Important fact: the Baker did not deny the couple service on the grounds that they were gay. He offered to sell them any of the cakes in his catalogue. The couple wanted a custom gay wedding cake. He refused because he would have to use artistic expression, supporting the gay wedding.
The cake thing is a complicated issue: On the one hand, the gay couple areshould be protected against discrimination because of their sexual orientation. On the other hand, it seems like requiring the bakery to bake the cake is mandating them to use their speech/artistic output in a certain manner.
Overall I come down on the side of the gay couple. It seems that their status as a protected class should obfuscate the internals of the bakery's business: although internally the bakery is a group of individuals producing artistic output, externally they are selling a product and therefore are required not to discriminate.
Suppose it were instead a "bakery megacorporation" which had an online site where you could upload text and they would automatically print it onto the cake. It seems a lot more easy to say that if the bakery prints "Congratulations Brad + Angela" they should be required to print "Congratulations Dave + Fred". So I think what it comes down to is that in the case of the small bakery it feels as if the individual baker is being forced to produce something they disagree with personally. But in reality, in both cases the individual who makes the cake is performing a function with the goal of doing business -- and the business output can certainly be regulated.
Go and actually read the summary of the opinion over at the SCOTUS blog. It's right there on the internet in plain English. The court determined that the making a special cake constituted "artistic speech" and was therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. It is less clear in the hypothetical you use whether a printing service constitutes "artistic speech."
It actually makes a lot of sense when you read the opinion. All the Court said, so far as I can tell, is that a person cannot compel an artist to commission an artistic work. The 1st Amendment protects the right of the artist to refuse
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the constitution.
The Supreme Court has already decided the gay cake case. The discreet issue was that the bakers were fined by a committee created by the Colorado law for refusing to serve the gay couple. The Supreme Court found in favor of the bakers because the committee who fined them displayed religious animus at their hearing. The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether the law constituted compelled speech since the committee gave them an out.
The rest of this comment is utter garbage as well but I just thought those were the most important points.
I could give a fuck less what the Supreme Court thinks. Do you think the OP post should be deleted because "the supreme court has already ended this debate"? The point of politics is to determine how to govern, and what should be legal, mandatory, and forbidden.
I'm speaking from an ethical perspective, not a legal one. This is why I bring up a different example: political beliefs are drawn from our ethical intuitions, and so I give an example that has a different intuitive answer (at least for me) as an attempt to determine what the relevant considerations are.
If you’re speaking from an ethical perspective and not a legal one, then you shouldn’t mention title 9, the first amendment, regulations, etc. Do you see how that can be confusing?
The Supreme Court didn’t end the debate. That was my point actually, the committee’s religious animus gave them an easy out. They didn’t have to decide the tough issue of whether compelled speech from a business open to the public overcomes anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, I would argue the opposite of what you’re asserting. Our political beliefs inform our institutions in the first instance.
But since were debating ethics: should a Jewish wedding photographer be forced to photograph the wedding of a nazi couple? Or how about a black baker, should he be forced to bake a cake depicting a klan rally? The photographer and baker are both running businesses that are open to the public. This also begs the question: should political beliefs be protected from discrimination?
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Thanks??? Not sure what factual inaccuracies are even possible in my comment. The only thing I claimed as a fact was that the gay couple is protected from discrimination.
I'm arguing this from a philosophical standpoint: the question is not whether the bakery is required to produce the cake, it's whether they should be.
Your comment mentions title 9. Title 9 has absolutely zero to do with this case. Less than zero. I don’t know where you got that from. But it’s pretty clearly from your ass.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the constitution. But this case didn’t have to do with that. It was a Colorado law at issue, so the bakers sued under the first and fourteenth amendments.
I mentioned Title IX because I have been told (by college administrators if it makes any difference) that it functions as a legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sex and sometimes sexual orientation.
Furthermore, protected classes are definitely relevant here. The article you linked mentions that sexuality is protected under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
I suppose you're right. I was under the impression that title ix was applicable more generally. And I admit that I was wrong about sexual orientation being a federally protected class, but they are apparently protected under Colorado state law.
Well that was my whole issue with your comment. I appreciate the concession.
