I mean I'd absolutely take my service somewhere else but I don't think someone should be forced to do something outside of their values/beliefs. Do I think that these people are wrong, yeah. But they should have the freedom to be wrong.

what if you're the only business in town - or the only one within a reasonable distance - providing a vital service like medical care? why should someone die, or have their access to those services limited, because of your beliefs?
what if your beliefs are tied to blatantly racist/antisemitic religious groups, e.g. christian identity, or nation of islam?

also being a nazi is a choice, being gay is not.

Keyword: non-essential.

"the only one within a reasonable distance - providing a vital service like medical care?"

The poll specifically stated NON-essential. Medical care is extremely essential and a businesses should NOT be allowed to jeopardize the well-being/life of others for beliefs. Pretty sure tha is illegal and that's how it should stay. However I don't think a strict religious bakery should have to provide to homosexuals. Again, I wouldn't put my money there and I wouldn't wish them a prosperous business but they have the right to deny service.
My main reasoning behind this is because restricting this stuff is just one more opening for the gov to have control and infringe on rights. Where will the line be drawn? Soon the gov will be saying that business aren't allowed to serve the homeless. Also let's look at the reverse; I think a business run by a homosexual owner should be allowed to turn down religious fanatics and wild homophobics becuase it goes against their beliefs.

In the case of it being the only grocery store; id consider that to be an essential in which case they would have to provide service. But if there are like five other grocery stores let the jackasses run their store how they want and give your money to a more welcoming and wholesome business. In other words let that discriminatitory store be its own downfall.

The 'yes' option just brings more questions - what is a "reasonable distance"? What beliefs, religions or lifestyles should the government endorse? Where is the line between what business must comply with, and what they can refuse?

If you allow businesses to make their own decisions, that will allow customers to make theirs. If this place doesn't want to make you a gay cake, you're free not to buy from them. You're also free to protest and tell your friends not to buy from them, either.

If you legally forced someone to make you a cake that you knew they didn't want to make, would you feel safe eating it? link

Also would like to add that this ties into here link

You can think something is really dumb/irrational/assholey but support a persons right to do it. My opinion; you now know who to avoid. I'm an asexual and you bet I'm fine with certain restaurants not serving me for it, that way I know my money isn't going to nasty people.

alright, chill.

it's easy to make clear distinctions between essential and non-essential services in theory, but good luck applying that to real life. what if you're a drugstore? you sell both medicine and regular shit to people all the time.

in remote areas, the incidence of the sort of fundamentalism behind discriminating against people for religious reasons and being the only game in town business-wise goes up - "just going somewhere else" isn't always a feasible option, and why should such a ridiculous choice be pushed on the public anyway? owning a business is a privilege, not a constitutional right. being a business owner means accepting that you serve the general public - in fact, obtaining a business license usually means agreeing to any local antidiscrimination laws already on the books - if that's not something you can swallow then oh well, find another line of work.

"What beliefs, religions or lifestyles should the government endorse?"

wait, what? protected classes are already outlined in antidiscrimination laws lmao, and they're not "endorsements"

The question is phrased as a legal-moral one, and the "no" answer is phrased as legal-moral, but the "yes" answer is phrased as moral-legal. People answering "no" seem to be interpreting the question as a legal one about individual 'rights', and people answering "yes" seem to be interpreting it as a moral question with legal implications, based on the comments here.

"owning a business is a privilege, not a constitutional right. being a business owner means accepting that you serve the general public - in fact, obtaining a business license usually means agreeing to any local antidiscrimination laws already on the books - if that's not something you can swallow then oh well, find another line of work." - This is a really important point. Capitalism creates beliefs and expectations about individuals' rights to own and run their business accordingly. As we all seem to be agreeing here, businesses that don't demonstrate they are inclusive of diversity, but also exclusive of hate would probably lose our business and die. That is capitalism. Capitalistic practices are bound by a fuck-ton of governmental restrictions (governments loooooooooooooooove captialism!), and anti-discrimination laws are part of these restrictions, not really for moral purposes (even if that is where they were born), but for legal purposes that restrict individuals' opportunities to take legal action against businesses/companies (hence why unions are a thing and why businesses hate them).

