Wedding Cakes and Freedom of Business

[Irock]

Once your "rights" start infringing on other people's rights, then you can't have that "right" anymore.

This statement holds no water. You have a right to free speech and to carry a weapon, but it's well established that property rights trump those.

This "right to have your cakes made for you at the specific establishment of your choosing" doesn't exist. I don't understand wanting to coerce people into defying their religious beliefs on their own property over dessert.

[Acolyte]

Once your "rights" start infringing on other people's rights, then you can't have that "right" anymore.

This statement holds no water. You have a right to free speech and to carry a weapon, but it's well established that property rights trump those.

I'm not understanding your point here. Using your right to free speech on someone else's property is infringing on their right of having a private residence. It's the same thing.

This "right to have your cakes made for you at the specific establishment of your choosing" doesn't exist. I don't understand wanting to coerce people into defying their religious beliefs on their own property over dessert.

We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.

[Sophist]

We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.

We have a winner here, the bakery has the right to refuse service to anyone but it's contestable discrimination if they deny them a plain cake anyone else would get just because the people in question are gay

god bless america

[PhoenixFire]

We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.

This. This is perfect. Sums it up quite well; couldn't have said that better myself.

[Irock]

Once your "rights" start infringing on other people's rights, then you can't have that "right" anymore.

This statement holds no water. You have a right to free speech and to carry a weapon, but it's well established that property rights trump those.

I'm not understanding your point here. Using your right to free speech on someone else's property is infringing on their right of having a private residence. It's the same thing.

This "right to have your cakes made for you at the specific establishment of your choosing" doesn't exist. I don't understand wanting to coerce people into defying their religious beliefs on their own property over dessert.

We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.

Nobody is arguing that it isn't discrimination. Some people are just arguing that coercion isn't the right solution to discrimination from privately operating individuals and their businesses.

On the rare occasion that a business discriminates against gay people, consumers can take matters into their own hands. Leave bad reviews on Yelp. Contact the press. Tell people in your network about it. Hold a protest. No business wants that because it can financially cripple them.

I think we ought to think of all the possible solutions before resorting to beuracrats and their costumed men with badges and guns.

[pacdiggity]

On the rare occasion that a business discriminates against gay people, consumers can take matters into their own hands. Leave bad reviews on Yelp. Contact the press. Tell people in your network about it. Hold a protest. No business wants that because it can financially cripple them.

I understand exactly what you're saying and why, but allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough. They shouldn't have the ability to employ their bigotry in the first place. The ability to fight back does not nullify discrimination.

[yuyu!]

allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.

Not good enough? Wat?

Completely ruining someone's business could cause major financial issues for them (and possibly their entire family). Unless they've lucrative enough to have tons of money stored away (which isn't most family-owned businesses), there's a good chance that their family is going to go through some deep trouble. Many of them have to file for bankruptcy. Some might have to throw away all their hard work and pick up a job at the nearest McDonalds to support their kids. This is the worst case scenario, but this kind of stuff actually happens all the time.

Maybe some people are bigoted enough to deserve that, but it would sure take a lot for me to wish such hardships upon anyone and their family. Even if they've got a pretty rude opinion and are a huge jerk.

[&&&&&&&&&&&&&]

But the problem is, that wouldn't even come close to destroying their business.

(I found the best numbers I could.)
Ok, so there were 10,000 gay couples who get married 2014 (in the entire US)
Now let's say there are only 50 bakeries (somehow) in the whole of america
That's 200 couples / bakery

now on the other hand we have the 2,189,000 breeder weddings
again there are only 50 bakeries
that's 43,780 couples / bakery

if all the gay couples chose not to buy cakes at those bakeries, they'd lose around 0.5% of their business
unless the bakery is doing VERY poorly already, that wouldn't take their entire business down

[yuyu!]

It's not only gay people that would stop shopping at those bakeries - anyone else who is offended wouldn't, as well. Which is a really good chunk of the population - I've known more straight people that are fervent about Gay Rights than gay people. Or even anyone that visits the business's Yelp page, sees immensely negative reviews, and goes elsewhere. They could also close their doors because of backlash - which could come in the form of threats, prank orders, protests, etc.

