The Jim Crow Fallacy

[BlueDreams]

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!"

 

I wouldn't call this Jim Crowish...but I would call it dangerous precedence, particularly if the laws are too loosely worded. There is a part of me that empathizes with the cake baker. The fallout really seems too harsh over a wedding cake and the charges trumped up. I've faced discrimination and on no day would I have described it as mental rape. 

 

But there's a part of me, that just wouldn't be ok with this if it were me and my favorite baker was fine having my services until they wouldn't serve me a wedding cake for my interracial wedding (and there's a high likelihood of it being very interracial) because of personal beliefs that what I'm doing is somehow unethical or irresponsible for our (children, society, cultures, you name it). It's cake, not a morality litmus test. And I don't want to have to put extra work in on finding venues that will cater to me. I shouldn't have to read titles and purpose statements looking for code words to know whether or not they'll take my business. I wouldn't want to enter a store on a fluke and wonder to myself, is this a place where I'm acceptable, where I am wanted, just to buy something. And as much as I feel for the baking couple, I resonate with the gay couple also, knowing exactly what it means to be a minority where to someone I am not acceptable. So the idea naturally makes me nervous because I know it opens a very probable door for me to be actively discriminated against. I've seen/had some bigotry based on being Mormon, but it is not an equivalent to being a visible minority.

 

I do think some discrimination by businesses is acceptable. If the baker didn't want to bake a cake that was sexually explicit for a bridal shower (gay or straight) then I'd get that, that's fair. Because it immediately effects the type of product they're selling and a general business decision to not sell something to the general public. I personally discriminate as part of my work as well as a sex therapist. I specialize, and am slowly developing a niche within the field. I would be highly uncomfortable taking a gay couple. Not because they were gay (if they wanted general couple's therapy, I'd be fine with that), but because for my field I would need more specialized training/experience for that...training I really don't have. So I would feel inadequate in working with them and would probably mention this upfront and offer to refer them to someone who does specialize in that area. I would do similar for other areas of concern that are not within my expertise. Heaven knows we want our doctors to discriminate based on their specialized care. If they know nothing about foot problems, send me to a foot specialist and tell me up front. 

 

When there is some form of specialty attended to the services offered or it effects the products that they would need to produce (products they don't have currently available), then a business or profession has every right to discriminate.  But that's not what is being asked. Last time I checked, a cake is just a cake. There's nothing specialized about a wedding cake for a gay marriage compared to a straight one except, maybe, the topper (if they asked for one). There's no special service that they would need to offer. There would be no actual participation in the wedding itself. So their grounds for discrimination to me, just don't hold up.

 

With luv,

BD      

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Well said, Daniel.

Moreover, in the June 29, 2015, statement of the First Presidency and Twelve, they pointed out that "the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

 

They clearly do not want to have any truck with ugly intolerance in the guise of religious preference.

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................  

 

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. 

The best system is the United Order.

And, according to Carol Lynn Pearson, the Order is love.

Where does that leave the Machiavellian free market?

[The Nehor]

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.

So if you were moving to a new city for a job and on arriving found that no one would sell you food, the only houses anyone would sell you are in the slums, your children were de facto segregated in school due to having to live in a bad area, you are denied banking by all the banks in town. You decide to buy everything from Amazon but they decide they no longer want to serve Mormons and cancel your account. Then you shrug your shoulders and say it is their right. Or worse, you say the same thing while others are so treated.

[Avatar4321]

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.

Then there is a great business opportunity to create a market there that doesn't discriminate

[Gray]

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.

 

So... yes? No?

[Gray]

And neither is destroying free agency.

 

All laws place limits on agency. I don't think it's accurate to say that agency has been destroyed by any of the current laws. 

[The Nehor]

And neither is destroying free agency.

Agency is the right to choose and no force on earth can limit it. That battle is already won. Freedoms are what we discuss and what freedoms we limit to get greater freedoms is part of the science of good government. I am willing to give up my freedom to discriminate to have the greater freedom of not having permanent underclasses denied access to basic services in our society and being one social shift away from being such an underclass.

