But but they are 'special'. You just don't understand.

The unspoken premise is, "Government will decide which bigotries are OK and which ones aren't." That's the diamond lane to hell.

I just don't share your faith in the inner goodness of people.

"I just don't share your faith in the inner goodness of people."

It doesn't require that. Self-interest and reputation exhange will usually work, if they are allowed to. Nobody wants to get a rep for patronizing discriminatory store owners, especially not in this day and age.

NicoleK, as Heinlen wrote:

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.

If they don't want the money, then to hell with them. Let them deal with the consequences of their actions. Including potentially going out business, or finding themselves in the niche Aryan Nations market.

Speaking of which, why do I get the feeling that if someone had refused the AN service, they'd be congratulated?

But putting the state's gun to their head and telling them "nice business you have there, be a shame if anything happened to it" smacks of...the mafia.

Why be so keen to give your money to someone who doesn't want it?

I just don't share your faith in the inner goodness of people. -- NicoleK at March 3, 2014 8:24 AM

The problem with the law as it now stands is that I could be the owner of a Christian book store. You walk in one day and say you want to buy a copy of Playboy, Penthouse Letters XXVII, and the local lesbian dating guide. I say "We don't carry don't those kinds of books and magazines. We're a Christian book store." I have just established a discrimination case based off religion. You can now sue me because I'm discriminating against gays and lesbians by not carrying the material you wanted.

Or how about demanding the private Christian choral groups come out and sing at your wedding and reception? Then they sing Christian Hymnals because that's all they know. Are you going to sue them for ruining the wedding? That they didn't want to sing at in the first place?

Jim P. "You can now sue me because I'm discriminating against gays and lesbians by not carrying the material you wanted."

I can't recall which online dating service it was; but, wasn't there just such a case a few years back?

If I recall correctly, an online dating service was sued because, to the question what gender and what gender are you looking for, this service only allowed opposite sex searches. I don't remember the outcome though. Did the case even go to court?

If I recall correctly, an online dating service was sued because, to the question what gender and what gender are you looking for, this service only allowed opposite sex searches. -- Charles at March 3, 2014 12:27 PM

Could it have been eHarmony?

For that matter -- what if there was a pastor that in his former life, as a soldier, had been held in a Vietnamese POW for five years. He won't do the marriage of Asians, and especially Vietnamese, couples. Would you fine or throw him in prison?

What if the same guy was now considered the top plumber in the area and he refused to remodel their bathroom. Do they have a case? Do they have a case after they force him to work for them and the bathroom didn't come out as good as the neighbors?

What if the owner of the gay book and video store didn't want to sell a bible to someone who came in? Could the Christian sue them?

I'm just pointing out that depending on the government to make the rules means that you can find a way to fuck anybody.

In two words, "horse manure."

"Harrumph! Harrumph! Why, I would self-righteously boycott those places that engage in discrimination against blacks!" you might say, circa Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Well, isn't that just too special? And what, pray tell, would the blacks do in the meantime while they're waiting for a place that would capitulate to the small but growing social pressure and actually sell them groceries?

It is nice to believe that boycotts would actually be effective in bringing businesses around to a more open-minded way of thinking.

The problem is, those who are discriminated against don't have the luxury of waiting for that to happen.

Nicole K: "I just don't share your faith in the inner goodness of people."

Cousin Dave: It doesn't require that. Self-interest and reputation exhange will usually work, if they are allowed to. Nobody wants to get a rep for patronizing discriminatory store owners, especially not in this day and age.

It does require that. In places like Kansas or Texas, a local business owner would be congratulated for refusing to serve a Muslim, or a homosexual. The small contingent that refuses to do business with the discriminating business owner would be outdone by those would willingly give extra business to it.

Remember the long lines at Chik-Fil-A?

Well, isn't that just too special? And what, pray tell, would the blacks do in the meantime while they're waiting for a place that would capitulate to the small but growing social pressure and actually sell them groceries? -- Patrick at March 3, 2014 6:32 PM

Thank you for presenting a fantasy world that doesn't exist. A Wal-mart, Ralph's, Target, Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, or any major chain is not going to discriminate. They don't care if you are white, black, gay, straight, twisted like a car spring or pink with polka dots. All they care about is can you pay with acceptable currency. Very few places are left that aren't within a reasonable distance of one of the major chains for food or regular consumer items.