That's the price they already have to pay for being a bigot. My point was to say, assuming their business does get ruined by their own (shitty) opinions, here are the consequences - which can potentially be dire enough as it is. Adding some other form of punishment on top of that just seems way too severe. These are very tangible consequences for intangible ideas and words.

[&&&&&&&&&&&&&]

it's easy for people to say they support something but when it comes down to it will they actually back that?

[Irock]

it's easy for people to say they support something but when it comes down to it will they actually back that?

Why wouldn't they? I know there can be a disconnect between someone's opinions and their actions (such as being critical of Chinese factory working conditions yet still buying products manufactured in China) but avoiding the occasional anti-gay business isn't even an inconvenience.

[&&&&&&&&&&&&&]

unless more stores than you think are anti gay

how do i know that every store within 20 miles of my home doesn't want all the gays dead?

do you know?

[Irock]

how'd the moon get there

come on

tide goes in

tide goes out

you can't explain that

come on

[&&&&&&&&&&&&&]

makes sense im sorry

[bluntsword]

Glad we can converse without haterade.

May I offer an interesting article I found on the topic?

Bake for them two

[pacdiggity]

allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.

Not good enough? Wat?

I wasn't saying that torrential financial trouble isn't punishment enough, of course that will have a gigantic impact. I was saying that letting them employ bigotry isn't good enough even if it will ruin their business.
To be fair I could have phrased it better.

[Irock]

allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.

Not good enough? Wat?

I wasn't saying that torrential financial trouble isn't punishment enough, of course that will have a gigantic impact. I was saying that letting them employ bigotry isn't good enough even if it will ruin their business.

Why not? It's a non-coercive solution that strongly discourages the bigotry. I don't understand why you want politicians (the best people on earth) bureaucrats (the second best people on earth) and police officers (the third best people on earth) involved when it's not necessary.

[strike]

FUCK THE POLICE COMIN' STRAIGHT FROM THE UNDERGROUND

[yuyu!]

Bake for them two

Huh, that's an interesting perspective. She's right that people are only turning away from Christianity as a result of those that choose to misjudge and condemn others.

Sadly, I encounter mostly holier-than-thou Christians, but there are a few good, bluntsword-like Christians out there. :-)

[Tsunokiette]

allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.

Not good enough? Wat?

I wasn't saying that torrential financial trouble isn't punishment enough, of course that will have a gigantic impact. I was saying that letting them employ bigotry isn't good enough even if it will ruin their business.
To be fair I could have phrased it better.

The only issue is that making it illegal won't actually prevent such bigotry any more than fearing financial ruin will. If someone is going to be a bigot, then they are going to be a bigot. The only difference is the method of consequence. So, the question then becomes "which solution has less potential drawbacks?" Considering they will both stop bigotry. Short of mind control, you can't actual prevent such things from happening. Preemptively stopping it would be nice, but unfortunately not realistic.

[&&&&&&&&&&&&&]

There's something I've been thinking about.
Isn't this a law that allows people to be sexist? Not only is the basic "No gay cakes" sexist, doesn't this also allow them to deny a woman trying to buy a cake because it's against their beliefs for women to handle money? What if they decide that they can't make her cake because she's not wearing one of those head things?

sex·ism
ˈsekˌsizəm/Submit
noun
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.

"A man can not marry a man." Why? "Because he's a man, but a woman can marry that man."
"A woman can not marry a woman." Why? "Because she's a woman, but a man can marry that woman."

[Tsunokiette]

Yeah I see it as a huge Venn diagram of stuff. I get the why behind it (even if I don't support it - at least in this form), but it opens up a whole bad can of worms. It all boils down to multiple sets of morals and how to balance them. Any law on the matter would say one set is superior to the other, which is one reason why I support just letting (true) Capitalism run its course. If people actually dislike it to the point that they actually do something about it (rather than all talk no action), then a boycott would do wonders. Legislation on the other hand will usually bring out more religious debate from what I have seen in my limited 23 years :/

I also just think that even if the government comes up with the perfect law with the perfect intentions, they'd still manage to fuck it up somehow. I'm not really impressed with the U.S. Gov as a unit.

[Ms. Cocaine]

ughhhhh

this thread

i can't

i'm having trouble breathing

so yeah i don't feel safe right now?

[yuyu!]

We need a doctor.

Is there a doctor in the house?

I repeat: Is there a doctor in the house?

[Acolyte]