No. Emphatically not. That's the whole point. Because of (3), this act extends to any entity that can sue or be sued, not just individuals and entities covered by (2). ["An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes."]
Reread the part you cut off:
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
That is the entire problem with this bill: it allows an organization like a regular, for-profit business to be considered a "person" under this act, thereby allowing those individuals who have control and substantial ownership of the company to claim the company has a religious stance to deny certain people (specifically gay ones) service.
I may be misinterpreting you, but that *isn't* actually a distinction between the Indiana law and the Federal Law. As we learned in the hobby Lobby case. Like I said though, I may be misinterpreting what you are saying here.
Don't know how to make a better title, so I just straight-out went with the question.
Or, to put it another way-
What is the difference between telling someone "I can't bake a cake for your wedding because you lack the money to purchase my incredibly awesome, and thus incredibly expensive, cake" and "I can't bake a cake for your wedding because I disagree with your sexual orientation/color of your skin/some random thing you do/are that I don't particularly like".
It absolutely is discrimination! But the problem is that culturally we have attached such a connotation to discrimination as being terrible that the reasonable forms stop seeming reasonable simply due to the connotation.
Not allowing 18-wheelers or cars of certain heights into certain areas is discrimination. Not allowing bars to be constructed within a certain area of schools is discrimination. Zoning is discrimination. Our scheme of restrooms is discriminatory.
There are a huge amount of discriminatory actions that we take to make society function, discrimination is not intrinsically bad.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
To the OP - the question is better considered as what rules create a society that's better to live in.
When businesses are allowed to shun groups of people, that's pretty darn negative. Imagine being Irish and being surrounded by signs "No irish need apply" or being black and being told "no, we don't serve your kind".
That's a lot more negative than a bigot being required to sell to a paying customer that they happen to think is going to hell.
Society is better when we people are required to tolerate those they disagree with, than when groups of people can be legally shunned and excluded from whole chunks of their community and denied opportunities. Ideally, no one would ever have to do anything they don't want to do. Unfortunately, some people are bigoted jerks - and we can't simultaneously support bigotry and inclusion. So you have to pick, do you prefer bigotry or inclusion? I'm on the side of inclusion.
So... What's the difference between requirng people to pay for stuff and requiring people to be straight? Several differences actually, but only one really matters... And it's the same reason why we have laws against sending death threats, but not laws against writing blog posts (even though both laws would technically be infringements on free speech). It's because one of those laws makes for a better society and the other doesn't. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
To the OP - the question is better considered as what rules create a society that's better to live in.
When businesses are allowed to shun groups of people, that's pretty darn negative. Imagine being Irish and being surrounded by signs "No irish need apply" or being black and being told "no, we don't serve your kind".
That's a lot more negative than a bigot being required to sell to a paying customer that they happen to think is going to hell.
Society is better when we people are required to tolerate those they disagree with, than when groups of people can be legally shunned and excluded from whole chunks of their community and denied opportunities. Ideally, no one would ever have to do anything they don't want to do. Unfortunately, some people are bigoted jerks - and we can't simultaneously support bigotry and inclusion. So you have to pick, do you prefer bigotry or inclusion? I'm on the side of inclusion.
So... What's the difference between requirng people to pay for stuff and requiring people to be straight? Several differences actually, but only one really matters... And it's the same reason why we have laws against sending death threats, but not laws against writing blog posts (even though both laws would technically be infringements on free speech). It's because one of those laws makes for a better society and the other doesn't. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
Would outlawing hate speech make for a better society?
If so, why is hate speech (by private individuals) not outlawed in the US?
Would outlawing hate speech make for a better society?
If so, why is hate speech (by private individuals) not outlawed in the US?
No, it wouldn't. Because society is better when you can't be arrested for expressing your ideas. It's worth having to listen to ideas you despise for the sake of protecting everyone's ability to speak, for a whole host of social and socratic reasons. That's why it shouldn't be outlawed.
Additionally, such laws are really hard to safely write. What the government deems as hate speech, unpatriotic speech or anything else might just be what you see as either satire or the truth. You can bet a lot of slave-owning gentlemen would consider being vilified and called monsters in today's speech referring to slavery would consider that hateful.
Society WOULD probably be better if no individuals ever chose to use hate speech, but a LAW requiring that would make society worse.
Would outlawing hate speech make for a better society?
If so, why is hate speech (by private individuals) not outlawed in the US?
No, it wouldn't. Because society is better when you can't be arrested for expressing your ideas. It's worth having to listen to ideas you despise for the sake of protecting everyone's ability to speak, for a whole host of social and socratic reasons. That's why it shouldn't be outlawed.
Additionally, such laws are really hard to safely write. What the government deems as hate speech, unpatriotic speech or anything else might just be what you see as either satire or the truth. You can bet a lot of slave-owning gentlemen would consider being vilified and called monsters in today's speech referring to slavery would consider that hateful.
Society WOULD probably be better if no individuals ever chose to use hate speech, but a LAW requiring that would make society worse.
I strongly agree with this. I don't support hate speech, but I recognize that regulating hate speech causes more problems than it solves. That's why I'm surprised that you're so quick to assume that anti-discrimination laws make a "better society." Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you need to perform the same cost-benefit comparison as you just performed above.
