Bake the Cake.... and Do My Return.... OR ELSE!

[jamil]

This topic reminds me of what's wrong with SJWs. I think it's fine to advocate for social justice. But when the thing you're advocating for is the power to impose your subjective morality on everyone else, that's where it goes too far. When the only tool to navigate conflicting subjective morals is "BIGOT"! Everyone you don't agree with looks like a bigot.

Tolerance? That's a two way street.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Doug. DOUG. C'mon man. What are we gonna do with you? I'm pretty sure "bad taste in clothes" is not a protected class. Half the things you listed aren't protected. Nor should they be. And "inappropriate" is subjective. Laws need to be objective. And really they should be for the purpose of protecting rights, and preventing harm. Not enforce the subjective social justice you want.

Using government to enforce your societal ideals, or stamp out bigotry, is a colossal misuse of government. Especially, when it's subjective, you or I could just be full of ****. So we should think about that before we go imposing subjective morality on the rest of society. It's generally safe to let society work some stuff out for themselves, like decide who to transact with. I can see putting some rules around that to protect from a community of business owners being able to effectively "cancel" individuals through exclusion. Government enforcement should be limited to protecting against actual harm. A person having their feels hurt because someone doesn't like their blue hair IS NOT HARM.

There are two sides to colliding rights. For the purposes of policy, I don't actually care if a business owner--or a customer--is the worst bigoted ******* around. It's crappy to deal with bigots. It's not illegal. That would be an absurd and subjective standard. We can't even agree that the tax preparer was actually being a bigot. As long as there are other viable choices, the least infringement is to let people on both sides of a transaction decide if they want to transact. That means both parties have veto power.

Seriously though. Taste in clothes? How far can you go with that? I mean think that through a bit. How is that not gonna get abused?

Like credit card companies that refuse gun-related transactions, effectively "canceling" gun owners and gun businesses? Now, so far there are other credit card companies that will do business with this group, but what happens when there aren't?

 

[jamil]

Like credit card companies that refuse gun-related transactions, effectively "canceling" gun owners and gun businesses? Now, so far there are other credit card companies that will do business with this group, but what happens when there aren't?

Something like that. As long as there’s a viable alternative government should stay out of it. So like if a bunch of businesses get together and decide to exclude a person or group of people, for behavior that’s not illegal, yeah. Of course it has to be well defined. An associations of banks colluding to impose defacto gun bans by making it impossible to do transactions involving guns, I would call that “canceling”. That should be illegal.

 

[Cameramonkey]

One of the bases for the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act applying to private businesses was the lack of alternatives for African-Americans in many places. Whether you believe that is an adequate basis or not, can we say that there is a lack of alternatives for tax preparers? Bakeries? Florists? It seems to me that the emphasis is not on making sure that needed services are available (they are), it’s on forced compliance with the accepted viewpoint.

Like credit card companies that refuse gun-related transactions, effectively "canceling" gun owners and gun businesses? Now, so far there are other credit card companies that will do business with this group, but what happens when there aren't?

So I should be forced to do Shannon Watts' and her cohorts' taxes if they asked? I disagree strongly with their beliefs and want nothing to do with them. Or Catholics. They just put too much emphasis on The Virgin Mary (and diddling little boys) for my taste. I cant say no to them either?

I agree with HM. There are plenty of places today if somebody says no. Like the company this specific tax lady suggested. She didnt just say no, she said "No, but this company will do it.".

 

[jamil]

So I should be forced to do Shannon Watts' and her cohorts' taxes if they asked? I disagree strongly with their beliefs and want nothing to do with them. Or Catholics. They just put too much emphasis on The Virgin Mary (and diddling little boys) for my taste. I cant say no to them either?

I agree with HM. There are plenty of places today if somebody says no. Like the company this specific tax lady suggested. She didnt just say no, she said "No, but this company will do it.".

Oh no. You can say no to Catholics all you want. You can't say no to blue hair or distasteful attire.

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug. DOUG. C'mon man. What are we gonna do with you? I'm pretty sure "bad taste in clothes" is not a protected class. Half the things you listed aren't protected. Nor should they be. And "inappropriate" is subjective. Laws need to be objective. And really they should be for the purpose of protecting rights, and preventing harm. Not enforce the subjective social justice you want.

Using government to enforce your societal ideals, or stamp out bigotry, is a colossal misuse of government. Especially, when it's subjective, you or I could just be full of ****. So we should think about that before we go imposing subjective morality on the rest of society. It's generally safe to let society work some stuff out for themselves, like decide who to transact with. I can see putting some rules around that to protect from a community of business owners being able to effectively "cancel" individuals through exclusion. Government enforcement should be limited to protecting against actual harm. A person having their feels hurt because someone doesn't like their blue hair IS NOT HARM.

