U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

On a certain level though, anti-discrimination laws do force people to do things against their will. That's precisely why anti-federalism made a comeback after the Brown decision.
So I don't know about the government "not rocking the boat like that." The U.S. government has always been fine with limiting individual liberties, it's just more careful not to say it as clearly as other governments when it does, for obvious ideological reasons.

It's one thing to impose such policies during the 1950s and quite another to do so now. The 1950s and immediately preceding post-war years were a time of rapid economic growth (see, for example, the 100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending study) and I don't just mean for the people at the top (which is what that phrase has come to mean today), but for everyone. When your life is continuously getting better and it seems that your society is well on its way towards the United Federation of Planets (that series is from the 1960s, but there were similar utopias earlier), it's not much of a risk to impose equality by fiat -- some people might be angry, but not nearly enough to the extent that they'd do anything about it.

On the other hand, today people are already angry enough to elect a populist. You don't see many angry American conservatives on these forums (possibly because some of the things I've heard from such people in real life would be grounds for a ban here), but if you read a variety of American media, they're pretty easy to find. It wouldn't take very much to go from Make American Great Again to Take Our Country Back or worse.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, mankytoes said:

So to be clear, if, say McDonalds said "we aren't serving Jews anymore", you'd be in favour of their right to do that?

On the flip side, can a Jewish cake-maker refuse to make a Neo-Nazi wedding cake in the shape of a Swastika? 

Anti-discrimination laws are a two-edged sword, and they don't always work to protect the innocent form the tyrant

When it comes to the Christian cake maker and the gay couple, the answer seems like a no-brainer, but the broad consequences are not necessarily all good. One could argue that it's a reasonable price to pay for some discrimination to be permitted because that will serve to protect historically oppressed groups to a greater degree than strictly preventing discrimination.

As much as I support the gay couple in this particular case, I'm conflicted about the broader ramifications of an unequivocal decision in their favour. Particularly in the US's current political climate where hate groups seem to feel empowered to act on things that previously they only talked about wanting to do, but knew they couldn't get away with.

[Starkess]

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On the flip side, can a Jewish cake-maker refuse to make a Neo-Nazi wedding cake in the shape of a Swastika? 

Yes, because Nazis are not a protected class.

[Yukle]

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Anti-discrimination laws are a two-edged sword, and they don't always work to protect the innocent form the tyrant

When it comes to the Christian cake maker and the gay couple, the answer seems like a no-brainer, but the broad consequences are not necessarily all good.

This is probably a fair way of saying it.

A crucial point to consider here is that the cake maker is a private business. There are immediate ramifications are that he loses money as a result of this decision. The nuance to this decision comes from the fact that he didn't refuse service entirely, just the specific order of a cake itself. That's still discriminatory, but it relates to a very specific set of parameters and his religious understanding of those views.

This isn't to say that he made the correct and ethical decision here. It's more that the law cannot be enforced so specifically in this instance. There's always a difference between what is ethical and what is legal (and sadly, they don't always intersect). So in this particular instance, a pragmatic approach would be to let this matter go, as you say, in order that a case where society would be appalled isn't strengthened.

[The Anti-Targ]

15 minutes ago, Starkess said:

Yes, because Nazis are not a protected class.

Isn't creed a protected class? Neo-Nazism is a creed is it not?

Maybe some thing are better to be tried in the court of public opinion, rather than the supreme court

[Altherion]

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't creed a protected class? Neo-Nazism is a creed is it not?

No, creed is not a protected class. Wiki has a list of them. However... if they manage to wrap it into a religion (it's not that hard given the nature of their beliefs), they'd have a case except that the courts are pretty good at throwing such things out. Keep in mind that the "protected classes" are not absolutely protected. For example, discrimination against white people is perfectly acceptable (if this was not the case, affirmative action and other "diversity" initiatives would be illegal) whereas discrimination against black people is not. There's a moderate to fair chance that if things keep going as they currently are, this will lead to non-trivial violence, but for the moment, that's how it works and there's no slippery slope argument to be made here.

[mankytoes]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On the flip side, can a Jewish cake-maker refuse to make a Neo-Nazi wedding cake in the shape of a Swastika? 

Anti-discrimination laws are a two-edged sword, and they don't always work to protect the innocent form the tyrant

When it comes to the Christian cake maker and the gay couple, the answer seems like a no-brainer, but the broad consequences are not necessarily all good. One could argue that it's a reasonable price to pay for some discrimination to be permitted because that will serve to protect historically oppressed groups to a greater degree than strictly preventing discrimination.

As much as I support the gay couple in this particular case, I'm conflicted about the broader ramifications of an unequivocal decision in their favour. Particularly in the US's current political climate where hate groups seem to feel empowered to act on things that previously they only talked about wanting to do, but knew they couldn't get away with.

