Kind of turns that other discussion upside-down, doesn't it?
A lot of us argued then that when a baker hands out their shingle, they lose the right to turn down business.
"In the mean time...I'm wondering what it ever could be. "Tolerate intolerance"?"
Huh? Where did that come from? Nevermind. I'll keep a watch for you guys to finish beating this dead horse to death.
You wouldn't be the first person to pull out of a conversation once Gallup Mirror starts deconstructing terrible arguments or when Kris explains calmly and rationally what is really at the heart of difficult issues. It's normal to suddenly find such discussions a "dead horse beating".
Moving up to the top level...
Me: For me, at some level it becomes ridiculous overkill, but apparently not for you, right?
kris feenstra: Of course not. It's patently* absurd to have your rights subjected to some willy-nilly scale. Even if it wasn't, it doesn't settle anything. If it's so trivial, then why not expect the baker to make the* cake and keep it out of court that way? According to you it's just a cake, yeah? Just lemonade or nails? Trivial, so just do it?
But ultimately it comes back to the same thing; regardless on which side you're on in the conflict, it ends up in court over conflicting principles.
In the US, Free Speech is without doubt our most sanctified right, and the courts have interpreted free expression as identical with free speech (short of inflicting physical harm). For the government to inject itself into the baker to express his/her opinions seems, to me, to abridge his/her free speech rights. I think to bring the government into a situation like that is several things: excessive force, inhibiting the right of free speech/expression, and attempted thought policing.
As is often said, "Free speech isn't just for the speech you like. Quite the opposite." It's there to protect speech and expression which aren't "nice."
We know that you aren't particularly troubled by discrimination so probably any measures that a government would take to counteract it would be interpreted as a breach of some right. Hey...when they forced that school to allow black people to join...that totally goes against their rights to free speech and that is just thought policing. And when that community orchestra wasn't allowed to ban jews from joining...that was totally excessive force. And when that bakery had to start making wedding cakes for faggots...well...that goes against freedom of speech. Because freedom of speech means not baking cakes if they will be served at faggot weddings.
It doesn't have to be done through the courts. It can also be done at a community level (and this is done more often than you think). A community has the right to give business licenses to whom they please (especially in a town with limited business space) and they can also revoke a license for a business which doesn't serve the interests of the community. I'm often amazed by how outraged libertarians get when they hear this but city councils make decisions like this all the time. They take proposals to set up shop for a new service (especially when they have to make special allowances or new infrastructure for it) and they take many things into consideration (not just the best offer or the best business proposal) but also which business is more likely to best serve the community.
It may seem superficial to take this down to the level of a cake shop but imagine a community that will be selling an old city office and they have two candidates who both want to open dessert shops (there is a dirth in desert shops in this town). We can have a cake shop of great quality that makes wedding cakes with whatever aesthetics they choose...or you can have a pastry shop that is of good quality making cakes with their own aesthetic that serves everyone but faggots. I vote for the shop that serves the community.
I was saying that both bakers discriminated, one in a way we approve of, one not. One by refusing the job entirely, the other by refusing to finish the job. Other bakers may not want to put a pornographic image on a cake (and I HAVE seen cakes with pornographic images on them), for example. I don't have to imagine too hard to imagine a baker who draws the line at nude women, erect penises, black men hanging from trees (perhaps for some local KKK, function). In every case, I think the merchant should be able to refuse the service without having to worry about government thought police interfering.
Americans have a guaranteed right to pursuing happiness, not a government-enforced right to BE happy!
I'm aware, but I said in both cases they should finish the job. It ISN'T free speech to not provide a service you've made a business of providing.
But you don't want them to be able to define the services they are willing to provide. What about a bakery that only bakes cakes for Christians (or atheists)? Isn't that the same as discriminating against non-Christians or theists?
Just like "No shirt or shoes, no service" a business should be able to turn down business it finds offensive. No business is "in the business of providing services they find repugnant."
Marjorie Silva refused to put a specific message on a cake because it was hate speech, while Jack Phillips refused to make any wedding cakes for gay couples because they are gay.
Hate speech is still protected speech under the First Amendment. We don't arrest people for being Nazis and espousing antisemitic views. If Marjorie Silva simply dislikes hate speech and won't complete the job on that basis, fine. But turnaround is fair play, so if someone doesn't want to bake a gay wedding cake, that's fine.
I'm not sure Phillips didn't want to serve gays. He just didn't want to make a cake with two men on top based on his own (100% legal) view on homosexuality. Are you sure he wouldn't have baked, say, a birthday cake that just said "Happy Birthday" on top ordered by a gay? I didn't get the impression he refused to serve gays because they are gay. He just turned down that job the same way another baker might refuse to make a cake with a pornographic picture on top.
I'm not sure Phillips didn't want to serve gays.
If you were sure...Unseen (though spending 2 minutes reading a news article on the topic would tell you everything you need to know)...it wouldn't make any difference. You have no problem with businesses sending homosexuals out the door.