Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

I think that the issue comes down to not treating all humans alike regardless of ones' personal beliefs.The topic of a Jewish business closing for the Sabbath is often brought up in an attempt to equate that to the refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple, but in reality they are not even close to being comparable.In the case of the former the Jewish business still treats everyone, Jew and Gentile, the same. They are closed to the Jew and to the Gentile. There is no discrimination.In the later though not everyone is treated the same. The bakery refused service to just one class of people, those looking for a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. Had the baker instead said "I will no longer sell wedding cakes because I do not approve of some marriages" then of course there would be no discrimination involved; same-sex couples and mixed-sex couples would be treated equally.

Thank god there is no right to not be made uncomfortable.Also, the speech we agree with is not the speech we need to support, rather it is the speech we most disagree with that needs our protection.In your example of a baker baking a cake for the KKK or a sign printer asked to print a banner for the rally or the owner of a meeting house asked to rent the place for the rally I believe that the need to protect speech we most disagree with is the greater calling. Yes, it may well make the businessman uncomfortable, maybe even hurt future business but as I said, there is no right not to be made uncomfortable and there is a duty to protect others free speech.My answer then is "Yes, of course you should be required to serve that class of people when free speech is involved. Your free speech to tell them you despise their free speech is also there but you may not infringe on theirs."

Fortunately in the US speech is protected and so they certainly would not be arrested for asking for that inscription, at least so far. Hopefully we will never get to the point where someone could be arrested or even charged simply for that statement.

Fortunately in the US racial hatred is not a crime, thank God. I would support someones right to incite racial hatred but admit that there are very fuzzy limits. For example I would support someone saying "All gays should die" but if it said "Go out and kill gays" then I would be less sure of my position. In the latter case I imagine that consideration would have to be given to just how effective the likelihood of actual action based on the speech would be. The default position for me would be to protect the speech unless there was clear and present danger of action based on the speech. Again, unless the baker could present a compelling argument that supported a reasonable certainty that acts would follow I do not think his refusal could be justified and that he was in fact refusing service.

As I said, were I a baker I would write that on a cake I sold them, were I a printer I would print a banner for them to display, were I the owner of a meeting hall I would rent the space to hold a rally.I really believe that it is the speech I very most disagree with that I must allow.

And what is wrong with enabling speech I disagree with? What do you think "Protect Free Speech" means? You do not protect something by doing nothing.

Nope, certainly not kidding.If my business is printing then yes, it is my duty to print stuff I disagree with.If I am a baker then it is my duty to bake cakes for events I disagree with.If I own a meeting hall then it is my duty to rent to folk holding a rally I disagree with.It is the speech I most disagree with that I must protect.The limit, as I said back in Message 374 is with speech that incites illegal activity or violence.

quote:

---

I would support someones right to incite racial hatred but admit that there are very fuzzy limits. For example I would support someone saying "All gays should die" but if it said "Go out and kill gays" then I would be less sure of my position. In the latter case I imagine that consideration would have to be given to just how effective the likelihood of actual action based on the speech would be. The default position for me would be to protect the speech unless there was clear and present danger of action based on the speech.

---

Did you actually read what I have written?from the very message to which you are replying: If they said "All [insert a group] should die" then I would definitely protect and support their right to say that under the conditions I have presented; if a printer it would be my duty to print the banner, if a baker to bake and decorate the cake, if an owner of a meeting hall to rent them the space for a rally.Yes, hate speech is near the top of the list of speech I must work to protect. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Absolutely I would print your banner even though yo are mixing everything up and once again demonstrating an inability to read.You do understand that a "Kill all homos" cake was one example where I specifically said their is a question whether I would provide such service.

I'm not sure what you mean.How do I know nothing would happen?

I know that is your position. You've got some work to do.Free Speech is important. Morality does not enter into the issue.Whether or I not I feel any speech is moral or immoral is totally irrelevant. I have no more right to try to impose my morality on others than they have to try to impose their morality on me.I can see no possible justification for suppressing speech whether moral or immoral. In fact, speech I consider immoral is the speech I need to support.One of those statements recommends illegal activities while the other only supports a perhaps immoral thought.

I certainly agree and tried to point out just that issue. And that is where the exact wording of the speech as well as the particular details of the incident need to be known.

Not exactly. It is not a matter of bound to help but rather the fact that the business is printing or cake making or space rental and the business is not censorship.And yes, the boundaries are fuzzy and mutable and will depend on the total conditions of the particular incident when it comes to where the legal/illegal line lies. The function of a print shop or bakery or meeting hall rental is not to make the judgements beyond what is reasonable based on the available knowledge at the time.I understand many will feel differently about this but I have tried to express my opinion of where to draw the line. Hopefully it will not be a straight or uniform line but laws seldom consider anything except straight, uniform lines.But I do find the idea that there could be prohibited hate speech odious, repulsive, revolting.

Too funny. You still seem unable to read.I imagine you can point out where I said that there is hate speech I think should be prohibited other then the very limited case of clear incitement to violence or illegal activity which is speech that might be prohibited whether it involved hate or not.I cannot think of any hate speech or speech that was intended to engender hatred that should be prohibited right off hand. There might be such speech but I cannot think of any at the moment. That depends I believe on whether you print for a business. If it is your personal non-business printer then I believe you are well within your rights. If though you are a business, a printer by trade, and nothing in the request is illegal or incites violence or illegal activity, then I believe your personal opinion about the morality or rightness or content should be irrelevant.What for me is odious is censorship, not the speech.

Bullshit.Really, read what I write. I said I might not print them not because I find them odious but because they encourage violence or illegal activities. Even if I fully approved of such speech I would have questions about printing it.