What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

[Idolater]

I would not want to eat a cake baked by someone who didn't want to bake it.

I thought the Supreme Court decided that if you bake wedding cakes, and you don't want to bake it for an LGBT ceremony, then it's cool and you don't have to. First Amendment. Did I miss something?

 

[Town Heretic]

I thought the Supreme Court decided that if you bake wedding cakes, and you don't want to bake it for an LGBT ceremony, then it's cool and you don't have to. First Amendment. Did I miss something?

Yes, you missed the actual holding.

Aa Kennedy put it:

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Essentially the Court ruled narrowly and in response largely to the dismissive response of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

"As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments."

 

[Lon]

I'm confident I can rebut that. Let's go.

To rebut it being complicated? Okay, I'm in.

That's just rephrasing a discriminatory practice as a job description.

I'm not sure it is. I'd suggest most bakers didn't even have to think about baking a cake for a homosexual wedding when they first started. Homosexual weddings is very recent.

Either you make and sell wedding cakes or you don't. . If you don't have any same sex figurines and don't stock them then you can probably get a pass on that one.

By the same token, maybe not a bar mitzvah cake either. Here I'm not trying to get too involved with another. My sentiments are that I can shine my light (His light) wherever I am. If I felt uncomfortable, I'd probably deliver and get out of Dodge (including a couple of heterosexual ones!).

You can't be made to carry inventory.

I think that's fair. How were you on the recent ruling regarding the man that does custom art on cakes? A lot of folks felt it was a step back. A few said it was just and exactly right. To me, this one was a bit more personal, because with art, you have to take so much more time on the subject matter and... because of that, if it makes one feel uncomfortable, that is a lot of time to have to feel uncomfortable.

Like I said, if you sell cakes you don't get to not sell cakes because you don't like the buyer.

:think: What if he pounded me in junior high? :think: I grew up with "we reserve the right to refuse anyone service for any reason."
It is hard, even today, to combat that kind of thinking because it was so ingrained in me. I was asked, as a kid, to leave a couple of times. I just thought with adults, kids often got in the way. I remember wanting to spend my only quarter on a cream filled chocolate a couple of times. There were times the owner said "sorry, I don't have time for you kids today."

You need a legitimate business practice.

I need this spelled out for me a bit better, I'm not quite grasping the meaning of this sentence (and thank you).

And if you're a baker who sells cakes you should.

Well, except that kid that tried to beat me up in junior high. He's getting my dill pickle 'special' cake?

On a serious note, how does this work in reality if you are having bad-blood with someone? What about the guy that a month earlier stole from my store tip jar, after which I told him never to come back to my store again? To me, there are yet a LOT of contingencies that make this more complicated, for me, at least, like I'd originally said. I'd be excited to see it more cut and dry than it appears.

Depends on the request. If you do custom work and the work requested is comparable to the work you've done for others you favor, then you should be required to do that.

This is a good one for you to weigh in on the supreme court ruling. To me, there is something comparable, but also something different, and thus again, to me at least, it isn't always cut/dry, or simpl

Nothing in that was complicated, Lon. And we don't say to the racist, "Well, if you feel strongly about it, discriminate away!" Not even if they believe black people bear the mark of Cain and should be shunned.

I realize you equate here, but the two are very different. The Mormons believed blacks were under a curse. Darwin did too. There are some things I cannot do, however, because I'm not black. BET doesn't have a mandate, for example, to ensure 60% of their employees are white.

Such doesn't bother me, but should it on some level? If we are going to push percentages one way, shouldn't they also fit the other way as well?

To me? It doesn't look as black and white, odd or straight, or as simple. Imho, a lot of what is on the table is a lot more complicated.

To me, if you have to pass a law on what you 'should do' as a decent human being, the law doesn't make you a decent human being, just twists your arm. I was in a pizza place that said "no dogs allowed." I watched one of the girls go back after someone with a service animal came in. Not sure what they did to that pizza, but the law may have forced one thing, but it certainly made me wonder what happened with that pizza. Forcing sometimes brings out the worst instead of the best in people and their unspoken bigotry was probably better. It seems "No! Get your filthy animal out of here!" would be better than buying a tainted pizza. Again, to me, at least, it still looks complicated.

 

[Lon]

"As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments."

Yowsa! Gonna have to teach some of those reporters to avoid run-on sentences (as well as drawing inferences).

 

[Idolater]

Yes, you missed the actual holding.