This also engages in the same crippling individualist reductionism that means a baker who refuses to make a Nazi cake and a baker who refuses to make a cake for a same-sex marriage are moral equivalents. Legally forcing a baker to recreate a symbol that signifies the death of certain peoples is not equivalent to forcing a baker to make a wedding cake that goes to a gay couple. I don't have a problem at all with the idea of denying discriminatory business our money/support as a response, but I think there are much more important questions to ask, like how discriminatory practices are created and reproduced through these business in the first place and how discriminatory practices become so intertwined with who we are that we legitimise clinging to them through the idea of individual 'rights'.

It is worth noting that this is not dissimilar to the abortion debate. Abortion services are denied, globally, on the basis of religious/moral views. Their 'non-essential' status (excluding immanent death etc) is determined by religious/moral arguments, not by the views of the woman who decides to abort. Same with euthanasia. The point is, when we debate 'non-essential' services, we are still also making judgments about what 'non-essential' and 'essential' services are. Questions turn to what counts as essential or not essential, which again pushes us towards individualist reductionist arguments, rather than thinking about the meanings of 'essential' and 'non-essential' services and their practice.

Tbh I'm hesitant to keep replying because I think that this is already getting to heated. But I'm going in anyways under the assumption that we're all a mature bunch and can handle it in the same manner.

@unholy I don't know if you're responding to me or DS so I'm going to wait for some clarification before responding.

@misantrope I admit I'm definitely looking at this on more of a legal ground. To be frank I have a pretty bad mistrust of the government and feel like its already becoming way too overbearing. I'm hesitant to call for even a little more push room for it.

Morally I definitely say that businesses should not be allowed to do this. As mentioned above; they knew going in that they'd be serving the public and that the public holds a ton of diversity. If that diversity makes them uncomfortable then they should probably grow a pair. To serve to the public means to acknowledge the diversity and accept that responsibility. The sad truth is that some people just can't do that. Which is a shame. However legally, it should be allowed unless it directly conflicts with the safety of others. As DS mentioned, people who don't like their shoddy business practices have the freedom to write bad reviews, protest the place, and the like.

but for legal purposes that restrict individuals' opportunities to take legal action against businesses/companies (hence why unions are a thing and why businesses hate them This is a good point too. But I'd like to argue that they should still have the right to serve who they want...in turn people have the right to sue. If a person is so up their anus with discriminatory beliefs then let 'em do it and get sued. More money for the innocent folks just trying to live their lives. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

like how discriminatory practices are created and reproduced through these business in the first place and how discriminatory practices become so intertwined with who we are that we legitimise clinging to them through the idea of individual 'rights'. Perhaps this sounds silly. But for me it's more broad. Across the board I value freedom. The same freedom that lets people get away with this kind of stuff is the same freedom that allows people to protest. It's the same freedom that allows us to speak against rampant capitalism. Maybe this sounds paranoid but, I do fear what'll happen if we give shove room to the big men in charge. With the chance of losing net neutrality we're already seeing the government try to take away voices and infringe on rights/freedoms. That's what I worry about. I worry about the invasiveness. There are pros and cons to freedom.The pros are that we can say what we will without getting arrested. The cons are that people can perpetrate unwholesome values. But I feel like people are stronger than one nasty bakery that denies service. And for that, I don't think we should infringe on peoples' freedoms.

That's also a good point. Do let me know if it flew over my head in what I'm saying next; that is one of the reasons why I picked no. Because the lines are so grey. As I said where is the line drawn. And who is the one who sets the par for what is moral or not moral? Myself and (I think you guys) agree that it's morally wrong to deny service to homosexuals. But the guys doing it would say the opposite; they would say that God would approve. And to them that makes it extremely moral. Again, this is more devil's advocate here, because I'm a Catholic who believes that it is immoral. So whose morals do we go by? Whose version of essential and non-essential do we pick?

