Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[Felch]

And then the Hooters also says we won't serve you because you are Catholic. Or the barber says you can get a hair cut, but in the back of the shop.

I'd eat elsewhere, and go to my Vietnamese barber instead. It's not like there's only one barber in the entire universe.

So was the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s about the black folk thinking the world revolves around them?

Was Bull Connor a private security guard, or the Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety? I am opposed to government discrimination, but I recognize that private bigotry is a fair price for freedom.

And don't even pretend that if a baker didn't want to serve someone because they were Catholic, you wouldn't have protests there (and lawsuits, because its illegal to deny service based on your religion).

I'm not the protesting type. I can't speak for everybody though.

It's also easy to say you'd be ok with the denial of service when you are a white straight Catholic male and the vast majority of people won't deny your service.

It's easy to ignore the opinions of anybody you feel like, but it doesn't make you right.

[Felch]

What if all bakers/barbers/Hooters in your city don't want to serve you because you are Catholic? How about 9 out of 10? How about you have to go to the next state to get these and other services? Where's the line?

I'd make my own food and cut my own hair. Won't be the first time.

[Felch]

Of course you don't.

At least I'm consistent.

[Elok]

There's really no reason why everything needs to be treated like 1950s Alabama, when there was an elaborate, entrenched system of segregation to dismantle. That the law has evolved to see things just that way is just another of the many absurdities of history.

[DaShi]

I'd make my own food and cut my own hair. Won't be the first time.

Where would you get the food and scissors, if no one will sell them to you?

[Felch]

There's really no reason why everything needs to be treated like 1950s Alabama, when there was an elaborate, entrenched system of segregation to dismantle. That the law has evolved to see things just that way is just another of the many absurdities of history.

This is true. The possibilities you guys are theorizing are absurd. Most small business owners will take any business they can. If I understand correctly, publicly traded companies pretty much have to since shareholders can sue. Making a big deal out of one ******* who doesn't like gay people is ridiculous.

[Felch]

Where would you get the food and scissors, if no one will sell them to you?

I'll smash somebody's window with a rock and steal their food and scissors. Because this is a totally plausible scenario you're proposing.

[DaShi]

Which is exactly my point. Where's the line between all businesses denying someone for race, religion, sexual preference and one business?

[Felch]

Let's say you operate a charter bus company, and the Westboro Baptist Church wants you to take them to the funeral of some murdered gay kid, so they can heckle the grieving parents. Should you be able to tell them to **** off?

[Elok]

As long as we're considering one absurdly unlikely scenario, it's only fair to consider the other end of the spectrum: a world where a man can get bankrupted in court because he refused to let a lesbian use his bathroom (clearly marked EMPLOYEES ONLY, but he let a friend of his use it so clearly he's scared of her gayness). If that's not sufficiently scary, we can probably think up something still more extreme.

[Felch]

Which is exactly my point. Where's the line between all businesses denying someone for race, religion, sexual preference and one business?

Reality, DaShi. Thanks to capitalism, some opportunist will fill in the gap. In fact, the overwhelming majority of business owners would never be so self-destructive as to turn down business over petty bull****. There's no great crisis that needs solving, so there's no reason to **** all over the first amendment.

You're the one who wants to infringe on the freedom of bakers. Tell me why it's so vital that we do this. What compelling reason do we have to force someone to bake a cake? What are you willing to do to the baker if he doesn't bake the cake? Should he be fined? Should his business be seized? Should he be imprisoned? What punishment does his crime merit?

[DaShi]

Let's say you operate a charter bus company, and the Westboro Baptist Church wants you to take them to the funeral of some murdered gay kid, so they can heckle the grieving parents. Should you be able to tell them to **** off?

No.

[Elok]

Which is exactly my point. Where's the line between all businesses denying someone for race, religion, sexual preference and one business?

Wherever it becomes legitimately problematic in non-emotional terms. Any number of behaviors become problematic if you assume vast numbers of people are going to all do them at once. At present, it is perfectly legal (at least in some parts of the country) to deny service to homosexuals. That we do not have a heap of emaciated corpses lying around with uncut hair suggests that this is not a major problem.

[DaShi]

Reality, DaShi. Thanks to capitalism, some opportunist will fill in the gap. In fact, the overwhelming majority of business owners would never be so self-destructive as to turn down business over petty bull****. There's no great crisis that needs solving, so there's no reason to **** all over the first amendment.

Then what's the point of the Arizona law, if the first amendment already protects these businesses?

[DaShi]

Wherever it becomes legitimately problematic in non-emotional terms. Any number of behaviors become problematic if you assume vast numbers of people are going to all do them at once. At present, it is perfectly legal (at least in some parts of the country) to deny service to homosexuals. That we do not have a heap of emaciated corpses lying around with uncut hair suggests that this is not a major problem.

No, but when writing a law, you need to consider these scenarios and weigh their impacts. "Wherever it becomes legitimately problematic in non-emotional terms" is still rather vague.