07 Aug 2016

One More On All Those Racist Libertarians Supporting Christian Bakers

Religious, SSM 80 Comments

As alluded to in my last post, Benny Lava (and he is hardly unique in this) kept suspecting that anybody who sided with the right of Christian bakers to not participate in gay weddings is probably a closet racist. I hope Benny never sees clips like this; his entire worldview would collapse.

80 Responses to “One More On All Those Racist Libertarians Supporting Christian Bakers”

  1. Dan says:

    Why would he think they’re closet racists? I get why someone might think they’re homophobic, but racist?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      You tell me Dan.

      • Dan says:

        Yeah, he’s a fool. Don’t play chess with pigeons.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          I was mostly arguing just to set up the position and then post it here. I obviously know that that particular guy isn’t pining to have his mind expanded.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            People do not want what we have to say to be true. They don’t even want to think about it.

          • Dan says:

            Don’t worry, I obviously can’t follow my own advice.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        One thing I have learned is that statists simply have no talent for trash talking.

        Benny Lava
        6. August 2016 at 18:42
        So Major Freedumb thinks romantic relationships are the exact same thing as a commercial transaction? How very telling. You must be very LONELY.

        Professor Barkley Rosser:
        The bottom line is that you have simply confused things and muddied the waters by bringing up stuff that is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and this discussion was never about monetary policy, so you have just been completely out of it. So, enjoy your LONELY fantasy ramblings.

        http://tinyurl.com/hwb5fdm

  2. Dan says:

    People like him are absurd anyways. Do they think Muslim truck drivers should be fined for refusing to transport pork based purely on religious reasons? Should Muslims be forced to back me a cake with Muhammad performing oral sex on another man? Should Jewish bakers be fined for refusing to serve a Nazi wedding? Should a black baker be forced to serve a KKK wedding?

    It’s really obnoxious to be lectured about how racist we are by people who hold views that would force Jews to serve Nazis if they were consistent.

    • Harold says:

      People are allowed to discriminate except on the basis of certain protected things – race, religion, sex, disability – possibly a few others. Freedom of speech rules dictate that you do not have to produce specific content you don’t like, such as an offensive cake. This is well established.

      So your examples, examined under the current rules.

      Who is the muslim truck driver discriminating against? It would need to be a specific group. So no,the Muslim truck driver should not be fined. If the employer sacks him, then the Muslim may or may not have a claim for discrimination based on religion.

      Nobody, Muslim or otherwise, is forced by law to make specific content they disagree with, so the Muslim is not required to bake this cake.

      For the Jewish caterer, who is he discriminating against? Are Nazis sufficiently closely associated with a specific race that discrimination against Nazis is discrimination against a specific protected group? I think probably not. So the Jew can decide not to cater the Nazi party.

      Similarly the black baker. The association between race and KKK membership is that nearly all KKK members are white, but nearly all whites are not KKK members. I think this means that discriminating against KKK is not the same as discriminating against whites, but maybe others have a different opinion.

      “It’s really obnoxious to be lectured about how racist we are by people who hold views that would force Jews to serve Nazis if they were consistent.”

      The current rules would not require Jews to serve Nazis, as explained above.

      • Dan says:

        Yes, I am aware that the state has inconsistent and arbitrary laws on when you are allowed to discriminate and when you are not. I’m also aware that most people that oppose discrimination are just as inconsistent and arbitrary. That’s why I put in the caveat “if they were consistent.”

        Also, besides you, who is debating the law on this matter? Most people discussing this issue I come across online or IRL are discussing whether it is justified to force someone to serve another for whatever reason. Would you have been hectoring abolitionists about what the current law said?

      • Dan says:

        Now, if we were discussing whether the bakers were guilty of breaking the law, your points would be relevant. But when people are discussing whether something should be against the law to begin with, bringing up what the current law does or does not say is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

        • Harold says:

          Dan, indeed the issue of what is right is not the same as what is legal.

          “Most people discussing this issue I come across online or IRL are discussing whether it is justified to force someone to serve another for whatever reason.”

          I side pretty much with the law on this one.

          I have said here before, if you are going to make people trade with who they don’t want to then you are limiting their freedom. If you are an absolutist, then you may conclude this can never be justified, and fair enough. That is a different opinion.

          I believe that limiting this freedom is justified in some cases. The law lays down groups for whom this protection applies. The criterion for valid inclusion in this group for me is that these groups have been and continue to be extensively discriminated against. Thus Nazis and KKK members do not warrant these protections.

          Once these groups are defined it is consistent to apply the rules only to these groups. It is not inconsistent to say that the law protects Blacks but not KKK members. The law is arbitrary to the extent that which groups are included is a matter of judgement, not hard and fast rules.

          I think many of the people with whom you discuss this would be of the same opinion if they understood the law. For example, many people do nut understand that the law forbids refusing to cater a gay wedding, but permits not baking a cake celebrating gay marriage.

