Author Topic: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs  (Read 4974 times)

DenverDad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2018, 10:36:42 AM »
I've been to this bakery several times for birthday cakes in the past, and I definitely struggled with that decision after this case became known. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/05/wedding-cake-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_term=.98412211d5bf

I strongly oppose the baker's decision, and at the same time, I know I rarely choose to not spend my money at a place because of questionable business practices. Wal-mart is probably the biggest store I ignore business practices in favor of lower prices.

I'm still not sure how this baker is open after all the business he lost over his decision.

CCCA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Location: Bay Area, California
  • born before the 80's
    • FI programming
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2018, 11:22:14 AM »
sure, I agree with you that it's unlikely to happen that way, just more of a thought experiment.  However, on the flip side, I live in a very liberal part of California and being a vocal Trump supporter would be considered an extreme view here that many people would not like to support.  I could imagine if a local coffee shop or small business put up a Trump sign (especially one that espoused some anti-progressive views and not just support of the president), they would probably go out of business due to people boycotting (since margins are small for these sorts of businesses and a drop of 20-30% would probably be fatal to most businesses).

I likewise wouldn't expect a gun shop owner in the deep south to do much business with a 'VOTE FOR HILARY - ABORTIONS FOR ALL - GAY BLACK ATHEISTS UNITE' sign on his door.

When you're selling something, you're attempting to entice a customer to buy from you.  If you have particularly unpopular views, it's probably best not to associate them with your shop.  You're free to hold any view you want of course, but people are free to take their business elsewhere if it bothers them.  That's generally a good thing.


Yes, I agree.  I think you could just chalk it up to "bad marketing / decisions" and not knowing your customers.  I guess it's just interesting to think about because it is very possible that it could happen even in more mild circumstances where their unpopular views are made public like (in your example) the store having a "Black Lives Matter" sign, or in my example, literally just posting a Trump sign.


The next question is how would we feel if those views are made public not by their doing.  Like someone posts on their yelp page that they donated to the [unpopular politician]. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2018, 12:17:35 PM »
sure, I agree with you that it's unlikely to happen that way, just more of a thought experiment.  However, on the flip side, I live in a very liberal part of California and being a vocal Trump supporter would be considered an extreme view here that many people would not like to support.  I could imagine if a local coffee shop or small business put up a Trump sign (especially one that espoused some anti-progressive views and not just support of the president), they would probably go out of business due to people boycotting (since margins are small for these sorts of businesses and a drop of 20-30% would probably be fatal to most businesses).

I likewise wouldn't expect a gun shop owner in the deep south to do much business with a 'VOTE FOR HILARY - ABORTIONS FOR ALL - GAY BLACK ATHEISTS UNITE' sign on his door.

When you're selling something, you're attempting to entice a customer to buy from you.  If you have particularly unpopular views, it's probably best not to associate them with your shop.  You're free to hold any view you want of course, but people are free to take their business elsewhere if it bothers them.  That's generally a good thing.


Yes, I agree.  I think you could just chalk it up to "bad marketing / decisions" and not knowing your customers.  I guess it's just interesting to think about because it is very possible that it could happen even in more mild circumstances where their unpopular views are made public like (in your example) the store having a "Black Lives Matter" sign, or in my example, literally just posting a Trump sign.


The next question is how would we feel if those views are made public not by their doing.  Like someone posts on their yelp page that they donated to the [unpopular politician].

This is largely what happened in the initial situation I started this thread about. 
The business itself does not advocate for or against any political party or position.  I had gone there multiple times over many years and experienced nothing but warm hospitality and good food.

But intrepid person noted the name of the owner on a list of donors.  Then, near as I can tell, it spread through social media.  "______, owner of the popular diner _____, is a regular donor and supporter of _____ - boycott his restaurant or YOU will be helping to support _____".
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

CCCA

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
  • Location: Bay Area, California
  • born before the 80's
    • FI programming
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2018, 12:57:31 PM »
sure, I agree with you that it's unlikely to happen that way, just more of a thought experiment.  However, on the flip side, I live in a very liberal part of California and being a vocal Trump supporter would be considered an extreme view here that many people would not like to support.  I could imagine if a local coffee shop or small business put up a Trump sign (especially one that espoused some anti-progressive views and not just support of the president), they would probably go out of business due to people boycotting (since margins are small for these sorts of businesses and a drop of 20-30% would probably be fatal to most businesses).

I likewise wouldn't expect a gun shop owner in the deep south to do much business with a 'VOTE FOR HILARY - ABORTIONS FOR ALL - GAY BLACK ATHEISTS UNITE' sign on his door.

When you're selling something, you're attempting to entice a customer to buy from you.  If you have particularly unpopular views, it's probably best not to associate them with your shop.  You're free to hold any view you want of course, but people are free to take their business elsewhere if it bothers them.  That's generally a good thing.


Yes, I agree.  I think you could just chalk it up to "bad marketing / decisions" and not knowing your customers.  I guess it's just interesting to think about because it is very possible that it could happen even in more mild circumstances where their unpopular views are made public like (in your example) the store having a "Black Lives Matter" sign, or in my example, literally just posting a Trump sign.


The next question is how would we feel if those views are made public not by their doing.  Like someone posts on their yelp page that they donated to the [unpopular politician].

This is largely what happened in the initial situation I started this thread about. 
The business itself does not advocate for or against any political party or position.  I had gone there multiple times over many years and experienced nothing but warm hospitality and good food.

But intrepid person noted the name of the owner on a list of donors.  Then, near as I can tell, it spread through social media.  "______, owner of the popular diner _____, is a regular donor and supporter of _____ - boycott his restaurant or YOU will be helping to support _____".


Thanks for bringing us back to the original question.  Yes, I think that's okay to decide to not patronize a business.  I assume people don't patronize businesses because the owners belong to a race/culture/religion that they do not like. 


I'm trying to figure out my discomfort with this and maybe it's this: would you be the person who shares and posts this information to Yelp/Twitter/Facebook etc. because of the personal/private beliefs of the owner.  Then you do have some power to hurt their livelihood and perhaps put them out of business.  Although, it would still be a collective decision by the community then to decide that they don't want that business operating in their community. 

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2018, 04:47:16 PM »
I think it's okay to stop going to a business if you don't like the owners. And if their political views make them unlikable to you, and this is something that makes you enjoy their product less, don't go. For instance, my optician has politics I disagree with, but the real reason I'm thinking of finding a new eye doctor is that I'm tired of his constant upsell.  Maybe if I agreed with his politics, I'd turn a blind eye to his aggressive sales pitches, but taken together, meh, I'll probably find somebody else.

My tendency is to patronize local stores unless the owner shows very obnoxious views.  However, I'm not going to hide my own feelings on social issues if the situation warrants.  So they can make the choice whether they want to fit in with their customer base or risk alienating them.

