Big Nana,

That sounds like a civil way for same-sex marriage opponents to deal with the situation at least.

The only problem I would have with removing all discrimination law is that, firstly, it could be interpreted as an implicit condoning of such behaviour (collective condemnation of behaviour is one of the functions of law, after all) and, secondly, it doesn’t help the people who are discriminated against in the meantime. Apart from the above, I have no objection to letting the market sort these things out because once word gets out, these bigots will find their businesses boycotted anyway.

My biggest problem is that most of us are fine with anti-discrimination law concerning race, but when it comes to sexuality, suddenly we’re all worried about religious and moral objection. We can even see this in your choice of wording (deliberate or not), and you’re not alone: when the discrimination concerns same-sex couples, it’s ‘conscientious objection’; when discrimination against race is exercised, we all seem happy to call it ‘racism’ and condemn it.

If all here, concerned about bakers’ rights to refuse services to same-sex couples, would also defend a baker’s right to refuse services to people based on race, then I have no complaint. Such consistency would at least demonstrate that the individual was more concerned about the baker’s liberty and that they were not just being a homophobe. However, I think you’d find that, for many, there is a double standard here.

I take it that everyone here (who is old enough, at least), concerned about the baker’s right to refuse services to same-sex couples, also supported the Mormon Church’s right to refuse blacks (until they changed their position in the late '70s). It was just a religious objection, after all.

Dear Nana,

I would like to avoid turning this painful issue which I raised into a political tug of war.

Say a business-owner accepts SSM in their heart, but cannot personally contribute, perhaps because:
1) God/Prophet told him not to do it.
2) It would go against their vows.
3) Their father forbids it and they follow the 5th commandment.
4) They promised their mother on her deathbed not to do it.
etc.

Say one has nothing against blind people, but is allergic to dogs.
Say a man has nothing against women - on the contrary: well aware of his weaknesses, he knows that if he looked at a woman then he could not overcome the temptation.
Say one has nothing against blacks, but their presence triggers PTSD issues.
Say an adult-shop owner considers it morally wrong to sell such products to people under 30.

It's the human tragedy, the potential plight of private small-business owners who could suffer greatly under "anti-discrimination laws", that I care about, rather than how anyone could gain political power/victories. Such laws were already abused in America by cruel heartless people, for political gain, or perhaps for plain sadism.

---

Dear Rusty,

«Very few religions have any unambiguous basis for refusing service to gay couples, and if they do, they can adapt their official dogma or lose all public subsidy.»

If an organisation accepts "public" subsidies, meaning money that was stolen or robbed off others against their will, despite the commandment "thou shalt not steal" and its equivalent in other religions, then I can only wonder how that organisation was ever thought of as a "religion".

«Businesses *have* to accept legal tender»

And that's just as wrong (assuming that business is private, rather than say, a company). Any private business should be able to set their prices in Euros, in kisses or whatever.

«businesses "open to the public" and advertising to the public have to accept the public»

Only if they actually advertise that they are "open to the public", or when it is implied by the rules of the advertising agency.

Yes, Yuyutsu,

I'm fine with calling all those bluffs, one way or another.

Happy to deny religious status or exemptions to all the religions that have accepted public subsidy. It seems to be the religious that want the special pleading there.
Happy to watch you struggle along without legal tender. I guess other fairer systems could be introduced to gauge an individual's contribution and entitlement to the common wealth (such as Skinner's work-credits) but I suspect you would find them more restrictive. Business *can* accept other payment, but it seems it is the businesses themselves that don't much like payment in other forms. You mention other currencies, but that is begging the question, they only have value above that of coloured paper because they *are* legal tender somewhere similarly substantial.

In any case, you twice specified "private" business. I have been to private business premises. They do not have signage, their advertising is direct to people who have indicated interest, they do not have open doors to the public thoroughfare. Certainly *they* can restrict their trade in any way they wish. Businesses that have opened themselves to the public street have expressed a willingness to sell their stock in trade to the whole public. As I have mentioned, they might obviously not have some items (pork at the kosher shop). If they wish not to serve tall people, or fat ones, or white ones or old ones they should also indicate this deficiency to the public. Few claiming the right wish the consequences of it being known widely.

The open door and wares within *are* an advertisement. Finding an excuse not to serve without a prior notice at the door is not "conscientious" at all.

I do not believe we need to shed too many tears, these businesses are anticipating profit that is not possible without the accessible "public", the public road, the policed law. If their religion restricts recognition of that public, there are many other livelihoods, and types of business. Committing to serve the public while unable to serve the whole public is not the public's problem.

Rusty.

Dear Rusty,

We seem to agree that misleading is wrong.
We could discuss ad-nauseam the fine points of when exactly a behaviour is misleading, but let us now assume that no misleading is present.

I wish what you wrote was true in Australia, but according to the link which Foxy keeps sending us, it is not.

That link makes no distinctions between private and public businesses.
It doesn't provide any allowance for indicating "deficiencies" at the door.

And I don't think that at present, an Australian shop is allowed to have a sign on its door: "Payment is in Euro or marbles only".
(and I care not why they want it that way and whether it's a good or economically-sound idea)
Yes, a business MAY accept other forms of payment, but legally at present they MUST accept Australian dollars if that's how the customer wishes to pay. Also, they must pay their tax in Australian dollars, whether they ever had them or not.

«It seems to be the religious that want the special pleading there.»

Yes, so it SEEMS, but are they religious or do they only pretend to be?

Shopkeepers can accept non-legal tender *if* they have agreement with their customer. The whole point of legal tender is that agreement may not be clear. The shopkeeper is perfectly free to refuse legal tender, but not to expect the public to regard him as the injured party. An attempt to pay has been made. Nicely, it is most specifically for *debts*, and equally pertinent is that the payer may lack the *specific* thing the creditor wants, hence legal and not personal. By all means commence every sale (do put it at the entrance so as not to waste time) with the limitations (cowrie shells today, flints and strikers tomorrow). If however you trade and it becomes a claimed "debt", expect dollars, not your own incidental needs.

And yes, I think that the religious only "seem", and rarely more. They are conscientious to the extent of extracting each and every incremental simulation of observance from non-believers, but rarely in examining their own inconsistencies. I should respect their endless sensitivities when I do not even believe the premise?

Paul,

Congrats on the first mindless Nazi reference and dullard of the month award. We get that everyone that doesn't agree with the Green's dogma is a fascist, but please restrain your raving.