I've already said I don't think people should be forced to produce things with political messages. It's a simple difference- being a Jew (without getting into the whole religion/race thing) isn't a choice, being a Nazi is. If the Jew wanted a cake which said "Support the Occupation of the West Bank", then not making it would be legitimate.

 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I've already said I don't think people should be forced to produce things with political messages. It's a simple difference- being a Jew (without getting into the whole religion/race thing) isn't a choice, being a Nazi is. If the Jew wanted a cake which said "Support the Occupation of the West Bank", then not making it would be legitimate.

 

Believing in fairy tales is a choice too. And is effectively incorporation into a political stance. Does Jace have the right to refuse treatment to people who look like they vote Republican and whisper words of power at the air?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

45 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I've already said I don't think people should be forced to produce things with political messages. It's a simple difference- being a Jew (without getting into the whole religion/race thing) isn't a choice, being a Nazi is. If the Jew wanted a cake which said "Support the Occupation of the West Bank", then not making it would be legitimate.

Before that discussion drifts off, you are aware this was about a wedding cake for a gay couple? Being gay isn't actually a choice either. Getting married is a choice, but if you oppose the concept of marriage for political reasons (whatever they maybe) then you are probably in the wrong buisness when you make wedding cakes.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

No, creed is not a protected class. Wiki has a list of them. However... if they manage to wrap it into a religion (it's not that hard given the nature of their beliefs), they'd have a case except that the courts are pretty good at throwing such things out. Keep in mind that the "protected classes" are not absolutely protected. For example, discrimination against white people is perfectly acceptable (if this was not the case, affirmative action and other "diversity" initiatives would be illegal) whereas discrimination against black people is not. There's a moderate to fair chance that if things keep going as they currently are, this will lead to non-trivial violence, but for the moment, that's how it works and there's no slippery slope argument to be made here.

Erm from the Wiki you linked:

Quote

U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information (added in 2008).

What isn't a federally protected class is sexual orientation. But many states do include sexual orientation as a protected class.

If you exclude creed, then basically it makes political affiliation open for discrimination. You can make your business a Democratic or Republican only workplace.

I do wonder though, this primarly applies to employment and federal contracts / sercives. Can it really be brought to bear on commercial (un)willing buyer / (un)willing seller transactions?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

On the flip side, can a Jewish cake-maker refuse to make a Neo-Nazi wedding cake in the shape of a Swastika? 

Anti-discrimination laws are a two-edged sword, and they don't always work to protect the innocent form the tyrant

When it comes to the Christian cake maker and the gay couple, the answer seems like a no-brainer, but the broad consequences are not necessarily all good. One could argue that it's a reasonable price to pay for some discrimination to be permitted because that will serve to protect historically oppressed groups to a greater degree than strictly preventing discrimination.

As much as I support the gay couple in this particular case, I'm conflicted about the broader ramifications of an unequivocal decision in their favour. Particularly in the US's current political climate where hate groups seem to feel empowered to act on things that previously they only talked about wanting to do, but knew they couldn't get away with.

I think you have hit the nail on the head in these cases.  If a baker or bakery refuses to sell a generic cake to a couple because the baker or bakery has religious objections to selling such a generic cake to that couple existing accommodations laws should apply and the Baker and Bakery should be held in violation of said laws.  However, if the Baker or Bakery is asked to create a specially designed cake commemorating something that the Baker or Bakery has sincerely held religious (or non-religious) objections to that Baker or Bakery should be able to refuse that commission.  

To me the key to the entire question is whether the Baker or Bakery is refusing to sell something the Baker or Bakery offers to the general public for sale or refusing to accept a commission to create what amounts to a work of art because of sincere objections to the commission.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

To me the key to the entire question is whether the Baker or Bakery is refusing to sell something the Baker or Bakery offers to the general public for sale or refusing to accept a commission to create what amounts to a work of art because of sincere objections to the commission.

Isn't the definition of art a bit of a slippery slope argument? I know cake making is a difficult craft, particular if it's those multi level things and a lot of artistry goes into it, so I don't mean to belittle it. However if you have a company that specializes in those cakes, I'd argue it becomes sort of a generic product for the bakery - like in this our standard wedding cake. I mean, would you also take the position of sincere objections to the comission if it were a carpenter working on a new porch/balcony on a house? Or a new kitchen. You can extend that list.

[Martell Spy]

There was no writing on the cake in question.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Notone said:

Isn't the definition of art a bit of a slippery slope argument? I know cake making is a difficult craft, particular if it's those multi level things and a lot of artistry goes into it, so I don't mean to belittle it. However if you have a company that specializes in those cakes, I'd argue it becomes sort of a generic product for the bakery - like in this our standard wedding cake. I mean, would you also take the position of sincere objections to the comission if it were a carpenter working on a new porch/balcony on a house? Or a new kitchen. You can extend that list.