I have less concern about avoiding big chain stores or products because of their politics, and I boycott stores that seem to treat their workers badly and are otherwise bad citizens.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Australia
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2018, 05:56:17 PM »
I recently stopped patronising a particular establishment when I noticed they'd changed one of their supplies. The new supplier was a smallish business as well, but he was known as being a racist homophobe. Not just by reputation, he's one of those people who is published in the Letters to the Editor of the local small newspaper on a regular basis. The business I used to go to was more of the save-the-whales, pro-choice, equity for everyone variety.

I told them why I wouldn't stop there again while they used that supplier. There's no point me just not buying, I believe they genuinely didn't realise what this guy's beliefs were and how much they conflicted with their own philosophy.

The last time I walked past (late for work, so I couldn't stop), I noticed they'd changed their supplier to a more human-friendly one.

I like to think my conversation with the owner had something to do with that decision.

Hirondelle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 769
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2018, 06:16:35 AM »
Considering that we're talking about a small business here where you know the owner I wouldn't boycot. Instead, I'd try to start up the dialogue of why this business owner (or just anyone with an opposing political view) is supporting this politician. Taking into account we're not talking neo-nazi's and other extreme viewpoints ofcourse.

So why would I do this?
- Variety of opinions: People have different opinions and will have different angles to look at something. To me it's always better to be aware of a wide variety of opinions and arguments as it makes me question my own beliefs and do extra research to see if I have to change them. If my extra research turns out to be in favor of my own previous opinion, the extra knowledge will help in the next discussion.
- Keep it humane: most people I talked to who turned out to have opposing political views had quite valid (to them) reasons to do so. When I talk to people who are anti-immigration; most of them are scared that immigrants are taking away our jobs and/or that we will loose our culture. It doesn't matter whether I agree or not, these are real concerns for those people and the reason they vote for a certain politician. To me, it's more useful to have a good, fruitful discussion about those concerns (and why I think they aren't valid) rather than eliminating the person out of your life. Primm's situation is a good example of this; here the owner maybe wasn't aware of the racist homophobe and he decided to change his behavior upon that. Talking to people might result in positive change.
- Reducing polarization: This combines the previous two points. I feel that when people only hang out with others who agree with them, they tend to strengthen their beliefs: "It's what everyone thinks!! Even [insert person they consider smart/authorative] says it!". If we'd all start boycotting, we'd end up with a civilization where democrats only do business with democrats and republicans exclusively with republicans. Great, we're back at the old system where people would only hang out with others from their own subreligion but religion has become politics. Is this what we want? In the case of a small business owner in a small town; he might just figure our you're boycotting him for these particular reasons. This might induce anger towards people of your political stream, strengthen his own beliefs of how "bad" your kind of people are and decide to funnel even more money towards his favorite politician (assuming he doesn't go bankrupt over losing you as a customer).


So now to get back to what it's about. By boycotting you try to reduce the owners income so he can't get his money to said politician. Now I do agree with the principles mentioned above, but I believe that not going there anymore won't make a big difference in the end. Actually, the owner might even notice your actions and strengthen
So to me, boycotting/selective patronizing overall has a negative effect (e.g. bad for the business, you don't go to a place you formerly enjoyed, owner might further polarize his opinion, etc.) while having a dialogue in my worst case scenario means I have to adjust my opinion because I was wrong all that time and in the best case that someone's shifted his opinion closer towards mine.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 07:37:32 AM by Hirondelle »

aetherie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 670
  • Age: 26
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #57 on: June 01, 2018, 07:27:10 AM »
Hirondelle, just fyi I think you mean "boycott". Patronize means the opposite: to eat at the diner, shop at the store, etc.

Hirondelle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 769
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #58 on: June 01, 2018, 07:38:30 AM »
Hirondelle, just fyi I think you mean "boycott". Patronize means the opposite: to eat at the diner, shop at the store, etc.

Oops, you're right! I'm non-native so got confused as it was mostly about boycotting but indeed was used as "not patronizing". Adjusted it in my text.

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Location: Northern California
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2018, 09:46:16 AM »
I've been to this bakery several times for birthday cakes in the past, and I definitely struggled with that decision after this case became known. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/05/wedding-cake-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_term=.98412211d5bf

I strongly oppose the baker's decision, and at the same time, I know I rarely choose to not spend my money at a place because of questionable business practices. Wal-mart is probably the biggest store I ignore business practices in favor of lower prices.

I'm still not sure how this baker is open after all the business he lost over his decision.
I think the baker should be allowed to decide whom to serve (just as much as consumers are allowed whom to do business with). While I respect that the baker is following his convictions and share his religious belief, I don't think I'd make the same decision myself. If I were baking the cake, it would just be a cake, but I'm nowhere close to considering myself an artist in this area. I assume that the couple had plenty of other local bakeries happy to provide their cake. If they felt that this particular baker offered something special, that supports his argument that his work as a baker is artistic in nature, validating his appeal to first amendment rights of freedom of expression.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2018, 10:02:38 AM »
That seems like a dark path.

Should I be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a black couple because their skin color offends my artistic sensibilities?  If I own a strip club with dancers, can I refuse service to Mexicans because my dancers think they're gross?  What if I run a hamburger joint . . . my burgers are my art, and I don't want to serve women because my artistic mind judges them to be inferior to men and unworthy of being treated as people?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2018, 10:35:23 AM »
That seems like a dark path.

Should I be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a black couple because their skin color offends my artistic sensibilities?  If I own a strip club with dancers, can I refuse service to Mexicans because my dancers think they're gross?  What if I run a hamburger joint . . . my burgers are my art, and I don't want to serve women because my artistic mind judges them to be inferior to men and unworthy of being treated as people?
I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.

Regardless of legislation, I think the baker made an enormous mistake grandstanding on this issue; he could have very easily said "sorry but I am booked that week." It still would be prejudicial, but IMO keeping ones prejudices to themselves is the minimum a tolerant society should strive for. 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2018, 12:50:48 PM »
I've been to this bakery several times for birthday cakes in the past, and I definitely struggled with that decision after this case became known. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/05/wedding-cake-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_term=.98412211d5bf

I strongly oppose the baker's decision, and at the same time, I know I rarely choose to not spend my money at a place because of questionable business practices. Wal-mart is probably the biggest store I ignore business practices in favor of lower prices.

I'm still not sure how this baker is open after all the business he lost over his decision.
I think the baker should be allowed to decide whom to serve (just as much as consumers are allowed whom to do business with). While I respect that the baker is following his convictions and share his religious belief, I don't think I'd make the same decision myself. If I were baking the cake, it would just be a cake, but I'm nowhere close to considering myself an artist in this area. I assume that the couple had plenty of other local bakeries happy to provide their cake. If they felt that this particular baker offered something special, that supports his argument that his work as a baker is artistic in nature, validating his appeal to first amendment rights of freedom of expression.

I don't think the business and it's customers are on a level playing field for a few reasons.