There are two sides to colliding rights. For the purposes of policy, I don't actually care if a business owner--or a customer--is the worst bigoted ******* around. It's crappy to deal with bigots. It's not illegal. That would be an absurd and subjective standard. We can't even agree that the tax preparer was actually being a bigot. As long as there are other viable choices, the least infringement is to let people on both sides of a transaction decide if they want to transact. That means both parties have veto power.

Seriously though. Taste in clothes? How far can you go with that? I mean think that through a bit. How is that not gonna get abused?

You're exaggerating a bit when you say "Half the things you listed aren't protected..."

Gay = Maybe(?) protected
Black = Protected (race)
Asian = Protected (race)
Multicoloured hair = Not protected
Bad taste in clothing = Maybe(?) protected
Jewish = Protected (religion)

Meh, OK. You didn't exaggerate.

The gay depends on the state, unsure of federal. The clothing could be of a type that is generally worn by an ethnic group, or possibly a hijab or kippah.

My point wasn't whether or not it was protected, my point was if you open a business you're going to deal with people you don't like. So suck it up and deal with them, unless and until they give an individually specific reason not to.

Using government to enforce social ideals leaning one way or the other is wrong! I agree 100%. However, using the government to enforce basic rules of trade and commerce for all citizens and legal visitors equally so that all will have the same access to goods is NOT pushing a social ideal, it is cancelling a negative. It is simply saying that "If you hang out your shingle to the public, then you must treat the public without regard to race, creed, colour, or religion." Note: the government may, as society changes, add additional forms of discrimination as not tolerated. This does not force any social ideal, it simply puts your personal intolerance on a leash when operating under the umbrella of commerce.

The government should not attempt in any way to give advantages to any specific group of people, this would be wrong and the favoritism I disagree with. The government is well within its legal and moral authority to say that every citizen will have equal opportunities that they may exploit on their own. If I need a lawyer I want the best I can afford, not the best, just the best I can afford. If I need an accountant, I want the best I can afford, and so on. If I as a straight white christian male have unfettered access to all of these benefits through the free market, then there should be no reason for a gay black atheist to not also have the same access. He may make more money than me, or less money. But when we both have access to the best we can get then the free flow of commerce is maximized and the whole country does better.

Think back to red lining. Why should black folks have complained about being kept out of certain neighborhoods? After all, they could buy a similar home, same square footage, same age, same distance to and from work and schools, etc. Under this line of thinking I am swimming upstream against there is absolutely no reason that red lining should have ever been done away with. If a gay person could get their taxes done by someone else, how is that different from a black person being able to buy a good home, just somewhere else?

Yet the government did step in and in the end ban the practice of red lining. Overreach or no?

You and I both agree, I believe, that government should NOT show favoritism to any group of people. Where we are apparently disagreeing is in how the government may level the playing field by suppressing intolerance.

Regards,

Doug

PS - After thinking about it I do believe I prefer pie to cake, although a good carrot cake is a wonderful thing!

 

[jamil]

You're exaggerating a bit when you say "Half the things you listed aren't protected..."

Gay = Maybe(?) protected
Black = Protected (race)
Asian = Protected (race)
Multicoloured hair = Not protected
Bad taste in clothing = Maybe(?) protected
Jewish = Protected (religion)

Meh, OK. You didn't exaggerate.

The gay depends on the state, unsure of federal. The clothing could be of a type that is generally worn by an ethnic group, or possibly a hijab or kippah.

My point wasn't whether or not it was protected, my point was if you open a business you're going to deal with people you don't like. So suck it up and deal with them, unless and until they give an individually specific reason not to.

Using government to enforce social ideals leaning one way or the other is wrong! I agree 100%. However, using the government to enforce basic rules of trade and commerce for all citizens and legal visitors equally so that all will have the same access to goods is NOT pushing a social ideal, it is cancelling a negative. It is simply saying that "If you hang out your shingle to the public, then you must treat the public without regard to race, creed, colour, or religion." Note: the government may, as society changes, add additional forms of discrimination as not tolerated. This does not force any social ideal, it simply puts your personal intolerance on a leash when operating under the umbrella of commerce.

Then what are we talking about? You don't like the Christian's interpretation? Go have a bible study and set her straight.

