(04-28-2019 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (04-27-2019 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: I have noticed a sense of urgency in lad asking a particular question:
Quote:So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?
It has been in the context of 'Should government force Hoots to do business with Chik-Fil-A since Hoots has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions of CFA'.
(I'll not bother with the two or three other times he has asked...)
The answer is no. Not at all. Agree with you on Hoots 100 per cent.
Here is a return question (one that he has seemingly avoided):
'Should government force Masterpiece Bakery to do business with gay people who want to be married since Masterpiece Bakery has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions with them regarding gay marriage'? If the answer is different that your answer re: Hoots, what is the pressing difference that makes one absolutely proper and the other not a valid stance?
I think with how much lad has pressed on his question with relation to Hoots and *their* stances on the viewpoints and actions of CFA, that he really should address the flip side of that coin.
Tanq - I've not been avoiding that question, I just felt it was just a lot less interested in going down that rabbit hole. I've thought quite a bit about that issue, and the idea of forcing a company to provide a specific service/combating discrimination.
I mean, staying in that area, should a cake company be forced to bake a cake for a theoretical Nazi rally? This is where I can see the slippery slope argument come into play, where does the forced service end? And I think there is no good answer.
I keep coming back to the idea about whether a company should be able to treat customers differently based on their race, sex, gender, etc. And I would lean towards no. So if a bakery will bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple, they should not be allowed to turn down a gay couple just because they're gay. Which is how I would feel if a bakery turned down, say a black couple who wanted an anniversary cake, but were turned down because they were black.
But then what does that mean for the Nazis who just want a cake for their Nazi rally? I'm sure the bakery has made cakes for :insert happy go-lucky group here: meetings before.
So, while not the best answer, maybe it's a bit like porn? You know it when you see it?
But I start to lean towards not allowing companies to make choices on who they serve, or do business with, based solely upon their race, religion, sex, gender, etc., but allowing businesses to use their customers'/supplies' positions on social issues, politics, etc. as a determination of who to do business with. And that speaks to the idea of protected classes, and that we, as a society, have said you should not be discriminated against or denied service because you're :insert protected class here:.
Anyways, just some musings on this topic, that I really wasn't trying to avoid.
Appreciate the answer.
Quote:But I start to lean towards not allowing companies to make choices on who they serve, or do business with, based solely upon their race, religion,
I will spot you that those two are actually addressed, explicitly or implicitly, in the Constitution. And accordingly, I cannot see where governmental restrictions based on discrimination on those two criteria are not just laudable, but fully legal. So I think we can dispose of those instances pretty much as a simple exercise.
Quote:sex
This is probably further attenuated legally -- there is no 1st Amendment-type protection for 'sex' as there is religion (i.e. the implied basis for religious discrimination). There is the 17th Amendment that gives the right to vote to women, which is a further stretch than that afforded for religion.
But, I will even spot you on this.
And I will even spot you that it is laudable and a good goal not to discriminate based even on the 'non-explicit' categories, and even on the non-listed categories of 'gender', and the assortment of categories that are not sex or gender based (i.e. who or what one likes to fornicate with).
But, I will heartily castigate both Hoots for their 'quasi religious'-based discrimination (and it is just that, no matter how you cast it in terms of 'social policies') *and* Masterpiece for their religious-based discrimination.
But, when one tries to draw a legal line between the two (as both many conservatives and progressives do, albeit in different polarities), all it really comes down to is a construct based on the 'how good is the cause' or 'how bad is the cause' that is absolutely subjective. You even touched on the fringe of it by labeling that action akin the crap test for porn --- you know it when you see it.
So, if that is the best test for determining whether there should be governmental sanctions for the act of 'not serving', doesnt that strike you as an inherently unstable system by which to determine the exercise of governmental power?
Further note that there is an inherent difference between the exercise of private preference and governmental intrusion into the that exercise. In that distinction, I am all on board with both Hoots *and* Masterpiece exercising preferences to deal based on *any* number of distinctions -- that is their inherent right to exercise, whether it be 'good' or 'bad' discrimination.
You are absolutely within your right to support (or condone) either or both of Hoots and Masterpiece based on *their* actions and/or beliefs. And, with very few limits, Hoots and Masterpiece each should be free and able to choose to deal or not deal with commercially anyone *they* choose to do -- whether that distinction is based on commercial practices, social practices, ideological stances, or whether one wishes simply to be a butthead in order to be a butthead. (many say I fall firmly into the latter camp, mind you...)
But when it gets to governmental enforcement of 'discriminatory' practices, one should be very judicious and selective of whom that enforcement is taking place for. For every Lambda Legal member that clamors for the 'right' not to be discriminated against, there is an equal and corresponding member of the Knights of the Klu Klux clan that will be able to claim the absolute equivalent 'right.'
And, each time that any of those 'inalienable rights' to buy a cake are granted, there are other inalienable rights for freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association that are equivalently curtailed.
Thanks for the answer again.