Gay community takes care of hateful bakers.

[browncoatslytherin]

Sundaymorning seems to be missing that it wasn't the laws that made people do these things. People wanted to do them and it is the current laws that keep it from happening now. She acts like it is no big deal if stores don't want to do business with a minority group or that if the laws were not there businesses would not ban minority groups, but that isn't the reality of some regions of the US. Minority groups in some areas would be completely screwed if all the businesses could refuse them.

Where she lives these laws might not be needed, but where I live, they are.

qft. the twin cities, where i am now, is pretty laid back and not much would likely change. but the southern town i grew up in, mcdonough, georgia? just south of atlanta? oh yeah, a LOT would change, and a lot of people would be so completely screwed. they would probably be forced to move and uproot their families and interrupt their careers because of it. considering that, i would rather concede and serve people i'd rather not than force such a thing on others.

[Sundaymorning]

Just a few things, the war on drugs, cause it shows why we don't understand each other. You don't think legalizing heroin and meth is a good idea. Ok, so just to be clear, I don't like drugs either. They are harmful for your health and I would never advise anyone do to any drugs. Do I think that they should be banned? No, I don't think so. I think people should have the freedom to take them if they want to. I would never force my opinion on someone with government violence. By the way, you don't like drugs, ok. Do you think that adultery should be illegal too? I don't like adultery, and it also causes great harm, and many agree it should be illegal.

the right of women to chose. Well, those "restrictions" states make have the goal to make abortion pretty much impossible. I do realize this is a very difficult topic. On one hand a women, and only she, owns her own body and should be able to do anything she likes with it. On the other hand, there is the life of fetus inside of her. Where would I put the limination? Usually, it's three months. In some serious cases, I could agree that abortion should be possible until the baby would be viable outside the body. And after that, well, if the life of the mother is in danger, or someting like that, you can induct labor.

the war on terror: I use the war on terror as an example, because it shows very well how government actions usually go. The war on terror has destroyed millions of lifes. And yet, it doesn't even work and is contra-produktive to boot. What would have happen if nothing was done at the war on terror? Well, not much I guess. The middle east wouldn't be on fire and ISIS wouldn't be slaying other people with weapons that are partially from the US army when they left them in Iraq.

Should the US and other countries do nothing against terror? Well, yes they should.But not like they have been doing. Invading other countries and killing other people cause you think they might be terrorists and sometimes also people who you didn't even want to kill, but the airstrike went acidentally wrong is a really bad strategy. Cause it only breeds more terror. And, I'm really curious, do you think the life of an American is worth more than the life of some random person in some other country?

A much better strategy would be to reallly have a good security system in vulnerable places like airports. To have a good information system where you can actually monitor suspicious activities. And so on. That would cost a lot of money, but would still be cheaper than some useless wars.

Who can not grow vegetables in their front yard? abcnews.go.com/US/vegetable-garden-brings-criminal-charges-oak-park-michigan/story?id=14047214

Another example of how government abuses its power: huffingtonpost.com/women-co/lemonade-stand_b_1753057.html

You said: If you have to go look up obscure dumb laws to prove your point I don't think this is worth talking about. Look, I do realize that these laws might be ridiculous. But that is exactly my point. I'm trying to point out how much power government has over people. If they can shut down a lemonade stand or make a vegetable garden illegal, they will have the power to harm you in far more serious ways.

"What would happen to small businesses if government had no dealings in how large corporations were run?

What if farmers had no restrictions on the kinds of pesticides used, or the quality of the food produced, tainted meat- who cares right?"

You truly must be kidding me. Do you realize that its exactly the large corporations which profit most of government power? They get all the corporate welfare thanks to their lobbying and their nice paychecks campaign donations to politicians.

same goes for the pesticides and the quality of the food produced. Thanks to huge subsidies those big agriculture firms get, harmful stuff like corn syrup is so popular. And the food still has harmful pesticides in it. So no, government doesn't care about the quality of the food produced. Independent companies who would test the quality of food in a free market would be much more efficient.

And no, I don't have one mindset, I actually spend lots of time thinking about these issues and talking about it to other people. I can see your points, but ultimately, I think that everyone would be much better off if government wouldn't have so much power over all of our lives.

[Sundaymorning]

qft. the twin cities, where i am now, is pretty laid back and not much would likely change. but the southern town i grew up in, mcdonough, georgia? just south of atlanta? oh yeah, a LOT would change, and a lot of people would be so completely screwed. they would probably be forced to move and uproot their families and interrupt their careers because of it. considering that, i would rather concede and serve people i'd rather not than force such a thing on others.