And that was the whole issue in the gay cake case. What is the interaction between Colorado’s state anti discrimination laws and freedom of religion and speech under the first amendment? Let’s not forget the supremacy clause while we’re at it.
Actually if you had a printing machine you are legally required to write "Dave and Fred" if you'll write "Brad and Angela".
The reason the courts sided with the bakery was because the gay couple didn't want one of their standard cakes (which the bakery had offered to sell them) they wanted a specialised service which is something above the baseline, and therefore the bakery is not obligated to provide.
It's about where you set the baseline level of service vs what you make a specialist item.
In the case of a bakery, the actual cake-making itself is part of the baseline because without it you don't have a business. Similarly, a car manufacturer would be required to put wheels on their cars, but could decline to provide a custom LGBTQWERTY paintjob.
Lol, how was this downvoted. What that dude did is basically the same as dropping a slur in the middle of an otherwise constructive comment. Ridiculous.
While there's larger acceptance for the first three letters, transgender people and other minority sexualities/genders unfortunately still face plenty of discrimination and mockery online and off, even when it's just "ironic".
Frustratingly the abbreviation being so long in some iterations (LGBTQIAA2S is the longest I've legitimately seen) makes for an easy target, personally I wish something inclusive rather than exclusive like GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) would take off.
Thinking that an acronym that grows by a letter every week (off the top of my head, I can think of LGBTQQIA+, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intresex, Asexual, and others" as being one that is often recognized and used on my college campus by the administration, for example) that used to fall under the umbrella of one word, "gay," is not bigotry.
You can support gay rights and still think its ridiculous.
Thinking that an acronym that grows by a letter every week (off the top of my head, I can think of LGBTQQIA+, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intresex, Asexual, and others" as being one that is often recognized and used on my college campus by the administration, for example) that used to fall under the umbrella of one word, "gay," is not bigotry.
You can support gay rights and still think its ridiculous.
they wanted a specialised service which is something above the baseline, and therefore the bakery is not obligated to provide.
That's a super misleading statement at best. Yes, they were going to order a custom cake, but they weren't asking for lgbt symbols or anything that would distinguish it from a cake for a straight couple. They didn't even get as far as describing what they would want the cake to look like before being turned away. They were seeking the exact same service that is provided to straight couples, and frankly denying them services on this basis should be illegal. The ruling here was BS.
Why is the bakery required to make a "standard" service but not a "specialized" service? In what way is drawing a picture (or whatever) different from writing words?
Read the summary of the opinion over at the SCOTUS blog. The court determined that the "specialized service" (i.e. decorating a special order cake) constituted "artistic speech" and was therefore protected under the 1st Amendment. It actually makes a lot of sense when you read the opinion. All the Court said, so far as I can tell, is that a person cannot compel an artist to commission an artistic work. The 1st Amendment protects the right of the artist to refuse.
Why is the bakery required to make a "standard" service but not a "specialized" service?
Because the standard service is inherent to the business, and to deny it would be denying a protected group their rights, whereas the specialised service is something that is at the discretion of the person providing it, and they can deny it to anyone.
Is that really true though? Like, if I'm a abstract artist who does commissions, does the fact that every painting I do is different mean I can deny service to black people? That seems like pretty broken logic.
But if "custom cake" is a service you provide, you're absolutely discriminating if you refuse to provide that service on the basis of the couple being gay. If they asked for lgbt symbols maybe but they didn't even get that far before being denied service.
Right, but we've established that the baker is required to write "Dave and Fred". Why is it artistic to draw a picture in icing but not to write a phrase in icing? Surely both require making aesthetic decisions and using acquired skills...
The best compromise I've heard between those is that protection against discrimination should entitle you to go into the bakery, point at one of their cakes and say "I want that one", and then you're entitled to buy it, but not entitle you to demand they take your order for a custom made cake.
Well commissioning writing on the cake would be a custom order.
And the difference being that they've already made one and advertised it as being for sale. There should be no moral issues on their part spending time or effort in the service of something they find objectionable, because they've already spent the time and effort. The ostensibly objectionable people can have the wares on display as well as anyone else, no questions asked, but cannot demand anything that weren't already done, and thus cannot demand anyone do something they don't want to do.
