seller is always buying. Both are traders. I think we tend to protect "consumers" because we think of them as individuals, who need protecting when dealing with "businesses" who have more money/resources to secure, perhaps, unfair deals. We are also so reliant on not only a stable currency, but the idea of a stable currency, that we lose sight of what we are actually doing when we buy things. We are trading. It is certainly worth evaluating.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #170 on: August 21, 2018, 02:18:16 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36009
  • Tommy Points: -27661
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Forgot about Citizen's United. What a horrible decision that was.

So, yes, businesses are granted some 1st Amendment rights but those rights do not allow them to infringe upon other's 1st Amendment rights by violating the Civil Rights Act, right?

I can't think of any examples where it does.  At least as far as white-on-black discrimination goes, Equal Protection seems to be at or near the top of the pile of rights.

Interestingly, it's not as clear in reverse, in terms of black-on-white discrimination.  Employers and colleges are both specifically allowed to take race into account.  That's not necessarily in a First Amendment context, though.

Regarding gender discrimination, it's not at all clear.  It seems well-accepted that the Catholic church can discriminate against women, gays, transgenders, non-Catholics, etc., regarding who can become a priest, who can receive communion, etc.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #171 on: August 21, 2018, 02:26:29 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36009
  • Tommy Points: -27661
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
1. Businesses DO have the same rights as consumers when they are acting as consumers.  They have every right to make their purchases where they choose.
I think instead of referring to the entities as Businesses and Consumers, we might have a better definition of the entities by calling the Buyers and Sellers.

Is that true?  Can a business make the decision to only buy from majority white-owned businesses?

Government contractors certainly can't do so.  I don't practice civil rights law, so I'm not 100% sure about private contractors, but I can't imagine that the law would allow it.  Again, I think the hard part would be proof, but in general businesses discriminating on the basis of race is an actionable issue.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #172 on: August 21, 2018, 02:33:23 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19047
  • Tommy Points: 8945
Quote
1. Businesses DO have the same rights as consumers when they are acting as consumers.  They have every right to make their purchases where they choose.
I think instead of referring to the entities as Businesses and Consumers, we might have a better definition of the entities by calling the Buyers and Sellers.

Is that true?  Can a business make the decision to only buy from majority white-owned businesses?

Government contractors certainly can't do so.  I don't practice civil rights law, so I'm not 100% sure about private contractors, but I can't imagine that the law would allow it.  Again, I think the hard part would be proof, but in general businesses discriminating on the basis of race is an actionable issue.
they do have the right to look for best prices, best product, best personnel, best deliverability of product, etc...

if the business was picking a Seller who was the worst at these things that was primarily non-minority over a primarily-minority Seller that was clearly better in the aspect that mattered to the company, perhaps there'd be a case.  otherwise, I can't see a company acting as a Buyer being shown to be in the wrong.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #173 on: August 21, 2018, 02:45:27 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Quote
1. Businesses DO have the same rights as consumers when they are acting as consumers.  They have every right to make their purchases where they choose.
I think instead of referring to the entities as Businesses and Consumers, we might have a better definition of the entities by calling the Buyers and Sellers.

Is that true?  Can a business make the decision to only buy from majority white-owned businesses?

Government contractors certainly can't do so.  I don't practice civil rights law, so I'm not 100% sure about private contractors, but I can't imagine that the law would allow it.  Again, I think the hard part would be proof, but in general businesses discriminating on the basis of race is an actionable issue.
I think the ability to prove intent in a private business practicing discriminatory purchasing decisions would be nearly impossible, especially for small businesses.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #174 on: August 21, 2018, 03:26:20 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19563
  • Tommy Points: 927
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.

I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses; trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.

It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses with other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
You are wrong.  Not all choice is discrimination.  Making a choice based on merit is not discrimination.  Making a choice on price, location, etc. is not discrimination.  Look at it this way, if I go to the McDonald's on Main Street rather than the McDonald's on Vine Street, am I discriminating against McDonald's.  No.  I just went to the one of Main Street because it was on my way home, or the closest to where I'm at, or on the way somewhere else I'm going, or has a more consistent product or service, etc.  Now if I went to the McDonald's on Main Street because the McDonald's on Vine Street employs homosexuals, while the one on Main Street does not, that would be discrimination (though it doesn't work quite as well when it is the same business).  That example isn't perfect, but I believe it illustrates the difference between choice and discrimination. 

Of course a consumer should absolutely be able to discriminate if the consumer wants, because the consumer is not putting him/herself out there to attract business and be open to the public.  If you want to privately be a bigot, you absolutely can be, but you can't be a bigot as a business.  Baking a cake is a gray area because there is some expression involved in making a specialized cake, which makes this particular case more difficult and why there can be so many differences of opinion on the subject. 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #175 on: August 21, 2018, 03:41:00 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
  • Tommy Points: 142
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.

I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses; trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.

It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses with other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
You are wrong.  Not all choice is discrimination.  Making a choice based on merit is not discrimination.  Making a choice on price, location, etc. is not discrimination.  Look at it this way, if I go to the McDonald's on Main Street rather than the McDonald's on Vine Street, am I discriminating against McDonald's.  No.  I just went to the one of Main Street because it was on my way home, or the closest to where I'm at, or on the way somewhere else I'm going, or has a more consistent product or service, etc.  Now if I went to the McDonald's on Main Street because the McDonald's on Vine Street employs homosexuals, while the one on Main Street does not, that would be discrimination (though it doesn't work quite as well when it is the same business).  That example isn't perfect, but I believe it illustrates the difference between choice and discrimination. 

Of course a consumer should absolutely be able to discriminate if the consumer wants, because the consumer is not putting him/herself out there to attract business and be open to the public.  If you want to privately be a bigot, you absolutely can be, but you can't be a bigot as a business.  Baking a cake is a gray area because there is some expression involved in making a specialized cake, which makes this particular case more difficult and why there can be so many differences of opinion on the subject.

You don't disagree with me, you just think you do  ;). I tried to point out that we are not talking about the pure definition of discrimination, which is the very nature of choice. I pointed out that we are talking about certain types of discrimination and not choice overall, which is why there is a distinction. The distinction is not between choice and discrimination, but between different types of choices or different types of discrimination.


Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #176 on: August 21, 2018, 03:48:05 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19563
  • Tommy Points: 927
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.

I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses; trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.

It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses with other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
You are wrong.  Not all choice is discrimination.  Making a choice based on merit is not discrimination.  Making a choice on price, location, etc. is not discrimination.  Look at it this way, if I go to the McDonald's on Main Street rather than the McDonald's on Vine Street, am I discriminating against McDonald's.  No.  I just went to the one of Main Street because it was on my way home, or the closest to where I'm at, or on the way somewhere else I'm going, or has a more consistent product or service, etc.  Now if I went to the McDonald's on Main Street because the McDonald's on Vine Street employs homosexuals, while the one on Main Street does not, that would be discrimination (though it doesn't work quite as well when it is the same business).  That example isn't perfect, but I believe it illustrates the difference between choice and discrimination. 

Of course a consumer should absolutely be able to discriminate if the consumer wants, because the consumer is not putting him/herself out there to attract business and be open to the public.  If you want to privately be a bigot, you absolutely can be, but you can't be a bigot as a business.  Baking a cake is a gray area because there is some expression involved in making a specialized cake, which makes this particular case more difficult and why there can be so many differences of opinion on the subject.

You don't disagree with me, you just think you do  ;). I tried to point out that we are not talking about the pure definition of discrimination, which is the very nature of choice. I pointed out that we are talking about certain types of discrimination and not choice overall, which is why there is a distinction. The distinction is not between choice and discrimination, but between different types of choices or different types of discrimination.
No the definition of discrimination takes merit out of the discussion.  A choice based on merit is never discrimination.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #177 on: August 21, 2018, 03:57:25 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
  • Tommy Points: 142
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.

I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses; trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.

It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses with other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
You are wrong.  Not all choice is discrimination.  Making a choice based on merit is not discrimination.  Making a choice on price, location, etc. is not discrimination.  Look at it this way, if I go to the McDonald's on Main Street rather than the McDonald's on Vine Street, am I discriminating against McDonald's.  No.  I just went to the one of Main Street because it was on my way home, or the closest to where I'm at, or on the way somewhere else I'm going, or has a more consistent product or service, etc.  Now if I went to the McDonald's on Main Street because the McDonald's on Vine Street employs homosexuals, while the one on Main Street does not, that would be discrimination (though it doesn't work quite as well when it is the same business).  That example isn't perfect, but I believe it illustrates the difference between choice and discrimination. 

Of course a consumer should absolutely be able to discriminate if the consumer wants, because the consumer is not putting him/herself out there to attract business and be open to the public.  If you want to privately be a bigot, you absolutely can be, but you can't be a bigot as a business.  Baking a cake is a gray area because there is some expression involved in making a specialized cake, which makes this particular case more difficult and why there can be so many differences of opinion on the subject.

You don't disagree with me, you just think you do  ;). I tried to point out that we are not talking about the pure definition of discrimination, which is the very nature of choice. I pointed out that we are talking about certain types of discrimination and not choice overall, which is why there is a distinction. The distinction is not between choice and discrimination, but between different types of choices or different types of discrimination.
No the definition of discrimination takes merit out of the discussion.  A choice based on merit is never discrimination.

You are speaking about an extension of the word that has been used to describe a certain type of discrimination. This does not represent all discrimination. Discrimination is the basis for all non-random choice.

"to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of"
"to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences : to recognize or identify as separate and distinct"
"to make a distinction"
"to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit"