One fewer Christian-owned bakery after religious freedom fight

[Suudy]

You keep speaking in abstractions, but when it comes to applications, Scalia would not agree with the position you are taking on restaurants.

You are the one speaking in abstracting by bringing up dignity. I do not think Scalia would use dignity as an argument to oppose racism or bigotry by business owners.

 

[Suudy]

So, the market makes society equal only for those who are allowed to participate in the exchange of goods and services.

No, only those who are allowed to voluntarily participate. Unborn children are never given a choice. Which is why when it comes to monopolies–such as the mother has over the child–there must be government involvement.

Therefore it is not equal to those who are denied the participation in commerce because a storekeeper refuses to sell to them.

The market is larger than a single storekeeper. And the market must also be free to allow newcomers to offer their services as well. For example, say the majority of storekeepers are racist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, homphobic deplorables. The market must be open their competitors. And their competitors must be protected from coercion, intimidation, and other anti-competitive measures.

And this is exactly what happened with Jim Crow. The racist business owners didn’t like the competition from other businesses that were happy to do business with African-Americans. So they colluded with government to get anti-competitive laws passed. It is precisely this government involvement that exacerbated and dragged out the integration of businesses. I truly believe had the Jim Crow laws been forced out of existence and a free and open market were allowed to operate, things would have been integrated sooner and with less lingering hostility.

For society to be equal, it must be equal to everyone, not just the favored ones, like those who have made it out of the womb.

Indeed. All monopolies should be forced to serve all. But individual racists and bigots will have competition–so long as the market is free and open–and would quickly die out.

Really, you should read some Sowell or Williams on this.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You are the one speaking in abstracting by bringing up dignity. I do not think Scalia would use dignity as an argument to oppose racism or bigotry by business owners.

The abstractions I am referring to are the cases that you do not mention. I do mention cases. I cited restaurant service, hotel service, school attendance. So far the only concrete case we agree on is the baker in the OP. My arguments supporting the baker are narrowly targeted to support the baker, but not the hotel manager. Your arguments to support the baker are way too broad, supporting not only the baker but every kind of discrimination imaginable. That is what I mean. Get specific!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, only those who are allowed to voluntarily participate. Unborn children are never given a choice. Which is why when it comes to monopolies–such as the mother has over the child–there must be government involvement.

You are grasping at straws. Why not just admit the market does not guarantee a moral outcome. You say it guarantees equality. But in what sense? Certainly not in any moral sense. And that is the sense in which we look to laws like the Civil Rights Act to enforce that morality among the few of us who would flaunt it.

The market is larger than a single storekeeper. And the market must also be free to allow newcomers to offer their services as well. For example, say the majority of storekeepers are racist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, homphobic deplorables. The market must be open their competitors. And their competitors must be protected from coercion, intimidation, and other anti-competitive measures.

You have a naive hope that more moral competitors will arise to fill the niche left by storekeepers who discriminate. They might, in time. But it is wrong to overlook the evils done while waiting for that wonderful day to arrive.

And this is exactly what happened with Jim Crow. The racist business owners didn’t like the competition from other businesses that were happy to do business with African-Americans. So they colluded with government to get anti-competitive laws passed. It is precisely this government involvement that exacerbated and dragged out the integration of businesses. I truly believe had the Jim Crow laws been forced out of existence and a free and open market were allowed to operate, things would have been integrated sooner and with less lingering hostility.

Well, since that experiment was not performed, we will never know if that would have happened or not. I happen to think not.

 

[XndrK]

It wasn’t a religious freedom fight. The bakery was fighting for the right to discriminate against people. They rightly lost.

You refuse to sell apples to gay people because they’re gay, that’s weird: eating apples is eating apples. You refuse to sell a wedding cake for a gay “wedding”, that’s justified: the owners of the bakery know that said cake will be used as part of something objectively immoral (namely, trumping up a gay relationship as a marriage).

 

[ARSpade]

As I’ve stated in previous discussions that’s fine. Denying services to LGBT people is not.

Yeah, it’s not right to discriminate against people when you have a social obligation plus a legal obligations enforced by the government.

Like when all those black guys who were legally owned by white people and providing a service required of them by the social and legal framework of the time. Government had a duty to make sure they didn’t deny their service.

 

[Suudy]

You are grasping at straws. Why not just admit the market does not guarantee a moral outcome.

YOU are the one that has injected and insisted on morality here, not me. YOU are the one that brought dignity into the argument. So please don’t project your point of view onto my argument.

But not even the Civil Rights Act enforces a “moral outcome.” Nor can it since it violates a fundamental moral principle of freedom. It forces people to act in accordance to government whim. Nor did I say a free and open market guarantees anything. I said it is the best means–both morally and practically–to achieve a good. Finally, you’ll note that I said that freedom is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a moral society. So where are you getting the “guarantee a moral outcome” position?

