Just because you don’t understand why it is important for gays doesn’t mean it isn’t important. The fact you don’t understand is a sign that you haven’t faced discrimination in your life. If you had then maybe you would be capable of understanding that it is about more than a wedding cake.
And if one baker denies service there is no guarantee that other bakers won’t deny service as well. Then what?
So you know why the market supposedly(assuming it didn’t and wouldn’t) didn’t deal with restaurants. Why ask, then?
I never said it wasn’t important. The gist of what I’m saying is that 95% of the world has nothing against gay people and wants to see them succeed and flourish as much as they do anyone else.
This can be applied to everyone who is being discriminated against. There are individuals who weren’t raised to be polite, open-minded, and accepting, that’s a fact, but we don’t have to focus on it. Over time, those types people will be bred out of existence. It sounds shitty, but minorities have to deal with things that the majority usually doesn’t because that’s how the world works.
I understand that the wedding cake is the smallest part of this issue. It’s about accepting gays into our society as equals, which many people do, including myself. At the end of the day, though, people need to move on. Sue the ignorant baker, get your money and some sort of revenge/justice, and move on. You can’t force someone to do something they don’t want to do, so if the man doesn’t want to earn his money by making them a cake, that’s his loss. There’s plenty of other people that will.
Yes, there is a guarantee. It’s called a free market. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country who value money more than they value their morals, and I think the odds are pretty good that there are local bakers that would love to make a cake for their wedding. The probability that every baker near this couple refuses to make them a cake is 0
The market didn’t deal with restaurants because it can’t deal with restaurants. To make something like health code/inspections unnecessary the public (or some other oversight body) would have to have access to restaurants back end to see the sanitary conditions.
I’m not sure how that’s linked to cars exceeding 85 mph when the speed limits cap at that?
People love to make slaves of others. Full stop.
Restaurants exist outside of market forces? Interesting.
What you mean is: The market would have to demand patrons have free access to restaurant kitchens, etc.
If 95% of the world accepted gays we wouldn’t be discussing this subject.
No, the free market is not a guarantee of freedom or the protection of civil rights. We had a free market when there was slavery, segregation and Jim Crow.
And Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus and blacks should have been satisfied with not being allowed to sit inside restaurants.
Which won’t tell you everything about a restaurant’s sanitary conditions.
Excluding the parts of the world where they throw gays off the tops of buildings. I refuse to believe that people who do that to other humans are actually the same species as me. I’m generally talking about places that boast civil rights and equality, such as the country I live in.
Good point, but there is no slavery, Jim Crow, or segregation anymore. A free market today means that someone who is refused service at one business is able to walk down the street and acquire comparable services at a different establishment.
How many people supported that woman who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple? One of them wanted to run for president at one point.
Ask yourself why we don’t have slavery or Jim Crow laws. It wasn’t because people said let the free market decide.
The ability for the public to replace health codes as you suggest, would require free access to the back end of restaurants. As that would directly conflict with the shop owner as you’re either compelling (govt) him to allow patrons in (which just a less knowledgeable health dept), or if there’s nothing compelling the shop owner, you don’t actually have a system as they can reject it.
The ONLY way the market solves that is if it actually collectively comes together and boycotts the place that won’t allow a search. As much as theoretical things are fun to think about, that’s not realistic of society to do.
How could a restaurant operate while 50 customers are in the kitchen performing an inspection? I think this is a case of someone not thinking something through.
The market actually completely solves the problem. If the owner doesn’t allow such access, then those that care can stay away. Those that don’t care can keep going. If the owner does allow such access, then those that like that can go. Those that don’t like it can stay away.
Too many.
Obviously not. It’s because slavery and Jim Crow laws are fucked up.
I certainly agree, after reading that.
How does the market accomplish this in a literal sense? Who’s tracking this? Who’s spreading the word? Who’s verifying against false claims?
Slavery is not as productive as a free(er) market.
Some Jim Crow Laws were created to deal with the refusal of the market to conduct itself according to the wishes of its superiors in government.
Yet slavery existed here and if not for the Civil War would have existed for longer than it did.