This example is bovine effluent. Being homosexual is not hateful to any other person.
Being a photographer is like being a mechanic, neither carries the implication of support to the personal POV of their clients.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
’A punch in the gut’: Wedding videographer refuses business to same-sex couple in Colorado(article)
- Thread starter lbuclk=
- Start date
Being a photographer is like being a mechanic, neither carries the implication of support to the personal POV of their clients.
And yet, that's exactly what the Master's Cakeshop customers did. They went radically out of their way to make sure they confronted the one place that would refuse them. They were extremely specific about their choice. They wanted their way impressed upon him.
Perfect. So someone who has never done something must simply ask, and suddenly he will perform perfectly. Cool!
Riiiiiiiight.
It really, really, is.
You have no freedom, no right, to the services of another person. That's called slavery. Demanding someone serve me even when they don't want to is wrong.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
It's not slavery. No one has to become a photographer, baker, etc. However, if you do make that choice, you must do so within society's rules. One of those rules is not discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national original, or sexual orientation.
Leswick II
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,464
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,082
Somehow folks need to cater to policy of the state, no ? The state who issues a byz license clearly states that no discrimination would be permitted. I get it, that peeps want to jump this thing and claim that "two goats get married". Either way, pics of the goats should be taken and great cake made for them too :>)
Forgive the ooozing sarcasm.
Last edited:
"No ones has to earn a living. But, if they want to, they have to do anything, no matter whether or not it goes against their beliefs."
Not necessarily. B&H closes on Saturdays and Jewish religious holidays. They still earn a living.
One just has to recognizes where the lifestyle compromises will have to be made and how to make them. In this kind of situation, it might mean being a different kind of photographer.
Dan Marchant
Veteran Member
You don't appear to understand the law at all.
The case under discussion relates to discrimination based on being a member of a protected class (EG religion, gender, race, sexual orientation etc). Your example has nothing to do with discrimination and is also nonsense.
1. White supremacists aren't a protected class so can't sue for discrimination.
2. More importantly free speech is a public right, not a private one. The government can not stop someone spouting racist nonsense on their own blog but if that person walks into my bar (or cake shop) and says it, I can toss them out the door. There is no legal requirement for anyone to publish their racist screed on a cake or on a website - no law has been broken and they would lose any case their brought.
Businesses are free to refuse customers provided the reason given is not that they are members of a protected group.
"You don't have enough social media followers - I only sell to people with 50,000+ followers"
"Your fashion sense is awful - I don't want my cake in photographs next you your purple corduroy wedding dress"
"I don't trust you".
All the above are legally valid reasons (though probably a stupid way to run a business).
"I don't serve Pakis" - isn't.
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
Courts have already ruled hate speech is not protected by law.
Umm. Quite the opposite. I'd recommend starting with Matal v. Tam.
CharlesB58
Forum Pro
I posted only part of my intended comment by accident and was not able to go back and edit. What I intended to say was that in such situations as refusing to provide a service that promulgates hate speech, the laws don't easily provide a basis for a lawsuit. This is especially the case if the speech is intended to incite violence.
Matal v Tam might allow a baker to bake a cake presenting his own hate speech, but it comes nowhere near requiring a baker to bake a cake presenting someone else's hate speech.
Saying that you disagree with something is not hate speech, nor does it incite violence.
It is much less simple than this. Disapproval supports hate which supports violence. It mightn't be fair, but it is how human behaviour works.
Couldn't possibly disagree more strongly.
This conversation, like nearly all political conversations, comes down to one thing: individualism vs collectivism. I'm a staunch individualist. You are not.
What else is there left to say?
Actually, not true. What I am is someone who understands what it takes to run a society.
A society the way YOU want it. I want society to look differently. I want maximum individual liberty and minimum government instrusion. Simple as that. You want the government to be bigger so that it can enforce your rules.
No. You would like to think so because it removes actually dealing with the practical issues.
Full freedom to do whatever one wants is impossible for more than one person. Individual freedom, in a more realistic sense, is protected by government. It also must balance with the desired freedoms of others in a society.
If you want to be a "true" individual; go find an unoccupied plot of land, clear it, fell your own trees to build your cabin, raise/hunt your own food, etc. You really should also build your own tools, because buying them means having submitted to the system you so dislike. Better hope you never get neighbours, because dealing with them is inevitably either a compromise or capitulation. Thus damaging your "individualism". If you think this sounds extreme, it is because you do not understand how things actually work.
Explaining in detail what you seem to be missing is far beyond the purview of this site.
Going back to the wedding photo issue. The freedom for one to discriminate impinges upon the freedom of another to exist equally. So, in reality, you are advocating for the freedom of people like you, not the freedom of everyone.
Addressed previously. Right to swing your fist ends where my face begins.
I love capitalism. A lot.
You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about.
Yeah, that's a nice Goebbels.
Negative, because no one has an inherent right to my services.
If someone opens a business and discriminates against me, that's fine. I'll go elsewhere.
Oh, you get away with this because you are a moderator? Nice. Insult rather than actually discuss, typical, but unfortunate.
Again, you fail to comprehend or choose not to because reality interferes with your fantasy.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum