In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision about same-sex marriages, many conservatives have complained that this constitutes an attack on Christianity. Of course they are exaggerating as usual; no *sane* politician would ever want to force churches to celebrate same-sex unions if they do not want to. Hell, they can not even the Catholic church to hire priestesses.

However, I have to concede one point on this attack on Christianity. Recently, it seems that many businesses (bakers, photographs and similar marriage-related jobs) are being bullied - I can not see any other word - to cater to same-sex couples. (For people outside the US: businesses with avowed Christian owners state their refusal to cater to a same-sex wedding and government fines them for the refusal, stating that discrimination is illegal).

This acting is simply incomprehensible. I am gay myself, and quite honestly I would certainly not want to do business with someone who hates my guts. Besides THEY would be the fools in the story since THEY refuse to take my money - I can certainly go elsewhere where my "money has no smell" as we say in French. In addition I have no "right" to do business with them. As we are both adult beings, if there is no consent then there is no relation possible.

PRIVATE discrimination is perfectly fine. I mean, would we force a Black baker to serve members of the Klu Klux Klan? A Jewish butcher to cater to neo-Nazis? Furthermore this discrimination DOES seem to be aimed at Christian denominations; I saw/heard of videos where they went to a Muslim baker who refused to cater to same-sex weddings... and they left it at that.

I believe that the problems stems from a confusion between public and private discrimination. The former is completely unacceptable since (in theory at least) all citizens are equal before the law. But when apartheid is used by the state (South Africa or Jim Crow South) the rule of law is violated and citizens are not equal.

When private businesses do it this it COMPLETELY different. Since NO ONE has a right to their product, they are therefore free to refuse to do business/hire WHOMEVER they want - lest we want to force Hooters to hire waiters or gay adult clubs to have female staff. I can imagine that it can be frustrating - and there are ingenious ways to counter such actions - but there is nothing you can do about it.

So, should government force businesses to cater to everyone or should businesses be free to (not) serve anyone they wish?

Well I've noticed I tend to agree with you on a lot of issues but in this particular case I'm going to have to disagree. We have laws in place specifically to prevent this in Sweden.

I do think buisness should be allowed to refuse services in specific cases like say if the customer in question is being disruptive, like if a person was screaming "proud to be gay" all over the store I could understand anyone including those not against homosexuality being concerned and in that case they should be able to refuse service.

Also if a store has a specific dress code or something like that to maintain order in the story or that's there for everyone's health I could also see being allowed because that's not singling out any one group and it's something that's being consistantly enforced.

I don't think you should be able to refuse service, based on gender, sexual orentation, race, disabilities, and your country of origin. Yes you could go to another shop, but since homophobes/racists are still common to find in many developed parts of the world and buisness generally tend to have a "herd" behavior if stores started say banning Homosexuals from their stores other stores can likely follow making it harder for them to get service and live a normal life in society.

Another problem is just what type of behavior this encourages, I mean imagine little kids seeing signs saying a specific group of people is banned from their store that may teach them that some people are worth less just because they're denied service and of course young homosexuals seeing they're banned from stores probably wont positively affect them mentally either and they make thing it's wrong to be who they are.

Lastly there's the argument that it's their store and therefore they should regardless be able to choose who to serve but I simply don't agree, these stores still use taxpayer funded services like the roads to transport wares to and from their stores. The same goes on the foundation the store rests on, also built by taxpayer money, which include people this store wants to ban.

Hence I cannot support being able to ban specific groups only if the customer in question is being disruptive or they're violating a consistant code the store may have that doesn't single out certain groups of people.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. The herd mentality, while I do not deny it can exist especially in rural areas, is unlikely to survive without government intervention. There will almost always be a business that will smell the occasion and be opened for business for these discriminated people.

As for the children, I believe that parents have a much stronger influence on their offsprings' behaviors and habits than can private businesses. Just like they learn to say no when kids beg to go to McDonald's, they need to show them that discrimination is foolish. 

Besides mentalities take a long time to change. Most baby-boomers can remember growing up in Jim Crow South, where interracial marriage was a crime. Except for a few nut cases I highly doubt we can find more than a handful that would want to go back to these barbaric times. The same thing foes for homosexuality. In once lived in Saskatchewan and I found that the new generation (in grade school) was much more opened-minded than their parents thanks to new technologies, which give them a larger view of the world.

Finally, your argument about taxpayer-funded services is a faulty one. Taxes are taken by force; you don't have a choice NOT to pay them unless you hire good lobbyists.

So you would agree to force the people I gave as an example to serve "undesirable" customers?

'Not mah Roads!!' Taxes ARE taken by force and threat of potential incarceration. Don't pay your taxes long enough and men with guns will show up at your door. It's dumb in this case but you shouldn't try to micro-manage every aspect of a citizen's daily life. Although they may try. And this discrimination garbage is the perfect excuse. Nowadays all people seem to want is to grant them MORE control over our lives. And of course the fed is eager to grab any power it can anymore. It's sickening really. I totally agree with you though. You seem a bit libertarian Janus. Am I off? You gotta be at least partly.

Ferdinand : I consider myself a philosophical anarchist - in theory it would work better - but in practice yes I am libertarian. Other than taking care of justice and public security there is simply no room for government anywhere if efficiency is the criterion.

Fighting "racism" is what is directly behind the 2007 crisis. In order to stop (perceived) racism in housing and mortgages government do-gooders FORCED banks to make risky loans by dramatically lowering criteria. And if they didn't comply they got blackmailed

janus : Not sure what 'philosophical anarchist' means. I'm more middle of the road I'd imagine. I do think that the more centralized the government is the worse it is. Like people in Boston being able to vote on an issue that relates to somewhere 1000 miles away for example. And calling Texans racists because they want an actual border. Like every other country in the world. If it stays local, it can be managed though. Maybe. I think. It's just human nature to want to control others it seems. You'd think people would be content. But that isn't really human nature at all I suppose.

I'm trying to think out a response, but it's just now working out. . .

First of all, I'm puzzled by the ideas of rights existence in the first place without religious values. I could be wrong, but I assume that most people associate rights with some kind of morality, and without God, or a guideline of sorts, those can be fickle. In fact, right and wrong is a matter of opinion, to where as with religion, at least Christianity, the decider of right and wrong is God, irregardless of what you think right and wrong is.

If rights come from our creator, of course you have the right, to deny services to an individual who is violating His law as severely as he has!

If rights come from other humans, count me out. I don't care. They'll do whatever they want, or feel is good. They'll give people the right to marry animals if the mob votes for it. They'll make abortion legal. They'll hold meetings discussing on whether or not citizens should be allowed to collect rainwater or not. (it's illegal where I live!)

I think I've had enough of humanity to care about the lowly human's idea on a right, or what is right or wrong. And if forced to choose between serving Yahova and obeying my fellow human beings, I would serve Yahova. Now, in serving a gay person, I have not violated his commands, and I could do that if I wanted to. On the other hand, I don't think Yahova would hold me accountable for choosing not to serve someone like that.

Some services, I would not mind. But baking a wedding cake? Now that is an artistic creation. Every artist puts a piece of himself in everything he makes, and it is for this reason, that I as a pixel artist have decided against at least one project which an individual asked me to create. The project would have me artistically display an original character in a very disorderly, almost drugged out fashion. I decided not to, because I knew I could not deliver what that person wanted and put my should into it, though I did try to offer him something better, at least from my perspective.

Homosexuals who ask- or demand that Christians make their wedding cakes aren't asking for very good cakes. No one can put the most important part of artwork- their should into something they distaste, at least in a positive fashion. This is true for all art forms. from baking, to art, to music making.

It the world of rights that I would like, such a situation would seldom arrise because homosexuals probably wouldn't be very open in the first place.

If a homosexual wanted my business services, it would depend on the service, and how I am putting myself at risk by working with them. But the modern world for the most part denies the negative aspects of homosexuality.

Sword legion : Objectivists would differ. I am not one, but they are right on one point: good is what preserves life and property, and evil is what destroys it. Besides the bible was used to justified slavery in the South and all sorts of (what is now considered) atrocities. But moving along...

Also, considering that even modern science can't quite explain homosexuality, I find your opposition to it... antiquated. But hey! as long as you do not want to murder/steal to protest against it, that is YOUR business

Ferdinand Philosophical anarchist is just an expression I coined. I believe that, in theory, we could function without borders and government. But since I realistically do not see it happen, I just stick with being a libertarian.

janus :

Actually the idea of evolution was a large cause in racism even today. After all, in a godless world, why look out for someone weaker than you?