Aa Kennedy put it:

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Essentially the Court ruled narrowly and in response largely to the dismissive response of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

"As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments."

What's a 'holding.'

 

[quip]

I thought the Supreme Court decided that if you bake wedding cakes, and you don't want to bake it for an LGBT ceremony, then it's cool and you don't have to. First Amendment. Did I miss something?

Yes, you missed the actual holding.

Aa Kennedy put it:

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Essentially the Court ruled narrowly and in response largely to the dismissive response of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

"As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments."

What's a 'holding.'

IOW....
Joe-the-Christian-baker: "[T]he Supreme Court decided that if you bake wedding cakes, and you don't want to bake it for an LGBT ceremony, then it's cool and you don't have to."

If the law is a slow and belaboured process...hearts, minds and morality that require it, lag all the more.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I would not want to eat a cake baked by someone who didn't want to bake it.

Noone should have to back a cake they don't want to bake, but if their business is a bakery, cakes need to be produced.

 

[Idolater]

IOW....
Joe-the-Christian-baker: "[T]he Supreme Court decided that if you bake wedding cakes, and you don't want to bake it for an LGBT ceremony, then it's cool and you don't have to."

If the law is a slow and belaboured process...hearts, minds and morality that require it, lag all the more.

What?

 

[Town Heretic]

What's a 'holding.'

Google it. Seriously, why would you ask that?

 

[Idolater]

Google it. Seriously, why would you ask that?

Because you're using jargon from your own profession. If I use jargon from my profession, I'd explain it for those who aren't in my profession. Reasonable?

 

[Danoh]

What's a 'holding.'

As in "we hold this matter resolved..."

As in "we hold that such a matter falls under the law of..."

In other words, the definition is always built into how the word in question is being used, where it is being used, and within what is being talked about.

Keep this principle in mind and pretty soon you'll find yourself able to properly discern where some one is actually coming from with much greater accuracy.

At least that is what I do.

Food for thought.

 

[quip]

Google it. Seriously, why would you ask that?

It's conspicuously missing an '?'. :think:

 

[Idolater]

As in "we hold this matter resolved..."

As in "we hold that such a matter falls under the law of..."

In other words, the definition is always built into how the word in question is being used, where it is being used, and within what is being talked about.

Keep this principle in mind and pretty soon you'll find yourself able to properly discern where some one is actually coming from with much greater accuracy.

At least that is what I do.

Food for thought.

So it's discipline-specific jargon.

 

[Town Heretic]

By the same token, maybe not a bar mitzvah cake either.

Is there some exotic approach/means that wouldn't be available in the average baker's inventory? If so it wouldn't be reasonable to expect someone to stock a thing on the odd chance. It wouldn't be a reasonable business practice.

I think that's fair. How were you on the recent ruling regarding the man that does custom art on cakes?

I'd say the notion that a cake is art is largely a contrivance and contrary to common sense, an attempt to serve an old whine in a new skin. What a thing is made and sold for should determine what that thing is and a cake is meant to be consumable goods first and foremost, to be eaten. Can it be endowed by its creator with artistic sensibility? To be sure. But if simply being able to put a creative something into a work that isn't aimed at being admired for its own nature without any other necessary element then what can't fall under that umbrella? What odious bigotry can't then find an ally by that dim light?

I grew up with "we reserve the right to refuse anyone service for any reason." It is hard, even today, to combat that kind of thinking because it was so ingrained in me. I was asked, as a kid, to leave a couple of times. I just thought with adults, kids often got in the way. I remember wanting to spend my only quarter on a cream filled chocolate a couple of times. There were times the owner said "sorry, I don't have time for you kids today."

The owner was probably spending his time on customers spending more money on larger purchases, which would be a sensible and legitimate business practice.

I need this spelled out for me a bit better, I'm not quite grasping the meaning of this sentence (and thank you).

Sure. A reasonable/legitimate business practice is one directly related to profit in the pursuit of your business. Lowering or raising a price could be considered that very thing. If you decide to not let people, any people, who won't wear a shirt or shoes enter your restaurant that's a reasonable business practice as there are health code considerations, among others. If you decide to let white people only enter without shoes or shirt then the practice is obviously not one aimed at business considerations.

Well, except that kid that tried to beat me up in junior high. He's getting my dill pickle 'special' cake?

And he can always sue you civilly over the wilful failure to provide what he was contractually obligated to provide (probably best to let it go and consider hitting him with the bill for services a sort of revenge).

