Florist refuses to outfit same-sex couple's wedding

[Khendraja'aro]

Not true. I know people who personally find homosexuality abhorrent, but they believe in and consistently vote to give homosexuals equal rights.

This is the very basis of freedom and liberty. People are free to think, and do things that may not agree with the morality of the majority.

Can there be limits to those rights? Absolutely.

Consider this: is it morally wrong to cheat on a girlfriend or boyfriend? I think most everyone would agree it is. Is it, or should it be illegal?

You still mistake "individual" and "society" and furthermore, you did not grasp the concept of "graded morals" which means that one moral guideline overrides another one. Until you do, it's not worthwhile to further discuss this with you because you're lacking a very basic understanding. The lack of said understanding leads you to broad statements you can't back up because they're flawed from the get-go.

Your own "examples" show that you yourself do not understand what you're talking about. Next time please actually read what I write and also please take note of the words I use. You cannot simply exchange "society" with "individual" and have your counter-argument make any sense.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I think some moral values we obviously feel everyone must agree to that we live with, and others we are willing to let them slide even though we personally wouldn't do them.

If your society finds homosexuality absolutely abhorrent, they will have laws against it. If your society tolerates it, they'll have no laws against it.

I don't understand how a graded scale for morality helps defend your claim, this claim is not correct Khen. If your trying to argue they value morally more freedom of expression than they value the immoral act of homosexuality or some BS. They don't need to have thaat kidn of graded morality in order to allow allow homosexuality.

I think a society could hate homosexuality and find it immoral but still have it be legal with no restrictions. If you had a society that had a basic premise of creating laws only based upon what is agreeable by the community in regards to actions that can infringe on others rights then that society could still accept homosexualitly legally. That soceity could have a wide range of moral views yet still converge on a similar set of laws. You can have laws without morality. The reason their followed would be different than those who follow them due to some moral sense.

Some people believe they need to respect others and honor their social contract with others, and that it is a moral thing to do if you agreed to it. Others may abide by the laws they agreed to out of fear of not doing so, jail etc... A species without morality could have a social structure.

[Enoch the Red]

You still mistake "individual" and "society" and furthermore, you did not grasp the concept of "graded morals" which means that one moral guideline overrides another one. Until you do, it's not worthwhile to further discuss this with you because you're lacking a very basic understanding. The lack of said understanding leads you to broad statements you can't back up because they're flawed from the get-go.

Your own "examples" show that you yourself do not understand what you're talking about. Next time please actually read what I write and also please take note of the words I use. You cannot simply exchange "society" with "individual" and have your counter-argument make any sense.

Are you done now?

Issue the first: I've never denied the concept of graded morals, or the fact that certain morals take precedence. You're fighting a strawman, and getting your panties needlessly in a knot.

Issue the second: Good laws do not stem strictly from morality, but reason. Now, reason can be heavily influenced by morality, but it does not necessitate it. Something can objectively be morally wrong and still be legal in a free society. Trying to draw unmade distinctions between societal morality and individual morality is little more than you creating a red herring to dodge the larger issue.

Issue the third: I know that you conflate haughty condescension with scoring points in arguments, but in reality it's trite and tiresome. It would be one thing if your bon mots were made with some finesse or insight, but they aren't. In a moral society debate does not necessitate derision and disdain, especially when you lack the ability to properly do so.

[Khendraja'aro]

Are you done now?

Issue the first: I've never denied the concept of graded morals, or the fact that certain morals take precedence. You're fighting a strawman, and getting your panties needlessly in a knot.

Issue the second: Good laws do not stem strictly from morality, but reason. Now, reason can be heavily influenced by morality, but it does not necessitate it. Something can objectively be morally wrong and still be legal in a free society. Trying to draw unmade distinctions between societal morality and individual morality is little more than you creating a red herring to dodge the larger issue.

