Gay Cakes and the limits of Libertarianism

Original post by Davij038

Was watching question time yesterday and the issue of the 'gay cake'affair was mentioned (In which a Christian bakery refused to make a Cake Celebrating gay marriage) and initially my opionion was that the Bakery owners have a right to freedom of conscince. Funnily enough, an article from The Guardian seemed to support my argument:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/gay-cake-ruling-sets-dangerous-precedent

The episode also reminded me of a previous QT episode where David Starkey commented on the B&B owners were unfairly punished after being fined for discrimination after refusing to allow a gay couple to stay. Now, back onto the current program, the labour member said something which made me think:

If this had been say a black person being refused a cake there would be no question of discrimination (yeah, I know, 'race card' whatever). But then, in some ways he comparison is apt- most people accept that being gay isnt a choice, just like being white or black isnt a choice.

Now this got me thinking that this presents us with a very modern dilemna, what is more important the freedom of conscience (Note, not on speech or expression; although you can try and justify it as) or a persons wish not to be discriminated against? (I would say right but that would be opening up a very messy can of worms!)

As somebody that is sympathetic to libertarian aims in keeping the state out of affairs which do not concern it I can conceive that there are ways around this situation for the gay person- (Shop somewhere else, make it yourself, quit or make your own pro gay bakery store). Also, in the free market that bakery is punishing itself by losing a customer, so win win right?

Thats my conclusion anyway, feel free to challenge it!

I'd like to see if any one can test the limits of this Libertarian arguement for the freedom of conscience in a scenario real or imagined.

For instance: what about a case where a man has been in an accident and is in urgent need of a blood sample. The only one able to do the transfusion is a commited Christian doctor. The only available blood donor is from a homosexual (This being somewhere where its legal for gay people to give blood). The doctor thinks that by doing this he may be damning the man (A stranger)- In this scenario what should come first?

To make it interesting lets pretend that unknown to the doctor, the patient is gay as well.

(I have of yet no answer for this one).

Freedom of conscience or freedom of association, whatever you'd like to call it, is by far more important than freedom from judgement or discrimination, which should not be rights/freedoms at all. They are oppressive legislations that inherently require state intervention, as everybody judges and discriminates on a daily basis. Our mates, our friends, our family vs. other families and different nations. People on this forum even discriminate based on ideas an individual hold, which reminds me of a fun poster I found a while back:

I will also challenge you on the assumption that homosexuality is not a choice. It most definitely is, at least acting upon such urges. However, if nobody acted on homosexual urges, then you would automatically be heterosexual. Why? Because that is the biological term for homosapien reproduction. Simple. Another example is this current trend of attempting to normalise paedophilia, by claiming we simply do not understand these individuals: paedophiles aren't just adults who HAVE sexually molested children, but just those who WANT to, or think about it. No. This is not the case. They are regular people up until they commit the act, which is criminal. Whether or not you think homosexuals should be punished is a different topic, but the bottom line is the behaviour is a choice, and the cake makers should not have gone down for this.

Reply 2

L i b

19

Original post by Davij038

If this had been say a black person being refused a cake there would be no question of discrimination (yeah, I know, 'race card' whatever). But then, in some ways he comparison is apt- most people accept that being gay isnt a choice, just like being white or black isnt a choice.

There's an underlying flaw in that point.

The person wasn't to my knowledge being refused service because they were gay. The shop was refusing to make a product that had a message that they disagreed with - just as presumably a straight person would have been given the same refusal had they wanted the same design on a cake.

Even if you disagree on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there is still a case to be made that this is quite different and relates to political and religious recognition of same-sex unions.

As somebody that is sympathetic to libertarian aims in keeping the state out of affairs which do not concern it I can conceive that there are ways around this situation for the gay person- (Shop somewhere else, make it yourself, quit or make your own pro gay bakery store). Also, in the free market that bakery is punishing itself by losing a customer, so win win right?

As much as I'm sympathetic, I don't think this argument really holds water.

To say 'oh, well, they lose a customer' isn't really coherent. Most business models are designed to target specific customer types. A nightclub may refuse admission to some ugly people - they're not punishing themselves, they're operating a profit-making model because they feel their club will not benefit from having a bunch of ugly folk kicking about it.

They may even accept that it could lose them money, but the owners want the status of running a venue that is well-respected. After all, Wetherspoons makes more money than an exclusive Mayfair nightclub, but I know what I'd rather say I owned.

It's no "punishment" to the owners to do as they please and to sell what they please. Their objective in running a business is clearly more than profit-based.

