The "Truth" Is Not What's Winning Out In Forcing Creative People To Do Business With People They Deplore
A site, truthwinsout, posted this graphic.
What's "winning" here is the antithesis of freedom and self-determination.
I've posted before that if I were any more pro gay rights, I'd have a girlfriend, but I'm also pro freedom and self-determination and, well, Marc J. Randazza put it just right on Facebook:
I'm sorry, but I agree with the fundamentalists on this one.An artist, of any type, should never be forced to create something they do not want to create -- even if their motivation is based in superstition, bigotry, and stupidity.
Of course, comparing gays to nazis is just pathetic, so its still a fail.
So let's say I was a landlord, and I didn't want to rent the place to black people. What would you think?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 6:15 AM
No one has the "right" to force another to do ones bidding. There's another term for that and it isn't called "freedom."
David L. Burkhead at December 10, 2013 6:16 AM
@Crid: It's your property. If you want to leave money on the table just to satisfy a backwards belief system, that's your business. There's plenty of other people who will be happy to snap up your customers.
Chris Rhodes at December 10, 2013 6:18 AM
And restaurants shouldn't be forced to serve black people, right?
If you're an "artist" with a license to served the public, then your right to discriminate just went out the door.
Patrick at December 10, 2013 6:50 AM
>>And restaurants shouldn't be forced to serve black people, right?
Right! You have the right to refuse service to anyone! And if you make a big point of not servicing someone, you also have the right of being served social justice, AKA a boycott. Societal pressure works.
Assholio at December 10, 2013 7:05 AM
I have to agree with Chris.
And NO Patrick, your rights do not go 'out the door'. Nobody is entitled to your labor. If you don't want to build houses for blacks, gays, whites, nazis, etc. you don't have to.
If you don't want to do business with anyone, you cannot be compelled to do so.
You can and should be called out for it when you display bigoted assholish attitudes. And you should expect social consequences for it.
I'm just guessing here, but I'd say that Patrick is referencing Jim Crowe laws.
If this is so, he's doing so improperly, Jim Crowe specifically required discrimination, restaurants and businesses were prohibited from serving black customers.
Legally mandating and legally prohibiting choice is the antithesis of freedom.
I won't do business with a Nazi. I see a swastika on a forehead, he's out the fuck of my store. Anyone who says I have to do business with him can go fuck themselves.
What boggles my mind is that people want to hand over their money to someone that hates them, so much so that they want to mandate businesses to provide those services.
Why the hell would you want a photographer that believes your wedding is immoral, to take part in immortalizing it?
Robert at December 10, 2013 7:17 AM
"And restaurants shouldn't be forced to serve black people, right?"
Right. Why should they?
Chris Rhodes at December 10, 2013 7:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/10/the_truth_is_no.html#comment-4106497">comment from Chris Rhodes"And restaurants shouldn't be forced to serve black people, right?"
There are businesses like hospitals that I don't think can be allowed to discriminate, and let me say that I find it exceptionally ugly to discriminate in this way (and would boycott and picket a business that did), but why shouldn't a restaurant or other business be allowed to decide who they serve?
Also, do you really think there are that many who will discriminate? It was the state -- Jim Crow laws -- that led to a good deal of the business discrimination against blacks.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2013 7:42 AM
Someone wake me when a judge makes a judgement against an practitioner of the Religion of Peace for refusing to do X for gay couple Y.
That would be news worthy.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 10, 2013 7:50 AM
Yes, Robert, if you get a license issued by the state to serve the public, your rights to discriminate did go right out the door. The state cannot discriminate; and if they license your business, your business cannot discriminate. (And the courts are on my side, thanks. And I think the judges understand the law better than you do.)
You think you're entitled to a choice? I'll give you one: 1) You can open a business; or 2) You can not open a business.
You want to discriminate? You're allowed to keep all the blacks, Jews, gays, women, whomever you like out of your home. Knock yourself out.
Patrick at December 10, 2013 7:52 AM
If bakers refusing to make cakes for gay people rises to the level of widespread systemic disadvantage, then sure we should have the government step in (that is, if it is part of a system of discrimination), but at this point when it is just some person, I don't think the bad of the discrimination rises to the level of the bad of forcing someone to do something they don't want to.
Although, religious people are hardly one's to complain. They go crazy whenever they lose their historical special rights and imagine a person who owned a business was an atheist and refused to do business with a Christian? They would have the exact opposite view, especially if they were in the minority.
"Nobody is entitled to your labor. If you don't want to build houses for blacks, gays, whites, nazis, etc. you don't have to." How about Christians? Would you feel the same way if Christians were the minority? I mean, if some dude doesn't want to do business with a Christian, it is clearly no big deal when they are the majority, but what if they were the minority? We'd get more faux martyrdom mythology from it.
Brian Erb at December 10, 2013 7:53 AM
> There are businesses like hospitals that I don't
> think can be allowed to discriminate
Why not? What's so special about hospitals? If I'm a grocer and I don't want to sell food to someone, or even lesser medicines, they might get sick. Izzatta problem?
And are you not speaking as if you already have a position of absolute authority on what's to be tolerated? Where did you get it, and by what decency do you fund it, beyond whimsy? Why are you (suddenly) offering a pretense of restraint, when your base position is tyrannical?
Ok, how about women?
Or the retarded?
Anybody?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 7:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/10/the_truth_is_no.html#comment-4106522">comment from Brian ErbI feel the same way if I'm the excluded one -- for being of Jewish origin, for being an atheist, for having red hair.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2013 7:56 AM
I remember when that big smelly camel was just a tiny little nose snuffling under the tent flap! Back in 1964, it was, when we lost our right to choose who we wanted to associate with.
Sure, the root of it was in Wickard, but the Public Acommodations section of the Civil Rights Act was where "none of your goddamn business" went right out the window as a response to any busybody with a racial angle.
Racial at first, anyway. At a stroke "minority" status became one of the most precious gifts the government could bestow. Shout out to my 51% female minority buddies! Divisive? Who knew?
"Mark my words", I said, "this beast is gonna turn on you some fine day". And I was right!
That inter-racial comity we were gonna get is a real knock-out too, IYKWIMAITTYD. After 50 years, the crocodile is hungrier than ever.
phunctor at December 10, 2013 8:02 AM
I know - let's force customers to patronize businesses whose philosophies they don't believe in.
Lisa at December 10, 2013 8:02 AM
Besides, he said, seeing for the first time the title of the blog post, what's so special about "creative" people?
Besides also, could that standard go any lower than tattoo artists?
Creativity is overrated. We've discussed this before, but I can't find it in the files.
Basically, "creativity" isn't some episode of fingerpaint pleasure that moves the world forward. It's a pain in the ass. It takes money and tears and sweat and the forbearance of people who don't like you very much. People are as creative as they need to be... It's not a social value that needs to be encouraged, or a special human blessing that should excuse one from laws applying to everyone else.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 8:06 AM
Amy, you're avoiding the questions. This isn't about "feelings."
I can't imagine who you're kidding... It couldn't be more obvious that you don't mean it.
This is not the direction that Western Civ has chosen. Far to late in our development, and YOUR life, to pretend the question is open.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 8:09 AM
It annoy me that they assume all Christians are against gay marriage.
Also, the comparison is bad. Not carrying a produce is not the same as denying a person service. A better comparison would be, "A Tattoo Artist should not be forced to Tattoo 'Mom' on a Nazi". Because presumably he doesn't tattoo swastikas on ANYONE, not just Nazis. Swastikas are not a product he carries.
Whereas the wedding photographer DOES offer wedding photography service, and is denying someone specific.
So there are actually TWO questions:
1) Should people be forced to carry services and products they don't want to offer
2) Can people offer products to some people but not others.
I've got mixed feelings. In theory, let bigots just have their little bigot world. In practice, WTF happens if you break down in a town where no one will serve you because of who you are? You can't get lodging, withdraw cash, buy food, get your car repaired? What're you supposed to do? Call me paranoid but I can see it happening.
NicoleK at December 10, 2013 8:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/10/the_truth_is_no.html#comment-4106604">comment from NicoleKWTF happens if you break down in a town where no one will serve you because of who you are? You can't get lodging, withdraw cash, buy food, get your car repaired? What're you supposed to do?
What happens if you break down in the wilderness?
It is unlikely to be a secret if you have a town full of bigots. I would avoid those towns.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2013 8:38 AM
I just can see this going horribly wrong.
NicoleK at December 10, 2013 9:09 AM
"Yes, Robert, if you get a license issued by the state to serve the public, your rights to discriminate did go right out the door. "
So what authorizes the "license" business? Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has the power to decide who can and cannot engage in commerce? Newspapers can print discriminatory words. Maybe we should force newspapers to get government licenses, and surrender their First Amendment rights to do so. And just because courts choose to ignore parts of the Constitution, that does not make their decisions either legally or morally right.
"Because presumably he doesn't tattoo swastikas on ANYONE, not just Nazis. Swastikas are not a product he carries."
You're reaching for a distinction without a difference. As the photographer, I can come back with, "Photography of same-sex weddings is not a service that I offer. I don't care if the person paying for it is gay or not." It's the same thing you just said. Since I support the right of the tatoo artist to refuse to tatoo a swastika, you can guess where I stand on the other.
Cousin Dave at December 10, 2013 9:23 AM
If a Christian baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, why can't a gay baker be forced to bake a cake for a Westboro Baptist wedding?
Martin at December 10, 2013 9:26 AM
What if I ran a gay bar and said straight people weren't allowed? Would you object to that? What if I had a Muslim restaurant that served a halal menu. Do I have right to come in and say they must sell pork chops and beer? What about a Jewish restaurant with a kosher menu; can I demand cheeseburgers?
So you force the photographer to work for you. Do you think he will do the best pictures for you? What about the baker making a wedding cake. Are you going to sue him because it sucked?
Would you force a mason to lay your house's foundation that didn't want to work for you?
About the only thing that should be forced on a private institution is medical care, and especially emergency medical care. But even that has limits such as abortions, morning after pills for rape victims and such.
Jim P. at December 10, 2013 9:32 AM
"If you're an "artist" with a license to served (sic) the public, then your right to discriminate just went out the door."
Wrong. If you're an artist with a license that simply means you meet the minimum state health and safety standards. It in no way implies that you must perform your service for anyone, anyplace at any time. An artist or any person or entity that holds a business license gets to decide who, what, where, when and how the service or product is provided to the public.
Doug Jeffreys at December 10, 2013 9:48 AM
If I were a gay-friendly baker or photographer, I would state that in my ads to attract the business others are scorning. Of course, they may lose some of the bigot business.
Perhaps the reverse should be true. "We don't welcome Gay Weddings." should be in their ads. Of course, they may lose some other people's business.
Can't we fix this situation with social engineering instead of more laws?
bmused at December 10, 2013 10:05 AM
You're reaching for a distinction without a difference. As the photographer, I can come back with, "Photography of same-sex weddings is not a service that I offer. I don't care if the person paying for it is gay or not." It's the same thing you just said. Since I support the right of the tatoo artist to refuse to tatoo a swastika, you can guess where I stand on the other.
