What would Adam Smith have thought?
Probably that the baker is an idiot for rejecting a sale.
7 Likes
Both sides, actually.
The right doesn’t want to permit gay marriage.
The left not only wants gay marriage (which is fine by me, BTW, as I view marriage as religious sacrament and a contract between private individuals over which the government should never have been involved in the first place), but demand that religious people abandon their religious beliefs.
Tolerance is a two-way deal. Neither the extreme right or left understand that.
10 Likes
Double like, JB.
3 Likes
Two gay people wanting to be married means that they want you to abandon your religious ideals? Absurd.
You just admitted that the right wants to prevent certain people from engaging in activities that other people get to do. The left simply wants to be able to do those things. How are those equally discriminating?
As you said, the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, but they are and there are certain benefits given ONLY to married couples by the government. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS AN ISSUE.
The only thing religion has to do with is it so many religious people get offended by what two people do in their own lives they couldn’t stomach the thought of two dudes getting married.
We both agree that the government shouldn’t be involved, but so long as they are the benefit should be open to everyone right?
1 Like
What religious freedoms are the left trying to take away from the right?
Gay people Couldn’t get certain types of contracts.
Gay people were being denied service.
Remember when religious people were banned from doing those things by the gays?
This is the “you are taking away my right to take away your rights “ argument.
So a private citizen has the right to use government to coerce labor out of another private citizen?
1 Like
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that in small towns (read: just 1-2 bakeries) the situation could arise where a gay couple couldn’t get a cake.
I wonder if you would feel that way had it been you, or someone you loved, that had been subjected to discrimination.
What if the baker, on the grounds of his sincerely held (if perverse) religious beliefs, refused to make a cake for a Jewish wedding? Or a black wedding?
Disallowing a refusal, based in discrimination against a protected group, to provide normal and customary services, is not akin to ‘coercing labor.’ If the baker wishes to close up shop and stop selling wedding cakes to anyone, he is free to do so.
Fine by me. Leave him alone.
What if, instead of a baker, it was a wedding singer? And it was a KKK wedding that wanted a black person to sing-and-dance for them, boy?
1 Like
Trump will be successful at some point for a short period of time. Just like with his businesses, I believe that he will fuck up many times and then do a few good things, and then fuck up some more.
I do not like Donald Trump as a person, so it hurts to say this, but… Just like Hitler was a brilliant man in a sick, twisted way, I believe that Donald Trump also possesses an aptitude for business and economics that most people just don’t have. I do think he has a knack for manipulating the business world. As we are starting to see, that’s beneficial and detrimental simultaneously. Jobs are being created, the stock market is doing well, but are these jobs permanent? Doubtful, and thus the stock market will not continue to rise for the rest of eternity.
Needless to say, it’ll be interesting to see how, when, and why his term comes to an end. I’m actually very surprised he hasn’t been impeached yet, but I’ve already written enough. Lol
This is about coercing someone (the baker, for example) to participate in something for which he has sincere religious objections. Forcing a given person to provide a service would not stop the marriage, in any way.
People should be free. And left alone. Gays and Christians.
And do remember that this was a set up. An expressly anti-Christian gay group specifically targeted this baker to try to make an example out of him.
2 Likes
Freedom to not participate in activities against their sincere religious beliefs.
1 Like
Sure, it could arise (and probably wouldn’t last, since aspiring entrepreneurs would he happy to fill the void). But we don’t need to command instructions from on high on how to believe on the basis that certain circumstances might arise. That’s a really, really bad use of legal authority, especialy in a country that values diversity and freedom.
Me? I’d tell the bozos to go to Hell, commit to baking my own cake, shame them relentlessly on social media, and solicit the help of celebrities who would want to help me based on their support for gay marriage, get an extravagant wedding paid for by People magazine or Ellen DeGeneres, and have the biggest, gayest reception party the small town has ever seen. I’d use it as a platform to get what I wanted, on better terms, and leave the baker to do what he wants, because “live and let live” means a lot to me. I’m “liberal” that way.
No offense intended in my explaining it this way, but I don’t view every purported “victim” of society’s meanness as fragile or suffering from Princess and the Pea levels of hypersensitivity in need of federal judges to punish those who slight them.
Edit: and @EyeDentist, reading them again, my comments certainly had some snark, but sincerely, they aren’t intended as a snark at you.
6 Likes
Ah. So you’re one of those anti-Civil-Rights Act libertarians.
As these scenarios require the person to actively participate in that which they find religiously objectionable (as opposed to baking the same cake one has baked a thousand times before, a cake that is subsequently transported to a wedding ceremony the baker will not see, much less participate in), they are qualitatively different in their impact on the service provider, and thus might well withstand scrutiny under discrimination law.
I doubt that. How many gay weddings do you suppose take place in small towns? Further, if anti-gay sentiment permeates the town, a gay-friendly bakery might well find itself shunned by the rest of the community. No, I don’t see entrepreneurs pouring in to “fill the void.”
No one is suggesting that anyone be commanded on “how to believe.” But I am suggesting that civil-rights violations should not be swept under the rug because they might ‘cause division’ and/or ‘will be resolved by the free market.’
So I take it that, like @Jewbacca, you too oppose the Civil Rights Act?
Fair enough. But how is that approach less divisive than using the courts?
Thanks, but no worries–my personal-snark detector has remained silent throughout reading your thoughtful comments.
Again, how is this a civil rights issue? Does the cake baker accept federal funding? Is he the mayor of the town? The CRA was about what government can and can’t do to you.
Let’s assume you’re right - if the community is truly that hostile to gays, how many gays will actually be living there and therefore in need of a baker? If we’re trying to game out real-world scenarios, isn’t this even more likely than not having entrepreneurs fill the void?
No, I think it’s great and necessary - but this issue is different, because it involves good faith disagreement on both sides of beliefs that, as a society, we have not reconciled as one prevailing over the other (as we have, for example, on firing someone because of their race). The gays have a valid argument, and so do the religious bakers. Let civil society figure it out rather than force a victory in front of a federal judge.
Because it doesn’t involve the force of law to punish a loser and leaves the baker to believe and behave as he chooses. I get what I want, and he gets what he wants. Isn’t it better for both parties to win, rather than have a winner and a loser? Isn’t that doubly so if you think tolerance is really important?
1 Like
The CRA covers private activity and doesn’t require the nexus of federal funding, FYI.
Not very broadly. The private citizen must be a “state actor” i.e. “government affiliated” to file a section 1983 lawsuit.
You anarchists are crazy. You’re talking about such a small issue. The real problem is the “right” of one person to refuse marriage with another.
A marriage gives property rights to both parties involved. Seeing how it’s a business transaction, what right does one have to do so?
How can you refuse to marry someone based on the color of her skin, or the presence of testicles and a penis? What right do you have to make those decisions?
Still working my way through the thread, only up to this post, but want to say that I think you seriously overestimate many European countries abilities to do this. Pretty much all OECD countries have a much larger social entitlements structure than we do–they need the tax revenue to run their social systems, and this depresses their ability to cut tax levels as far as we can.
Also, leaving aside the very real question of whether we can put a well written bill through, the USA EASILY has the highest marginal corporate tax rate of all developed countries. It’s not even close.
Europe averages 20% ish, and our top rate is between 35 - 39% (depending on year).
They CAN’T cut their rates much lower.