Hang Em High!

[Bill the Cat]

Once you open your doors to the public you should not be able to discriminate. End of argument.

Sure you should.

[KingsGambit]

Here's a bit of sanity from The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, who outspokenly supports gay marriage:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...troyed/389489/

[seer]

Here's a bit of sanity from The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, who outspokenly supports gay marriage:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...troyed/389489/

I wish we could hear hear more voices like this from the left:

Whereas declining to cater a gay wedding affects people on one day of their life at most, denies them access to no public accommodation, and would seem to signal discomfort with the institution of same-sex marriage more than animus toward gay people (so long as we're still talking about businesses that gladly serve gays). I also suspect that the sorts of businesses that are uncomfortable catering a hypothetical gay wedding aren't uniquely averse to events where same-sex couples are celebrating nuptials. I'd wager, for example, that they'd feel a religious obligation to refrain from catering an art exhibition filled with sacrilegious pieces like Piss Christ, the awards ceremony for pornography professionals, a Planned Parenthood holiday party, or a Richard Dawkins speaking engagement...

...The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I'll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let's go burn that family's business to the ground.

[kiwimac]

I love making up rules as you go along.

Actually that is how the law reads here in NZ. Once you've opened your doors to the public you can no longer decide a person is "not your type."

[Epoetker]

Actually that is how the law reads here in NZ. Once you've opened your doors to the public you can no longer decide a person is "not your type."

^This smarmy and dishonest quote has a near-%100 chance of being spoken in a %99 white zip code that gates or prices out all Inconvenient People of Color.

[kiwimac]

Why is that 'dishonest'?

[Kristian Joensen]

Actually that is how the law reads here in NZ. Once you've opened your doors to the public you can no longer decide a person is "not your type."

Then the law in New Zealand ought to be changed.

[kiwimac]

Then the law in New Zealand ought to be changed.

Nope, we are actually quite happy with it. See we know that merely asking a shopkeeper / artisan to produce something for you does not mean that the shopkeeper / artisan necessarily supports or agrees with your stated opinions or beliefs.

[shunyadragon]

I see grounds here for a food fight.

[shunyadragon]

Then the law in New Zealand ought to be changed.

Then they could be allowed to not serve people of color. What color? Depends on the judgment of the shopkeeper.

[rogue06]

I see grounds here for a food fight.

I call the cans of frozen orange juice!

[Kristian Joensen]

Then they could be allowed to not serve people of color. What color? Depends on the judgment of the shopkeeper.

If you want to refuse to serve people born on an even numbered date that should be your right. Popular rights don't need defending. Unpopular ones do. The right to be smart doesn't need defending, the right to be stupid does. The right to support same sex marriage needs no defending, the right to oppose it does. The rights of a more enlightened person don't need defending, the rights of the scum of the Westboro Baptist "Church" needs to be defended. Etc.

We should adopt a maximal conception of the freedom of association, you shouldn't be forced to deal with people you for whatever reason, rational or irrational, don't want to deal with.

[shunyadragon]

If you want to refuse to serve people born on an even numbered date that should be your right. Popular rights don't need defending. Unpopular ones do. The right to be smart doesn't need defending, the right to be stupid does. The right to support same sex marriage needs no defending, the right to oppose it does. The rights of a more enlightened person don't need defending, the rights of the scum of the Westboro Baptist "Church" needs to be defended. Etc.

We should adopt a maximal conception of the freedom of association, you shouldn't be forced to deal with people you for whatever reason, rational or irrational, don't want to deal with.

The above is poorly worded and a bit confusing. I will pick rational reasoning and the Law as the criteria. Irrational reasoning is too messy.

True the concept of 'a maximal conception of the freedom of association' has been established in most western countries, though your wording is a bit ambiguous. Personal lives and the freedom of association within churches and religions has been for the most part well established in western countries. Example, the right to refuse to perform Gay marriages within religions and churches is generally accepted as in the history the limiting requirements of marriages performed by clergy within religious institution have been recognized and accepted in all western countries including the USA.

If you are a civil servant or operate a business serving the public, than your obligation under the law is to serve the public without discrimination.

[Jedidiah]

Example, the right to refuse to perform Gay marriages within religions and churches is generally accepted as in the history the limiting requirements of marriages performed by clergy within religious institution have been recognized and accepted in all western countries including the USA.

But for how long? That is being pushed in the USA today. One day soon we will be reading about test cases. Already crybabies are trying to remove tax exempt status for churches for this very reason. (I know this is not the first time such has been argued, but it has gotten much louder lately.)

[Joel]

Then the law in New Zealand ought to be changed.

Nope, we are actually quite happy with it.

In that case the law is unnecessary.