You say it guarantees equality. But in what sense? Certainly not in any moral sense.

Absolutely in a moral sense: equality of opportunity. But NOT equality of outcome. And I strongly suspect you want the latter. But you can’t have both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. This nonsense about equality of outcome has really come to the fore in the last 30-40 years.

And that is the sense in which we look to laws like the Civil Rights Act to enforce that morality among the few of us who would flaunt it.

Huh? What does this even mean?

You have a naive hope that more moral competitors will arise to fill the niche left by storekeepers who discriminate. They might, in time.

They will very quickly arrive, assuming there are no barriers to their entry to the market, such as Jim Crow laws, minimum wage laws (like the Davis-Bacon act which was specifically intended to target black owned businesses and workers), licensing, and other artificial means of keeping out competition. The only delay in competition coming in and providing an alternative to racist or bigoted competition is the government itself.

But it is wrong to overlook the evils done while waiting for that wonderful day to arrive.

And the government should make positive, meaningful steps to address the evils by providing alternatives, rather than limiting freedom, competition, and coercive action. Since when do two wrongs make a right?

Well, since that experiment was not performed, we will never know if that would have happened or not. I happen to think not.

But it was happening. Right up until Jim Crow shut it down. Who do you think were the biggest supporters of Jim Crow were? Racist, bigoted business owners who used the power of government to keep out competition. Who do you think were the biggest supporters of the Davis-Bacon act? Racist, bigoted union leadership. It was working right up until the Davis-Bacon act drove competition–specifically black competition–out of government construction work.

Every single case of barriers to entry to the market prolonged the ability for the market to adjust to the needs of everyone. And every single one of those barriers to entry were done through government. In the cases where the market has been tried, it has succeeded. And when it succeeded, businesses colluded with the government to keep competition out. Government has done more to prolong and deepen discrimination and racism than any individual business or business owner.

 

[Suudy]

The abstractions I am referring to are the cases that you do not mention. I do mention cases. I cited restaurant service, hotel service, school attendance. So far the only concrete case we agree on is the baker in the OP. My arguments supporting the baker are narrowly targeted to support the baker, but not the hotel manager. Your arguments to support the baker are way too broad, supporting not only the baker but every kind of discrimination imaginable. That is what I mean. Get specific!

But you cit an abstraction as rationale for your specifics. Why even bother with specifics when there is disagreement on the principle behind it? I disagree that dignity is even affected by racist or bigoted behavior. And since I disagree, I don’t see any point in discussing how dignity matters at all in relation to the choices a business or business owner makes.

Let’s agree on fundamentals before applying them to specifics.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But not even the Civil Rights Act enforces a “moral outcome.” Nor can it since it violates a fundamental moral principle of freedom.

The kind of freedom you speak of is not a fundamental moral principle. It has limitations. Many of those limitations you would agree with. So do not speak of freedom as if it were an absolute.

It forces people to act in accordance to government whim.

I disagree with your characterization of reasonable laws as a whim. You seem to be trying to prove too much.

Nor did I say a free and open market guarantees anything. I said it is the best means–both morally and practically–to achieve a good.

I have disagreed with you on that question.

Finally, you’ll note that I said that freedom is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a moral society.

The kind of freedom you speak of is not even a necessary condition. It is quite possible to have a moral society and still have some limitations placed on personal freedom.

Absolutely in a moral sense: equality of opportunity.

The market does not even guarantee equality of opportunity.

Huh? What does this even mean?

What I mean is that the Civil Rights Act provides an equality that is not always provided by the market.

They will very quickly arrive, assuming there are no barriers to their entry to the market, such as…

More speculation that I do not agree with.

And the government should make positive, meaningful steps to address the evils by providing alternatives…

The government should provide alternatives to what is being denied by discrimination? Let’s see how that could work. Let’s say there is hotel in a small town that does not rent to blacks. The town is so small it only has one hotel. I guess you are saying the government should come in and build a competing hotel that does rent to blacks? That doesn’t sound very wise either. I don’t know what sort of government action you envision that would be better than just requiring that the one hotel in that town rent to blacks.

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

You assume that requiring the hotel to rent to blacks is a wrong. I disagree with your assessment.

But it was happening. Right up until Jim Crow shut it down. Who do you think were the biggest supporters of Jim Crow were? Racist, bigoted business owners who used the power of government to keep out competition.

I don’t doubt anything you have said about Jim Crow laws and the motivations of those behind them. But I still disagree that we would have the level of equality we have today if no Civil Rights law of any kind had ever been passed. Your naive faith in the power of the market is disturbing.

Every single case of barriers to entry to the market prolonged the ability for the market to adjust to the needs of everyone.

I am not arguing in support of any barriers to entry to the market, unless you think requiring merchants to serve blacks is a barrier to entry.