Support NeoGAF

[GaimeGuy]

Apparentely there is only one bakery in the entire state of Colorado.

Under Colorado law, places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

A place of public accommodation is defined as any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public, as well as any place offering facilities, privileges, advantages, or other accommodations to the public. However, places used primarily for religious purposes do not fall under this classification.



This bakery was in violation of Colorado law.

 

[BeFlatLine]

You really don't get it?

I don't think you get it. Any reason is any reason. Now, I understand the law is different in Colorado . . . but that doesn't make it right.

I don't shop at Walmart. Why? Because I don't like their practices. So, if I can choose something like that, why should a business not be able to do the same?

I have nothing against gays. I personally wouldn't purchase anything from that particular business because of their choice to not serve that couple. But that doesn't mean that they should *HAVE* to serve that couple. It's choice. It may not be a *good* choice, but it's theirs to make. And for that choice, they can go out of business if everyone boycotts their products.

That's the point. So, I don't think *you* get it. I get it.

 

[Snapshot King]

As much as I don't like the choice the business made, I don't feel they should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. A business can deny me service for any reason. At which point, I'd suggest they respectfully go play in a fire while I take my business elsewhere. All while suggesting to friends / family / random strangers on the street that the original business is crap, and not to contribute to them.

Taking away any person's free choice is a crap shoot. If a customer came in being a complete tool, and I owned the business, I should be able to say "No. GTFO!". This could be for any other reason, because it's *my* business. If I choose to suffer the consequences of not having their business, that's my choice.

We're not talking governmental services. Obviously, if the police, fire, EMS, or whatever other necessity out there said no, there'd be issues. But we're talking a business that provides baked goods.

EDITTED TO ADD: As a side note, I've been denied service in the past because of my personal choice to carry a firearm for self defense reasons. That's the business's choice. I could pretend that I'm entitled to be served, but I'm not. Freedom of choice is a valuable thing. Other businesses have now received my business, along with my family's. Does it make me happy that my values were undermined by a business? Not at all. But if they don't want to serve me, I'll go elsewhere. Big deal.

I'll just assume you're a white straight male and are totally ignorant of the awful precedent set by allowing businesses to deny people based on race, colour, creed or orientation.

 

[BeFlatLine]

I'll just assume you're a white straight male and are totally ignorant of the awful precedent set by allowing businesses to deny people based on race, colour, creed or orientation.

But based off of political beliefs, it's okay?

Sorry, but no. Choice is inherent. If you don't give people the option to choose, you're taking away a core fundamental right. I can choose to only serve people with red hair. Is it a choice that would be good for business? Probably not. But it's my choice. What makes that choice any better than denying someone based off their sexual preference? Or their religious views?

In modern society, if you choose to discriminate against someone based off any of those reasons, you'll probably suffer incredibly bad business juju from it. But you should be free to do so. It's a business owners perogative to be able to choose how they conduct business, and be rewarded for their good choices and punished for their bad choices.

 

[trineo_feo]

I don't think you get it. Any reason is any reason. Now, I understand the law is different in Colorado . . . but that doesn't make it right.

I don't shop at Walmart. Why? Because I don't like their practices. So, if I can choose something like that, why should a business not be able to do the same?

I have nothing against gays. I personally wouldn't purchase anything from that particular business because of their choice to not serve that couple. But that doesn't mean that they should *HAVE* to serve that couple. It's choice. It may not be a *good* choice, but it's theirs to make. And for that choice, they can go out of business if everyone boycotts their products.

That's the point. So, I don't think *you* get it. I get it.

As many have said before me, you CAN'T discriminate against people for a number of reasons. Your busines is NOT above human rights. Since your business is benefiting from society, you are NOT allowed to treat that society as you please. Gay couple's taxes pay for the roads that lead to that bakery and for the pipes that bring the water there too.

Don't you understand? A business is not an island where the owner can do whatever he wants.

One question: are you against health regulations in restaurants? Because, well, a restaurant owner should server the food as he likes. And if that food is fucking poison then the costumers should be the ones stopping from going there, right? It's the same logic...

 

[BeFlatLine]

As many have said before me, you CAN'T discriminate against people for a number of reasons. Your busines is NOT above human rights. Since your business is benefiting from society, you are NOT allowed to treat that society as you please. Gay couple's taxes pay for the roads that lead to that bakery and for the pipes that bring the water there too.

Don't you understand? A business is not an island where the owner can do whatever he wants.