Now if you and your boyfriend breakdown in Bronte, TX on a Saturday afternoon, I can tell you for a fact that there is not going to be an open mechanic, regardless of your sexual orientation, race or any other factor. So your choice is to have your vehicle dragged to either San Angelo or Abilene. From there the odds of getting a mechanic on a Sunday is just as unlikely, but you never know. So then you on Monday you find a mechanic -- do you think they will, in today's world, overcharge you any more based on race or sexual orientation? Maybe on stupidity, just like any of the scam undercover shots you see on the nightly news.

So that gets us back to the personal services such as weddings and such. Do you want to force someone, at the point of the governments gun, to work for you? Last time I heard of that it was called slavery, or indentured servitude.

What makes your belief in gay marriage any more valid than a Christian's belief that gay marriage is wrong?

"As a Jewish kid growing up, I wrote an essay supporting the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie..."

You are the exception. Unfortunately, many people who have been discriminated against (like most Jews that emigrated to North America) see the government as the only entity able to offset that discrimination. They think the power of the state will 'fix' the racism, but not realize that they have invited the thugs into their lives.

If I walked into a a store and the owner said 'Get out. We don't serve Jews/Blacks/Gays/Women/Democrats/whatever, my first reaction would be close to anger.

Thomas Sowell (search for "When streetcars")

Economist Thomas Sowell (black, incidentally) wrote that southern streetcar companies before 1900 did not discriminate against blacks, but did separate smokers and non-smokers. Separation by smoking met a market need. Separation by color would have angered customers with no increase in profit.

Further, streetcar companies resisted state and city laws requiring discrimination and separate seating.

So, if companies have to pay for their discriminatory intent, they would rather have the money than be discriminatory. Competition opposes discrimination, other than for rational economic reasons.

Discrimination in the South on streetcars and buses only took hold after the government bought and monopolized those services. Those governments then imposed separate seating regardless of the cost.

This is always the case. Government imposes monopoly rules and regulations, then enforces these regardless of the cost. People forget that oppressive, effective discrimination was only possible through government power.

A free market promotes only rational discrimination. A governement always discriminates against its opponents. A black man in 1960 was oppressed by his government to a degree that a free market could never have done.

"What makes your belief in gay marriage any more valid than a Christian's belief that gay marriage is wrong?"

Logic?

I dunno I'm torn on this. One of the good things about Turkey is how they force people NOT to wear the headscarf. Usually I'm all for wearing whatever religious bullshit you want but the law makes sense in their context.

And businesses DO operate publicly using the benefits of a taxed society. And I DO believe in "public morals" enforceable by the government,

But in this particular context I just don't see the need to make a law either way. If you don't want to serve homos why should you be forced to? But equally important why should i protect you with a specially made law? It seems silly to me-comparable to those "hate crime" laws. People shouldn't be allowed to sue you over providing no transaction. And I don't really care to protect you anymore than what should be basic code. No transaction-no case for either of you.

And while I too believe boycotts are usually baloney ......just order online.

"A free market promotes only rational discrimination. A governement always discriminates against its opponents. A black man in 1960 was oppressed by his government to a degree that a free market could never have done."

Bullshit. Im tired of the free market solves all ills, including those of the black man. A free market is only as free and rational as the people who choose to operate it.

For most of American history people didn't even recognize blacks had some purchasing power.. They were treated like shit despite being customers of establishments and products. Their existence in the free market was utterly ignored.

It was a social change in perception.

Jim P +1
Patrick -1

We can already see how government affects the market in the Americans With Disabilities Act. Lawsuits abound, as small businesses are sued for tens of thousands of dollars by non-patrons for not having a 46 inch wide door installed immediately.
But it is really important for some people to see everyone submit to government force.

Jim P., if you have to lie to make your point, not even you believe your argument is valid.

"And what, pray tell, would the blacks do in the meantime while they're waiting for a place that would capitulate to the small but growing social pressure and actually sell them groceries?"

Well, what they used to do was start their own grocery stores. I know that where I live, there used to be a whole network of black-owned businesses. You can't do that in the hood nowdays, though -- pretty much any business that opens there will be burned out in the first 24 hours.

"And businesses DO operate publicly using the benefits of a taxed society."

All citizens benefit from that society (at least in theory). If doing so means that the government can tell you who to associate with or not, then the freedom-of-association guarantee in the First Amendment is a dead letter. That's a dangerous path to go down, a la "administrative search" and the Fourth Amendment. In fact, you can say this about any freedom -- and once you make that argument, you are arguing that we should all be regarded as subjects rather than citizens.

"And I DO believe in "public morals" enforceable by the government,"

But once that happens, "public morals" become whatever the government wants them to be at the moment. After all, that's where Jim Crow laws came from in the first place. If the government had lacked the power to pass and enforce those laws, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Cousin Dave, I can bar gays, blacks and women from my home if I so choose. And in my private business, I can ban all those groups except one.

