My preference is for zero laws telling people who to do business with. If that doesn't work out great for some people, then maybe they should consider making some different life choices. But there's nothing wrong with a fair compromise.
For the sake of peace, let me suggest a compromise:
For businesses that serve a critical need, like the only ambulance or pharmacy or gas station or hotel within 100 miles, they must accept everyone. They lose a little freedom to choose, but they are a monopoly and can charge monopoly prices to make up for it.
For every other business, the business owner gets to pick and choose her customers freely -- unless all businesses offering similar, critically needed services excluded the same people. Then the customer could demand to be served because of "unfair discrimination". If the business owner refuses, she faces lawsuits and/or other government reprisal. If the customer falsely claims "unfair discrimination", he faces similar lawsuits and/or other government reprisal.
How's that for a fair compromise that solves all the hypothetical problems?
It should be good enough... unless government bullying of innocent people is the actual objective and this pharmacy argument is just a way to sell it to people who, on balance, would rather the government not harass wedding cake bakers.
Lets try peaceful coexistence instead of government bullying this time. Then maybe it'll be easier next time and even easier the time after that. We can get the slippery slope sloping in the direction of peaceful coexistence rather than toward government bulling for every occasion.
Your argument answers it self. If the pharmacy goes out of business then EVERYONE is EQUALLY affected. Not just ONE specific group you have chosen to deny.
Which seems like an argument for no pharmacy ever being allowed to close, even for 1 second. Why do you prefer (hypothetical) situations where everyone is hurt the maximum amount?
If wedding cake bakers shouldn't get to choose, wedding cake buyers shouldn't get to choose either. And everyone should have to buy a wedding cake, regardless of whether they're getting married. Also, everyone should be forced to bake wedding cakes, whether they're in the cake-baking business or not. Because then we'll all be EQUAL. (See! It's persuasive and logical because of the capital letters!)
What's your point? Forcing people to do things against their will is perfectly fine for any situation? All situations are exactly like stuff that happened to black folks in 1950?
Jeremi from now: NSA spying is ok because... black people... lunch counter... 1950s. Government bullying solved that problem, therefore government should always bully everyone for everything, regardless of how trivial and needless it is.
That was 50 years ago and 1000 miles away. Why are you living in the past? The wedding cake bakers didn't own any old south restaurants from 60 years ago. They are not guilty of whatever happened back then.
It's simply not necessary to have the government threaten and bully people into baking wedding cakes and shooting silly wedding pictures. So why are you so hellbent on doing it?
"Taken to the extreme", lots of things don't make sense. So lets not do that. Then we can all co-exist peacefully, baking cakes or not, as we choose. Why are you against peaceful co-existence?
How about pharmacist in a town with only one pharmacy? Will you deny them their life saving/ needed medications?
What if the pharmacy goes out of business because there's not enough demand? Should any pharmacy ever be allowed to go out of business? What about the lifesaving medication!!!?
Why do we need false hypotheticals?
In the real, true situation, you're trying to have the government threaten and bully cake decorators and wedding photographers.
Free people should be free to choose. Even if you think they might make the wrong choices, regardless of whatever happened to whomever at whatever lunch counter. You can say "public accommodation" 100 times. You're still using government threats and bullying to force innocent people -- people who have harmed no one -- to act against their will.
No one "asked" for a public business license. The local government warlord sends armed men to wreck your shop and take you to prison if you don't bend a knee and pay for one of their business licenses.
"is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? " Yes. When a group is in a position they can't get services, and goods.
Because the world will spin off its axis if the government doesn't force people to bake wedding cakes against their will? Instead of sending in the wedding cake police, how about just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to make you a wedding cake?
Government should force people to bake wedding cakes against their will because... else someone of some special race will be sad? Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?
But it's a 2-3 year advantage. And the future has more years than that.
In the the past and present, battery life, software compatibility, and customer-friendly licensing terms are what matter most.
Also, Intel needs to make chips designed to help customers, not chips designed to help Intel. "We need you to buy these chips so Intel is no longer frozen out of the mobile device market" isn't what customers are interested in hearing.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time the government uses force or authority or coercion, it's bullying -- regardless of the reason.
Free people do not have to justify not performing a service. She chose not to. Her reasons are none of anyone's business.
That's the reason for the law. Some woman in New Mexico was fined for refusing to be a wedding photographer for a lesbian wedding.
http://www.deseretnews.com/art...
The law is to keep innocent people from being bullied by (or with in the case of lawsuits) the government for choosing who they do business with.
3-4 sentences is a "complex" law, I guess.
My preference is for zero laws telling people who to do business with. If that doesn't work out great for some people, then maybe they should consider making some different life choices. But there's nothing wrong with a fair compromise.
