Yes, I understand this hence my sentence in my post about getting to where we are may have required those laws. Also, if that is the case today (i.e. there is no easy way for them to get a baker in Colorado) they can sue for damages. But if they are in San Francisco, and there is an anti-gay baker refusing to serve homosexuals, or if there is a racist against blacks baker in Harlem, what harm are they actually causing the homosexuals in San Francisco looking for cakes or the black folks in Harlem looking for cakes?
Don't you think there should be actual harm before we compel people to do things?
This is an interesting idea that you've put forth, so I've got a few questions about it.
- You've indicated that a racist baker in Harlem doesn't cause harm because there are other bakers who can be visited instead. If there's a single bakery in town that serves black people, is that enough? Two? What is your minimum threshold until you believe that harm is created by the racist baker?
- How far should minorities have to travel to find a non-bigoted place of business before it does harm? 1 mile? 10 miles? 100 miles? 1000 miles? If the person being discriminated against has a disability that prevents him/her from driving/walking easily, does this number change?
- I'd argue that bigoted service refusals are actively harmful, as they are quite embarrassing and upsetting to the people being discriminated against as they find out that a particular place is racist. Would you support a regulation requiring that places refusing service for racist/homophobic/sexist reasons post their policy on their front door? This would make the business owners intentions quite clear, and prevent the harm that they would otherwise cause.
Yeah, these are all good questions that I'm probably not equipped to answer. In general courts refer to what a "reasonable" person thinks. I think for the number/distance of the service should be dependent upon the average someone not of that class experiences.
So if there are three bakeries, all three will serve white people, and one will serve black people . . . is that reasonable or not? What if a disabled black person moves into the neighbourhood, and is unable to physically get to the one bakery that will save him? I think most reasonable people would say that this is unacceptable. So, do we just get new lawsuits whenever this disabled black guy moves to a new neighbourhood under your rules?
Some areas will have no bakeries just because they are rural etc. But really I think that only "essential services" (like groceries/hospitals) should be forced to serve folks. Again it comes down to my (perhaps warped) definition of "harm". Is anyone really harmed by not being allowed to buy a cake?
Buying a cake is certainly not a life or death issue.
Fundamentally though, the entire country is being harmed when a person is refused service due to bigotry. It reduces trade, discourages collaboration, and damages sense of community.
The embarrassing/upsetting nature of it isn't really of much concern to me when using government to force someone else to act - there is no right to not be upset or not be embarrassed.
There is no right to open a bakery either. If you fail to comply with health and safety laws in your bakery, it will be closed down. If you fail to comply with zoning permits for your bakery, it will be closed down. If you fail to comply with sexual harassment laws with your employees, it will be closed down.
Nobody has attempted to force the bigoted baker to do anything, that's a straw man . . . but if the baker wants to retain the
privileged of licensing his business to be open to the public, he needs to follow all rules and guidelines that this entails.
I don't think we should use government to force signage indicating their bigotry either; though this is much less of an intrusion on the private business than forcing them to serve folks they don't want to serve so it may be a middle ground that would be acceptable. But this approach requires the bigot to know all of their bigoted stances in advance. e.g. Maybe they didn't even think of not serving Chinese people until one walked in the door. These days with social media I think the message would be out there pretty fast regardless of any sign on the establishment.
If you want to take a bigoted stance on an issue, I think that you should be able to. I don't think you should be able to hide your bigotry though . . . and am not aware of any right to do so guaranteed in the constitution. My suspicion is that by being very public and up front about bigotry in this manner, some of the problem would sort itself out in a free market based manner.
I think the proper response to a private business having bigoted views is to protest and boycott and make other folks aware (which is my position on the topic of this thread). I don't think the answer is to use the power of the government to force private individuals/businesses into the action we desire.
That's why I'm surprised that you don't support signage or something similar. I don't share your faith that most people check social media before entering every store in case there are bigots working there. That means that bigots would often be protected from the impacts of their actions by obscurity, as many folks patronizing a place will not be aware.