On a serious note, how does this work in reality if you are having bad-blood with someone? What about the guy that a month earlier stole from my store tip jar, after which I told him never to come back to my store again?

He's been banned from your business for a reason that has nothing to do with a protected class designation. Fair game. He can't expect service.

To me, there are yet a LOT of contingencies that make this more complicated, for me, at least, like I'd originally said. I'd be excited to see it more cut and dry than it appears.

Most laws are complicated in application, but this one just doesn't seem terribly difficult to me.

I realize you equate here, but the two are very different.

I don't follow your meaning. The equating regards a sincere belief that ends with a discriminatory practice.

The Mormons believed blacks were under a curse. Darwin did too.

Then they were both fools at different times, though the Mormons have abandoned that one...Darwin too, I'd imagine.

There are some things I cannot do, however, because I'm not black.

There are things you couldn't do if you were black too, like get the same consideration, on average, from the justice system. It happens.

BET doesn't have a mandate, for example, to ensure 60% of their employees are white.

Who has that mandate imposed on it by law in regard to any race?

Such doesn't bother me, but should it on some level?

Why should the non-existence of a mandate to hire 60% of whites in any particular employment environment bother you?

If we are going to push percentages one way, shouldn't they also fit the other way as well?

You have to realize that the push for a rough representation within the corporate structure came out of institutionalized race based hiring practices. Push? Is there a law requiring any business to hire under a quota system? There are laws for penalizing companies that demonstrably discriminate on the basis of race, which is different.

Someone once said to me, maybe here, "If we had a White Entertainment Television network people would lose their minds." And I said, "But we do. It's called just about every other network and most programming."

To me? It doesn't look as black and white, odd or straight, or as simple. Imho, a lot of what is on the table is a lot more complicated.

I don't see how. If you sell cars, you sell cars to everyone. If you bake cakes, own a restaurant, a hotel, etc., you shouldn't deny anyone the product or service unless that denial is integral to a purely business reason, one divorced from race, religion, etc.

To me, if you have to pass a law on what you 'should do' as a decent human being, the law doesn't make you a decent human being, just twists your arm.

The law isn't aiming to make a bigot a decent human being. Its aim is to see that he can't empower that indecency, harm others with his shortcoming in the public square.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's conspicuously missing an '?'. :think:

He's suspiciously missing an argument. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Because you're using jargon from your own profession. If I use jargon from my profession, I'd explain it for those who aren't in my profession. Reasonable?

Not if I could Google it. I mean, the same effort and you don't have to rely on me, though I don't see how the meaning of a holding isn't sort of there in the structure of the sentence.

 

[Danoh]

So it's discipline-specific jargon.

Doesn't matter.

What is being talked about when an unfamilar word was used, helps determine how said word is being meant.

Just look to what was being talked about as a whole when said word was used.

Basic Elemenatry School Reading Fundamentals 101.

Case in point, the following took place in a micro-second...

Once, while speaking with someone I had just asked 'How's business?'

He replied "O man, business has just been - off the chain!"

I thought 'what the heck might that mean?'

Just then, the above rule came to mind "by reason of use" Hebrews 5:14.

I thought 'okay, so he was very excited and with a great big smile, when he said that, and in reply to my question to him ABOUT how's business - he obviously means his business is doing so well that its like attempting to hold back a dog (his merchandise) much stronger than the chain one is attempting to hold said dog back with...'

Sure enough, that had been exactly what he'd been referring to.

That his business had been experiencing one heck of "a runaway" of a success - "a grandslam out of the park," "a touchdown..." and so on.

Forget "the discipline" focus on the overall context.

:thumb:

 

[Lon]

Is there some exotic approach/means that wouldn't be available in the average baker's inventory? If so it wouldn't be reasonable to expect someone to stock a thing on the odd chance. It wouldn't be a reasonable business practice.

I think I get this part (If not, I'd be missing quite a bit).

I'd say the notion that a cake is art is largely a contrivance and contrary to common sense, an attempt to serve an old whine in a new skin. What a thing is made and sold for should determine what that thing is and a cake is meant to be consumable goods first and foremost, to be eaten. Can it be endowed by its creator with artistic sensibility? To be sure. But if simply being able to put a creative something into a work that isn't aimed at being admired for its own nature without any other necessary element then what can't fall under that umbrella? What odious bigotry can't then find an ally by that dim light?

I thought you had Netflix? See here for a taste (pun intended).