1) The customer can decide to buy or not buy for any reason. Even if we wanted to force someone to ignore race, gender, or whatever else when they make their purchasing decisions, it would be impossible.
2) The business has already completed half of the transaction by existing, especially if they have a public storefront or advertise to the public. To refuse service to a particular person would be retracting an offer already made, it would take an action on the part of the business. Not buying isn't an action, it is a lack thereof.
3) Responding to the second bolded statement, what if there isn't another bakery that can provide a cake? What if all bakeries decide not to serve gay people? This is probably unlikely in this specific scenario but with different products or locations it is certainly possible. Another way to look at it would be that a business fills a need in a community. In an isolated community of a few thousand people there probably isn't going to be two bakeries. If I owned a bakery I would be drastically reducing the chance that another bakery will open in the same town. This does not apply to customers the same way because anyone is a potential customer.
4) I'm probably starting to get redundant now, but one more thing. Businesses provide access to something. Access to that thing will theoretically improve a customer's life more than the money they use to pay for it (according to their own brain which is often wrong, but I digress). Refusing access to that thing for a specific group of people puts those people at a disadvantage in society. While I'm not someone who thinks we should go to great lengths to make everything perfectly fair, I do think that simple actions like requiring businesses to treat customers from protected classes fairly will do more good for society than harm.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 12:52:34 PM by Dabnasty »

tralfamadorian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2018, 01:49:36 PM »
I think the baker should be allowed to decide whom to serve (just as much as consumers are allowed whom to do business with).

That is what the people who ran all the businesses with "Whites Only" and "No..." signs thought in the 50s. I think as a country we have moved past that.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8378
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2018, 02:36:13 PM »
This scales to all levels.  A lot of people I know have spontaneously* stopped buying American products.  Treat me/my country like dirt, I won't shop at your store.

* as in, this is not an organised movement.  People just mention that they were shopping for something, and bought non-American.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

BudgetSlasher

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #65 on: June 02, 2018, 07:39:30 PM »
I'll do business with people who have differing views than mine. I do have limits, something extremely outside of the norm (say this fellow: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/06/01/hes-pro-incest-pedophilia-and-rape-hes-also-running-for-congress-from-his-parents-house/?utm_term=.2fc7dd2e807a) I would reconsider. If their point of view cut the the core of who I am as a person, such as all non-believers should die, then I would probably go somewhere else (at least in my personal life).

But, doing associating with, doing business with, or even just socializing with people who have the exact same point of view on every subject matter as I do is boring, dull, and predictable. I learn nothing, I am not challenged in my positions, and I would spend a hell of a lot of time vetting people. As a society, I cannot image that people only dealing with others who share their world view would be healthy. Points of view would become insulate, rigid, and perhaps more extreme.


Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2018, 11:36:30 AM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it. 



GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #67 on: June 04, 2018, 12:04:29 PM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it.

How is there no specific same sex marriage message in your example?  The restaurant is refusing to hold a same sex marriage but is OK with hosting a straight one.  That's about as specific as you can be without taking out an anti-gay marriage ad on local TV.

If a high end restaurant refused to hold receptions for mix race couples because they believe in racial purity they would be sending an equally strong message . . . and equally in the wrong.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2708
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #68 on: June 05, 2018, 06:34:26 AM »
If I don’t agree with a large corporation like Hobby Lobby I do stop shopping there. For a small business owner I would only stop patronizing if there position was hateful like the bakery that wouldn’t make cakes for gay couples.


To be accurate,the baker “makes cakes for gay couples.” He make all kinds of cakes for all kinds of people and has stated he most certainly would make many kinds of cakes for gay men.

He will not make a cake for a particular celebration, a wedding of two gay men.

The Supreme Court backed him up yesterday.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 06:38:16 AM by iris lily »

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #69 on: June 05, 2018, 07:18:06 AM »
If I don’t agree with a large corporation like Hobby Lobby I do stop shopping there. For a small business owner I would only stop patronizing if there position was hateful like the bakery that wouldn’t make cakes for gay couples.


To be accurate,the baker “makes cakes for gay couples.” He make all kinds of cakes for all kinds of people and has stated he most certainly would make many kinds of cakes for gay men.

He will not make a cake for a particular celebration, a wedding of two gay men.

The Supreme Court backed him up yesterday.

They invalidated the commissions decision on technicalities.  The commission was mean to the baker and they didn't use the right argument to defend their differing treatment in another case.  They didn't actually say the baker was in the right and specifically left the door open for other similar cases to be brought later with potentially different results.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #70 on: June 05, 2018, 08:21:17 AM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it.

How is there no specific same sex marriage message in your example?  The restaurant is refusing to hold a same sex marriage but is OK with hosting a straight one.  That's about as specific as you can be without taking out an anti-gay marriage ad on local TV.

If a high end restaurant refused to hold receptions for mix race couples because they believe in racial purity they would be sending an equally strong message . . . and equally in the wrong.

You're not following.  The example I was responding to said it was no different than a high end restaurant refusing to serve homosexuals, but the baker is not refusing to serve homosexuals. 

The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.   

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #71 on: June 05, 2018, 08:25:13 AM »
If I don’t agree with a large corporation like Hobby Lobby I do stop shopping there. For a small business owner I would only stop patronizing if there position was hateful like the bakery that wouldn’t make cakes for gay couples.


To be accurate,the baker “makes cakes for gay couples.” He make all kinds of cakes for all kinds of people and has stated he most certainly would make many kinds of cakes for gay men.

He will not make a cake for a particular celebration, a wedding of two gay men.

The Supreme Court backed him up yesterday.

They invalidated the commissions decision on technicalities.  The commission was mean to the baker and they didn't use the right argument to defend their differing treatment in another case.  They didn't actually say the baker was in the right and specifically left the door open for other similar cases to be brought later with potentially different results.

The free exercise clause is not a technicality.  It's a fundamental constitutional protection. 

It's also very easy to not violate.  You basically just have to avoid treating religious practices worse than you treat non-religious practices.  The Colorado Commission essentially had to go out of their way to violate it, and they did because they were more concerned with expressing their distaste for the people who don't agree with same sex marriage than they are with applying the law. 

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #72 on: June 05, 2018, 08:33:17 AM »


If I don’t agree with a large corporation like Hobby Lobby I do stop shopping there. For a small business owner I would only stop patronizing if there position was hateful like the bakery that wouldn’t make cakes for gay couples.


To be accurate,the baker “makes cakes for gay couples.” He make all kinds of cakes for all kinds of people and has stated he most certainly would make many kinds of cakes for gay men.

He will not make a cake for a particular celebration, a wedding of two gay men.

The Supreme Court backed him up yesterday.

They invalidated the commissions decision on technicalities.  The commission was mean to the baker and they didn't use the right argument to defend their differing treatment in another case.  They didn't actually say the baker was in the right and specifically left the door open for other similar cases to be brought later with potentially different results.

The free exercise clause is not a technicality.  It's a fundamental constitutional protection. 