          • Dan says:

            “I think many of the people with whom you discuss this would be of the same opinion if they understood the law. For example, many people do nut understand that the law forbids refusing to cater a gay wedding, but permits not baking a cake celebrating gay marriage.”

            I don’t. I think everyone is fully aware that the law said those bakers must serve gay weddings. It was kind of a well known story. In response, most libertarians, religious people, and conservatives said that is unjustifiable. Most liberals believe all of us are homophobic scum that deserve to have vast sums of money taken from us if we hold to this principle. I’ve yet to meet a single person that needs to know what the law says is allowed or not allowed in order to decide whether the baker situation is just or not in their opinion. I’m not really sure why you think people need to know what some judge or politician says is allowed before they can determine whether something is just or not.

            • Harold says:

              To be fair I have no idea who you discuss this with, so I can’t really comment on their opinions. Similarly I don’t think you can talk for “most liberals”.

              If you want to keep your comment addressed to Benny Lava, I don’t know enough about him to disagree. But there are many liberals who are quite capable of understanding both points of view.

          • Dan says:

            “…the law forbids refusing to cater a gay wedding, but permits not baking a cake celebrating gay marriage.”

            I mean I can’t fathom why you think this distinction makes a bit of difference to anyone supporting the baker. There are basically two camps on the pro-baker side. One camp says it is wrong to force anyone to serve anyone or sell anything of their property against their will. The other camp says it is wrong to force someone to violate their religious beliefs against their will.

            Now, the second group might support – and probably does – support forcing business owners to serve people against their will in other situations, but neither group’s position would be shifted one iota by your distinction. They would still oppose the law for the same exact reasons. I really don’t know why you think they’d change their view based on that.

            • Harold says:

              I don’t think your second group exists. Almost everybody supports forcing people to violate their religious beliefs in certain circumstances. If my religion says I cannot employ black people, most of your second group would support forcing them to violate their belief (although the first group would not).

              The court decided that the baker discriminated against the gay couple on the basis of their sexuality. It was because they were gay that they were planning a same sex marriage. It is consistent to support this decision and to support forcing the baker to sell a cake to a gay person or a black person who walks into the shop.

              The court is not testing if the baker always discriminates against gay people, only if he did so in this case.

              You second group has a difficult problem in consistency if they support the baker being forced to sell to a black person who walks into the shop, and not supporting this judgement.

              The disagreement could be based on whether or not you accept the court’s argument that this is similar to the “tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews” argument. Yet I have not seen any deconstructions of that argument in support of disagreement with the ruling.

  3. Khodge says:

    Years ago Senator Patrick Moynahan, an accomplished sociologist, described this as “defining deviancy downward,” with the warning that when the family ceased to be the basis of society, society would collapse. He has been proven correct insofar as the lower class has been locked into a sociological nightmare, in no small part because the Federal government got involved.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      The primary motivation of breaking up the traditional family was so that women could be taxed by entering the workforce, to bring about an increase in interest that could be collected from lending to the government.

      The Rockefeller Foundation financed the “women’s libertarian movement”, particularly via popular magazines.

      American feminist icon Gloria Steinem, (an ex CIA agent) proudly claims in one of her own books that CIA funded Ms Magazine with the stated goal of breaking up the families and taxing women. (Divide and conquer policy).

      • Tom Brown says:

        MF, looks like the Wikipedia articles on Steinem and Ms. Magazine forgot to include the bits about the CIA funding Ms with the stated goal of breaking up the families and taxing women to bring about an increase in interest that could be collected from lending to the government. Also Steinem’s interview (on youtube) in which she discusses her time as an “agent” of the CIA doesn’t refer to it either. I bet Wikipedia would appreciate someone (you?) editing the articles to include that fascinating information (with references, of course).

        • Major.Freedom says:

          I would have been floored if the moderators of Wikipedia collectively allowed it. Not surprised about this.

          • Tom Brown says:

            You’re so cynical! Why? How man times have you corrected the Wikipedia articles and provided your rock solid references to back it up, only to have your changes undone? I suspect that number is zero. Am I right? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt, track down your rock solid references and make the changes. You might be pleasantly surprised! I’d have more respect for your complaints if you can show me you’ve tried. For example, where are your rock solid references? Let’s have a look.

      • Harold says:

        It is possible that for some people the primary motivation for doing what they saw as breaking up the traditional family was as you describe.

        It is uncertain what you mean by the traditional family. It seems to be one where women do not work. This has not really been the case since the industrial revolution. Perhaps you could describe in more detail what the traditional family looked like, and for how long this tradition had been the norm?

        • Khodge says:

          Senator Moynahan was primarily concerned with poor, especially black, women who, due to welfare requirements, had babies without husbands. The trends started with the Great Society.

