Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwright | Hacker News Reader

Not so fast. Businesses come in all shapes and sizes. Lots of businesses consist of a single person or just a few people or all family members.

It isn't clear at all that the government should prevent an independent contractor from deciding who they want to work with.

Your comment, as written, is an example of a trivial dismissal of a legitimate concern regarding freedom of association and contract. There are indeed attempts to force small businesses to conform. This one: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... comes to mind.

View on HN

I think it's clear; if you're running a business, you shouldn't be allowed to turn would-be customers away and say "it's because you're black" or whatever. That's not good for society, to permit that kind of casual discrimination. We've been down that road, and things weren't getting better until laws started being passed.

I mean, come on, if you're such an asshole that you really, really need to discriminate against people for whatever reason, then say "sorry, we're booked up". Otherwise, make the stupid cake, whether the couple is gay, or mixed-race, or whatever. And if you can't do that, don't start your own business.

"Sorry, no vacancy" was the standard line for hotels who didn't want to rent a room to blacks.

But I think there is some kind of persepective that has to be maintained. For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.

I think there is room to tolerate different points of view on who a person should be forced to accept as a customer. If you run a web development business and were approached by a customer to build a (legal) porn site, but pornography is against your personal values, should you be obligated to accept the job, when there are countless other web developers who will gladly take the work? Or be forced to choose between earning a living at your craft vs. compromising your values?

>But I think there is some kind of persepective that has to be maintained

its amazing when people who completely lack the perspective of the civil rights era, claim that we all need a little more perspective.

>For something that isn't an essential public accomodation, let the money talk. If your baker won't bake you a cake, give your money to one who will.

right, i mean - if i owned a building i certainly wouldnt want black people using my water fountains. and hey whats the big deal? its not some essential public service they are being denied. theres water fountains and restaurants everywhere!

as long as gays have a separate but equal method of gaining access to cakes, whats the problem?

I'll be that guy. Forcing a person to do an action against their will is morally repulsive. Even if that action is to be a decent person.

Sorry, but that battle was lost when we first came down from the trees. All situations where people live in society involve some amount of control over their behavior; that's more or less what society is, a set of things you must and mustn't do, because you're not the only person in the world.

It's fine to expect someone to abide by your rules in your town, but they also need the option to move somewhere else to abide by their own rules.

If you want to live in a world without discrimination (as I do!), that's your right and you can enforce that within your state or move to a state where it is enforced, but if there's another state that you don't live in, mind your own damn business and let them set whatever laws they want.

To get along with others you need to follow some sort of conduct, but reach each group should be free to set their own code.

Yep, I put water fountains and restaurants in a public accomodation category. They are buildings and businesses explicitly serving the walk-in public.

An independent/small family bakery, or photographer, etc. who may not even have a retail storefront who won't service gay weddings, I would consider "not a real problem" because they really are only limiting their own business by operating that way.

That's cool, but the world doesn't work by what you specifically call a public accommodation. There are dinner clubs with membership requirements (look here for a big hint as to how to continue refusing service to 'undesirables' legally), there are office parks with water fountains behind fences. The solution, if you don't want to do business with the public, is to not do business with the public. If you choose to be publically available, that's on you. Note: if your services require licensure, then it's not your right to provide those services to begin with--it's a privilege you've been granted and that will come with extra legal stipulations by that very nature.

>An independent/small family bakery, or photographer, etc. who may not even have a retail storefront who won't service gay weddings, I would consider "not a real problem"

So a "No gays allowed" sign on a walk-in retail storefront would be bad, but a "Gays need not call" ad in the yellow pages[1] would be "not a real problem"?

[1] Or however these non-storefront businesses connect with customers.

I think a sign/notice would be good. Then you'd know and could decide to not patronize the place, or protest it, etc. accordingly.

There is a clear problem with that approach, which is that it fails to take into account the pressure that society can place on small businesses, especially in small to medium areas.

Given two cake makers in town, if one is happy to provide cakes to gays, and the other is not, in general the town will provide custom to the shop whose stance they agree with.

By passing a law that forces both shops to behave the same way, the opportunity for social pressure to be applied is reduced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com