Objectionists are people too, and they have the subjective opinions of people. Now, the conscious and other collective forces against "evil" may be found to be in common hand of some human beings, not all. Humans are self preserving of themselves and their own species, but to put your own "goodwill" before another's, even at highly destructive prices is not unheard of either. In fact, it is a very common, non guilt ridden force in various societies where social conditioning overrides the genetic default. Even genetic default I wonder if it could hold water. So much of the greater parts of human behavior in a child is learned, not instinctive.

I agree with you completely. Business have the right to refuse business to anyone that they want without needing to give a reason. If I don't want to sell my product to Customer A because he is gay then I should be allowed to, the same way I should be allowed to refuse service to Customer B because I don't like his shoes or Customer C because he is causing a ruckus or Customer D for no reason at all. The point is no one can tell a business owner that he has to do business with someone he doesn't want to do business with. Ultimately it is the business owner that is losing out anyway, and will likely continue to lose out if he refuses to serve a certain demographic of people.

I look at this way: These people are going to these businesses that reserve the right to refuse service to someone based on their religious preferences on purpose, knowing that they will be denied service. I look at this as publicity stunts and money-grabbing stunts. I mean, why else would you go somewhere where you know you are not wanted, unless you already have a plan in mind that is going to benefit you in some way? 

That being said, I completely support LGBTQ rights, but businesses are businesses, and they do reserve the right to refuse service to anybody that they want to. 

Zlinqx : Let me ask you this: what makes government serving a private business owner an ultimatum to either serve someone against their will, or be forced out of business and/or fined, any more than one click above said person robbing the cashier at gun point, regardless of any variable such as race/nationality/personal preference, etc.? And as far as infrastructure goes, the owner of the private property pays for his own gas/power/water/paving of the parking lot, etc. And ANY taxes thereafter, are only one click above armed robbery itself.

Ferdinand :
janus :

Libertarian/Anarchist to the core. Law should have never been anything more than flexible guidelines put in place to promote responsibility and morality. When law stops being for the public, and starts being against them, is when it outlives its purpose. People should abide by their own personal standards and moral compass's instead of perceiving their own view as right, and forcing it on other people. They don't have to accept or approve of my beliefs or actions, nor do I theirs.

tgags123 : Not that I would ever do such a silly thing, there is absolutely no one who can tell me I cant discriminate against someone wearing a Florida gators or Alabama crimson tide jersey, if I'm a private hot dog vendor at UT Knoxville. You are absolutely right when you say it isn't any variable applying to the person, but the principle behind private ownership.

Sword legion : Fly that flag brother. The southern cross was never a symbol of the defense of slavery, it was a symbol of the defense of the right of the state to govern themselves and pass their own laws, and not be ruled over by a mass of bullies with lots of firepower. Not just the south, but the whole nation was wrong for slavery, and the north was wrong for their unprovoked aggression. Our nation has abandoned us, and civil society has a cancer. And it's our responsibility to fight it.

From a guy living in the Southern United States, this region has seen where businesses has refused to served customers because of the color of their skin. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, research "Jim Crows Law" and you would see that Whites will refuse to service any African-American individual. I think to my knowledge that this can hurt businesses because they won't get enough profits to be able to stay in business. Sure, there are religious-stronghold places out there that will refuse to service any same-gender couples, and that is really bad, but at the same time, the US has one of the freedoms "Freedom of Religion" so, you can't really take anything away from them because it is in the US Constitution.

It's both doesn't make sense and understandae, so, it's really their business, if they want to stay with their religious Mumbo-jumbo and hurt their business, that's their problem.

m0ssb3rg935 : Except for one circumstance do you live and let live. When you see someone hurting someone innocent, that cannot be abided. In that respect, I am my brother's keeper. If your actions cause harm to others whom are not at fault, your view is wrong. A society has to take care of it's old, young, and infirm. Of course, this is a lot easier on a personal level WITHOUT government involvement when their resources aren't stolen by men with guns under the guise of their elected leadership.

