SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Joel]

I do believe it is inappropriate to refuse to serve someone because they are a member of the KKK.

do you believe it is likewise inappropriate for a consumer to refuse buy from a seller because they are, say, a member of the KKK? (or a fortiori, engage in an organized boycott of the seller because he is a member of the KKK?)

The core philosophy of the KKK is a racist (e.g., bigoted/prejudiced) position. While I would hope we do what we can to convince them with kindness rather than hatred, I do not have a problem with a person who boycotts a business or person that is espousing this kind of position. The boycott against Laura Ingraham, for example, is simply another form of speech. I don't have a problem with it. I also would have no problem with a religious group saying, "we will not marry same sex couples" or "we will boycott any institution that marries same-sex couples." I person is free to choose where they send their dollars - and to use those dollars to take a political or social position - even if I disagree with it. Even the KKK member is free to decide they will not buy from the black proprietor, as repugnant as I find that position.

It seems arbitrary to me to make such a distinction between buyers and sellers. (Buying and selling are really the same thing, seen from different directions.) If you are going to defend the rights of buyers, then surely you should defend the same right for sellers, which are just buyers when viewed in the other direction.


(In case I'm not being clear: If Alice gives Bob a quantity of fish in exchange for a horse, then depending on our choice of point of view, we could say either/both that Alice sells the fish for a horse or buys the horse with fish. And vice versa for Bob. Introducing dollars, as a medium of indirect exchange, doesn't change that. If Alice instead receives dollars from Bob and uses the dollars to buy the horse from Charlie, she's ultimately still buying a horse with fish (or selling fish for a horse). And currency is yet another good that is bought and sold.)

[carpedm9587]

It seems arbitrary to me to make such a distinction between buyers and sellers. (Buying and selling are really the same thing, seen from different directions.) If you are going to defend the rights of buyers, then surely you should defend the same right for sellers, which are just buyers when viewed in the other direction.

(In case I'm not being clear: If Alice gives Bob a quantity of fish in exchange for a horse, then depending on our choice of point of view, we could say either/both that Alice sells the fish for a horse or buys the horse with fish. And vice versa for Bob. Introducing dollars, as a medium of indirect exchange, doesn't change that. If Alice instead receives dollars from Bob and uses the dollars to buy the horse from Charlie, she's ultimately still buying a horse with fish (or selling fish for a horse). And currency is yet another good that is bought and sold.)

You're being clear...and it is an interesting philosophical point. However, I think your notion really only applies for barter, where there is a mutual exchange. The concept of "providing a service for compensation" is fairly old and pretty widely established. Generally, the seller is the one that offers the service and establishes the price. The buyer obtains the service and meets the price. To suggest that a service provider cannot discriminate in providing services has precedence. To suggest that a buyer cannot discriminate in buying services does not (that I know of).

But I have to admit you raised a very unique point. Refreshing, actually.

[Joel]

...Introducing dollars, as a medium of indirect exchange, doesn't change that. If Alice instead receives dollars from Bob and uses the dollars to buy the horse from Charlie, she's ultimately still buying a horse with fish (or selling fish for a horse). And currency is yet another good that is bought and sold.)

You're being clear...and it is an interesting philosophical point. However, I think your notion really only applies for barter, where there is a mutual exchange. The concept of "providing a service for compensation" is fairly old and pretty widely established. Generally, the seller is the one that offers the service and establishes the price. The buyer obtains the service and meets the price. To suggest that a service provider cannot discriminate in providing services has precedence. To suggest that a buyer cannot discriminate in buying services does not (that I know of).

But I have to admit you raised a very unique point. Refreshing, actually.

I gave two arguments, in brief, that it does not only apply to barter, and you don't seem to address either of them. (To rephrase them: (1) money is just a medium of exchange. People accept money in order to use it to purchase goods/services. So ultimately goods/services are exchanged for goods/services. (2) Money is itself a good. An exchange of fish for money can be seen as either selling fish for money, or buying money with fish.)

I'm not sure what your "where there is a mutual exchange" clause adds. Any voluntary exchange (whether money is involved or not) is a mutual exchange. And regarding "providing a service for compensation": From the perspective of the second person giving the compensation, the first person's service is the second person's compensation for whatever good/service the second person is providing. The second person is also providing a good/service for compensation.