It's also very easy to not violate.  You basically just have to avoid treating religious practices worse than you treat non-religious practices.  The Colorado Commission essentially had to go out of their way to violate it, and they did because they were more concerned with expressing their distaste for the people who don't agree with same sex marriage than they are with applying the law.

I say it's a technicality because it isn't actually related to the main question being posed by the case.  Maybe that's not the word I'm looking for?  Not that I don't see a problem with the government officials being hostile toward his religion.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #73 on: June 05, 2018, 08:34:40 AM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it.

How is there no specific same sex marriage message in your example?  The restaurant is refusing to hold a same sex marriage but is OK with hosting a straight one.  That's about as specific as you can be without taking out an anti-gay marriage ad on local TV.

If a high end restaurant refused to hold receptions for mix race couples because they believe in racial purity they would be sending an equally strong message . . . and equally in the wrong.

You're not following.  The example I was responding to said it was no different than a high end restaurant refusing to serve homosexuals, but the baker is not refusing to serve homosexuals. 

OK, I get it.  A little bit of discrimination is OK.

You can refuse black people service on the items they want from your menu, as long as you agree to sell them a pack of gum at the register.  That's totally not discrimination, right?


The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."

That seems pretty explicit.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #74 on: June 05, 2018, 08:35:29 AM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it.

How is there no specific same sex marriage message in your example?  The restaurant is refusing to hold a same sex marriage but is OK with hosting a straight one.  That's about as specific as you can be without taking out an anti-gay marriage ad on local TV.

If a high end restaurant refused to hold receptions for mix race couples because they believe in racial purity they would be sending an equally strong message . . . and equally in the wrong.

You're not following.  The example I was responding to said it was no different than a high end restaurant refusing to serve homosexuals, but the baker is not refusing to serve homosexuals. 

The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The example you were responding to wasn't a great analogy but I think the mixed race analogy is good. Should a restaurant be allowed to refuse to host a mixed race wedding based on religious reasons?

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2708
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #75 on: June 05, 2018, 08:58:14 AM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it.

How is there no specific same sex marriage message in your example?  The restaurant is refusing to hold a same sex marriage but is OK with hosting a straight one.  That's about as specific as you can be without taking out an anti-gay marriage ad on local TV.

If a high end restaurant refused to hold receptions for mix race couples because they believe in racial purity they would be sending an equally strong message . . . and equally in the wrong.

You're not following.  The example I was responding to said it was no different than a high end restaurant refusing to serve homosexuals, but the baker is not refusing to serve homosexuals. 

OK, I get it.  A little bit of discrimination is OK.

You can refuse black people service on the items they want from your menu, as long as you agree to sell them a pack of gum at the register.  That's totally not discrimination, right?


The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.



Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #76 on: June 05, 2018, 09:12:32 AM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it.

How is there no specific same sex marriage message in your example?  The restaurant is refusing to hold a same sex marriage but is OK with hosting a straight one.  That's about as specific as you can be without taking out an anti-gay marriage ad on local TV.

If a high end restaurant refused to hold receptions for mix race couples because they believe in racial purity they would be sending an equally strong message . . . and equally in the wrong.

You're not following.  The example I was responding to said it was no different than a high end restaurant refusing to serve homosexuals, but the baker is not refusing to serve homosexuals. 

OK, I get it.  A little bit of discrimination is OK.

You can refuse black people service on the items they want from your menu, as long as you agree to sell them a pack of gum at the register.  That's totally not discrimination, right?

Doesn't have anything to do with what is ok or not.  Generally, if you are actually trying to argue persuasively, you want the analogy you use to not have an obvious flaw in it (unless you are arguing with someone you think isn't sharp enough to see the flaw and you aren't worried about them actually understanding the argument).  I was just pointing out that the baker wasn't refusing to serve gay people. He refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.  When one of the customer's mother called, he also told her he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.  He didn't say, tell me what you want and come pick it up, I just didn't want to deal with teh gays.  So you shouldn't pick an analogy that deals with not serving people because they are gay. 


The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."

That seems pretty explicit.

Again, you are not following.  There is no explicit message in baking wedding cake for a same sex marriage or hosting and decorating for a wedding reception. 

And even on top of you not following, you are still getting it wrong in responding to what you think the explicit message of the baker is.  The explicit message is "I will not make a wedding cake that I know is going to be in a same-sex wedding celebration".  If the customer was a gay wedding planner asking for a cake for a traditional wedding ceremony, he would have no problem making and sell it (according to him), so your phrasing of his message is inaccurate. 
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 09:48:40 AM by Jrr85 »

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
    • Technical Meshugana
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #77 on: June 05, 2018, 09:52:59 AM »
No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

As a follower of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) myself, addressing this very specific point? I am left with three questions to the situation that has just been ruled on.

1) As per 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, how is this business owner's actions in line with the teachings of the faith? Were the men getting married professing to be Christian? If this is the case, then the baker is fully within the right to refuse, but it should have been a matter handled internally as per 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, and not in the courts of the land. (1 Corinthians in general has a lot to say in regard to these topics specifically regarding sexual immorality and justice, and I'm left wondering how many people within the faith have actually bothered reading the letter in full.)

2) Sexual immorality is a big issue to address in justice and mercy with the goal of repentance and salvation within the body of believers, not outside. Within the context of sexual sin and the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew 5:31-32 and Luke 16:18, will the baker make a wedding cake for Christian divorcees getting remarried if the Christian divorcee in question deliberately left someone else either within or outside of the faith over a hardened heart? If so, that too is supporting sexual immorality and adultery. One cannot deny one but permit the other, as neither can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven as per the previously referenced passages of 1 Corinthians, specifically verses 6:9-10.

3) Even just for the sake of even application of justice, let's say it is okay to deny doing work for sexual sinners outside of the body of believers on the basis of freedom of conscience. We can lump it into the same category as denying to create idols or sacrifice food to them as per the request of a customer for the sake of argument. Again, I go back to question two for the litmus test on righteousness in the baker's actions specifically: Does he bake wedding cakes for any divorcees getting remarried?

If just one of those questions is answered in the affermative, this is not a ruling for the freedom of practicing one's personal faith.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 10:02:26 AM by Daley »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #78 on: June 05, 2018, 11:29:27 AM »

I'll just add - I get a bit tired of people referring to skilled trade as 'art', when more often its a craft.  It allows people to hide behind the skirts of 'artistic expression' to act how they please. A good parallel is a high-end restaurant; imagine what would happen if such an establishment refused to service a couple because they were gay.



A good parallel would be if a high end restaurant refused to host a reception and decorate for a same sex wedding.  There's no specific pro- or anti- same-sex marriage message, but the service provider believes producing the cake and/or decorations implies acceptance and/or approval of it.

How is there no specific same sex marriage message in your example?  The restaurant is refusing to hold a same sex marriage but is OK with hosting a straight one.  That's about as specific as you can be without taking out an anti-gay marriage ad on local TV.

If a high end restaurant refused to hold receptions for mix race couples because they believe in racial purity they would be sending an equally strong message . . . and equally in the wrong.