Pretty much everything in this club lately has been heated. The current socio-political climate has, I think, encouraged the crystallisation of people's worldviews. And this leads to less room for discussion that isn't coloured by tension. I try to re-frame anything I interpret as "heated" as more about concern or response to a perceived threat... No matter what your positioning, something is at stake for you at the moment in very real terms. I would encourage you to think about your reluctance to speak in the context of the 'freedom of speech' that has been advocated here...

"To be frank I have a pretty bad mistrust of the government and feel like its already becoming way too overbearing." - Good. Me too, and rightly so.

"However legally, it should be allowed unless it directly conflicts with the safety of others." - How do we define this? What do we count as "safety"? Who decides, and how? I'm not asking you these questions, specifically. I'm suggesting these taken-for-granted ideas need to be questioned.

"If a person is so up their anus with discriminatory beliefs then let 'em do it and get sued." - This assumes people have the power to sue and again, focuses on individual 'rights'. And comes back to my point about how capitalist governments and the legislation they produce make it phenomenally difficult to do this, even when you have the power/financial means to do so. And without government intervention, companies can make it impossible. I am not pro-government, especially in their current Western, capitalist forms. I am arguing our understanding of government needs to change. And we can't produce that change as long as we entrench ourselves in individualised understandings of these complex issues.

"The cons are that people can perpetrate unwholesome values." - These arguments aren't silly! They are in the direction I would hope we can all move. Your whole argument here is kinda my point: we are asking the wrong questions, turning to reductionist arguments rather questioning what concepts like "freedom" and "right to free speech" might mean for all of us, and how those concepts are experienced differently by different people and in different contexts.

"Because the lines are so grey. As I said where is the line drawn." - Definitely. My main argument is: line drawing is nonsense.

The current socio-political climate has, I think, encouraged the crystallisation of people's worldviews. And this leads to less room for discussion that isn't coloured by tension. This complicates things for sure. It kind of makes it hard for people to ask questions and get a second perspective. How's a person supposed to learn/grow if they aren't allowed to pose controversial ideas or thoughts? A fear to ask questions leads people to keep quiet and by extension keep ignorant. They then turn to people with the same beliefs, scream into an echo chamber, and have their thoughts confirmed. That's a pretty dangerous thing in itself if you ask me. But I think that this is a topic for another time.

This is actually where I'm at a loss. I don't know how we would define this because everyone has a difference sense of what infringes the safety of others. Some people would say it's all physical and others would say that mental well-being is factored in there. I guess its one of those instances where you'd have to observe the crowd and find the common points? But like I said, I'm not particularly sure.

That's a very fair point, one that I haven't thought of. I do believe that the little guy so to speak would have a difficult time. In which case I feel that money would have the most say and odds are the business is gonna have more money. I am very avidly against cooperatism (sp?). Perhaps I don't quite grasp how the system works and that's why I have trouble getting my head around this particular issue. I've been looking at this scenario as a small-town small-business kind of deal, where it's just like a one family/one location business. Would they still have the same amount of power? And just how much power would a business like that have? A huge franchise like Target, I can see having this kind of crazy wealth and power to get away with unethical things. In this case I do that they should be denied the ability to refuse service because they are a pretty critical industry. I think that the government has given huge cooperation and fast-food/store chains way too much power. They are treated as people and should not be because they are businesses. People are the only subjects that deserve to be treated as people. Corporations absolutely shouldn't have the same rights as people, but they do and that's where I think the problem lies. A company like Wal-Mart denying services to homosexuals would be dangerous.
I think that some government intervention is important; because the gov has broken up hazardous monopolies in the past. But I sometimes question if they are intervening in the right places at the right time. Because oftentimes I feel like they don't intervene in the interest of the common man. If that makes sense.
I am arguing our understanding of government needs to change. And we can't produce that change as long as we entrench ourselves in individualised understandings of these complex issues. This is a sentiment I can get behind. I think for me one of the major problems is that I kind of only have a basic scaffold of knowledge about how it works. I also feel like its increasingly hard to get an understanding of such when so many people make up false truths on both ends of the political spectrum. So I guess I pose to you the question; in which way do you think that we should try to understand the government?

