Popular Post BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 7, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 7, 2015 When expressing my opinion that businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want, I often hear "So, you want to go back to the Jim Crow days when businesses discriminated against blacks!"No. I do not want to go back to the days when laws mandated that businesses segregate between whites and blacks. Government should not be in the discrimination business.What I want is days where business people are free to run their companies as they see fit. The market will determine whether they are making smart decisions or not. We should not force business to make good decisions or prevent them from making poor ones. 8
cynth Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 So in the marketplace, you want interaction with other citizens to depend on your personal preference. So when you walk into a store and someone says I can see your garments, get out, you will leave, saying to yourself, that's fair. Your access to the marketplace, including the job market, can depend upon the individual preferences of someone who, say, thinks all Utahns are crazy and can't be trusted with a job. Oh, and as long as it's not a law that Mormons are discriminated against, it's okay if individuals do it. Please, think before you speak! 2
Sanpitch Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 At first thought, I tend to agree with the idea that a business should have the right to decide who they serve and whether they serve a certain race of people or gays. But then there could be the problem of the discriminated against not being able to being served in the area that they are banned such as my small town with one grocery store. If they are banned they must travel fifteen miles out of town to find a shopping area. A business may have the monopoly in a area and it's hardly fair for that monopoly to serve only those they chose to. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) If someone is going to judge me on invidious criteria, then I don't want to work there, shop there, et cetera. And there's a big difference between isolated, nonsystemic, de facto discrimination and the kind of widespread, entrenched, formerly legally-sanctioned discrimination that the Fourteenth Amendment now prohibits. As many wrongs as law can right, it cannot right every wrong, nor should it. Edited July 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969
Popular Post KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 7, 2015 Cynth, I have been discriminated against, and so have my children, for being Mormons. In the cases of employment discrimination I chose not to sue the employer or individuals who discriminated against me. I was just relieved to find out they were bigots before I signed on. If they choose to mistreat individuals for one reason or another, eventually they will lose out on good employees and business. I'm loathe to compel someone by lawfare or force to accommodate me. On the other hand it is my individual ethic that has me treat all people as equitably as possible. I employ a variety of individuals who have vastly different belief systems and practices than myself. Including LGBTIQ employees. But were I forced to take an employee due to demographic reasons over qualification, or forced to provide a service to anyone that I found ethically objectionable (selling drugs for example) I would consider quitting. I do not personally consider sexual orientation or ethnicity reasons to discriminate, and I find accusations of bigotry insulting when I merely stand up for the rights of individuals to freely associate - no matter how crazy their reasons are. 5
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) At first thought, I tend to agree with the idea that a business should have the right to decide who they serve and whether they serve a certain race of people or gays. But then there could be the problem of the discriminated against not being able to being served in the area that they are banned such as my small town with one grocery store. If they are banned they must travel fifteen miles out of town to find a shopping area. A business may have the monopoly in a area and it's hardly fair for that monopoly to serve only those they chose to. If a couple wants to sue because I won't bake them a cake, fine: let them sue, and when they do, let them prove by the relevant evidentiary standard that their efforts to obtain similar goods or services at a similar price were unavailing. However, if-and-when they win, let their recovery be limited to what I, as a refusing business owner, would have charged them if I had provided the good or service and what the accepting business owner actually did charge them, along with related expenses such as travel. This will cut down really quickly on using lawsuits as cudgels with which to beat recalcitrant business owners over the head and to generate sympathetic publicity rather than to right actual wrongs. P.S.: To be clear, I would bake the cake or provide the product or service. Nothing in my religious tradition mandates that I force people to accept my paradigm; the only things likely to result from a refusal to do so are ill will against me, against my business, and against my religion (if it is known); and I'm too practical to lose business in such a case. However, I support the right of business owners to refuse to do business on religious grounds. Edited July 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969 4