***
It is NOT without a difference.
I can see the "Same sex weddings is not a service I offer" argument. Not sure if I'd go for it, but I can see it.
However, I'd see a big difference between that and "I won't photograph your graduation because you are gay".
NicoleK at December 10, 2013 10:05 AM
So, what if he has a Star of David or a rainbow flag on his forehead? Do you have the right to make the same "won't do business" proclamation?
The underlying premise of this country is that even Nazis got rights.
==============================
Keep in mind that if you have a right to be served by any and all businesses, the business owner loses a right to refuse service ... even to Nazis.
==============================
Why should a photographer or a baker get a special exemption not available to a grocer or a restauranteur?
Where do we draw the line at who's an "artist" and who isn't?
==============================
So, now we're going to have the state license all businesses in order to prevent discrimination and ensure fairness?
That's what we need, more state invovlement in regulating businesses. Talk about the camel's nose under the tent flap.
This is the same government that claims the power to restrict your right to drink soda, smoke cigarettes, and get your hair braded - all for your own good, of course.
Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2013 10:08 AM
the core question is:
Can the State COMPEL you to sell something to someone else?
SwissArmyD at December 10, 2013 10:11 AM
"An artist or any person or entity that holds a business license gets to decide who, what, where, when and how the service or product is provided to the public."
That's the way it should be, but unfortunately it's not the way it is. Power rules. This is not a free country when freedom means whatever the government still allows.
The government should not be in the business of licensing businesses or professions, just as it should not be in the business of licensing marriages. Too much opportunity and temptation for holier-than-thou tyrants and assholes.
Ken R at December 10, 2013 10:25 AM
Not just a gift, but a weapon.
And Heaven help someone who crosses anyone holding that weapon.
Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2013 10:31 AM
"Of course, comparing gays to nazis is just pathetic, so its still a fail."
I don't think they're comparing gays to Nazis. I think they're comparing the context in which the first could occur to the context in which the second could occur.
Ken R at December 10, 2013 10:35 AM
"Can the State COMPEL you to sell something to someone else?"
Well, we know that the state can compel you to buy something from someone else (medical insurance).
Ken R at December 10, 2013 10:40 AM
> Posted by: Robert at December 10, 2013 7:17 AM
Hi, Robert!
Where do you live?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 10:53 AM
> Posted by: Martin at December 10, 2013 9:26 AM
Hi, Martin!
Where do you live?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 10:54 AM
> Posted by: Assholio at December 10, 2013 7:05 AM
Hi, Assholio!
Just curious...
Where do you live?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 10:57 AM
Posted by: NicoleK at December 10, 2013 10:05 AM
Hi, NicokeK.
Now, if I remember correctly, you don't live in the United States.
Is that right?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 10:58 AM
Wow,stalker much?
dee nile at December 10, 2013 11:21 AM
Aw, "dee nile," are you from the United States? I don't recognize your nickname, there, Pilgrim. Are you feeling shame for being busted? Again?
Y'know, Amy has her moments of weirdness. I figger it's some kind of 'ocean breeze' effect, a minor and transitory dementia caused by the sun and the sand and the sheer karmic idiocy of her surrounding Venice Beach residents. She can usually be slapped out of it... Or, as in this case, she can shown as willfully blind & silent to the consequences of her 'position.' Avoidant, even.
But I was surprised how many people want to talk about this "topic" of hers... And how the thoughts they're so eager to share are mundane and unworldly, as if they have no experience informing their composition. And then
Ah. Okay. I get it. These are children slipping into Momma's pumps, smearing their faces with her lipstick under her floppy hat to play a game called Going Out with Daddy at Nighttime.The reason their perspectives are so childish is that they have no practical knowledge of the American experience of integrating foreign cultures into working communities. I'm one of the older commenters here; over my lifetime, the United States has accepted more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. These commenters have no understanding of that... No knowledge of the challenges, and no sweet personal memories of the rewards.
But they want to pretend that they do.
So they come here to masturbate.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 12:01 PM
The Canadian thing is especially goofy, though. On Twitter the other night, even the mighthy Cosh felt compelled to express some thoughts about the Dasani story in the New York Times. (…About which see also.)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 12:07 PM
Jim P. What if I ran a gay bar and said straight people weren't allowed? Would you object to that?
As far as I know, there is no such thing. The "orientation" -- if you will -- of bars is determined by the "orientation" of the clientele and what sort of entertainment you provide. I'd be more interested in knowing what steps you would take to ascertain the sexual orientation of someone who wants to go into your hypothetical bar and have a drink.
But straights are fine in gay bars. If they didn't at least tolerate gays, they wouldn't go in. Or if they hate gays and did wander in by mistake, chances are they would figure out their mistake before the evening was over and beat a rapid retreat.
As for the rest of it, as far as I know, restaurant owners still decide their menus. If they don't want to serve beer or cheeseburgers, they don't have to. If you're going to disingenuously switch gears, try not to be so obvious. Give me credit for having at least a little intelligence. We weren't talking about what people are allowed to carry in their businesses. We're talking about who they are required to serve.
Jim P. So you force the photographer to work for you. Do you think he will do the best pictures for you?
Probably not.
Jim P. What about the baker making a wedding cake. Are you going to sue him because it sucked?
I don't know. I wouldn't buy from him in the first place.
Jim P. Would you force a mason to lay your house's foundation that didn't want to work for you?
No. Not unless he was the only mason within a hundred miles.
These questions have nothing to do with anything.
Doug Jeffreys: "If you're an "artist" with a license to served (sic) the public, then your right to discriminate just went out the door."
Quotes within quotes are in apostrophes, and "sic" goes in square brackets, not parentheses.
Cousin Dave: So what authorizes the "license" business? Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has the power to decide who can and cannot engage in commerce? Newspapers can print discriminatory words. Maybe we should force newspapers to get government licenses, and surrender their First Amendment rights to do so. And just because courts choose to ignore parts of the Constitution, that does not make their decisions either legally or morally right.
Either you're suggesting that these businesses should engage in civil disobedience and refuse to serve whomever they choose, or that the states shouldn't be in the licensing business. If it's the latter, your remedy lies in getting enough people interested in your cause and start protests and elect politicians who believe as you do.
Can a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding? I don't see how. They make wedding cakes and they carry those hideous plastic figurines of brides and grooms.
Patrick at December 10, 2013 12:59 PM
A few hours North of the Goddess.
Assholio at December 10, 2013 1:28 PM
I prefer "A gay printer shouldn't be forced to print fliers for the Westboro Baptist Church".
It has advantages, thus:
A) Everyone hates WBC almost as much as they hate Nazis - even fundamentalist Christians who don't like gayness.
B) It's damn near the literal reverse of the situation being protested.
Sigivald at December 10, 2013 1:33 PM
Well, I've been to gay bars and not gotten thrown out because I'm straight.
Someone wanna tell me where the hell common sense went to, in all this?
I mean, if you went to a baker and told him you wanted a wedding cake for a gay wedding, and he says he doesn't make cakes for gay weddings, why on earth would you belabor the point? Go to another baker, they're a dime a dozen. No one can force me to go to one baker instead of another. No one can force a baker to make a cake for my brother and not my sister.
Flynne at December 10, 2013 1:40 PM
> A few hours North of the Goddess.
"Hours North."
K' then! Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more.
No. Really.
Crid at December 10, 2013 2:16 PM
Is your labor, your body, yours to do with as you choose?
Is it better to be free or to not be free?
Is a person free, and is his body his, who cannot choose with whom he will associate or do business, and whom he will not?
If the answer to the first two questions are: Yes and 'free', then the answer to the last question is assuredly no. And we do not have a system that provides for the free choice of the people.
You can throw out 'nazi', 'gay', black, white' muslim, etc. allllll you like.
But those are emotional appeals to hated or formerly hated, majority or minority perceptions, they don't address the root questions.
Ask and answer those 3, and if you would then have a free society, where your labor is only yours to command and no others, then you must allow for people to do as you do not like them to do, even when it inconveniences you.
Freedom isn't always convenient. Get over it.
Robert at December 10, 2013 2:18 PM
"I'm one of the older commenters here; over my lifetime, the United States has accepted more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. These commenters have no understanding of that... No knowledge of the challenges, and no sweet personal memories of the rewards."
Yup. What he said. Including the older part. My Grandparents, Parents, Aunts and Uncles (Capped on purpose) made damn sure I knew these things and was thankful. Getting near time to water the tree with blood of tyrants.
Dave B at December 10, 2013 2:29 PM
Why aren't they required to have certain menu items -- they have a license from the government? You were claiming earlier that because they had a government license they have to serve them.
I faintly remember you claiming to be a lawyer. Would you accept that to practice law you had to accept anti-gay clients that want to restrict gay rights? No? Why not?
This is the argument that you are siding with.
Jim P. at December 10, 2013 2:51 PM
> Freedom isn't always convenient.
Hi Robert!
Where do you live?
Jus' curious....
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 3:27 PM
Jim P., you must have me confused with Isab. I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on Amy's blog.
I do like reading SCOTUS decisions, however. Which is something I wish the posters on this blog liked doing. But obviously they don't. Which reminds me, you once asked me when you've fallen down on matters of the Constitution. I only just today read your remarks a few days ago on the Kelo decision. You may pull your face out of the dirt now.
Did you even bother to read the Kelo decision? Nooooo. Did that fact prevent you from foaming in outrage and crying "unconstitutional!" Nooooo.
But don't feel too bad. Based on what I read on that thread, it's obvious I'm the only person who posts here who seems to believing in actually reading court decisions before I comment on them.
I mean, to me, that's just common sense. Would you write a book review on a book you haven't read?
Patrick at December 10, 2013 3:31 PM
Hi Crid!
Where do you live?
jus' curious
Assholio at December 10, 2013 6:11 PM
My apologies for mis-remembering everything you have said in the past. I didn't mean to slight you by calling you a lawyer. I also addressed the earlier comment you mentioned under the original blog later in the day today.
Now with the off-topic issues addressed, you said:
The recent case that just came out: Judge to Colorado Baker Jack Phillips: Forget Your Religious Convictions – Bake Cakes for Homosexuals or Else…
Essentially your argument is that the state has a right to force you to associate or do business with someone you object to because the state granted you a license. Those are your words.
If that is the case then the state can force me to work for someone whether I want to or not. If you want to live like that, go for it. I refuse to live that way. I will also help defend anyone that believes the same way.
Jim P. at December 10, 2013 6:21 PM
Y'know, Amy has her moments of weirdness. I figger it's some kind of 'ocean breeze' effect, a minor and transitory dementia caused by the sun and the sand and the sheer karmic idiocy of her surrounding Venice Beach residents. She can usually be slapped out of it... Or, as in this case, she can shown as willfully blind & silent to the consequences of her 'position.' Avoidant, even.
If you were consciously trying to be as insufferable, boring, and pompous as possible, what would you do differently?
