Bakery Lost Discrimination Case

[Jason Harvestdancer]

He gets shut down, because he's in contempt of court. You seem to think that he should be able to flout the law and the courts without consequences.

So THAT'S how you get around it.  If he is ordered by a court to change his business practice, and he refuses, he isn't shut down because he's still following the old business practice.  He's shut down for disobeying a judge.  The business practice has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and you can salve your conscience by saying he wasn't shut down for his business practice.

Even though he was.

I refuse to serve them, they are black.
I refuse to serve them, they are women.
I refuse to serve them, they are gay.

"The People" had their chance to sort these issues out, like the libertarian dream that the market would fix the problem. History lesson; it didn't, it took the court to fix all these issues.

Jim Crow was LAW.  It was illegal to defy Jim Crow.  I would like to remind you of that.

And the reason Jim Crow was law is because the market did work.  Those who defied it stole market share and out-competed their competitors, until their competitors made it law to not do so.

And even when working against LAW, the market finds surprising ways to innovate around such laws.  Take the Montgomery Bus Strike.  The reason it lasted so long was because the government prevented it from being resolved.  When the strike began, local taxis started charging bus fare rates to the strikers out of sympathy for the strike.  So the CITY passed a LAW forbidding the practice and made it against the law to charge whatever you wanted for the service you sold to customers who voluntarily sought you out.  So people started ride sharing.  The CITY passed a LAW requiring insurance companies to drop ride sharers.  The market was constantly outwitting the LAW and the LAW was constantly catching up.

The right to be protected from discrimination because of your skin, culture and sexuality outweighs the owner's right to operate his business in any means he sees fit. Same reason we don't (didn't?) allow oil companies to build pipes through refuges or (use to) keep businesses from completely scamming and ripping off their clients... the people, at the end of the day, come first.

Again the two don't compare, because people, at the end of the say, come first.  And even assholes are people.

The needs of society outweigh the needs of the business. If you do not like this, then practice what you preach and stop buying this product; either get enough people to boycott it so it changes (vote in libertarians [good luck]), change companies (governments) or refuse to follow it's rules.

The holy grail, "society".  Don't forget to imagine angels singing when you say the word.  But what is society if not the people that comprise it, so if you say that society has the right to impose on people you are actually saying "some people have a right to impose on other people."  You think that the person saying "I don't want to do business with you" is imposing a burden on the person he doesn't want to do business with, but he's not.

I agree that government must never discriminate.  But when you say "person X must suppress his own desires for the sake of person Y" you are not a champion of the people, because you are not a champion of the individual.

[Hakurei Reimu]

So THAT'S how you get around it.  If he is ordered by a court to change his business practice, and he refuses, he isn't shut down because he's still following the old business practice.  He's shut down for disobeying a judge.

Yes, the judge, whose job is to interpret the law as written at the time the dispute occurs.

The business practice has nothing whatsoever to do with it, and you can salve your conscience by saying he wasn't shut down for his business practice.

Even though he was.

I don't feel the need to "salve my conscience" that he would be shut down for his business practice, because his buisiness practice, at the time he caused the dispute with the gay couple, was against the law. The judge says so, as is his job. The business owner has the duty to obey the laws regarding how businesses may be run, just as I have the duty to obey the laws regarding myself as a private citizen.

If I were to protest a law by way of civil disobedience, I'm not going to whine when I'm arrested and put in jail, because that's the price I would pay for my disobedience. If the business owner doesn't like the law, fine, he can say so and even campaign to have it struck down (good luck), but until then, he would be disobeying the law to not serve the gay couple, and accept the consequences of disobeying the law.

Jim Crow was LAW.  It was illegal to defy Jim Crow.  I would like to remind you of that.

And the reason Jim Crow was law is because the market did work.  Those who defied it stole market share and out-competed their competitors, until their competitors made it law to not do so.

Again, this doesn't explain why segregation was the de facto situation up north in places, even though it wasn't law. Was the market working there?