Issue the third: I know that you conflate haughty condescension with scoring points in arguments, but in reality it's trite and tiresome. It would be one thing if your bon mots were made with some finesse or insight, but they aren't. In a moral society debate does not necessitate derision and disdain, especially when you lack the ability to properly do so.

When exactly did we begin to talk exclusively about "good" laws only? The original argument was: "Laws and morals are interchangeable". No mention of "good" or "bad", y'know? How exactly did we arrive at "good laws only"? Oh, wait, we didn't.

The point is that you're unable to hold a coherent argument because you're trying to make the exception the general rule and then derive a general meaning out of it. You just need to look at present-day countries to see that your argument does not hold water. Look at the differences between individual western countries. Then look at the differences between western and eastern countries. And you'll see that divergent morals always arrive at different codes of law.

I think some moral values we obviously feel everyone must agree to that we live with, and others we are willing to let them slide even though we personally wouldn't do them.



I don't understand how a graded scale for morality helps defend your claim, this claim is not correct Khen. If your trying to argue they value morally more freedom of expression than they value the immoral act of homosexuality or some BS. They don't need to have thaat kidn of graded morality in order to allow allow homosexuality.

I think a society could hate homosexuality and find it immoral but still have it be legal with no restrictions. If you had a society that had a basic premise of creating laws only based upon what is agreeable by the community in regards to actions that can infringe on others rights then that society could still accept homosexualitly legally. That soceity could have a wide range of moral views yet still converge on a similar set of laws. You can have laws without morality. The reason their followed would be different than those who follow them due to some moral sense.

Some people believe they need to respect others and honor their social contract with others, and that it is a moral thing to do if you agreed to it. Others may abide by the laws they agreed to out of fear of not doing so, jail etc... A species without morality could have a social structure.

Actually, it does. Y'see, he first went and said that he found some kinds of speech morally detestable. But he would not do anything against it because valued free spech higher. Now, if we generalize this principle to the general populace (the other way around does not make sense), this means that there will be a law protecting free speech rather than a law against, say, hate speech because free speech was valued higher.
Another populace which valued protection against hate speech higher than (absolute) free speech would create laws which override the right to free speech in those instances.

That's what he does not grasp and why his own arguments ultimately work against him because he does not understand what he's talking about. And that's what you yourself are talking about, too.

[Illusions]

Who's 'we'? You and everyone else on this forum? It's not a very realistic hypothetical scenario.

The people of Earth.

Right. So because I'm not agreeing with you and others, it MUST be because I don't understand your view.

I'm not saying that you don't understand our view, I'm stating that it doesn't seem like you understand why we have certain laws to begin with, or why modern governments exist the way they do today, and no, its not from you not agreeing with me.

But the whole issues with African Americans stems from European colonialists who were using them as slaves. Before that, history just goes on with one group of people using others as slaves. So even when slavery was abolished, how could you have expected the white people of the time to suddenly form an unprejudiced view of all these people that they once saw as 'their property'?

What? How is this relevant at all. I referenced African Americans living in the post Civil War American South to demonstrate that its entirely possible for society to use their freedoms to oppress either a single person or a group of people.

Oh and I'll bring out the 'Jim Crow Laws' again...some of you have an issue with me repeating them, yet how can I not when I'm posed with such topics. So tell me what you think Illusions, if the US government had not enacted the Jim Crow Laws at the time, do you think that they would not have lived through all the crap that they originally did? Here we have a good example of the government involving itself in the lives of others, basically encouraging discrimination and I'm being attacked for my views.

While the Jim Crow Laws were horrible in their legalized discrimination they were enacted because the alternative to "separate but equal" service was no service.

I'd say that there's a positive correlation between society and its respective government. Look at the Jim Crow Laws for instance. Or Nazi Germany.

This doesn't answer my question at all.

I mean this with all due respect; your hypothetical situation is idiotic. There are a range of options available to people of all societies that don't involve making every offender of any crime a pariah.

The reason I used the Post Civil War South in my exchange with Draco was to demonstrate that it is possible for a society to exercise its freedoms in such a manner as to make some of its members pariahs.