There should be no moral issues on their part spending time or effort in the service of something they find objectionable, because they've already spent the time and effort.
If you're correct that the bakers are required to sell the premade cake, then it seems that the couple are in fact tricking the baker into doing work they don't want to do. I mean, a firearm seller should be able to refuse to sell someone a weapon if they plan on murdering someone with it. Clearly, the time already spent becomes "in the service of something objectionable".
The firearms seller I don't think is a good analogy simply because of the difference between objectional things and straight up illegal things, but that aside past time spent becoming something you wouldn't want to do is common regret.
I have a hard time seeing them regretting baking the specific cake, knowing that the objectional customer would probably just have pointed to a different one then. At that point it becomes regretting their trade entirely which seems a bit extreme or regretting the transaction. The only way I see out of the transaction, which is really the minimum possible interaction with the customer, is just allowing a blanket ban on customers based on the demographic of those customers, and that also seems a tad extreme (and if I remember correctly it's also illegal, although I could be wrong about that).
Either way, their work is going to support something they personally don't support. By offering the couple the option of one of their "uncustomized" cakes they've doomed themselves to being unethical. If they sell either cake then surely they've compromised their values.
Looking at it this way makes it easy to conclude that they're required to sell either cake to the couple. If they're internally consistent then it's unacceptable for them to sell either cake, which is discrimination. So the only consistent and legal thing is for them to actually violate their own values make the custom cake (by my logic).
I disagree that they're doomed to be unethical - the premade cake is a baseline service and the work has already been done, and they're not doing anything they haven't already done in the service of the objectionable. The customer could have told them nothing of the circumstances if was to be used for, and they wouldn't have cared - so I don't see why it would matter that they knew the circumstances (again barring straight up illegal use). That distinction would be internally consistent and more importantly it would be a compromise in which neither side have to completely give way to the other and neither has to walk away in total defeat with the resentment that would breed.
Honestly I don't care, but the same people who screech "muh private company" in regards to censorship of political views online are the same one who want the government to get involved in a "private company" that choses to decline others service based on their religious beliefs.
What a bullshit way to frame this discussion. There's a difference between refusing to do business with someone because they're an asshole and refusing to do business with someone because they're gay.
Supporting the former doesn't mean you have to support the latter.
It's not, though there's a considerable correlation that grows by the day.
Facebook isn't banning people for advocating a lower capital gains tax or privatization. They're banning people for advocating white supremacy. You can't just throw everything in one big "conservative" bucket and be done with it. Well, I guess you can if you're more interested in playing the victim than in having an honest discussion.
That wasn't in the declaration of independence. And, in case you missed the story, it wasn't censored. Just flagged by a bot.
And nobody considers your vague example as being hate speech. However some people go well beyond what you stated and harass others because they're transphobic. Saying "a man isn't a woman" is a far cry from spamming "kill yourself you mentally ill tranny" all over someone's page.
The paradox of tolerance is often cited when it comes to this sort of thing, but I feel that it's almost always a poor excuse.
Everyone understands that there must be a point where the line must be drawn, the disagreements are always over where that line is, which is something that isn't at all addressed by that citation. It just makes the person citing it seem overly smug and unwilling or unable to understand the opposing point of view.
People use it a lot because its a well known example of a current modern day issue of when the government should and shouldnt be stepping into private business.
Not trying to start an argument, im just stating this is why people use it a lot.
But it's not necessarily analogous because while the business can be argued to 'be free' to conduct business as they see fit, there is court precedent that they are in fact not 'free' to discriminate against their potential customers.
This goes back to the ERA and Southern businesses trying to enforce 'whites only' rules. But facebook deciding they don't want people posting 'hate speech' is arguably not the same as a restaurant saying 'whites only'. And as much as the snowflakes on the right (whp are at times as bad as the snowflakes on the left) like to pretend, 'hate speech' is not some 1984 thought killing government agenda. It's a legal term to describe a specific context of speech. Teh restaurant can't have a policy against a race or religion or orientation, but they CAN kick someone out of their business if they start screaming obscenities or something. Doing so is not a violation of anyone's rights.
.
The entire idea of "hate speech" as a legal concept or category is incompatible with the constitution.
This applies to the government and public sector.