For instance: what about a case where a man has been in an accident and is in urgent need of a blood sample. The only one able to do the transfusion is a commited Christian doctor. The only available blood donor is from a homosexual (This being somewhere where its legal for gay people to give blood). The doctor thinks that by doing this he may be damning the man (A stranger)- In this scenario what should come first?

To make it interesting lets pretend that unknown to the doctor, the patient is gay as well.

(I have of yet no answer for this one).

Well, a doctor is typically someone's employee. If it was just a passing individual with a medical qualification, he'd be under no obligation to help.

But when you're in a job - particularly one where your decisions must be quick and can be life-or-death ones - you cannot suddenly have a bout of conscience and fail to discharge the duties you are reasonably expected to perform by dint of your contract. They have accepted a duty of care to the patient based on an objective standard.

If a doctor had said "I won't perform x" at his interview and was still employed (presumably the NHS at least would never employ someone on these grounds, of course) then it would be for his employer to take the steps to provide the rounded medical service they would presumably be offering.

Reply 3

OP

Original post by HigherMinion

Freedom of conscience or freedom of association, whatever you'd like to call it, is by far more important than freedom from judgement or discrimination, which should not be rights/freedoms at all. They are oppressive legislations that inherently require state intervention, as everybody judges and discriminates on a daily basis. Our mates, our friends, our family vs. other families and different nations. People on this forum even discriminate based on ideas an individual hold, which reminds me of a fun poster I found a while back:

I will also challenge you on the assumption that homosexuality is not a choice. It most definitely is, at least acting upon such urges. However, if nobody acted on homosexual urges, then you would automatically be heterosexual. Why? Because that is the biological term for homosapien reproduction. Simple. Another example is this current trend of attempting to normalise paedophilia, by claiming we simply do not understand these individuals: paedophiles aren't just adults who HAVE sexually molested children, but just those who WANT to, or think about it. No. This is not the case. They are regular people up until they commit the act, which is criminal. Whether or not you think homosexuals should be punished is a different topic, but the bottom line is the behaviour is a choice, and the cake makers should not have gone down for this.

Kudos on the poster, its hilarious!

For your first point- I take it you are saying there should be no grounds for discrimination whatsoever- So for instance if you applied for a job working for say the post office and you were refused because you were a white male, that would be fine?

Your second point, although a whole other kettle of fish- and an interesting one. Personally i'm not sure that you can base, for lack of a better word, 'love' (Understood to be between two mutual, fational adults) entirely upon the reproductive system (what if a heterosexual woman is infertile for another reason?)

Secondly, i'm not convinced by your line of argument- i have a gay friend who had a girl friend before he outed himself. When he was with his partner he used to think about men- to me at least, that doesnt indicate that heterosexualiy was his default opinion, and that he was gay before the eventual act.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by L i b

There's an underlying flaw in that point.

The person wasn't to my knowledge being refused service because they were gay. The shop was refusing to make a product that had a message that they disagreed with - just as presumably a straight person would have been given the same refusal had they wanted the same design on a cake.

Even if you disagree on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there is still a case to be made that this is quite different and relates to political and religious recognition of same-sex unions.

Ah, I probably worded it wrongly my mistake you're quite right.

As much as I'm sympathetic, I don't think this argument really holds water.

To say 'oh, well, they lose a customer' isn't really coherent. Most business models are designed to target specific customer types. A nightclub may refuse admission to some ugly people - they're not punishing themselves, they're operating a profit-making model because they feel their club will not benefit from having a bunch of ugly folk kicking about it.

They may even accept that it could lose them money, but the owners want the status of running a venue that is well-respected. After all, Wetherspoons makes more money than an exclusive Mayfair nightclub, but I know what I'd rather say I owned.

It's no "punishment" to the owners to do as they please and to sell what they please. Their objective in running a business is clearly more than profit-based.

Thanks for that thats a very interesting point to make.

I suppose a (weak) argument for that is regardless of whether or not they see it as a punishment all buisnesses depend on money to survie and any money lost is likley to go to a competitor who in the long term may out compete them.

I have also heard an argument for conservative thought to be akin in some aspects to karma- so for instance in that example, the man refused service could stage a boycott on the premises or a protest or another non violent means of agitation against that establishment that does not neccessarily require the coercive force of the state.

elp.

If a doctor had said "I won't perform x" at his interview and was still employed (presumably the NHS at least would never employ someone on these grounds, of course) then it would be for his employer to take the steps to provide the rounded medical service they would presumably be offering.

So the employer should be forced to remunerate if he chose not to perform the operation if he had prior statesd his beliefs?