But, you agreed with making the person do the taxes at a conceptual level. You say we shouldn't use government to enforce social ideals, then you change the term to "enforce basic rules of trade", which is then described in the rest of the paragraph as essentially social ideals. You can't describe social ideals and then say it doesn't force any social ideal. Government should have the authority to enforce laws against actual harm. And not a whole lot else. If you have to walk across the street to use a different tax preparer--ain't like there's a shortage--that's definitely some legitimate hurt feelings. It's not harm.

As I said though, if it's a matter of businesses colluding to exclude someone, such that they can't operate in the world, THAT's harm. That kind of rule shouldn't be based on protected classes though. It shouldn't matter if the basis is on religion or race or sex or whatever. It should apply equally to individuals or groups. Did you collude with or leverage other tax preparers not to serve any gay couples? Did you (rhetorical 'you') collude with or leverage tax preparers not to serve Joe Schmuck because he's a schmuck who's been ****ing your daughter? Same thing. We should not permit people with power, whether government or corporate or social, to effectively 'cancel' people for any reason.

The government should not attempt in any way to give advantages to any specific group of people, this would be wrong and the favoritism I disagree with. The government is well within its legal and moral authority to say that every citizen will have equal opportunities that they may exploit on their own. If I need a lawyer I want the best I can afford, not the best, just the best I can afford. If I need an accountant, I want the best I can afford, and so on. If I as a straight white christian male have unfettered access to all of these benefits through the free market, then there should be no reason for a gay black atheist to not also have the same access. He may make more money than me, or less money. But when we both have access to the best we can get then the free flow of commerce is maximized and the whole country does better.

You don't think this is favoritism? The gay couple is given preference over the christian. The customer is given preference over the business. There are two parties to the transaction. When the government steps in to force one to transact with the other, that's favoritism.

Think back to red lining. Why should black folks have complained about being kept out of certain neighborhoods? After all, they could buy a similar home, same s
quare footage, same age, same distance to and from work and schools, etc. Under this line of thinking I am swimming upstream against there is absolutely no reason that red lining should have ever been done away with. If a gay person could get their taxes done by someone else, how is that different from a black person being able to buy a good home, just somewhere else?

Yet the government did step in and in the end ban the practice of red lining. Overreach or no?

That's colluding to exclude people. It shouldn't even be about race though. If an industry is excluding people as in this situation, that's harm.

You and I both agree, I believe, that government should NOT show favoritism to any group of people. Where we are apparently disagreeing is in how the government may level the playing field by suppressing intolerance.

Regards,

Doug

PS - After thinking about it I do believe I prefer pie to cake, although a good carrot cake is a wonderful thing!

Doug, you can't say "Using government to enforce social ideals leaning one way or the other is wrong! I agree 100%." and then say the government should suppress intolerance. No they shouldn't. Who gets to define "intolerance"? A gay couple singling out a christian baker, knowing the baker would refuse them, so that they could make a federal case of it is intolerance. It's just not a kind of intolerance forbidden. I'm not saying I agree with the baker. I'm not even christian.

Where we disagree I think is even simpler than how the government may suppress intolerance. It's whether it should. This is a case of trying to legislate morality. It's fine to legislate objective morals. It's not fine to legislate subjective morals because, being subjective, someone's going to be on the losing end of the transaction. And maybe you think it's fine if the loser is an *******. But being an ******* shouldn't be a determining factor in policy.

 

[jamil]

I wish ingo would let me say *******. I mean. It's not all that bad. I can say "ass". But if I put "hole" on the end of it, it somehow converts it into an unprintable word.

 

[HoughMade]

I wish ingo would let me say *******. I mean. It's not all that bad. I can say "ass". But if I put "hole" on the end of it, it somehow converts it into an unprintable word.

I go with a-hole.

^ See?

 

[Libertarian01]

I wish ingo would let me say *******. I mean. It's not all that bad. I can say "ass". But if I put "hole" on the end of it, it somehow converts it into an unprintable word.

I go with a-hole.

^ See?

Try this on for size:

WARNING! Language! (Duh...)

[video=youtube_share;IzmLFEC014A]https://youtu.be/IzmLFEC014A[/video]

 

[jamil]

Uh, that could get you an infraction. Just saying.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Uh, that could get you an infraction. Just saying.

Yeah he probably ought to "un-imbed" that one... Ask actaeon.

 

[HoughMade]

Too late. I've already been offended.

 

[actaeon277]

Yeah he probably ought to "un-imbed" that one... Ask actaeon.

Yes.
Embedded words, or spoken words on video can get you.
Or a flash of boobs that you didn't see because you fast forwarded through the clip.

 

[BugI02]

Too late. I've already been offended.

But were you offended by the word or the thought of billable hours lying fallow?