Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Bill the Cat]

Some freedom is lost while more freedom is gained. Freedom, on net, goes up.

Freedom for one may go up, but freedom for the other doesn't. Again, balancing freedom and equality causes contradictions. Someone loses freedom either way.

[Sam]

Freedom for one may go up, but freedom for the other doesn't. Again, balancing freedom and equality causes contradictions. Someone loses freedom either way.

Yes, as I wrote. The difference is the degree of freedom lost and the reason for which that freedom was lost. Losing the freedom to discriminate on the basis of class, race, gender, orientation, etc. as a condition of becoming a public accommodation is a trade-off. Losing the ability to fully participate in society because others don't like the fact that you happen to be black or gay is not a trade-off.

Of course balancing freedom and equality causes conflicts (not contradictions). That's only a problem in principle if one is dedicated to maximalist policies.

[Zymologist]

Yes, as I wrote. The difference is the degree of freedom lost and the reason for which that freedom was lost. Losing the freedom to discriminate on the basis of class, race, gender, orientation, etc. as a condition of becoming a public accommodation is a trade-off. Losing the ability to fully participate in society because others don't like the fact that you happen to be black or gay is not a trade-off.

Of course balancing freedom and equality causes conflicts (not contradictions). That's only a problem in principle if one is dedicated to maximalist policies.

You're framing this in such prejudicial terms that it makes me wonder how much attention you've paid to the people debating the other side.

[seer]

Yes. Because that "force" of anti-discrimination law allows for a more perfect freedom than the discrimination it prohibits.

No, you are supporting a milder form of slavery. Forced labor.

[Sam]

You're framing this in such prejudicial terms that it makes me wonder how much attention you've paid to the people debating the other side.

What was prejudicial in that post? That the decision to run a business as a public accommodation is conditioned upon following anti-discrimination laws? That discrimination based on race, gender, or orientation is not, in fact, the effect of a consumer's decision but on an inherent trait?

I don't see what was prejudicial in my framing.

[Zymologist]

What was prejudicial in that post? That the decision to run a business as a public accommodation is conditioned upon following anti-discrimination laws? That discrimination based on race, gender, or orientation is not, in fact, the effect of a consumer's decision but on an inherent trait?

I don't see what was prejudicial in my framing.

That we're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, orientation rather than a simple freedom of association.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have commented, as I think the whole discussion is a waste of time.

[Sam]

That we're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, orientation rather than a simple freedom of association.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have commented, as I think the whole discussion is a waste of time.

Well, yes ... if you're supporting a "simple freedom of association" that allows discrimination on the basis of race, gender or orientation then, by necessity, you're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or orientation. You may not support the discriminatory acts themselves but you're supporting the freedom to discriminate on those traits.

I support a freedom of speech, for example, that allows for flag-burning. I don't support flag-burning itself but I necessarily support one's freedom to burn the flag.

That's not using prejudicial language, it's just being frank.

[seer]

Well, yes ... if you're supporting a "simple freedom of association" that allows discrimination on the basis of race, gender or orientation then, by necessity, you're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or orientation. You may not support the discriminatory acts themselves but you're supporting the freedom to discriminate on those traits.

I support a freedom of speech, for example, that allows for flag-burning. I don't support flag-burning itself but I necessarily support one's freedom to burn the flag.

That's not using prejudicial language, it's just being frank.

Except flag-burning does not force you into labor under threat of penalty. So you lose no freedoms. And let's be clear, on this issue we are speaking of discrimination based on behavior. Immoral behavior.

[Zymologist]

Well, yes ... if you're supporting a "simple freedom of association" that allows discrimination on the basis of race, gender or orientation then, by necessity, you're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or orientation. You may not support the discriminatory acts themselves but you're supporting the freedom to discriminate on those traits.

I support a freedom of speech, for example, that allows for flag-burning. I don't support flag-burning itself but I necessarily support one's freedom to burn the flag.

That's not using prejudicial language, it's just being frank.

Similarly, if you support anti-discrimination laws then you support government-forced labor. That's not a misuse of language, as you seem to have implied, it is, as you say, just being frank.

[Sam]

Similarly, if you support anti-discrimination laws then you support government-forced labor. That's not a misuse of language, as you seem to have implied, it is, as you say, just being frank.

