The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
I am an enginerd: I excel at awkward.
I am an enginerd: I excel at awkward.
The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
Stupid. Businesses that receive no government assistance should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, and fire anyone, for any reason. Anything less than that is dumb and an affront to liberty.
Agreed.
Stupid indeed. Refusing to make wedding cakes because he’d have to sell them to willing customers, including same sex customers, is a stupid business decision. He should totally be able to make wedding cakes for white people only. That would totally be okay then, surely.
You’re right, he should be able to only sell to white people if he wants. If people don’t like it, they can boycott, picket, post bad reviews on yelp, etc. There is no reason for the government to be involved in this process.
Looks like you and Rand have something in common. Neither of you would have voted for the Civil Rights Act.
I might’ve opposed Title II of the CRA of 1964 (http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html), but I would’ve personally gone out of my way to support businesses that did not refuse service on the basis of race.
Glad you would have made a personal stand against businesses (I wasn’t suggesting you discriminate), but unfortunately for people who have a limited government role view on this issue (typically white men) are the ones that aren’t personally experiencing the discrimination. As a white, upper-class heterosexual male, I’m entitled to a crap load of benefits I’ve never asked for. One of which is not having to worry about being refused service for who I am, what I believe, or who I sleep with. If that was to happen to you, I expect you (or Rand), you might have a different political position.
Fair point. But actually I’ve been wondering about that more these days. I mean, sure, I was given a pretty good upbringing, encouraged to do well in school, etc. But in other ways, things have really changed and are nothing like they were 20 years ago. For a while, I wanted to do a Ph.D in philosophy, but being a white male, I had to perform substantially better than a minority or a woman in order to get into whatever program I wanted. I honestly believe if I was a black or native American woman, I would’ve gotten into a top-20 Ph.D program. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, I’m just stating it as fact, and the professors I consulted on this (not all of whom were white men) told me the same. We also tend to look at race-based violence against white people and just sort of nervously laugh and say “yeah, I guess I shouldn’t walk around THAT part of town at night” but we don’t view it as unjust or oppressive or anything. I realize there’s a complicated history here, and white people still have the most de facto power in this country (and in the world, frankly). But I’m doubting whether the simple, broad-stroke narrative of “white males are privileged, everyone else is oppressed” really holds up to the facts in 2014.
http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-snollygoster/article/2012/11/2/Siskind-affirmative-action/
Now you sound like you’ve got more in common with Justice John Roberts. From my vantage, the more I look around the more discrimination I see, whether its race, gender, wealth, physical ability, or other. “All Men Created Equal” is certain true, but certainly not all men and women are treated equal.
I wonder how many white men/women were in the national pool of applicants applying for a Ph.D program compared to minority men/women. My guess is there’s still a substantial discrepancy there. Why that discrepancy still exists (presumably) is a host of factors both near and far in history. For instance, why are there certain areas where minorities or poverty is concentrated?
It may be because of racist covenants that existed that prohibited the sale of lands to any non-whites, which were present in the neighborhood that I currently live in and the neighborhood I think you grew up in.
It may be because pay discrimination or historic discrimination in hiring along with a housing policy to locate affordable housing in low cost areas of the City resulted in communities dominated by the poor and minorities who still need to work multiple jobs to manage with the rising cost of living. Therefore, parental supervision and or encouragement to go to school is absent and schools in these areas tend to underperform and leave minority kids and kids born into poverty behind.
The point is that there are lots of current and remnant difficulties that white, upper class men like myself, generally don’t have to deal with on a day to day basis that don’t even include the overt discrimination.
Per, at which point has a system (societal, collegiate, personal, federal, whatever) given enough of a boost to a disadvantaged person (through affirmative action or whatever other system may exist) to consider their life whole such that any remaining discrepancy is merely a issue of that person’s individual choice?
Put another way: when do the affirmative action training wheels come off?
I don’t know if there’s a correct answer to that question, Andrew, unless you’re a SCOTUS Justice.
Well Andrew, Initiative 200 took care of that for Washington in 1998.
Just as an aside, I find it interesting that this entire conversation is being directed by white heterosexual able-bodied middle class highly educated cisgender males (per-I might be making assumptions, it has been awhile). The experience you have being in the world differs from those with less privileges. It is not just about education and opportunity for employment. It is day-to-day facets of discrimination that affect every ounce of a person’s being.
I wholly agree, Marissa. It’s super strange and there’s no way I can relate to the discrimination that women, minorities, or anyone else have experienced. I do, however, try to remember that and my own limitations and acknowledge that it exists.
