Philosophical Vegan Forum

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about businesses refusing to bake cakes for gays etc. Do you think it should be lawful for them to do so?

I think it should. Your business, your choice, right? With that said, I also think businesses should be able to discriminate on skin color, gender, and hair color/eye color/t-shirt color/whatever arbitrary line they draw. It's bigoted, but if it's a private business, shouldn't owners should be able to decide who they create products for and who they don't?

What do you guys think?

EquALLity wrote:Lately, there has been a lot of talk about businesses refusing to bake cakes for gays etc. Do you think it should be lawful for them to do so?

They can refuse to bake a gay cake, but they can not refuse to bake a cake for gays.

One is an issue of "this is what we sell, take it or leave it". If they only sell bride+groom traditional wedding cakes, they are not required to make a special cake (although if they were decent human beings and it didn't cost them extra, they would).
The other is an issue of "we don't serve your kind here".

If you have never experienced discrimination like that, you can't really understand how shitty the world feels. You're afraid to even go into a store or restaurant, because of the emotional damage and hurt of being thrown out again and again. It's not a trivial matter of "Oh, we'll just go somewhere else". It's something that sticks with you, like school yard bullying.

EquALLity wrote:I think it should. Your business, your choice, right?

No. This is deontological thinking. Rights, regardless of consequence -- there's no rational basis for this kind of thinking.
Assuming this is some kind of right, that's arbitrary.

The moral way to look at it, is to examine the consequences of each option. How does the good stack up against the harm?

Does discrimination do more good than harm, by motivating people to abandon immoral behavior and conform to social norms?
Or does discrimination do more harm than good, by empowering bigots to harm others who are marginalized in society by the majority by denying them equal treatment, and making them feel like they're subhuman for being born different when they don't have a choice in the matter?

EquALLity wrote:With that said, I also think businesses should be able to discriminate on skin color, gender, and hair color/eye color/t-shirt color/whatever arbitrary line they draw.

That's the problem, it's NOT arbitrary. It's not random. People, the majority in some areas, are systematically discriminating against a particular group and bullying them on a massive societal level, denying them equal treatment. It's coming from all sides, and it's deeply personal, and deeply emotional. This is an issue of inherent self-identity and hate.

It's not just "Oops, I wore the wrong shirt color today! Haha! I'll change my shirt tomorrow, lol!"
It's "I'm considered less of a human being because I'm gay, I hate myself, I hate this world, why was I born into this shit? I'm sick of it all. Goodbye world."

EquALLity wrote:It's bigoted, but if it's a private business, shouldn't owners should be able to decide who they create products for and who they don't?

Why should owners be allowed to do this? Is there some benefit to this? Does it help reduce suffering in the world somehow?

If you can show that there's some benefit to this practice that outweighs the harm, sure. But unless you can, it's just an arbitrary rule that exists for no reason, and just does harm to others and prevents people who did no wrong, and were only born different, from living as fair and equal a life as possible. It's anti-egalitarian, for no reason, and it makes people feel like shit.

If you have never experienced discrimination like that, you can't really understand how shitty the world feels. You're afraid to even go into a store or restaurant, because of the emotional damage and hurt of being thrown out again and again. It's not a trivial matter of "Oh, we'll just go somewhere else". It's something that sticks with you, like school yard bullying.

I never thought about it motivating people not to try other restaurants, but I'm sure there are lists online of pro-equality cake shops etc.

No. This is deontological thinking. Rights, regardless of consequence -- there's no rational basis for this kind of thinking.

I wasn't saying that they should be allowed to do whatever they want with their business.

I think they should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating with the will of another, and this isn't doing that.

Does discrimination do more good than harm, by motivating people to abandon immoral behavior and conform to social norms?

Conform to social norms? Why is that relevant? Carnism is a social norm. Theism is a social norm, at least where I live. What's your point?

It doesn't really motivate people to be accepting of gays, it just forces them to make cakes. That might even be counterproductive, and create more resentment.

Or does discrimination do more harm than good, by empowering bigots to harm others who are marginalized in society by the majority by denying them equal treatment, and making them feel like they're subhuman for being born different when they don't have a choice in the matter?