One question: are you against health regulations in restaurants? Because, well, a restaurant owner should server the food as he likes. And if that food is fucking poison then the costumers should be the ones stopping from going there, right? It's the same logic...

No, it's actually not the same. By serving poison, you're actually committing murder. That's really different.

Now, can they serve crappy tasting food that isn't poison? Sure. It's done all the time. And those businesses go out of business because people don't want to eat there. Health regulations are different than "I just don't want to serve you."

We're talking private business. Not public sector. PRIVATE business. The bakery is not owned by the state.

The idea that because the people not being served pay for the roads, they should be able to buy things from the business is ridiculous. There's a road outside my house that other people paid taxes for. Can they use that road? Yes. Can they just waltz into my house uninvited? No. They're not entitled to that. The same goes with a business. The business is paying taxes itself. It's not receiving money from taxes. That's why the business pays taxes. For services from the government.

 

[Wiktor]

No, it's actually not the same. By serving poison, you're actually committing murder. That's really different.

Now, can they serve crappy tasting food that isn't poison? Sure. It's done all the time. And those businesses go out of business because people don't want to eat there. Health regulations are different than "I just don't want to serve you."

We're talking private business. Not public sector. PRIVATE business. The bakery is not owned by the state.

The idea that because the people not being served pay for the roads, they should be able to buy things from the business is ridiculous. There's a road outside my house that other people paid taxes for. Can they use that road? Yes. Can they just waltz into my house uninvited? No. They're not entitled to that. The same goes with a business. The business is paying taxes itself. It's not receiving money from taxes. That's why the business, get's this, pays taxes. For services from the government.

So, you would support the right of restaurants to have signs "No blacks allowed inside"?

 

[lenovox1]

The idea that because the people not being served pay for the roads, they should be able to buy things from the business is ridiculous. There's a road outside my house that other people paid taxes for. Can they use that road? Yes. Can they just waltz into my house uninvited? No. They're not entitled to that. The same goes with a business. The business is paying taxes itself. It's not receiving money from taxes. That's why the business, get's this, pays taxes. For services from the government.

In order to conduct business in a particular state, a business must get permission or abide by guidelines set by the state. You merely want there to be less guidelines for a business to follow based on your own personal moral reasoning. Your reasoning is hollow and unfounded. It isn't based in reality or history, only your own logical code.

 

[BeFlatLine]

So, you would support the right of restaurants to have signs "No blacks allowed inside"?

Yup. I wouldn't eat there personally, but I'd support their right to put up a sign that said they wouldn't serve any person for any reason. It's their choice to put themselves out of business by making ridiculous rules.

I believe choice is key. Modern society dictates the rules of what's right and wrong. If someone wants to make themselves the target of scrutiny, they can do that. And they'll suffer the consequences.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to put up a sign like that, or that I agree with those ideals. I think it's a scummy thing to do. But if someone wants to be a bigot, they can isolate themselves and be left bankrupt. They can go to other business, and those business owners can say "Hey, nice sign. Get out of my place of business, you're not welcome."

Choice is a beautiful thing.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Yup. I wouldn't eat there personally, but I'd support their right to put up a sign that said they wouldn't serve any person for any reason. It's their choice to put themselves out of business by making ridiculous rules.

I believe choice is key. Modern society dictates the rules of what's right and wrong. If someone wants to make themselves the target of scrutiny, they can do that. And they'll suffer the consequences.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to put up a sign like that, or that I agree with those ideals. I think it's a scummy thing to do. But if someone wants to be a bigot, they can isolate themselves and be left bankrupt. They can go to other business, and those business owners can say "Hey, nice sign. Get out of my place of business, you're not welcome."

Choice is a beautiful thing.

I love posts from Libertopia.

 

[BeFlatLine]

Now, law states my opinion is wrong. But hey, it's my opinion. I don't run a business. So, my opinion doesn't really have any impact on the outside world other than being there.

I just believe choice is something that should have high value. I give criticism to businesses with my wallet. Most people I know do too.

Case in point, it's legal for businesses to slaughter animals in ways that are called "humane". I don't see the practice of keeping an animal locked up, unable to move for a majority of it's life before slaughter humane though. So, I give criticism with my wallet by purchasing from places of business that support my ideals that animals should be treated humanely.

I get the idea behind choice and right and wrong. I just don't like the idea of forcing someone to serve someone that they don't wish to serve when they can just as easily go elsewhere for the service.