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 So in the marketplace, you want interaction with other citizens to depend on your personal preference. So when you walk into a store and someone says I can see your garments, get out, you will leave, saying to yourself, that's fair. Your access to the marketplace, including the job market, can depend upon the individual preferences of someone who, say, thinks all Utahns are crazy and can't be trusted with a job. Oh, and as long as it's not a law that Mormons are discriminated against, it's okay if individuals do it. Please, think before you speak!I'm not Mormon, so I don't know that anyone would see my underwear and get hostile, but I do wear tzitzit (Number 15:38-41) so I may be mistaken for a Jew at some point...Anyhoo...I believe it is completely fair, as long as I am afforded the same opportunity to deny service to whom I please. I think the law should be htat businesses should be able to discriminate as they see fit.. Mormons or not Mormons.Word of mouth will do its job after that. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 The free market is not a panacea for every social ill. Neither is law. Hallelujah! We agree! 1
Daniel2 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) When expressing my opinion that businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want, I often hear "So, you want to go back to the Jim Crow days when businesses discriminated against blacks!"No. I do not want to go back to the days when laws mandated that businesses segregate between whites and blacks. Government should not be in the discrimination business.What I want is days where business people are free to run their companies as they see fit. The market will determine whether they are making smart decisions or not. We should not force business to make good decisions or prevent them from making poor ones.I'm curious as to how far this "freedom" you speak of should extend... Would you therefore agree that business owners should be entirely free to fire employees that refuse to serve others due to the employees personal beliefs?Should employers be able to fire employees because of their race, religion, etc?Should hospital workers (doctors, EMTs, ambulence drivers, nurses, etc) be able to refuse services to anyone who walks in their doors for whatever reason?"Word of mouth sorting it out" doesn't save the life of an individual denied an ambulance ride or emergency room treatment.And, again, should hospital administrators be free to fire said medical workers for refusing services?Do you support non-discrimination laws in housing and employment?Do you believe employers should be legally required to continue employing non-working individuals who refuse to serve potential customers, including those who are in life-saving roles?If one advocates for doing away with anti-discrimination laws in the realms of public accommodations, in order to be fair to employers' freedoms, it seems to me that you would have to do away with anti-discrimination laws when it comes to housing and employment as well. Otherwise, you would be punishing business owners and forcing them to maintain insubordinate employees who refuse to do their jobs that they are getting paid for, and potentially damaging the company and its reputation and causing business owners to lose money. Edited July 7, 2015 by Daniel2 3
Kenngo1969 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Daniel: I'll answer all of your questions, if you'll answer one of mine: Will you die without cake? Edited July 8, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
rpn Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The major problem with the OP's position is that until a community gets to be a certain size, the shared culture and peer pressure distorts true market decisions. People aren't able to (or at least they don't feel able to) decide to follow a path that is not what the majority think is appropriate.
canard78 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Daniel/Darin:I'll answer all of your questions, if you'll answer one of mine:Will you die without cake? But it's not about cake. It's never been about cake.
tonie Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 When expressing my opinion that businesses should be able to discriminate against whoever they want, I often hear "So, you want to go back to the Jim Crow days when businesses discriminated against blacks!"No. I do not want to go back to the days when laws mandated that businesses segregate between whites and blacks. Government should not be in the discrimination business.What I want is days where business people are free to run their companies as they see fit. The market will determine whether they are making smart decisions or not. We should not force business to make good decisions or prevent them from making poor ones. So you want to abolish the Civil Rights Act, is what you are saying in your post.