Do you also think it should be against the law to scream at a gay person and actually call them subhuman, because it will probably hurt their feelings? I don't see much of a difference.

Discrimination isn't the only factor. What about personal freedoms?

That's the problem, it's NOT arbitrary. It's not random.

Arbitrary, as in the line isn't based on reason, which it isn't.

It's not just "Oops, I wore the wrong shirt color today! Haha! I'll change my shirt tomorrow, lol!"

I never said you could change your S.O. That wasn't why I put shirt as an example.

I put it as an example to convey the message that, like how it doesn't make sense to discriminate over shirt color, it doesn't make sense to discriminate on S.O.

It's "I'm considered less of a human being because I'm gay, I hate myself, I hate this world, why was I born into this shit? I'm sick of it all. Goodbye world."

People are killing themselves over cake?

Why should owners be allowed to do this? Is there some benefit to this? Does it help reduce suffering in the world somehow?

Because people generally shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to.

Don't know why this happened in the attachment:

EquALLity wrote: I never thought about it motivating people not to try other restaurants, but I'm sure there are lists online of pro-equality cake shops etc.

It's not about cake shops, it's about a majority gaining the ability to oppress a minority by denying them access to products and services that others have access to. It's about the serious inconvenience that causes, and also about the emotional effects of persistent and wide-spread oppression. It's bullying.

EquALLity wrote:I think they should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating with the will of another, and this isn't doing that.

Why?

And this is violating others' wills. Their wills to be treated normally and respected like anybody else. They just want to pay money for products or services; that's the will. It's being violated when that is denied to them.

If there's just one cake shop in a city doing that, it's not a serious problem. But this doesn't allow just one cake shop to do that. It allows any and every business to do that. And when you're a minority people are happy to discriminate against, that can become very serious very fast.

EquALLity wrote:Conform to social norms? Why is that relevant? Carnism is a social norm. Theism is a social norm, at least where I live. What's your point?

Ostensibly, social norms that are actually good and reasonable, like not defecating in public. But it depends on who you ask. It's one of the things people suggest is good about peer pressure.

The question is, "what good does allowing people to do this do?"

EquALLity wrote:It doesn't really motivate people to be accepting of gays, it just forces them to make cakes. That might even be counterproductive, and create more resentment.

It doesn't force them to make gay cakes, as I said.

They can resent as much as they want, and if the gay people know they are bigots, they probably won't want to shop there anyway. Resentment is irrelevant unless it becomes action like this -- this is letting people manifest their resentment and turn it into actual oppression.

EquALLity wrote:Do you also think it should be against the law to scream at a gay person and actually call them subhuman, because it will probably hurt their feelings? I don't see much of a difference.

...It IS against the law to do that. If you do that, it's called harassment. And the gay person is within his or her legal rights to punch that screaming bigot in the face (it's called provocation).

There is protected free speech, and then there is speech that is not protected.

If a person expressed his or her belief that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will burn in hell, that is protected, provided it is done in a way that doesn't single out a private individual and subject him or her to the vitriol, doesn't force itself upon a captive audience, doesn't interrupt the flow of traffic, doesn't create a public nuisance or violate noise restrictions, etc.

You can say whatever you want as long as it is general expression (short of libel/slander and harassment). There are relatively strict regulations on HOW you can say it, though. At the federal, state, and municipal levels.

I can explain more about the difference between protected and unprotected free speech if you want, but it follows pretty common sense rules.

EquALLity wrote:Discrimination isn't the only factor. What about personal freedoms?

What about them?
Every freedom one person has is a restriction of freedom for another. There's no such thing as just "freedom", it's always a balance.
My freedom to swing my fist, and your freedom not to be punched in the face.
Animals' freedom not to be killed, and carnists' freedom to kill animals to eat.
A gay man's freedom to buy a cake, and a bigot's freedom to oppress.

Every "freedom" has two sides to it.
The question is where to draw the line to cause the least harm, and do the most good. Any other question is just arbitrary ideology.

EquALLity wrote:People are killing themselves over cake?

Not over cake, but over bullying. Thankfully, that's less now for adults in the states, but it's still severe for children, and for people in other countries where bigotry is still in full force.