 

[one_kill]

Yup. I wouldn't eat there personally, but I'd support their right to put up a sign that said they wouldn't serve any person for any reason. It's their choice to put themselves out of business by making ridiculous rules.

I believe choice is key. Modern society dictates the rules of what's right and wrong. If someone wants to make themselves the target of scrutiny, they can do that. And they'll suffer the consequences.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to put up a sign like that, or that I agree with those ideals. I think it's a scummy thing to do. But if someone wants to be a bigot, they can isolate themselves and be left bankrupt. They can go to other business, and those business owners can say "Hey, nice sign. Get out of my place of business, you're not welcome."

Choice is a beautiful thing.

Yeah, ok.

So the business owner in the story made a choice that he didn't want to do gay weddings. The gay couple got offended and made a choice to complain. The government then made a choice to fine the business owner because a while ago a bunch of people made a choice that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation was wrong.

So yes, choices!

 

[BeFlatLine]

Yeah, ok.

So the business owner in the story made a choice that he didn't want to do gay weddings. The gay couple got offended and made a choice to complain. The government then made a choice to fine the business owner because a while ago a bunch of people made a choice that discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation was wrong.

So yes, choices!

I'll edit your post below and bold the part that I think is key in my viewpoint.

"So the business owner in the story made a choice that he didn't want to do gay weddings. The gay couple got offended and made a choice to complain. The couple then went to the media, who highlighted the business owner's choice which caused a bunch of people to not contribute to that business because discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is wrong.

So yes, choices!"

 

[trineo_feo]

Yup. I wouldn't eat there personally, but I'd support their right to put up a sign that said they wouldn't serve any person for any reason. It's their choice to put themselves out of business by making ridiculous rules.

I believe choice is key. Modern society dictates the rules of what's right and wrong. If someone wants to make themselves the target of scrutiny, they can do that. And they'll suffer the consequences.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that it's a good idea to put up a sign like that, or that I agree with those ideals. I think it's a scummy thing to do. But if someone wants to be a bigot, they can isolate themselves and be left bankrupt. They can go to other business, and those business owners can say "Hey, nice sign. Get out of my place of business, you're not welcome."

Choice is a beautiful thing.

Tiranny of the majority

If you let the majority make all the choices, then all the minorities get fucked. That's a fact, and the government has to try to avoid that from happening.

 

[BeFlatLine]

The more I think on this, the more the differing opinion seems to make sense in some ways.

I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if someone was denied service because they were of a certain race or sexual orientation and society as a whole accepted that.

Despite that, I still don't like the idea of someone being forced to serve someone.

*Shrug* It's all a mess. Can't win

I guess I just like to hope that society at large would isolate and ostracize the bigots. It seems like that is happening more and more on a daily basis, but then I'll run across an article in which a large group has decided Arabs or some other minority is a major threat.

So, maybe you guys are right. I'm now confused on where I stand. Good work GAF.

 

[way more]

I love posts from Libertopia.

Some day they'll find that shared imagined reality that has never existed in human society.

 

[Wiktor]

Yup. I wouldn't eat there personally, but I'd support their right to put up a sign that said they wouldn't serve any person for any reason. It's their choice to put themselves out of business by making ridiculous rules..

That will be a good stance to have, in 100-200 years though. In times where there won't be any racism, sexism or homophobia. But these days too many people are still too dumb to enjoy this kind of freedom of choice and it's the role of governments and courts to set them straight.

 

[PK_man]

I wondered if the couple had ordered a penis-shaped cake.....

So the owner refused to make a cake because of his religious beliefs. Didn't the Bible teach about acceptance and not discrimination?

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

The more I think on this, the more the differing opinion seems to make sense in some ways.

I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if someone was denied service because they were of a certain race or sexual orientation and society as a whole accepted that.

Despite that, I still don't like the idea of someone being forced to serve someone.

*Shrug* It's all a mess. Can't win

Well in this instance it feels like a hollow win but it sets precedence.

But if this were something less personal like a serviced gas station, car wash, car dealership or a big food chain that discriminated against individuals, you wouldn't feel that way.

 

[watershed]

The more I think on this, the more the differing opinion seems to make sense in some ways.

I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if someone was denied service because they were of a certain race or sexual orientation and society as a whole accepted that.

Despite that, I still don't like the idea of someone being forced to serve someone.

*Shrug* It's all a mess. Can't win

I guess I just like to hope that society at large would isolate and ostracize the bigots. It seems like that is happening more and more on a daily basis, but then I'll run across an article in which a large group has decided Arabs or some other minority is a major threat.