Per, I’m asking for your opinion, not a legal dissertation…so, what do you think?
My personal opinion is that we’re still well off from having righted the wrongs that affirmative action and other programs of that ilk are trying to address. Have we made progress? Absolutely. But there’s a long way to go.
Marissa, I can’t force anyone to participate not am I excluding anyone from this conversation. In my opinion, I do not believe this coversation is being directed by anyone…it’s a group effort and I’m glad you (and Per) have chimed in!
Per, I wasn’t asking _if_ we’ve reached that point, I was asking what, in your opinion, is a criteria for knowing when?
I have no idea how to answer that, Andrew. Not trying to duck the question, but there’s no way I could come up with a metric or threshold for that.
In no way was I suggesting that you were Andrew but it is interesting to consider who speaks to these matters, whether that it by nature of not having an opinion, feeling silenced, or lacking the resources to make a statement that would not be torn down. Even the way we think about engaging or not engaging in these conversations is affected by privilege.
The problem is that, at the end of the day, someone’s rights get trampled. On the one hand you have the rights of the people who don’t support gay marriage on religious grounds vs the right to marry whomever you choose. Or, does one person’s right to have a gun trump another’s right to life? There are a million different opinions and everyone can be right from a certain point of view. I wish I had a solution for you.
Does anyone else find it confusing that this conversation turned into a debate about the “privilege” of white, upper-class men, when in fact the couple at the center of this story are two white men likely living with a double income and no kids (aka middle to upper class status)? Secondly, since when was the refusal to prepare a wedding cake something worth suing over? It would be one thing if their actual marriage license was refused, but we’re talking about BAKED GOODS from one, rinky-dink bakery out of probably hundreds in that state. It’s no secret that our society is heavily wrapped-up in the anti-bullying agenda right now, but apparently this couple didn’t get the memo. Thirdly, if you owned a small cake business, would you service a Westboro Baptist Church wedding if they asked? Personally, I wouldn’t jump at the chance to lend a hand to an organization that regularly hates on Jews, gays, soldiers, etc., and I certainly wouldn’t want to be forced to, since it goes against my beliefs. Oh, and lastly – thank you Andrew for sharing this article. What a fascinating conversation you started!
“No shirt, no shoes, so service” makes us southerners feel discriminated against.
Per: I appreciate that you don’t know and are willing to say as much. I think one of the downfalls in today’s society is that we think we have to give an answer, even if we don’t know…and so we sometimes give bad answers (e.g. every politican ever). I’d much rather someone say, “I don’t know.”
Let me ask a slightly different question: what is the objective of affirmative action, in your opinion?
Thanks, Ferg. You too, although I don’t recall you not knowing something (truth in sarcasm).
To Shelbey’s point, this conversation keeps going. But, I’ll try to take a stab at this. The point of affirmative action, in my opinion, is to provide today’s generation of those who have historically been discriminated against an advantage in education and employment advancement to eliminate in the future systemic racism and sexism that has been enveloped into our hiring and selection processes over time. This systemic racism and sexism that remains can be seen in the number of minority and women business leader, pay discrimination, and double standards of what “leadership” means when it’s exhibited by minorities or women.
Not sure if this makes sense at all.
Marissa: I believe that having alternate opinions in a discussion is always good, and when I’m in group settings I try to make sure that conversations aren’t dominated by the loudest voices. In fact, I become leery of situations in which there is no dissenting opinion.
However, if someone doesn’t have an opinion, the best I can do is provide stimulating thoughts…which I hope I’m doing.
And I can understand feeling silenced, especially based on the prior experiences someone may have had. My goal is to allow everyone a fair opportunity to voice their opinions in the forums I am part of. If you have any feedback on how I’m doing I’d love to hear it, either here or privately.
Lacking resources to voice an opinion is definitely a challenging issue, and one I’m not sure how to address outside of my sphere of influence. In particular, I’m not sure freedom of speech should extend without limitation to money in support of political expenditures (i.e. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010)).
However, at the end of the day I believe it is a persons individual responsibility to engage or not engage. My concern is that an individual’s responsibility to engage in a conversation ends up being placed on someone else, which I don’t believe is an appropriate abdication of responsibility.
Chris: You’ve hit on one of my new favorite topics: hierarchical establishment of natural human rights.
You are correct that at some point the rights of Person A may need to take a backseat to the rights of Person B.