What would you say to someone who advanced this argument:
Society is better when you can't be arrested for refusing to engage in a voluntary transaction. It's worth being refused service by a few despicable business owners for the sake of protecting everyone's right to engage in voluntary commerce. That's why it shouldn't be outlawed.
Additionally, such laws are really hard to safely write. What the government deems as racism, homophobia, or anything else might just be what you see as either a requirement of your religion or the truth. You can bet a lot of slave-owning gentlemen would consider it "hateful" to be refused service at a bakery just because they're slave owners.
Society WOULD probably be better if no individuals ever chose to discriminate, but a LAW requiring that would make society worse.
I strongly agree with this. I don't support hate speech, but I recognize that regulating hate speech causes more problems than it solves. That's why I'm surprised that you're so quick to assume that anti-discrimination laws make a "better society." Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you need to perform the same cost-benefit comparison as you just performed above.
I agree. In fact, I did reference that analysis in my original post you were responding to.
What would you say to someone who advanced this argument:
Society is better when you can't be arrested for refusing to engage in a voluntary transaction. It's worth being refused service by a few despicable business owners for the sake of protecting everyone's right to engage in voluntary commerce. That's why it shouldn't be outlawed.
I'd say that's absurd, because who's saying this is a "few" despicable business owners? We've seen the impact of segregation, we've seen people disowned by parents and shunned from communities. What if you can't get insured because you're gay, or can't get into college because you're an atheist, or can't get hired because you're muslim? Your whole life can be shunned and shut out. We have examples of this less than a century ago. It clearly did not make for a better society.
Additionally, even if it was a small number of people deciding to refuse service or admissions - that means the imposition on society of those few people being required to serve people they don't like is very small. If only one person is being forced to sell a cake to someone he doesn't like, that's an even smaller net loss.
Bigotry has never been solely a niche position in the history of humanity, and the relative cost of having to sell to people whose lifestyle you disagree with is much lower than the cost of being shunned from your community. Not being able to participate at all is far worse than having to accept people you disagree with. It's the same thing as the freedom of hate speech aspect really, not being allowed to speak is much worse than having to let people you disagree with speak.
Additionally, such laws are really hard to safely write. What the government deems as racism, homophobia, or anything else might just be what you see as either a requirement of your religion or the truth. You can bet a lot of slave-owning gentlemen would consider it "hateful" to be refused service at a bakery just because they're slave owners.
If someone is refusing service to all people based on their race or sexual preference, it's a lot easier to identify. That's an objective piece of criteria. Whether something is "hateful" or not is subjective. Censoring hate speech is basically giving the government power to censor speech it finds offensive or that it doesn't like. That's a dangerous situation, because that judgment is subjective. Refusing to allow someone to deny service to people of a certain race is very different. Additionally, the potential "abuse" of that power is completely different. Being forced to be "too" fair and inclusive in accepting customers is very different than the possibility of censoring legitimate ideas from the national discussion.
Society WOULD probably be better if no individuals ever chose to discriminate, but a LAW requiring that would make society worse.
Already answered this above. Just like in free speech - having to deal with people you dislike is a much lower sacrifice than being shut out entirely because other people disapprove of who you are or what you have to say.
This is and always was about businesses not individuals. No one is agrueing for a law against discrimination on an individual level.
I have a friend who does wedding photography on the side (his main job is as an IT manager). Is he a business or an individual?
[For the record, this isn't a hypothetical, I do have a friend in that situation. Granted he's not in Indiana so is unaffected by the law, but if MA passed the same law which would he be?]
I have a friend who does wedding photography on the side (his main job is as an IT manager). Is he a business or an individual?
[For the record, this isn't a hypothetical, I do have a friend in that situation. Granted he's not in Indiana so is unaffected by the law, but if MA passed the same law which would he be?]
I guess that's for the land/state to decide. But should he/she be considered a business? IMO there should be a distintion between owning a shop and doing this kind of work. After all as a wedding photographer you need to take part in the ceremony much more, as opposed to baking a wedding cake, for instance, where you just do the job you would do anyways for anybody else.
Who exactly is affected by the law in Indiana? As far as I know it only allows people to discriminate for religious reasons etc. If it wasn't forbidden in the first place, what did it actually change?
I agree with Stairc and want to add that bitterroot is gently drifting into making a strawman:
Society WOULD probably be better if no individuals ever chose to discriminate, but a LAW requiring that would make society worse.
This is and always was about businesses not individuals. No one is agrueing for a law against discrimination on an individual level.
If you're going down this road, you have to address the counterarguments to this point that I've already raised twice (1)(2) in this very thread.
Put simply, you need to address three key questions:
1. Why should individuals and businesses be treated differently for purposes of this law?
[Note that a legal business entity can be a single person with no employees, e.g. a freelance photographer. Also note that in many towns an individual can open a storefront without forming a business.]
2. If they should be treated differently, where do we draw the line between "individual" and "business?" Is it just a matter of whether they've legally incorporated? [I could legally incorporate as bitterroot LLC, a "company" whose only business is to post on the MTGS debate forum.]
3. If we figure out 1 and 2, where do we draw the line on what constitutes discrimination? If I want Muslim bakers to make me a cake with the face of Mohammed on it, are they obligated to comply? If I want gay bakers too make me a cake that says "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" are the obligated to make it?
If someone is refusing service to all people based on their race or sexual preference, it's a lot easier to identify. That's an objective piece of criteria.