[Enoch the Red]

The reason I used the Post Civil War South in my exchange with Draco was to demonstrate that it is possible for a society to exercise its freedoms in such a manner as to make some of its members pariahs.

Which can, and does happen regardless of laws on the books. Are you arguing that being mean should be illegal?

When exactly did we begin to talk exclusively about "good" laws only? The original argument was: "Laws and morals are interchangeable". No mention of "good" or "bad", y'know? How exactly did we arrive at "good laws only"? Oh, wait, we didn't.

That's just it though, laws and morals aren't interchangeable. Let me be more precise. You are talking broadly about societies, which is fine, but it was never the argument. I am talking specifically about individuals, and large segments of the population. Broadly speaking Western societies value freedom, true. You're arguing that it falls within the sphere of that societies morality, and I would argue that you're using the term morality too generally, but doing so is tangential and was never the argument in the first place. A society that values individual liberty can craft laws that protect behaviors that others, including the wider society as a whole, might deem immoral.

The point is that you're unable to hold a coherent argument because you're trying to make the exception the general rule and then derive a general meaning out of it. You just need to look at present-day countries to see that your argument does not hold water. Look at the differences between individual western countries. Then look at the differences between western and eastern countries. And you'll see that divergent morals always arrive at different codes of law.

And I'd ask you to look at the similarities. For one being so broadly general, which you are, I think you'll find repeating patterns in most any society, nearly uniformly applied across the board. You are using undefined, and sweepingly broad terms to arrive at neat conclusions that simply can't be made.

None of this truly addresses the original argument though, which simply is the claim that there is no difference between morality and legality, which, strawmen aside, is a position you have yet to adequately defend.

[Nessus]

Which can, and does happen regardless of laws on the books. Are you arguing that being mean should be illegal?

Isn't it already in some US states? You can get into legal hot water for mean things said on Facebook, etc.

[Illusions]

Which can, and does happen regardless of laws on the books. Are you arguing that being mean should be illegal?

No, I'm asking, Draco specifically:

1 - Do you feel The Government is bad if it uses laws to punish businesses for exercising the freedom to discriminate?

2 - If you feel The Government is bad because it uses laws to punish businesses for exercising the freedom to discriminate, is society also bad if they use their freedoms to punish businesses for doing the exact same thing?

3 - If society is not bad for doing this, what is the difference you see between these two actions other than who is doing them?

4 - Does the difference you see make rational sense?

5 - From the perspective of the person or group being punished, do you think they care about this difference you see? For example, does it matter to the shop owner whether they lose $500 to a fine imposed by The Government for discriminating against people, or lose $500 to customers no longer wanting to shop there for discriminating against people?

* In question 3, if society is bad for doing this, at what point did it become so?


The reason I mentioned the Southern United States thing was to demonstrate that it is possible for society to, as a whole, punish a single person or a group of them for a perceived wrong doing. This was done so that Draco couldn't use the argument that society isn't capable of this feet.

[Khendraja'aro]

That's just it though, laws and morals aren't interchangeable. Let me be more precise. You are talking broadly about societies, which is fine, but it was never the argument. I am talking specifically about individuals.[...]

Laws aren't targeted at the individual. Neither are morals. They're applied on an individual basis, but their purpose is to create and uphold a society. A lone individual needs neither morals nor laws.

Laws are written down and fixed instances of morals. Laws define how to behave and what consequences arise from going against the law. Morals also define how to behave and what consequences you can expect from going against them. There's no big gain from actually differentiating between the two.

Just how do you think laws are created in the first place? Oh, yes, "good laws" are created from reason. Right. However, morality can also be based on reason - I mean, Kant would have loved your opinion that morality cannot be based on an objective basis...

Isn't it already in some US states? You can get into legal hot water for mean things said on Facebook, etc.

I surely hope that he doesn't defend bullying by the idiotic "it's just words!"-notion.

