'The market' won't solve anti-gay discrimination
Gil Smart at Smart Remarks:Thats fine in theory, but as if often the case when were talking about the market, there are lots and lots of holes. Specifically: What if were talking a small town, and your bakery, or flower shop, is the only one for miles around?
If you are the only choice and you choose not to serve a certain type of citizen that citizen is screwed.
Moreover, the logic I hear coming from this corner of the right would, in fact, justify segregated lunch counters. Hey, the lunch counter owner should have the right to serve or not serve who he wants and the (insert targeted minority group here) can just go somewhere else because certainly there will be somewhere else that wants their money!
Is this the society we want to live in now? Should we do this with heart surgeons as well as bakers and florists? Should the law permit and by permitting, encourage broad discrimination on any basis whatsoever? You discriminate against the gay couple, I discriminate against you because you discriminated against the gay couple, one business owner discriminates against blacks, a black business owner discriminates against whites
Again, the response would be that wouldnt happen; people wouldnt do this, and if they did do it theyd be shooting themselves in the foot.
But guess what: There are a whole bunch of people in Arizona now pissed off that they cant shoot themselves in the foot. They were itching to do so.
Lets not underestimate the eagerness of the human animal to discriminate against the hated other, whomever it may be.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Don't get me wrong, I think the Arizona law was heinous and am glad Brewer vetoed it, but a lunch counter and a flower shop are not the same thing.
The lunch counter is a matter to access to a publicly accessible place. The florist or bakery presumably would not deny anyone the right to come in the shop and buy product from inventory
The florist or bakery, in arranging to specification for a private ceremony, and delivering and setting up at location, is participating to some degree in that ceremony and might choose not to do so due to the nature of the ceremony. I would agree that is an unreasonable refusal, but it is not the same thing as denying access to a lunch counter. It is a matter of law that equal access to a publicly accessible facility cannot be denied, but participation in a private ceremony...
What I'm suggesting to you is make your argument, an argument with which I do not disagree, but there is plenty of valid logic to use, and descending into illogicality is a disservice to the cause.