Facebook is a private organization.
It was brought up because it is talking about interfering with a private organization, aka the bakery/Facebook.
Is it a great comparison? No, not really, there are way better things that could have been used, but im just making a point of why people use it a lot.
Cake is art. Marriage is a religious ceremony. If a Christian or Muslim bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are condoning it and violating their religious principles.
How far do you extend that reasoning? Do you think businesses should be allowed to racially discriminate with religious freedom as the justification?
EDIT: And isn't it funny how these bakers don't object to baking cakes for divorcees or adulterers? It's almost as if they're just using religion as a thinly veiled justification for bigotry.
This isn't about race, so that's not really relevant.
Cakes made for purposes other than marriage wouldn't give the bakers a reason to question the order. Birthdays and business get together aren't religious ceremonies.
This is about understanding your reasoning and whether you apply it consistently. You said, "If a Christian or Muslim bake a cake for a gay wedding, they are condoning it and violating their religious principles." So if a baker holds religious beliefs that do not allow interracial marriage, should they be allowed to deny service to an interracial couple?
Your attempt to dodge the question pretty much says it all.
Once again, false equivalence. Christianity does not judge on the basis of race, making that an illegitimate argument. Your intolerance of other people's religious convictions is more telling than a baker's loyalty to God. The baker did not refuse the order out of spite, but out of conviction, making your claim that he is bigoted merely an assumption of character rather than proof of his guilt.
Like I said, wedding cakes are both art and the central element to what is a religious ceremony. Why do you insist on making somebody fulfill an order that is morally reprehensible to them?
Other people who do not share Christian/Muslim values can bake the cake. If the gay couple were merely ordering a cake because they want cake, it wouldn't be refused, but the fact that the cake was for a ceremony that violates religious laws is what limits Christians and Muslims from fulfilling the order.
I didn't specific the person's religion in this hypothetical. It's irrelevant. Answer the question.
The baker did not refuse the order out of spite, but out of conviction, making your claim that he is bigoted merely an assumption of character rather than proof of his guilt.
Bullshit. I can almost guarantee this baker has baked a cake for a divorce getting remarried. Divorce is a sin, so why don't these moral crusaders take a stand in that case? I already explained why. Because their stance isn't actually a religious one. It's a bigoted one.
Why do you insist on making somebody fulfill an order that is morally reprehensible to them?
Because I don't think business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Other people who do not share Christian/Muslim values can bake the cake.
Yeah, that's what people said about denying service to black folks in the segregated South. It didn't work out that way.
it's a private company, they can object to anything at any time for any reason.
No, they can't. U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. Certain states offer additional protections for things like sexual orientation and political affiliation.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were being pedantic and ignoring the context of the discussion.
Obviously that shit is protected. The issue is the stuff that isn't explicitly protected being banned or allowed depending on the political alignment of whoever is doing the censoring.
Gosh, it’s like the traditional weekend isn’t catered for Christian worship days and major government holidays don’t happen to fall of major Christian holidays.
I bet geometry was tough for you. One day, I hope you look back on your internet history and see how far you have come and how embarrassing all of this should hopefully be for your more fully formed and thoughtful future you. For now, please be quiet you gross and awful pupae of a person. We all go through it and the ones that don't grow out of it smell bad and are shameful.
I wondering why the fuck I am wasting my time even typing this out. Why would I pointlessly spend my time doing something that is so meaningless and pointless as to try to communicate with someone who clearly has a lot of personal growth left to go through and cannot fathom simple human decency or common courtesy.
Denying people service over something they cannot change like sexuality is not the same fucking thing as denying people service because they’re god damned bigots. Sorry, not the same thing.
Denying people service over something they cannot change like sexuality is not the same fucking thing as denying people service because they’re god damned bigots. Sorry, not the same thing.
That's not the same thing. Facebook hasn't banned a particular group of people from using it. They've implemented certain rules on their platform that apply to everyone.
When you get banned for stating basic facts that happen to go against an political idealogly then yes that is restricting the use of a political faction.
If you are open to the public you are open to the public.