[Daniel2]

BookofMormonLuvr, (and anyone else), I look forward to your responses to my questions.

A full page later, and still no one has answered my questions. (Thanks for the compliment, Robert).

Interesting.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Daniel2

[Sanpitch]

Then there is a great business opportunity to create a market there that doesn't discriminate

 

Not in a small town with just enough population for one grocery store.

[Bob Crockett]

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.

 

Well, your "business" depends upon the support of tax-paying citizenry for a free market, access to the courts to collect debts and declare bankruptcy, publicly-funded roads and rail systems, police protection and such as that.  Why should you be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual preference, on the one hand, and claim the right of protection from the government on the other hand?

 

If you're a doctor and you don't want to provide fertility services for an unwed couple, then you shouldn't have relied upon government funding to get your medical degree.  

 

If you're a landlord and you don't want to rent to a gay couple, then don't use government services to enforce your landlord rights.

 

It is one thing to engage in discrimination to protect your moral values, such as discriminating against the people you date or want to marry or let into your church and quite another thing to discriminate against somebody to make a buck.  Let's have gay-free commercial districts, black-free movie houses, Jew-free credit unions and Mormon-free restaurants.  

Edited July 8, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Alan]

We use the "market" (whatever that is) to discriminate on religious grounds already.

When I go to the supermarket I don't buy tea, coffee or alcohol because of my religious views. This is not a personal preference (I used to love tea before I joined the church), it is a religiously motivated discriminatory position; and it's both deliberate and blatant.

I see no reason why it is any different the other way around.

[thesometimesaint]

Markets are not magic.

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuemA2uwi04

[The Nehor]

Then there is a great business opportunity to create a market there that doesn't discriminate

Sounds great but is also absolutely wrong. In the golden age of discrimination in the South you could in theory get more business by serving all but in fact letting in the undesirables means others do not patronize your business. You also suffer social scorn for consorting with them and Heaven help you if you are in the discriminated against class imagining you can attract the dominant class to your business by being non-discriminatory.

[The Nehor]

The best system is the United Order.

And, according to Carol Lynn Pearson, the Order is love.

Where does that leave the Machiavellian free market?

Capitalism is going to the scrap heap at some point. Until we accept the United Order I think it is a tolerable system if it is checked and controlled by outside forces, primarily basic morality, social safety nets, and government prevention of abuse.

[carbon dioxide]

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.

 

A business exists to make money.  If a business owner does not want to make money by not selling stuff to blacks, it is their loss.  Somebody else will see the business opportunity to sell things to blacks.  The free market in the end will supply everyone with what they want and the people will have more liberty in the process.

[thesometimesaint]

A business exists to make money.  If a business owner does not want to make money by not selling stuff to blacks, it is their loss.  Somebody else will see the business opportunity to sell things to blacks.  The free market in the end will supply everyone with what they want and the people will have more liberty in the process.

 

History says otherwise.

[Bob Crockett]

A business exists to make money.  If a business owner does not want to make money by not selling stuff to blacks, it is their loss.  Somebody else will see the business opportunity to sell things to blacks.  The free market in the end will supply everyone with what they want and the people will have more liberty in the process.

Oh, that makes me feel better having experienced rejection from a private university's doctoral program in theological history because I was a Mormon.

[Kenngo1969]

Daniel,

 

I'm already on record, several times, as saying that I would bake a cake (while I might not decorate it, but, as I say, feel free to buy your own plastic, gay, bride and groom and to place it prominently on the otherwise nicely-decorated cake's top tier), and/or that I would provide some other good or service, if I were a business owner, for a gay wedding even though I don't support gay marriage: Nothing in my religious tradition mandates that I force people to accept my paradigm, I wouldn't want to do something that engenders needless bad will against me, against my business, or against my religion (if it were known), and I'm too practical to lose business in such a case.  I'm even on record as saying, several times, that I would still allow a gay couple denied a cake to sue (with caveats that I have already mentioned).

