4 comments
“They had good coffee,” Davis said. “It’s just too bad the service sucked.”
Nice line from him.
I'm very torn on this. In terms of my values, I know exactly what I'd like - the freedom for individuals to engage in business with those they like, or to refuse business to those they don't want to engage in (put another way, no one should force you to make a cake or coffee).
On the other hand, I suspect these people were all for having that bakery make that cake against their will. And the slightly vindictive part of me wants to have the shoe on the other foot. "Oh, you want to make people do things against their will because they're business owners? All right, take that!" The eventual hope would be that these individuals - and others - might realize how harmful using the government as a cudgel against anything you don't like truly is. Because if Alice can force service from someone - for any reason - then Bob can do the same. And he can do the same to anyone he likes, for any reason. And for some people with certain beliefs, it suddenly means you might be forced, against your will, to interact with people you would rather not do business with.
Of course, two wrongs don't make a right. These people, as shitty as they acted (allegedly) to this perfectly peaceful group of Christians who were not distributing materials in their store, still have a right to not associate with whomever they don't want to associate with. And that includes refusing them service, at any time, for any reason.
I also want to bring up the point of a potential lawsuit, although it doesn't sound like it'll happen. The Masterpiece Bakery case that you're referencing @soylentglitter is set for oral arguments in the Supreme Court this month. So I'll be very interested to see how it goes. In the past, the Supreme Court has historically been extremely pro free speech. I'm not sure how much that applies here - the Colorado Civil Rights Commission says it is discriminatory, for a business that is open to the public, to refuse on the basis of the various protected classes. My gut feeling is that the Supreme Court will uphold the Civil Rights Commissions' stance, which would be a travesty for a nation that is allegedly free.
> “They had good coffee,” Davis said. “It’s just too bad the service sucked.”
Nice line from him.
I'm very torn on this. In terms of my values, I know exactly what I'd like - the freedom for individuals to engage in business with those they like, or to refuse business to those they don't want to engage in (put another way, no one should force you to make a cake or coffee).
On the other hand, I suspect these people were all for having that bakery make that cake against their will. And the slightly vindictive part of me wants to have the shoe on the other foot. "Oh, you want to make people do things against their will because they're business owners? All right, [take that](http://pa1.narvii.com/6029/e2f1946d733a247898574823cf365b772e12aaa7_hq.gif)!" The eventual hope would be that these individuals - and others - might realize how harmful using the government as a cudgel against anything you don't like truly is. Because if Alice can force service from someone - for any reason - then Bob can do the same. And he can do the same to anyone he likes, for any reason. And for some people with certain beliefs, it suddenly means _you might be forced, against your will, to interact with people you would rather not do business with_.
Of course, two wrongs don't make a right. These people, as shitty as they acted (allegedly) to this perfectly peaceful group of Christians who were not distributing materials in their store, still have a right to not associate with whomever they don't want to associate with. And that includes refusing them service, at any time, for any reason.
----------
I also want to bring up the point of a potential lawsuit, although it doesn't sound like it'll happen. The _Masterpiece Bakery_ case that you're referencing @soylentglitter is set for oral arguments in the Supreme Court this month. So I'll be very interested to see how it goes. In the past, the Supreme Court has historically been extremely pro free speech. I'm not sure how much that applies here - the Colorado Civil Rights Commission says it is discriminatory, for a business that is open to the public, to refuse on the basis of the various protected classes. My gut feeling is that the Supreme Court will uphold the Civil Rights Commissions' stance, which would be a travesty for a nation that is allegedly free.
I agree with you that people should be able to choose who they serve.
However, that isn't really the issue here. That was already decide against us.
The issue is even enforcement of the law.
It can not be both ways. The coffee shop should be held accountable in the same was that the bakery was.
I agree with you that people should be able to choose who they serve.
However, that isn't really the issue here. That was already decide against us.
The issue is even enforcement of the law.
It can not be both ways. The coffee shop should be held accountable in the same was that the bakery was.
The issue is even enforcement of the law. It can not be both ways. The coffee shop should be held accountable in the same was that the bakery was.
Yes, I think I agree. Even if it's a bad law, it should at least be enforced evenly.
> The issue is even enforcement of the law.
It can not be both ways. The coffee shop should be held accountable in the same was that the bakery was.
Yes, I think I agree. Even if it's a bad law, it should at least be enforced evenly.
Article