Thomas Wictor at December 10, 2013 6:40 PM
Now It seems to me that a few things are in dispute here.
1. Should people be free to decide who they work for?
2. Should government decide such things, and should/does a government required license come with required service responsibilities?
3. Are there exceptions where service must be provided regardless of person preference?
4. Is there a "right" to not be discriminated against for any reason? If so, this must be universal or there is still discrimination.
5. Are artists special? (that's for you crid)
6. Do we live in a free society? (that's for you Amy and we don't but I think the cost would be worth it.)
6. Would the cost of a free society be worth living in a free society?
7. Who are you trying to protect and can you do it without screwing other people over?
Assholio at December 10, 2013 6:50 PM
I think in the case of emergency medicine the answer has to be yes within a normal, acceptable triage standards. And even then some things like emergency contraception can be considered out of bounds.
Then there is an archaic law left on the books in Texas from way back when. If someone shows up at your home and asks for a glass of water, you have to provide it to the asker. That is a leftover from the days of horse travel in the desert. If you got stranded out there, whatever color, you could die without something like that. And it happened so they passed the law.
So there are some human level standards that should be observed.
Jim P. at December 10, 2013 7:09 PM
I forgot #9
#9 Can you stop people from having personal opinions regarding whom they are willing to work for?
Answer: No. You can only punish them for being honest in expressing their opinion for why they do not want to works for some demographic. When would you like that service? (which for some reason I find objectionable) I am so sorry, but I am not available for that day! (pencil in vacation time).
What is your version of reality?
Assholio at December 10, 2013 7:17 PM
>>So there are some human level standards that should be observed.
I agree. Where should we set them?
Assholio at December 10, 2013 7:21 PM
6. Would the cost of a free society be worth living in a free society?
The Liberians and Somalians can best answer that.
When I was turned away from clubs in Japan that refused to serve foreigners, I kept walking until I found one that would.
My friend Steiv Dixon, on the other hand, got furious and would try to barge his way inside. I never understood why he wanted to be among people who despised him for no good reason.
I wanted to drink with friendly Japanese, not bigots. There were far more clubs that served foreigners than one that didn't. I never felt deprived because some places didn't let me inside.
Thomas Wictor at December 10, 2013 7:23 PM
"Would the cost of a free society be worth living in a free society?"
No, it is not worth it if it hurts capitalism.
If the Chinese Buffet place in my neighborhood put a sign, which reads "No Fat White People or Short Asians", the place will be filled with only fit Whites and tall Asians. This will greatly satisfy the restaurant owners, who hate short Asians or fat Whites. These people are dangerous as they are hopeless idealists and money means nothing to them. They are like communists.
Anyway, the rest of fat or short unfortunates will have to travel additional 50 miles or possibly 100 miles to search for the Chinese Buffet, which will accept anybody's money.
These wasted miles and time will eventually lead to collapse of capitalism, which this country really stands for. "It is the Economy, Stupid!"
Capitalism trumps everything and that includes your sick desire for freedom to discriminate someone based on their sexual orientation or race.
chang at December 10, 2013 7:42 PM
How short is a short Asian?
Dave B at December 10, 2013 7:47 PM
> Where do you live?
As any of Amy's visitors would correctly surmise from my rhetoric (and specific declarations on the matter) over many years, I'm a lifelong resident and citizen of the United States of America, living and thriving just scant minutes northeast of Amy.
So you should plainly answer the question without evasion. Of course, you should make the point for each topic where it's relevant, as well.
You won't. You're here to indulge the fantasy of being an American, and acknowledging the truth in a straightforward way would really scramble your juju. (It scrambled Steamer's so deeply that he's been gone for two weeks.)
> If you were consciously trying to be as
> insufferable, boring, and pompous as possible,
> what would you do differently?
I'd be at least detectably boring, if only for an instant! But fate compels me to enchant... Always has.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 7:47 PM
Ah, the Steamer exchange was yonder.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 7:53 PM
A Christian photographer should not be forced to photograph a same-sex marriage.
That should read "Christian," with the quote marks, because it is let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
Even so, I am somewhat skeptical of some of these stories. Often someone has a agenda and is not always honest about it.
Did the photographer really turn down business because of bigotry? Or is someone else trying to start a battle where none exists?
For instance, the story of the waitress who claimed that a family stiffed her on the tip has now been proven that the family did NOT write the nasty anti-gay note and they did, in fact, leave a tip.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the news media to report the full story on that one with the same zeal that they reported the original story.
Charles at December 10, 2013 8:00 PM
>>As any of Amy's visitors would correctly surmise from my rhetoric (and specific declarations on the matter) over many years, I'm a lifelong resident and citizen of the United States of America, living and thriving just scant minutes northeast of Amy.
Sorry, I'm just not that into you. So, you are in California? Sorry you are bad at math and map reading, I'm in the central coast area. And you are where?
>>I'd be at least detectably boring, ...
Mission accomplished!
assholio at December 10, 2013 8:06 PM
>>just scant minutes northeast of Amy.
So you live in California too? Cool.
assholio at December 10, 2013 8:10 PM
I'd be at least detectably boring, if only for an instant! But fate compels me to enchant... Always has.
That doesn't even make sense. Who finds catastrophic dullness enchanting? And are you also fated to be indescribably tedious?
Can you drop your precious shtick and just be a human being, or it it too late?
Thomas Wictor at December 10, 2013 8:12 PM
So do you even have a point?
>> "I'd be at least detectably boring, if only for an instant! But fate compels me to enchant... Always has."
Man, to be honest, I only think you post here to see your words in print.
assholio at December 10, 2013 8:19 PM
Ah, the Steamer exchange was yonder.
Oh my God. You're actually proud of that exercise in alcoholic belligerence and pure negativity?
What's the pleasure in being garbage? I never understood it. My ethos is all about improvement, not settling in as some weird lashing-out machine that thrives on provoking people.
Most of what you write is imitation of intelligent commentary. If someone actually takes the time to read it, there's no there there.
Too many Zappa fans are like that, which is the reason Zappa hated his fans.
Thomas Wictor at December 10, 2013 8:21 PM
Crid is Crid. Love him, or hate him. It's ok. He has been here entertaining us for a long time. Longer than I've been here, that's for sure. I've learned a lot from him, even when he is on the opposite side and wrong. Of course he is sometimes wrong, or misunderstood may be a more clever way to say it. Or is that he is never wrong. I can't remember at the moment. Oh, and he has killed some of my brain cells. Only God knows if he has killed more than he has created.
P.S. I am a little delusional from being outside so long this evening doing chores and buttoning up the horses and chickens. Haven't seen above zero for several days.
Dave B at December 10, 2013 8:22 PM
Crid is Crid. Love him, or hate him. It's ok. He has been here entertaining us for a long time.
When does he get entertaining?
Thomas Wictor at December 10, 2013 8:25 PM
"When does he get entertaining?"
You have a choice. Wait and see or just stop reading his posts. I've been here for years and there are some that I just don't read. Crid's stuff I read. You just never know.
Dave B at December 10, 2013 8:33 PM
You have a choice. Wait and see or just stop reading his posts.
I have another choice: Give him some giant helpings of what he gives others. He doesn't seem to like that.
Wonder why? Could it be that he's only comfortable assailing people he knows can't or won't respond in kind?
Not a very admirable trait.
Thomas Wictor at December 10, 2013 8:38 PM
"I have another choice: Give him some giant helpings of what he gives others."
That's fine. Just don't let it get to you. Some try that and end up getting pissed off and leave. Some are missed, others not so much. You'll find that Amy's House is a lot of things for a lot of different people. Hope you enjoy her house as much as I do.
Dave B at December 10, 2013 8:45 PM
I for one missed you, Crid. The comments section was not the same without you.
Gail at December 10, 2013 9:12 PM
See that, you big meany Victor!?!????!
Gail MISSED ME. Okay??? So KNOW THAT, Mr. Brutal Britches!
I don't actually know anything about Gail except that we've disagreed about things in years past, and I was always perfectly right, while her reasoning & judgments were peppered with errors.
But the important thing for now is that you've correctly surmised that nothing, NOTHING is more important to me than to be "admirable"... Yet not merely to be admirable, but to be admirable on the basis of my "traits." You're a cunning judge of character!
Because again, as you so clearly see, I'm typing all this mostly for my own benefit. Well, for that and to shine a little like on life's rocky path for tormented, directionless souls like Lost Little Gail over there.
Actually, I think she's a lawyer. Also, what Dave B said, which was, paraphrased, get over yourself: If you don't want to read something, don't. But if you know what everyone else is supposed to be saying in this forum in order to move things forward in the best manner possible, you should close your browser; open Microsoft Word; type it up; load fresh paper into your Canon; and print it all out.
Then burn it and take your own life. Nobody gives a rat's backside... It's a blog run by a (hospitable and patient) woman for her own career purposes. There's no money in it, nor Brownie points awarded to the most grievous depictions of deeply personal butthurt or anything.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 9:42 PM
Probably at the level that you don't let anyone die needlessly when you, with minimal loss and risk, can keep them alive. I.e. you have have your own food supplies and still have an excess 4 tons of oats and 5K gallons of water; and you refuse to feed them anything.
There is not really a good way to codify being a human with a minimal conscience, but that should be judged in the circumstances. Schindler's List is a good example of a righteous person. He couldn't fix the injury that the state was doing, but did his best to mitigate the abuses with a limited risk to himself.
I guess the split is between being a martyr and committing "suicide" at authorities' hands.
Jim P. at December 10, 2013 10:15 PM
Yes, Crid, I think the very first exchange you and I ever had was a big-ass nasty argument (in which, as always, my position was correct and yours utterly deluded). And it wasn't our last . But, see, I like to argue, being a lawyer and all. Not to mention I agree with you more often than I disagree with you. And besides, I'm afraid I actually do find you entertaining. I also like Marmite, anchovies, hot peppers, horseradish, and cheese that reeks like old gym shoes.
You can throw all this back in my face the next time we're in a big-ass nasty argument. It is my special holiday gift to you.
Gail at December 10, 2013 10:24 PM
You knew just what to give! Perfect size, favorite color.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 10, 2013 10:34 PM
The United States has done a very good job of blunting the edges of life's hardships - perhaps too good a job as more people than the system can reasonably support seem to prefer the blunted edges of US poverty to the uncertainty and risk of attempting to achieve self-sufficiency.
We don't have people dying or lying dead in the streets. We don't have files buzzing round our children's noses like those heartstring-tugging "just pennies a day" commercials.
We don't have cardboard shantytowns on the outskirts of downtown (except when the Occupy movement takes over our public parks to practice its tiresome brand of street theater, public drug use, and rape).
Our poor have government-supplied or -subsidized food money, rent money, and even cell phones.
Most of the world's poor are suffering from malnutrition, disease, and violence; they lack food, water, medicine, and security. America's poor are suffering from obesity, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. They drink too much soda and watch too much television (way too much television as they're now driving the increasing popularity of white trash reality programming and professional wrestling).