  4. Harold says:

    The gay cake affair. Lots of comments scattered over different posts. Here is my summary.

    Bob says “…Last thing, for the record, for those who are lurking: It is completely inaccurate to say the wedding cake thing is about “denying sales to gay people.””

    The court disagreed, and ruled that it was exactly about denying service to gay people. The court was not testing if the baker denies service to gay people all the time, or as a general rule, or almost never. It was ruling over whether the baker denied service to gay people because they were gay in that particular case

    As such it is not relevant if the baker often serves gay people that come into his shop. The court ruled that the case was similar enough to the “tax on yarmulkes” situation that refusing to cater a gay wedding is discrimination against gay people because they are gay.

    You may not agree with that conclusion, but the case hinged on it. So emphatically the case is about denying sales to gay people.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      OK Harold if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake between a brother and sister, and a court rules that this is denying service to people because they are siblings and others say, “Wow, what a jerk, he hates siblings!” then I don’t care how the court ruled, I am going to object to that framing, especially if the baker literally sold to the same brother and sister on other days when they weren’t asking for participation in their brother-sister wedding.

      • Harold says:

        I agree with your objection to the framing in your example.

        If someone says “That baker hates gays” I would disagree with them.

        If someone says “That baker discriminated against those gays” I would agree with them.

        So if you think the outcome of the court case is fine, but are complaining about people who make unfounded accusations against the baker, then fine, I am on your side, at least to some extent.

        However, I think you are wrong when you say “It is completely inaccurate to say the wedding cake thing is about “denying sales to gay people””

        The judgement of the court provides one very thorough and well thought through argument that concludes that it is all about denying sales to gay people. If it were not about denying sales to gay people the court would have rejected the claim. It is not that the court is always right, but the court has presented a very good argument.

        The court argued that discrimination on the basis of one’s opposition to same-sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We cannot simply reject these arguments without saying why they are wrong.

        Your hypothetical about siblings is very far removed from the current case. You say IF the court ruled they were denying service to siblings. There has been no such ruling, so we cannot say there are any arguments that would lead a court (or anyone else) to that conclusion. In the baker’s case, we do know that there is a strong (although not infallible) argument that leads to the conclusion that the baker discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

    • Dan says:

      Harold, you keep talking about what the court had to say, but that has nothing to do with what he was talking about. I don’t know why you are so fixated on the letter of the law, but, again, it is irrelevant to what is being discussed here.

      Person 1: Bakers don’t want to serve gay people! Those homophobic bastards!

      Dr. Murphy: No, that’s not right. Bakers are willing to serve gay people. Heck, it’s not like they’re going to ask a guy if he likes girls before they sell him a cookie. They just don’t want to participate in a gay wedding (or something else that they feel violates their religious laws).

      Harold: Nope, the court said it is about not serving gay people.

      Everybody else: Who cares what the court has to say? That has nothing to do with the current discussion.

      • Harold says:

        As per my answer to Bob – the court provides a strong argument that the discrimination was based on sexual orientation. It is not so much about the letter of the law as using a well thought through argument. I think it is a very good argument.

        We all need to construct our moral lines in the sand. Bob says that any restriction on who the baker sells to is too much. Others say some coercion is OK. We might as individuals not draw the line in the same place as the law does – for example Bob. However he can explain exactly why he disagrees with the court.

        Many others fail to explain why these very good (IMO) arguments are wrong. It is debatable if the baker is “participating” in the wedding by providing a cake of unspecified design and decoration. It is debatable that discrimination on the basis of gay wedding is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is not debatable that these interpretations are reasonable, even if you disagree with them.

        • Dan says:

          I can’t tell if you’re trolling me or not.

          I’ll try one last time because I can’t believe this isn’t getting through.

          Of course the baker is discriminating based off of sexual orientation when they refuse to serve a gay wedding. I don’t know a single person who debates that (unless they’re playing some semantic game). But that obvious truth has literally nothing to do with this discussion you have waded into. Literally nothing.

          The point being made here is simply that when people say it is all about Christian bakers wanting to refuse service to gays, they are wrong. They are wrong because the Christian bakers have no problem selling gays cookies, cakes, brownies, etc in other circumstances. They simply refuse to serve them at a gay wedding.

          So, if people want to say that the bakers are refusing to sell cakes for gay weddings, and that is discrimination against gay people, I don’t think you’d here Dr. Murphy argue against that. Obviously, he’d argue it isn’t justified to force the bakers to serve anyone or anything against their will regardless of the reasons, but he’d likely not disagree with the issue being framed that way.

          He simply disagrees with the blanket statement that Christian bakers are refusing service to gays because it is misleading and untrue.

          And again, the court ruling is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to THIS discussion. Has nothing to do with it.