So, maybe you guys are right. I'm now confused on where I stand. Good work GAF.

It's easy for you to "shrug" because this doesn't affect you. But if you were gay, looking to get married, and it wasn't illegal for bakeries to deny you service you might well feel a lot more than a shrug for being refused service just for who you are.

But at least you are thinking about it.

 

[norinrad]

It's unfortunate and rather tragic that people like these exist.

 

[Angelus Errare]

lol @ some of the posts of privilege in here.

I'm pretty sure god will send you to hell for all eternity for selling pastries to homosexuals. I'm pretty sure that's in the bible word for word.

"Thou shall not serve the homo cakes or pies!"

 

[The Faceless Master]

In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, a CCRC investigation also showed evidence that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women.

God damn!

i wouldn't want their cake.

 

[pants]

displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

and then God said to Moses, "you shall not bake that fruitloop a cake"

smh

 

[Dead Man]

You can't open a public business and then discriminate. Why is this shit even up for debate?



So if you're being discriminated against you just shrug your shoulders and keep driving? Seriously? Fuck that. Nope. We're not going backwards as a society. That's how it used to be. Black couple driving, couldn't get into a hotel. Had to keep driving.

It's fucking amazing some people want to take us back to where people get discriminated against and just take it and keep going...

Well said.

 

[Angelus Errare]

As much as I don't like the choice the business made, I don't feel they should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. A business can deny me service for any reason. At which point, I'd suggest they respectfully go play in a fire while I take my business elsewhere. All while suggesting to friends / family / random strangers on the street that the original business is crap, and not to contribute to them.

Taking away any person's free choice is a crap shoot. If a customer came in being a complete tool, and I owned the business, I should be able to say "No. GTFO!". This could be for any other reason, because it's *my* business. If I choose to suffer the consequences of not having their business, that's my choice.

We're not talking governmental services. Obviously, if the police, fire, EMS, or whatever other necessity out there said no, there'd be issues. But we're talking a business that provides baked goods.

EDITTED TO ADD: As a side note, I've been denied service in the past because of my personal choice to carry a firearm for self defense reasons. That's the business's choice. I could pretend that I'm entitled to be served, but I'm not. Freedom of choice is a valuable thing. Other businesses have now received my business, along with my family's. Does it make me happy that my values were undermined by a business? Not at all. But if they don't want to serve me, I'll go elsewhere. Big deal.

You really must have hated the civil rights movement.

 

[Friggz]

The things that this country will take to the streets to protest for as opposed to the things that they won't, never ceases to amaze me.

 

[TCRS]

You really must have hated the civil rights movement.

How did you conclude that from his post?

 

[Dachande]

They don't, no more than these people:

Really loved the ice cream at Woolsworth

As a non-American, I don't know what this is meant to be. Was this a landmark US anti-discrimination suit years ago or something?

 

[PJV3]

Go private and advertise your cake buisness on Stormfront(or whatever the anti gay options are). I hate the idea that to get away with being an utter cunt you merely have to open a shop.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

As a non-American, I don't know what this is meant to be. Was this a landmark US anti-discrimination suit years ago or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

 

[BowieZ]

So few people understand the difference between the right to refuse service (to drunks, the disorderly, minors, etc) and the law against discriminating against someone based on their minority status.

If you choose to run and profit from a business, you can refuse service but cannot discriminate.

If this goes against your nonsensical beliefs, then find another job or leave the state/country.

 

[Dead Man]

So few people understand the difference between the right to refuse service (to drunks, the disorderly, minors, etc) and the law against discriminating against someone based on their minority status.

If you choose to run and profit from a business, you can refuse service but cannot discriminate.

If this goes against your nonsensical beliefs, then find another job or leave the state/country.

Pretty much. Gay/Black/Atheist/Unmarried/And the rest all pay taxes that contribute to things your business uses. Don't like it? Go pave your own roads so people can drive to your shop.

 

[Liamario]

The state needs to bring in a law that has these guidelines as a requirement when establishing a business.

 

[Ganondolf]

Pretty much. Gay/Black/Atheist/Unmarried/And the rest all pay taxes that contribute to things your business uses. Don't like it? Go pave your own roads so people can drive to your shop.

do people pay road tax in the US?

 

[slit]

do people pay road tax in the US?

It's not called "road tax", but our taxes go to support infrastructure.

