- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Today a friend posted an article about how a gay woman donated money to a pizzeria whose profits were suffering because they didn’t want to cater a gay wedding (or something to that effect). There was a fundraiser, and if I’m not mistaken, it raised over $800K. The woman’s reasoning for donating to the business was that she wanted to support people for standing up for what they believe in, even if it’s not something she necessarily agrees with. Props for that, that takes courage to put your money where your mouth is (sorry, but you knew I had to). At first, I was struck with her actions. That’s pretty impressive. The reasoning at the end of the article she provides was “I run a small business with my partner and we wouldn’t want to support an anti-gay rights/marriage event, so why should I force someone to support a gay marriage/rights event if they don’t want to?” 1. I get the reasoning. Golden Rule, I wouldn’t want this done to me, so I won’t do it to you. That’s great to see it pan out in real life. And highlighted on a website.
2. However, I’m worried that people are beginning to take this idea of “I let you buy my items for specific purposes, therefore by selling you my product for that specific purpose I am condoning that purpose.”
So my main question I’d like to get feedback on: Does selling a product, regardless of if you know what the product is being used for or not, equate to supporting or condoning the reason for which the customer bought the product? Or is there fault/blame/etc to be laid ONLY IF the seller knows what the product will be used for? Does it matter? Should it matter? Can we (or should we) really start regulating this sort of thing?
If we use the reasoning that the gay rights movement is circling around, doesn’t that mean that anyone who sells gas to someone in the Westboro Church on their way to picket a funeral supports said picketing? Wouldn’t that mean that gun manufacturers and retailers condone shooting people with guns? Perhaps those are extreme examples, but I’m interested in this subject lately. What are your thoughts on this?
I really have mixed feelings on this. One side of me says that yes, indeed, if I am so opposed to something, especially on religious grounds, I should not have to do anything to support it. Abortion is a better example here than gay marriage. I am opposed to abortion, and when I worked in the medical field I did the necessary paperwork that allowed me not to participate. But, while I am opposed to abortion, I also support the individual right and freedom of choice for one to have an abortion. (I know, it seems like a dichotomy, I understand my point of view but it’s hard to put into words.) Another example might be the local anti-smoking organization. Our local group happens to be fairly militant and very outspoken – they protest stores, are regulars at local town councils, etc. I do not smoke, I watched my grandmother die a horrible death as a direct result of smoking. Nevertheless, it’s not my place to choose whether or not you smoke – that’s up to you and I support your right to do so. On the other hand, I am also opposed to discrimination, and I believe the Savior did not discriminate. People would generally be outraged if “gay” was changed to “Black” in these laws that have been in the news of late. I am one who does agree that these laws open the door to wider discrimination, despite what their supporters say. FWIW, I also believe these laws will be ruled unconstitutional when they reach the federal courts – and they will get there. I know my state’s laws were written differently than the current controversial ones, but in my state a person or business cannot refuse to serve gays just because they’re gay. That has been tested in the courts with a baker and a reception hall, as well as county clerks issuing marriage licenses, and in all cases the ruling was against the individual or business refusing to serve. (This is at least in part where the church’s stance on “religious freedom” comes from.)
As you point out, part of the conundrum is what exactly constitutes support? Does selling anything to anyone necessarily mean I support that thing? Are stores wrong to sell beer because the person buying the beer could become a drunk driver? Does that mean the store or store clerk support drunk driving? Is the store murdering people because they sell cigarettes? FWIW, I do know people who believe that gun manufacturers do support people shooting other people because that’s what guns are used for (in the view).
I believe in religious freedom in that I should have the right to worship openly and as I please. I do not believe religious freedom includes forcing my view on others. Good questions, I am interested to hear what others have to say.
I think selling to those that have differing beliefs happens all the time, but other than small local businesses that actually talk and look at customers – they never know. I bet that pizza place HAD actually served gays many times, but never new it. I think for me it is a very narrow group that I would refrain from selling – things like ammo/guns for a group that I know would be using them offensively (instead of just for self-protection).
I have worked in stores that have sold things (items and/or services) I personally would never use. There are limits to that (jobs I would not take if certain things were being sold or certain services were provided), but those are extremes and deal with issues of legality. My own view on this general issue is quite simple: Equality under the law and in public places, as long as someone is not being pressured to participate in any way with something that is illegal.
Prior to gay marriage being legalized, I would support a public business refusing to provide a service for a gay wedding. It would have nothing to do with anyone’s view of gay marriage but would be focused simply on the legality of the activity. Once gay marriage is legal, however, I do not support a public business refusing to provide a service for a gay wedding.
My solution is simple:
If you don’t want to serve “the public”, make your business a private one. Solicit members; serve only members; don’t take walk-in customers; publicize your restrictions and deal with all of the consequences (good and bad) of those restrictions.
In this country we have both options: serving the public or serving selected people. If you believe strongly in not serving the public, take a stand by choosing the option that allows you to not serve the public. Don’t try to have your cake and eat it, too, so to speak.