[Zymologist]

That's a misuse of language in the sense that the latter does not follow from the former by logical necessity. It's contingent on your definition of "government-forced labor" and, when you get right down into how that term is being defined, very few people would maintain that the "force" brought to bear by anti-discrimination law is unnecessary or improper.

So on my part, I'm using the transitive property to make clear a support for the freedom to discriminate — and that's not something you can disagree with if you, in fact, support a freedom to discriminate. On your part, you're using a term that has an emotive effect only so long as it's not specified exactly what you're meaning by it. Because if "government-forced labor" means selling your wares to the public without discrimination rather than, say, internment camps, not very many people are going to find that accusation compelling.

Are you saying that the government requiring business owners, by law, to provide services to people they don't want to provide services to (and then fining them huge amounts if they don't comply) is not force?

Btw, I don't really care if you want to call it freedom to discriminate. I just wanted to point out the uncharitable nature of it.

[Sam]

Are you saying that the government requiring business owners, by law, to provide services to people they don't want to provide services to (and then fining them huge amounts if they don't comply) is not force?

Btw, I don't really care if you want to call it freedom to discriminate. I just wanted to point out the uncharitable nature of it.

It's hardly uncharitable to say that one is supporting the freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or orientation when the person is necessarily doing just that. If you're looking for the blow to be softened, I'd suggest that may indicate some level of discomfort with the reality of your position. It would be uncharitable to say that you're supporting discrimination by supporting the freedom to discriminate. I haven't done that.

Yes, it's force. As all government action is force. The problem is that you're looking at the phrase "government-forced labor" without really drilling down what you mean by the word; you're allowing its emotive effect to carry the strongest connotation.

I can "force" my kid to eat his vegetables by reminding him that the deal for dinner is that he has to eat all his vegetables as part of getting dinner. I can "force" my kid to clean his room by establishing that a failure to do so will result in a time out or lost privileges. I can "force" my kid to work in the coal mine for eight hours a day by dragging him to the mine elevator and tossing him in, picking up his wages from yesterday on my way out the door. All are examples of force: only one would be considered inappropriate.

So you've got to define what you mean by "force" and what scope you're using the term for. If when using the term "government-forced labor," you're being clear that you mean "businesses who offer goods and services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race/gender/orientation/etc." then that's fine. It's just that when you're frank about how you're using the term, not a whole lot of people are going to find that use of "force" shocking or even inappropriate.

[seer]

Are you saying that the government requiring business owners, by law, to provide services to people they don't want to provide services to (and then fining them huge amounts if they don't comply) is not force?

Of course it is forced labor, Sam does not want to word it that way because he wants to believe that he is on the side of the angels...

[Zymologist]

It's hardly uncharitable to say that one is supporting the freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or orientation when the person is necessarily doing just that. If you're looking for the blow to be softened, I'd suggest that may indicate some level of discomfort with the reality of your position. It would be uncharitable to say that you're supporting discrimination by supporting the freedom to discriminate. I haven't done that.

Yes, it's force. As all government action is force. The problem is that you're looking at the phrase "government-forced labor" without really drilling down what you mean by the word; you're allowing its emotive effect to carry the strongest connotation.

I can "force" my kid to eat his vegetables by reminding him that the deal for dinner is that he has to eat all his vegetables as part of getting dinner. I can "force" my kid to clean his room by establishing that a failure to do so will result in a time out or lost privileges. I can "force" my kid to work in the coal mine for eight hours a day by dragging him to the mine elevator and tossing him in, picking up his wages from yesterday on my way out the door. All are examples of force: only one would be considered inappropriate.

So you've got to define what you mean by "force" and what scope you're using the term for. If when using the term "government-forced labor," you're being clear that you mean "businesses who offer goods and services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race/gender/orientation/etc." then that's fine. It's just that when you're frank about how you're using the term, not a whole lot of people are going to find that use of "force" shocking or even inappropriate.

Fair enough on the first point; it was something I shouldn't have tried to nitpick on.

As for the second point...don't have much else to say. I take a pretty dim view of government coercion on pretty much any issue, so there's no ground that either of us will gain by continuing.

But thank you for admitting that it's government force. For some reason, a lot of liberals are extremely averse to admitting that very simple fact.

[Paprika]

I take a pretty dim view of government coercion on pretty much any issue, so there's no ground that either of us will gain by continuing.

Law is coercion by threat of force, and actual force when deemed fit.

As to forced labour, there is conscription, or what you Yankees call the draft.