I mean, the Constitution is also "just words".

[Ominous Gamer]

Draco never answered if he was more afraid of being different, or from suffering the discrimination he is supporting for being different

[Enoch the Red]

Laws aren't targeted at the individual. Neither are morals. They're applied on an individual basis, but their purpose is to create and uphold a society. A lone individual needs neither morals nor laws.

I'm not sure exactly where you are getting this idea from. Laws absolutely are or rather can be targeted at the individual, and what rights and freedoms they do or don't have. Maybe good laws don't target individuals, but that apparently never entered into our discussion. Again, these are very broad generalizations for a very complex reality.

And I'm still not sure what point you are driving at, or how it applies to the discussion at hand.

I surely hope that he doesn't defend bullying by the idiotic "it's just words!"-notion.

I mean, the Constitution is also "just words".

It really much be so much nicer to invent flawed arguments and attribute them to your opponent than address what they actually say.

I can see why you might be tempted.

No, I'm asking, Draco specifically:

1 - Do you feel The Government is bad if it uses laws to punish businesses for exercising the freedom to discriminate?

2 - If you feel The Government is bad because it uses laws to punish businesses for exercising the freedom to discriminate, is society also bad if they use their freedoms to punish businesses for doing the exact same thing?

3 - If society is not bad for doing this, what is the difference you see between these two actions other than who is doing them?

4 - Does the difference you see make rational sense?

5 - From the perspective of the person or group being punished, do you think they care about this difference you see? For example, does it matter to the shop owner whether they lose $500 to a fine imposed by The Government for discriminating against people, or lose $500 to customers no longer wanting to shop there for discriminating against people?

* In question 3, if society is bad for doing this, at what point did it become so?

You're asking Draco, so I'd expect a response from him as well, but I might take a gander at it.

The reason that governmental intervention is bad in the case of private discrimination, (that is, discrimination between private parties) is that it ultimately limits the freedom and rights of both parties. It also delegates responsibility for determining status, (who is and isn't a full and complete human, and what rights they do or don't have) to the government. I'm not sure about you, but I don't need a government, even a well intentioned one, to tell me who is and isn't a human being, or what rights they do, or don't have.

When a society dictates that a behavior is bad, it does not, or should not do so at the barrel of a gun. People are still free to dictate the terms of their private contract without governmental interference. If those terms violate social norms and mores, then the consequences of their abuse of that freedom is not punitive, it is causative.

The reason I mentioned the Southern United States thing was to demonstrate that it is possible for society to, as a whole, punish a single person or a group of them for a perceived wrong doing. This was done so that Draco couldn't use the argument that society isn't capable of this feet.

A magnificent strength of feet, or a feat of strength?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not sure exactly where you are getting this idea from. Laws absolutely are or rather can be targeted at the individual, and what rights and freedoms they do or don't have. Maybe good laws don't target individuals, but that apparently never entered into our discussion. Again, these are very broad generalizations for a very complex reality.

Maybe you can show me where a law from the US is targeted at an individual? Must be a funny wording: "§303.1a: This law applies only to Jon M. Dillinger, born under the name of McKenzie, born at the County General, Miami, Florida"

[Enoch the Red]

Maybe you can show me where a law from the US is targeted at an individual? Must be a funny wording: "§303.1a: This law applies only to Jon M. Dillinger, born under the name of McKenzie, born at the County General, Miami, Florida"

There is a clear difference between an individual and the individual, Khen. You said, "Laws aren't targeted at the individual. Neither are morals." It is obvious that laws are targeted at the individual.

[Khendraja'aro]

There is a clear difference between an individual and the individual, Khen. You said, "Laws aren't targeted at the individual. Neither are morals." It is obvious that laws are targeted at the individual.

But they aren't. Their target is groups of people with certain attributes, like: "has taken something without paying". Targeting the or an individual would actually mean targeting a single person. And ONLY that single person. Because if you target an individual, everyone else is, per definitionem, not targeted by it since they're not that particular individual you targeted.