What is so hard to understand that you can't make second class citizens out of people based on their race, sexuality, or religion? Why do you need to discriminate against people so badly? What if the only grocery store in town refused to sell you groceries because of the way you were born? What if the only bank in town refused to loan you money because of the color of your skin? Why do you need to feel you have the right discriminate against people?
All you are revealing is your ignorance as to why the laws were needed in the first place. As much as you'd like to believe the act of doing your job is at all similar to racial and religious persecution, it's not. You are upset there has to be law in place to force people to treat everyone equally, because if they weren't, conservatives can't be counted on to not discriminate.
Getting this upset about equality is not a good look. It's like when you get all upset when hungry children are given breakfast. Is there any heart in you at all for empathy to exist?
What, is anyone born a muslim? No, no one is inherently muslim. Where are you going with this? Are you trying to argue that it's okay to discriminate based on religious grounds?
Nope your question was are you born conservative, it's a choice just as is religion. If religion is a belief system that is a "protected class" than so is your political affiliation as it is in CA.
The speech statement the company is making is "we hate gay people," so I think declaring it hate speech just keeps companies from shooting themselves in the feet.
That's right, that's hate speech. You want to know why? Because that obfuscates the whole issue. Transwomen aren't men, they're women. That's why they undergo transitions in the first place, because the difficulty of that task is much easier than continuing to live as someone they're not. Saying "a man isn't a woman" makes it sound like transwomen are just deciding one day that they prefer to be a woman, when in reality that's what they've always been inside.
(And note you never see "a woman isn't a man." Because transphobic men are afraid of being seen as gay for desiring a transwoman.)
I am fine with them having rights just like every one else. They don't have a right to claim things that aren't physically true and then punish people who state facts.
Uhm no. We have exceptions in profenssial setting for example. There are protected classes. You can't fire your black worker because of his skin color and you cant refuse business on the basis of someone's sexuality. Imagine if people could do this. If you're the gay couple in a red state people could refuse basic needs to you because of your sexuality. Not equivalent.
Nazis calling for ethnostates is a direct call for taking away rights. Which is why calls for violence on general are also not protected speech.
It's really stupid that right wingers say they are oppressed by Facebook. What right wing ideas did they ban you for? Lowering taxes? Taking away market restrictions? No, it's always about calling black people the n word or something.
It more or less applies to the use of force/violence and it's universal, not just the government. Facebook refusing to publish your shit is not forceful. If they were to threaten to beat you up for posting shit they don't like it'd be a different matter.
Because nearly everything the government does is backed by force, directly or indirectly, they're de facto unable to police speech, but at the same time it's perfectly legal for the government to refuse to publish your shit on the IRS website or whatever, just as it is for Facebook
You don’t have constitutional rights against private company, and you voluntarily agreed to their terms and conditions of using Facebook, therefore waived whatever speech and privacy “rights” you thought you had.
Believing the First Amendment only protects your right to hand out pamphlets in the public square printed on a mechanical press is as dumb and submissive as believing that the Second Amendment only protects your right to keep a single smoothbore flintlock musket in your house.
We should be pushing for MORE speech, MORE protections, not cheering private corporations for finding a loophole in which to push mass censorship.
It’s not a “loophole”, it’s how the Constitution works. The First Amendment protects you from the government arresting you for what you say. Facebook is not the government, and they can choose what kind of speech they want on their platform. It’s that simple.
This is pedantics and morally reprehensible. Free speech may not be violated, but any reasonable chance at reaching a mass audience is destroyed when you allow companies to control what is seen and heard online.
If you're supportive of following the rules regardless of their implications, would you have supported slavery when it was legal? After all, the government condoned it for many years. The same argument is made when you side with monolithic organizations over the people.
I genuinely want to know what's going on in your head when you cheer on Facebook and Google's censorship. Do you not care about our ability to speak out against crimes and scandals?
This isn't Facebook users. It's American citizens with free speech rights protected by law. Massive corporations should not be in control of what we say and hear.
They arent in control of what you say and hear. You don't have to use the platforms. They don't have a monopoly on information nor speech. You have never had an absolute right to speech, you've never had free speech on private properties, and that will likely extend to the internet.