The owner was probably spending his time on customers spending more money on larger purchases, which would be a sensible and legitimate business practice.

How is it legitimate though? He is clearly preferring one customer to the other (you are correct, but the point being I didn't, at that time, have equal access to the same piece of candy). I still was not getting service that day as we were shooed out the door. Isn't that a form of weeding based on my economic and age status?

Sure. A reasonable/legitimate business practice is one directly related to profit in the pursuit of your business. Lowering or raising a price could be considered that very thing. If you decide to not let people, any people, who won't wear a shirt or shoes enter your restaurant that's a reasonable business practice as there are health code considerations, among others. If you decide to let white people only enter without shoes or shirt then the practice is obviously not one aimed at business considerations.

I get the prejudice piece on this, but what if only black people wanted a dandelion cake? At some point, there is a difference between not baking a dandelion cake (sorry my black friends, very bad example not meant to disparage at all, but understand when a business practice is legitimate and when it is not and under what circumstances, because it isn't as simple to me), and not baking for a black person, but they might be the very same thing. Let me get out of your example for a moment and choose another: Could a baker legitimately make a birthday cake for someone gay, yet for this other reason, not make a cake depicting something they do not believe in (like a dandelion cake). IOW, is the accommodation much more different than their product? It seems to me, it 'can' be and without being bigotry.

And he can always sue you civilly over the wilful failure to provide what he was contractually obligated to provide (probably best to let it go and consider hitting him with the bill for services a sort of revenge).

Its a tough thing, especially if you have scars from that prior engagement. My father had a hard time with Orientals after Pearl Harbor. The transition from 'enemy' to 'now bigotry' was a hard one. I think it was right to ask and even expect it, but it was not at all easy and 'law' imho would have done better to try to meet across the need rather than just mandating first they were enemies and then 'no longer' enemies. I'm not a war vet, so I've no idea what asking someone to comply with such entails or the complications involved, but it 'seems' complicated to me.

He's been banned from your business for a reason that has nothing to do with a protected class designation. Fair game. He can't expect service.

This part 'seemed' black and white. Thanks.

Most laws are complicated in application, but this one just doesn't seem terribly difficult to me.

1) thank you for the concession and
2) thank you for the concession.

It isn't a bigoted inquiry, I'm just genuinely trying to understand news related items AND what to vote for or petitions to sign when such things come my way. For me, these threads are more of a service than a debate (please, and now 'thank you' as well).

I don't follow your meaning. The equating regards a sincere belief that ends with a discriminatory practice.

I yet see one as discriminatory not really based on skin color. Let me explain: There is nothing I have to accommodate in 'skin color' for a person who comes into my bakery. A birthday cake, wedding cake, etc. they are all the same: No accommodation, no difference.

This is not the case with a wedding cake where I have to depict same sex couples on it. So with one, no skin color accommodation necessary, the other, something I have to go out of my way to accommodate AND against a belief (value) I possess where I have to go against that belief and am forced to do so.

Then they were both fools at different times, though the Mormons have abandoned that one...Darwin too, I'd imagine.

:chuckle: Sorry, I had something meaningful here, but your good humor has it further down my list at the moment

There are things you couldn't do if you were black too, like get the same consideration, on average, from the justice system. It happens.

There are a few others as well. I generally celebrate difference and diversity, even if it 'seems' unfair I cannot do it.

Who has that mandate imposed on it by law in regard to any race?

Affirmative Action? For the record, 'race' tends to conflate rather than relieve the difference here, regarding religious liberty and belief. Neither you nor I believe skin color has anything to do with anything in scripture. We believe opposite that regarding sexual matters and so-called identity. To me, they just do not sync well AND I believe this is part of the justice system's problem. They don't seem to understand the frustration of such conflations either. To them and others, they seem apples and apples. To me and a great many, this isn't the case. The comparisons stop short. The example above, I hope, helps shed light on the differences.

Why should the non-existence of a mandate to hire 60% of whites in any particular employment environment bother you?

It doesn't. It just doesn't seem 'equitable' to me. I suppose I or someone could push a lawsuit if they felt leftout and unfairly treated. Me? I'm not much of a lawsuit guy. I WAS bothered, however, when an all black churched asked me to leave. I really enjoyed it there and would have stayed, but it was in Texas, and they had children to worry about.

You have to realize that the push for a rough representation within the corporate structure came out of institutionalized race based hiring practices. Push? Is there a law requiring any business to hire under a quota system? There are laws for penalizing companies that demonstrably discriminate on the basis of race, which is different.