Again, the measures are applied to individuals. But you target groups.

[Enoch the Red]

But they aren't. Their target is groups of people with certain attributes, like: "has taken something without paying". Targeting the or an individual would actually mean targeting a single person. And ONLY that single person. Because if you target an individual, everyone else is, per definitionem, not targeted by it since they're not that particular individual you targeted.

Again, the measures are applied to individuals. But you target groups.

But they are. The individual still has rights and freedoms, and the guarantee thereof. When the government seeks to apply laws to a group or groups is typically when legislation is the most egregiously flawed. For instance, Jim Crow laws, laws restricting suffrage, et al. However, I ultimately think this might be a semantics hangup, because the individual is a group.

Let me see if I can make it more clear. The individual is a group which all people fall under. An individual is a defined instance within that group, or a specific person. The individual encompasses everyone. An individual could be any single person.

[Enoch the Red]

Isn't it already in some US states? You can get into legal hot water for mean things said on Facebook, etc.

This might be true. I seem to recall an instance where something similar happened, but the specific case I recall deals with a teen who ended up committing suicide. I don't remember specifics, nor am I certain if the case was prosecuted as libel/slander, or something else entirely.

[Illusions]

You're asking Draco, so I'd expect a response from him as well, but I might take a gander at it.

The reason that governmental intervention is bad in the case of private discrimination, (that is, discrimination between private parties) is that it ultimately limits the freedom and rights of both parties. It also delegates responsibility for determining status, (who is and isn't a full and complete human, and what rights they do or don't have) to the government. I'm not sure about you, but I don't need a government, even a well intentioned one, to tell me who is and isn't a human being, or what rights they do, or don't have.

This I understand, however the other part of what I was getting at is that couldn't a government as reduced as what Draco envisions allow for abuses by one segment of society to limit the freedoms of another segment. While you might care about the difference since you're looking from the outside in, if you were the floral shop owner, would it matter to you or would you see a difference if you couldn't discriminate between who you sold flowers to because either society or the government would punish you?

In my mind, in a completely free environment, any powerful institution, whether it be a large corporation, a government, or society itself, is capable of using the freedoms they possess to oppress an individual or group. I do not see a reason to class any institution who does so as better or worse, since the outcome is the same. Its like caring whether or not its a jackboot, Nike Sports Trainer, or a workboot thats stomping your face.

When a society dictates that a behavior is bad, it does not, or should not do so at the barrel of a gun.

In my situation society does not do this, they instead use the freedoms they've been granted to reduce your ability to use your own. What good is the freedom to own property if no one will sell any to you?

People are still free to dictate the terms of their private contract without governmental interference. If those terms violate social norms and mores, then the consequences of their abuse of that freedom is not punitive, it is causative.

If someone decides not to buy flowers from this florist because they discriminate based on sexual orientation in order to punish them for their discrimination how is this action not punitive? Perhaps some perspective is in order. When a florist in my town decided to display a Confederate flag in their shop window, people didn't stop shopping there because they didn't want to shop at a place that displayed Confederate flags, they stopped shopping there because by not shopping there someone who would display Confederate flags would eventually go out of business and lose money. Or, more bluntly, it wasn't "I'm not going to shop here because they display Confederate flags." it was "My not shopping here will result in this person who displays the Confederate flag losing their business and possibly winding up poor." Their not shopping at the florist was intended to punish the owner for behavior they did not agree with.

A magnificent strength of feet, or a feat of strength?

Spelling, should be feat...

[Enoch the Red]

In my situation society does not do this, they instead use the freedoms they've been granted to reduce your ability to use your own. What good is the freedom to own property if no one will sell any to you?

Your hypothetical hardly reflects reality. If don't understand how you expect me to take seriously a hypothetical in which a society is completely homogenous in regards to any single issue, or groups of issues, or really homogenous at all. We can create any number of hypothetical situations, for any number of reasons, but if they don't reflect reality, even distantly, they are useless, no?