A price is always established by two mutually-consenting parties. (Assuming voluntary exchanges.) Either party can propose a exchange/price, which the other may agree to or not. (I could "establish the price" of my hat at 1 million dollars. But it's meaningless because there will be no one who agrees to that. It would be functionally equivalent to saying that I am not selling my hat.) Perhaps instead of trying to distinguish between buyers and sellers, you could distinguish based on who made the first offer. Or based on whether an offer was advertised/published? That would be more self-consistent. But then could people get around it by not publishing/offering prices but insisting that the other party make the offer? (I've had car salesmen do that.)

As for having precedence in law, I mentioned before in this thread that existing anti-discrimination laws are arbitrary and inconsistent in various ways. This is one of them. Also sometimes the law works in the other direction, e.g. prohibiting discrimination in purchasing labor services, yet not prohibiting workers from discriminating among potential employers.

[carpedm9587]

I gave two arguments, in brief, that it does not only apply to barter, and you don't seem to address either of them. (To rephrase them: (1) money is just a medium of exchange. People accept money in order to use it to purchase goods/services. So ultimately goods/services are exchanged for goods/services.

Not exactly. In a barter, two people are directly exchanging goods/services. So your argument about it being equal had merit. However, that just means that someone who says "I refuse to barter with you because you're gay, black, female, etc. is still prejudice/bigotry. When you inject money, you separate the exchange, creating two distinct service acquisitions. I get the service from you and give you money. You use your money to get a service from someone else. Barter equates the two in any exchange; money creates a clear "buyer/seller" relationship.

(2) Money is itself a good. An exchange of fish for money can be seen as either selling fish for money, or buying money with fish.)

I'm not sure what your "where there is a mutual exchange" clause adds. Any voluntary exchange (whether money is involved or not) is a mutual exchange. And regarding "providing a service for compensation": From the perspective of the second person giving the compensation, the first person's service is the second person's compensation for whatever good/service the second person is providing. The second person is also providing a good/service for compensation.

Umm...that's a stretch. I'm not an economist or an expert in finance, but I'm pretty sure money is defined as a "medium of exchange." It is not a good in and of itself.

A price is always established by two mutually-consenting parties. (Assuming voluntary exchanges.) Either party can propose a exchange/price, which the other may agree to or not. (I could "establish the price" of my hat at 1 million dollars. But it's meaningless because there will be no one who agrees to that. It would be functionally equivalent to saying that I am not selling my hat.) Perhaps instead of trying to distinguish between buyers and sellers, you could distinguish based on who made the first offer. Or based on whether an offer was advertised/published? That would be more self-consistent. But then could people get around it by not publishing/offering prices but insisting that the other party make the offer? (I've had car salesmen do that.)

I do not disagree with that description, but the reality is that in the vast majority of exchanges, excepting custom purchases and extremely large purchases, the price is set by the seller and the buyer's choice is much more passive: they can purchase it for that price or go elsewhere. Even if that were not the case, I'm not sure how that relates to the discussion in this thread.

As for having precedence in law, I mentioned before in this thread that existing anti-discrimination laws are arbitrary and inconsistent in various ways. This is one of them. Also sometimes the law works in the other direction, e.g. prohibiting discrimination in purchasing labor services, yet not prohibiting workers from discriminating among potential employers.

No argument there. Our laws are often inconsistent.

[Tassman]

I note that sexual deviants are not included in that law, despite your attempts to insinuate otherwise. .

This is not about "sexual deviance". It's about homosexual couples marrying according to law. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ...

True. Most other countries do not have freedom of speech codified in their constitution.

Freedom of speech is not being denied, only the demand to discriminate against fellow citizens in contravention of the Civil Rights Act.

[NorrinRadd]

Hmm. I guess I do favor repealing the Civil Rights Act.

Good to know.

[carpedm9587]

Hmm. I guess I do favor repealing the Civil Rights Act.

Good to know.

Wow...

[seer]

Hmm. I guess I do favor repealing the Civil Rights Act.

Good to know.

Just the part where it concerns public accomodations. The rest deals what governments can or can not do, voting rights, access to services and such.

[carpedm9587]

Just the part where it concerns public accomodations. The rest deals what governments can or can not do, voting rights, access to services and such.