Objectively, is it discrimination if a Christian baker serves everyone regardless of sexual orientation, but specifically refuses to bake cakes for gay weddings and/or cakes that voice approval of being gay (e.g. "John + Bob 4 Ever")?
Objectively, is it discrimination if a Muslim baker serves everyone regardless of religion, but refuses to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it?
Objectively, is it discrimination if a gay baker refuses to bake a cake with a message condemning gay marriage?
How are these points 'counterarguments'?
(1) is just a question. You don't think a business should be treated differently than a individual at all? You think Walmart should in principle have the right to refuse black people, muslims, atheists or whatever as customers? You just can't deny that they should be treated differently without sounding ridiculous! The only valid question imo is HOW different.
(2) and (3) also aren't counteragruments but just come down to whining. Oh, so much nuance! It's impossible!
How about drawing the line somewhere instead of refusing to draw it at all? Every society can decide for itself what kind of "discrimination" they deem acceptable, but I would prefer to live in one where there is no discimination of minorities at all.
As for the Muslim example. How is this so complicated? A Muslim baker is making cakes. If you want him to make a "offensive" cake, he should have the right to refuse, but not the right to refuse to bake ANY cake, the very product he is offering. But tell me you see the difference here.
The questions in my preceding post are not "counterarguments." My counterarguments were raised earlier in this thread, and I conveniently linked them for you. I will do so again. COUNTERARGUMENT 1. COUNTERARGUMENT 2.
(1) is just a question. You don't think a business should be treated differently than a individual at all? You think Walmart should in principle have the right to refuse black people, muslims, atheists or whatever as customers? You just can't deny that they should be treated differently without sounding ridiculous! The only valid question imo is HOW different.
"We must treat businesses differently from individuals because it sounds ridiculous otherwise" is not an argument. Something that "sounds ridiculous" to you may not sound ridiculous to others.
Do I think Walmart should be treated the same as an individual? No. Walmart is a multinational corporation. But not all businesses are Walmart. Most are very small, and many are owned, operated, and employed by just a single person. Why should these businesses be treated differently than individuals?
(2) and (3) also aren't counteragruments but just come down to whining. Oh, so much nuance! It's impossible!
How about drawing the line somewhere instead of refusing to draw it at all? Every society can decide for itself what kind of "discrimination" they deem acceptable, but I would prefer to live in one where there is no discimination of minorities at all.
Of course we must draw the line somewhere. But it is not "whining" to ask where. Where you would choose to draw the line on these issues is rather central to your argument, is it not?
As for the Muslim example. How is this so complicated? A Muslim baker is making cakes. If you want him to make a "offensive" cake, he should have the right to refuse, but not the right to refuse to bake ANY cake, the very product he is offering. But tell me you see the difference here.
If a christian baker feels that a cake with "Bob + Steve 4 Ever" written on it is "offensive," is he required to bake it?
If a christian baker feels that a cake with "Bob + Steve 4 Ever" written on it is "offensive," is he required to bake it?
No. He is required to bake what he is offering to bake, namely cake. So some business is offering product X. They can't refuse X to anybody based on religion, ect. But what they can refuse is an altered product X+, which they are not offering (in the cake example, a cake + "offensive" message).
As for the rest. I don't regard your posts as counterarguments, but merely as sidepoints. A counterargument refutes another argument, which your points don't do. All you are saying is that there is a grey area. But who is denying that?
Where do I draw the line? How about where the IRS draws it? If you earn enough to have to pay taxes you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. But all this is pretty useless. How should a random internet debate decide how society works? That's for legislators to decide in the end.
The details and grey area are what make it complicated.
Almost everyone agrees that Walmart should be forbidden from hanging a sign in their window that says "No Jews Allowed." And almost everyone agrees that private individuals should be allowed to discriminate.
Everything worth debating about this issue is found in the "details" in between these two extremes. How, where, and why should we draw the line? That's what we're debating.
If you're going to claim that this isn't complicated, and that "[t]his is and always was about businesses not individuals," then you need to show that we can draw a nice clean, uncomplicated line between a business and an individual. My counterarguments that I linked are refuting this claim--it's not easy to draw principled lines here. It's an incredibly complicated and fraught issue.
If a christian baker feels that a cake with "Bob + Steve 4 Ever" written on it is "offensive," is he required to bake it?
No. He is required to bake what he is offering to bake, namely cake. So some business is offering product X. They can't refuse X to anybody based on religion, ect. But what they can refuse is an altered product X+, which they are not offering (in the cake example, a cake + "offensive" message).
What are acceptable definitions of "product X?"
Can a bakery choose to only offer "straight wedding cakes" as product X?
Can a steakhouse choose to offer "steak for consumption only by white people" as product X?
Also, is it ok in your hypothetical world for a person to run a business that doesn't broadcast a standing offer to supply any "product X" to its customers? For example, a baker who only offers specialized cakes in highly customized shapes. Because the baker doesn't offer any "generic" or "normal" cakes, the baker must determine on a case-by-case basis whether to accept the order based on a variety of considerations (whether it will be hard to make the custom cake, how long it will take, how much money is offered, whether the baker agrees with the message of the cake, whether the baker likes the personalities of the people who want to order the cake, how busy the baker is on other projects, etc). What, if any, "product X" is this baker required to supply to all his customers?