The clarity isn't there. I have a friend that types[d] 170 wpm. He was not hired because the college had few minorities so a guy that typed 85 wpm of a different color was hired instead.

Someone once said to me, maybe here, "If we had a White Entertainment Television network people would lose their minds." And I said, "But we do. It's called just about every other network and most programming."

Not the same. There is no White Entertainment Network. We just happen[ed] to be the majority representation. Some things just happen without any desire for hurting anybody and, possibly, nobody 'should' feel hurt. I don't particularly feel hurt whenever I'm not invited to a hockey game. Shunning when you want something, yes, but it is rarely about that. We often make laws that simply 'accommodate' and then it causes a lot of worse. Anytime you MAKE someone do something they may spit in your food etc. That's why I wouldn't press a bakery for doing something for me as a Christian. The moment I do it, instead of going someplace else, my cake is tainted, service is tainted, and the guy is now not just a bigot, but really angry about it. I just don't think I've accomplished anything at that point.

The law isn't aiming to make a bigot a decent human being. Its aim is to see that he can't empower that indecency, harm others with his shortcoming in the public square.

I think that is the aim, not sure it is always accomplished and in some ways, it made for the KKK with hoods. They found a way to do it against the law, and more dangerously. I'm in NO ways for that. We genuinely have to step in and in order to do that, we have to make laws but some of this becomes micromanaging. Of course, I always feel that way with a parking ticket too. :mmph:


I'm not sure if any of these last couple of paragraphs are very meaningful. I'm a bit distracted today. -Lon

 

[Town Heretic]

How is it legitimate though?

He's in the business to make money. If his time is more profitably spent with customers who are buying a greater volume then it's a legitimate business practice.

He is clearly preferring one customer to the other

Sure. That kind of discrimination is protected, because it isn't about your race, your religion, etc. It's about the purpose of business itself and what serves it.

Isn't that a form of weeding based on my economic and age status?

The former is sufficient to protect him. As a rule the latter goes hand in hand, but it isn't causal.

I get the prejudice piece on this, but what if only black people wanted a dandelion cake?

It doesn't touch the issue, unless he's making that cake for one sort of person and not for another. So long as the cakes he offers, the services he provides are offered and provided to anyone who has the lucre, he's golden.

Could a baker legitimately make a birthday cake for someone gay, yet for this other reason, not make a cake depicting something they do not believe in (like a dandelion cake). IOW, is the accommodation much more different than their product? It seems to me, it 'can' be and without being bigotry.

A baker isn't in the business of selling belief and the customers of a baker aren't attempting to purchase his approval. It's about cakes.

My father had a hard time with Orientals after Pearl Harbor.

True for a lot of that generation. Especially those who lost loved ones or experienced some of the horror of that war up close.

The transition from 'enemy' to 'now bigotry' was a hard one. I think it was right to ask and even expect it, but it was not at all easy and 'law' imho would have done better to try to meet across the need rather than just mandating first they were enemies and then 'no longer' enemies.

You can't legislate feeling, but you also can't let feeling dictate who has rights and how much. Either we stand equally before the law or we might as well rip the thing up and start over.

1) thank you for the concession and
2) thank you for the concession.

Happy we agree, but how is either a concession if I never held a contrary view? :think:

There is nothing I have to accommodate in 'skin color' for a person who comes into my bakery. A birthday cake, wedding cake, etc. they are all the same: No accommodation, no difference.

You wouldn't feel that way if you were a racist. You wouldn't believe it if you held that blacks were cursed. Some idiots, as we discussed, felt that way. Service itself was an accommodation of sorts, a yielding of their perverse but genuinely held principle to the demands of the state. Fiat.

This is not the case with a wedding cake where I have to depict same sex couples on it.

I disagree. I'm sure some black people want black people figures atop the cake, to note one accommodation. But really, unless it's an inventory issue, it's not an issue. And if the couple are willing to pay for the unusual topper to eliminate the cost and inconvenience, it's not even an inventory issue. That's just a way to hide the underlying and real objection, which goes back to belief and the distinction I made about service a few paragraphs ago.

So with one, no skin color accommodation necessary,

Not really true, supra.

the other, something I have to go out of my way to accommodate AND against a belief (value) I possess where I have to go against that belief and am forced to do so.

You aren't selling and no one is buying your beliefs if you're a baker. You sell and people buy cakes.