Excuse me, but since you all seem so sure that people are really that evil in the South, what kind of people live there?? No seriously. I'm very curious about the people you think would ban certain minorities from their stores.

And also, how do they act towards these minorities now? They do have to serve them, ok. But are they friendly? In a restaurant, does an African American generally get a worse place to sit than a white person? (since in the US, you are seated by the waiter, right?). Don't they try to discriminate against minorities subtly, so they can't be sued, but they still can harm them? What about the minorities, do they still go to a restaurant if they know the owner hates them? How about the career of minorities, they can't get fired because of their skin or religion, but does anyone even hire them in first place? Do they have any chance for promotion if they work well?

I'm serious about those questions, cause you make it seem like the South is some country of racist savages who are just waiting for the chance where they go and discriminate against minorities.

[Sundaymorning]

Ok, I try to answer those questions. I obviously can't know why every single of the white store owners didn't want black people in their store. But, and that is my argument, the law demanded segregation. That made it impossible even for those who weren't racist to act in a decent way towards black people.

Now you might say, even if it wasn't demanded by law, there would have still been soo much peer pressure that even non-racist white store owners would have been forced to act like racists. And that's probably true. But, that is also the reason why I'm against government in first place. Cause the mentality that lot of people have, where they try to force their personal view points and behaviour rules onto other people leads to horrible situtations like in the South. If those racist white people would just have minded their own business, and left the others alone, the black ones wouldn't have suffered. But no, the racists used government and laws to establish a system that served their interests and doctrines. And sure, most white people were probably racist, after all, thats what they were taught not only their parents but by the politicians, the law, their public school teachers... That's why I think government is so dangerous as its power can be abused so easily.

[browncoatslytherin]

Excuse me, but since you all seem so sure that people are really that evil in the South, what kind of people live there?? No seriously. I'm very curious about the people you think would ban certain minorities from their stores.

And also, how do they act towards these minorities now? They do have to serve them, ok. But are they friendly? In a restaurant, does an African American generally get a worse place to sit than a white person? (since in the US, you are seated by the waiter, right?). Don't they try to discriminate against minorities subtly, so they can't be sued, but they still can harm them? What about the minorities, do they still go to a restaurant if they know the owner hates them? How about the career of minorities, they can't get fired because of their skin or religion, but does anyone even hire them in first place? Do they have any chance for promotion if they work well?

I'm serious about those questions, cause you make it seem like the South is some country of racist savages who are just waiting for the chance where they go and discriminate against minorities.

speaking from experience growing up in the south, yes, there are people that mean and evil that hold to racist ideology. no, it doesn't make sense. they don't make sense. but they exist. they are there. and if anti-discrimination laws went out the window, things would get very difficult for people of the non-aryan variety.

nowadays, they may not necessarily be "friendly" as in they'll walk up with a smile on their face and offer their hand for a handshake. but they know that if they try to refuse them service, it will end up costing them in penalties. as far as seating in a restaurant, that highly varies from place to place just regarding the seating arrangement itself, so it's hard to speak in general terms in that regard. some places don't have a host/hostess to seat people. waiters and waitresses aren't always out and about, and since i've not worked in the restaurant field before, i'm not sure where they go when not actively serving customers. the kitchen? maybe someone with more experience could answer that. but i don't think the set up is similar to what you're describing, at least not in the places i've been.

subtle discrimination happens, i'm sure. if i were to walk into one of the old country stores my lily-white family sometimes went to with my black fiance in tow, oh yeah we would turn heads. but the thing is, they can't refuse us service. they can't kick us out. if they even verbally berate us we can make things very difficult for them. the anti-discrimination laws don't mean that these things won't happen, it just means that there are penalties for when it does, and sometimes the threat of those penalties are enough to make people act genteel (read: like mature adults).

as far as being hired and advancing, i have no experience in that field, so i will let someone else more familiar address that. but i do believe that there are some situations where a variety of hired employees is encouraged (perhaps rewarded?).

and just to be clear, there are other places other than the south where people are like this. but, in my personal experience, it seems to be more prominent where i was from. i've lived in a variety of places, though, including georgia, minnesota (where i am again), wisconsin, pennsylvania, and ohio. only one southern state. but i've interacted with a fair number of people in these states, and on average, minnesota and wisconsin seems to be the most chill. where i was at in pennsylvania and ohio, there was still an underlying theme, you could tell. one pennsylvania town i lived in - ellwood city - actually did not allow black people to live there at all for a long time. and they kept them out with force, if need be. there still aren't very many non-aryan people living there today, but the last statistics are from 2000, which was before i moved there, so i'm sure that's fluctuated somewhat from then. in 2000, the racial makeup of the town was 98.22% white. again, i'm sure that's fluctuated in 14 years, but that's just an example of a non-southern town for you.

