Social Justice, Political Correctness, and the Left

Tools    





Being plain rude is a choice. Being homosexual, black etc. isn't.
Well, I don't agree that being homosexual isn't a choice. That's a seperate issue, which I'd be happy to discuss with you, but let's leave it out of this thread since it would be a tangent.

That being said, I see you're point. However, it still begs the question. How do you legislate what grounds a person has for refusing to do business with someone else? I think people can do business with whoever they want, and the only reason they need to refuse to do business with someone is that they don't want to.

It's like when I get a call from a telemarketer, and they're snobby with me, and I say, "You do realise I can hang up on you at any time right?" I don't need a resason to hang up on them. I can end the call if I want to, for no reason at all. I can end a conversation with another person, by simply not responding to anything they say, for any or no reason whenever I want. I can refuse to do business with someone whenever I want for any or no reason. If I go into a shop and say I'm interested in buying something, do I need a reason to decide not to buy it, or do they need a reason to decide not to sell it? They sell it because they want the money, not because they have to. The government shouldn't force them to sell it to me. They don't need a reason, let alone a valid one. If I said, "I'm gay, and if you don't sell it to me I'll charge you with discrimination," can you see how exploitable that would be?

you should serve everyone
Even rude customers?

you shouldn't be permitted to cherry pick who you do and don't, that's discrimination.
Why can't a business owner do whatever they want?

I hugely disagree with the idea that an owner can serve who they like and not provide a reason. It's a bit like saying you wouldn't give this person a job interview because they're gay, and this one because she's a woman etc. It's taking your beliefs and then acting in a way that isn't fair to everyone.
Can you hire anyone you want? If we legislate this, then regardless of the reason you don't hire someone they'll say it's because they're gay/trans/black/etc... and even decent people will suffer, or be forced to hire someone belonging to a minority over a CIS white male out of fear.

No I don't think a gun should have been held to their head because they didn't serve them a cake, but they should be sanctioned for it.
But that is what happens when something is made illegal. A gun is put to their head. The police show up with guns and arrest that person. You can try and saction it, but what if they refuse to pay the fine? They go to jail, which means the police with guns take them.

Imagine if you owned a bakery and someone came and wanted you to write "Gays are evil" on the cake. Should the government force you to do it even though you don't want to, or should you be allowed to refuse even if they're polite about it? It's you're bakery, why should someone else get to tell you what you have to write on the cake? What if they take it to court and say you won't do it because you're discriminating against their religious belief that homosexuality is a sin?

I think the point is that people are different, and disagree over moral issues, and the government shouldn't interfere in the interest of political correctness. If someone doesn't want to write something on a cake, then go to a different bakery.



I remember when this whole bakery thing came about - another story surfaced about some white supremacist family (or some such) who wanted some Nazi stuff on their kid's cake and the bakery refused.

In that case the bakery was backed up for their refusal while in the case of the gay wedding cake, a bakery was not.

I'm in no way trying to compare Nazi's to gay people (of course!), but it seems laws should be applied equally (if one bakery is told it MUST serve everyone no matter how they feel about the customer's personal views, then another bakery should not be applauded for refusing service to a different customer over their personal views.)



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I think the only choice about it is whether you choose to express it. But I do think it's a range of factors anyway. I believe sexuality is more like a spectrum.

But yes, anyway, you make some good points!

Regarding the would I ice a cake saying it hates gays, yeah I would. People are paying me for a service, it's not my opinion, they're entitled to theirs. Although yeah, I'd struggle if a white supremacist asked to ice Nazi related things.

The police don't have guns where I am But I don't think they'd be that extreme anyway for a cake, it'd be a fine or something, and rightfully so. Or community service if they don't pay up.

And I do think the government should interfere. Because what if taxi drivers, bus drivers, teachers, even doctors had the same attitude? Different people would have a different quality of life, and that stretches beyond just having a belief.



Zotis has made some pretty good points already, as you said, but I do want to echo some, and add to a couple others.

1. Content. You mentioned you'd struggle with anyone asking for Nazi-themed things. I think that makes the point pretty well: if you can think of literally anything a baker or other professional should be allowed to refuse to do on the mere grounds that they disagree with it, then they should be allowed to make that choice for themselves in all scenarios. It may lead to scenarios not everyone likes all the time, but hey, that's freedom.