The fact that you find some gray areas hard to judge doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be enacted. The gray areas can be worked out in legal cases if need be. Free Speech has gray areas, such as the infamous "shouting fire in a crowded auditorium" and death threats. Saying "There are some areas that I'm not 100% sure of how or if this law should apply, therefore we shouldn't have the law at all" is silly.
The fact that you find some gray areas hard to judge doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be enacted. The gray areas can be worked out in legal cases if need be. Free Speech has gray areas, such as the infamous "shouting fire in a crowded auditorium" and death threats. Saying "There are some areas that I'm not 100% sure of how or if this law should apply, therefore we shouldn't have the law at all" is silly.
What law am I supposedly saying should or shouldn't be enacted?
I'm not saying "we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws because there are grey areas."
I'm saying "a hard-line rule that bans all businesses from discriminating but allows all private individuals to discriminate doesn't make sense. We need to draw the line elsewhere."
And if someone like you or dietl is going to defend the current business/individual hard-line, then you need to address the problems I have identified in the grey areas. Sure, "gray areas can be worked out in legal cases." How do you think that will happen? Lawyers and judges will make arguments just like what we're doing on this debate forum. I'm asking you, as an advocate for your position, to put yourself in their shoes and make those arguments. Tell me which position you think is right and why. That's the point of a debate.
Also, the free speech "grey areas" you're talking about are relatively rare and don't come up often in our day-to-day lives. On the other hand, the vast majority of businesses are small businesses with few to no employees. So the grey areas I'm talking about here are extremely common. Meaning they're extremely important and shouldn't be swept under the rug.
What law am I supposedly saying should or shouldn't be enacted?
You're saying you don't like the current one unde discussion about businesses not being allowed to discriminate, while private individuals are (despite you also claiming that apparently everyone agrees with that).
I'm not saying "we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws because there are grey areas."
You're arguing against the current law because you see gray areas that you don't like.
And if someone like you or dietl is going to defend the current business/individual hard-line, then you need to address the problems I have identified in the grey areas.
Well then.
Sure, "gray areas can be worked out in legal cases." How do you think that will happen? Lawyers and judges will make arguments just like what we're doing on this debate forum.
Yes. And if you believe that's a fine process to follow, then you shouldn't have a problem with legal scholars making those judgments.
I'm asking you, as an advocate for your position, to put yourself in their shoes and make those arguments. Tell me which position you think is right and why. That's the point of a debate.
I posted in this thread to explain to the OP what was wrong with their thinking. They didn't see the difference, and I pointed it out. I don't have an obligation to engage you, nor has your argument on this topic seemed particularly worth engaging with. Seriously, "straight wedding cakes" as a product? That's some pretty absurd wordplay, trying to push the discrimination on who to sell a cake TO onto the product description. Surely a college could offer a "White Education" and be fine with banning all blacks too then?
No, they couldn't, because you can't do silly wordplay like that. You can't discriminate about who to sell your product to based on race, sexual preference and so on. A college could offer what it calls a "white education" - but they can't ban blacks from attending.
Interesting. Let's look at your reply to Stairc on this very page:
That's why I'm surprised that you're so quick to assume that anti-discrimination laws make a "better society."
Here you are calling into question that anti-discrimination laws make for a better society, but now all of a sudden:
Almost everyone agrees that Walmart should be forbidden from hanging a sign in their window that says "No Jews Allowed.
But that's not the best part. I write:
As for the Muslim example. How is this so complicated? A Muslim baker is ...
Then you pick the one sentence that is clearly refering to the example and make it look like I was saying this about the whole discussion. Wow, but it seems you're not finished:
If you're going to claim that this isn't complicated, and that "[t]his is and always was about businesses not individuals," then you need to show that we can draw a nice clean, uncomplicated line between a business and an individual. My counterarguments that I linked are refuting this claim--it's not easy to draw principled lines here. It's an incredibly complicated and fraught issue.
So first you imply a law might be bad, then you're like 'of course discrimination should be forbidden, it's only about grey area blablabla' and then do it again. Calling into question if this should be about individuals. Don't you understand what those words mean, that you utter? I say that it is about businesses not individuals. You make a "counterargument" implying that this is false. I don't need to show you that there is a nice clean or uncomlicated line, when my point is only that there is a line. It might be blurry and complicated but there is one. Show me how you refute this claim, when you agree with it. AGAIN:
Almost everyone agrees that Walmart should be forbidden from hanging a sign in their window that says "No Jews Allowed.
What are acceptable definitions of "product X?"
I don't care if I get banned or something for this. But you are an idiot and a troll. Everything counts as a product. Yes, you can offer "straight wedding cakes", whatever those might be as long as you offer it to gay couples too.
Can a steakhouse choose to offer "steak for consumption only by white people" as product X?
How do you even? Wha...? Please read this again and tell me you think that's a good point...oh sorry, I mean "counterargument".
I'm convinced now that you are just trolling me for you are asking obvioulsly dumb questions and are seemingly intentionally misrepresenting my answers, so I see no point in talking to you anymore. I'm out.
What law am I supposedly saying should or shouldn't be enacted?
You're saying you don't like the current one unde discussion about businesses not being allowed to discriminate, while private individuals are (despite you also claiming that apparently everyone agrees with that).
I see the confusion here. What you seem to be calling the "current one" is the Federal RFRA. And that law does not impose a hard-line rule of "businesses [are] not ... allowed to discriminate, while private individuals are." The Hobby Lobby case, for example, recently held that Hobby Lobby (a business) could refuse to offer birth control to its employees based on religious objections.
