The Indiana law

[Melchior]

It is considered perfectly proper for a customer to patronize one business and not another, for any reason whatsoever. Is this not true? If I don't like one place, or it is inconvenient, I am perfectly free to go to another, and no-one would think anything about it. Why are you so aghast at the concept that if I don't want you as a customer I have the right to refuse to serve you?

Where the law goes wrong is that it drags religion into it. There should be no conditions whatsoever. If I don't want to do business with you, I don't have to. No justification needed.

[David Handeye]

which is the Indiana law?

[Melchior]

which is the Indiana law?

The religious freedom act, or something of that sort.

[Immanuel Can]

It looks easy to say "no distinction" when the "bad guys" are thought to be conservatives, but the principle we decide on will actually have to work for everyone. So to test, flip it around:

Should an African-American baker be forced to cater the annual KKK picnic? Should a gay laundry service be forced to wash and fluff their silly bed-sheet bodysuits for them? If both the bakery and the laundry offer their services to the public, on what basis ought they to be allowed to choose their customers?

[Melchior]

It looks easy to say "no distinction" when the "bad guys" are thought to be conservatives, but the principle we decide on will actually have to work for everyone. So to test, flip it around:

Should an African-American baker be forced to cater the annual KKK picnic? Should a gay laundry service be forced to wash and fluff their silly bed-sheet bodysuits for them? If both the bakery and the laundry offer their services to the public, on what basis ought they to be allowed to choose their customers?

If we are not free to choose our customers we have no freedom at all. The mistake is tying this to religious principles. I should be able to choose whom I serve just as freely as anyone chooses where to shop. It's a two-way street.

[Impenitent]

to say nothing of forcing muslims to preform gay weddings instead of immediately killing any homosexual they see

[Wyman]

It looks easy to say "no distinction" when the "bad guys" are thought to be conservatives, but the principle we decide on will actually have to work for everyone. So to test, flip it around:

Should an African-American baker be forced to cater the annual KKK picnic? Should a gay laundry service be forced to wash and fluff their silly bed-sheet bodysuits for them? If both the bakery and the laundry offer their services to the public, on what basis ought they to be allowed to choose their customers?

If we are not free to choose our customers we have no freedom at all. The mistake is tying this to religious principles. I should be able to choose whom I serve just as freely as anyone chooses where to shop. It's a two-way street.

Generally, you can. Here is a clip from an article on the subject:

Most of the furor surrounding the Indiana and Arkansas statutes has concerned “public accommodations,” meaning certain businesses holding themselves open to the public. Since at least the sixteenth century, English courts required certain businesses—inns, stagecoaches (and then railroads), companies that carried goods, surgeons, and even blacksmiths—to serve any customer who could pay. The rationale, according to Harvard Law Professor Joseph Singer, was that by “holding themselves open to the public,” they offered a binding contract to everyone, and had to honor it.

In Singer’s account, the “traditional” right of a property owner to refuse service at whim is relatively recent. It arose after the Civil War, when newly freed African Americans were using the vote and access to the courts to seek inclusion in Southern politics and the economy.

There are very few laws that specifically bar discrimination against gays. For instance, the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination (in certain businesses and segments of the economy) only against race, sex, national origin, religion.

So, the fear that someone will make you serve someone you don't like is mostly unfounded, unless you live in a community that specifically bars such discrimination. If that were the case, you can 1) move; 2) use democratic means to have the law rescinded; 3) challenge the law on Constitutional grounds. In other words, calm down, the sky is not falling.

[Melchior]

It looks easy to say "no distinction" when the "bad guys" are thought to be conservatives, but the principle we decide on will actually have to work for everyone. So to test, flip it around:

Should an African-American baker be forced to cater the annual KKK picnic? Should a gay laundry service be forced to wash and fluff their silly bed-sheet bodysuits for them? If both the bakery and the laundry offer their services to the public, on what basis ought they to be allowed to choose their customers?

If we are not free to choose our customers we have no freedom at all. The mistake is tying this to religious principles. I should be able to choose whom I serve just as freely as anyone chooses where to shop. It's a two-way street.

Generally, you can. Here is a clip from an article on the subject:

Most of the furor surrounding the Indiana and Arkansas statutes has concerned “public accommodations,” meaning certain businesses holding themselves open to the public. Since at least the sixteenth century, English courts required certain businesses—inns, stagecoaches (and then railroads), companies that carried goods, surgeons, and even blacksmiths—to serve any customer who could pay. The rationale, according to Harvard Law Professor Joseph Singer, was that by “holding themselves open to the public,” they offered a binding contract to everyone, and had to honor it.

In Singer’s account, the “traditional” right of a property owner to refuse service at whim is relatively recent. It arose after the Civil War, when newly freed African Americans were using the vote and access to the courts to seek inclusion in Southern politics and the economy.

There are very few laws that specifically bar discrimination against gays. For instance, the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination (in certain businesses and segments of the economy) only against race, sex, national origin, religion.

So, the fear that someone will make you serve someone you don't like is mostly unfounded, unless you live in a community that specifically bars such discrimination. If that were the case, you can 1) move; 2) use democratic means to have the law rescinded; 3) challenge the law on Constitutional grounds. In other words, calm down, the sky is not falling.

I am going to start a wedding photography business and refuse to photograph any weddings. See what kind of furor that causes!

[Immanuel Can]

Wyman wrote:

the fear that someone will make you serve someone you don't like is mostly unfounded, unless you live in a community that specifically bars such discrimination. If that were the case, you can 1) move; 2) use democratic means to have the law rescinded; 3) challenge the law on Constitutional grounds. In other words, calm down, the sky is not falling.