2. Refusing people. There's a very important distinction between refusing a person and refusing to participate in an activity. We're not talking about refusing service to someone simply because of who they are: we're talking about refusing to participate in a ceremony. It's a completely different scenario morally, ethically, and legally, than if they'd just been asked for a cake for no particular purpose, or without anything written on it.

3. Force. Zotis is also right that any law is ultimately backed by force. Imagine it through to the end: if it's just a fine, what if you don't pay it? What if they try to arrest you for not paying the fine and you won't go? And so on. At some point, a weapon is going to compel them, which is why the bar should be pretty high for what we want to use the law to make other people do.

4. You ask (fairly): what if everyone thought this way? If they did, then the law would hardly help. Discrimination doesn't go away through laws, and such laws, in any democratic society, tend to only happen when the population is already trending that way, anyway. And, of course, not everyone does, so we're talking about putting an inconvenience, based on a hypothetical contrary to reality, and prioritizing it over a foundational human right.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I know, it's a difficult one for me to get round. Because people should be free to practice their religion, but then when that comes into conflict with people like myself, how do you fairly decide which one deserves to express themselves more than the other.

But like I say, freedom of speech is fine with me. But then being rejected for things that straight people wouldn't be rejected for doesn't seem right or fair to me either, even if it something as insignificant as a cake.

EDIT: Just re-read the rejecting person/ceremony bit. Yeah, that is completely valid... but they had no way of knowing they were a Christian couple, and even then, not all Christian would reject them on those grounds. Like you say, it's not something that can be prevented by the law though



I know, it's a difficult one for me to get round. Because people should be free to practice their religion, but then when that comes into conflict with people like myself, how do you fairly decide which one deserves to express themselves more than the other.
If it were just people "expressing themselves," there'd be no problem because everyone can express themselves simultaneously; you believe and say one thing, they believe and say another. What's happening here is one person trying to force another to do something.

But like I say, freedom of speech is fine with me. But then being rejected for things that straight people wouldn't be rejected for doesn't seem right or fair to me either, even if it something as insignificant as a cake.
Obviously, this conversation exists because people have conflicting views of what's "right and fair." And I think it's resolved by simply doing away with the idea that it's the government's job to make sure nobody ever feels this way, as if it were a parent and we were its quarreling children.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
You know you're fvcked when Yoda gets involved and I do agree with a lot of what you say.

Thing is, they advertised to do that job, and they didn't advertise that they wouldn't make such a message on their cakes. They get paid to do it, and it's not like it would have taken weeks or months to do it. Both sides perhaps overreacted, because they did say they had served the couple in the past, but then they just wouldn't let it go saying their religious freedom was being attacked when it wasn't really, because like the judge said, icing a cake doesn't have to reflect your world views.



Thing is, they advertised to do that job, and they didn't advertise that they wouldn't make such a message on their cakes.
By "advertised to do that job," do you mean merely that they said they were available to write things on cakes? If so, it seems a bit extreme (and very cumbersome) to have to preemptively list all the things they won't write.

They get paid to do it, and it's not like it would have taken weeks or months to do it.
I don't think the amount of time involved matters: it only takes a minute to renounce everything you believe, but it'd still be a violation to make someone do it. Anyway, if this were just about who was less inconvenienced, it'd obviously be quite easy to find a baker who didn't care.

Both sides perhaps overreacted, because they did say they had served the couple in the past
Very important fact, since it establishes that they weren't refusing service just because of who they were. They only drew the line at expressing a sentiment they didn't agree with.

because like the judge said, icing a cake doesn't have to reflect your world views.
What's the limiting principle on this, though? If writing on a cake doesn't count, how about writing in a pamphlet? Heck, if writing doesn't really count, why not spoken words, too?



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Here's what one of the judges who rejected their appeal had to say

“The supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...n-gay-cake-row

They also went on to say
"The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681



Yeah, that's what my questions at the end were a response to. I don't really see what limiting principle the judge is articulating here. It just seems like a purely arbitrary exception, per this bit:

In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation
In other words, they have the right not to provide service in support of causes they don't agree with...except if it's about sexual orientation. Why? Why are they allowed to have political or religious views about some topics, but not others? Isn't the whole point of freedom of speech (and religion) that we don't pick and choose which ones are okay?



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
What I got from that was they either don't serve any political or religious message, or they have to accept all of them. They can't pick and choose, which they did.

