How far should political correctness take us?

[TedKennedy]

I think any business that turns away business deserves to take that risk... but I wouldn't necessarily lump religion into the same boat as civil rights...

That is a profound statement.
I think that pretty well sums up the logic used by folks who insist on inflicting they views on others, and manage to justify government making people "play nice".

I don't give a crap if you're gay, black, white, a necrophiliac - whatever or whoever you are:
What gives you the right to demand of me my services, goods or labor?
Am I not free to serve who I choose?
Do your "civil rights" trump mine?

Or - are those that claim "victim status" really the weak, low-ambition, gutless bottom feeders that rely on armed force to force their will on other citizens that have differing viewpoints?

 

[loudshirt]

From John Stossel

http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/08/bake-me-a-cake-or-go-to-jail-the-new-inc#.6w6omr:0SRi

Sadly, that is the new message from "inclusive" America. If you don't want to cater, photograph, preside over, sell pizza at, sell flowers to or otherwise participate in a gay wedding, you will be punished. If you don't want your business to pay for a kind of birth control that you consider murder, you will pay fines until your business is bankrupt.

Personally, I think both birth control and homosexuality are just fine, and gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. But forcing everyone to act as if they think that way is just wrong. We have moved from "inclusion" to totalitarianism.

The list of people you must treat carefully keeps getting longer. Protected classes now include sex, race, age, disability, nationality, citizenship status, pregnancy, family status and more. I'm in two of those groups. You better treat me well!

Why force someone who disapproves of your actions to bake you a cake? Lots of other bakers would love the business. This debate has moved from inclusion to demanding that everyone adopt your values.

In a free country, bigots should have the right to be bigots. Americans should also have freedom of association.

American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia-slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.-was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you.

Elizabeth Taylor married nine times. Had she married again, should the EEOC have ordered her to marry someone from an ethnic minority?

A homophobic baker shouldn't stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Likewise, a gay couple shouldn't force a baker to make them a wedding cake. No one should ever force anyone to bake them a cake.

 

[Poke78]

I have a nephew who is gay, we all knew he was gay since about 4-5 years old.

I normally stay away from these discussions since nobody is going to change their mind. In this case, I really have to ask how does one "know" anything for certain about a 5-year-old?

 

[TwoForFlinching]

That is a profound statement.
I think that pretty well sums up the logic used by folks who insist on inflicting they views on others, and manage to justify government making people "play nice".

I don't give a crap if you're gay, black, white, a necrophiliac - whatever or whoever you are:
What gives you the right to demand of me my services, goods or labor?
Am I not free to serve who I choose?
Do your "civil rights" trump mine?

Or - are those that claim "victim status" really the weak, low-ambition, gutless bottom feeders that rely on armed force to force their will on other citizens that have differing viewpoints?

I think you read my statement all wrong, which is understandable in hindsight. Late night me didn't exactly make it crystal clear.

By "any business that turns away money deserves to take that risk," I fully mean they have the right to refuse service to anyone. The risk is a bad business practice risk, not a legal risk.

Furthermore, no one right is more important than another, but your right to choose to have and practice one (or more) of thousands of religions (or none) is an important right to have and practice. (literally every citizen of this country practices this right) but it is vastly different than a persons basic civil rights.

 

[loudshirt]

I have a really hard time with the "Christian" argument. I bet this same guy has baked cakes for adulterers, and thieves without any problem. There are plenty of things the Bible and Christianity say are wrong, however you still have adulterers, thieves, child molesters and drug users in positions of power in churches. A gay couple want you to bake them a cake and that is where you draw the line?

I dont think that if you do not want to bake a cake for what ever reason you should go to jail or be fined until you are bankrupt. I think you should still be open to a civil suit, and you should be prepared for your business to possibly suffer.

I personally do not want someone to bake me a cake against their will. If I know a business does not want to do business with me I am not going to push the issue, I will take my money elsewhere.

 

[OKCShooter]

I have a really hard time with the "Christian" argument. I bet this same guy has baked cakes for adulterers, and thieves without any problem. There are plenty of things the Bible and Christianity say are wrong, however you still have adulterers, thieves, child molesters and drug users in positions of power in churches. A gay couple want you to bake them a cake and that is where you draw the line?

I dont think that if you do not want to bake a cake for what ever reason you should go to jail or be fined until you are bankrupt. I think you should still be open to a civil suit, and you should be prepared for your business to possibly suffer.

I personally do not want someone to bake me a cake against their will. If I know a business does not want to do business with me I am not going to push the issue, I will take my money elsewhere.

The Bakery didn't say they wouldn't serve a homosexual...they answered a hypothetical about catering a gay wedding and said they wouldn't.

No one asked if they'd cater/serve at an Adulterer's wedding of a thieves convention.

 

[donner]

I personally do not want someone to bake me a cake against their will. If I know a business does not want to do business with me I am not going to push the issue, I will take my money elsewhere.

Having been in the wedding business for years, i can tell you that 1) you don't want a vendor who doesn't want to be part of your event and 2) there are many ways to get out of providing a service without telling them it's because you disagree with their lifestyle choice.

I also think that the 'Christian' thing is a funny thing to point to when saying why you don't want to be a part of it. First, as people on social media are pointing out, Jesus ate with thieves and prostitutes yet baking a cake for a gay couple would violate Jesus' teachings?

The other part of it is that i don't see how providing a cake to an event conveys that you condone something. If the couple were having a ceremony celebrating their 'civil union' would that be different? What if you baked the cake and didn't learn until pickup or delivery that it was for a gay wedding, would that really change things?

I don't buy it when anti-gun people want to sue a gun maker or gun shop because of something that a person did with one of their products. Just because you made the gun, doesn't mean you were part of the shooting that occurred. In the same way, making a cake doesn't really make you part of the wedding. You're providing a product.

 

[EhlerDave]

Well I guess if I owned a business I should be able to sell or serve who I want. Maybe I would not sell anything to people who are shorter than I am, if so word would spread and soon my store will be closed. I do not think any law should force me to sell to those I choose not to.

Its not like we just have one place in town to get anything. Now many years ago saying a gays could not buy food at the ONLY store would have been a problem. Not so much today.

 

[EhlerDave]

I wonder if National TV stations should be forced to run commercials for guns during the super bowl? Or during prime time TV, it seems like I have heard they object to that. Why is that different?

 

[TedKennedy]

Its not like we just have one place in town to get anything. Now many years ago saying a gays could not buy food at the ONLY store would have been a problem. Not so much today.

So - there's a market for a select group of folks. (gay, black, bald, short, whatever)
That sounds like an opportunity for one of "the group" (or someone willing to serve the group) to sell, and fill the niche.

Do you reckon Jews forced butcher shops to not butcher pork so they could buy lamb, beef or chicken that wasn't "contaminated"? (not Kosher)

Or do you suppose some enterprising fellow saw a market, and opened shop? That's how it's supposed to work.