Ah, but what if you do live in such a community -- which almost all of us now do? You may only use "democratic means" if you can muster a significant political force to support your view actively, and you can only challenge the law on Constitutional grounds if you are very wealthy or backed by those who are. Meanwhile, your business can be destroyed, along with your name and reputation, by a press and public all too keen to pose as the agents of social justice.

If so, the sky may well be a little lower than you think, and descending rather rapidly.

In all this the more important question is, "Should a person have to resort to exhausting political lobbying or expensive litigation to achieve the right to follow his or her own conscience in some basic moral matter?"

An additional note: That pizzeria that was falsely accused of discrimination (based on nothing more than the honest answering of an opinion-based question posed by a journalist seeking to make a story) received a number of substantial donations and letters of support from homosexuals who are aware that establishing precedents against freedom of belief and practice could be a serious detriment to their own lobby. Interesting, no?

[Wyman]

Ah, but what if you do live in such a community -- which almost all of us now do?

I've never seen a law that prohibits discrimination of homosexuals except for the new marriage prohibitions that have been ruled unconstitutional in many states. Laws specifically protecting homosexuals would be very rare since most bigots in this day and age are not so bold as to come right out and declare that they will refuse to serve gays, or rent to gays, etc.. It has come out into the open because of the wave of laws that did, in fact, say 'We will not allow gays to marry.' There was a counter wave of laws in liberal areas that said 'We will allow gays to marry.' (Another area would be bobevenson's favorite, the 'hate crime' laws).

Then, there was a counter-counter wave of reaction saying - 'Oh my, what will those liberals do next? First, they pass laws prohibiting the government from barring gay marriage. Next, they will be passing laws that force private citizens to cater to those people. How can we stop that? I have an idea; we will pass pre-emptive laws stating that it is a religious right to be able to not serve gays.'

So I see this as an overreaction of bigots - the usual suspects. But if you can point me to these communities you say have laws forcing private citizens to interact, serve or otherwise not discriminate against gays, I'd like to see it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It is considered perfectly proper for a customer to patronize one business and not another, for any reason whatsoever. Is this not true? If I don't like one place, or it is inconvenient, I am perfectly free to go to another, and no-one would think anything about it. Why are you so aghast at the concept that if I don't want you as a customer I have the right to refuse to serve you?

Where the law goes wrong is that it drags religion into it. There should be no conditions whatsoever. If I don't want to do business with you, I don't have to. No justification needed.

Just like people are free to band together and boycott your business, thus putting you out of it; synonymous with you putting some people out of their convenience of doing business with you. And where does one draw the line, the ignorance of ignorance. Are people really that bored and or ignorant?

Nothing personal, but the concern and question is of small minded people. Nietzsche and Machiavelli would smile of course.

[Melchior]

It is considered perfectly proper for a customer to patronize one business and not another, for any reason whatsoever. Is this not true? If I don't like one place, or it is inconvenient, I am perfectly free to go to another, and no-one would think anything about it. Why are you so aghast at the concept that if I don't want you as a customer I have the right to refuse to serve you?

Where the law goes wrong is that it drags religion into it. There should be no conditions whatsoever. If I don't want to do business with you, I don't have to. No justification needed.

Just like people are free to band together and boycott your business, thus putting you out of it; synonymous with you putting some people out of their convenience of doing business with you. And where does one draw the line, the ignorance of ignorance. Are people really that bored and or ignorant?

Nothing personal, but the concern and question is of small minded people. Nietzsche and Machiavelli would smile of course.

Yes, you are perfectly free to patronize whomever you prefer, for any reason (hours, friendly staff, location, etc.). But the same thing works both ways in a free country.

There has been a lot of confusion about "allowing" gays to marry. The problem is the various senses of "can". A marriage cannot be contracted between two members of the same sex because that is not a "marriage". Marriage is inherently between members of the opposite sex. That's what it is for. It establishes a "relationship" equal to kinship between members of the opposite sex who are not kin. It establishes a relationship like that of father-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister. To me it makes no sense to "forbid" what is impossible. Oh yes, you could have a ceremony, but it isn't a marriage at all.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It is considered perfectly proper for a customer to patronize one business and not another, for any reason whatsoever. Is this not true? If I don't like one place, or it is inconvenient, I am perfectly free to go to another, and no-one would think anything about it. Why are you so aghast at the concept that if I don't want you as a customer I have the right to refuse to serve you?

Where the law goes wrong is that it drags religion into it. There should be no conditions whatsoever. If I don't want to do business with you, I don't have to. No justification needed.

Just like people are free to band together and boycott your business, thus putting you out of it; synonymous with you putting some people out of their convenience of doing business with you. And where does one draw the line, the ignorance of ignorance. Are people really that bored and or ignorant?

Nothing personal, but the concern and question is of small minded people. Nietzsche and Machiavelli would smile of course.

Yes, you are perfectly free to patronize whomever you prefer, for any reason (hours, friendly staff, location, etc.). But the same thing works both ways in a free country.

Yes, but I think you missed my point. The business usually has more power, and there's the rub, because they wouldn't be so quick to see things that way if it were the other way around.

So lets make it equal: In an instant the business can shut out a customer, and so it should be that in an instant a customer should be capable of shutting down a business.

Oh but that doesn't sound fair does it? (Perceived power, the mind killer!)

[Melchior]

Companies go out of business all the time, and new ones start, for all kinds of reasons. But if I don't want to serve a customer I don't have to. That's what freedom is.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Companies go out of business all the time, and new ones start, for all kinds of reasons. But if I don't want to serve a customer I don't have to. That's what freedom is.

And if the masses don't want you to have a business, then you won't, that's what freedom is! Then they won't let you work for anyone else, because that's what freedom is, then they won't let you drink or eat because that's what freedom is! No they won't let you sleep in a cardboard box under an expressway overpass, because that's what freedom is. Perceived power, the mind killer!