And my guess is because the LGBT community are a minority group that are exposed to discrimination, especially in NI where gay marriage isn't yet legal. They don't need protections for straight, white people, because they're not going to be refused service there.



Re: The Cake:

I think (privately owned) businesses should be able to serve who they wish. There is no governmental protection from backlash.

If people hear about it and disagree then they have the right to not support the business and some would say the owner got his just desserts (Pun intended ).

If I remember correctly, the baker was out of business in a short time.

Didn't choose his battle wisely. Suffered the consequences.



In the Beginning...
In other words, they have the right not to provide service in support of causes they don't agree with...except if it's about sexual orientation. Why? Why are they allowed to have political or religious views about some topics, but not others? Isn't the whole point of freedom of speech (and religion) that we don't pick and choose which ones are okay?
The easy answer is discrimination. But how do you define that? If the cake maker had denied a neo-Nazi, would that be discrimination? I doubt many would argue that.

I rather think this is clear discrimination because homosexuality is not a choice (and I'd love to hear Zotis explain why he believes that it is), but is choice really the deciding factor? If it is, then wouldn't religion be exempt from discrimination? You are free, after all, to simply choose to identify with another faith. This is a sticky issue.



Hmm, I'm not sure if that's what that quote means. The sentence before that was this:

The supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds
The first part is exactly as you say: all or none. But the second part adds the caveat "based on prohibited grounds," which means there are some things they're allowed to refuse for, but not others. But saying someone has freedom of speech or religion except for these things is basically the same as not having them. Not carving out exceptions is the whole point.

Anyway, whatever the intent, I think the other questions about limiting principles still apply. If writing things on cakes doesn't really "count," why not any form of writing, and why not any form of communication?



The easy answer is discrimination. But how do you define that? If the cake maker had denied a neo-Nazi, would that be discrimination? I doubt many would argue that.
Everyone seems to agree that would be fine, but I'm not sure how anyone can avoid the implication of that. We can't just say "yeah, but that's bad." The whole point of these rights is that we don't base them on qualitative judgements. If they're subject to that, then they're not rights, but mere contingencies.

I rather think this is clear discrimination because homosexuality is not a choice (and I'd love to hear Zotis explain why he believes that it is)
Why is that relevant? As CiCi said, the baker had not previously refused them service for being homosexual. They simply refused to write a political statement, and expressing political ideals is a choice.



I rather think this is clear discrimination because homosexuality is not a choice (and I'd love to hear Zotis explain why he believes that it is)
I hate to get involved and I would love it if Zotis elaborated if he had any more ideas on the subject, but he did already say he thought homosexuality was a sin because the bible says it is. Granted sin is different from choice, I guess.



I'm not sure which part that's a response to, but the judge said they can't pick and choose "based on prohibited grounds." That phrase wouldn't make any sense if it were actually all or none. That means some things you can choose on, but not those things.



I hate to get involved and I would love it if Zotis elaborated if he had any more ideas on the subject, but he did already say he thought homosexuality was a sin because the bible says it is. Granted sin is different from choice, I guess.
I said this to CiCi earlier:

Yeah. I've never understood the logic behind people thinking being gay is a choice. Even though i think it is awful i get why people think being gay is a sin, but not that.

I mean does that mean people who think this believe they chose to be straight? I know i didn't, And does that mean they believe that they could choose to be sexually attracted to men if they wanted to? I know i couldn't. Then how do you explain the countless people throughout history and today whose lifes are made harder by it, why would they choose it? I know it's a terrible thought but in places or times with high rates of attacks on homosexuals or laws against it some people have got to have wished they weren't gay, why would they not just choose to be straight then?

I know that's an extremely simple look at it but i'd be interested in Zotis' answers since i've never understood that.

Edit: For the record i wasn't posting behind his back or anything, Zotis said in an earlier comment he didn't want to get into that because they were discussing something else but since it was brought up again i thought i may as well post it.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
Re: The Cake:

I think (privately owned) businesses should be able to serve who they wish. There is no governmental protection from backlash.
also, i think they should have to put a sign up stating so. people in the LGBT community shouldn't have to go through the humiliating experience of being refused for having a cake made. plus, if they are that dead set on it, they should do so openly. as a consumer and activist, i'd like to know who to steer clear of.
__________________
letterboxd