You're not following.  The example I was responding to said it was no different than a high end restaurant refusing to serve homosexuals, but the baker is not refusing to serve homosexuals. 

OK, I get it.  A little bit of discrimination is OK.

You can refuse black people service on the items they want from your menu, as long as you agree to sell them a pack of gum at the register.  That's totally not discrimination, right?


The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #79 on: June 05, 2018, 12:51:45 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 

If you went in and asked the baker to make you a big ass cake for a stripper to jump out of, I would assume he might object to doing that.  You can say he's discriminating against you for who you are, because for as long as you can remember, you've loved strippers jumping out of cakes, but that's not who the baker believes you are. 

You view homosexuality as more like being black. It's an immutable characteristic that you can't change.  The baker probably views homosexuality as more like an affinity for strippers jumping out of big ass cakes.  Even if it's been a constant desire of yours for as long as you remember, he views it as an sinful desire, not who you are. 

« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 12:53:18 PM by Jrr85 »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #80 on: June 05, 2018, 01:02:18 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #81 on: June 05, 2018, 01:19:15 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Yep.  Pretty much this. 

I can honestly say that I've never even once fantasized about kissing or having sex with another man.  The concept does nothing to get me interested or excited.  For me (and I'd assume a lot of other people) sexual orientation is set in stone from the moment you're born, just as skin colour is.  If you are somewhere more towards the middle of the heter-homo spectrum I guess that this would account for the assumption that orientation is an arbitrary choice?

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2708
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #82 on: June 05, 2018, 01:29:31 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Yep.  Pretty much this. 

I can honestly say that I've never even once fantasized about kissing or having sex with another man.  The concept does nothing to get me interested or excited.  For me (and I'd assume a lot of other people) sexual orientation is set in stone from the moment you're born, just as skin colour is.  If you are somewhere more towards the middle of the heter-homo spectrum I guess that this would account for the assumption that orientation is an arbitrary choice?

I thought we were supposed to view sexuality and gender identification as fluid. Isnt that the latest media-driven bias?

I think it is more likely that some humans are hard wired for sexuality and gender ID while others are nothard wired. And those who are not do seem to flip flop, thereby giving the impression that sexuality is a “choice.”



And that is great to know so unequivicobly that Guitar Steve is not a homo.

FIRE@50

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Maryland
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #83 on: June 05, 2018, 01:36:18 PM »
In short, no I would not buy a cake from the bigoted baker. I've un-patronized businesses for far lesser reasons.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #84 on: June 05, 2018, 01:40:16 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Yep.  Pretty much this. 

I can honestly say that I've never even once fantasized about kissing or having sex with another man.  The concept does nothing to get me interested or excited.  For me (and I'd assume a lot of other people) sexual orientation is set in stone from the moment you're born, just as skin colour is.  If you are somewhere more towards the middle of the heter-homo spectrum I guess that this would account for the assumption that orientation is an arbitrary choice?

I thought we were supposed to view sexuality and gender identification as fluid. Isnt that the latest media-driven bias?

I think it is more likely that some humans are hard wired for sexuality and gender ID while others are nothard wired. And those who are not do seem to flip flop, thereby giving the impression that sexuality is a “choice.”



And that is great to know so unequivicobly that Guitar Steve is not a homo.

To be fair . . . I've spent years doing BJJ.  Which has to earn me at least honorary mention in the gay club roll call.  :P

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #85 on: June 05, 2018, 01:45:38 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Not sure anymore.  Are doggy style and reverse cowgirl two different orientations?  Or are they the same orientation and just arbitrarily treated as different because of gravity?  https://alternative-science.com/nasa-confirms-space-reverse-cowgirl-doggystyle-thing/

But it's not really relevant, because not everybody is so close minded and tunnel visioned to think that their experience encompasses the totality of human experience.   


iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2708
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #86 on: June 05, 2018, 01:46:40 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Yep.  Pretty much this. 

I can honestly say that I've never even once fantasized about kissing or having sex with another man.  The concept does nothing to get me interested or excited.  For me (and I'd assume a lot of other people) sexual orientation is set in stone from the moment you're born, just as skin colour is.  If you are somewhere more towards the middle of the heter-homo spectrum I guess that this would account for the assumption that orientation is an arbitrary choice?

I thought we were supposed to view sexuality and gender identification as fluid. Isnt that the latest media-driven bias?

I think it is more likely that some humans are hard wired for sexuality and gender ID while others are nothard wired. And those who are not do seem to flip flop, thereby giving the impression that sexuality is a “choice.”



And that is great to know so unequivicobly that Guitar Steve is not a homo.

To be fair . . . I've spent years doing BJJ.  Which has to earn me at least honorary mention in the gay club roll call.  :P
If you expect me to interpret BJJ as anything but Blow Job something, you expect too much of me.

sherr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Age: 32
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #87 on: June 05, 2018, 01:50:56 PM »
It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against.

If you went in and asked the baker to make you a big ass cake for a stripper to jump out of, I would assume he might object to doing that.  You can say he's discriminating against you for who you are, because for as long as you can remember, you've loved strippers jumping out of cakes, but that's not who the baker believes you are. 

You view homosexuality as more like being black. It's an immutable characteristic that you can't change.  The baker probably views homosexuality as more like an affinity for strippers jumping out of big ass cakes.  Even if it's been a constant desire of yours for as long as you remember, he views it as an sinful desire, not who you are.

It literally does not matter at all if homosexuality is a "choice" or immutable or not. What religion you are is definitely a choice, and that can definitely change throughout your life. And yet it's still illegal to discriminate by religion, even though this baker probably views it as "sinful" to be Muslim too.

Quote
With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against.  The baker probably views homosexuality as more like an affinity for strippers jumping out of big ass cakes.

Ridiculous. The customer is gay. In Colorado it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. End of story.

The baker can view himself however he wants to, he doesn't get to decide for anyone else. "People who like stripper cakes" is not a protected class so he's on firm ground rejecting that request.

Edit to say: take the direct corollary of interracial marriage. Would it be legal to refuse to make a wedding cake for a Christian man marrying a Muslim women because "I don't want to endorse their action to choose to live in a life of sin, even though I love you both as people?" No of course not, because religion is a protected class. This is no different at all.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 02:26:44 PM by sherr »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #88 on: June 05, 2018, 02:05:38 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Not sure anymore.  Are doggy style and reverse cowgirl two different orientations?  Or are they the same orientation and just arbitrarily treated as different because of gravity?  https://alternative-science.com/nasa-confirms-space-reverse-cowgirl-doggystyle-thing/

But it's not really relevant, because not everybody is so close minded and tunnel visioned to think that their experience encompasses the totality of human experience.   