          • Bob Murphy says:

            Yeah, I don’t know how this can be made any clearer. To say, “Are you refusing to sell to someone because they possess characteristic X?” it seems like selling to people with characteristic X is a counterexample that blows up the hypothesis. But nope.

            (I am 80% sure there is at least one case where it was literally a gay couple going to “their bakery” and being turned down, then suing. I.e. it was the bakery where they normally did business, but the owners didn’t want to participate in their actual wedding. But I’m only 80% sure of that.)

            • Harold says:

              Hang on. I don’t understand where you are coming from at all, and you clearly do not understand where I am coming from. Lets leave the court out of it and see if I can explain what I mean.

              Bob says ““It is completely inaccurate to say the wedding cake thing is about “denying sales to gay people”” Note that “completely” in there. That pretty much says it is nothing to do with denying sales to gay people.

              Dan says “Of course the baker is discriminating based off of sexual orientation when they refuse to serve a gay wedding. I don’t know a single person who debates that (unless they’re playing some semantic game)”

              That is pretty much saying the exact opposite of what Bob said.

              Yet Bob agrees with Dan. I don’t get it.

              “discriminating based on sexual orientation” means exactly the same as “denying sales to gay people” in this context. You cannot say it is one thing, yet has nothing to do with the other.

              Another example. Say I sell cakes to black people most of the time, but will not cater a mixed race wedding because I think blacks should not marry whites. Bob would apparently say “It is completely inaccurate to say the wedding cake thing is about “denying sales to black people”.”

              I think it is pretty clear that the main reason the sale was denied to the black groom was because he was black. It is therefore wrong to say that it is “completely inaccurate to say it is about denying sales to black people”.

              If I say “I sold a cake to the same man yesterday. That proves it is not about selling cakes to black people” would you accept that?

              If you think the latter case has nothing to do with denying sales to black people, then say so I we can agree to differ as we will not get any further. If you think it is about denying sales to black people but is different from the gay wedding, please explain why and we may get closer to understanding our respective positions.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Harold would you say “2 is prime because it is even” is a correct statement?

                So to say, “The baker refused to sell to this man because he was black” seems false as well, if in fact the baker sells to black people. How can we be having this argument?

                FWIW I agree with you that Dan is stating things in a different way from what I would have done.

              • Dan says:

                Yeah, I agree with Murphy’s comment.

                For some reason you can’t see why a blanket statement like “he denies sales to black people” is at best a misleading way to say to describe a situation where a guy sells to black people except when it is for a mixed wedding.

                Outside of how we might phrase things or a minor tweak here or there, I’m pretty sure men and Bob hold the same view on this. I have no idea why you are struggling understanding our position, an I have no idea how to make it clearer. Oh well.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Dan wrote:

                Outside of how we might phrase things or a minor tweak here or there, I’m pretty sure men and Bob hold the same view on this

                See Harold, you might try to weasel out of this, but I know that Dan is clearly saying I’m not a man.

              • Dan says:

                Haha

                *me and Bob

              • Harold says:

                What if a baker sells black people plain cakes, but not cream cakes?

                “The baker refused to sell to this man because he was black” sounds quite a reasonable description.

                It would be not be right, I think, to say that because he does sell to black people we cannot say he did not sell in this case because he was black.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Harold, what work does “because” do in a sentence, for you?

              • Dan says:

                ‘What if a baker sells black people plain cakes, but not cream cakes?

                “The baker refused to sell to this man because he was black” sounds quite a reasonable description.’

                I don’t. It’s too misleading. I think it would be reasonable to say “Although the baker sells to black people in XYZ situation, he refuses to serve them in ABC situation for D reason.”

                “It would be not be right, I think, to say that because he does sell to black people we cannot say he did not sell in this case because he was black.”

                I agree, but you didn’t phrase it that way in your quite. You left out the “in this case” part. Your quote alone leaves out all the nuance. Too many people who be mislead if they simply read your quote without the rest of the context. They’d have no idea that he serves black people in other situations just from reading your quote.

              • Dan says:

                Here is why the context is important.

                If I hear, “John the baker refuses to sell cakes to gay people.” My gut reaction is to think of John as a homophobic bastard.

                If I hear, “While John the baker will sell his desserts to gay people in other circumstances, he refuses to do so for gay weddings because he believes it violates his religious beliefs.” My gut reaction is to think he is being perfectly reasonable from the standard of a Christian, Muslim, etc.

                Side note: Either way you framed it, I’d personally think the gay couple suing is an absimal human being and not any better than a common thug.

              • Harold says:

                We are getting closer. Thank you for engaging.

                ” “Although the baker sells to black people in XYZ situation, he refuses to serve them in ABC situation for D reason.””

                I agree with this, but I think we must include that part of the D reason is that the customer is black.

                I don’t think the main point is that the vendor may sell to the person in some circumstances. The main point is that the vendor will *not* sell to person X in some circumstances because they are black, or gay or whatever.