So back to "whites only" signs in restaurants and on toilets?

And then you wonder why Republicans are regularly accused of racism by the left...?

[seer]

So back to "whites only" signs in restaurants and on toilets?

And then you wonder why Republicans are regularly accused of racism by the left...?

Again Carp, I made my position clear, no man should be forced by law to serve another. That doesn't not make me a racist since I would not have a problem serving any man.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, I made my position clear, no man should be forced by law to serve another. That doesn't not make me a racist since I would not have a problem serving any man.

No man is being forced by law to serve another. That's a canard. People are being told "if you serve - you cannot discriminate." No one is being told, "you have to serve." If you want to discriminate, then don't offer a service that makes that possible. Simple. Work for someone else. Manufacture stuff. But if you offer a public service, it is not legal or moral to deny to that service to someone on the basis of their race, sex, etc. (unless there is a direct relationship - like not providing gynecological services to men).

And I do not think you are a racist. Never have. I'm pointing out that people who seek to undermine protections put in place to address rampant discrimination should not be surprised if others then believe they are racist.

[seer]

No man is being forced by law to serve another. That's a canard. People are being told "if you serve - you cannot discriminate." No one is being told, "you have to serve." If you want to discriminate, then don't offer a service that makes that possible. Simple. Work for someone else. Manufacture stuff. But if you offer a public service, it is not legal or moral to deny to that service to someone on the basis of their race, sex, etc. (unless there is a direct relationship - like not providing gynecological services to men).

Of course you are being forced by law. It is unamerican, and was not known for 250 years of our history. That if a man wants to start a business, he must by law, serve those he chooses not to (for whatever reason).

And I do not think you are a racist. Never have. I'm pointing out that people who seek to undermine protections put in place to address rampant discrimination should not be surprised if others then believe they are racist.

Carp, this is a classic libertarian position, and if some one can not see the distinction, that is not on me.

[carpedm9587]

Of course you are being forced by law. It is unamerican, and was not known for 250 years of our history. That if a man wants to start a business, he must by law, serve those he chooses not to (for whatever reason).

Yes - and for 250 years of our history racism was widespread, accepted, and tolerated. Now it's not. If a person wants to start a business, they can offer any service they wish - but it is immoral, illegal, and (IMO) unamerican to deny that service on the basis of race, sex, etc.

Carp, this is a classic libertarian position, and if some one can not see the distinction, that is not on me.

Then I suggest you not complain over-much at the accusations of racism when you openly endorse a return to a world in which we publicly sanctioned racism.

[seer]

Yes - and for 250 years of our history racism was widespread, accepted, and tolerated. Now it's not. If a person wants to start a business, they can offer any service they wish - but it is immoral, illegal, and (IMO) unamerican to deny that service on the basis of race, sex, etc.

Right, now we have policies that are anti-american, unconstitutional, and anti-freedom.

Then I suggest you not complain over-much at the accusations of racism when you openly endorse a return to a world in which we publicly sanctioned racism.

But a Libertarian like Joel is not advocating racism but freedom. The left likes to force everyone to believe and act like they want.

[carpedm9587]

Right, now we have policies that are anti-american, unconstitutional, and anti-freedom.

But a Libertarian like Joel is not advocating racism but freedom. The left likes to force everyone to believe and act like they want.

The freedom of one man ALWAYS ends where the freedom of another begins. No one, in any country, has "absolute" freedom. No one is being barred from speaking what they believe - as horrendous as it is. They are being barred from differentiating public services. And they are justly being barred from this, because the black man has as much right to the freedom to walk down the street without seeing a sign that says "No blacks allowed" as the Christian has to be free of "No Christians allowed" or the Jew to be free of "No Jews" allowed. We have the right to engage in our daily lives, obtain services, and interact in the public sector without that dynamic.

So the person who says, "the white business man should be free to put 'whites only' in the window of their store is trading the freedom of the black man for the freedom of the white. The person who says, "the business man should be free to put 'no Jews allowed' in the window of their store is trading the freedom of the Jewish man for the freedom of the business man.

In that trade - it is a no brainer. I will always trade the freedom of the racist man to spew hatred for the freedom of minorities to live without such intimidation and hatred.