Lothar wrote:But again, this brings up the question of whether you have the lawful right to force someone else to participate in your private beliefs, to stick their name or their reputation inside of your actions. (Note that Kim Davis is totally OK with her office issuing licenses without her signature on them. That seems like a simple and reasonable accommodation that could have been made long ago, and then we would have never heard the name Kim Davis.)
She still claims that those licenses are not valid without her signature.
Lothar wrote:I've never seen a Kosher deli that's actually private and Jew-only. I don't think it's reasonable to expect every "public business" to be a good fit with every customer, nor do I think it's reasonable for every business whose owner might have religious convictions to have to make that business into a "private club" just to avoid the risk of being forced to shut down by someone who wants them to do something that violates their own conscience.
No, it's not reasonable for every business to be a "good fit" for every customer. So what? If you go into or open a particular business enterprise, you should "expect" that you are going to have to deal with people you don't agree with or like personally and who DO want to do business with you because you sell something they want. The public is not made up as a cloistered club of your own types of people. That's part of being in the "free market". It's not a "closed market" for just only
your people. No picking and choosing customers because your morals are in conflict or you dislike their race, religion or other trait. If it bothers you that much, make your business private and by invitation only. It's been done.
Lothar wrote:You speak about "kindness, politeness and fairness". That's a two-edged sword. If you turn people away from your business because you don't want to cater a same-sex wedding, that's certainly not polite. If you sue someone because they turned you away, that's also not polite. I'm sure we could all come up with creative ways to escalate with people whose beliefs we dislike -- at one point somebody asked a gay baker to bake a cake with Leviticus 18:22 written on it, who of course refused the order and very likely could have been sued out of business. Only a total jerk would actually carry through with such a suit. But there appear to be plenty of total jerks out there, who would rather use the "big stick" of the force of law to drive people out of business than simply vote with their wallets.
What else is there besides the "Big Stick" if you've been aggrieved by someone else? If there's a better solution, why don't people use it to come to more civil and fair compromises instead of being suing jerks to one another? They do it because of human nature. People tend to dig in and fight when they think they're in the right or have been aggrieved, on both sides of any issue. That's why lawyers will never go obsolete. Once any disagreement or fight starts, fairness and kindness go out the window. Sad, but that's the facts of life. I'd prefer people talk things over, think about fairness and think of the other person's position and feelings in that situation and then respect one another for what they are by compromising, but that rarely happens when vastly different people interact with each other. Even our own congress can't get along to do the important business of our country.
Lothar wrote:And that's where I really have a problem. There are times when "vote with your wallet" doesn't work because every business is discriminatory, or because you're dealing with a monopoly, and then a large-scale legal challenge is your only recourse. There are times when there's no way to make reasonable accommodation so that everyone gets what they want without violating anyone else's conscience. But people don't seem interested in even trying that. People are quick to trot out the line "don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay-married", but if you don't like Christians trying to opt out of participating in a wedding they find objectionable (by having their name on the certificate, or catering the reception, or whatever) the "don't hire them" option seems to be left behind in favor of "sue them into oblivion". Where's the kindness there? Why is it so hard to say "OK, I'll hire a different caterer" or "OK, let's issue certificates without your signature" or "OK, I guess I don't really need to hold my porkstravaganza inside of your synagogue"? Do we really need to be trying to end peoples' livelihoods when we could just walk away?
Yes, agree that making a point by suing someone or their business is the reason things really escalate. Maybe people like to fight or maybe people like to make an ass of themselves. I know that when I've been pesonally ripped off or insulted, my first inclination was to get mad, then later, even. Maybe after much thought, a better solution is come upon, but I'm still steamed for a long time anyway. It's that icky and yes, predictable human nature again.
But what if you liked the products of that business better than the competitors and they wouldn't sell it to you because you violated their morals or some other reason and wouldn't sell to you? What then? Walk out stunned or get mad? I'd say stunned at first and mad right after. Say they were the only maker of that product in town? What then? Drive to hell and gone to go to some other business that you haven't done business with before and then spend twice the money you would have in the first place? You're going to get mad yet again.
On the other side, what if you didn't know beforehand that a particular business was going to discriminate against you when you walked in and THEN you were insulted by their refusal to do business with you? What would your reaction be? Wouldn't you feel insulted and aggrieved? Wouldn't you get pissed and want some satisfaction?
As for ending a person's livelihood, that's
solely by their own choice if they can't come to terms that not everyone is like them or holds their morals and views and that they're going to have to either serve them, call it quits, change occupations or privatize their business.
