There is something that at least feels a bit contradictory to me: the argument that there are other places to go (and so no harm done) relies on the fungibility of the item in question, but that seems like it should deny the artistic value of the object. This isn't a fully fleshed out argument, because it isn't exactly true as is. Still trying to see if it's at all meaningful.
Why should there be a "will you can go to someone else" exemption?
How do you define that? Where is the cut off? Why does the baker in Denver get to deny whomever he wants but the baker in ruralfuck doesn't?
Why isn't it both simpler and more just to have a public accommodations law without these exemptions and to tell bigots to go pound sand?
The idea I think Quiz is proposing is that the harm done by discrimination happens because the person is excluded from the good or service. If someone else offers the same thing (or maybe similar enough), accordingly, then no harm is done.
Repeal public accommodations laws, but legalize firebombing businesses who discriminate
Not sure I understand the outrage at this decision. It is pretty obvious that there are some occupational activities for which laws that prohibit discrimination agagainst gay people infringe on religious liberty (e.g., way at the margins, being an officiant at weddings). The cake guy seems to see himself as some kind of artist who can't bake for this wedding in good conscience, and there are surely tons of other bakers available for this relatively unimportant part of the wedding. Thinking that the cake guy should be legally required to bake a cake seems like a punitive viewpoint that accords no respect at all to stupid religious opinions, and objecting to the decision because it will erroneously be used as ammunition for fundamentalist legislative pushes is just slippery-slope thinking. And all of this pragmatism about free speech is especially strange in light of the fact some of the pragmatists (thinking of PD here) are pretty much absolutists when it comes to free speech for literally neo-Nazis.
Colorado law doesn't allow bigot assholes to deny public accommodations based on, among other things, race, religion or sexuality.Why should there be a "will you can go to someone else" exemption? How do you define that? Where is the cut off? Why does the baker in Denver get to deny whomever he wants but the baker in ruralfuck doesn't?Why isn't it both simpler and more just to have a public accommodations law without these exemptions and to tell bigots to go pound sand?
If the goal of the laws (which Quiz seems to take to be the prevention of exclusion) is served by mandating that the baker say "Go to that store instead"
Actually, I can do that! If you don't want to follow public accommodations laws and instead be a "heartful" bigoted asshole, fuck you. I view this baker and his "religious rights" no different than someone running the Ken's Kountry Kampground refusing to serve black people, or Ado's Bakery refusing to serve Jews out of their "heartfelt" beliefs.Others' rights to freely engage in society and our economy without discrimination supersede those religious arguments. Again, the weight of history is overwhelmingly on the side of anti-discrimination laws and their necessity.If your "basic human dignity" amounts to your hatred and rejection of others, fuck you. And no, we don't have to fall down some dumb "tolerance of the intolerant" spiral of stupidity.
This whole thread is like a blast from the New Atheist past.