And what I claimed "everyone agrees with" is that large, publicly-traded corporations such as Wal-Mart should not be allowed to discriminate. When we talk about privately-owned companies, small companies, that kind of thng, I don't think it's clear anymore.
I'm not saying "we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws because there are grey areas."
You're arguing against the current law because you see gray areas that you don't like.
I'm not arguing against "the current law" if by "the current law" you mean the Federal RFRA. But if you're proposing a rule that allows all individuals to discriminate and forbids all businesses from doing so, then you certainly are arguing against the Federal RFRA.
And it's not a matter of seeing grey areas "I don't like." It's a matter of observing that the vast majority of businesses would be cast into a "grey area" if we adopted a hardline dichotomy like the one you seem to advocate.
Sure, "gray areas can be worked out in legal cases." How do you think that will happen? Lawyers and judges will make arguments just like what we're doing on this debate forum.
Yes. And if you believe that's a fine process to follow, then you shouldn't have a problem with legal scholars making those judgments.
Think back to the concerns you raised about hate speech laws. "What the government deems as hate speech, unpatriotic speech or anything else might just be what you see as either satire or the truth." Blowing off the debate and saying "let's leave these kinds of determinations to legal scholars" is a dangerous game. How should these legal scholars make these decisions? How do you know you're advocating for a good law if you don't know how it will be applied in many cases?
I'm asking you, as an advocate for your position, to put yourself in their shoes and make those arguments. Tell me which position you think is right and why. That's the point of a debate.
I posted in this thread to explain to the OP what was wrong with their thinking. They didn't see the difference, and I pointed it out. I don't have an obligation to engage you, nor has your argument on this topic seemed particularly worth engaging with. Seriously, "straight wedding cakes" as a product? That's some pretty absurd wordplay, trying to push the discrimination on who to sell a cake TO onto the product description. Surely a college could offer a "White Education" and be fine with banning all blacks too then?
No, they couldn't, because you can't do silly wordplay like that. You can't discriminate about who to sell your product to based on race, sexual preference and so on. A college could offer what it calls a "white education" - but they can't ban blacks from attending.
The point of my "straight wedding cakes" example was to highlight the problem with how dietl had phrased his supposedly simple and straightforward rule. Saying that a business has to offer "product X" to all comers is a problematic rule if you allow the business to define "product X" any way it wants. And if a business can't define "product X" any way it wants, then what are the constraints on how it may do so? Is there a rule for what does and doesn't count as "product X?" What is "product X" in my custom cakes example where a baker takes orders on a case-by-case basis and sells nothing off the shelf?
Dismissing my argument as "silly wordplay" is lazy. What you call "silly wordplay," a judge or lawyer might call "a loophole in a poorly-drafted law."
I'm just going to focus on your absurd wordplay for the moment, because if we can't even get past that there isn't much point in talking about more difficult issues.
The law against saying "I'm not selling this car to you because you're black" cannot be skittered around by saying, "This is a car designed for the consumption of non-black people, therefore I'm not selling it to you... Because you're black". You're still not selling the car to them because they're black. That's against the law.
Such can only be considered silly wordplay. You're still plainly and blatantly not selling the product to someone based on their race. You might as well say, "I know killing Steeve would be murder... But this knife exists for the purpose of murdering Steeve, therefore using it to murder Steeve isn't murder." That's as sensible as saying, "I know I'm not allowed to keep blacks out of my restaraunt, but this restaraunt exists for the purpose of serving non-black people... Therefore it's okay to keep blacks out of my restaurant."
I'm just going to focus on your absurd wordplay for the moment, because if we can't even get past that there isn't much point in talking about more difficult issues.
The law against saying "I'm not selling this car to you because you're black" cannot be skittered around by saying, "This is a car designed for the consumption of non-black people, therefore I'm not selling it to you... Because you're black". You're still not selling the car to them because they're black. That's against the law.
Such can only be considered silly wordplay. You're still plainly and blatantly not selling the product to someone based on their race. You might as well say, "I know killing Steeve would be murder... But this knife exists for the purpose of murdering Steeve, therefore using it to murder Steeve isn't murder." That's as sensible as saying, "I know I'm not allowed to keep blacks out of my restaraunt, but this restaraunt exists for the purpose of serving non-black people... Therefore it's okay to keep blacks out of my restaurant."
Certainly the way US law is presently written, "wordplay" in product offerings is not an effective way to avoid liability.
But I was adopting dietl's framwork, where a business is deemed to not be discriminating so long as it offers "product X" to all comers. That's not how the laws are written right now. Neither are the laws presently written to draw a hard line between "individual" and "business." But since dietl seemed to be advocating for both of these things, I was addressing those arguments.
I may be misinterpreting you, but that *isn't* actually a distinction between the Indiana law and the Federal Law. As we learned in the hobby Lobby case. Like I said though, I may be misinterpreting what you are saying here.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
It absolutely is discrimination! But the problem is that culturally we have attached such a connotation to discrimination as being terrible that the reasonable forms stop seeming reasonable simply due to the connotation.
Not allowing 18-wheelers or cars of certain heights into certain areas is discrimination. Not allowing bars to be constructed within a certain area of schools is discrimination. Zoning is discrimination. Our scheme of restrooms is discriminatory.