If someone decides not to buy flowers from this florist because they discriminate based on sexual orientation in order to punish them for their discrimination how is this action not punitive? Perhaps some perspective is in order. When a florist in my town decided to display a Confederate flag in their shop window, people didn't stop shopping there because they didn't want to shop at a place that displayed Confederate flags, they stopped shopping there because by not shopping there someone who would display Confederate flags would eventually go out of business and lose money. Or, more bluntly, it wasn't "I'm not going to shop here because they display Confederate flags." it was "My not shopping here will result in this person who displays the Confederate flag losing their business and possibly winding up poor." Their not shopping at the florist was intended to punish the owner for behavior they did not agree with.

It's not overtly punitive because it's not a mandated punishment. The clients of the shop could choose to continue shopping there or they could choose to take their business elsewhere. No one is forcing any action, instead the affected actors are making purchasing decisions on their own volition.

[Illusions]

Your hypothetical hardly reflects reality.

...the possibility of this response occurring was what made me point out that my hypothetical is possible, and used the South's treatment of African Americans directly after the Civil War as my supporting evidence.

It's not overtly punitive because it's not a mandated punishment. The clients of the shop could choose to continue shopping there or they could choose to take their business elsewhere. No one is forcing any action, instead the affected actors are making purchasing decisions on their own volition.

its not mandated that anyone press charges for being discriminated against either. The affected actors are just making a legal decision of their own volition.

Also, since part of the original question was "At what point does society become the boogeyman", what if they always chose to take their business elsewhere? Are they as bad as The Government then?

[Khendraja'aro]

But they are. The individual still has rights and freedoms, and the guarantee thereof. When the government seeks to apply laws to a group or groups is typically when legislation is the most egregiously flawed. For instance, Jim Crow laws, laws restricting suffrage, et al. However, I ultimately think this might be a semantics hangup, because the individual is a group.

Let me see if I can make it more clear. The individual is a group which all people fall under. An individual is a defined instance within that group, or a specific person. The individual encompasses everyone. An individual could be any single person.

Uh, your definition of "individual" doesn't make any sense. Look it up. You'll be surprised. It's even in the word itself: In-Dividual => Indivisible. Smallest unit. It can't encompass more than one object because then it would not be individual anymore.

You can now play with "the" and "a" all you want but that doesn't makes your argument any more sensible. There's a reason why stuff like singular and plural exist, by the way. Individuals is plural and thus encompass more than unit, which then makes it a group. Individual is one person. One. Unum. Eins. Yksi. Un. Not more than one. Regardless of "the" or "a" in front of it. NOT member of a group.

[Enoch the Red]

...the possibility of this response occurring was what made me point out that my hypothetical is possible, and used the South's treatment of African Americans directly after the Civil War as my supporting evidence.

The South isn't, and wasn't homogenously pro-slavery.

Uh, your definition of "individual" doesn't make any sense. Look it up. You'll be surprised. It's even in the word itself: In-Dividual => Indivisible. Smallest unit. It can't encompass more than one object because then it would not be individual anymore.

You can now play with "the" and "a" all you want but that doesn't makes your argument any more sensible. There's a reason why stuff like singular and plural exist, by the way. Individuals is plural and thus encompass more than unit, which then makes it a group. Individual is one person. One. Unum. Eins. Yksi. Un. Not more than one. Regardless of "the" or "a" in front of it. NOT member of a group.

It's not my definition of the individual, Khend, it is the accepted definition of the individual. Maybe it's because English isn't your first language, but that's how it works. The individual refers to a group encompassing everyone, or all individuals. It might seem counter intuitive, but it's how the language works. Either way, the theory behind the concept isn't complicated. People are individuals. Individuals have rights. Laws define what society views as the limit of those rights. Ergo, laws are made to place limits on the rights of the individual.