LOL. Of course you wouldn't answer that question and would try to make a silly joke and then accuse other people of being closed-minded. Of course.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #89 on: June 05, 2018, 02:09:45 PM »
There are several places in my small town where I won't do business for some of the above reasons.   I'm not going to help their cause by doing business there, if I can get same services someplace else.  I'll even pay more to avoid those businesses.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #90 on: June 05, 2018, 02:09:56 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Not sure anymore.  Are doggy style and reverse cowgirl two different orientations?  Or are they the same orientation and just arbitrarily treated as different because of gravity?  https://alternative-science.com/nasa-confirms-space-reverse-cowgirl-doggystyle-thing/

But it's not really relevant, because not everybody is so close minded and tunnel visioned to think that their experience encompasses the totality of human experience.   

LOL. Of course you wouldn't answer that question and would try to make a silly joke and then accuse other people of being closed-minded. Of course.

You asked a stupid question and I gave you a stupid joke that it deserved, and also provided a real answer that it did not.  What else do you want when you ask a stupid question?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #91 on: June 05, 2018, 02:14:48 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Yep.  Pretty much this. 

I can honestly say that I've never even once fantasized about kissing or having sex with another man.  The concept does nothing to get me interested or excited.  For me (and I'd assume a lot of other people) sexual orientation is set in stone from the moment you're born, just as skin colour is.  If you are somewhere more towards the middle of the heter-homo spectrum I guess that this would account for the assumption that orientation is an arbitrary choice?

I thought we were supposed to view sexuality and gender identification as fluid. Isnt that the latest media-driven bias?

I think it is more likely that some humans are hard wired for sexuality and gender ID while others are nothard wired. And those who are not do seem to flip flop, thereby giving the impression that sexuality is a “choice.”



And that is great to know so unequivicobly that Guitar Steve is not a homo.

To be fair . . . I've spent years doing BJJ.  Which has to earn me at least honorary mention in the gay club roll call.  :P
If you expect me to interpret BJJ as anything but Blow Job something, you expect too much of me.

Blow Job Jitsu is close enough.  :D

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #92 on: June 05, 2018, 02:16:05 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Not sure anymore.  Are doggy style and reverse cowgirl two different orientations?  Or are they the same orientation and just arbitrarily treated as different because of gravity?  https://alternative-science.com/nasa-confirms-space-reverse-cowgirl-doggystyle-thing/

But it's not really relevant, because not everybody is so close minded and tunnel visioned to think that their experience encompasses the totality of human experience.   

LOL. Of course you wouldn't answer that question and would try to make a silly joke and then accuse other people of being closed-minded. Of course.

You asked a stupid question and I gave you a stupid joke that it deserved, and also provided a real answer that it did not.  What else do you want when you ask a stupid question?

I'm sorry. Apparently, I was severely overestimating your ability to see an analogy and come to the realization that your assumptions regarding sexual orientation of homosexual people was biased and, indeed, ignorant. (Or, to use the language you prefer, stupid.)

Let me try again. Do you assume that your own sexual orientation is -- like the example you gave of "a homosexual customer" -- also just an "identification?" And just as with homosexuality, that "lots of people identify as different things through their life" so that arguably it's not who you are -- in other words, you are not actually heterosexual, but that it's just something you're identifying with at the moment?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #93 on: June 05, 2018, 02:34:17 PM »
It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against.

If you went in and asked the baker to make you a big ass cake for a stripper to jump out of, I would assume he might object to doing that.  You can say he's discriminating against you for who you are, because for as long as you can remember, you've loved strippers jumping out of cakes, but that's not who the baker believes you are. 

You view homosexuality as more like being black. It's an immutable characteristic that you can't change.  The baker probably views homosexuality as more like an affinity for strippers jumping out of big ass cakes.  Even if it's been a constant desire of yours for as long as you remember, he views it as an sinful desire, not who you are.

It literally does not matter at all if homosexuality is a "choice" or immutable or not. What religion you are is definitely a choice, and that can definitely change throughout your life. And yet it's still illegal to discriminate by religion, even though this baker probably views it as "sinful" to be Muslim too.
    That is correct for the legal analysis.  The thread went sideways several posts up. 


With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against.  The baker probably views homosexuality as more like an affinity for strippers jumping out of big ass cakes.

Ridiculous. The customer is gay. In Colorado it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. End of story.

The baker can view himself however he wants to, he doesn't get to decide for anyone else. "People who like stripper cakes" is not a protected class so he's on firm ground rejecting that request.
  correct about not being a protected class; again it went off the rails.  Not correct as to it being the end of story.

Edit to say: take the direct corollary of interracial marriage. Would it be legal to refuse to make a wedding cake for a Christian man marrying a Muslim women because "you don't want to endorse their action to choose to live in a life of sin, even though I love you both as people?" No of course not, because religion is a protected class. This is no different at all.
  This is a good analogy.  But it's not as clear as you make it out to be.  Think of an analogy where an obscure Christian or Muslim denomination/sect believes it is good for girls to be married off young, and it's traditional for 15 year-ish old girls to be married off to 25 yearish old men by their parents.  Most people (I would hope) would object to having any part in the wedding.  It seems to me that they should clearly be able to refuse to  make and sell a cake that has the particular verse from teh bible or koran that they think justifies the practice.  I would argue that they would be justified in simply refusing to provide a cake at all, if they believe a "wedding" and "marriage" means something sacred to them, and they view a 15 year old being married off as a bastardization of it because their version includes meaningful consent by the groom and bride.  I think they shoudl just have this right, but if they were subject to a non-discrimination law regarding religion, I think it should be a defense for them to say they are not discriminating against them because of their religion, they are discriminating against weddings involving child brides. Obviously a lot of people on this forum would feel differently, but I would hope they could understand why their position isn't an obvious, slam dunk position to hold.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #94 on: June 05, 2018, 02:41:16 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Not sure anymore.  Are doggy style and reverse cowgirl two different orientations?  Or are they the same orientation and just arbitrarily treated as different because of gravity?  https://alternative-science.com/nasa-confirms-space-reverse-cowgirl-doggystyle-thing/

But it's not really relevant, because not everybody is so close minded and tunnel visioned to think that their experience encompasses the totality of human experience.   

LOL. Of course you wouldn't answer that question and would try to make a silly joke and then accuse other people of being closed-minded. Of course.

You asked a stupid question and I gave you a stupid joke that it deserved, and also provided a real answer that it did not.  What else do you want when you ask a stupid question?

I'm sorry. Apparently, I was severely overestimating your ability to see an analogy and come to the realization that your assumptions regarding sexual orientation of homosexual people was biased and, indeed, ignorant. (Or, to use the language you prefer, stupid.)

Let me try again. Do you assume that your own sexual orientation is -- like the example you gave of "a homosexual customer" -- also just an "identification?" And just as with homosexuality, that "lots of people identify as different things through their life" so that arguably it's not who you are -- in other words, you are not actually heterosexual, but that it's just something you're identifying with at the moment?

I need a forehead slap emoji.  Again, I am not making any assumptions regarding other people.  I'm just not so dense as to think my experience is the sum total of human experience.  If there are people with different experiences from me, I assume that they just have had different experiences than me.  I don't assume that they must be engaged in some sort of elaborate ruse or self deception. 