              • Harold says:

                The word “because”” does the work of explaining the reason for an action.

                There is often more than one reason for an action.

                For example, I got up this morning.
                Did I get up because the alarm went off? Yes.
                Did I get up because I had to go to work? Yes.
                Did I get up because I had to pay my mortgage? Yes.
                We can take any number of motivations to explain why I got up. All are true, but none is the whole truth.

                This leaves us with a difficult problem of explaining any action at all. There will always be many “becauses”

                I am saying that if the because is one of the becauses, then we are entitled to say that the action is /because / of the reason, even if it is not the whole reason.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                OK Harold, so to continue your example:

                “Did I get up because my bed had a pillow on it?”

                According to you, the answer is yes. I would say the answer is no.

                I think we can stop now; we both understand the other guy’s position.

              • Harold says:

                So if it was because he was black AND it was Sunday, then we could say it was because he was black. We could also say it was because it was a Sunday.

                If it was because he was black AND it was a cream cake, then we could say it was because he was black. We could also say it was because it was a cream cake.

              • Dan says:

                “I agree with this, but I think we must include that part of the D reason is that the customer is black.”

                That’s fine, but if you leave out the rest of the context it is obviously misleading. You’re not being truthful if you say “X refuses to serve Y.” If there are in fact situations where X does serve Y.

                If I went into a Muslim Subway and ordered a ham and cheese but was refused service, I doubt you’d agree with someone that said “Muslim Subway owner refuses to serve white people.” But it would be true that Muslim Subway owner refuses to serve white people ham and cheese sandwiches for religious reasons. For some reason you’re getting hung up on why X is refusing service to Y in a particular situation that it is causing you to miss the misleading nature of saying X refuses to serve Y when in reality X does serve Y, but not in all circumstances.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Dan gets it.

                Harold, why did you choose to do SJW work? What a horrible job that is.

              • Anonymous says:

                I thought we were getting closer, but Bob’s pillow and Dan’s Subway show that is not the case. I do not understand why Bob thinks I would say I got up because of the pillow. The subway owner refuses to sell that sandwich to everybody, so there is no question that it is because I am white.

                I think the point of contention is that the baker refusing to serve a gay wedding is the same as refusing to serve gay people because they are gay. This uses the “tax on yarmulkes” argument from Scalia. You may not agree with this argument, but you have not said so so far.

                If you disagree with this argument, it is still wrong to say that this is nothing to do with selling to gay people. It is very much about that, but you disagree that this is what is happening here.

                If this is not the sticking point, then we agree that it is correct to say the baker discriminates against gay people, but does not refuse to sell to gay people entirely. I m happy to agree with that statement.

                Similarly a baker that only serves black people in his back yard and only plain cakes discriminates against black people but does not refuse to serve them entirely.

                If you feel the baker has been maligned because people believe he refuses to serve gay people entirely, when he actually only discriminates against them in some situations, then fine. I could go along with that.

                MF – sorry, I don’t get your point.

              • Harold says:

                Posted once, but may have put wrong email or something, so apologies if this appears twice.

                I thought we were getting closer, but Bob’s pillow and Dan’s Subway examples show that is not the case. I do not understand why Bob thinks I would say I got up because of the pillow. The subway owner refuses to sell that sandwich to everybody, so there is no question that it is because I am white.

                I think the point of contention is that the baker refusing to serve a gay wedding is the same as refusing to serve gay people. This uses the “tax on yarmulkes” argument from Scalia. You may not agree with this argument, but you have not said so so far.

                If you disagree with this argument, it is still wrong to say that this is nothing to do with selling to gay people. It is very much about that, but you disagree that this is what is happening here.

                If this is not the sticking point, then we agree that it is correct to say the baker discriminates against gay people, but does not refuse to sell to gay people entirely. I m happy to agree with that statement.

                Similarly a baker that does not allow black people in his shop but will sell them plain cakes in the back yard discriminates against black people but does not refuse to serve them entirely.

                MF – sorry, I don’t get your point.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Harold,

                How do you feel about the following statement?

                “2 is a prime number because it’s even.”

              • Dan says:

                The bakers are refusing to serve weddings between two men, or two women for everybody. Even if two straight guys wanted to marry each other, they’d refuse. It’s the same freaking thing. It’s only because you accept the refusal of a Muslim serving a ham sandwich as acceptable on religious grounds, and the refusal to serve a gay wedding on religious grounds as unacceptable that you spin them as totally different things.

                It’s asinine to say it is about bakers not serving gay people when they do in fact serve gay people. How is this not getting through? Heck, if a lesbian and a gay man wanted to marry each other, the bakers would serve them. They wouldn’t refuse in the grounds that they are gay because it isn’t about that. This isn’t hard.

              • Harold says:

                The reason 2 is not a prime number is not because it is even. This is trivially obvious.