So, I say:
Quote:“Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord – in the manner I believe He served, including those whom everyone around him condemned for their actions.”
I have a much more Libertarian approach to this. If people don’t want to sell their cakes or whatever else to some select group of people, I’m fine with that. If someone put up notice they don’t want to sell cakes to Mormons (not exactly an equal analogy, but still works for the point I am trying to make), sounds good to me. I wouldn’t want to give them my money and I’m glad they are being up front with their bigotry. At some point that business will lose customers because of their belief, or they won’t, I don’t really care either way. The one place it is an issue for me is when it is a public good (gas, power, water, etc..). I personally don’t care if LGBT folks want to get married. If I had a cake business I would happily sell them cakes. I say let the businesses be openly discriminatory, at least that way I can choose as a consumer who to support. Over time those businesses will probably lose customers as views shift.
This is probably not a popular position, but I say let the market work it out.
1) Pizza at a wedding reception! Ok, I’m sure they make more than pizza but I like running with that mental image. 2) I think this is one of those problems that will eventually fix itself over time. Waiting for a problem to fix itself isn’t the best solution but I think time will fix this one. When I was a kid I couldn’t understand a back of the bus, separate water fountain, segregated world. Will the children being born in the near future be able to understand a world of not baking cakes for same sex marriage ceremonies?
Eventually the people that go out of their way to support businesses that discriminate against SSA people will run out of steam. You can only do so many $800K fund raisers before the money dries up or people lose interest.
If businesses really start to suffer because of anti-gay policies then they will probably change their attitudes.
3) I want to support people for standing up for what they believe in, even when I don’t agree. That does deserve props.
This is a tricky issue. Do unto others swings both ways. I wouldn’t want to be forced to do something against my belief system so why would I impose that on someone else? On the other side you have: I wouldn’t want to be denied service for my beliefs so why would I impose that on someone else?
It’s hard to draw comparisons to the real world. Guns require background checks, if someone passes a background check is that good enough for the person selling the gun or should they carry out their own investigation or act on their own suspicions?
I’ve seen a meme that is in the same vein as what would Jesus do: If someone forces you to bake a cake for a gay wedding, bake for them two.
SunbeltRed wrote:I have a much more Libertarian approach to this. If people don’t want to sell their cakes or whatever else to some select group of people, I’m fine with that. If someone put up notice they don’t want to sell cakes to Mormons (not exactly an equal analogy, but still works for the point I am trying to make), sounds good to me. I wouldn’t want to give them my money and I’m glad they are being up front with their bigotry. At some point that business will lose customers because of their belief, or they won’t, I don’t really care either way.
The one place it is an issue for me is when it is a public good (gas, power, water, etc..). I personally don’t care if LGBT folks want to get married. If I had a cake business I would happily sell them cakes. I say let the businesses be openly discriminatory, at least that way I can choose as a consumer who to support. Over time those businesses will probably lose customers as views shift.
This is probably not a popular position, but I say let the market work it out.
Interestingly enough SBRed, there was not all that long ago a business in Palmyra that did refuse to sell to Mormons. It was very near the hill and on the way between the JS farm and the hill (this was before the temple was built). It was a “beverage” business that mainly sold beer, but also stocked soda. The owner made a bit of a spectacle of himself, actually, and his opposition to selling to Mormons was that they would come in and only buy a can of soda instead of a six or twelve pack of beer as other people did. Obviously he made more money from the beer than the soda, hence he posted signs (at least at pageant time) that Mormons were not welcome to do business there (although I can’t say for sure that he actually refused any who did go). Since his business was not the only place to buy soda in town, it was easy to go somewhere else. Other members that I knew just felt that if he didn’t want their money (seriously, pageant is a huge tourist event there and he could have capitalized on it) they would just give it people who did. This only went on for a couple years and the business folded – but probably not because he wouldn’t serve Mormons (unless you believe God punishes people like that).
So your analogy does work to an extent. I agree with you – were it a business that wouldn’t cater to heterosexual weddings and I was getting married and wanted their services, I’d be inclined to just go to a place that wanted my money (supposing, of course, there were other places).
The other scenario is that the pizzeria caters to the gay wedding through gritted teeth and food which has had things done to it. The following is a response I posted on Facebook: Quote:1) The PR guru can choose to incorporate as a private entity. He can publicize his desired clients and not have to serve anyone he doesn’t want to serve. He already has that option, legally.
2) Someone can sell what they want to sell. Nobody can force someone to sell something they don’t want to sell. Muslims and Jews don’t have to sell pork; Mormons don’t have to sell alcohol; nobody has to sell porn; etc. We already have that right.
3) Nobody has to exit the marketplace; they simply have to choose the parameters of the market(s) they want to serve. Everyone has that right currently, with NO changes to any laws. To repeat that, everyone who wants to provide a good or service can serve everyone or they can serve and not serve any groups of people. They have that option already.