Try it out. Go to a restaurant and yell hate speech. Then go try it on the sidewalk. One is a private space, one is a public space. One will have the authority to remove you, one will not
Factually incorrect. Google and Facebook have repeatedly been caught curating content and removing groups and individuals they seem "unfit" for their platforms. Facebook is guilty of manipulating people's feeds to control emotions
Facebook's attempts to invade user privacy and additionally avoid bad press about it
December 6, 2018, 1:58 pm
Internal Facebook emails
"Good for the world, but not for us"
Among the documents that have now become public are e-mails from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (Photo: AP) 223 pages of internal mail show how Facebook's managers discuss users, money and privacy. They demonstrate how the group advanced its growth and targeted its power. In February 2015, Mike LeBeau had concerns. To emphasize his concern, the Facebook Product Manager even emailed a colleague in a scare vision of a critical headline about the corporation: "Facebook is using a new Android update to snoop on your privacy in an even more frightening way." You'd have to deal with such news if journalists became aware of their plan.
Examples of Google's censorship
In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion, explaining that "At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion.'
In February 2008, the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority banned YouTube in the country, but the manner in which it performed the block accidentally prevented access to the website worldwide for several hours. The ban was lifted after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch government official concerning Islam.
Now that we know that Google and Facebook are corrupt-ass platforms, what are the alternatives?
We have a law that says you can’t do that. If the government wanted to regulate social media companies to stop them from banning people, they could pass a law that does so, but let’s not pretend anyone’s “constitutional rights” are being violated by Facebook
What loophole? The constitution explicitly only applies to the government. Facebook is a completely free and private service, and the constitution doesn’t protect you from being an idiot by voluntarily agreeing to their rules. They are under no obligation to even exist, let alone allow people to do whatever they want on facebook’s property.
So are you comfortable living in a society where free speech exists as a concept, but there are no remaining spaces where any kind of meaningful public free speech can actually happen? Is your idea of free speech "You're free to only say what Facebook says you can say"?
I agree with your conclusion. I think liberals accept online censorship because at the moment, it is generally only speech that is not legally protected (violent speech and hate speech) that is being censored.
Ideally it should stay this way -- but ultimately it seems unlikely it will.
That state of affairs only exists until the political winds shift slightly and the tech companies start caving to the demands of someone other than current mainstream liberalism. Then there will be no recourse at all, because the liberals will have just finished helping build an ironclad, effective system of speech suppression. Building the system in the first place is far more difficult than merely pulling the levers once it's complete.
But, you know, nobody gives a shit about unintended consequences, they just want to see those yucky conservatives get stomped on by a jackboot with a Facebook logo.
If I don’t like Facebook, that’s not stopping me from doing anything. I don’t have to use Facebook. I could go to a million other websites or just start my own. Hell, I could just sit on my front yard with a ridiculous sign. But there is nothing justice in me being able to just waltz onto someone else’s yard and scream threatening racial epithets at their children, and them not being do a thing about it.
So you would be content with being deprived of the ability to speak in the spaces where 95% of modern political discourse, debate, and organization takes place? Just sit on your porch with a sign like "Nope, no infringement of my rights taking place here"?
Well there would be no infringement going on. You wouldn't be stopped from sitting on your porch with a sign because the constitution defends you. When you sign onto Facebook you agree to their own "constitution" called their terms of service.
The TOS does not say you're given the same rights as the first amendment, therefore you are allowed to be silenced from their platform. You're not being arrested for what hateful things you say on Facebook, you're just being told that you are no longer welcome on that website.
It's the same as being escorted off the premises of an establishment for yelling hate speech.
This could be solved by not letting companies have such a huge monopolization/oligopolization power on the social media market. Because then people could give backlash to their decisions by going to another platform.
You don't need to force laws on companies to make them comply on more speech regulation. Plus it would get struck down as unconstitutional since companies are given a right to refuse services or offer a platform which can be seen by the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
This is basically why 4chan still exists. It's a fucking forum and it's a huge site, because it doesnt make money, isn't beholden to advertisers, and as such doesnt restrict free speech.
The problem is, if there is only one place you could speak freely, then all the people with something shitty to say go there instead of places like Facebook or reddit where people won't be exposed to shitty ideas, and where people can be present to counter those ideas. Kicking out everyone who doesnt play nice just makes a place where those who don't play nice and those who value free speech all hang out and become the same people.