Americans give more to others than any other nation. We sponsor charities, scholarships, and nearly-open immigration - all to the benefit of the world's poor.
And we've got the whole the tolerance thing covered, too.
Fundamentalist Islamic nations fling homosexuals off cliffs or stone them to death. We argue about letting them get legally married and how to punish the baker who balks at making the happy couple a cake.
We've got the human-level standards thing covered. We're losing the individual freedom thing - and when that goes, the human-level standards will go with it. Collective societies are captive societies.
Where do we draw the line between freedom and enforced human level standards? And is letting the government draw that line a wise idea?
Conan the Grammarian at December 10, 2013 11:30 PM
I'm gonna have to go with those who are asking 'why?'.
What person, regardless of orientation or gender, etc., wants to purchase a product from someone who is hostile to them?
I see the idea of making a statement, making a point (such as it is), but what is really gained here?
At *best*, you've got someone grudgingly complying with a court order to bake you a cake.
And you *want* that cake? Really?
Discounting active malice (like poison or the like), you're still choosing to receive the lowest common denominator (i.e., a crappy cake, probably from a box).
So, you get a crappy cake, and a hit on the news (plus some publicity), but what comes after?
What do you get?
It's possible that this action has suppressed the specific expression of a shop not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple, but it's not going to alter any underlying attitude.
You're basically going to court to force a company to make the shitiest possible product for you.
How does that advance your cause?
Rather than give your business to a company that doesn't have an issue with your orientation, you've decided that you'd rather force someone to provide a product, just to make a point.
Again, what do you get, apart from another person (or group of people) whe are now even more opposed to you than before?
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 11, 2013 12:17 AM
Correct Crid I moved three years ago. I vote in MA but luve un CH where gays cannot marry or adopt
I have to say I love this discussion because its a toughie. I mean I can see both sides. I wouldn't want to say give french lessons to a slaughterhouse or build a website for them. This is a really hard topic for me anyhow which makes it interesting
One thing worth considering, do we differentiate discrimination between people who make choices we dont like (geing nazis, practicing a religion we hate etc) and things they cant change (race height etc)
Nicolek at December 11, 2013 12:24 AM
> What person, regardless of orientation or
> gender, etc., wants to purchase a product
> from someone who is hostile to them?
OK, see, I think this is naive. (I didn't want to say that about Amy, because she's working some angle that isn't clear to us yet.)
Two parties are making the mistake in their understanding of this... Americans are making one error, and the blog visitors from Canada & Europe are making a different mistake. (As you read on, try to imagine which mistake I prefer. G'wan... guess.)
Americans live in a society where these matters haven't been too loudly confrontational during our lifetimes, so it's easy to presume the underlying stresses are fully resolved. They are not.
"What person... would want to purchase from someone hostile," you ask? Well, someone who needed food. Or who needed medicine or a place to live or an education... That's who.
In a culture with decades of (apparently) smooth economic mobility, you imagine new American industries are free to spring up and profitably support any minority who's been excluded by mainstream suppliers, and to do so in high style; you think sheer economic proficiency's solved the problem of integration in the United States. This isn't true: Until lawful & decent majorities insisted, coteries of sellers in America have always been delighted to exclude Jews, or blacks, or Latins, or the retarded, or the disabled; and many would quite happily do so again if given the opportunity. Lawyers, at least, should be able to clear up misunderstandings about this (Hi Gail!): There's still plenty of money in the lawful resolution of these conflicts at the street level, whether or not they make the evening news.
(And fer Chrissakes, we all know the women need to be reminded of who's who and what's what. Right? Sure. Women nowadays be thinkin' too much!)
So then we have all these commenters from other countries (ahem), the ones who enjoy taking part in the discussion without letting on that they're not actually, y'know, here. And they LOVE hearing chatter like this —'Yeah, man, why would you wanna go anywhere where you're not wanted?'— because they've never even failed at the kind of minority integration at which America excels. They've never had to try, and they don't want to think they'll have to. But while Europe is white, it's being forced to integrate North African and Asian immigrants, and it's doing a fantastically shitty job of it. Jews aren't a problem in Europe because... So many are dead.
This is the quintessence of my resentment of the Martins and Roberts and LTWs and Steamers who come to this blog to pretend to be American. The American error is merely naivety. But the misconceptions of the foreigners who pretend to be American are clumsiness, cowardice and —in ways they can't imagine, let alone recognize and contain— quite probably racism.
And when they say they're not, I'll want really strong evidence that their capacity for tolerance and modern comity have been tested in their own communities and in their own lives.
Yeah, kids, you're right to be fascinated with the United States. You oughta be logging in here every single morning with your nose pressed against the glass of your screen. America IS your future, but it ain't about clever talk.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2013 2:18 AM
The comments section was not the same without [Crid].
That's certainly true!
dee nile at December 11, 2013 3:24 AM
It seems I've been replaced as Crid's chief antagonist. And I cry foul. Crid and I have both been participants on this blog since its inception.
Although my replacements don't seem to have the knack for triggering one of Crid's famous meltdowns. I suspect that takes time to build up.
One of my recent prize moments was when I made a reference to prolific conspiracy theorist and radio personality Alex Jones. When Crid denied any knowledge of Alex Jones, I expressed my doubts that Crid truly had no idea who Jones was. "No clue," Crid replied.
I quoted those two words, blatantly plucking them out of context, and replied, "At least you admit it."
The meltdown that followed had me rocking in my chair with laughter.
My advice: You need to antagonize Crid for a long period of time, then it will reach the point when just about anything you say will send him off the deep end. I cannot pinpoint for anyone just how long it takes; it took me years to reach that point. But it was fun getting there!
(And I live in Tampa Bay, Florida, not that anyone cares, and I was born and raised in Bennington, Vermont.)
Patrick at December 11, 2013 3:33 AM
Who is Alex Jones.
NicoleK at December 11, 2013 4:01 AM
Oh yeah, Crid, a SHITSTORM of integration issues is coming in Europe.
The current fear where I live now is they want to transform old military barracks in the villages into refugee centers. Worst. Idea. Ever. If some of these go through, some villages will suddenly have 10% of their population be unemployed, primarily male, refugees from war-torn countries. Can't see how THAT could go wrong.
NicoleK at December 11, 2013 4:05 AM
Patrick, this Alex Jones?
(PS - I missed Cridmo more than all of you, and am looking forward to our tawdry, clandestine tryst coming up this summer. No, I won't tell you how it goes. I'll let him, once he's recovered.)
Flynne at December 11, 2013 4:53 AM
How short is a short Asian?
Posted by: Dave B at December 10, 2013 7:47 PM
Too short to see out the window while driving, which describes my sister-in-law. Mrs D is the tallest person in her family. I wouldn't call her short, but she's below the mean height for her demographic. Why seek pointless confrontation?
Which is why I don't patronize those who don't want my business, nor try to change the world. I've worked in a restaurant, so I know that gay couple really should not want to eat that cake. A perfect example of a pyrrhic victory.
MarkD at December 11, 2013 5:23 AM
Legality aside, it is so incredibly counterproductive for gay marriage advocates to be suing bakers and photographers who have moral objections to providing service to gay weddings. Yes, it will get lots of publicity and a large amount of the public will be in pearl clutching horror that someone would dare to discriminate. But it's very much a case of winning the battle and losing the war.
The people who are morally opposed to gay marriage cannot be sued into approving of it. All it does is create martyrs. The moral opposition to gay marriage firmly believes in the slippery slope. What starts with the state forcing private business owners to act against their conscience, will end in churches being forced to perform gay weddings whether the congregation approves or not. These people will become more entrenched and be more invested in keeping gay marriage illegal.
Elle at December 11, 2013 7:28 AM
"This isn't true: Until lawful & decent majorities insisted, coteries of sellers in America have always been delighted to exclude Jews, or blacks, or Latins, or the retarded, or the disabled; and many would quite happily do so again if given the opportunity. "
I think the mistake a lot of people make is assuming that laws fixed this. Laws are not and cannot be moral codes; that's a erroneous assumption that both the left and the right make. Laws cannot be more than a minimum set of codes that prevent social disorder. Laws that work are usually trailing indicators; they codify what society has already decided on.
"PS - I missed Cridmo more than all of you, and am looking forward to our tawdry, clandestine tryst coming up this summer. No, I won't tell you how it goes. I'll let him, once he's recovered.)"
Some guys have all the luck.
Cousin Dave at December 11, 2013 7:41 AM
Face it, Cousin Dave -- Crid's a chick magnet.
Gail at December 11, 2013 7:52 AM
Flynne, you got it. That's the right Alex Jones. Promiscuous conspiracy theorist. Professes to believe in them all, but I suspect he's more about making money off of those that do.
Patrick at December 11, 2013 9:00 AM
As far as Crid goes, if people didn't talk about him, I wouldn't notice whether he was here or not. Over the years, I've kind of developed a filter where Crid is concerned, much like I have one in place for Radwaste and lujlp. I prod them when it amuses me to do so. But 90% of the time, I tend to ignore them.
Patrick at December 11, 2013 9:19 AM
> Who is Alex Jones.
An entirely reasonable question, Nicole-back! (He's a minor pundit of some kind.) But prepare for an explosive slapback from naive commenters who presume that their own twitching, readily-summoned, media-saturated resentments are the gold standard for social awareness. They presume that you secretly already know, and that you deeply, and hurtfully, care.
Don't worry about it, Nic.
> I think the mistake a lot of people make
> is assuming that laws fixed this.
Law alone did not, of course... But having America's enormous legal & regulatory infrastructures in motion to express the decency and intentions of her people has done a lot to make this the best place on the planet for any and every minority. The oppressions people will commonly bring to each other don't go away by referendum, any more than would petty theft and discourtesy (themselves the first expressions of racism). To keep things moving in the right direction, you need cops on the beat and cheerful attorneys under a nearby awning.
Those questions of yours a few hours ago are centrally important and freshly applicable, as fools & weenies in America have demanded ever-more intimate support from distant fellows, specifically, taxpayers.
(Fools & weenies from other countries have, as a matter of course, been demanding the most critical support a man could ask for anyway: Defense of his body & borders from foreign attack. So they'll ask other things from Americans —even emotional gewgaws like the rhetorical succor of this forum, collected under false pretenses— without any thought that they'd don't perfectly well deserve it.)
But they're not new questions. For a principled position in the fight you're talking about —which is certainly going to keep you & busy until we're safely buried— this book is essential reading. It examines exactly which ideas make the United States a leader in personal and social achievements. Postrel edited our premier libertarian magazine for ten years, but she's clear & dispassionate about the necessity of government in essential regulation and defense of enforceable contracts.
(There are things besides ideas that made America great, too, but you'll never fit it all in one book. Let me know if you need more titles.)
Time and again you look at 3rd or even 2nd-world nations and wonder why they can't get their shit together, why they keep slashing & hacking at the interests of their countrymen; and the answer is that they have no good government.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2013 10:52 AM
Thomas, the trick to pissing of crid is simple. Be right.