EquALLity wrote:Because people generally shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to.

Why?
They're not forced to open cake shops. They don't have to bake any cakes at all. They can go do something else, if they don't want to take the risk of having to serve a customer they feel bigotry against.
Also, it's important to note, nobody is forcing them to be bigots either. They chose that hate.

If they want to open a cake shop, they have taken on a certain obligation to be professional, and provide the service they are providing fairly.

NO WAY!

They can refuse the right to serve anyone but they can not disclose the reason why.

It's not about cake shops, it's about a majority gaining the ability to oppress a minority by denying them access to products and services that others have access to. It's about the serious inconvenience that causes, and also about the emotional effects of persistent and wide-spread oppression. It's bullying.

People can just go to a cake shop with tolerant owners. They're not being denied cake in general, just cake from some shops. They can even make their own cake.

Why?

Because what can be the harm if nobody's will is being violated?

What about them?
Every freedom one person has is a restriction of freedom for another. There's no such thing as just "freedom", it's always a balance.
My freedom to swing my fist, and your freedom not to be punched in the face.
Animals' freedom not to be killed, and carnists' freedom to kill animals to eat.
A gay man's freedom to buy a cake, and a bigot's freedom to oppress.

Hm. That's a good point.

What's the alternative?

And this is violating others' wills. Their wills to be treated normally and respected like anybody else. They just want to pay money for products or services; that's the will. It's being violated when that is denied to them.

Oh, that's true, ok, fair.

If there's just one cake shop in a city doing that, it's not a serious problem. But this doesn't allow just one cake shop to do that. It allows any and every business to do that. And when you're a minority people are happy to discriminate against, that can become very serious very fast.

If that happened, wouldn't those groups just start their own businesses?

Ostensibly, social norms that are actually good and reasonable, like not defecating in public. But it depends on who you ask. It's one of the things people suggest is good about peer pressure.

Leaving out one part that isn't relevant, your original comment reads. "Does discrimination do more good than harm, by motivating people to conform to social norms?"

I don't see how it makes sense to just say that the reason is for conformity to social norms, and not to specify that they are good ones, if you're really concerned with if they're ethical or not. Why didn't you just say to be good people?

But whatever if that's not what you really meant.

But then you go on to advocate for peer pressure. How do you get people to conform to certain social norms, if from their perspective they're doing it to fit in, without getting them to conform to all the bad ones as well?

It doesn't force them to make gay cakes, as I said.

I wasn't saying that it forces them to make cakes with two grooms. I was saying that it doesn't make people more accepting of gays to have to make cakes for them.

...It IS against the law to do that. If you do that, it's called harassment. And the gay person is within his or her legal rights to punch that screaming bigot in the face (it's called provocation).

How is that harassment? Harassment would be following them around and doing it, but not just doing it in and of itself.

So if someone calls a gay person a faggot, they're violating the law?

There is protected free speech, and then there is speech that is not protected.

If a person expressed his or her belief that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will burn in hell, that is protected, provided it is done in a way that doesn't single out a private individual and subject him or her to the vitriol, doesn't force itself upon a captive audience, doesn't interrupt the flow of traffic, doesn't create a public nuisance or violate noise restrictions, etc.

You can say whatever you want as long as it is general expression (short of libel/slander and harassment). There are relatively strict regulations on HOW you can say it, though. At the federal, state, and municipal levels.

Oh, so that's how WBC gets away with it?

I think I heard of an idea in which businesses would have to display outside their store if they discriminate. That would be a general expression.
Maybe that's the solution. They have to put up signs, so people know where they are and aren't welcome, and those businesses would probably lose business, too.

But then you'd have some assholes who go there just because they discriminate.

I can explain more about the difference between protected and unprotected free speech if you want, but it follows pretty common sense rules.

I guess it's going to end up that way based on the questions I asked.

The question is where to draw the line to cause the least harm, and do the most good. Any other question is just arbitrary ideology.

But it's harmful to people to force them to do things they don't want to do.

Oh, so yeah, it becomes "Which is more harmful?" I'm not sure.

