That's a common Classical Liberal ("Libertarian") belief. Liberty means I should be able to do whatever I want if it doesn't directly harm you. The problem is, what happens when every baker in the state refuses to bake a cake for gay couples? Then, if you're gay, you simply can't get a cake. Or a haircut. Or clothes. Or a job. That's exactly what happened in the US South, to black people. Other white Southerners didn't call them assholes – they praised them. That's why the US has anti-discrimination laws, and why they're necessary. I have a friend who's mostly Classical Liberal, but uses this analogy: you own a house on some land. I purchase all the land surrounding yours and build hundred-foot walls around it. I've committed no violence against you, per strict Classical Liberal theory. Moral: there is such a thing as economic violence.In my opinion, yes I should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, but then I shouldn't be surprised when people start calling me an asshole
So I wrote up a long answer, but my train of thought was difficult to follow, and I was addressing a lot of things at once, so I'll just try and break things down and get more information. I don't know much about U.S. history. When those laws came into place, was it popular opinion that black people were being discriminated against? On some level people just know when somebody is being hard done by. In the case of the Classical Liberal theory thing you were talking about, the analogy works because people know it's unfair. You seem to be implying that the law changed the way people feel, but I would say it's the other way around. Also, in order for a gay person to be discriminated against on the level you were illustrating would require a huge cultural and political shift which I simply don't see happening. My original post wasn't the "general case", it was making the assumption that we are living in today's society and with no major reversals of social progress.
It was not opinion, it was fact. And still is. I lived in Texas for 7 years, I can give you plenty of examples if you like. As it becomes less socially acceptable, racists have also become more insidious. The point of the analogy is that economic violence is possible. Having established it as possible, it doesn't require an extreme instance, like all bakers refusing service, or a physical wall around your property. For example, suppose there are 10 bakers in my city, competing to my benefit per our Lassiez Faire economic system. One baker refuses me service based on my class (black, gay). Now there are 9 bakers competing for my money. Not only is competition reduced, harming me economically, but I have less selection. I really liked a cake that bigotted baker won't sell me. Now, that's far less harmful than all 10 bakers, or a wall around my house. But I have still been economically harmed, to some small degree. By refusing to provide me service based on my class, the baker has committed economic violence against me. Ergo, I believe the law should recognize economic violence, and make significant acts of it illegal. Yes, you could come up with ridiculous examples. The baker has harmed me economically by refusing to make a cake with dicks on it for my flamboyantly gay wedding. I'm not arguing for extreme laws against any conceivable harm to the slightest degree. But I do believe the law of a Free government should recognize the concept. And that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do.was it popular opinion that black people were being discriminated against?
in order for a gay person to be discriminated against on the level you were illustrating
Okay, hold on a minute. I didn't say that those events were a matter of opinion, I know that black people went through a hell of a time over there. Fucking hell. I was simply asking about people's overall attitude at the time; commonly referred to as 'popular opinion'. Also, I'm mixed race and know very well that racism isn't dead yet, but I also can appreciate that had I been born 50 or 60 years earlier things would have been a lot different. Overall our attitudes towards racism have shifted dramatically. As for the rest of your comment, fair points and food for thought. I didn't initially come here to argue with you about the ins and outs of racist cake legislation, but it's been a good run. All I was saying is that either way, somebody's an unhappy person indeed. HomophoBaker will feel that his right to practice religion is being compromised, or the gay person will feel hard done by, and rightly so; and there is no easy solution. The "ideal" bigoted baker (never thought I'd say that) in my hypothetical world I created in my first post would refuse the gay person his services, but then be judged in turn by society for being an ass. Yes, an "economic violence" has been committed, and now the customer doesn't get his cake. On the other hand, now the baker has to pay for it with a big smear on his business' reputation and lose sales. You win lose you some some. In my mind, a situation like that is probably better than a legal situation where someone is forced by law to do something that they feel is morally unacceptable. If they really feel it's morally unacceptable, then fine, let them do it and let them be a victim of their own decision. You obviously disagree, and I see why. In your mind (as far as I can tell), the customer should never be discriminated against in the first place, and everybody should have equal access to everything. Also, you don't trust society to make the right decision. This is a fair way of looking at things; I can see your train of thought and I definitely don't disagree. All I can say is, if I was refused a service because I'm brown I wouldn't try to sue them, but I would sing from the rooftops about what a shitty person the owner is.It was not opinion, it was fact. And still is...