 

[Ganondolf]

It's not called "road tax", but our taxes go to support infrastructure.

in the UK we pay road tax on the car to pay for roads and council taxes to pay for infrastructure etc.

and then we pay a million other taxes lol

 

[BowieZ]

in the UK we pay road tax on the car to pay for roads and council taxes to pay for infrastructure etc.

and then we pay a million other taxes lol

I would refuse to bake a cake for you, socialist heathen!

 

[Angelus Errare]

How did you conclude that from his post?

Because his attitude that businesses should be allowed to discriminate because they're a business. It's stupid logic and utterly nonsensical, made worse by people who conflate minority discrimination with refusal of service for valid reasons (which seems to be reoccurring theme among those who think businesses should be allowed to).

The idea that if enough people ignore their business as a result they'll be forced to change their ways is the dumbest fucking idea ever. It doesn't work because like most things, the average American could give a fuck less about the plights of minority America. The laissez faire approach has NEVER worked and will NEVER work in this country, but somehow people continue to believe that it will eventually work. It didn't work for slavery, it didn't work for women's rights, it didn't work for civil rights, IT.DOESN'T.FUCKING.WORK.EVER.

I might have been a bit hyperbolic with that statement, but honestly I'm tired of people with this "it doesn't bother me" attitude, shit is infuriating and their arguments are always hollow and reek of privilege and lack of understanding about the country and world around them.

 

[biggersmaller]

I don't agree with anti-discrimination laws for the same reason I don't believe in anti-hate speech laws: it is wrong to punish someone for an opinion. Also, well intentioned penalties today can be too broadly applied and abused down the road. If those bakers are truly bigoted, then a righteous society should punish them via a lack of business. I know people are already readying their responses citing the civil right movement, so let me explain:

Before the 1960s the law was actively discrimitory and essentially on the side of the KKK back then - which is why the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were needed to block unjust laws from being passed that would make illegal things like sitting on the wrong side of the bus. There is no law that would jail a homosexual couple for entering that bakery and requesting a cake - for instance.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't agree with anti-discrimination laws for the same reason I don't believe in anti-hate speech laws: it is wrong to punish someone for an opinion. Also, well intentioned penalties today can be too broadly applied and abused down the road. If those bakers are truly bigoted, then a righteous society should punish them via a lack of business. I know people are already readying their responses citing the civil right movement, so let me explain:

Before the 1960s the law was actively discrimitory and essentially on the side of the KKK back then - which is why the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were needed to block unjust laws from being passed that would make illegal things like sitting on the wrong side of the bus. There is no law that would jail a homosexual couple for entering that bakery and requesting a cake - for instance.

Ignoring the civil rights movement, do you think the if the majority are not effected they will lose enough business to matter? There is no righteous society, there is a society of convenience. If the bigots are cheaper, they will prosper.

You talk about an ideal world that does not exist.

 

[watershed]

I don't agree with anti-discrimination laws for the same reason I don't believe in anti-hate speech laws: it is wrong to punish someone for an opinion. Also, well intentioned penalties today can be too broadly applied and abused down the road. If those bakers are truly bigoted, then a righteous society should punish them via a lack of business. I know people are already readying their responses citing the civil right movement, so let me explain:

Before the 1960s the law was actively discrimitory and essentially on the side of the KKK back then - which is why the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were needed to block unjust laws from being passed that would make illegal things like sitting on the wrong side of the bus. There is no law that would jail a homosexual couple for entering that bakery and requesting a cake - for instance.

So this is another libertarian post about how the goodness of individual people will see us right in the end? Do you not accept that the collective goodness of people is how the anti-discrimination laws you are against came about?

Edit: To be clear it seems to me that libertarians argue that the individual goodness of our fellow Americans will lead to a better society (in this case not supporting a discriminating bakery). My response is: your right. The individual goodness of our fellow Americans led to the passage of anti-discrimination laws. The moral goodness of the American people has been enshrined in law. Why is that bad?

 

[Escape Goat]

in the UK we pay road tax on the car to pay for roads and council taxes to pay for infrastructure etc.

and then we pay a million other taxes lol

We also have toll roads here in certain areas. Costs about 2-3 dollars unless you travel there frequently then you can get a pass for reduced fee. But, as other people mentioned, its part of where our taxes go to.

 

[Ganondolf]

We also have toll roads here in certain areas. Costs about 2-3 dollars unless you travel there frequently then you can get a pass for reduced fee. But, as other people mentioned, its part of where our taxes go to.

we have toll roads too and congestion charges (entering the middle of London)

sounds like in the US you have one council tax (or whatever you call it there) that covers everything

 

[biggersmaller]

Ignoring the civil rights movement, do you think the if the majority are not effected they will lose enough business to matter? There is no righteous society, there is a society of convenience. If the bigots are cheaper, they will prosper.