I agree with you if the cake is generic.  If it is the couple walking into the bakery pointing to the cake in the display case and saying "we want that one for our wedding" then you have a case of X that is offered to the general public for sale and the Baker/Bakery refusing to sell and violating public accommodations laws.  

The alternative is where the couple comes in and requests a special cake with specific designs as a commission from the Baker/Bakery.  If the Baker/Bakery has sincere objections in the second circumstance I believe they should be able to refuse that commission because it is a special request not the "generic wedding cake" that is offered for general sale.

The carpenter hypothetical is interesting.  Does carpentry constituted "art"?

  It can.  But should a Carpenter who discovers his clients are Neo-Nazi's be able to refuse to complete a contract because of that discovery?  Would this be a simple breach of contract case or would the discovery of the "I love Hitler" plaque in the house be grounds for the Carpenter to refuse to complete the work contract and simply return any money paid by the Neo-Nazis who hired the Carpenter?  

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Erm from the Wiki you linked:

What isn't a federally protected class is sexual orientation. But many states do include sexual orientation as a protected class.

If you exclude creed, then basically it makes political affiliation open for discrimination. You can make your business a Democratic or Republican only workplace.

I do wonder though, this primarly applies to employment and federal contracts / sercives. Can it really be brought to bear on commercial (un)willing buyer / (un)willing seller transactions?

That's interesting, I thought they meant it as a synonym for religion, but it appears you are right -- it does apply to a system of beliefs. I wonder why the various right-wing groups have not tried to use this against the social media companies when the latter kick them off.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Ser Scot A Ellison

I think the message has to be pretty damn overt for the baker to be protected by the First Amendment. If a gay couple comes in and asks for a rainbow cake that says “Congratulations on your gay marriage, Sam and Steve,” then yeah, the baker shouldn’t be forced to make the cake. But if it’s just a generic cake that says, “Congratulations Sam and Steve,” where Sam could be a man or a woman, then yes, the baker should have to absolutely make them the cake. A person’s right to not be discriminated against should generally trump a person’s religious freedoms and free speech, especially since the former is something that can’t be proven while discrimination is rather easy to demonstrate and confirm.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison

I think the message has to be pretty damn overt for the baker to be protected by the First Amendment. If a gay couple comes in and asks for a rainbow cake that says “Congratulations on your gay marriage, Sam and Steve,” then yeah, the baker shouldn’t be forced to make the cake. But if it’s just a generic cake that says, “Congratulations Sam and Steve,” where Sam could be a man or a woman, then yes, the baker should have to absolutely make them the cake. A person’s right to not be discriminated against should generally trump a person’s religious freedoms and free speech, especially since the former is something that can’t be proven while discrimination is rather easy to demonstrate and confirm.

I can get behind that in this context and in the context of public accommodations laws.  That said I do think artists generally should have the ability to decline commissions they do not want to undertake for any or no reason.  Otherwise, they are just servants to the people who offer to hire them without the ability choose what they do and do not want to work on.

[Ormond]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison

I think the message has to be pretty damn overt for the baker to be protected by the First Amendment. If a gay couple comes in and asks for a rainbow cake that says “Congratulations on your gay marriage, Sam and Steve,” then yeah, the baker shouldn’t be forced to make the cake. But if it’s just a generic cake that says, “Congratulations Sam and Steve,” where Sam could be a man or a woman, then yes, the baker should have to absolutely make them the cake. A person’s right to not be discriminated against should generally trump a person’s religious freedoms and free speech, especially since the former is something that can’t be proven while discrimination is rather easy to demonstrate and confirm.

As a name expert I am not completely OK with your example. I don't think this issue should be decided on the basis of whether one of the names on the cake is ambiguous according to gender at this particular moment in our culture. Wherever we draw the line, I don't think it should put Sam and Steve on one side and Mark & Roger or Sarah & Sue on the other. Surely people shouldn't be discriminated against or not just because of their names.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I can get behind that in this context and in the context of public accommodations laws.  That said I do think artists generally should have the ability to decline commissions they do not want to undertake for any or no reason.  Otherwise, they are just servants to the people who offer to hire them without the ability choose what they do and do not want to work on.

I think where the ambiguity of art should come in is if it’s unique. That’s why I brought up a rainbow cake. If that’s something the artist would normally not make, then yes, it’s art because it’s unique expression. But if the gay couple just wants a cake the baker would otherwise make for anyone else, then the baker should have to make it for them, even if they know it’s for a wedding they’re opposed to.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Ormond said:

As a name expert I am not completely OK with your example. I don't think this issue should be decided on the basis of whether one of the names on the cake is ambiguous according to gender at this particular moment in our culture. Wherever we draw the line, I don't think it should put Sam and Steve on one side and Mark & Roger or Sarah & Sue on the other. Surely people shouldn't be discriminated against or not just because of their names.

The point was to highlight that you can’t say in one circumstance you would make the cake, but not in another. That’s what clearly makes it discrimination and not art.