Indiana hates gays

[Eulogy]

The persecution complex of the American christian makes me want to barf so hard.

[vixnix]

Ethics was my specialisation at uni so this kind of situation is very interesting to me - I'm not trolling.

A lot of restaurants refuse to serve children in the evening - how do you guys feel about that?

What about a Catholic bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for someone who had been divorced twice?

Or a bakery refusing to make a cake that celebrated someone's abortion?

[D.]

All those abortion cakes not gettin' made is the real tragedy.

[vixnix]

What is a celebration for some, is distasteful to others.

I kinda think, in a free market economy, if Person X doesn't want to make a cake for Person Y....well, Person Y would be well advised to seek out other cake-making options and cut their losses - rejection is a part of life?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by vixnix

What is a celebration for some, is distasteful to others.

I kinda think, in a free market economy, if Person X doesn't want to make a cake for Person Y....well, Person Y would be well advised to seek out other cake-making options and cut their losses - rejection is a part of life?

So as I suggested you are saying that businesses ostensibly open to the public should be allowed to refuse service to black people because they are black

You do you, vixnix.

[vixnix]

I guess as a brown person who has been pushed to the back of the queue by racist business owners, that's how I feel about it. Legislation isn't going to change dumbasses. It's turd polishing.

Better to just take your business elsewhere.

[vixnix]

I guess I do - not allowing people to enter a premises that is open to the public, or barring them from doing any business at all....is different to not offering a specialty service that potentially involves a business owners personal opinions and values.

It's the difference between a photographer refusing a coloured family to enter the premises and check out portrait packages, and refusing to do nude family portraits for a coloured family...IMO.

If a photographer did nude portraits of white families but not black families, that would be offensive but I don't know that it should be illegal.

Plenty of horrible things are not illegal. Adultery is not illegal. Betraying somebody's trust in a personal relationship is not illegal. Presenting a false account to children of what the world is like, by pretending Santa is real, is not illegal.

[Eulogy]

Oh my goddddddd

[Eulogy]

I'll just say that perhaps you could entertain the possibility that sometimes the law has to nudge the culture forward. And that it happens with relative frequency.

[Eulogy]

But anyway I can't really productively engage with someone who would disagree with the fundamental premise behind the American civil rights act of 1964.

Or maybe you'd have supported it back then who knows

[vixnix]

relative to what?

I think the law does nudge - negligence is a good example of that. Though having said that, businesses have pushed back - with the sort of exploitative contracts that phone companies offer, for example.

You can't legislate a change of heart and I doubt legislation nudges people in that way.

A good example is domestic violence - it's no longer legal to beat your wife but it doesn't appear to be happening much less than it did before.

[vixnix]

I would have thought that being a dyed-in-the-wool Amurrican, you would be all into the laissez-faire freedom of contract type situation...

[Eulogy]

Well you thought wrong

[Eulogy]

And while we haven't solved racism there certainly wouldn't have been a black president in the 60s. Time plus education plus legislation plus old people dying. You need all of it.

[vixnix]

I don't think being able to force bakery owners to bake a wedding cake has anything to do with civil rights.

We're not talking about equal access to transport, voting, education, healthcare, welfare....

It's a cake. To try and tie that to civil rights trivialises the changes that have occurred in the U.S. IMO

[Eulogy]

It's just a lunch counter

-vixnix in 1962

[Eulogy]

The wedding industry shit is a bit silly on the surface but whatever. It's still discrimination against a minority group and it shouldn't be legal.

[vixnix]

We'll all be better off this way

- Eulogy October 1917

[Eulogy]

See mine actually made sense though.

[vixnix]

Yeah cause using the legislature and judiciary to make everyone behave the same way all the time isn't anything like totalitarianism...

[Eulogy]

Well on that note

Have fun everyone

[vixnix]

YEAH YOU BETTER RUN

[Mals Marola]

i feel like this is all somewhat akin to a handful of toy shops being specifically allowed by law to refuse customers who were buying items on their kids' "santa wish lists" because that was against their belief that santa was supposed to be the one who both produced & delivered those toys, and any reluctance to defend that will be punishable by the big man in red himself

but hey, i'm not ethics major so who knows!

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by Poots

The problem with forcing businesses to serve people they don't want to serve is that it simply won't work. Imagine in the gay cake example where the business had to make the cake because the law said they did and then they made a really shitty cake and the gay couple was mad and sued them for intentionally making a shitty gay cake. They might win some sort of amount from the business owner but their gay wedding was ruined and they had a shitty cake.

ITS LIKE JIM CROW ALL OVER AGAIN

[MyOneAndOnly]

I'm

not

trolling

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I don't think being able to force bakery owners to bake a wedding cake has anything to do with civil rights.

We're not talking about equal access to transport, voting, education, healthcare, welfare....

It's a cake. To try and tie that to civil rights trivialises the changes that have occurred in the U.S. IMO

how would you know what's happened in the US? You don't even live in the same hemisphere.

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by vixnix

It's a cake. To try and tie that to civil rights trivialises the changes that have occurred in the U.S. IMO

Ya. Like this law is obviously stupid and literally no where did I defend it but I dislike the surrounding politics. It's that same discomfort I felt when white liberals blamed the passage of prop 8, after Catholics and Mormons, on African Americans. Part of that was this misinformed sentiment that gay rights in 2008=civil rights in the 50s so how could any black person vote for prop 8? That's such a naive way to think. Race and sexuality are dimensionally different and the resulting injustices do not stem from the same sources of oppression. So I do not like this employing of black civil rights to bolster gay rights because they are not the same and to say so would be inaccurate and ahistorical.

But shills like scottytheoneand don't bother to explore these layers or differences between groups. They're all interchangeable pawns to him and those of his ilk are more habaitually equipped to condescend rather than examine his own biases and privilege.

[Eulogy]

its discrimination against a minority based on an immutable trait, rooted largely in animus and ignorance.

No one has said they are exactly the same. But that doesn't mean comparisons aren't apt.

[D.]

Mayfuck going ham ignoring everyone but vixnix, which should tell you something. Seems like the kind of guy who calls gay people "faggots" but what do I know?

[hnibos]

The power couple