The government telling you that you can't discriminate in your business practices is not tantamount to telling you whom you can associate with.

Regardless of how many anti-discrimination laws are passed,you will still have freedom of association.

"The government telling you that you can't discriminate in your business practices is not tantamount to telling you whom you can associate with."

Yeah, it kinda is. Look up "disparate impact".

And further, these discrimination laws are quite explicit in creating different grades of citizenship. That's what they mean when they talk about "protected classes" -- some people are pvivileged under the law, and others are not. It's illegal to run a gym that only admits or employs men, but women-only gyms are perfectly OK. If a women does not want to exercise in front of pervy men, she has the option of going some place where she only associates with other women. If I don't want to exercise some place where women are sitting on machines while chatting on their phones, too bad for me. I do not have the freedom to only associate with other men in that or any other circumstance. The women using the machines as phone benches are, legally, a higher class of citizen than I am.

Jim P., if you have to lie to make your point, not even you believe your argument is valid. -- Patrick at March 4, 2014 5:58 AM

What lie?

Cousin Dave, you have a court case that proves you couldn't open a men-only gym?

Jim P. In that statement of mine you plucked out of context, you conveniently overlooked the fact that I was speaking of a specific time in American history, in which Wal-Mart, Target, et. al didn't even exist.

Therefore, when you went off on your fruity little tirade about some imaginary world that didn't exist (but actually did exist at one time), you based it upon a false premise. You misrepresented my statements.

Ergo, you're a liar.

Cousin Dave, Here's a men's only gym.

Patrick, the article you linked to is eight years old. From further reading it appears that Cuts was sued by several franchise owners and is no longer in business. There ia a Cut Fitness in Califorina, but it appears to be a different company and is coed.

I admit I am having trouble finding anything recent about men-only gyms being sued, but I suspect the reason is because men-only gyms have all been eliminated. I found a reference to a 1998 case on Volokh of a club in Boston that had separate weightlifting rooms for men and women. They were successfully sued by a woman who was denied entry to the men's weightlifting room. This despite the fact that they had established the separate rooms due to complaints from women who wanted to lift weights without men around. Apparently they were required to admit women to the men's room but also maintain the separate women-only room -- I'm having trouble finding out what the resolution of the case was.

The same Volokh article makes it clear that under California law at least, men's-only gyms are absolutely illegal. Here's a link to that old article.

And I DO believe in "public morals" enforceable by the government,

So then you support Jim Crowe laws, and anti miscegenation laws, and laws to ban gay marrige, and laws to out law the rap music and video games for being too violent

Jim P. In that statement of mine you plucked out of context, you conveniently overlooked the fact that I was speaking of a specific time in American history, in which Wal-Mart, Target, et. al didn't even exist.

…

Ergo, you're a liar. -- Patrick at March 4, 2014 10:11 PM

Somehow all the rest of us have been living in the world after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for about 50 years now. And most of the comments of everyone eles have been using that as the current reality for these discussions. But to get your statement out you had to refer to the world before then.

So yes, I admit I skimmed past the paragraph that set up a framework that no longer exists and was not a true reality even back then. Blacks weren't starving to death naked in the streets. There were stores that blacks obviously were getting food and other commodities from

Your act of shifting the discussion into a false context puzzles me. I'm not sure whether to call that cognitive dissonance or delusional.

Either way think of me as a liar. That's your business. I really don't care about your opinion at this point anyway.

"Remember the long lines at Chik-Fil-A?"

Do you remember that they did not refuse service to anyone? Instead some people were offended that the owner of the company expressed his personal opinion. Apparently if you own a company, you're not allowed to do that.

Isn't that what you think?

"But but they are 'special'. You just don't understand." Bob in Texas

Yes. I can't imagine a life so privileged that someone would think that the worst thing that can happen when you order a cake from someone who hates you is that they _tell_ you they hate you and refuse to bake the cake.

I wouldn't spit in your food even if you were rude to your server, but in the part of my life where I worked for minimum wage, I've certainly had fellow workers that would if they weren't afraid of getting caught. And it's not just if _you_ were rude. Maybe the previous customer was rude. Maybe they define "rude" as insisting on getting what you ordered. Maybe they hate everyone who isn't working a shitty job like them. And for a very "special" few, all it takes is a chance of getting away with it.

But if it's the owner/manager who wants to sabotage your cake rather than a closely watched minimum wage drone, the secret ingredient could be far worse. Laxatives? I'm sure it's happened. Excrement? It might be hard to disguise that flavor, but they might not care...