Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: A republic of cart threads

Topic: in a 5-4 decision (Read 1262 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #50
Just go to another bakery hardware store you silly gays!


Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #51
Repeal public accommodations laws, but legalize firebombing businesses who discriminate

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #52
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.
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I'm not sure that the "artistic" part of it really gets at the issue. It seems like the more relevant distinction is between someone who just provides stuff somehow (e.g., a convenience store clerk), and someone who actually puts themselves into being present and part of something. The thing that feels objectionable is being made to actually be part of something you disapprove of.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #53
They offer wedding services. A "gay" wedding is just a wedding, same as a Catholic or Jewish or interfaith or interracial one. Where is the line where illegal bigotry is actually okay?

  • uncool
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #54
Why should there be a "will you can go to someone else" exemption?
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.
Quote
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?
Because there is a principle that the government should infringe on rights as little as possible to accomplish its goals (at least, in cases where the government's actions are examined with "heightened scrutiny"; the standard of review could have been part of the case). 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" (which might also have problems with forced speech), then that would be a reason to strike down the law (as I understand the standard; not a lawyer, so $36 up for grabs).
Quote
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?
"More just" isn't the right question; it's whether the baker has any rights that are being impinged upon, and whether the government has a sufficient reason to do so anyway.
  • Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 08:12:57 PM by uncool

  • nesb
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #55
Quote from:  uncool
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.

That's not true, though. If a black family walks into a grocery store, on an imaginary road with a dozen perfectly identical grocery stores, and gets told they can't shop there because they're black. That still does obvious harm.

  • nesb
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #56

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #57
Repeal public accommodations laws, but legalize firebombing businesses who discriminate
Don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #58
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.

Hahahaha

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #59
Protip: you don't have to consider public accommodations laws and anything discrimination laws into a philosophical vacuum completely devoid of historical context!

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #60
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?
Some people have sincere and heartfelt religious convictions, and it's fucked up to force them to act against those convictions unless it's necessary in order to protect competing rights that would be infringed to a greater extent. Often there are competing rights that should be given more weight (like in the case of a religious pharmacist refusing to provide birth control), and maybe you could make some argument for that in this case too. But you can't just waive the baker off as a bigot and dismiss his religious rights as if they have no weight at all. That's pretty much what the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did, and it's garbage that's really disrespectful to basic human dignity.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #61
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.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #62
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.
No, there is definitely harm done. It's insulting and hurtful and probably inconvenient to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they're gay. But the baker is also harmed if you force him to bake the cake because it does real injury to his conscience. Someone is going to be harmed either way, and the question should be whose injury is more serious in light of all the other factors.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #63
I'm always going to side against the dumb bigot so it seems a pretty easy call to me?

Since you like slippery slope arguments: "won't someone please think of the harm caused to the Nazi who just wants to shun Jews from society??"

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #64
idgaf about bigots' feelings so  :dunno:

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #65
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"

The goal of the law is to prevent the ability for public accommodations to refuse service based on protected class.

History shows us pretty clearly that "well they can just find someone else!" doesn't work out for vulnerable classes more often than not and still causes undue harm and stress anyway. Religious belief shouldn't override the law, horrible court rulings like Hobby Lobby notwithstanding.
  • Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 06:59:34 AM by brugroffil

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #66
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.
If your argument is really that free exercise of religion is bad, then you're the bigot tbf.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #67
This whole thread is like a blast from the New Atheist past.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #68
You're making multiple leaps in the argument there, though. Is "baking a cake" an exercise of religion? The baker is free to continue being a dumb bigot all he wants, he just can't refuse to offer his public services based on a protected class. He can still write and rant and pray to god about how much he hates gay people.

Look, we kinda already tried out your method of "but what about the bigots' feelings???" and it....works out shit for the non-bigots. Like I already said, no, we're not going to go down the "well if you don't like the bigot, that makes you the REAL bigot!" stupidity spiral because, hey, it's stupid and it's been addressed by philosophers far smarter than me decades ago.

The free "exercise of religion" that harms others and isn't actually an exercise of religion doesn't deserve extra special legal exceptions.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #69
This whole thread is like a blast from the New Atheist past.

dece troll tbh

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #70
This whole thread is like a blast from the New Atheist past.

Another way of looking at it is you're an idiot.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #71
lmao no. it isn't anti-religion, it's anti-idiot fucker bigots refusing to follow anti-discrimination laws you dumb dumb.

"buh my religion!" doesn't give you a free pass on everything. plenty of religious people aren't idiot fucker bigots or, if they are, still follow public accommodations laws without  :crai: about having to bake a cake for people they don't like.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #72
Arizona New Atheist Court to Quiz: stfu dummy


  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #73
from what I understand, this case is a pretty extreme "corner case".  you have a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and you have a gay couple who is insisting their wedding cake be baked by that guy.  it not only strikes me as a rare circumstance, but as requiring an extreme amount of unreasonability from both parties involved.  if the court's opinion didn't say something like "the courts are not there to settle every little dispute.  at some point, people have to be grownups and work things out on their own", then it should have.

Re: in a 5-4 decision
Reply #74
The plaintiffs knew he would refuse and forced the issue, as is their right. The bigot shouldn't be free to flout the law. There's nothing unreasonable about forcing legal action.

It is a bit of a corner or edge case because the baker is also arguing that baking a cake is speech, which isn't something that could be argued in most public accommodations cases. But the court still has a role here on deciding whether or not ostensibly religious based bigotry overrides anti-discrimination laws or not on free religion and free speech grounds.