Crid is entertaining, and he can cut apart an argument as beautifully as I have ever seen. But he has one major flaw; he can never admit he is wrong, even when he so clearly is it becomes pathetic. I dont believe he is so stupid or delusional as to think he is never wrong, but something about his personality refuses to let him admit it.
He will resort to anything to justify ignoring or dismissing those who prove him wrong, he'll resort to credentialism when it suits him, or claim a dyslexic is too stupid and lazy to spell words correctly and therefore also to stupid to have a decent argument so why bother read it. His favorite ploy is to claim those separated by geography are too far removed from the subject at hand to have any meaningful insights, even if the geographical distance is just under a hundred mile radius.
He makes a great debate opponent, and he'll force you to up you skills to keep up with him. But you know that saying "A broken clock is still right twice a day"?
Crid is kind of like that, but he is more like a clock that is stuck in high speed cycling thru several times a day. He is right more often than a traditionally broken clock, but mostly it is just hot air and meaningless noise.
Patricks problem is that he worships at the alter of government power, and doenst like having to defend that position when the numerous inevitable abuses are laid at his feet to justify so he gets all pissy and promises to ignore people but never really does
lujlp at December 11, 2013 11:55 AM
> All it does is create martyrs.
Nope; insistence that businesses take any customer who shows up with money has many effects. It creates wealth, whatever the momentary unpleasantness; it expresses a recognition that decency's blessings are about behavior, not birthright; it increases familiarity and it diminishes petty grievances.
Again, again: The stupidest, meanest people in the world loveto hear you say things like that, Elle... Especially the ones reading from lesser cultures, dull and unproductive places where small-mindedness is the status quo. You should resist saying things like that if only for the your own pleasure in disappointing them.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2013 12:48 PM
Markup errors. Because HTML, right? I feel bad.
And just like that, I realize how Elle's insistent pessimism is part of the GM lunacy. If it's really true that people can get along, and can learn to appreciate their commonality when the larger culture insists that they try, then Elle's eagerness to cluck about "pearl clutchers" has no currency... After all, why should she care about gay marriage, except that she wants to pretend to be Rosa Parks?
If there's no rules about seating on the bus, then nobody gets to pretend to be as heroic as the lady from Montgomery (but from the riskless, impersonal comfort of a computer keyboard). Right? Right.
Can't have that, can we? Better to pretend "All it does is create martyrs." You don't even want progress.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2013 12:59 PM
Tim, this topic has gone on too long, and it's really time to move onto new territory that our sultry goddess has painstakingly provided for us.
But I did want to address something.
Not if that company values its reputation. They've already drawn unwanted publicity, which might be spun to draw the bigoted customers. On the other hand, do they really want to have less than their best work being put out there?
And besides, bakers who furnish wedding cakes do not usually have the option of choosing which design they'll go with. They have catalogs and the customers choose which design and colors they want.
Patrick at December 11, 2013 5:30 PM
Actually a lot of the reason that there has been discrimination is because of anecdotes and special interests groups. If you look at the origin of Jim Crow Laws it probably wasn't most businessmen. I'm sure there were some who didn't want to serve blacks, or other ethnicities. At the same time the restrictions on opening a store were probably a lot less. The issue is that the various local, state and federal governments codified this into law. SCOTUS approved it with the "separate but equal" rules. So now trying to codify the opposite direction is equally wrong.
The anecdotal portion has been around forever, from "N***** can't see in the dark," to "Indians can't handle their liquor." That is the equivalent of gossip that "your neighbor is cheating with his sister." Demand facts.
This is similar to the problems with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA codifies the wheelchair ramp should be a 1:12 slope. But many a small business that has bought an older building in a downtown can't get that low a slope because the width of the building to the front door won't allow it. So it is either rebuild the the front and lose the classic look and costing three times the plan or not putting in a ramp. Take a guess what the small business ower is going to do.
Jim P. at December 11, 2013 6:16 PM
From what I can tell you are deliberately missing the point. The various governmental entities forced a person/business to not associate via the Jim Crow and other similar laws whether they liked it or not. Now you want the opposite: The various governmental entities are going to force a person/business to associate with someone whether they like it or not.
If you think that is good, your grip on reality needs to change hand holds.
Jim P. at December 11, 2013 6:22 PM
You've misjudged me Crid. I have no problems with gay marriage, straight marriage, or even polyamourous marriages. Whatever combination of genitals people want to legally bind themselves to is a-ok with me.
However, among my relatives, among some of my religious fundamental friends, I can promise you that they absolutely believe that "the gay agenda" involves the government forcing their churches to perform same sex marriages. And they see the folks who are getting dragged to court and required to provide services for gay weddings as an implacable step in that direction.
Where once they had been disapproving-but-largely-indifferent, now they are angry, scared, ready to fight, single-issue voters. They are preparing to fight for their Church. And they will throw up every roadblock they can to prevent gay marriage so they can maintain the sanctity of their Church.
Do you want to drive one or two bigots out of business or do you want to legalize same-sex marriage as quickly and efficiently as possible?
Elle at December 11, 2013 9:12 PM
From what I can tell you are deliberately missing the point.
Yea, he's great at that
lujlp at December 11, 2013 9:34 PM
> Do you want to drive one or two bigots out of
> business or do you want to legalize same-sex
> marriage as quickly and efficiently as possible?
Neither of those is a big goal. Bigger goals are [A] defend the most vulnerable, those least able to defend or even express their own needs and [B] deflate those whose expressions of belief are cartoonishly naive and transparently self-flattering postures, no matter how popular they may be.
Of course, each of us was brought to the planet for our own special purpose. Right?
Sure.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2013 9:44 PM
Elle, I regret to say that your fundamentalist friends' general idiocy, bigotry, and ignorance of the concept of separation of church and state doesn't really provide support for...well... anything. Just about every societal change has been accompanied by hysterical and irrational reactions by bigots, reactionaries, and fear-mongers. Not a reason to back away.
Anyhoo. I had an initial kneejerk reaction to agree with Amy. But then as I thought about it... where's the line, and what's the justification for drawing it? If ivy league schools decided to be all-white, all-male, non-Jew admitting institutions (you know, like they used to be) I presume most people would have a problem with that. If a restaurant decided to have a separate section for black people, or allow them only to do takeout, or refuse to serve them altogether (you know, like they used to do) , well, I'd have a problem with it. If taxis speed by black people and refuse to pick them up (and this still happens sometimes), is that OK? Or if an apartment building refuses to rent to someone because they're Hispanic? Or a corporation refusing to hire women? I don't think so. As Crid noted above, laws did play a part -- I'd say a big part -- in changing societal attitudes about stuff like that. People don't spit on kids attending integrated schools anymore. But do you think schools would have become integrated all on their own? I doubt it. I think we'd still have separate but equal in a lot of the country if it hadn't been shoved down the bigoted folks' throats.
Yeah, I agree that the gay couple probably doesn't want to eat that cake. And it bugs me to force a tattoo artist to do a swastika. But I'm here trying to think why that's different from taxis refusing to pick up black people.
Gail at December 11, 2013 10:01 PM
Looks like there might have been some issues with grasping my point.
Let it be said that I fully support any consensual relationship (gay marriage, and so forth).
If I were a baker, and were asked to provide a wedding cake for a gay marriage, it would be a fabulous cake with a pair of flamboyant grooms to top it off (if that were what was ordered).
What I don't get is this idea that we have to force someone to act against their beliefs.
Gays (and other similarly targeted folks) rightly complain when they're told that they have to behave a certain (offensively described) way to get along in society, but it's somehow perfectly okay to force someone else to behave (against their will) in a way that supports what they don't believe in.
Non discrimination rules apply to government entities. A typical individual is (and should be) allowed whatever viewpoint they choose (however reprehensible it might be).
It's disingenuous to say that we must unconditionally accept the views of one group, but then also say that it's entirely okay to ignore the views of another.
Even if their views are stupid, they're still allowed the right to hold those views.
And, what's reputation in this context?
It's entirely possible that in the context of the society around the business, that refusing to serve a gay couple enhances their reputation. So, if reputation is the key denominator, they're doing the right thing, in this context.
I still don't see the logic in forcing someone to do business with you unless you have no other choice. Reputation not withstanding, you're not going to get the best outcome. You *might* get some outcome, which could be better than nothing, but in a case like this, it seems to me that there *are* alternatives.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 11, 2013 10:27 PM
Yeah, and black people can go to some other school, or university, or restaurant, or get some other job or apartment, and maybe another cab driver won't be a bigot. But again -- is that different? How? (Other than that we now have laws about that stuff?)
Gail at December 11, 2013 10:39 PM
Gail, if you're responding to me, you're quite a bit off the mark.
My position isn't that gays / blacks / etc., shouldn't have access to schools / colleges / services (and so on).
I'm entirely in favor of full access and options.
I'm also in favor of allowing private individuals to choose their market.
Now, if you get a degree of federal or state (governmental) funding, then, in my opinion, you are fully required to provide equal access, regardless of your personal beliefs.
By accepting that funding, you've voluntarily given up any right to make that kind of discrimation.
And ...
I think it's utterly stupid for even a private business to refuse service on the basis of sex / gender / race and so on.
But, I'm still going to say that a private company should still have the right to choose who they serve.
I'm going to say that it's pretty fucking stupid to push away business, but that's their decision.
Let's say that I (a pretty typical white male) decides that I want to buy something from a shop run by lesbians.
Let's also say that they don't like white males, and refuse to do business with me.
What're your thoughts on that?
If you believe that it's okay for them to refuse me service, but you don't believe that it's okay for a conservative to refuse business to a gay couple, then YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE (and we're justifiably allowed to ignore your opinion).
Now, I'm going to offer up the idea that, as long as it's truly a private business (no governmental funding, or credits), that they're allowed to choose to associate with whoever they like, and can deny whoever they like.
That *is* the textbook definition of 'freedom of association'.
And, to continue my prior thoughts:
Why, in any situation where there's any choice, would you choose to force someone to do business with you?
Do you *really* want someone who holds a grudge against you to prepare your food?
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 11, 2013 11:02 PM
> do you think schools would have become
> integrated all on their own?
✔ Gail at December 11, 2013 10:01 PM
Exactly. Exactly.
President Kennedy, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, put off support for integration until the last possible moment... And then waited a little longer. In these recordings, you hear JFK and his goofy brother hemming and hawing on the telephone with authorities in the Deep South as things start to boil over, and he's compelled to send in the National Guard to permit children to go to school.
This book describes a tense meeting with Martin Luther King in the Oval Office, when the troops are on their way in, and everyone's fearing an episode of horrible violence... But it's only tense for JFK and RFK. They doubleteam King, begging him to have his supporters stand down the confrontation.
King is blessedly resolute, and in some tellings (I think this is one of them, I haven't read it for thirty years), almost blasé in his response to their desperate requests for more time; He'd already faced the snarling dogs of racist government authority, and there was nothing to negotiate. In my memory of the description, he's nearly smirking as he replies (close paraphrase): 'If not now, when?'