Not over cake, but over bullying. Thankfully, that's less now for adults in the states, but it's still severe for children, and for people in other countries where bigotry is still in full force.

That's mostly a southern thing. right? My school is pretty cool with that stuff. We have a GSA, and today was actually Day of Silence, and there was a great turnout.

Anyway, I think I addressed the bullying already in this response.

Why?

By generally I mean except in situations where it does more harm than good. Which might be this? I'm not so sure now. I think the sign solution is ok.

They're not forced to open cake shops. They don't have to bake any cakes at all. They can go do something else, if they don't want to take the risk of having to serve a customer they feel bigotry against.

I'm not sure the default should be that they have to be tolerant.

Also, it's important to note, nobody is forcing them to be bigots either. They chose that hate.

Unless they are just disgusted by homosexuality and cannot get over it.

If they want to open a cake shop, they have taken on a certain obligation to be professional, and provide the service they are providing fairly.

I think I also addressed what you're saying here.

Actually, from some further contemplation, my opinion has changed.

Yes, because my previous beliefs could be used to argue for gays not being able to get any wedding cakes in a place where there are none (among other reasons).

EquALLity wrote: People can just go to a cake shop with tolerant owners. They're not being denied cake in general, just cake from some shops. They can even make their own cake.

The problem is that this places an additional inordinate burden upon the oppressed. These things add up.
They have to drive all around town to find somebody who will sell them cake -- well, that's one thing, and maybe they don't find it.
But the same could also be true to just buy food. To rent an apartment. To just survive in this world.

If this were only about cakes, it wouldn't necessarily be a big deal. Imagine you could only buy things from atheist owned businesses?
How would that affect your life?

Now imagine you lived in a small town where there weren't any atheists aside from you, and that was still true?

Sure, you can move, but nobody will buy your stuff, nobody will help you move, nobody will sell you a car, nobody will sell you a bus ticket or a plane ticket.
Again, this shifts all of the burden of persecution onto the persecuted.

I think it's better, that people who choose to be bigots take on that burden, because the victims of that bigotry don't choose to be gay, or black, or anything like that.
When you make a choice, you take on a responsibility. When you are born, you don't just get the shit end of the stick for the rest of your life because other people choose to give it to you.

EquALLity wrote: What's the alternative?

It's always a balancing act. The law just has to draw the line where it will do the most good and least harm.

EquALLity wrote: If that happened, wouldn't those groups just start their own businesses?

If there were enough of them, but that's easier said than done. Again, it puts the burden all on the persecuted.

EquALLity wrote: Leaving out one part that isn't relevant,

That part was relevant.

EquALLity wrote: How do you get people to conform to certain social norms, if from their perspective they're doing it to fit in, without getting them to conform to all the bad ones as well?

That's the important question at hand.

EquALLity wrote: How is that harassment? Harassment would be following them around and doing it, but not just doing it in and of itself.

So if someone calls a gay person a faggot, they're violating the law?

You don't have to follow somebody to harass them.
Calling a gay person a faggot (in a negative sense), is violating the law. It's singling them out, and would likely be considered "fighting words".
If said gay person punched that bigot in the face, he or she would have a strong defense in any assault charges (and probably wouldn't be prosecuted).
Generally speaking, although I don't recommend it, you can legally punch somebody in the face if they provoke you like that.

EquALLity wrote: Oh, so that's how WBC gets away with it?

Yes, they are not violating the law.
In the case of a funeral, they have to be far enough away that nobody has to look at or listen to them (no captive audiences).
If they protest to a captive audience, the police can make them move, or arrest them.

Free speech is limited by the freedom of the target to avoid having to listen to that speech.

EquALLity wrote: I think I heard of an idea in which businesses would have to display outside their store if they discriminate. That would be a general expression.

They can put up a sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin. Repent or burn in hell!", but they can not deny service to gay customers.
However, if they put up such a sign, it's unlikely any non-bigot would patronize them. They wouldn't get many homosexual customers. But anybody would have the right to buy from them if they needed to for some reason.
I wouldn't buy a cake there. I discriminate when hiring contractors or making purchases, and as a consumer that's my right.

