US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Originally posted by Firefly218
I see y'alls perspective in this case, that cakes are not a matter of life or liberty. I also agree that a person can't really be forced to bake a cake.

What irks me though is the idea that if a baker can discriminate based on sexuality, that then means a haircut salon can discriminate based on ethnicity, and going further, why can't a dentist or a grocery discriminate?

I'm open to correction on this point, but it seems to me that this is a very dangerous slippery slope.

It is only a dangerous slippery slope, only if you do not understand the function of market forces. Even before Jack's bakery was shut down, he was experiencing myriad market consequences for his actions. His reputation was destroyed and was losing many customers. There are two options here: profit or prejudice. You can only choose one. Donald Stirling is a remarkable example of a guy who chose profit. Yahoo is a remarkable example of a company that chose profit. Chick Fillet a is a remarkable example of a company that chose profit. Discrimination is not sustainable for business; as a result, abolishment of the Anti-Discrimination laws would not result in chaos.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I see y'alls perspective in this case, that cakes are not a matter of life or liberty. I also agree that a person can't really be forced to bake a cake.

What irks me though is the idea that if a baker can discriminate based on sexuality, that then means a haircut salon can discriminate based on ethnicity, and going further, why can't a dentist or a grocery discriminate?

I'm open to correction on this point, but it seems to me that this is a very dangerous slippery slope.

Also I'm sorry but I've been noticing this all over the thread... wtf is people's obsession with the hair salon?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
It is only a dangerous slippery slope if you do not understand the function of market forces. Even before Jack's bakery was shut down, he was experiencing myriad market consequences for his actions. His reputation was destroyed and was losing many customers. There are two options here: profit or prejudice. You can only choose one. Donald Stirling is a remarkable example of a guy who chose profit. Yahoo is a remarkable example of a company that chose profit. Chick Fillet a is a remarkable example of a company that chose profit. Discrimination is not sustainable for business; as a result, abolishment of the Anti-Discrimination laws would not result in chaos.

With this kind of logic, if a horrible injustice is occurring with impunity then we have handicapped ourselves by repealing the Civil Rights Act.

If the only hotel in town continues to succeed despite not allowing blacks, then what is the course of action?

And a point to add, many times personal dogma supersedes the pursuit of profit. While the baker may realize that discriminating against gays is bad for business, he will continue doing it because it is his personal dogma.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
My issue here is that you're framing business discrimination as if it constitutes a violation of human rights when it doesn't. It's a piece of shit thing to do, but it's not a violation of human rights. If you're going to defend this start by conceding it's not an issue of human rights then argue for it in spite of that.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also I'm sorry but I've been noticing this all over the thread... wtf is people's obsession with the hair salon?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
You still have not answered the critical question. Why does any third party institution have a choice as to where one's labor allocated. The product transformed by his own energy has become the material embodiment of the baker's idea and vision. The baker has placed his stamp of ownership over his creation by mixing his labor in with the clay. Everyone has a right to the labor of his body and the work of his hands. There is no externality at play here. Your own pedantic thoughts on where the baker's bread is irrelevant as you did not bake the cake. It is not your property. There is no middle ground. You either accept the right to property, or you don't. Don't beat around the bush.

Originally posted by Firefly218
According to the Civil Rights Act, discriminating based on race is a human rights violation. So then why can't discrimination based on sexuality be called a human rights violation by that same token?

But if we're citing American law then surely the First Amendment, a constitutionally protected right, supersedes non-constitutional legislation such as the civil rights act.

We cannot rely on the ebb and flow of market forces for justice. While you are certainly correct that the effects of discrimination are largely negative in most areas, should we neglect those areas in which there are no negative consequences for discrimination?

I cannot think of a single area in which discrimination has a negative effect on one's business. Reputation is internal regulator which is built into the market. I think you misunderstand what the market is. The market is less aptly called capitalism and more aptly called consumerism. Every product you buy is a vote I that product's direction. You are telling the market that the product suffices your needs. Justice dispensed by the market is justice administered by the individual voters which make up its constituency.

With this kind of logic, if a horrible injustice is occurring with impunity then we have handicapped ourselves by repealing the Civil Rights Act.

If the only hotel in town continues to succeed despite not allowing blacks, then what is the course of action?

The repeal of the Civil Rights Act signified the change in individual perception of racism, as a result, the number of discriminating industries was minimized drastically. The great Economist Thomas Sowell details this in his book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s–when there was little or no civil rights policy–than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday." Walter Williams has also pointed out the greater black labor participation and employment rates before Civil Rights policy. You also mentioned the possibility of a discriminating hotel. Please don't take the offensively, but a basic understanding of market forces dictates that competing hotels will enter the industry and weak reputation the hotel has amalgamated will cause it to lose customers.

And a point to add, many times personal dogma supersedes the pursuit of profit. While the baker may realize that discriminating against gays is bad for business, he will continue doing it because it is his personal dogma.

And yes, as a result, his profits will tank and his business may shut down. This is really basic econ.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Did you mean to reply to firefly?

I would want to see your answer.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I cannot think of a single area in which discrimination has a negative effect on one's business. Reputation is internal regulator which is built into the market. I think you misunderstand what the market is. The market is less aptly called capitalism and more aptly called consumerism. Every product you buy is a vote I that product's direction. You are telling the market that the product suffices your needs. Justice dispensed by the market is justice administered by the individual voters which make up its constituency.