There are a huge amount of discriminatory actions that we take to make society function, discrimination is not intrinsically bad.
When businesses are allowed to shun groups of people, that's pretty darn negative. Imagine being Irish and being surrounded by signs "No irish need apply" or being black and being told "no, we don't serve your kind".
That's a lot more negative than a bigot being required to sell to a paying customer that they happen to think is going to hell.
Society is better when we people are required to tolerate those they disagree with, than when groups of people can be legally shunned and excluded from whole chunks of their community and denied opportunities. Ideally, no one would ever have to do anything they don't want to do. Unfortunately, some people are bigoted jerks - and we can't simultaneously support bigotry and inclusion. So you have to pick, do you prefer bigotry or inclusion? I'm on the side of inclusion.
So... What's the difference between requirng people to pay for stuff and requiring people to be straight? Several differences actually, but only one really matters... And it's the same reason why we have laws against sending death threats, but not laws against writing blog posts (even though both laws would technically be infringements on free speech). It's because one of those laws makes for a better society and the other doesn't. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Would outlawing hate speech make for a better society?
If so, why is hate speech (by private individuals) not outlawed in the US?
No, it wouldn't. Because society is better when you can't be arrested for expressing your ideas. It's worth having to listen to ideas you despise for the sake of protecting everyone's ability to speak, for a whole host of social and socratic reasons. That's why it shouldn't be outlawed.
Additionally, such laws are really hard to safely write. What the government deems as hate speech, unpatriotic speech or anything else might just be what you see as either satire or the truth. You can bet a lot of slave-owning gentlemen would consider being vilified and called monsters in today's speech referring to slavery would consider that hateful.
Society WOULD probably be better if no individuals ever chose to use hate speech, but a LAW requiring that would make society worse.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I strongly agree with this. I don't support hate speech, but I recognize that regulating hate speech causes more problems than it solves. That's why I'm surprised that you're so quick to assume that anti-discrimination laws make a "better society." Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you need to perform the same cost-benefit comparison as you just performed above.
What would you say to someone who advanced this argument:
Society is better when you can't be arrested for refusing to engage in a voluntary transaction. It's worth being refused service by a few despicable business owners for the sake of protecting everyone's right to engage in voluntary commerce. That's why it shouldn't be outlawed.
Additionally, such laws are really hard to safely write. What the government deems as racism, homophobia, or anything else might just be what you see as either a requirement of your religion or the truth. You can bet a lot of slave-owning gentlemen would consider it "hateful" to be refused service at a bakery just because they're slave owners.
Society WOULD probably be better if no individuals ever chose to discriminate, but a LAW requiring that would make society worse.
I agree. In fact, I did reference that analysis in my original post you were responding to.
I'd say that's absurd, because who's saying this is a "few" despicable business owners? We've seen the impact of segregation, we've seen people disowned by parents and shunned from communities. What if you can't get insured because you're gay, or can't get into college because you're an atheist, or can't get hired because you're muslim? Your whole life can be shunned and shut out. We have examples of this less than a century ago. It clearly did not make for a better society.
Additionally, even if it was a small number of people deciding to refuse service or admissions - that means the imposition on society of those few people being required to serve people they don't like is very small. If only one person is being forced to sell a cake to someone he doesn't like, that's an even smaller net loss.
Bigotry has never been solely a niche position in the history of humanity, and the relative cost of having to sell to people whose lifestyle you disagree with is much lower than the cost of being shunned from your community. Not being able to participate at all is far worse than having to accept people you disagree with. It's the same thing as the freedom of hate speech aspect really, not being allowed to speak is much worse than having to let people you disagree with speak.
If someone is refusing service to all people based on their race or sexual preference, it's a lot easier to identify. That's an objective piece of criteria. Whether something is "hateful" or not is subjective. Censoring hate speech is basically giving the government power to censor speech it finds offensive or that it doesn't like. That's a dangerous situation, because that judgment is subjective. Refusing to allow someone to deny service to people of a certain race is very different. Additionally, the potential "abuse" of that power is completely different. Being forced to be "too" fair and inclusive in accepting customers is very different than the possibility of censoring legitimate ideas from the national discussion.
Already answered this above. Just like in free speech - having to deal with people you dislike is a much lower sacrifice than being shut out entirely because other people disapprove of who you are or what you have to say.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
This is and always was about businesses not individuals. No one is agrueing for a law against discrimination on an individual level.
I have a friend who does wedding photography on the side (his main job is as an IT manager). Is he a business or an individual?
[For the record, this isn't a hypothetical, I do have a friend in that situation. Granted he's not in Indiana so is unaffected by the law, but if MA passed the same law which would he be?]
I guess that's for the land/state to decide. But should he/she be considered a business? IMO there should be a distintion between owning a shop and doing this kind of work. After all as a wedding photographer you need to take part in the ceremony much more, as opposed to baking a wedding cake, for instance, where you just do the job you would do anyways for anybody else.
Who exactly is affected by the law in Indiana? As far as I know it only allows people to discriminate for religious reasons etc. If it wasn't forbidden in the first place, what did it actually change?
If you're going down this road, you have to address the counterarguments to this point that I've already raised twice (1)(2) in this very thread.
Put simply, you need to address three key questions:
1. Why should individuals and businesses be treated differently for purposes of this law?
[Note that a legal business entity can be a single person with no employees, e.g. a freelance photographer. Also note that in many towns an individual can open a storefront without forming a business.]