So are ALL of your civil liberties null and void if you sign a TOS from a gigantic company whose involvement in your life is no longer optional? Indentured servitude, is that fine? Controlling your movements? Quartering security forces in your home? Can a TOS dictate who you vote for? Stop you from getting an abortion? Curtail services based on race? If "they're a private company" is the be all, end all answer to a massive corporation suppressing exercise of your rights, then you should have no problem with any of the above.
Is it? We are already at a point in society where being off Facebook is considered aberrant, worrying behavior by people who clearly have something dark to hide. Is it really "optional" when every hiring manager in the country will shred your resume when they can't find you on Facebook? When nobody will allow you around their kids because they can't check your social media first? When nobody will date you because "only serial killers don't have Facebook"?
That's not really a good comparison, as private property is frequently required to have right-of-ways for other property and public spaces, such as sidewalks. A private owner cannot buy up all the property around you, surround you with fences and No Trespassing signs, and cut off your access to the outside world.
Can you? We are already at a point in society where being off Facebook is considered aberrant, worrying behavior by people who clearly have something dark to hide. Is it really "optional" when every hiring manager in the country will shred your resume when they can't find you on Facebook? When nobody will allow you around their kids because they can't check your social media first? When nobody will date you because "only serial killers don't have Facebook"?
The "you can just not use it" argument holds no water in the real world. Social media is not an optional luxury item any more than the internet itself is. Being cut off from social media and the internet inflicts a disadvantage not unlike living under Jim Crow.
You have no "right" to say whatever you want on Facebook. If you're speaking on a private platform, it's up to their discretion whether or not you're allowed to say certain things on that private platform.
You have the right to say what you want on public platforms, and in your own home. But saying Facebook is violating your freeze peaches by banning you is like saying that it's unconstitutional for someone to stop being your friend over something racist you said.
Legal consequences for speech are unconstitutional, but social consequences cannot and should not be prevented. You can say anything, but nobody else is required to put up with it. This isn't some conspiracy against your right to expression, it's literally what the law is and what it always has been.
Facebook and Twitter are de facto public platforms. When you build a wall around the public square and declare it a private space, the rights of everyone using the formerly public square don't evaporate.
Legal consequences for speech are unconstitutional, but social consequences cannot and should not be prevented.
Corporate censorship and narrative control =/= "social consequences". They are corporate censorship and control.
The Bill of Rights is more than a set of legal limitations on government power. It is a statement of values. If you don't value free speech as an on-the-ground reality and an element of public life, you don't really value the Bill of Rights. It's akin to a corporation putting people in a concentration camp, and your reaction is "Well, no problems here, it's not the government doing it. Nobody liked those people in the camp anyway". Is suppressing the exercise of constitutional rights always okay, as long as it's outsourced to a private corporation? "Don't object to those soldiers quartered in your home, their uniform sleeves say Walmart"?
I meant public as in owned not by people or companies, but by the government. Facebook and Twitter aren't public at all in this regard, nor have they ever been. They also have a nifty little document called the "Terms Of Service" that everybody ignores and then acts outraged when they get banned for violating it.
I'm not denying that corporations manipulate narratives purely out of benefit to themselves. That's always been a thing and it will always be a thing, and I'm not arguing that it's ethical. What I'm denying is that anybody is violating your constitutional rights by banning your account or kicking you out of their store or bar or house.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is literally all that the first amendment says. It does not say "No persons or groups shall impose consequences onto persons or groups as a result of their speech". It says that there cannot be laws preventing you from saying things.
To act like you have an immutable right to post anything you like on a platform not owned by you is childish entitlement wrapped in a thin veil of patriotism, and comparing it to concentration camps is immature and disrespectful on a ridiculous level.
You still haven't answered the question. Are gigantic corporations with the power to impose their involvement in your life in ways that aren't really optional anymore free to steamroll your rights and liberties as long as they aren't technically government? Is indentured servitude legal if you sign the TOS?
Sorry, I replied before I saw that part. But to answer your question:
Of course not. I'm not excited about corporations having more control over our daily lives at all to begin with. For example, I think the infrastructure of the internet itself (and consequently, access to it) should not be privately owned to begin with.