You talk about an ideal world that does not exist.

Because of our less than ideal world, any law restricting what people can or cannot do is of greater concern to me than passing laws restricting government.

I'm not sure if this baker is the most convenient or cheapest guy around, but unlike an elected official he needs more than simply a majority of his customers returning in-order to remain afloat.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I don't agree with anti-discrimination laws for the same reason I don't believe in anti-hate speech laws: it is wrong to punish someone for an opinion. Also, well intentioned penalties today can be too broadly applied and abused down the road. If those bakers are truly bigoted, then a righteous society should punish them via a lack of business. I know people are already readying their responses citing the civil right movement, so let me explain:

Before the 1960s the law was actively discrimitory and essentially on the side of the KKK back then - which is why the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were needed to block unjust laws from being passed that would make illegal things like sitting on the wrong side of the bus. There is no law that would jail a homosexual couple for entering that bakery and requesting a cake - for instance.

Oh so because they're not getting jailed now, it's okay to discriminate against them? What the shit is this?

As for the bold, IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK because your fictitious society doesn't fucking exist. The average American since 1776 has shown time and time again that they do not give a fuck about the plights of others until it directly affects them. STOP WITH THIS SHIT. Jesus christ.

And no, no business should be allowed to discriminate because it's their opinion, that's a stupid argument brought forth by stupid people time and time again. No matter how many times you people say that shit, it's not going to be anymore correct than it was the last time you said it.

As long as these business are utilizing public utilities (Which minorities put into via tax) they have no right to discriminate against said minorities. You want to hate and practice your discrimination against others? Get your own source of water, build your own road, mail your own shit not using public roads and/or mail service.

I am really getting tired of these posts from people who just happen to be born a straight white male who have absolutely no worries in the world about being discriminated against. Seriously just shut the fuck up, kick rocks or something. I sometimes wish that you fuckers would wake up one day and be a homosexual black female muslim.

 

[biggersmaller]

So this is another libertarian post about how the goodness of individual people will see us right in the end? Do you not accept that the collective goodness of people is how the anti-discrimination laws you are against came about?

Edit: To be clear it seems to me that libertarians argue that the individual goodness of our fellow Americans will lead to a better society (in this case not supporting a discriminating bakery). My response is: your right. The individual goodness of our fellow Americans led to the passage of anti-discrimination laws. The moral goodness of the American people has been enshrined in law. Why is that bad?

I never have been called a Libertarian before; it makes me feel a little dirty as many of their beliefs are sprinkled with a hint anarchy.

What I am basically saying is that the solution to a few crappy small business owners refusing to participate in a gay wedding isn't to pass a law.

 

[lenovox1]

we have toll roads too and congestion charges (entering the middle of London)

sounds like in the US you have one council tax (or whatever you call it there) that covers everything

It depends on the state. States and municipalities can get revenue through a combination of sales tax, property tax (closest thing to a council tax), income tax, and through the taxation of special licenses.

 

[Dead Man]

Because of our less than ideal world, any law restricting what people can or cannot do is of greater concern to me than passing laws restricting government.

I'm not sure if this baker is the most convenient or cheapest guy around, but unlike an elected official he needs more than simply a majority of his customers returning in-order to remain afloat.

I would rather we pass laws preventing discrimination since we have a less than ideal world. Preventing discrimination is more important than allowing it in the name of freedom.

And no, all he needs is people not caring to stay afloat. And they don't. Even those that do say 'well, he's allowed to be fuckhead because he has rights'. Guess what, so do minorities that individuals discriminate against.

Capitalism will not remove bigotry.

I never have been called a Libertarian before; it makes me feel a little dirty as many of their beliefs are sprinkled with a hint anarchy.

What I am basically saying is that the solution to a few crappy small business owners refusing to participate in a gay wedding isn't to pass a law.

What is your solution, other than telling effected people to suck it up?

 

[BlackJace]

I never have been called a Libertarian before; it makes me feel a little dirty as many of their beliefs are sprinkled with a hint anarchy.

What I am basically saying is that the solution to a few crappy small business owners refusing to participate in a gay wedding isn't to pass a law.

You think WAY too highly of society if you think we can collectively make good decisions without the need of law enforcement.