                The baker refused to serve the customer because they were gay. This is not trivially obvious, but following the argument put forward by the judges in the case is none the less a reasonable conclusion.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Harold, what if a judge ruled that 2 is a prime number because it is even? Would that affect your answer?

              • Dan says:

                Will the baker serve gay people? Yes

                Will the baker serve gay people for a wedding between two men or two women? No

                Will the baker serve gay people for a wedding between a man and a woman? Yes

                Yet, somehow you still will claim they are refusing to serve gay people. It is absurd.

              • Dan says:

                Will a baker serve straight people? Yes

                Will a baker serve straight people for a wedding between two men or two women? No

                Will a baker serve straight people for a wedding between a man and a woman? Yes

                Based on what you’ve said so far, you should conclude that the baker refuses to serve straight people. Yet, I’m sure you’d agree with us that that would be an absurd statement.

              • Richie says:

                Harold has performed the best troll job in the history of the Internet. I really admire Dan’s patience.

              • Harold says:

                The baker refused to serve the customer for the wedding because the customer was gay. The baker did not refuse to serve gay people in other circumstances. Is that OK for you?

                The reason the act was discriminatory is because straight people do not get married to people of the same sex. If this becomes normal custom then the argument may led to a different conclusion.

              • Craw says:

                Harold’s last response blows the gaffe on himself. He admits in it the bakers aren’t objecting to the customer because he was gay, but only because he was marrying someone of the same sex. Harold admits the baker would behave exactly the same if it were a straight customer marrying someone of the same sex. Ergo, it’s not about the customer being gay, by Harold’s own admission.
                The bakers are refusing to participate in an action and would object equally whether the participants were gay or not. They object only to the action not the nature of the participants. This is how most of us feel about lots of actions: mugging for example.

              • Harold says:

                Why is everyone being so obtuse?

                A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. OK – can we agree about that? We are not taxing Jews but we are taxing something that only Jews use. You could argue that anyone who wanted to wear a yarmulke was also being taxed, but because of custom and practice only Jews suffer from the tax, so it is a tax on Jews.

                Refusing to serve gay wedding IS a refusal to serve gay people in the same way. It is only gay people that have gay weddings. You could argue that anyone that wanted a SSM was also being refused, but because of custom and practice it is only gay people that are refused.

                This is not a new argument. Justice Scalia said in Bray vs Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic “As to the first: Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews… the clause proscribes conspiracies to prevent local law enforcement authorities from protecting activities that are performed exclusively by members of a protected class, even if the conspirators’ animus were directed at the activity rather than at the class members. Thus, even if yarmulkes, rather than Jews, were the object of the conspirators’ animus, the statute would prohibit a conspiracy to hinder the constituted authorities from protecting access to a synagogue or other place of worship for persons wearing yarmulkes. ”

                This is very clear. I can’t put it any clearer than Scalia did.

                Even if you disagree with Scalia or the applicability in this case it is wrong to say that this is not about refusing service to gay people. It is exactly about refusing service to gay people.

                Craw mentions mugging, this shows that Craw has missed the point.

              • Harold says:

                I think I see the disagreement.

                You say that if a baker has a particular objection to turbans he would be entitled to refuse entry to people wearing these items. It is nothing to do with Sikhs, simply the headgear predominantly worn by Sikhs.

                I would agree if he had a thing about all hats, and forbade anyone to enter with a hat on. Then I could see Bob’s prime number point. Is 2 prime because it is even? No, it is prime because it is divisible only by 1 and itself. It just happens to be even. Is Mr Singh banned because he is a Sikh? No, he is banned because he wears a head covering, just as everyone wearing a hat is banned. Mr Singh just happens to be a Sikh, like 2 just happens to be even.

                But if all hats other than turbans are OK, then has Mr. Singh been banned because he is a Sikh or because he wears a turban?

                Whatever you finally decide, you must surely think it is at least a reasonable question, one that deserves some consideration.

              • Andrew_FL says:

                There is an almost criminal disingenuousness, or more generously, criminal ignorance in you continually quoting an argument about whether a *state action* is permissible under the *establishment clause* in defense of unconstitutional anti-discrimination laws.

              • Harold says:

                My motto is to become “never leave a dead horse un-flogged” I think.

                I repeat, this is not about the outcome of the cases, but about the arguments developed within them.

                The contention is that this is not “about” refusing to serve gay people. I show the arguments that were developed in a legal case but are much more widely applicable, that show it IS about refusing to serve gay people.

                So to clarify:
                1) Do you accept that it is reasonable argument that the Sikh was banned because he was a Sikh, even if you conclude that ultimately he was not?

                2) That this is essentially the same as whether the gay people were served at the gay wedding?

                3) That this means it is about refusing to serve gay people?

              • Andrew_FL says:

                2) No.

                The case is not applicable, and your applying it is either dishonest or ignorant.