4) IF there are multiple, reasonable options available to purchase a good or service, this isn’t an issue, theoretically. However, in many places, where options are limited, it is an issue. When laws cover states or an entire nation, they almost always include areas and issues where mutliple, reasonable options don’t exist for everyone. Thus, laws need to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.
5) As I said, my baseline standard is equality under the law – and we have options in place to allow people to choose to serve whomever they want to serve. They should pick an existing option, not demand a new option.
A very pointed theoretical example: A Mormon lives in the Deep South. EVERY gas station owner within a 100 mile radius would refuse to serve Mormons if it was legal, stating religious conviction. Thus, a Mormon would have to drive over 200 miles, round trip, to buy gas. Would you support a law that produced that result?
I understand and respect libertarian ideas, generally – but they work best for people who are not going to face widespread discrimination. There is no way I am going to support anything that reinstitutes legally refusing to serve people based on race, for example, so I can’t support fully libertarian principles when it comes to civil rights.
Again, for me, it is simple: If you don’t want to serve the public, don’t run a public business; run a private one. It is legal to do so now, so follow the existing rules. That, to me, is a real stance – and I would respect it, even if I disagreed.
A lot of bars in this city get sniffy about who they serve, it’s not even homophobia or racism it’s the face not fitting. Ray, I tend to agree with your position. If someone runs a business where the only parameters is to exchange goods for money (IE literally almost all businesses these days), then anyone with money can technically come and buy your product. What if they bought it because they were making a presentation and needed an example of a terrible product? Would you legally be able to discriminate against them because you don’t support what they’re using it for? To me, beliefs may or may not come into play. I’m in nursing school, and I’m pretty sure I’m not allowed to refuse care to someone because I suspect they abuse their spouse. I have a legal obligation to report them and don’t have to condone their actions, but I don’t get to choose whether or not they receive the care I and the hospital provide. Even incarcerated people receive medical care, so I don’t see how beliefs always get to come into play.
Recently I heard the term “Christian privilege.” I had never heard of it before, but I do think about it now. I wonder if these sorts of cases are just where the majority of people, often Christians, shout “religious freedoms” because the legal system has usually been set up in their favor.
My religion requires me to take care of my body so I’m going to refuse service to anyone overweight because it goes against my religious beliefs. Silly as that sounds, that illustrates the problem for me. Where do we draw the line of one person’s rights vs. another person’s rights. There will never be an easy answer but my take is that we as a society have to agree on certain things that can’t be discriminated against. I can’t think of a better answer than having a society with perfect information sharing – and if that’s not available we might have to be content with a body of people deciding on our behalf (say for example a congress or supreme court). It seems that it ultimately comes down to plurality of opinion and when a minority becomes big enough to protect.
To me it has little to do with logic or science and more how emotionally ready a society is to accept something new.
I’ve read the account from both opposing sides. An ugly war is under way. It will only get uglier. I won’t go into the details but as in many things, both parties have erred. Both hold tight to their beliefs and both are using their beliefs as an effort to portray themselves as victims. Many public places have a sign that reads, “We refuse the right to serve anyone.” I may not like it, but I get it. Is it constitutional or covered by law, perhaps not, but I can see the need for an owner to protect his business interest. I also believe that we as a nation are becoming a generally combative people. If we don’t get a life like we want, we get pretty frenzied, dramatic, and thoughtless. All the way around that is what has happened here. And it’s not over. Yes the money was made up – the Pizza place saved – but the argument, the verbal vitriol, and the hate is still fomenting.
As an individual I don’t know how to support either side. A large part of me wants to walk away from both. Not because I am blind or don’t care, but because my input will only add punches that won’t stop. I am glad your friend felt good about her choice. And I hope someday, someone does something just as caring to her.
I appreciated what Michael Austin said here about Religious Discomfort being different than an infringement of Freedoms: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/04/08/religious-freedom-and-religious-comfort-ldsconf/ Basically, this boils down to whether or not sexual orientation is a protected class or not (which is granted when a minority group can demonstrate they have been discriminated against in a pattern and deserve protection). I certainly believe gay people should be a protected class. It would not be hard to demonstrate the repeated discrimination against them. If that is the case, then I don’t see how it is conscionable to deny them public services and goods. Business owners can refuse to carry gay cake toppers or write “gay” messages (whatever that means) or any messages they don’t want to do, but they can’t deny providing the public service and/or good they are licensed to provide on the grounds of that protected class.
The only reason we are even having this debate is because of the libertarian streak, particularly in Mormonism (although across the Tea Party also). For people who believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law we have a terrible history of actually doing so when it doesn’t suit us.
Quote:The only reason we are even having this debate is because of the libertarian streak, particularly in Mormonism (although across the Tea Party also). For people who believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law we have a terrible history of actually doing so when it doesn’t suit us.
Yep, there is that.
:thumbdown:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.