I'd love to see you interact with people in life. 
               Someone else: "It's funny, I used to be attracted to both men and women, but now I'm only attracted to women." 
               Kris: "Liar!!!  I have only ever been attracted to one sex my entire life, so there's no way possible anybody else could have had a different experience."


sherr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Age: 32
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #95 on: June 05, 2018, 03:19:51 PM »
Edit to say: take the direct corollary of interracial marriage. Would it be legal to refuse to make a wedding cake for a Christian man marrying a Muslim women because "you don't want to endorse their action to choose to live in a life of sin, even though I love you both as people?" No of course not, because religion is a protected class. This is no different at all.
  This is a good analogy.  But it's not as clear as you make it out to be. 


If it was such a good analogy why do you have to muddy the waters with a less-good analogy? In this situation everyone is above the age of consent and there's no justification for the baker imposing his personal moral beliefs on two consenting adults that belong to a protected class that is protected precisely because there is so much current-day discrimination going on against them.

Think of an analogy where an obscure Christian or Muslim denomination/sect believes it is good for girls to be married off young, and it's traditional for 15 year-ish old girls to be married off to 25 yearish old men by their parents.  Most people (I would hope) would object to having any part in the wedding. 

This is a bad analogy, because the "practices of obscure sects" are not necessarily covered by the religious discrimination laws. Pet shop owners are not compelled to sell snakes to snake-handling fundamentalist Christians, for example. It's illegal to discriminate against someone because they "are Muslim" or "are gay", it's (probably) not illegal to discriminate against someone because they are a "child-marriage Christian" (although I don't know if that's ever been tested in court). The world is full of grey, the courts will never run out of things to decide on. Which is why you should keep your analogies as close to the example under discussion as possible.

In addition, if the baker would be opposed to child marriages in general and not just when it happens to be "child-marriage Christians", then there is clearly no case here because he is not discriminating by religion but by child-marriages, which is not a protected class.

And no that is not the same as a gay wedding, because people of all religions can have child-marriages. Only gay people are going to get "gay married". So you can't separate the one from the other and discriminating against gay marriages is the same as discriminating against gay people.

It seems to me that they should clearly be able to refuse to  make and sell a cake that has the particular verse from teh bible or koran that they think justifies the practice. 

They would definitely be justified, because in general you cannot compel speech. The Supremes would agree, to quote myself from a different thread:
If you actually read the opinions, which people should because they are written in easy-to-follow English (even if longwinded), it seems likely that the line that will be drawn in the future general case is that you have to make a cake but you don't have to write any specific messages on it that you disagree with. Which seems entirely reasonable to me. Note that in this case there was no request to write any message.

I would argue that they would be justified in simply refusing to provide a cake at all, if they believe a "wedding" and "marriage" means something sacred to them, and they view a 15 year old being married off as a bastardization of it because their version includes meaningful consent by the groom and bride.  I think they shoudl just have this right, but if they were subject to a non-discrimination law regarding religion, I think it should be a defense for them to say they are not discriminating against them because of their religion, they are discriminating against weddings involving child brides.

And they would probably win, because that's a different situation. More realistically it would never go to trial, because no one would think they did anything wrong.

Obviously a lot of people on this forum would feel differently, but I would hope they could understand why their position isn't an obvious, slam dunk position to hold.

Obviously you like to repeatedly twist the issue a little bit more until you can declare a moral victory against a straw-man argument.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 03:37:17 PM by sherr »

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
  • Location: Europe
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #96 on: June 05, 2018, 03:46:23 PM »




Edit: The example below mine is a great one. I will NOT go to the relgious affiliated hospital in our city anymore. I strongly believe the religious affiliation affected my care in the past, to a hugely negative degree. My current provider agrees that there is a strong possibility information was omitted (I was lied to) to prevent a certain action on my part due to that affiliation.

This is something that has been on my mind for years. I have a certain illness and the hospital with the best available care in my area is Catholic. It's not something they really advertise and they've changed their name a while back so it doesn't have "Saint" in its name anymore. Patients are not informed beforehand about the religious affiliation of the hospital, but I was aware of it because I went to the university it's a part of. It does mean that the hospital sometimes refuses to perform certain procedures, so I think they should at least inform patients. I have been torn for years about being a patient there. I don't think I would want to undergo major surgery there. At the same time, the care I currently receive there is excellent, much better than I would get elsewhere.
 
As for patronizing any businesses whose owners hold different beliefs: it depends, really. Of course it's a no brainer when they hold very extremist beliefs, but then, who decides what 'extreme' is? In the village I grew up in, many local businesses donate money to the local Catholic church. I don't identify as Catholic anymore, but I donate money to the homeless charity run by the local parish. A local ethnic store has a jar on the counter to collect money to build a new mosque. I'm not a muslim, but I don't mind contributing a few cents every time I go there. I've given some money to a local kids' club even though I don't have kids. They all seem good people to me and they're all part of my community. At the same time, I've absolutely quit shopping in certain stores just because I don't like the owner for no particular reason.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #97 on: June 05, 2018, 03:48:11 PM »
Edit to say: take the direct corollary of interracial marriage. Would it be legal to refuse to make a wedding cake for a Christian man marrying a Muslim women because "you don't want to endorse their action to choose to live in a life of sin, even though I love you both as people?" No of course not, because religion is a protected class. This is no different at all.
  This is a good analogy.  But it's not as clear as you make it out to be. 


If it was such a good analogy why do you have to muddy the waters with a less-good analogy?
  Ideally, these cases would be decided on principles.  Slight changes to analogies are useful in illuminating whether you are applying principles, or just deciding based on personally held beliefs, and if you are applying principles, whether they are the right ones. 


In this situation everyone is above the age of consent and there's no justification for the baker imposing his personal moral beliefs on two consenting adults that belong to a protected class that is protected precisely because there is so much current-day discrimination going on against them.

The baker is not imposing his moral beliefs and is not trying to stop a legal marriage.  He is just trying to opt out of providing a wedding cake.  The same as if it were a wedding with a 15 year old bride.  Both are legal marriages.  Some people find both types of marriages objectionable.  I am guessing you and I would probably agree on which one is objectionable and which one is not, but popular vote is not a great argument for when someone should be able to opt out of doing something because of a personal belief. 


Think of an analogy where an obscure Christian or Muslim denomination/sect believes it is good for girls to be married off young, and it's traditional for 15 year-ish old girls to be married off to 25 yearish old men by their parents.  Most people (I would hope) would object to having any part in the wedding. 
This is a bad analogy, because the "practices of obscure sects" are not necessarily covered by the religious discrimination laws. Pet shop owners are not compelled to sell snakes to snake-handling fundamentalist Christians, for example. It's illegal to discriminate against someone because they "are Muslim" or "are gay", it's (probably) not illegal to discriminate against someone because they are a "child-marriage Christian" (although I don't know if that's ever been tested in court). The world is full of grey, the courts will never run out of things to decide on. Which is why you should keep your analogies as close to the example under discussion as possible.
  Minor religious sects are protected to the same extent as mainstream denominations.  The government is not allowed to determine which religions are valid or deserving of protection.  So if the baker is willing to serve people of the child marrying religion, you just opened up the argument of is the baker impermissibly discriminating against people of that particular religion, or permissibly discriminating against a particular practice/act?  Same with the baker willing to serve gays but not wanting to providing a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.   