For the sake of peace, let me suggest a compromise:
For businesses that serve a critical need, like the only ambulance or pharmacy or gas station or hotel within 100 miles, they must accept everyone. They lose a little freedom to choose, but they are a monopoly and can charge monopoly prices to make up for it.
For every other business, the business owner gets to pick and choose her customers freely -- unless all businesses offering similar, critically needed services excluded the same people. Then the customer could demand to be served because of "unfair discrimination". If the business owner refuses, she faces lawsuits and/or other government reprisal. If the customer falsely claims "unfair discrimination", he faces similar lawsuits and/or other government reprisal.
How's that for a fair compromise that solves all the hypothetical problems?
It should be good enough ... unless government bullying of innocent people is the actual objective and this pharmacy argument is just a way to sell it to people who, on balance, would rather the government not harass wedding cake bakers.
the bakers are perfectly free to change jobs
gays are perfectly free to marry people of the opposite sex
See how free everyone is?
Lets try peaceful coexistence instead of government bullying this time. Then maybe it'll be easier next time and even easier the time after that. We can get the slippery slope sloping in the direction of peaceful coexistence rather than toward government bulling for every occasion.
Your argument answers it self. If the pharmacy goes out of business then EVERYONE is EQUALLY affected. Not just ONE specific group you have chosen to deny.
Which seems like an argument for no pharmacy ever being allowed to close, even for 1 second. Why do you prefer (hypothetical) situations where everyone is hurt the maximum amount?
If wedding cake bakers shouldn't get to choose, wedding cake buyers shouldn't get to choose either. And everyone should have to buy a wedding cake, regardless of whether they're getting married. Also, everyone should be forced to bake wedding cakes, whether they're in the cake-baking business or not. Because then we'll all be EQUAL. (See! It's persuasive and logical because of the capital letters!)
What's your point? Forcing people to do things against their will is perfectly fine for any situation? All situations are exactly like stuff that happened to black folks in 1950?
Jeremi from now: NSA spying is ok because ... black people ... lunch counter ... 1950s. Government bullying solved that problem, therefore government should always bully everyone for everything, regardless of how trivial and needless it is.
That was 50 years ago and 1000 miles away. Why are you living in the past? The wedding cake bakers didn't own any old south restaurants from 60 years ago. They are not guilty of whatever happened back then.
It's simply not necessary to have the government threaten and bully people into baking wedding cakes and shooting silly wedding pictures. So why are you so hellbent on doing it?
And if they don't and the next don't?
Cakepocalypse? Send in FEMA, and tell them to bring flour and eggs!
"Taken to the extreme", lots of things don't make sense. So lets not do that. Then we can all co-exist peacefully, baking cakes or not, as we choose. Why are you against peaceful co-existence?
How about pharmacist in a town with only one pharmacy? Will you deny them their life saving/ needed medications?
What if the pharmacy goes out of business because there's not enough demand? Should any pharmacy ever be allowed to go out of business? What about the lifesaving medication!!!?
Why do we need false hypotheticals?
In the real, true situation, you're trying to have the government threaten and bully cake decorators and wedding photographers.
Free people should be free to choose. Even if you think they might make the wrong choices, regardless of whatever happened to whomever at whatever lunch counter. You can say "public accommodation" 100 times. You're still using government threats and bullying to force innocent people -- people who have harmed no one -- to act against their will.
Again, no one "asked". The space was rented or purchased, like a home that is rented or purchased. Licensing is a shakedown.
What if a black couple doesn't want to hire a white supremacist wedding photographer?
No one "asked" for a public business license. The local government warlord sends armed men to wreck your shop and take you to prison if you don't bend a knee and pay for one of their business licenses.
"is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? "
Yes. When a group is in a position they can't get services, and goods.
Because the world will spin off its axis if the government doesn't force people to bake wedding cakes against their will? Instead of sending in the wedding cake police, how about just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to make you a wedding cake?
Government should force people to bake wedding cakes against their will because ... else someone of some special race will be sad? Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?
It's because we allow freedom of speech.
This really is dangerous, as speech I disagree with should be contained and eliminated from society.
Free speech serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.
etc.
Not forcing people to make wedding cakes against their will is "hatred" now?
But it's a 2-3 year advantage. And the future has more years than that.
In the the past and present, battery life, software compatibility, and customer-friendly licensing terms are what matter most.
Also, Intel needs to make chips designed to help customers, not chips designed to help Intel. "We need you to buy these chips so Intel is no longer frozen out of the mobile device market" isn't what customers are interested in hearing.
People who steal phones are great phone service customers and always pay their bills on time.
If you like your smartphone, you can keep your smartphone. Period.
If we do not fight back...
Against free speech? By making completely baseless accusations? Rather than "fight back", why not try to make a fact-based argument?