"Would those who’d force a baker who believed homosexuality was a sin to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple also force a Jewish baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it?"
I think we have our answer now, eh? As you sow so shall you reap indeed.
"the law should vigorously protect and defend individuals’ rights, not infringe upon them in order to force a desired outcome."
Amen! Those of us who believe this have been under relentless attack for too long. Which will always be thus between the two opposing forces, but the battle has become so confused. Yours/ this is as clear a rallying cry as any. I hope those who need to hear it, hear it.
“So, instead of simply removing old laws mandating bigotry and restoring liberty, modern law is used to infringe upon liberty in order to remove the outward appearance of bigotry. For some, that’s enough, but does anyone really think that by forcing associations on people, those who’d choose discriminatory behavior are going to be appreciative and see the error of their ways?”
Don't make the mistake of comparing the good with the perfect. I covered, in part, how all the good intentions of coerced behaviors fostered bad behaviors. When you make coerced behavior OK, you open the door for all sorts of bad things, at a much higher level than those you'd get from a free society. History is replete with those.
Would you coerce a Jew to make a Nazi cake? Or do you envision some magical perfection where only the "bad" discriminations are to be debarred by law?
I appreciate your points but current law does not require a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake. However, having lived long enough to have been alive when discrimination against minorities by businesses when it came to hiring and providing services was allowed, I am willing to live in a less free society to address that. It's not going to be perfect but there are always tradeoffs. I think that as a society we should be aiming to make it possible for people to go as far as they can given their talents and liabilities. It's a shame that individuals are not perfect and so our ideologies go in wrong directions when they assume so.
I was about to comment that I believe you missed the point of the article, but instead, I will ask you a few questions.
Was it proper for the government to coerce a Christian baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple?
If you believe that some coercions are OK, where do you draw the line?
Do you trust the government, given its sordid history, to draw that line in your stead?
What makes you think that the government having free rein to decide who can and cannot be discriminated against will have a better outcome than a "free market" approach?
We've tried the free market approach in the past with dismal results. That is, at least from the view of minorities. Plus, I don't want to live in a country where someone can be excluded from being employed or receiving services for my religious beliefs. Regarding the baker, I think he should have made the wedding cake or not make wedding cakes at all. However, protection against discrimination should be on the basis of a few categories such as race and religion. The people can through their representatives decide who should receive these special protections and who shouldn't.
"Would those who’d force a baker who believed homosexuality was a sin to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple also force a Jewish baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it?"
I think we have our answer now, eh? As you sow so shall you reap indeed.
"the law should vigorously protect and defend individuals’ rights, not infringe upon them in order to force a desired outcome."
Amen! Those of us who believe this have been under relentless attack for too long. Which will always be thus between the two opposing forces, but the battle has become so confused. Yours/ this is as clear a rallying cry as any. I hope those who need to hear it, hear it.
“So, instead of simply removing old laws mandating bigotry and restoring liberty, modern law is used to infringe upon liberty in order to remove the outward appearance of bigotry. For some, that’s enough, but does anyone really think that by forcing associations on people, those who’d choose discriminatory behavior are going to be appreciative and see the error of their ways?”
Should a Muslim baker be able to refuse service to a customer just because he is Jewish?
In a truly free society? Yes.
A truly free society opens the door then for all sorts of bad things.
Don't make the mistake of comparing the good with the perfect. I covered, in part, how all the good intentions of coerced behaviors fostered bad behaviors. When you make coerced behavior OK, you open the door for all sorts of bad things, at a much higher level than those you'd get from a free society. History is replete with those.
Would you coerce a Jew to make a Nazi cake? Or do you envision some magical perfection where only the "bad" discriminations are to be debarred by law?
I appreciate your points but current law does not require a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake. However, having lived long enough to have been alive when discrimination against minorities by businesses when it came to hiring and providing services was allowed, I am willing to live in a less free society to address that. It's not going to be perfect but there are always tradeoffs. I think that as a society we should be aiming to make it possible for people to go as far as they can given their talents and liabilities. It's a shame that individuals are not perfect and so our ideologies go in wrong directions when they assume so.
I was about to comment that I believe you missed the point of the article, but instead, I will ask you a few questions.
Was it proper for the government to coerce a Christian baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple?
If you believe that some coercions are OK, where do you draw the line?
Do you trust the government, given its sordid history, to draw that line in your stead?
What makes you think that the government having free rein to decide who can and cannot be discriminated against will have a better outcome than a "free market" approach?
We've tried the free market approach in the past with dismal results. That is, at least from the view of minorities. Plus, I don't want to live in a country where someone can be excluded from being employed or receiving services for my religious beliefs. Regarding the baker, I think he should have made the wedding cake or not make wedding cakes at all. However, protection against discrimination should be on the basis of a few categories such as race and religion. The people can through their representatives decide who should receive these special protections and who shouldn't.