 

As for the other cases you mention, no, I don't support people being denied lifesaving treatment on religious grounds, nor do I support people being able to deny essential services such as food, lodging and other essential goods and services on those grounds (which, in case you missed it, was exactly the point of my "will-you-die-without-cake" question; while someone is perfectly welcome to his own deeply held religious beliefs, if he has a problem with my cake baking (or other) business providing goods or services for a gay wedding, he's perfectly welcome to find employment elsewhere.  As for someone denying me employment or services because he doesn't like my religion or some other trait I possess, I wouldn't want to work (or to do business) there anyway.  The "critical mass" question someone else asked is a good one: if my business were [x] or if I needed a [y], and if business [z] were the only one in town that could employ me or could supply me with a [y], then I guess I would have a decision to make.  I could dissolve into a snit and threaten to sue [z] for all it's worth, or I could, as I have suggested, sue under a regime that limits me to the actual damages I have incurred by being forced to make other arrangements.

 

Law is a useful tool, but it cannot root out evil impulses from the human heart, nor can it right every wrong.  A man forced to bake a cake (or to provide some other good or service) against his will, is of the same opinion, still

[The Nehor]

We use the "market" (whatever that is) to discriminate on religious grounds already.When I go to the supermarket I don't buy tea, coffee or alcohol because of my religious views. This is not a personal preference (I used to love tea before I joined the church), it is a religiously motivated discriminatory position; and it's both deliberate and blatant.I see no reason why it is any different the other way around.

That is engaging with the market to supply your wants. A bald man is not discriminating against barbershops and someone who dislikes falling from great heights is not discriminating against a skydiving business and someone who refuses to go to Wal-Mart because they dislike their business practices is not being discriminatory in the manner we are discussing,

[CV75]

So... yes? No?

What do you think?

[Gray]

What do you think?

 

I couldn't really suss out what you were trying to say, or what the answer to my question might be based on your comments and quotes 

[longview]

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.

Your arguments are disjointed. Jim Crow laws were institutionalized through force of government (state and local). It only took a vocal minority to bring it about. I am guessing a third of the population had positive feelings for the blacks but were cowed by the noisy and belligerent one fourth. The remainder were uncaring or too complacent.

The Federal government intervened only because of shaming by Ghandi-like MLK and his allies. It took time to gradually remove more and more elements of Jim Crow laws and institutional discrimination. The Feds were able to act because the Constitution was clearly violated by these things. Sadly it took so long for corrections to be made.

 

If laws against discrimination are satanic, what do you make of laws against gay marriage? Also satanic?

There were NO laws against homosexual marriage (not to be confused with anti-sodomy laws of previous decades). Society needs the serious support of government protection for many aspects of the basic unit (mother/father/children) which I argued for in the previous thread ("the one ring to rule them all"). There are many important, critical, crucial reasons for sustaining and promoting the basic unit.

[Stargazer]

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?

 

No, it didn't, but given enough time it might have.  I'm happy enough that they hurried the process along -- growing up as a white guy in a location with so few blacks I didn't ever so much as pass by one in the schoolyard until we moved to Canada in 1967, Jim Crow didn't much impact me, except to make me sick to my stomach.  Gosh, that was awful.  Passing through Louisiana at age 15 I saw my first restroom marked "Colored", right next to "Men" and "Women".  It shocked me to my core.  Now THAT was Satanic.

 

Forcing human behavior through laws is a delicate business.  Negative laws prohibiting murder, theft and other immoral interactions are laws well-adopted to keep human interactions peaceful (or as peaceful as they can be, at least), but positive laws forcing me to do things I don't want to do, can be very problematic.  Especially if failure to do them is a created and not a real harm, such as refusal to bake a wedding cake.  There are those who would force everyone to behave in certain ways through the power of law.  Like the Wisconsin prosecutor who used his powers to attack conservatives sympathetic to Gov. Scott Walker, not because they did anything wrong, but because they were conservative.

[ERayR]

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!

 

Why would I want to give my hard earned money to somebody like that? 

 

"Your access to the marketplace, including the job market, can does depend upon the individual preferences of someone who, say, thinks all Utahns are crazy and can't be trusted with a job."