Ferdinand : oh yeah, I never meant to imply that everyone should turn a blind eye to someone getting mugged. I'm the kind of anarchist that believes in taking care of your people and your property, not the kind to go burning, looting and murdering. When it comes down to it, everything is a show of force. Even diplomacy is subtle intimidation. Power in the wrong hands will be used for personal gain and oppression, but when power is in the peoples hands, and everyone has an equal amount of it, the peace may be kept.

m0ssb3rg935 : People will always want to elect a judge or some other arbiter to settle disputes though. That's how it starts... I don't know. Just musing I suppose. I really don't take it all that seriously anymore. I got tired of trying to wade upstream all the time so I basically choose to participate as little as I'm able to get away with. And yeah though, anarchists don't go burning, looting, and rioting..those would be criminals. But there you go. I better just stop while I'm not banned.

I have created a monster... Cool!



Sword legion : It is objectivist. Also racism was pretty "popular" before Darwin's publications and found justification in... the Bible. It stems from ignorance, and only education and time can get rid of it



tgags123 : My point exactly, thank you. If businesses are foolish enough to refuse transactions with someone THEY are the fools of the story



thing1 : Indeed, those attention whores are the worst. However, they do not seem to care about Jews, Muslims or any other religious denominations...



IgorBird122 : Actually businesses were FORCED to segregate because of Jim Crow (and you said it yourself, these were LAWS, not private initiative). I remember reading that it was hell for Northern businesses because it added undue cost to their Southern operations.



m0ssb3rg935 : I would put it up more generally: As long as you do not kill/steal anybody, do as you please. Also, you description of anarchy is too "popular". Anarchy means no ruler, NOT no rules

m0ssb3rg935 : I don't see how it does, it's not like you have to serve someone regardless of what they do if they are being unreasonable you still have the right to refuse service, likewise you're still are allowed to have certain guidelines that can be enforced as long as they don't single out people based on those things and is something you consistantly enforce.
And of course they still have to pay for whatever service the buisness owner is providing.

It's something every buisness has to adhere by a set of rules to make society function well. It's worked very well here and I've never seen any buisness owner here criticize it frankly because there's no need, even though they'd be free to do so if they wish

Of course there's religious freedom, but it shouldn't be used as a mask to allow for discrimination of people that otherwise wouldn't be.

And yes they do still pay for a large amount of things themselves, but it's not like I was suggesting for a society to become communistic and every buisness to be directly controlled by the state, if a private buisness owner uses the services provided by the government and in turn the taxpayers (including these groups), for the benefit of it's buisness then it should also adhere to the playrules set by it.

janus : Other then what I already mentioned in response to mossb3rg, society as a whole really has a much bigger effect on kids or even people in general and the values you'll have, I know if it wasn't because of my heavy internet usage I'd likely be a very different person today. And if you live in a rural area, this may be something you'd constantly see and will likely affect your opinion on homosexual people negatively.

And almost that's the key word while a lot of towns especially bigger cities will have exceptions these may very well not exist in smaller towns where people may rely on just a few buisness owners for their needs.

Anyways wow didn't expect my opinion to be so controversial on here, then again I suppose my socialiberalist side is showing.

I was about to say that no discrimination should be allowed, but then I started thinking " what if I owned a store and a murderer came to my store and was shopping? Would I want their business? Absolutely not! I'm a kind of guy who tries not to be judgmental and discriminatory towards others, but if I know that there's someone like that in my store, I don't want them around. As for gays, I wouldn't have any problem selling my products to them.

Zlinqx : Yes, the religious freedom argument can be a hassle... when it comes to public officials. THEY are bound first by the rule of law, which states that all citizens are equal so they must leave their personal opinions elsewhere.

However, when it comes to PRIVATE actors I can not agree to force ANYONE to do business for WHATEVER reason. Because by pushing your logic to its logical conclusion, a black baker would HAVE to serve members of the Ku Klux Klan; a Jewish butcher would HAVE to serve halal meat of Neo-Nazi customers...

And yes, society influences children, but your primary values are learned at home. My father taught me that, no matter how much I insist, we would NOT go to the amusement park nor MacDonald's every day even if I saw ads every day.

gamerforlifeforever2 : my thoughts exactly. It's YOUR business, so YOU should decide who you are dealing with