Don't kid yourself. Law can make both good and bad things happen.
It's remarkable that people who've been chirping self-righteously (if baselessly) about gay marriage for the last ten years suddenly wanna switch teams, or embrace a milquetoast definition of "rights."
One might wonder why they're doing that.
But I think I know why.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 11, 2013 11:31 PM
By the way —and I'm only asking because in today's rockin' scene, political positions can apparently be rilly dynamic— how do you guys feel about abortion?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 12, 2013 12:09 AM
If a restaurant decided to have a separate section for black people, or allow them only to do takeout, or refuse to serve them altogether (you know, like they used to do)
But do you think schools would have become integrated all on their own? I doubt it. I think we'd still have separate but equal in a lot of the country if it hadn't been shoved down the bigoted folks' throats.
The point people love to ignore when these points are brought up is the laws were written to FORCE segregation upon those who did not want it.
The truth is we dont know what would have happened naturally because government force was used to enforce segregation and more government force was used to counter it. God for bid our "leaders" just left us the fuck alone to live our lives as we see fit.
I agree with "there are some who call me 'Tim?'" if you receive any type of funds from the government, and I'd include tax breaks in that category, you should be required to abide by the same standards the government is held to.
Barring that I think people should be free to be as openly racist and sexist and whatever the hell 'ist' applies to gay discrimination as they want to be. And everyone else is free to ridicule them for their small mindedness, or support them fro standing up for their beliefs.
lujlp at December 12, 2013 2:04 AM
how do you guys feel about abortion?
I'd like to see a 10,000% increase across the globe for the next 75yrs
lujlp at December 12, 2013 2:25 AM
Gail: "Face it, Cousin Dave -- Crid's a chick magnet."
What?! How is that? I want to be a chick magnet too. Could some chicks please enlighten me about that?
Ken R at December 12, 2013 3:56 AM
Jim P. From what I can tell you are deliberately missing the point.
I'm not sure why you're stepping up to defend Tim, but whatever. Nope. No missing the point here. All I see is someone who's desperately trying to save an argument that wasn't thought through.
A baker doesn't even have the option of making giving a crappy cake from a box when a wedding cake is ordered. The clientele chooses one from a catalog.
And since weddings have guests, it is likely that these guests will see this cake. Do you really think, out of distaste for their clients, they're going to issue some crappy cake so that these wedding guests (who might actually be planning a wedding (some of which might even be straight marriages) or have friends and relatives that might be doing so), will say, "Wow. That baker sure made a crappy cake"?
If they're willing to risk that blow to their reputation, that is one bakery that will be out of business in a very short time.
So, this whole line of "if you force a baker to make a cake for you, you're just going to get a crappy cake" is approximately forty-seven-point-three-nine types of stupid.
And spare me the bullshit about how there was some point that I missed. Go ahead. Reread the entire post. His entire post was about how you're going to get a crappy cake if you force someone to make it.
Not one word, not one syllable, not one phoneme deviated from that topic. But let's just try to run from the fact that we made a really shitty argument and pretend that we had some much higher, loftier point to make that I just missed.
Yeah, right.
Your face-saving skills suck.
And on the subject of face-saving fails, let's look at Tim's efforts, which are only marginally better than yours.
What I don't get is this idea that we have to force someone to act against their beliefs.
A baker who has a religious objection to baking cakes? He's in the wrong business.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose I were a baker, and Crid is getting married. (Yeah, I know. Remember I said it's a hypothetical situation.)
And suppose he saw a wonderful wedding cake that I had made and he just decided that he was bound and determined to have it, and his resolve was so iron-and-steely that he was willing to overlook our mutual loathing and order the cake from me.
Now, I have nothing against Crid getting married to any woman (or man) who can actually stand him (though I might send an anonymous note suggesting therapy to his blushing bride). But the fact of the matter is, I'd just as soon not do business with him. And I have no desire whatsoever to help make his upcoming gala a memorable occasion.
However, for the sake of my business, I'm still going to put out my best efforts, because I want everyone to see what beautiful wedding cakes I make.
I'm a baker. I make cakes. I am in no way responsible for what people do with them. Let that sink in for a moment. As far as I know, I was not taught morality policing in baking school. That is in no way part of my job. I am not responsible for what people do with my wedding cakes. It's not my job to make sure my wedding cakes are used to promote only the highest unions (half of the weddings I make cakes for will end in divorce anyway). I don't decide, for example, "Oh, sorry. I don't approve of May-December romances or multiple marriages, so I can't make this wedding cake for Rush Limbaugh, who is marrying his fourth wife who is half his age."
Finally, I know Crid set me up for this to make me look like a really mean person, but what the hell? I'm doing it anyway.
Crid: how do you guys feel about abortion?
I wish your mother had one.
(On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 as being not harsh at all to 10 being as harsh as possible, please rate that last comment. Bearing in mind, Crid did that to me on purpose.)
Patrick at December 12, 2013 4:12 AM
Patrick: "I'm a baker. I make cakes. I am in no way responsible for what people do with them... I was not taught morality policing in baking school. That is in no way part of my job. I am not responsible for what people do with my wedding cakes. It's not my job to make sure my wedding cakes are used to promote only the highest unions..."
That's all very good. If you own the business it's your prerogative to determine your own mission and write your own job description and the job descriptions of the people who work for you. A different baker who owns his business may have a different mission and define his purpose and job differently. Just because more people think his is better than yours doesn't mean the police, guns, courts and jails of the government should be used to force you to adopt and comply with his.
Instead of freedom, perhaps the government should have an agency that writes an approved mission statement for every type of business? And entrepreneurs wishing to start their own businesses would pay a nominal fee and download the politically correct, approved mission statement for their type of business?
Ken R at December 12, 2013 5:12 AM
Ken R: Instead of freedom, perhaps the government should have an agency that writes an approved mission statement for every type of business? And entrepreneurs wishing to start their own businesses would pay a nominal fee and download the politically correct, approved mission statement for their type of business?
They more or less do. They license you to sell your goods to the public. They don't license you to be the morality police.
And if this gay couple happens to live in a small community that doesn't have a lot of bakers to choose from? Oh, freakin'-well, no cake for that wedding.
Patrick at December 12, 2013 6:39 AM
Do you really think, out of distaste for their clients, they're going to issue some crappy cake so that these wedding guests (who might actually be planning a wedding (some of which might even be straight marriages) or have friends and relatives that might be doing so), will say, "Wow. That baker sure made a crappy cake"?
Never underestimate the levels of stupidity people will lower themselves too to make a point
lujlp at December 12, 2013 7:17 AM
"Yeah, I agree that the gay couple probably doesn't want to eat that cake. And it bugs me to force a tattoo artist to do a swastika. But I'm here trying to think why that's different from taxis refusing to pick up black people."
It's different because being a Nazi or having a gay wedding is a choice (I didn't say being gay is a choice, I said having a wedding is), being black isn't.
NicoleK at December 12, 2013 7:45 AM
Patrick your Crid filter seems to be broken.
NicoleK at December 12, 2013 7:49 AM
I notice you guys immediately pounced on the desegregation of schools comparison: "oh, that's different; they're public institutions, yada yada ". Fine. That's true. Indeed, I only mentioned as an example of something we take for granted now that had to be rammed down bigots throats not so very long ago.
But you ignored my other examples. Would it be ok if Harvard et al. decided to exclude black people? They're richly endowed all on their own. No government funds needed. (And if you think a degree from one of those schools doesn't open some doors, by the way, well, you're wrong.)
Is it ok for bigoted cab drivers to zoom past black men in the rain? What if it's the only cab company in town, but it's privately owned by a rich bigot?
You'd be fine with restaurants/businesses in the deep South being white only? (I gather Amy's fine with an entire town of businesses in a town being white only, and the rest of the world can just avoid having their car break down there. That will require some research before setting out on a roadtrip --googling for a list of bigoted towns that might possibly lie between you and your destination.
Fine for the owner of a bunch of NYC apartment buildings to exclude Hispanics because he doesn't like them? Even if they're the only nice apartments in town?
No problem if Amazon.com or Apple take it into their heads to not hire women, however well-qualified?
Maybe you have more faith in human nature than I do. I do not think many of these things would have changed all on their own. Indeed, a whole lot of cab drivers and building owners and employers are still bigots -- only now they have to come up with some other excuse for refusing to do business with someone.
You'll say that other outraged folks would boycott such businesses if they excluded blacks. Maybe...now. but that would not have been the case 50 years ago. And IMO that societal shift happened largely because of legal changes that shoved it down people's throats. As time went on, most people saw that no harm was done by having a black person living or dining next to them, and eventually took it for granted.
As I say, I really am troubled by forcing the artist to do a swastika tattoo. I'm just struggling to come up with a reason that his business should be different from the restaurant, apartment, or cab owner. I'd actually LIKE to come up with a reason to justify it. But for me, it can't be a reason that would allow a "whites only" lunch counter.
Gail at December 12, 2013 7:56 AM
Nicole, opening a business is every bit as much of a "choice" as having a gay wedding. Why is saying, "if you open a business, you serve all comers who can pay and don't go smashing your furniture" worse than saying "sorry, no wedding for you"?
No one is making you hang up that shingle.
Gail at December 12, 2013 8:01 AM
...and I'm betting none of you would let the doctor off the hook for providing emergency care to a black person/gay person/Nazi. So why is he different from the mechanic in the one horse bigot town in the middle of nowhere refusing to repair the gay couple's car?
Is this similar to the way people often expect free work from lawyers, doctors, etc....but not from plumbers?
Gail at December 12, 2013 8:28 AM
Why would you want someone to profit if they are so bigoted?
Does anyone have a right to a wedding cake? Or a tattoo? Or a haircut?
Medical care and housing can be life and death matters, cake, and tattoos not so much.
Business owners (especially in service businesses) don't accept all clients (that can pay); they discriminate in some way.
I know a karaoke place that decided to limit some singers to 1 song. There is no right to karaoke.
Katrina at December 12, 2013 8:52 AM
Maybe you have more faith in human nature than I do. I do not think many of these things would have changed all on their own. Indeed, a whole lot of cab drivers and building owners and employers are still bigots -- only now they have to come up with some other excuse for refusing to do business with someone.
A few things.
1. How do you suppose minorities ever got equality and voting rights? Was it magic? Did a quantum displacement wave sweep the globe knocking us all into an alternate reality devoid of natural inhabitants yet somehow a slightly altered legal system which we were all forced to abide by against our wishes?
Or did the majority grant the minority those rights?
2. People suck, I dont trust human nature, but greed generally outweighs bigotry and stupidity, except in such cases where people are FORCED to comply, then they just all contrarian on you.
3. Yes they still discriminate, but they do so in secret, and they find excuses that are legally plausible. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, let them be free to be openly discriminatory, and let their business competitors be free to run them out of business.
lujlp at December 12, 2013 9:37 AM
NicoleK: It's different because being a Nazi or having a gay wedding is a choice (I didn't say being gay is a choice, I said having a wedding is), being black isn't.