Affirmative Action?

An executive order about promotion that didn't require anything like the quota you were noting. And a number of states have actually altered their constitutions to forbid the practice at all.

For the record, 'race' tends to conflate rather than relieve the difference here, regarding religious liberty and belief. Neither you nor I believe skin color has anything to do with anything in scripture. We believe opposite that regarding sexual matters and so-called identity.

I don't think you have my position. I agree that race has no bearing on morality, scripturally. We don't disagree on the moral nature of homosexuality either. I don't know what you mean by broader "sexual matters". If we differ it is in the reaction of the state and the law regarding that latter consideration. I am entitled to my faith, but I am not entitled to impose it upon others absent a secular justification, because we don't live in a Christian state. We live in a state that protects Christians, and Jews, etc. and has at its heart an affirmation of individual liberty and contract.

It doesn't. It just doesn't seem 'equitable' to me.

Of course it doesn't. You made sure of that with the 60% business. But it's not a real thing. It's possible to object to nearly anything if you push the parameters of it far enough into the extreme.

I WAS bothered, however, when an all black churched asked me to leave. I really enjoyed it there and would have stayed, but it was in Texas, and they had children to worry about.

I'd be bothered by staying in a church that didn't want me on the basis of my skin color. That's not a spirit filled assembly.

The clarity isn't there. I have a friend that types[d] 170 wpm. He was not hired because the college had few minorities so a guy that typed 85 wpm of a different color was hired instead.

I'm sure your friend got another position, given his ability. There's a long, involved discussion here if we get into why it was a painful but necessary good to make inroads into institutions that had systematically denied people opportunity for generations and in doing so done real damage that kept a level playing field from existing. There are real advantages for children born into households with educational traditions.

Not the same. There is no White Entertainment Network.

Sure there is, and until relatively recently in this country it was all the other programming. That's what made Cosby such a powerful thing. Heck, in living memory the idea of an interracial kiss in a tv program provoked outrage. So if you don't want quotas or even government attempts to promote inroads and you find blacks trying to do it for themselves problematic, what the heck are you saying, pragmatically.

We just happen[ed] to be the majority representation.

:chuckle: No, we were the majority, one that held (and holds) most of the economic power, so we catered to us for generations.

Some things just happen without any desire for hurting anybody and, possibly, nobody 'should' feel hurt.

Sure. Racial discrimination isn't one of those things. Neither is white's only tv, which is what we had for most of its existence.

I don't particularly feel hurt whenever I'm not invited to a hockey game.

I'm usually offended when I am invited.

We often make laws that simply 'accommodate' and then it causes a lot of worse.

I don't think that's true. Give me a few specifics. You said often, after all. I think you believe it to be true, but will struggle to put flesh on it.

Anytime you MAKE someone do something they may spit in your food etc. That's why I wouldn't press a bakery for doing something for me as a Christian. The moment I do it, instead of going someplace else, my cake is tainted, service is tainted, and the guy is now not just a bigot, but really angry about it. I just don't think I've accomplished anything at that point.

You couldn't be more wrong. You've accomplished something significant. You've pulled the practical teeth of the racist. You've taken away the societal stamp of approval and put that stamp on equality instead. Ask Sonnie Hereford about how upset those Alabama racists were when he and a smattering of his friends shattered segregation in public schools here.

I'm not sure if any of these last couple of paragraphs are very meaningful. I'm a bit distracted today. -Lon

Not to worry. Always good to talk with you.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I get the prejudice piece on this, but what if only black people wanted a dandelion cake? At some point, there is a difference between not baking a dandelion cake (sorry my black friends, very bad example not meant to disparage at all, but understand when a business practice is legitimate and when it is not and under what circumstances, because it isn't as simple to me), and not baking for a black person, but they might be the very same thing. Let me get out of your example for a moment and choose another: Could a baker legitimately make a birthday cake for someone gay, yet for this other reason, not make a cake depicting something they do not believe in (like a dandelion cake). IOW, is the accommodation much more different than their product? It seems to me, it 'can' be and without being bigotry.

Just to chime in here on an example that I often see misrepresented (I'm not sure this is the case here but I thought it wouldn't hurt to clarify anyway).

The public accomadation laws is based around equal treatment, not special accomadations. In the example given, if you don't bake dandelion cakes for anybody, then you are not in violation of the law. If you bake dandelion cakes for white people but not for black people, then you are trouble.