If you goal is to improve this country, then you need to ask yourself why there are rules, and how they actually work out.
If your goal is to end discrimination, will telling people they cant for x reason but not y really do much?
Hardly, religious freedom is all ready covered in the Bill of Rights to begin with.
I would say it does a ton! I mean we say you can't for x reason but not y all the time. That's basically mens rea in a nutshell. Most crimes are only crimes because of the reason why you took that action.
Aggressive government intervention eliminated in a matter of years a systemic exclusion from public spaces for black people that had persisted for centuries. If that's not success I don't know what is?
Aggressive government helped, I would not say eliminated. Also, the problem would have likely not been as big had government not aggressively promoted the systemic.
To be clear, this is a situation when I feel like government had a big roll in fixing the problem. I think society then is very different from the one we have now. I think letting people be overtly dumb will let the rest of us know who and what to avoid.
I feel like its a great sign that large companies are stepping up and boycotting the state. I hope this brings to life the type of people out there.
I think my main point is that you cannot legislate good people. I think there is a role of government making sure this wont get out of hand, but for now, I think a lot of good can come from it.
I am also a bit biased, because my best friend is gay. Having seen how some people treat him has galvanized my view on gay rights.
A case by case basis sounds suspiciously like rule by man, where an identical action can be legal during one administration yet illegal under the next, even though no law changed. I dislike that greatly. In principle I think we should all be under the exact same laws. I can bend a bit, as per the federal law and those in that vane that restrict government in favor of minorities. But when we protect religious freedom to the extent that we sanction disenfranchising some people, even acknowledging that they can be served elsewhere, I think that's a giant step back. Equal protection should mean just that, and if increasing one person's right to religious freedom begins decreasing another person's equality, then we've gone too far.
Look at chick fil a. The head of the company does not like gay people. Do you think that the company sells to gay people because they have to, or because they want to make money?
I don't think you're addressing my other point though, in that can you really claim a class is being "disenfranchised" if they'll be served in one fashion (ex: sold a birthday cake) but not in another (not sold a wedding cake).
Or, to take religion out of the occasion, what if a black print shop owner refused to print signs for a white group because the owner found the printed message they requested to be racially offensive? Should the business owner be allowed to do this?
Yes, they sell to gays because the law requires them to.
Yes, they sell to gays because the law requires them to. When they came out as anti-gay their profits had a significant increase, certainly more significant than the 1-2% loss in sells they would suffer by refusing to sell from gays. The fact is most gays (and many who support them) refuse to eat there already, banning them would cause almost no damage to their sells, but the media attention would almost certainly be a major gain for them.
In every thread we have had about chic-fil-a we had a clear majority that said that they didn't care that they actively support anti-gay groups because the food is good, another smaller, but significant group that said they would go out of their way to support them for their stance, and a very small minority who said they oppose to the point that will will not frequent the establishment due to their stance.
This same would hold true for any business that decided to discriminate against a small minority. Most people just won't care, a few will actively support them, and a very few will boycott them. Overall, it is probably a winning proposition for most business.
Hardly, religious freedom is all ready covered in the Bill of Rights to begin with.
Businesses in Indiana are placing signs in their front windows "We serve everyone" Like it.
Also heard interview with a woman who owns a pizza shop saying she would refuse selling pizzas to a gay couple for wedding. Took guts to answer.
A good follow-up question if a hetero couple wanted the same would she ask if they engaged in premarital sex? If they said yes would she refuse the sale.
I thought religion was a protected class federally?
You should look into the company a little more. They are a private company, so they are no longer disclosing their earnings, but they did do something funny.
http://aattp.org/after-prayin-on-it-chik-fil-a-ceo-regrets-being-a-homophobic-bigoted-a-hole/
See, profits made them change their tune. They indeed saw a sales bump, but that is because they were the only ones out there signaling their discrimination. If you look at how many are anti discrimination, you will see that its the popular view. This means that if you were to have multiple companies coming out with the same view, you would split that group. Chik Fil A wants to make money. They cannot do it unless they get more than just the Christian right.
There is a reason they are not disclosing their profits though. Their brand is damaged right now, and they are trying to fix it. What happened is what we want to happen. Public shame has hurt the company, and they changed.
Their brand has not been hurt, nor are their profits suffering. In 2014 Chick-Fil-A surpassed KFC in total sales making them the #1 chicken fast food franchise, with Chick-Fil-A's average sales increased 3.8 percent year to year. Overall it is calculated that they increased their market share by 12 percent due to the anti-gay controversy. They are currently expanding with more than a 100 new locations this year.
What they did was lip-service because the laws will not allow then to actually discriminate there is no downside to them wrapping themselves in their faith and giving lip-service to the minority. If you would look deeper, you would notice that they did not actually stop funding the hate groups they helped to create, instead the moved the money around creating a new shell company that is funded from the Chic-Fil-A profits that in turn funds the hate groups.
A better question is if we can force gay bakers to bake cakes for the Westboro Baptist Church.
Their brand has not been hurt, nor are their profits suffering. In 2014 Chick-Fil-A surpassed KFC in total sales making them the #1 chicken fast food franchise, with Chick-Fil-A's average sales increased 3.8 percent year to year. Overall it is calculated that they increased their market share by 12 percent due to the anti-gay controversy. They are currently expanding with more than a 100 new locations this year.
What they did was lip-service because the laws will not allow then to actually discriminate there is no downside to them wrapping themselves in their faith and giving lip-service to the minority. If you would look deeper, you would notice that they did not actually stop funding the hate groups they helped to create, instead the moved the money around creating a new shell company that is funded from the Chic-Fil-A profits that in turn funds the hate groups.
The answer is yes. Now if you are WBC would you eat that cake??
If I'm the baker that cake will be "special"
The answer is no. People shouldn't be forced to participate in an exchange of goods, whatever their motivation.
Can you give me the source for saying that they grew 12% because of the anti-gay statements? Its pretty bold and I have not seen it, but if you have something I will change my mind on this issue.
Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in an exchange of goods, it's just that if you open your business to the public you must serve the public. That's a choice, and choices carry consequences with them.
Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in an exchange of goods, it's just that if you open your business to the public you must serve the public. That's a choice. By your logic the government shouldn't be able to force businesses to have insurance, or keep their building up to code, etc, etc. All of those are forced transactions that are required of businesses open to the public, yet nobody complains about them.
I'm sorry, but the notion of forcing Jewish bakers to bake goods featuring Nazi symbolisms, if such a customer comes into their business, is horrible. Business owners should have the freedom to express their conscience regarding how they do business, and with whom.
People have every right under the law to refuse to perform a service based on the message. That's how Walmart and other places have repeatedly refused to make "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cakes and such.
To relate it back to this, while the bakery must provide a wedding cake to the person, they can't be forced to write "I love gay sex" on it or something.
If I'm looking for a job, my business is open to the public. I'm seeking customers who will purchase goods I can provide: my labor. Do I now have to accept the first job offer that comes my way?
I'm sorry, but the notion of forcing Jewish bakers to bake goods featuring Nazi symbolisms, if such a customer comes into their business, is horrible. Business owners should have the freedom to express their conscience regarding how they do business, and with whom.
If I'm looking for a job, my business is open to the public. I'm seeking customers who will purchase goods I can provide: my labor. Do I now have to accept the first job offer that comes my way?