And no one has the "right" to a taxi, either. So, it's perfectly fine, right and proper, in your view, for cab drivers to refuse to pick up black people.
Being black isn't a choice and being gay isn't a choice. But no one has the right to a taxi or a wedding cake, either.
Patrick at December 12, 2013 11:12 AM
I guess from someone who thinks there is no right to travel...then there is no right to a taxi.
Though most taxi's have some sort of governmental regulation to keep their monopolies. Therefore, they cannot discriminate.
Katrina at December 12, 2013 11:28 AM
Oh, very good. When we've lost the argument, let's just make up lies about your opponent, shall we?
The Supreme Court said we have a right to travel. I'm not going to argue with them, for the very good reason that it would amount to nothing. Once SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of something, your only hope of getting it changed will come in the form of a Constitutional Amendment or in some cases, a law might suffice. Or you could find yourself in a similar situation and hire a really good lawyer who could successfully argue to SCOTUS that their decision needs to be reversed.
But I do know this: when the courts have ruled, whining "Oh, it's so unconstitutional! So corrupt!" is not going to avail you anything. So, either up your game or shut up. No one wants to hear your ineffectual sniveling.
"Oh, sob! Boo-hoo! The TSA! So unconstitutional! Waaaah!" Yeah, that's really going to fix the problem.
Katrina, the mental giant, writes: Though most taxi's have some sort of governmental regulation to keep their monopolies. Therefore, they cannot discriminate.
Yeah, and bakeries require licensure and permits from the state government; therefore, they cannot discriminate either.
Patrick at December 12, 2013 11:37 AM
☑ Posted by: Gail at December 12, 2013 7:56 AM
See especially, 'graph niner: Gail sees the real world.
The purpose of law throughout history may have been to oppress people, and trends in public life may be heading back in that direction. But for one place in the world for at least one brief time, law was an indispensable tool for sharing the virtue of the majority with the less-fortunate.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 12, 2013 12:51 PM
"Why is saying, 'if you open a business, you serve all comers who can pay and don't go smashing your furniture' worse than saying 'sorry, no wedding for you'?"
Well, let's turn that question around again. If someone wants to have a Nazi-themed wedding with a minister dressed as Adolf Hitler, should you be compelled to serve them?
Cousin Dave at December 12, 2013 2:01 PM
Patrick has never said we dont have a right to travel, he says there is nothing in the constitution which mentions any right to any particular from of travel free from the ass probing fingers of government goons.
A minor, yet substantial (depending on the size of your friendly neighborhood government appointed molester's fingers) difference
lujlp at December 12, 2013 2:22 PM
Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment
That was known as Camelot!
Conan the Grammarian at December 12, 2013 2:41 PM
First of all, I shouldn't have said it that way.
Second, Camelot was bullshit!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 12, 2013 3:07 PM
Bakeries can compete with each other.
The license doesn't define products and prices.
Katrina at December 12, 2013 4:31 PM
Don't walk it back, it was a good description.
The US represented a tectonic shift in how laws were looked at - which is why many Europeans still don't understand our reverence for our Constitution.
Even England's Magna Carta only covered the nobility's relationship with the king. Commoners were still screwed. Only later would the rights of commoners start to be recognized (as long as those commoners weren't Irish).
We were a nation of laws that were intended to be applied to all. A nation where the rights of the minorities in the population were protected from being trampled by the majority.
Yes, I know, slavery ... we moved slowly on that, but we moved. After the Declaration of Independence, North Carolina changed its laws to make the intentional killing of a slave murder, instead of the willful destruction of property it had been.
The NAACP won Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Too many people assume that was the only lawsuit that was filed. The truth was the NAACP and other groups filed hundreds of lawsuits against "separate but equal" in dozens of states. Brown was simply the one that got to the Supreme Court. The NAACP had faith that American laws and legal system would vindicate them; that the system of laws our forefathers set up would work. And it did ... eventually.
What other country or legal system existed then or even now that scrupulously protects unpopular speech? Unpopular religions?
The world does not yet realize what it will lose if the US goes the way of those countries that so vociferously insist we change to be more like them.
We are Camelot....
The play can be viewed as an allegory about the US (not the Kennedys - don't let Jackie's desperate attempt to paint Jack as a tragic Arthurian hero spoil it).
We are that place where law prevails over the sword. We are that place where people were intended to sit at the metaphorical table as equals.
Or, at least, we used to be.
Conan the Grammarian at December 12, 2013 5:59 PM
Cousin Dave said: "Well, let's turn that question around again. If someone wants to have a Nazi-themed wedding with a minister dressed as Adolf Hitler, should you be compelled to serve them?"
Sounds more like a dress rehearsal of Springtime for Hitler than a wedding...
Kidding aside -- it's a good question, and unlike some folks here, I honestly don't think it has an easy snap answer.
I'm going to assume that the Hitler-themed wedding contains nothing that would actually break laws; it's just a disgusting homage to Nazis. Yeah, it's offensive to me and nearly everyone else, but if it's a private, legal, function that isn't going to hurt anything but our sensibilities... Well, really -- can you justify refusing to rent the hall for that, without also allowing someone to refuse to rent the hall for the gay wedding? Or an interracial wedding? A Jewish wedding?
Seems to me the rehearsal hall is equivalent to a restaurant -- if the skinheads in the diner booth aren't harassing anyone, you can't boot them out just for being skinheads. Or blacks. Or gay. Or whatever. If they're wearing shirts and shoes and not making trouble, you've got to served them the same mediocre grilled cheese sandwich you'd serve anyone else.
I'm more troubled by the tattoo artist, to be honest, who actually has to draw a symbol that's repugnant to him. (Not just deal with someone with beliefs he doesn't like and offer the exact same service he gives any other paying customer.) He's actively creating a symbol he finds repugnant. That's why I'm still groping for a nice distinction to help him and similar creative types out. ( On the other hand, if memory serves, aren't swastikas symbols (of very different things) in some other cultures? If you do exactly the same swastika tattoo for a Native American...)
There are actually a fair number of jobs that might require one to deal with those they might find repulsive or offensive. A public defender, for example. And obviously, all the examples I go on about above.
And i just have trouble saying you can act as bigoted as you like when opening a business to the public. How about an ice cream truck vendor who only will sell to white kids and turns black kids away? What if he has a big sign on his truck saying so? Hey, it's his business, right?
I'm going to go right out there on that limb and say the ice cream vendor is selling ice cream to the public, and if the skinhead ponies up the cash, and isn't making trouble except by, ya know, existing, he gets to pick his flavor.
Gail at December 12, 2013 7:49 PM
As I noted above -- a public defender is under an obligation to defend the client they might find repulsive or offensive because of the Sixth Amendment's right to legal counsel and who is paying them.
But at the same time it does not force John Doe, the private lawyer with a bar card, to take a on a case that he find's abhorrent for any reason.
Jim P. at December 12, 2013 9:00 PM
That also doesn't stop the business owner (or business policy) from being the morality police. Are you saying any government license requires you to change your personal beliefs. I want to put a requirement to have a driver's license that you pay a tithe to the Catholic Church 1% of your income. How about to get a fishing license you have to pray to St. Peter?
I have attended weddings in a small community that didn't even have a town baker. Friends of the family made the cake and catered the reception. All of the friends and family of the bride and groom made the wedding and reception the best I ever attended.
Jim P. at December 12, 2013 9:13 PM
JimP said: "But at the same time it does not force John Doe, the private lawyer with a bar card, to take a on a case that he find's abhorrent for any reason."
Any reason? Not quite -- not in NY anyway. If memory serves, there's a disciplinary rule stating that a lawyer can't refuse to take you on as a client on the basis of race, creed, sex, yada yada. (Of course, a lawyer is likely to be well-versed enough to come up with a more legitimate-sounding reason not to take on a case.)
And of course, if you work for a firm or corporation instead of hanging out your own shingle, you may well have the choice of working for a client you despise or quitting your job. Happened to me more than once.
Gail at December 12, 2013 9:45 PM
Which way did you go?
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 13, 2013 12:15 AM
On the other hand, if memory serves, aren't swastikas symbols (of very different things) in some other cultures?
Yes and no, there are similar symbols but the face the opposite way.
While were on this subject, are any of you aware that Visa is apparently using its power to refuse to process payment for pornography that it doesnt like causing websites and magazines to go out of business.
lujlp at December 13, 2013 6:24 AM
The lawyer who can't get out of representing the bad individual/case isn't that great a lawyer in the first place. Working for a firm that takes on such a client that you don't want to represent still puts you with a choice of do it or quit.
And again it STILL IS YOUR CHOICE.
This is supposedly still a free society.
Jim P. at December 13, 2013 6:57 AM
You are missing my point, Jim P. I had the choice of staying and serving the client I despised, or quitting. I did not have the option of keeping my job, and only serving the clients I wanted to deal with. Ya know, kind of like the restaurant owner can't refuse the black people and skinheads unless he wants to close his doors. (But he does have that choice.)
As for what I did, Crid -- generally I gritted my teeth and stuck to my work. What I did have was the option (actually, the obligation) of doing was declining to do anything unethical. I had at least one scumbag client (a CEO of a company) repeatedly try to get me and fellow attorneys to do something unethical to help his case (e.g., withhold bad documents rather than produce them to the other side in discovery as required). But luckily the powers that be always backed me up on ethical stances. (I would have quit if they didn't.) I still thought the guy was a disgusting slimebag, but if everything we were doing for him was above-board, I could live with it.
Also, it wasn't a criminal case. It was his big company and his fancy lawyers vs another big company and its fancy lawyers -- so it's not like a murderer might walk the streets as a result of my representation, or some innocent schmuck wind up in jail. Both sides had big guns; as long as I was behaving ethically, I had no qualms about presenting his case to the best of my ability. (That's one reason I didn't go in the criminal direction, which I'd probably find more interesting. I'd be freaked by the idea that I might get stuck representing a killer with a nifty legal technicality on his side. My best efforts (which I'd have an ethical obligation to use on his behalf) might get him off -- and someone else killed. Even as a prosecutor, you get a fair amount of pressure to get convictions, which IMO sometimes leads to being forced to press cases that shouldn't be pressed. And of course, sometimes you end up making deals with scary scumbags.) The only thing I've done with regard to criminal law is pro bono. And there I do have the luxury of picking and choosing my clients.
Gail at December 13, 2013 8:17 AM
Lujilp -- I actually looked up the swastika thing last night. The symbol has been used by all kinds of cultures. It shows up in ancient Sanscrit. The Hindus use it, and the Navajo, and a dozen others. Damn Nazis ruined it for everyone.
On the Visa thing -- I need to hear more about that. Gotta say, provided it's not illegal porn, my snap reaction is that it doesn't seem like Visa should be able to effectively block people's access to it.