It seems to me that they should clearly be able to refuse to  make and sell a cake that has the particular verse from teh bible or koran that they think justifies the practice. 

They would definitely be justified, because in general you cannot compel speech. The Supremes would agree, to quote myself from a different thread:
If you actually read the opinions, which people should because they are written in easy-to-follow English (even if longwinded), it seems likely that the line that will be drawn in the future general case is that you have to make a cake but you don't have to write any specific messages on it that you disagree with. Which seems entirely reasonable to me. Note that in this case there was no request to write any message.

I would argue that they would be justified in simply refusing to provide a cake at all, if they believe a "wedding" and "marriage" means something sacred to them, and they view a 15 year old being married off as a bastardization of it because their version includes meaningful consent by the groom and bride.  I think they shoudl just have this right, but if they were subject to a non-discrimination law regarding religion, I think it should be a defense for them to say they are not discriminating against them because of their religion, they are discriminating against weddings involving child brides.

And they would probably win, because that's a different situation. More realistically it would never go to trial, because no one would think they did anything wrong.
  That's result based arguments, which is generally not how you want your courts making decisions.  If no one thought the baker was doing anything wrong, that wouldn't really change the "right" answer.  If we want the law to simply be, "you can discriminate against anybody not popular enough for people to care about", anti-discrimination laws aren't a lot of help.     


Obviously a lot of people on this forum would feel differently, but I would hope they could understand why their position isn't an obvious, slam dunk position to hold.

Obviously you like to repeatedly twist the issue a little bit more until you can declare a moral victory against a straw-man argument.

Or, I like to present "twist the issue" (or I would say "present alternative scenarios") to see if my and other people's reasoning holds up.  Just like changing the facts from same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is helpful.  If you feel differently about the two cases, you should be able to figure out why and whether that's because you are just engaged in results based arguments or whether there is a good, principled reason for why those two m ight come to different results.


 
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 03:56:21 PM by Jrr85 »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #98 on: June 05, 2018, 04:18:33 PM »
The no-specific message was in reference to hosting a reception or baking a wedding cake.  I guess more precisely, there is no explicit message.  If you bake a cake without any same sex writing and don't put same sex figurines on the top (if that's still or ever was really a thing), many (most?) people won't assume the baker of the cake is expressing any opinion on same sex marriage.  Same with hosting and decorating for a wedding reception for a same sex wedding.  Of course it does implicitly express a message that you don't object to it, or at least don't object to it enough to turn down business over it.

The baker is explicitly saying "I will not bake you a wedding cake because of who you are.  If belonged to a class of people that I don't feel bigoted towards, you could have a wedding cake."[/]

That seems pretty explicit.

No it is not explicit in the way you present it.

The baker would definately bake a wedding cake for the gay man! That is,  IF he was marrying a woman.

That is no discrimination against who he is but the baker is taking a stand against what his potential customer does, , i.e. his action.

It is like Christians saying they will not condone homosexual behavior, but they love homosexual people.

I realize that to many people this is a difference without a distinction, but I think it makes some sense. I havent bought the argument entirely, but I do see it.

That's some complicated mental gymnastics to justify bigotry.  Let's try it out in a similar situation:

I don't think that black people are bad, I just think that a black man who has sex with a white woman is committing an evil act.  As a baker I shouldn't have to support heinous racial mixing by baking a cake for a wedding between a black guy and white woman.

But I'd definitely bake a cake for a black person.  Or a white person.  So, there's nothing discriminatory there.

It's not complicated mental gymnastics, it's just someone not going out of their way to miss the point. 

He didn't say there was no discrimination.  He said the baker arguably is not discriminating against the customer for who he is.  With a black person, it's hard to argue who he is.  With a homosexual customer, lots of people identify as different things through their life, so arguably it's not who that customer is he's discriminating against. 



Interesting.

So, tell me. How many different sexual orientations have you identified with through your life? When did you eventually, arbitrarily settle on being heterosexual?

Not sure anymore.  Are doggy style and reverse cowgirl two different orientations?  Or are they the same orientation and just arbitrarily treated as different because of gravity?  https://alternative-science.com/nasa-confirms-space-reverse-cowgirl-doggystyle-thing/

But it's not really relevant, because not everybody is so close minded and tunnel visioned to think that their experience encompasses the totality of human experience.   

LOL. Of course you wouldn't answer that question and would try to make a silly joke and then accuse other people of being closed-minded. Of course.

You asked a stupid question and I gave you a stupid joke that it deserved, and also provided a real answer that it did not.  What else do you want when you ask a stupid question?

I'm sorry. Apparently, I was severely overestimating your ability to see an analogy and come to the realization that your assumptions regarding sexual orientation of homosexual people was biased and, indeed, ignorant. (Or, to use the language you prefer, stupid.)

Let me try again. Do you assume that your own sexual orientation is -- like the example you gave of "a homosexual customer" -- also just an "identification?" And just as with homosexuality, that "lots of people identify as different things through their life" so that arguably it's not who you are -- in other words, you are not actually heterosexual, but that it's just something you're identifying with at the moment?

I need a forehead slap emoji.  Again, I am not making any assumptions regarding other people.  I'm just not so dense as to think my experience is the sum total of human experience.  If there are people with different experiences from me, I assume that they just have had different experiences than me.  I don't assume that they must be engaged in some sort of elaborate ruse or self deception. 

I'd love to see you interact with people in life. 
               Someone else: "It's funny, I used to be attracted to both men and women, but now I'm only attracted to women." 
               Kris: "Liar!!!  I have only ever been attracted to one sex my entire life, so there's no way possible anybody else could have had a different experience."

LOL!

Good lord, the only response to this is to laugh. Honestly. Your argument, starting with "black people can't help it but sexual attraction is an identity people just try on so discriminating against gays isn't against who they are, it's just against what they choose to do so it's totes not the same thing" and managing to end up with "Kris is an intolerant bigot for suggesting that maybe for some gays it's not a choice just like it's not a choice for me to be straight" is just...

Well, I guess congratulations? It's not often that someone's "logic" is so twisted that it just makes me laugh and walk away shaking my head.

Please, carry on. I have a hilarious story to go tell to some of my gay friends.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 04:20:50 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
Re: patronizing businesses who's owners hold different beliefs
« Reply #99 on: June 05, 2018, 04:33:38 PM »
I think people need to learn to love their neighbors a little more and not worry so much about politics. A Middle Eastern hippie named Jesus said that in a book I read.