Exactly. If people want this particular 'freedom' back, then they can have it. And if it's that important to them, I dont see why they wouldnt post it.
I mean, if you dont really want to serve blacks or Muslims, for ex., then you should have that 'freedom' back but you do have to post it, otherwise how will such people know to avoid your business?
Conscientious Objectors were allowed to not carry a weapon and not fight. My BIL was one such in Vietnam. He went in when drafted as a C.O. and served as an unarmed medic for a front line infantry unit.
Meh, you're just opposite side of that very same coin.
And honestly, why would you want someone to photograph your wedding or bake your cake if they objected to your union ANYWAY? Personally I'd be worried I'd get substandard service if I compelled them to do it against their conscience.
Hi Gina.It's an interesting question. Do we believe people should be able to operate their business according to their own moral/ethical beliefs or does someone lay down those rights as soon as they start a business? I really don't know the right answer or if there even is one. There's a restaurant close by where I work that has Bible verses and sayings posted all over it. Should they be mandated to take that all down if someone says they're offended? The reality of life, I think, is that two very valid worthwhile rights can sometimes conflict and one must necessarily give way to the other and that's always going to cause tension.
The Christian bakery would be discriminating against the gay couple. The gay couple would be not be discriminating but they are, yes, making a statement.
I have an issue with scenarios like this. The argument has been made over and over, let business owners discriminate and if the marketplace of consumers doesn't like it, that business will suffer. The marketplace will speak and all will be righted.
So, here we have businesses who are doing just that, and there is an outcry when the marketplace speaks.
It soul crushing to hear my LGBT and non-white family, friends and acquaintances tell me of the bigotry they are routinely confronted with, so I will not condemn those who choose to confront it. Despite the quoted scenario.
So have at me.
Very true, I discriminate against people who discriminate.
Hi Gina.It's an interesting question. Do we believe people should be able to operate their business according to their own moral/ethical beliefs or does someone lay down those rights as soon as they start a business? I really don't know the right answer or if there even is one. There's a restaurant close by where I work that has Bible verses and sayings posted all over it. Should they be mandated to take that all down if someone says they're offended? The reality of life, I think, is that two very valid worthwhile rights can sometimes conflict and one must necessarily give way to the other and that's always going to cause tension.
Conscientious Objectors were allowed to not carry a weapon and not fight. My BIL was one such in Vietnam. He went in when drafted as a C.O. and served as an unarmed medic for a front line infantry unit.
We do have a history of trying to take into consideration the honest objections-of-conscience held by citizens, whether religious or otherwise. Some reasonable compromise is not unjust.
If a doctor declines to perform an abortion, he can refer the patient to another physician. If a wedding photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding (or a Klan wedding, or a skinhead wedding, or a biker wedding, or a Black Panther wedding), let him refer the prospective customer to another service provider and no harm is done.
I would disagree that the marketplace is speaking. The courts are doing the speaking and not giving the marketplace a chance.
The market is speaking very loudly in Indiana.I would disagree that the marketplace is speaking. The courts are doing the speaking and not giving the marketplace a chance.
Posting bible verses and discriminating against customers based on their race aren't the same thing.
Only liberals assume freedom = discrimination. What does that tell you?
Exactly. If people want this particular 'freedom' back, then they can have it. And if it's that important to them, I dont see why they wouldnt post it.
I mean, if you dont really want to serve blacks or Muslims, for ex., then you should have that 'freedom' back but you do have to post it, otherwise how will such people know to avoid your business?
Exactly. If people want this particular 'freedom' back, then they can have it. And if it's that important to them, I dont see why they wouldnt post it.
I mean, if you dont really want to serve blacks or Muslims, for ex., then you should have that 'freedom' back but you do have to post it, otherwise how will such people know to avoid your business?
Here's a reasonable compromise:
We only step in to prevent businesses from rejecting customers based on personal characteristics they can't control and only then when that characteristic has historically been used to the detriment of those people.
You say that now, but wait until someone talks about how they don't feel welcomed there based on the Bible verses and that is de facto discrimination. My suspicion is that you would not exactly be up front and out there advocating for the business's right to post them.
The market is speaking very loudly in Indiana.
Another interesting thing may come to light if this hypothetical was tried: the *right* to choose whom you want to serve, to have that freedom, would be available to business owners....but would they take advantage of it?
They would have the right to refuse service to groups they found offensive or that held beliefs that they were against. I do still believe there are seriously racist people in the US. And certainly those that would refuse to serve Muslims if they could. And obvoiusly, gays.
I wonder *how many would* actually apply for that 'discriminatory exceptions' business license and choose to not serve blacks, or women, or Jews, or Muslims? Or even gays, once they realized how big that 'market' is and how deep those pockets are?
If such discrimination were allowed, I wonder how many would actually take advantage of it?
There is nothing like shooting first and asking questions later...
If nothing else this proves the stupidity of the Indiana legislators and governor who managed to pass a law that need to be revised so soon.
Why are people obligated to tell people where to shop? It's not their concern if someone isn't informed on where they will get service.
Frankly I'd think the public backlash would drive them to change their policy in a majority of cases, especially if it were something as egregious as refusing service to a race or gender.
It was indeed avoidable. Illinois, Texas, and Missouri are all RFRA examples of how to avoid it.I'll say it again, this was all avoidable.
I would disagree that the marketplace is speaking. The courts are doing the speaking and not giving the marketplace a chance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?