2. If they should be treated differently, where do we draw the line between "individual" and "business?" Is it just a matter of whether they've legally incorporated? [I could legally incorporate as bitterroot LLC, a "company" whose only business is to post on the MTGS debate forum.]
3. If we figure out 1 and 2, where do we draw the line on what constitutes discrimination? If I want Muslim bakers to make me a cake with the face of Mohammed on it, are they obligated to comply? If I want gay bakers too make me a cake that says "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" are the obligated to make it?
Objectively, is it discrimination if a Christian baker serves everyone regardless of sexual orientation, but specifically refuses to bake cakes for gay weddings and/or cakes that voice approval of being gay (e.g. "John + Bob 4 Ever")?
Objectively, is it discrimination if a Muslim baker serves everyone regardless of religion, but refuses to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it?
Objectively, is it discrimination if a gay baker refuses to bake a cake with a message condemning gay marriage?
(1) is just a question. You don't think a business should be treated differently than a individual at all? You think Walmart should in principle have the right to refuse black people, muslims, atheists or whatever as customers? You just can't deny that they should be treated differently without sounding ridiculous! The only valid question imo is HOW different.
(2) and (3) also aren't counteragruments but just come down to whining. Oh, so much nuance! It's impossible!
How about drawing the line somewhere instead of refusing to draw it at all? Every society can decide for itself what kind of "discrimination" they deem acceptable, but I would prefer to live in one where there is no discimination of minorities at all.
As for the Muslim example. How is this so complicated? A Muslim baker is making cakes. If you want him to make a "offensive" cake, he should have the right to refuse, but not the right to refuse to bake ANY cake, the very product he is offering. But tell me you see the difference here.
The questions in my preceding post are not "counterarguments." My counterarguments were raised earlier in this thread, and I conveniently linked them for you. I will do so again. COUNTERARGUMENT 1. COUNTERARGUMENT 2.
"We must treat businesses differently from individuals because it sounds ridiculous otherwise" is not an argument. Something that "sounds ridiculous" to you may not sound ridiculous to others.
Do I think Walmart should be treated the same as an individual? No. Walmart is a multinational corporation. But not all businesses are Walmart. Most are very small, and many are owned, operated, and employed by just a single person. Why should these businesses be treated differently than individuals?
Of course we must draw the line somewhere. But it is not "whining" to ask where. Where you would choose to draw the line on these issues is rather central to your argument, is it not?
If a christian baker feels that a cake with "Bob + Steve 4 Ever" written on it is "offensive," is he required to bake it?
No. He is required to bake what he is offering to bake, namely cake. So some business is offering product X. They can't refuse X to anybody based on religion, ect. But what they can refuse is an altered product X+, which they are not offering (in the cake example, a cake + "offensive" message).
As for the rest. I don't regard your posts as counterarguments, but merely as sidepoints. A counterargument refutes another argument, which your points don't do. All you are saying is that there is a grey area. But who is denying that?
Where do I draw the line? How about where the IRS draws it? If you earn enough to have to pay taxes you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. But all this is pretty useless. How should a random internet debate decide how society works? That's for legislators to decide in the end.
The entire point of this discussion is to discuss how it should work. If you don't feel like it's worth participating, you are free to leave.
The details and grey area are what make it complicated.
Almost everyone agrees that Walmart should be forbidden from hanging a sign in their window that says "No Jews Allowed." And almost everyone agrees that private individuals should be allowed to discriminate.
Everything worth debating about this issue is found in the "details" in between these two extremes. How, where, and why should we draw the line? That's what we're debating.
If you're going to claim that this isn't complicated, and that "[t]his is and always was about businesses not individuals," then you need to show that we can draw a nice clean, uncomplicated line between a business and an individual. My counterarguments that I linked are refuting this claim--it's not easy to draw principled lines here. It's an incredibly complicated and fraught issue.
What are acceptable definitions of "product X?"
Can a bakery choose to only offer "straight wedding cakes" as product X?
Can a steakhouse choose to offer "steak for consumption only by white people" as product X?
Also, is it ok in your hypothetical world for a person to run a business that doesn't broadcast a standing offer to supply any "product X" to its customers? For example, a baker who only offers specialized cakes in highly customized shapes. Because the baker doesn't offer any "generic" or "normal" cakes, the baker must determine on a case-by-case basis whether to accept the order based on a variety of considerations (whether it will be hard to make the custom cake, how long it will take, how much money is offered, whether the baker agrees with the message of the cake, whether the baker likes the personalities of the people who want to order the cake, how busy the baker is on other projects, etc). What, if any, "product X" is this baker required to supply to all his customers?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
What law am I supposedly saying should or shouldn't be enacted?
I'm not saying "we shouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws because there are grey areas."
I'm saying "a hard-line rule that bans all businesses from discriminating but allows all private individuals to discriminate doesn't make sense. We need to draw the line elsewhere."
And if someone like you or dietl is going to defend the current business/individual hard-line, then you need to address the problems I have identified in the grey areas. Sure, "gray areas can be worked out in legal cases." How do you think that will happen? Lawyers and judges will make arguments just like what we're doing on this debate forum. I'm asking you, as an advocate for your position, to put yourself in their shoes and make those arguments. Tell me which position you think is right and why. That's the point of a debate.