Gail at December 13, 2013 8:27 AM
I swear I spend most of my time on this blog responding to insipid arguments.
Does the cop who prevents a mob descending on a Nazi skinhead rally give up his beliefs that Naziism is repulsive?
What does providing a service to someone have to do with giving up your beliefs? Do you think a baker who is compelled by law to bake a cake for a gay wedding magically stops being a homophobe?
No one is compelling anyone to give up their beliefs (which is not possible anyway), only requiring them to perform the service for which they are licensed to do.
Patrick at December 13, 2013 10:16 AM
Patrick said, "No one is compelling anyone to give up their beliefs (which is not possible anyway), only requiring them to perform the service for which they are licensed to do."
Yes. No one is asking you to support Nazism; you're giving the skinheads the same grilled cheese sandwich you'd sell anyone else. You don't have to marry the black guy; fix his car and take his money.
Here's where I'm tempted to grope for a distinction for creative people. I do see a difference between selling the same item/service you'd sell anyone else and being forced to use your talent/skill to create something that in itself actively supports and furthers a cause you abominate.
E.g. -- a gay couple orders a wedding cake out of a book on your counter, the same cake you sold Bill and Linda that same morning. Versus being asked to create a special cake design in buttercream of Bill and Bob entwined in an act of love.
Or the skinhead comes in and picks a tattoo out of your design book -- the same tattoo you gave the Hindu guy yesterday. Versus being asked to design a racist tattoo that's not in your design book.
Renting your hall to a couple for their tacky Nazi-themed wedding isn't the same as being forced to perform the ceremony while dressed as Hitler.
You generally can't go into a restaurant and demand they serve you things that aren't on the menu. It's generally at the restaurant's discretion whether they'll even make a substitution. The diner certainly doesn't have to take your mom's recipe and make her special meatloaf for you, even if it has all the ingredients. Ditto on getting your hair done -- my stylist can do perms, but he won't because he hates them. (However, he doesn't do them for Jews and refuse them to Muslims.)
The same could work for other services: here are the services/designs I offer for sale to anyone who pays me and doesn't break the furniture. More specialized services might be available -- but at my discretion.
In practice, of course, few would choose to go to the bigoted cake baker if they have any other choice. But if they have no other reasonable choice, or just want the same damn thing everyone else wants, they can get it, like any other member of the public.
*ducks and waits for everyone to attack*
Gail at December 13, 2013 11:36 AM
This is where you keep falling down on this. A license does not compel you or your business to do anything (with rare exception). I picked a semi-bad example with the lawyer. If I open a restaurant and you and friends come in and order something. Your crowd is loud and obnoxious and disturbing the other customers, I have every right to kick your butts out the door.
And if I were some type of bigot, that would still be allowed.
If I had an auto repair business I have the same option. Now under the laws I can't change the prices based on a discriminatory reason.
The license allows you to do something (as wrong as that thinking is) but doesn't compel your action in general. It's like having a driver's license. It can strictly be for identification but you never have to drive ever again other than to pass the test.
Jim P. at December 13, 2013 2:42 PM
Jim P. -- Well, yes, the law certainly lets the restaurant owner kick out people who are misbehaving, or who come in barefoot and shirtless. But he can't kick them out just because they're black or Jewish or gay. He can kick them out for what they're doing -- not because he doesn't like how they look or what they stand for.
He's welcome to be a bigot. But he's got to serve the black gay Jewish couple their grilled cheese sandwiches.
Gail at December 13, 2013 2:55 PM
Gail and Patrick,
Are you referring to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The typical small bar, restaurant, baker, or other small business is not involved in interstate commerce. And even then you have to prove intent.
Jim P. at December 13, 2013 6:08 PM
I hate to break it to you, Jim P, but legally all restaurants are considered under the law to be places of public accommodation, and must comply with state and federal anti-discrimination laws. Thus, they cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, gender, and any other class that the state or federal government has deemed protected.
Hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, gas stations, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers are also considered places of public accommodation, and the same rules apply. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt -- but before you reject the gay couple on the grounds that you're running a "private" or "religious" club, you'd better do a bit of legal research.
Of course, if the gay black couple starts breaking up the furniture or abusing your waitresses, you can boot them. If they don't comply with a dress code (one you enforce for everyone), you don't have to let them in. But sorry, you can't refuse service to them just because they're gay or black -- it's law.
I could probably find a better link, but I'm too tired and lazy to find one tonight. I'll include it just to show you I'm not making crap up just to fuck with you. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html
So. The question at issue in this discussion is not whether bigoted restaurant owners are legally obligated to provide black people with grilled cheese sandwiches. That question is settled. The questions at issue here are (a) whether that's a good or bad thing, and (b) even if it's not wrong, whether it should apply to creative artistic types, and if so, when.
Gail at December 13, 2013 7:57 PM
As I recall, Amy's blog bounces you if you include more than one link in a post. So here's a second link (from the same site, because I'm lazy, but it gives some examples of when you CAN refuse service.)
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2011/11/have-you-reserved-your-right-to-refuse-service.html
Gail at December 13, 2013 7:59 PM
Think twice before you refuse to sell that lesbian a wedding dress... http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2011/08/nj-bridal-store-refuses-to-sell-lesbian-a-dress.html
And don't use your religion as an excuse, unless you're a religious institution.
(Yep, link is from that same site. Told you I was lazy tonight!)
Gail at December 13, 2013 8:12 PM
As I take another look at this thread, I'm guessing that maybe a lot of people didn't know about the laws regarding public accommodations. I was kind of assuming that everyone did, and that we were talking about what the law *should* be (a favorite pastime of mine!), or how far it should apply, not on what it is.
It's been quite a while since restaurants were allowed to be "white only."
Gail at December 13, 2013 8:28 PM
Dear Lawyer Lady! -
Some of my best friends a lawyers!
But the point is this: If you choose to read one of these threads a second time, it's your own damn fault, and you can never blame the rest of us for what happens to your immortal soul.
Mostly what I like about your comments is their practical demonstration of the naïveté of so many here about what's meant by the word "rights"... How they have to be defended, and how things can go wrong.
It's just so insane! For ten years, these people have been as coercive as any tyrant, and simultaneously smug and condemnatory as they absently fiddled with one if civilization's essential pillars.
But now they wanna weep over cakes and tattoos... Because Golly! People might be forced to do things they don't want to do!
Neither their heads nor their hearts were ever seriously engaged. They were always just pretending.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 14, 2013 2:02 AM
Oh, Crid.
It was awful, and I was all alone on the thread, and it was so dark and cold outside. I was seized with s sudden craving for grilled cheese sandwiches and a paralyzing fear that my local diner would refuse to make one for me because I look kinda Irish. And then my landlord would turn me out in the street with my stuff and it would be raining but no cabs would pick me up and the hotel doorman would fold his arms and sneer "we don't take your kind here." Could I have missed something -- something really BIG -- that sunny day I skipped classes to go on a picnic? I had to do legal research to calm myself down. And even then I had nightmares.
Am I going to be OK?
Gail at December 14, 2013 9:17 AM
Everything's gonna work out jus' fine, Lil' Gail... As long as long as twitchy, shallow Americans are free to dream up new rights without any rhyme or reason beyond their own daydreamy self-aggrandizement, what could possibly go wrong?
Because they very strongly believe in gay marriage. But on the other hand, you "can't be compelled to do business" with people.
So this is gonna work out just great.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 14, 2013 10:49 AM
Personally I think that people should be allowed to be bigots and suffer the consequences of their actions
Under the current laws thats not allowed, but artistic expression falls under free speech protections.
Now if someone is asking for a custom order I can see free speech being applied, if they are ordering something already made I cant.
lujlp at December 14, 2013 11:06 AM
Should Businesses Be Allowed to Discriminate Against Gay People?
Let me restart this conversation by saying that I don't believe in discrimination against anyone other than on that person's ability to do something in my best interest. I generally don't care about sex, orientation, ethnicity, color, or age. (And age only comes in if they are my long term planner. :-p )
But I didn't know about the insult on American citizen's liberty by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 instituted by the supreme leaders in Congress and the White House.
The reason that had to be instituted was because the prior acts of our supreme leaders that allowed "separate but equal".
There is a reason that the First Amendment is first. It allows the citizen to have a conscience and make a decision according to their ethics.
The institution of the Jim Crow laws was unconstitutional and the civil rights acts go the other way.
This gets into the Orwellian "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
But when you want to say that I have to accept your money because you have it puts you into the more equal position.
But if you have watched the video at the beginning of this post you see the results of your "anti-discrimination."
Jim P. at December 14, 2013 6:38 PM
Cousin Dave, You can refuse to do the Hitler wedding, but you couldn't refuse to serve the couple on the basis that they ar e Nazis - if Nazis were a legally protected class. Better example - you cannot refuse to serve a gay couple if they want to order a wedding cake from you; but you do not have to make them a penis-shaped cake if you do not normally make penis-shaped cakes.
Mr Teflon at December 14, 2013 11:10 PM
The problem with that is the first, tenth, fourteenth is pitted against the interstate commerce clause that has been abused by the Wickard v. Filburn and many beyond it. That is also how the federal and state governments abused businesses by forcing them to not server blacks as well.
Jim P. at December 15, 2013 8:44 PM
There's a substantial difference between what is acceptable under the law, and what is right.
Bear in mind, it wasn't all that long ago that Dred Scott *was* the law (do you want to go back to that?).
And license doesn't mean what some people seem to think it means.
For example, one may need a license to practice law or medicine (for example), but one only needs a permit to run a restaurant (or a bakery), in the vast majority of cases.
And, you want to know the most interesting part of that? The permit only requires that the product is not harmful (and / or is prepared as specified). The bakery or restaurant can't serve you an arsenic cocktail, but as long as their offering is safe to eat or drink, that's the end of their obligation.
They're not required to say (unless they otherwise specify) that their product is gluten free, halal, kosher, or that it otherwise meets some particular dietary criteria.
Additionally, the mere act of having this permit does not require them to cater to *every* single viewpoint out there.
I'm going to say that they're better served by offering their product to whoever wants to buy it, but I'm also going to go with the concept of 'we reserve the right to refuse service'.
It might be stupid to do so (and I'd agree with that), but it *is* their right, if they are a truly private business.
If it were me, I truly wouldn't care.
When I was in college, I worked at a restaurant, and two of our regular customers were a gay couple.
And this was in Kansas, flyover country, and nobody (and I really mean *nobody*) in the place ever considered this to be an issue.
It simply wasn't on the radar.
We served them because they were customers, we didn't care that they were gay (and they were pretty cool, as well).
*AND* nobody had to force us to do it.
It might have been a bit different if someone had tried to force us to do it (and it's a clearly human characteristic to resist what some else forces us to do).
I'm not going to argue that it's a good idea to turn away a customer because they're (gay / athiest / hindu / etc. ).
I'm saying that, law notwithstanding, an individual should have the final say as to who they choose to do business with.
there are some who call me 'Tim?' at December 16, 2013 1:18 AM
Leave a comment