Popular Post bluebell Posted July 8, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 8, 2015 But it's not about cake. It's never been about cake. Sometimes, it really is just about cake. The bakers who refused to make the SSM wedding cake had served gay people in the past. They didn't have a problem being nice to or feeding gay people. That was not against their beliefs. They didn't want to ban gay people from their bakery. It was just about the wedding cake. I don't agree with the OP, because i do believe that some rights should be regulated and protected. I don't know that i believe "right to have a wedding cake by the baker of your choice" should be one of them though. 6
Bobbieaware Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The free market is not a panacea for every social ill.And neither is destroying free agency. 1
Daniel2 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Daniel/[deleted]I'll answer all of your questions, if you'll answer one of mine:Will you die without cake? No--I won't die from lack of cake, nor have I ever claimed I would. For our wedding, my husband and I bought our favorite cakes from Costco (the Triple Chocolate Chocolate Cake) and Smith's grocery (the Cream Cheese Carrot Cake)--but we obviously wouldn't have died without either.Now, in addition to answering my previous questions, can you also please answer: where is it written that a bakery baking a cake is a violation of any religious texts or tennants? Or do you assert that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can claim any undocumentable religious belief as a legally-valid excuse to avoid compliance with any law (with strictly non-fatal consequences) which they may object to...? Either way, the OP didn't mention anything about cake, so either question is mute in this thread. So, it truly ISN'T about cake here, is it? BookofMormonLuvr, (and anyone else), I look forward to your responses to my questions.Finall, my understanding of board rules is that its a violation to refer to other posters by their real names, unless otherwise given permission to do so. In case it's not clear: please refer to me by my Username and edit your previous post accordingly (presuming your "freedom of religion" doesn't give you permission to violate the Board Rules). Edited July 8, 2015 by Daniel2 2
The Nehor Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 No. I do not want to go back to the days when laws mandated that businesses segregate between whites and blacks. Government should not be in the discrimination business. Couple of fallacies of your own in here. First of all Jim Crow laws were about public (i.e. government) segregation. They mandated separate bathrooms in public areas, separate schools, etc. There were no laws that I know of forcing businesses to discriminate based on race. Most did of their own choice. So basically you want the Jim Crow days except in regards to government facilities. White neighborhoods can refuse to rent to or sell to black people. Businesses and hotels can refuse service based on race. Employers can choose to hire only whites or relegate blacks only to menial labor. There is the argument that things have changed and this would not happen to which I would respond: It happened before and it can happen again. Maybe this time it will be some other trait on which we can base discrimination. Jews are a popular and longrunning group. Why not drive the Mormons out of town by setting up a town boycott refusing to provide them any services? Maybe blue-eyed people? To create a right to discriminate is also to create the right to be discriminated against. It takes our ability to live in our society without persecution and tosses it away. Maybe we won't be the target but maybe we will. Even if we never are there is a definite moral concern about people looking back at the days of white privilege and saying: Yeah, we should do that again except with a new target. 3
Stargazer Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 So in the marketplace, you want interaction with other citizens to depend on your personal preference. So when you walk into a store and someone says I can see your garments, get out, you will leave, saying to yourself, that's fair. Your access to the marketplace, including the job market, can depend upon the individual preferences of someone who, say, thinks all Utahns are crazy and can't be trusted with a job. Oh, and as long as it's not a law that Mormons are discriminated against, it's okay if individuals do it. Please, think before you speak! If someone wants to discriminate against me because I'm LDS, that's their right. They are wrong to do so, but it is their right. In my belief, anyway.
Stargazer Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The free market is not a panacea for every social ill. Who is saying that it is? This is much like Churchill's dictum that Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for every other. The free market, if truly free, will tend to equity among individuals and groups, but it isn't perfect. There is no perfect system, but the free market is the least imperfect. Any other system, such as one that forces people to have good will despite their actual desires, have the scent of brimstone about them. Just as Lucifer promised to bring every child of God back to the Father, by virtue of being forced to do no evil but to do good continuously, a system which compels equity is Satanic. Only the allowance for free and untrammeled choice can produce the results that God wants. 1
Gray Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Who is saying that it is? This is much like Churchill's dictum that Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for every other. The free market, if truly free, will tend to equity among individuals and groups, but it isn't perfect. There is no perfect system, but the free market is the least imperfect. Any other system, such as one that forces people to have good will despite their actual desires, have the scent of brimstone about them. Just as Lucifer promised to bring every child of God back to the Father, by virtue of being forced to do no evil but to do good continuously, a system which compels equity is Satanic. Only the allowance for free and untrammeled choice can produce the results that God wants. In this case, not only is it not a panacea, it doesn't even work particularly well as a placebo. Jim Crow didn't end through free market forces. If laws against discrimination are satanic, what do you make of laws against gay marriage? Also satanic? 1
CV75 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The free market is not a panacea for every social ill. I have a testimony that the Gospel is.
CV75 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 In this case, not only is it not a panacea, it doesn't even work particularly well as a placebo. Jim Crow didn't end through free market forces. If laws against discrimination are satanic, what do you make of laws against gay marriage? Also satanic?D&C 101 speaks to supporting laws against same-sex marriage (see verse 79)… Yes, that's a joke on one level and quite literal on another and others. But the Lord does make clear in verses 77-78 that we are to conduct our extra-Church societal affairs “According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Recommended Posts