Thank you for saying such, it makes debating a lot easier! I can see that, yes. But I would think that, that begs the question; where do we start? You're definitely correct that this issue is very loaded, so how would one attack such a heavy concept?
I think that this; and how those concepts are experienced differently by different people and in different contexts is a good place to start. But in itself it's kind of difficult to tackle because you just don't know what it's like to be a person from a different walk of life. So taking a look at the bigger picture here, I think I may have to reassess my opinion; if the freedom of one entity hinders the freedom of many people then it probably should be shot down. When thinking about it that way, I think shutting down a shady company may equate to more freedom?

I think that we're on the same page here.

"But I think that this is a topic for another time." - Yes, but it is connected. Conversations get shut down before they begin. Ideas rejected before they are considered. Problematic systems are implemented or remain in place...

"A huge franchise like Target, I can see having this kind of crazy wealth and power to get away with unethical things." - Yep, and they certain do. And towns/cities come to rely on the jobs the produce as well as the low price products they give us access to. So if those businesses fail, it can have serious implications for a community. If we choose to boycott them, we have to spend more money on certain goods (which leaves less money for other goods). So we get stuck supporting, financially, unethical companies, particularly if you are poor/disadvantaged (ie need the job and/or need the cheap goods). So I get people's reluctance to enforce these issues with small businesses, like independent bakeries, but it leads to the same kinds of questions about where we draw lines. We permit certain business to do certain things (like discriminate), all businesses/companies then have a case for also being able to discriminate. Again, my argument is against the practice of 'line-drawing' that produces these arguments.
We need tolink

"But I sometimes question if they are intervening in the right places at the right time." - Exactly. And in order to change this we need people to engage with these issues. Too much of this gets reduced down to capitalism vs socialism/communism, left vs right blah blah blah. Capitalism can be ethical. But it requires engagement. Government can be ethical, but it requires engagement. Line-drawing does not enable engagement. It quite specifically closes off engagement by drawing lines.

"I kind of only have a basic scaffold of knowledge about how it works." - I think that is true for most of us. And we have knowledge that is informed by where we look for and find information communicated to us in ways we might find easier to understand and/or make more sense to us in our particular contexts. Which is why talking about these things in different ways is good, even if it is difficult. I'd rather someone asking a thousand questions than a thousand people who had made up their minds already.

in which way do you think that we should try to understand the government?" - Personally, I think governance needs to be returned to communities, in order to re-acquaint ourselves with the concept of a community that thrives. Currently, we can't do this. Individualist capitalism drives people towards ideas like personal responsibility and disengages with issues like systemic discrimination. The rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer is a simple illustration. We need gradual, systemic change in what it is we think people even are (ie in capitalism, people are numbers; in socialism they're resources; and in communism, they are workers. Extremely over-simplified, but bear with me!) in order to produce a cultural environment that can then re-do government as a community care system, rather than a business or a control system for workers. That doesn't exclude capitalism or socialism or communism, despite what people think. We don't have to accept 'capitalism' or 'socialism' etc in the forms they have been presented or enacted for us, nor do we have to reject any system wholly. We can build new ways of doing things. And a good place to start is at the community level.

"where do we start?" - Literally anywhere. I don't think it matters! Any given conversation can go in any number of directions, so the starting point seems to me to be of little consequence. The main point is to engage, even if you don't change a mind, or change your own mind. Hearing people is really important and it is a practice that has been woefully missing from all forms of socio-political engagement recently. Maybe a year or so from now you might encounter someone or something that makes you think of a conversation you made in this club or with a friend or with a family member that helps you do things differently or see things differently or try something new. We get caught up in the idea that we have to have an answer, or that there is a right answer, when just saying something or listening to someone is the best thing to do at the time.

"because you just don't know what it's like to be a person from a different walk of life." - It's not really about guessing what the person's deal is. I think it is just about hearing people out and engaging with what they say not as a challenge, but as an exchange of ideas. As you say, we are on the same page here. I think everyone who has commented here is probably roughly on the same page; we just have very different priorities and ideas about how to approach the issue. We all seem very aware of the complexities here, which is what all the discussions have been about.

Yes, but it is connected. Conversations get shut down before they begin. Ideas rejected before they are considered. This is a real problem to and part of why I think little progress is being made. Far right vs far left; neither like to hear each other out.