Interesting.

You've made some really good points, my thanks!

Reply 5

Original post by Davij038

Kudos on the poster, its hilarious!

For your first point- I take it you are saying there should be no grounds for discrimination whatsoever- So for instance if you applied for a job working for say the post office and you were refused because you were a white male, that would be fine?

Secondly, i'm not convinced by your line of argument- i have a gay friend who had a girl friend before he outed himself. When he was with his partner he used to think about men- to me at least, that doesnt indicate that heterosexualiy was his default opinion, and that he was gay before the eventual act.

No grounds for being against discrimination, yes. Like you said in your initial free-market argument: if you exclude white men from using your services, you're going to go out of business pretty damned fast! But market be damned, this is about the principles of freedom of association.

Would your gay friend be able to reproduce with other men? If not, the observable and empirical nature of the human anatomy that makes us a heterosexual species does not exempt him as the only heterosexual man. Sodomite is probably a better term for someone who partakes in those kinds of acts, rather than getting muddled up in biological terms.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 6

OP

Original post by HigherMinion

No grounds for being against discrimination, yes. Like you said in your initial free-market argument: if you exclude white men from using your services, you're going to go out of business pretty damned fast! But market be damned, this is about the principles of freedom of association.

Would your gay friend be able to reproduce with other men? If not, the observable and empirical nature of the human anatomy that makes us a heterosexual species does not exempt him as the only heterosexual man. Sodomite is probably a better term for someone who partakes in those kinds of acts, rather than getting muddled up in biological terms.

I largely concur with your first point.

On the second however:

You have not answered my question: why is the ability to reproduce the raison d'être of a theory of love? Any animal can reproduce isn't human love meant to be a higher form of love as such? As per your point, whilst I concur that every gay man has the biological capacity to be straight the opposite is also true.

. I know you like to make a point if difference between the feeling of love and the actual act of sodomy but if the feeling is morally permissible then why is the act not?

I fear you won't be able to answer this without reference to some form of religious doctrine, though I am happy to be proved wrong.

As always, a pleasure!

Reply 7

whorace

2

Why is the state even involved in this? It was a private business transaction between two independent parties, one who refused to sell to another. Why is the state forcing business to comply with customer demands? That's not how it works.

Reply 8

Original post by Davij038

I largely concur with your first point.

On the second however:

You have not answered my question: why is the ability to reproduce the raison d'être of a theory of love? Any animal can reproduce isn't human love meant to be a higher form of love as such? As per your point, whilst I concur that every gay man has the biological capacity to be straight the opposite is also true.

. I know you like to make a point if difference between the feeling of love and the actual act of sodomy but if the feeling is morally permissible then why is the act not?

I fear you won't be able to answer this without reference to some form of religious doctrine, though I am happy to be proved wrong.

As always, a pleasure!

Well, I never mentioned the emotions behind such actions, because it's not relevant. Love is manifest in many ways, not only sexually... Do you not love your mother? Your father? Your six year old sister? Your pet dog, Rupert? If you have any human empathy (and I'm 98% sure you do) then you do love them. Does this mean you show your love in the same way to your girlfriend/wife? You don't. I believe that some of the extremists in the gay community are not so diverse in their ideas of "love distribution", and only know of one way on giving it. The act itself is viewed as immoral by our very biological nature: no egg to be seen. No fertilising. No rebirth. Mortality. Religious doctrines do attempt to give higher meaning to this, but all you need to look at is our own survival as a group, race, species, etc.

For this reason also, is why it is not true to claim that every straight man has the biological capacity to be homosexual. Think what that means. That reproduction can take place without the use of an egg? Good luck with that. Maybe there's a creature that can, but not humans.

To summarise the first paragraph: love is expressed in a variety of ways to different figures in your life. Man on man need not express their mutual love sexually.

Reply 9

Cornelius

4

Original post by whorace

Why is the state even involved in this? It was a private business transaction between two independent parties, one who refused to sell to another. Why is the state forcing business to comply with customer demands? That's not how it works.

Are you in favour of private businesses discriminating on any ground whatever? including sexuality, race, religion, etc?

Reply 10

whorace

2

Original post by Cornelius

Are you in favour of private businesses discriminating on any ground whatever? including sexuality, race, religion, etc?

Absolutely. Do you have any idea how quickly these organisations will go out of business? How about we stop forcing people to believe things and let society shame them instead.

Reply 11

Original post by whorace

Absolutely. Do you have any idea how quickly these organisations will go out of business? How about we stop forcing people to believe things and let society shame them instead.