              • Harold says:

                Just to clarify, you agree that it is reasonable to ask if Mr Singh was banned because he was a Sikh.

                You also think that this is not applicable to the gay wedding incident. It is not a reasonable question to ask if refusing to serve someone at a SSM that only gay people actually partake in may be considered to be because they are gay.

                If I have expressed your position correctly, can you explain why the question is valid for the Sikh but not for the homosexual? To me they appear very close parallels. I can assure you that I apply it not through dishonesty. I cannot rule out ignorance, in which case I hope you can enlighten me.

              • Dan says:

                http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/23/us-straight-guys-try-to-marry-eachother-to-experience-states-marriage-ban/

                Would the Christian baker have refused to serve these two straight men’s wedding?

                I say yes, because their refusal isn’t about sexual orientation – They freaking serve gay people – It’s about the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, and their refusal to serve wedding between two men or two women.

                If you would like to say the refusal of service is about their sexual prefence then you’d have to argue that they would’ve served that wedding. At least, you’d have to make that argument in order to have a coherent and logical position.

              • Dan says:

                http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_563a4e1ce4b0b24aee4871b2

                Would the Christian baker have refused to serve this wedding?

                I say, no, because it is about their belief that marriage is between a man and woman, and not about sexual orientation. Again, they freaking serve gay people.

                You’d have to argue that they would have refused to serve this wedding because they are gay in order to hold a coherent and logical position.

              • Harold says:

                Scalia: “Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed.”

                My emphasis. No only Sikhs wear turbans.

                Just as our hypothetical baker will refuse entry to a man in a fancy dress turban. Just as our hypothetical baker will allow access to Sikhs not wearing turbans.

                These points do not make the question of whether Mr. Singh was refused access because he was a Sikh any less reasonable.

              • Dan says:

                So you agree that the baker would’ve served the wedding for the gay man and woman that got married, right?

                And you agree that they would’ve refused to serve the wedding for the two straight men, right?

                And you agree that they would serve any gay person except for when it is for a wedding between two men or two women, right?

                And you agree they would serve any straight person except for a wedding between two men or two women, right?

                Yet, somehow, none of that shakes your belief that it is about their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, and their service or refusal of service is not contingent upon the sexual orientation of the customer?

                I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

              • Harold says:

                I think we have all worked pretty hard to explain and to understand, yet we have failed in the end.

                My question is did the baker in this instance discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? Your question is does the baker always or generally discriminate on this basis?

                I think the Sikh parallel is pretty good.

                So you agree that the baker would’ve served the wedding for the gay man and woman that got married, right?

                As he would serve Mr. Singh if he did not wear turban.

                And you agree that they would’ve refused to serve the wedding for the two straight men, right?

                As he would refuse to serve a non Sikh in a fancy dress turban.

                And you agree that they would serve any gay person except for when it is for a wedding between two men or two women, right?

                As he would serve any Sikh not wearing turban.

                And you agree they would serve any straight person except for a wedding between two men or two women, right?

                As he would serve any non Sikh not wearing a turban.

                Yet, somehow, none of that shakes your belief that it is about their belief in marriage (dislike of turbans) and their service or refusal of service is not contingent upon the sexual orientation (religion) of the customer?

                So if you think the baker can refuse service to turban wearing individuals and it have nothing to do with the religion of the customer, then you will also think that not serving SSM has nothing to do with the sexuality of the customer.

                Remember, my comment that started this all of was disagreeing with this:

                Bob says “…Last thing, for the record, for those who are lurking: It is completely inaccurate to say the wedding cake thing is about “denying sales to gay people.””

                Whether or not you agree with my arguments, for me it is very much about denying service to gay people.

              • Dan says:

                “My question is did the baker in this instance discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?”

                Yes, I know. I answered your question. I said the answer is no. I defended that by pointing out that the sexual orientation of a gay man and a lesbian getting married to each other wouldn’t prevent the baker from serving their wedding. That should be a crystal clear proof that it isn’t about sexual orientation. Yet, I went further, and gave an example of two straight guys getting married. If it were about sexual orientation then the baker should be willing to serve the straight guys wedding and refuse to serve the gay and lesbian’s wedding. This is crystal clear to everyone else.

                Your question is does the baker always or generally discriminate on this basis?

                No, that isn’t my question at all. My question is the same as yours. I just came to a different conclusion than you for the reasons I’ve already stated.

                As for the baker and the Sikhs, same thing. If the baker refuses to serve anyone, regardless of race, religion, or sex, wearing a particular type of hate, but has no problem serving these very same people in all other situations, I would say it is about the hat.

              • Harold says:

                Dan. Thank you for the continuing discussion and for engaging with the Sikh analogy. I think I understand our differences now. We will have to agree to differ on the actions of the baker. You reject the tax on yarmulkes argument, which you are entitled to do.

