Gay people can't choose not to be gay. People can, however, choose whether they're going to be part of a political movement dedicated to the oppression and eventual "cleansing" of large groups of people primarily based on things those people can't choose. I really don't get why you can't see a difference.
I'd still think it's awful because I don't see being gay as a bad or immoral thing - there's pretty much no imaginable situation in which allowing gay people to exist unhindered causes damage to anyone. I'd suggest that if being gay were a conscious choice, the shop should have a right to refuse service to gay people, but again, I'd have a right to stand outside their shop with placards, shout about it in the news, etc etc.
On the other hand, allowing neo-nazis to go unhindered may quite reasonably result in people's deaths, so.
Why are you even going down this road? Human beings are tribal. Tribes based on "choice" and tribes based on our DNA. We form numerous institutions based on this fact. Stop pretending otherwise. If I don't initiate force against you, you have no right to initiate force against me. If I don't want to trade with you, you have no right to demand me to trade with you. Why are we overlooking something that should be taught in Kindergarten???
I'd suggest that you could very well refuse to serve someone over their support of whichever side in the current Palestine occupation, as an example of something that might reasonably happen. And I don't think there's anything that would actually prevent you from refusing to serve pro-choicers, except that you'd probably go out of business quite quickly.
I'd suggest that your customers would have a right to boycott you, protest you, and attempt to socially shame you if you did either of those things.
The crucial difference that many people in this partly appalling thread (and partly even more appalling, mind-bogglingly fascist moderation) don't get is that gay people have not committed a Holocaust against 6 million Jews and also do not generally sympathize with people who advocate genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.
This thread is so full of false analogies, it's unbelievable.
Should any business be obliged by law to make business with and thereby indirectly support advocates of genocide and racism? Should any business be forced to make business with Nazis, Red Khmer, Stalinists, etc.? If your answer is Yes, then I have bad news for you. No need to spell it out, though, as it's obvious...
I'm genuinely shocked at how some people can so blithely, and possibly obliviously, throw out textbook pro-discrimination arguments when the target of the discrimination is something they don't happen to support.
Society is self-regulating, it's important to avoid herd-mentality within society, and that's why people talk about protecting free-speech, but when everyone agrees that something is not ok, e.g. sexual harrasment is not ok and shouldn't be protected by free speech, then there's really not a problem with allowing these rules to exist. A society where everything is ruled by some sacred maxims, like some sort of philosophical school, doesn't exist, life isn't that simple.
Let's say you own a café. The local political youth group "Club Hitler" submits a proposal to have their weekly meetups in your venue. You agree, and they host a number of meetups. They then begin to publicize your venue's support for the Nazi cause as part of their promotional materials.
At what point in this process do you think it would be been morally appropriate for you to cancel your service to this group?
There exist laws which were explicitly written to address that kind of specific situation. If someone communicate a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, or group, that someone can be charged under defamation laws.
Let say a local youth group submits a proposal to have their weekly meetups in your venue. They then begin to shoplift. What is the rational behavior to address this issue?
I would start by calling the police and report the crime. I could then start denying service to them (which casinos are known to do). But if I start to do general statements about any people which share identity, belief, political membership, or sexual orientation with the local youth group then I am likely stepping a bit to far into the realm of discrimination.
In a perfect world I think Cloudflare should have filed a police complaint in regard to the daily stormer and then canceled the account. Such decision would have nothing to do with regulating content, censorship, vigilante justice, or freedom of speech. It would just be a simple matter of a customer not obeying the law.
Gay people can't choose not to be gay. People can, however, choose whether they're going to be part of a political movement dedicated to the oppression and eventual "cleansing" of large groups of people primarily based on things those people can't choose. I really don't get why you can't see a difference.
If gay people could choose not to be gay, would you have a different opinion about the cake shop?
I'd still think it's awful because I don't see being gay as a bad or immoral thing - there's pretty much no imaginable situation in which allowing gay people to exist unhindered causes damage to anyone. I'd suggest that if being gay were a conscious choice, the shop should have a right to refuse service to gay people, but again, I'd have a right to stand outside their shop with placards, shout about it in the news, etc etc.
On the other hand, allowing neo-nazis to go unhindered may quite reasonably result in people's deaths, so.
Why are you even going down this road? Human beings are tribal. Tribes based on "choice" and tribes based on our DNA. We form numerous institutions based on this fact. Stop pretending otherwise. If I don't initiate force against you, you have no right to initiate force against me. If I don't want to trade with you, you have no right to demand me to trade with you. Why are we overlooking something that should be taught in Kindergarten???
So I guess we should forbid Zionism then? They actually succeeded in their ethnic cleansing of Israel.
Can a baker refuse to bake a cake for pro-Israel Jews? What about pro-choicers, can I refuse to serve them because of their concrete genocidal acts?
I'd suggest that you could very well refuse to serve someone over their support of whichever side in the current Palestine occupation, as an example of something that might reasonably happen. And I don't think there's anything that would actually prevent you from refusing to serve pro-choicers, except that you'd probably go out of business quite quickly.
I'd suggest that your customers would have a right to boycott you, protest you, and attempt to socially shame you if you did either of those things.
18 replies →
The crucial difference that many people in this partly appalling thread (and partly even more appalling, mind-bogglingly fascist moderation) don't get is that gay people have not committed a Holocaust against 6 million Jews and also do not generally sympathize with people who advocate genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.
This thread is so full of false analogies, it's unbelievable.
Should any business be obliged by law to make business with and thereby indirectly support advocates of genocide and racism? Should any business be forced to make business with Nazis, Red Khmer, Stalinists, etc.? If your answer is Yes, then I have bad news for you. No need to spell it out, though, as it's obvious...
Define "fine"? I believe that bigots should have the right to be bigots.
I'm genuinely shocked at how some people can so blithely, and possibly obliviously, throw out textbook pro-discrimination arguments when the target of the discrimination is something they don't happen to support.
Society is self-regulating, it's important to avoid herd-mentality within society, and that's why people talk about protecting free-speech, but when everyone agrees that something is not ok, e.g. sexual harrasment is not ok and shouldn't be protected by free speech, then there's really not a problem with allowing these rules to exist. A society where everything is ruled by some sacred maxims, like some sort of philosophical school, doesn't exist, life isn't that simple.
Let's say you own a café. The local political youth group "Club Hitler" submits a proposal to have their weekly meetups in your venue. You agree, and they host a number of meetups. They then begin to publicize your venue's support for the Nazi cause as part of their promotional materials.
At what point in this process do you think it would be been morally appropriate for you to cancel your service to this group?
There exist laws which were explicitly written to address that kind of specific situation. If someone communicate a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, or group, that someone can be charged under defamation laws.
Let say a local youth group submits a proposal to have their weekly meetups in your venue. They then begin to shoplift. What is the rational behavior to address this issue?
I would start by calling the police and report the crime. I could then start denying service to them (which casinos are known to do). But if I start to do general statements about any people which share identity, belief, political membership, or sexual orientation with the local youth group then I am likely stepping a bit to far into the realm of discrimination.
In a perfect world I think Cloudflare should have filed a police complaint in regard to the daily stormer and then canceled the account. Such decision would have nothing to do with regulating content, censorship, vigilante justice, or freedom of speech. It would just be a simple matter of a customer not obeying the law.
After I warn them that I will cancel the service if they don't stop falsely claiming I endorse the Nazi cause, and they ignore my warning.
2 replies →