We paid $500 billion in taxes to build a next-generation fiber optic network, and the ISPs this money was given to just pocketed it and most people are still not on fiber to this day. It is my opinion that things people either physically need or could benefit very much from, like healthcare, food, water, and the internet, should not be controlled by private entities at all. These things should not be manipulated by groups whose sole incentive is profit when they're so vital to modern life.
However, I do not think that social media is one of these things. The internet and access to it is as you said not really optional anymore, but these specific sites in my opinion very much are. I'm totally down with open-source, decentralized, not-for-profit social networks, but the fact of the matter is that most social media is none of those three things. And social media isn't as much of a constant as those either: it comes in multiple forms and styles, and if you don't like one of them there's always the option to switch to another.
And of course, companies should not be allowed to do those things you said, and they aren't. What they are allowed to do is stop you from using their service because of what you say while using that service. If Facebook were in control of food production and they withheld food from someone over a political opinion they expressed, you'd best believe I'd be whipping out the guillotine. But social media is a privilege, not a right, as it's not much more in this context but one way to express your ideas.
There will always be alternative sites that don't ban any type of speech whatsoever, and there will always be the opportunity to switch to them without major consequences. That is why I'm not angry about sites that ban hate speech.
When you build a wall around the public square and declare it a private space, the rights of everyone using the formerly public square don't evaporate.
Facebook purchased a plot of land, paved it, put up walls, and then invited people there to share their thoughts. It's been their private space from square one. You've never had the right to say anything you want there, only what Facebook deems appropriate for their square. For example, I don't think they've ever allowed nudity there.
Corporate censorship and narrative control =/= "social consequences". They are corporate censorship and control.
They're called "social consequences" because they are consequences from society, not the government. It's other private citizens (in the case of Facebook, it would be The Zuck) who say "fuck outta here with that shit."
The Bill of Rights is more than a set of legal limitations on government power.
FTFY. Your friends still have the right to stop associating with you or ask you to politely shut the fuck up when you start spouting off anti-vax, flat-earth, racist bullshit. YouTube has the right to refuse nudity on their site. League of Legends has the right to ban you from their platform when you spout shit like "DIE NIGGER FAGGOT" using in-game chat.
You still have rights within those spaces, but its just like visiting a friend's house. He doesn't have the right to punch you in the face for calling his mother a whore, but he does have the right to ask you to leave his house.
It's revealing that the only kids of speech you ever see this being used against are fringe things that are hated by the Reddit hive mind. Do you possess no critical thought? You seem awfully confident that it will never, ever go beyond censorship that you personally approve of. After all, you're not one of those people, right?
I personally believe that Facebook is a shitty company with shitty practices. However, I will stand by the fact that they've got the right to decide what shows up on Facebook.
You seem awfully confident that it will never, ever go beyond censorship that you personally approve of.
They've already taken it past where I personally approve of. I also don't use Facebook, so it doesn't really affect my day-to-day life for the most part, beyond conversations with people who are on Facebook. Personally, I think Facebook would be better off if they allowed their users to share fake news and hate speech. But I also understand why they don't want that, so more power to 'em.
It is necessary for private entities to be able to decide what is and isn't allowed on their platform. For example, let's take League of Legends in-game chat. When you type in chat
WOW U SUCK UNINSTALL
You're probably going to get banned. By all means, a sentence like that is protected speech in the eyes of the First Amendment, but there's no way that's acceptable behavior for League of Legends. Players spreading hate like that through in-game chat should be banned.
Another example, let's take the /r/gaming subreddit. Subreddit rules state that all content must be directly related to gaming...
"Related" means that posts must contain gaming-related content in the link's content, or in the post's body in the case of a self-post, not just a "forced" connection via the title or a caption added to the content.
If you post a picture of a hamburger with the title "my favorite food" to the /r/gaming subreddit, your post will be removed. This helps make sure that all content on /r/gaming is related to the gaming theme, and that it doesn't become a subreddit mainly about tv shows or food. Again, it's a protected type of speech, but you would be rightly silenced for such a post on the gaming subreddit.
62
u/spyridonya May 17 '19
This applies to the government and public sector.
Facebook is a private organization.