The repeal of the Civil Rights Act signified the change in individual perception of racism, as a result, the number of discriminating industries was minimized drastically. The great Economist Thomas Sowell details this in his book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s–when there was little or no civil rights policy–than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday." Walter Williams has also pointed out the greater black labor participation and employment rates before Civil Rights policy. You also mentioned the possibility of a discriminating hotel. Please don't take the offensively, but a basic understanding of market forces dictates that competing hotels will enter the industry and weak reputation the hotel has amalgamated will cause it to lose customers.

And yes, as a result, his profits will tank and his business may shut down. This is really basic econ.

Nah I take no offense this condescending af shit lol. I think you didn't take my point fully. 62 million people in this country voted for Donald Trump and you wanna hand the reigns of justice to people? Consumerism then means mob justice, and in a lonely Kentucky town populated by white people, they ain't gonna care if the 3 black people in their neighborhood are barred from the local grocer.

Ideally, I'd like to think that people would take discrimination against vulnerable groups seriously. But I don't know.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Nah I take no offense this condescending af shit lol. I think you didn't take my point fully. 62 million people in this country voted for Donald Trump and you wanna hand the reigns of justice to people? Consumerism then means mob justice, and in a lonely Kentucky town populated by white people, they ain't gonna care if the 3 black people in their neighborhood are barred from the local grocer.

Ideally, I'd like to think that people would take discrimination against vulnerable groups seriously. But I don't know.

We have empirical examples of discrimination being bad for business. Makers Pizza in Indiana, Yahoo, Chick Fillet, this most recent bakery. Here is a great study on the subject that puts the icing on the cake: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/03/pdf/lgbt_biz_discrimination.pdf It is not ruled by a mob as each individual has products which can be served to him. Samsung still is in business, despite Apple having more customers in America. Assuming that each of those 62 million people voted due to racism is extraordinarily fallacious. Discrimination in Kentucky still has national effects. Maker's Pizza's slight discrimination in a small town in Indiana caused them to shut down their store. Competition would still arise even inside of Kentucky to match consumer demand. I did not mean to be condescending btw, but it felt like you were kinda bloviating in the first post.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Assuming that each of those 62 million people voted due to racism is extraordinarily fallacious.

I'm glad that the empirical evidence favors justice, but I personally don't find it convincing to a "be all end all" degree.

Without government interference and regulation, the entire south might still have No Blacks Allowed signs. Sometimes people need an unpopular parent to uphold a moral code for society to run fairly.

Originally posted by Firefly218
It's not a matter of supporting racism, it's a matter of tolerating it. Millions of people are tolerant of racism and sexism and bigotry.

I'm glad that the empirical evidence favors justice, but I personally don't find it convincing to a "be all end all" degree.

Without government interference and regulation, the entire south might still have No Blacks Allowed signs. Sometimes people need an unpopular parent to uphold a moral code for society to run fairly.

As I proved, in my previous posts. Employment for blacks in the south was higher pre-civil rights act that it was today. The only color capitalism cares about is green. Given the fact that there is no substantial countering evidence, it is only logical to assume that the market acts as a substantial deterrent for discriminatory action. Even if a few companies escape its snare, competition will ensure that those who are not served have many other options. As far as tolerance of racism goes, I can only conclude that you live in a bubble.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
As I proved, in my previous posts. Employment for blacks in the south was higher pre-civil rights act that it was today. The only color capitalism cares about is green. Given the fact that there is no substantial countering evidence, it is only logical to assume that the market acts as a substantial deterrent for discriminatory action. Even if a few companies escape its snare, competition will ensure that those who are not served have many other options. As far as tolerance of racism goes, I can only conclude that you live in a bubble.

Originally posted by quanchi112
👆

Thanks lol, your friends with Skillz, right?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Thanks lol, your friends with Skillz, right?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes.

What would you call yourself politically?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
As I proved, in my previous posts. Employment for blacks in the south was higher pre-civil rights act that it was today.

Correlation = Causation now?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The only color capitalism cares about is green.

This is exactly why capitalism isn't reliable. It only cares about profits, not people.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Given the fact that there is no substantial countering evidence, it is only logical to assume that the market acts as a substantial deterrent for discriminatory action.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
As far as tolerance of racism goes, I can only conclude that you live in a bubble.

Donnie was accused by 16 women of sexual assault/harrassment and 62 million people still voted him into the oval office. You tell me that's not tolerance of bad behavior?

Anyways I'm out for now

Correlation = Causation now?

This verbiage does not fit the example. African-American employment was rising steeply in the south despite supposed racism. The fact is racism had little effect on the employment of African-Americans. This statement makes no sense.

This is exactly why capitalism isn't reliable. It only cares about profits, not people.

It makes profits... so it can serve people. They are competing for your vote.

That's not how evidence works

You have not provided evidence that removing Anti-Discrimination Laws will result in severe segregation and discrimination.

Donnie was accused by 16 women of sexual assault/harrassment and 62 million people still voted him into the oval office. You tell me that's not tolerance of bad behavior?

Not getting into a Trump debate because I am not in the habit of being a representative for such a volatile figure. But considering that the allegations appeared right before the election and that most allegations were dropped, this is a very disingenuous accusation.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Donnie was accused by 16 women of sexual assault/harrassment and 62 million people still voted him into the oval office. You tell me that's not tolerance of bad behavior?

And so was Bill Clinton (and rape) but that didn't stop democrats from flocking to Bill, twice.

Your point is invalid. Obama was elected president. America isn't even remotely close to being racist enough to support your position.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And so was Bill Clinton (and rape) but that didn't stop democrats from flocking to Bill, twice.

Your point is invalid. Obama was elected president. America isn't even remotely close to being racist enough to support your position.