                I do not think you are entitled to reject that this argument is a reasonable one, even if you do not arrive at the same conclusion.

                I accept that you may not conclude that in this case it is not about the sexual orientation of the customer, but I would expect you to understand that other reasonable people may conclude that it is about the sexual orientation of the customer.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                I think it’s pretty clear that Dan is disagreeing with you because you’re male.

              • Andrew_FL says:

                A law which bans discriminating against Sikhs is also an unconstitutional violation of the right to free association.

                Come back when you understand *why* a tax on yarmulkes is different.

              • Harold says:

                If Dan disagrees with me because I am male, then using the arguments I have used all along it must be because I am doing something exclusively or predominantly done by males and nobody else. I cannot think what that is. In the same way yarmulkes are predominantly worn by Jews, turbans predominantly worn by Sikhs and SSM predominantly partaken by homosexuals.

                A law which bans discriminating against Sikhs is also an unconstitutional violation of the right to free association.

                I thought we were avoiding discussion of what is legal. Whether or not anti discrimination laws are constitutional is a different argument for different day.

                Come back when you understand *why* a tax on yarmulkes is different.

                It would be really helpful if you could explain. They seem essentially the same to me. If they are different you should be able to say why.

                I think, but I am not sure, that all you have is that you feel the motivation is genuinely about SSM and not homosexuality per se, whereas a tax on yarmulkes must somehow be driven by a dislike of Jews. That is not the point, as even if this is the case it is still about not serving gay people. You can argue that it is justified, but that is again a different argument. As Scalia explained.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                If Dan disagrees with me because I am male, then using the arguments I have used all along it must be because I am doing something exclusively or predominantly done by males and nobody else.

                “Not admitting when you have been bludgeoned to death 6 different ways in an online argument. Survey says…ONLY MALES DO THIS.”

              • Andrew_FL says:

                You and Dan are having a different argument from you and I.

                You are citing a legal opinion concerning an issue therefore we are in fact discussing, not avoiding, the topic of legality.

                The state cannnot tax yarmulkes because there’s this thing in the Constitution, called the First Amendment, you may have heard of it. It prohibits Congress from passing just that kind of law. Similarly the people of the United States are protected from their state and local governments doing much the same under the 14th Amendment.

                These Amendments restrict the actions that may be undertaken by the state and its representatives. They do no in any way restrict individuals. The difference between people and government is very illusive to someone like you but it’s hard to believe you aren’t doing this on purpose since it’s so obvious.

              • Harold says:

                Probably mostly males would indulge to this extent. Not clear cut enough for the argument.

                Andrew FL. The Govt cannot tax yarmulkes because it would be a tax on Jews. This is against the first amendment. I don’t know why you think I am having a problem with this when it is the centre of my argument. The Govt could tax Fedoras if they wanted.

                The law does forbid discrimination in certain circumstances on the basis of race, religion, sex, disability and maybe some others. This legally restricts individuals. Whether you think this is unconstitutional is beside the point for now. These laws exist. One restriction is on people who run shops – they are not allowed to discriminate whilst trading on the above mentioned grounds.

                The reason the Govt. cannot tax yarmulkes is because to do so would not just be a tax on a type of hat, like taxing fedoras would be. Because that type of hat is predominantly used by a particular religious group. The tax is the equivalent of a tax on that group.

                The reason the baker cannot legally refuse to serve a cake at a SSM is because that type of wedding is predominantly used by a group that the baker is forbidden from discriminating against. To not serve the wedding is the same as not serving that group.

                The reason why I am carrying on here is because this whole exchange mystifies me, and I would like to clear it up. Everyone is totally convinced that I am completely wrong, yet I genuinely do not understand why. My arguments seem sound and obvious, and nobody has explained to me where they are wrong. Equally, I am convinced that everybody else is wrong, yet I am unable to explain to anybody’s satisfaction why this is the case. Andrew FL says I must be doing it on purpose, it seems the same to me that you are doing it on purpose.

                I assure you I am not just winding everyone up. I am finding it frustrating that intelligent individuals cannot get past this impasse and end up going round in circles.

              • Andrew_FL says:

                Then stop citing Scalia, whose point is therefore not relevant to your argument.

            • Andrew_FL says:

              Whether the laws compelling association are themselves lawful is in fact the entire question. You’re totally beyond help at this point.

              • Harold says:

                Andrew_FL. My question was is this about refusing service to gay people, so I guess that explains why we get different answers. We are asking different questions.

                Whilst I am concerned about whether such association should be compelled, that is not what I have been discussing here.

  5. Gil says:

    Actually it’s stated the Christians weren’t fined about baking a cake but harassing the couple.

    http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/debunking-big-media-myth-real-reason-anti-gay-bakers-oregon-were-fined-135000

Leave a Reply to Khodge

Cancel Reply