Also, the free speech "grey areas" you're talking about are relatively rare and don't come up often in our day-to-day lives. On the other hand, the vast majority of businesses are small businesses with few to no employees. So the grey areas I'm talking about here are extremely common. Meaning they're extremely important and shouldn't be swept under the rug.
You're saying you don't like the current one unde discussion about businesses not being allowed to discriminate, while private individuals are (despite you also claiming that apparently everyone agrees with that).
You're arguing against the current law because you see gray areas that you don't like.
Well then.
Yes. And if you believe that's a fine process to follow, then you shouldn't have a problem with legal scholars making those judgments.
I posted in this thread to explain to the OP what was wrong with their thinking. They didn't see the difference, and I pointed it out. I don't have an obligation to engage you, nor has your argument on this topic seemed particularly worth engaging with. Seriously, "straight wedding cakes" as a product? That's some pretty absurd wordplay, trying to push the discrimination on who to sell a cake TO onto the product description. Surely a college could offer a "White Education" and be fine with banning all blacks too then?
No, they couldn't, because you can't do silly wordplay like that. You can't discriminate about who to sell your product to based on race, sexual preference and so on. A college could offer what it calls a "white education" - but they can't ban blacks from attending.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Here you are calling into question that anti-discrimination laws make for a better society, but now all of a sudden:
But that's not the best part. I write:
Then you pick the one sentence that is clearly refering to the example and make it look like I was saying this about the whole discussion. Wow, but it seems you're not finished:
So first you imply a law might be bad, then you're like 'of course discrimination should be forbidden, it's only about grey area blablabla' and then do it again. Calling into question if this should be about individuals. Don't you understand what those words mean, that you utter? I say that it is about businesses not individuals. You make a "counterargument" implying that this is false. I don't need to show you that there is a nice clean or uncomlicated line, when my point is only that there is a line. It might be blurry and complicated but there is one. Show me how you refute this claim, when you agree with it. AGAIN:
I don't care if I get banned or something for this. But you are an idiot and a troll. Everything counts as a product. Yes, you can offer "straight wedding cakes", whatever those might be as long as you offer it to gay couples too.
How do you even? Wha...? Please read this again and tell me you think that's a good point...oh sorry, I mean "counterargument".
I'm convinced now that you are just trolling me for you are asking obvioulsly dumb questions and are seemingly intentionally misrepresenting my answers, so I see no point in talking to you anymore. I'm out.
I see the confusion here. What you seem to be calling the "current one" is the Federal RFRA. And that law does not impose a hard-line rule of "businesses [are] not ... allowed to discriminate, while private individuals are." The Hobby Lobby case, for example, recently held that Hobby Lobby (a business) could refuse to offer birth control to its employees based on religious objections.
And what I claimed "everyone agrees with" is that large, publicly-traded corporations such as Wal-Mart should not be allowed to discriminate. When we talk about privately-owned companies, small companies, that kind of thng, I don't think it's clear anymore.
I'm not arguing against "the current law" if by "the current law" you mean the Federal RFRA. But if you're proposing a rule that allows all individuals to discriminate and forbids all businesses from doing so, then you certainly are arguing against the Federal RFRA.
And it's not a matter of seeing grey areas "I don't like." It's a matter of observing that the vast majority of businesses would be cast into a "grey area" if we adopted a hardline dichotomy like the one you seem to advocate.
Think back to the concerns you raised about hate speech laws. "What the government deems as hate speech, unpatriotic speech or anything else might just be what you see as either satire or the truth." Blowing off the debate and saying "let's leave these kinds of determinations to legal scholars" is a dangerous game. How should these legal scholars make these decisions? How do you know you're advocating for a good law if you don't know how it will be applied in many cases?
The point of my "straight wedding cakes" example was to highlight the problem with how dietl had phrased his supposedly simple and straightforward rule. Saying that a business has to offer "product X" to all comers is a problematic rule if you allow the business to define "product X" any way it wants. And if a business can't define "product X" any way it wants, then what are the constraints on how it may do so? Is there a rule for what does and doesn't count as "product X?" What is "product X" in my custom cakes example where a baker takes orders on a case-by-case basis and sells nothing off the shelf?
Dismissing my argument as "silly wordplay" is lazy. What you call "silly wordplay," a judge or lawyer might call "a loophole in a poorly-drafted law."
The law against saying "I'm not selling this car to you because you're black" cannot be skittered around by saying, "This is a car designed for the consumption of non-black people, therefore I'm not selling it to you... Because you're black". You're still not selling the car to them because they're black. That's against the law.
Such can only be considered silly wordplay. You're still plainly and blatantly not selling the product to someone based on their race. You might as well say, "I know killing Steeve would be murder... But this knife exists for the purpose of murdering Steeve, therefore using it to murder Steeve isn't murder." That's as sensible as saying, "I know I'm not allowed to keep blacks out of my restaraunt, but this restaraunt exists for the purpose of serving non-black people... Therefore it's okay to keep blacks out of my restaurant."
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Certainly the way US law is presently written, "wordplay" in product offerings is not an effective way to avoid liability.
But I was adopting dietl's framwork, where a business is deemed to not be discriminating so long as it offers "product X" to all comers. That's not how the laws are written right now. Neither are the laws presently written to draw a hard line between "individual" and "business." But since dietl seemed to be advocating for both of these things, I was addressing those arguments.