agreed. I was stating maph's beliefs.

Good morning Mephesdus,
Some Questions:
Is it wrong to discriminate on an individual basis as long as it is not applied to groups i.e. sex, race, religion etc.?

Does a bar owner have the right to refuse service to someone that repeatedly in the past, has gotten unruly and fought with other customers?

Can a coffee house discriminate and refuse service to a bum that repeatedly comes into the store smelling like a toilet and running off all of the customers although the business owner happily admits other bums that don't?

Does the New York Times have to accept business from a bunch of "extremists" when they want to take out a front page add that denigrates the lifestyles of LGBTs?

Just trying to understand...
Respectfully,
O.A.

I like the term "repressive tolerance" as a blanket concept subsuming these points. It is useful in that it brings to mind anything that we tolerate (or for which we consciously alter our speech) for the sake of not offending the "protected" groups as defined by the winds of political correctness, and contrasts that tolerance with the tolerance of the "unprotected" groups. Instantly, the contradictions flood out.

If you must tolerate everything in order not to offend, then you must bake a gun shaped cake for the kid's birthday party if that's what he wants. When the courts charge in and outlaw gun shaped cakes to appease angry parents, the hypocrisy of liberal tolerance becomes evident, as does the never ending chore of regulating the baker's activities to keep step with political correctness.

If the courts are in the business of forcing bakers to cater to any single client, they must be in the business of forcing bakers to cater to every single client. Isn't this exactly why government grows under liberal "tolerance"? Liberal government is super-daddy for anyone whose daddy doesn't give them what they want. It caters to those that whine the most and act the most injured when it should stay focused on identifying and punishing true harm (initiation of force and breach of contract).

I just think its funny that the LGBT is screaming about tolerance and open mindedness, yet they are intolerant and not open minded to those who are close minded and intolerant ;)

Why should I care how this dynamite wired to a timer is used... Why should I care how many beers this guys drinks at my bar... Why should I care about about this or that, why should I care what behaviors I'm supporting as long as nobody calls me a racist, bigot, homo-phobe or whatever.

I think the bakers did not make a decision in their self interest. However, THEY did. and Force is a poor remedy. The gay couple decided to make a big point-about FORCE-alright, all you businesses out there who refuse service to our group-I have a big gun pointing at you-YOU WILL SERVE US. The gay couple did not persuade anyone in this case and that's sad, in my opinion. Legal Force is something that must be used very sparingly in order for natural rights to be adequately protected. When you expand the net of what constitutes rights, you will, necessarily begin trampling on existing rights.

yes they do. you ever see a sign that reads "we reserve the right to refuse service" or "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Or what if they think the person trying to buy a gun has ill will, do they get to say no? Come on, use your brain.

Actually, I think the GOVERNMENT has no right to discriminate, but individuals certainly do.To say that all discrimination is evil is simplistic. Your definition of discrimination is too narrow to be useful, as is your position. MaxCasey is right, creators ALWAYS have the most basic right to do with their creations what they will. Anything less is slavery. Full stop.

A lack of action doesn't cause anything. The gay man isn't out anything because a sale is refused. He leaves the store with exactly what he had (dignity or self esteem may be lost, however is not something that can be bartered or legislated for).

Additionally you have twisted my words here. Do not equate morality with legality, or immorality with illegality.

You speak of a peaceful and orderly society, by what measure? My what standard? A standard where I am forced to produce for those I may find to be contrary to my beliefs? What gives you or anyone else the right to hold your beliefs yet deny a christian man a right to his?

What kills me here is that you see a refusal to do business, which happens everyday for any number of reasons, as a mistreatment or a violation of rights, simply because of the specific reason for the refusal, which is to say YOU WANT TO IMPOSE YOUR BELIEFS ON ANOTHER PERSON AND THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIRS BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG.

What if the Gay couple couldn't afford the cake? Should the court order it to be sold at a cheaper rate, or should we pass ObamaCake legislation so that everyone will have to "spread the cake around"?

Here is the deal Maphesdus, neither you, nor anyone else has a "right" to anything I produce, or a right to my ideas, or a right to my life. No man or woman holds a mortgage on my existence, and I hold no such mortgage on any one else.

Just because a group, or society says they have a right "legally" doesn't make it moral. How many men would it take to democratically vote the panties of an unwilling woman?

This is what we get for supporting idiots and their children, total inanity. So, are we discriminating against gluten allergy by not knowing how to make a gluten free cake that tastes as good as one with gluten, against the diabetic, or ultimately against the poor because we charge too much for the cakes we make?

I can remember when it was a compliment to describe a person as a discriminating individual. If the market doesn't like the baker that won't sell gay wedding cakes, the market will put him out of business. Anti-discrimination and hate laws are no saner than blue laws. Both are utilizing force to impose someone else's idea of right/wrong on me. I'll take my ball and go home.

Who's John Galt?