So we get stuck supporting, financially, unethical companies, particularly if you are poor/disadvantaged (ie need the job and/or need the cheap goods). This is where it gets tricky to and where I always end up stumped. Like how do you combat this. In light of net neutrality I was thinking about how my family uses comcast; I'd love to put my money to a more ethical company. But all of the big companies (and virtually our only options) support taking NN away and making things more expensive. In this case there is little choice but to rely on unethical places like Wal-Mart due to it being the most cost effective.
I guess in an instance where big & small businesses need to be bunched together; I'd rather see all of the businesses being pushed be ethical. At least until we have better footing to do otherwise.

Too much of this gets reduced down to capitalism vs socialism/communism, left vs right blah blah blah. Capitalism can be ethical. Oh gosh yes! This is one of my least favorite things about the political climate right now. There's this with us or against us mentality. I've always been more gray so I often find myself getting kicked by both sides. I've mentioned on a few polls that I'm not for this kind of capitalism nor am I for communism. I touch on this a bit over here link I think that people need to stop waging war on capitalism and start looking at ways to mend it. It's a fair and working system but somewhere down the lines something went corrupt and that's what needs to be fixed.

we look for and find information communicated to us in ways we might find easier to understand and/or make more sense to us in our particular contexts. Which is why talking about these things in different ways is good, even if it is difficult. Exactly. I think that's why I like talking here so much. I see interesting things on tumblr but tumblr is a very dangerous place to discuss political manners. I've seen people threaten to doxx and mobs flock inboxes over some pretty petty stuff. That doesn't happen on this site as much so I bring some of what I find on there to try to open a genuine discussion here. I also try to take time to read some articles about issues on various sites. I agree that it is good to weather discomfort and talk about the hard stuff. The problem is finding a decently safe environment to do so.

ideas like personal responsibility and disengages with issues like systemic discrimination. The rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer is a simple illustration. We need gradual, systemic change in what it is we think people even are (ie in capitalism, people are numbers; in socialism they're resources; and in communism, they are workers. I like this very much. There needs to be a sense of unity that just isn't there right now. Hence why I don't think socialism is right for the U.S, we just aren't ready for that. But at the same time I think that there needs to be less 'me, me, me' and more 'how can we work together to better our society as a whole. The way it is now the classes are so separated. We don't have to accept 'capitalism' or 'socialism' etc in the forms they have been presented or enacted for us, nor do we have to reject any system wholly. I've actually been thinking about this myself. It's what I meant in the link when I said that we need to revamp the systems we already have. We don't necessarily need to abolish them and make entirely new ones.

The main point is to engage, even if you don't change a mind, or change your own mind. Hearing people is really important and it is a practice that has been woefully missing from all forms of socio-political engagement recently I agree with this as well. I think it's awesome when you're able to change a mind. But it's still good to know that your side has been considered. And perhaps that (even if an opinion isn't entirely swayed) they were able to agree with some things. For me a good debate is a debate where everyone is open to everyone.
I also think that it's a pride thing. People have difficulty or are embarrassed to go, "hey I was wrong." or "Maybe I don't have the whole truth." Or even a simple, "you're right."

I think it is just about hearing people out and engaging with what they say not as a challenge, but as an exchange of ideas. I like this too. Just give a person the time of day, lend an ear. I don't think debates necessarily have to be aggressive. I think we should be able to take a more passive/less defensive approach and that can help ease some tension.
I think everyone who has commented here is probably roughly on the same page; we just have very different priorities and ideas about how to approach the issue.
I would agree with this too. Often times I feel like this is the case on fanpop. We're on the same page but we approach it and view the page in different ways. Just like actual reading; same words but interpreted based on experience, your way of processing things, etc. And I think that that's useful; the more minds looking at things the more solutions can be put forward.

Free market, freedom to do what you want, competition. It all works out beautifully.

I don't like that the government has shut down businesses because of business beliefs. It isn't like it is healthcare or education where everyone needs to be healthy and educated. I know that people target places sometimes just to get others in trouble and get a reaction and that attention that they crave, but it isn't right and shouldn't be tolerated.