In my opinion, human rights start with “life, liberty, and property” (cf. Declaration of Colonial Rights, Declaration of Independence, Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment) in that order, and look something like this (see also: http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm):
Personal Security (Life):
(1) Not to be killed.
(2) Not to be injured or abused.
Personal Liberty:
(3) To move freely.
(4) To assemble peaceably.
(5) To keep and bear arms.
(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined militia.
(7) To communicate with the world.
(8) To express or publish one’s opinions or those of others.
(9) To practice one’s religion.
(10) To be secure in one’s person, house, papers, vehicle, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.
Private Property:
(12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness.
In this particular case of the cake, Jack Phillips’ (the baker) right to express his opinion (#8) is being illegally violated because Phillips has not a priori violated any higher rights of the plaintiffs (David Mullins and Charlie Craig).
With regard to homosexual marriage, my right to express my opinion trumps the right of someone to practice their religion, but only to the extent that their practice of religion violates my ability to express or publish my opinion (or those of others).
It gets a bit dicey when it comes to actually voting on restricting someone’s practice of religion because I believe that voting is an expression of opinion. We can vote all we want, but the critical issue is that restricting someone from practicing their religion (to the extent that it does _not_ interfere with any higher order human right) is illegal. This is why Prop 8 was overturned (as it should be).
With regard to guns, I have a right to keep and bear arms to the extent I do not interfere with your higher rights, including your right to not be killed. However, if you deprive me of my rights, I may systematically take the minimal amount of action to restore my natural rights even when such an action violates your natural rights.
As an extreme example, if someone prevent me from moving freely, I would rightfully allowed to punch them (thus causing them physical injury). If they still deprived me of my right to movement, then I would be rightfully allowed break their arm (a systematical escalation). If they still deprived me of my right to movement, then I would be rightfully allowed to shoot them in the leg (another systematical escalation). If they still deprived me of my right to movement, then I would be rightfully allowed to shoot them in the core (another systematical escalation). I would hope at this point that they would have let me go, but for sake of the example if they still deprived me of my right to movement, then I would be rightfully allowed to kill them (another systematical escalation).
However, I would not be rightfully allowed to immediately kill them without first injuring them and giving them reasonable time to restore my right.
Jacob: bless your heart.
Per: You can ask my wife, there are—in fact—things I don’t have opinion on.
I think you have a great description of the purpose of affirmative action, though I wouldn’t limit it just to race or sexual identify.
Where I disagree with you is the truth the numbers purport to represent. In particular, I think there is a presumption that everything will statistically correlate to the population at large. It’s also worth noting that the correlation proves causation argument (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) is a “questionable cause” (non causa pro causa) logical fallacy.
For example, if women make up 50.5% of the US population, then if women don’t make up 50.5% of American CEOs that must mean they are being discriminated against. And this goes back to my original question: at what point do we delcare success? Must 50.5% of CEOs be women for us to believe that women are no longer affected by the class ceiling? How do we validate that other factors are not influencing the choice women might make to be CEO?
This doesn’t mean that we stop trying. It does mean that we ask questions! Lots of questions! And we get answers to our questions, but we don’t stop searching for new questions.
“It is the unknown that defines our existence. We are constantly searching, not just for answers to our questions, but for new questions. We are explorers. We explore our lives, day by day. And we explore the galaxy, trying to expand the boundaries of our knowledge. And that is why I am here. Not to conquer you with weapons or ideas, but to coexist and learn.” (http://andrewferguson.net/2004/06/08/the-end-is-nigh-at-least-the-end-of-the-beginning-is-nigh/)
For the record, only 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women (http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000)
Chris Lu liked this on Facebook.
Andrew, correlation certainly doesn’t mean causation. That’s absolutely correct. Also, it should not be assumed (as you point out) that all aspects of life should or would be reflective of our population. For example, more men are increasingly choosing to be stay at home parents, but the statistics would suggest that there’s a gender imbalance there. The number of men vs. women choosing to be stay at home parents probably still reflect a historic societal pressure similar to the discrimination in our paid work force and at our education institutions. But, my point is that it may not be logical or safe to assume that, all things being equal, that men and women would choose to be stay at home parents proportionately. In the end though, I think we can all agree that 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs does not reflect a system of hiring and promotion that’s free of discrimination and the “Good Ole Boy” way of doing things.
Saw this and thought about our last exchange, Andrew.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2014/06/05/dads-who-stay-home-because-they-want-to-has-increased-four-fold/?tid=pm_lifestyle_pop