You can go pretty far toward 99.9% guaranteeing you'll never have to serve anybody you hate, if you make it very clear what your bigotries are.

On the other side, if I put up a sign that says "Love is Love. 10% of profits donated to marriage equality!", it will go pretty far to ensure that I don't have to serve bigots, because they won't want to come in or buy from me.

It would be great, if I had an essential product or service, and I could forbid bigots from purchasing it, thus pressuring them to conform to social norms of tolerance, but I can't do that without giving them the right to oppress others. So, it cuts both ways. Better off just not allowing discrimination, so there's no risk of anybody having to suffer unfairly.

EquALLity wrote: But it's harmful to people to force them to do things they don't want to do.

Not really. And definitely not materially.
Selling a cake to a homosexual couple means they make more profit. Not selling it forces the homosexual couple to have to waste time and money driving around town trying to find somebody to make them a cake.
Big difference.

If you're talking about emotional or spiritual harm, I'd much rather a bigoted bully's feeling get hurt -- a person who chooses to have those feelings of hatred instead of acceptance and tolerance -- rather than a persecuted minority's feelings be hurt -- a person who has no such choice.
The way I see it, it's the bigotry (the only part that's a choice) that's harmful, and it should be harmful to the bigot rather than the target of that bigotry.

EquALLity wrote: Oh, so yeah, it becomes "Which is more harmful?" I'm not sure.

Comparing how it affects each party, my money would be on the discrimination being much more harmful.
If somebody could present evidence, though, I'd be open to accepting that regulation could be more harmful -- I just don't see any reason why that would be.
The war on drugs is probably more harmful than the drugs themselves, but that's a special case of material demand where we're dealing with the black market. I don't see those kinds of problems applying here (or that it's even possible for them to apply here). There's a big difference between not allowing somebody to do something to another person, and not allowing somebody to have something/do it to themselves (the latter being much harder to track or stop).

EquALLity wrote: Unless they are just disgusted by homosexuality and cannot get over it.

That's up to them. They can if they want to, they just don't want to.
Bigotry is a choice.

I think that we should think about possible repercussions that could arise from allowing businesses to discriminate. What if the owner of a pharmaceutical shop decided to deny service to a group of people specifically for a superficial reason? What if the person being discriminated against is unable to go to any other store for a medication that they need, maybe it is a pain reliever or a cure for a disease, it doesn't matter, the point is if they are denied the medicine,where could they go to get it? This is the reason that discrimination should not be allowed in businesses, it should just be like " Hey I want to buy this." "Okay, pay me for it.". It is that simple, I often find myself confused as to why people care to discriminate based on superficial reasons, why does anyone care? Feel free to critique as you see fit.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think it's better, that people who choose to be bigots take on that burden, because the victims of that bigotry don't choose to be gay, or black, or anything like that.
When you make a choice, you take on a responsibility. When you are born, you don't just get the shit end of the stick for the rest of your life because other people choose to give it to you.

Yeah, I agree with you on the general idea of it now.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That part was relevant.

The way I read it was that the part I included was in addition to the other thing, but I can see that you were connecting the two things because of the clarification on your opinion.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's the important question at hand.

What do you think?

I don't see how you can solve the problem of them conforming to bad social norms as a consequence.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Calling a gay person a faggot (in a negative sense), is violating the law.

Hm. Well, I don't think it should be. It's rude, but the person who is being insulted can just keep walking, if this happened on the street for instance.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If said gay person punched that bigot in the face, he or she would have a strong defense in any assault charges (and probably wouldn't be prosecuted).

That, I think, should be illegal. I don't think you should be allowed to get violent unless somebody is threatened with violence.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Yes, they are not violating the law.
In the case of a funeral, they have to be far enough away that nobody has to look at or listen to them (no captive audiences).
If they protest to a captive audience, the police can make them move, or arrest them.

I see.

brimstoneSalad wrote:If you're talking about emotional or spiritual harm

Yup, that's what I was referring to.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's up to them. They can if they want to, they just don't want to.

Bun on another topic, you wrote:There's a certain point of personal disgust that's hard to overcome, no matter how you rationalize it.

What's the difference?