The new kind of liberal progressivedoesn't understand "shame" and "social stigma" because it encourages and promotes moral relativism. A moral system that means no one can judge anyone else- only yourself. Life would be so much more simple if we once again accepted the principle of liberty with stigma. No more social bureaucracy; no more coercive communal spirit by taxation; no more national hivemind, and most importantly- no one being forced in to a transaction they are uncomfortable being in.

Reply 12

the bear

20

what would happen if a man & wife went to a "gay" hotel and were refused a room ?

Reply 13

OP

Original post by HigherMinion

Well, I never mentioned the emotions behind such actions, because it's not relevant. Love is manifest in many ways, not only sexually... Do you not love your mother? Your father? Your six year old sister? Your pet dog, Rupert? If you have any human empathy (and I'm 98% sure you do) then you do love them. Does this mean you show your love in the same way to your girlfriend/wife?

Yes but obviously you're love for your spouse is obviously going to include an additional romantic aspect as well.

Unless you adopt the religious doctrine that sex should be for procreation only- which isn't the perspective for most of western civilisation (irrespective of whether that's a good thing or not.

You don't. I believe that some of the extremists in the gay community are not so diverse in their ideas of "love distribution", and only know of one way on giving it.

I'm not sure about that but if it was true you could say the same things about extreme members who happen to 'heterosexual'. Personally I don't think sexual abominations such as bestiality and child rape are less evil if it's male on female.

The act itself is viewed as immoral by our very biological nature: no egg to be seen. No fertilising. No rebirth.

Again, that would presuppose that contraception of itself are any sex act for pleasure are purely wrong.

Mortality. Religious doctrines do attempt to give higher meaning to this, but all you need to look at is our own survival as a group, race, species, etc.

Well again I'm not sure about that I think somewhere like Uganda is crying out for more birth control and that ultimately real world concerns matter more than spiritual ones which require faith and to a godless athiest like me the empirical concerns of the world are more pressing than the spiritual need of something which we cannot know exists.

For this reason also, is why it is not true to claim that every straight man has the biological capacity to be homosexual. Think what that means. That reproduction can take place without the use of an egg? Good luck with that. Maybe there's a creature that can, but not humans.

To summarise the first paragraph: love is expressed in a variety of ways to different figures in your life. Man on man need not express their mutual love sexually.

I meant biologically in that every man has the capacity to engage in any sexual act. I don't think that repressing this urge is the morally right thing to do as it is between two consenting adults and is really none of our business and secondly I think that repressing it will lead to far worse outcomes (and it will continue anyway)

As I've noticed Christian thinkers like to include paefophillia into the gay argument there are two things I need to comment on.

Firstly is consent. A child is not a rational adult able to consent. Child abuselead to very real empirical psychological prolems where being in a gay relationship does not.

Secondly by preventing them it doesn't actually stop it. In deed it can worsen it as stigmatised gay people often becomd recluse sand find other ways of getting their sexual kick- like joining the clergy for one. *What do you think about how the Catholic Church views homosexuality and it's long and still present history of child abuse? The Church of England has it's own dark history also.

* you may like to imagine that this proves that this shows that sodomites are inherently wicked but suppose that in some evil dystopian firer where everyone was required to be gay or face death by the state- you can see the persecuted heterosexuals employing the same methods.

I'm enjoying this keep it up!

Reply 14

Zorgotron

6

Original post by whorace

Absolutely. Do you have any idea how quickly these organisations will go out of business? How about we stop forcing people to believe things and let society shame them instead.

This is in no way self-evident and you assume that there is no demand for racial segregation within the market.

Reply 15

Cornelius

4

Original post by whorace

Absolutely. Do you have any idea how quickly these organisations will go out of business? How about we stop forcing people to believe things and let society shame them instead.

I don't have a magic ball so I don't know. That said, I don't care, I am interested in the principle behind the view you're expressing.

Are you in favour of businesses discriminating against whomever they want regardless of the actual consequences of this practice (that is, regardless of whether and how quickly will they "got out of business" )

OR

Do you think the consequences are almost certainly going to be that these "racist" businesses go bankrupt and that is why you believe what you believe?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 16

TorpidPhil

19

Original post by whorace

Absolutely. Do you have any idea how quickly these organisations will go out of business? How about we stop forcing people to believe things and let society shame them instead.

PRSOM

Reply 17

SeaPony

2

Can't people refuse to support something they don't agree with? What happens if someone wanted a cake saying 'Long live the Islamic Jihad' oh but that would be a different story. Sick and tired of gay people being treated as being superior.

Reply 18

OP