[Ominous Gamer]

This silly game enoch is trying to play of ignoring the issue by claiming nothing has black and white support/opposition, is well... silly. Ignoring the fact that its simply wrong (especially when taken globally), you don't need it to be homogenously, you only need the right people in the right places.

[Khendraja'aro]

The South isn't, and wasn't homogenously pro-slavery.

It's not my definition of the individual, Khend, it is the accepted definition of the individual. Maybe it's because English isn't your first language, but that's how it works. The individual refers to a group encompassing everyone, or all individuals. It might seem counter intuitive, but it's how the language works. Either way, the theory behind the concept isn't complicated. People are individuals. Individuals have rights. Laws define what society views as the limit of those rights. Ergo, laws are made to place limits on the rights of the individual.

Yes, and those laws are created through morals. Hell, there are even informal laws which are pretty much the same thing as morals, just not codified. You can now resume your handwringing but you'll still be wrong. Every law has its source in a moral. Socialistic laws, capitalistic laws, health care laws - they all depend on how your particular society views vertain issues. If your morality declares that everyone is responsible for his own success alone, you won't find much of social welfare laws. If your morality admits that, yes, people can fall on hard times through no fault on their own then your social welfare laws will look pretty different.

And so on and so forth. Laws do not magically fall from the sky. They do not appear from thin air. They're not conjured by the Fairies of Rationality.

[Enoch the Red]

Yes, and those laws are created through morals. Hell, there are even informal laws which are pretty much the same thing as morals, just not codified. You can now resume your handwringing but you'll still be wrong. Every law has its source in a moral. Socialistic laws, capitalistic laws, health care laws - they all depend on how your particular society views vertain issues. If your morality declares that everyone is responsible for his own success alone, you won't find much of social welfare laws. If your morality admits that, yes, people can fall on hard times through no fault on their own then your social welfare laws will look pretty different.

And so on and so forth. Laws do not magically fall from the sky. They do not appear from thin air. They're not conjured by the Fairies of Rationality.

Well, this has been productive.

Not to be overly terse, but we both are simply spinning our wheels, and not really getting anywhere. Yes, laws can spring from morals, and yes morals can inform laws. Laws can also be designed to limit the impact subjective morality plays in the legal system, which you no doubt will argue, has a moral dimension in and of itself. It's all very fascinating, but it has very little at all to do with the discussion, and more to do with semantics and how terms are defined.

[GGT]

The flag analogy would mean businesses would have to fly all flags if they fly one, to be inclusive. Which, of course, they don't.

Let's say this isn't a florist but an insurance company. Should they be allowed to deny a gay couple purchasing a homeowner's policy because they're "living in sin" according to the independent underwriter's homophobia?

[Enoch the Red]

The flag analogy would mean businesses would have to fly all flags if they fly one, to be inclusive. Which, of course, they don't.

Let's say this isn't a florist but an insurance company. Should they be allowed to deny a gay couple purchasing a homeowner's policy because they're "living in sin" according to the independent underwriter's homophobia?

Sure, why not? I'm not sure how or why an insurance company would want to limit its pool, but if it wants to make bad business decisions, let them. There's lots of other companies that would be willing to have their business. If this is the action of a single person, you can generally call, go in person, or ask to speak with their manager. I'm sure that person won't be working there very long, especially when it's found they are turning away perfectly good clientele, and not following a companies underwriting guidelines.

[GGT]

Why not? Because we're not post-racial or post-homophobic as a society. Basically what you're saying is that business owners have carte blanche to practice racism and discrimination all they want. You assume the "invisible hand" or the magic market fairy will make everything equal, or separate but equal, or something. But we don't live in that kind of utopia.

[Enoch the Red]

Basically what you're saying is that business owners have carte blanche to practice racism and discrimination all they want.

That about sums it up, yep.

[Khendraja'aro]

That about sums it up, yep.

That already worked sooooo well several times in the past.

[GGT]

That about sums it up, yep.

Our next generations of white men might be a minority. Maybe then it will matter, but only after they've been denied housing, healthcare, education, jobs.