[browncoatslytherin]

Ok, I try to answer those questions. I obviously can't know why every single of the white store owners didn't want black people in their store. But, and that is my argument, the law demanded segregation. That made it impossible even for those who weren't racist to act in a decent way towards black people.

Now you might say, even if it wasn't demanded by law, there would have still been soo much peer pressure that even non-racist white store owners would have been forced to act like racists. And that's probably true. But, that is also the reason why I'm against government in first place. Cause the mentality that lot of people have, where they try to force their personal view points and behaviour rules onto other people leads to horrible situtations like in the South. If those racist white people would just have minded their own business, and left the others alone, the black ones wouldn't have suffered. But no, the racists used government and laws to establish a system that served their interests and doctrines. And sure, most white people were probably racist, after all, thats what they were taught not only their parents but by the politicians, the law, their public school teachers... That's why I think government is so dangerous as its power can be abused so easily.

and that's where i like to refer to the wiccan rede. the laws that were put in place to help discriminate harmed people. anti-discrimination laws don't. things aren't always black and white. there are areas where, yes, less government is a great idea. but there are other areas where there clearly needs some intervention.

for instance, taking your idea of discriminatory laws coming into play because of people drafting them up and putting them into place...even if they didn't make laws, do you think they would have stopped their discriminatory store policies just because there wasn't any law supporting it? don't you think they would have continued it? i would think so, and i think the only reason arcane policies that were in existence were abolished because a law was put in place to do away with it. otherwise, i'm guessing they would have done whatever they pleased.

i think laws have their place in society. there are some good ones out there, and there are some ridiculous ones. but i think in the case of anti-discrimination laws, i think they are a good idea and help protect people more than they harm the sensibilities of those who don't want to deal with people they disagree with.

[Sundaymorning]

[Sundaymorning]

speaking from experience growing up in the south, yes, there are people that mean and evil that hold to racist ideology. no, it doesn't make sense. they don't make sense. but they exist. they are there. and if anti-discrimination laws went out the window, things would get very difficult for people of the non-aryan variety.

nowadays, they may not necessarily be "friendly" as in they'll walk up with a smile on their face and offer their hand for a handshake. but they know that if they try to refuse them service, it will end up costing them in penalties. as far as seating in a restaurant, that highly varies from place to place just regarding the seating arrangement itself, so it's hard to speak in general terms in that regard. some places don't have a host/hostess to seat people. waiters and waitresses aren't always out and about, and since i've not worked in the restaurant field before, i'm not sure where they go when not actively serving customers. the kitchen? maybe someone with more experience could answer that. but i don't think the set up is similar to what you're describing, at least not in the places i've been.

subtle discrimination happens, i'm sure. if i were to walk into one of the old country stores my lily-white family sometimes went to with my black fiance in tow, oh yeah we would turn heads. but the thing is, they can't refuse us service. they can't kick us out. if they even verbally berate us we can make things very difficult for them. the anti-discrimination laws don't mean that these things won't happen, it just means that there are penalties for when it does, and sometimes the threat of those penalties are enough to make people act genteel (read: like mature adults).

as far as being hired and advancing, i have no experience in that field, so i will let someone else more familiar address that. but i do believe that there are some situations where a variety of hired employees is encouraged (perhaps rewarded?).

and just to be clear, there are other places other than the south where people are like this. but, in my personal experience, it seems to be more prominent where i was from. i've lived in a variety of places, though, including georgia, minnesota (where i am again), wisconsin, pennsylvania, and ohio. only one southern state. but i've interacted with a fair number of people in these states, and on average, minnesota and wisconsin seems to be the most chill. where i was at in pennsylvania and ohio, there was still an underlying theme, you could tell. one pennsylvania town i lived in - ellwood city - actually did not allow black people to live there at all for a long time. and they kept them out with force, if need be. there still aren't very many non-aryan people living there today, but the last statistics are from 2000, which was before i moved there, so i'm sure that's fluctuated somewhat from then. in 2000, the racial makeup of the town was 98.22% white. again, i'm sure that's fluctuated in 14 years, but that's just an example of a non-southern town for you.

Thank you for your answer. That is interesting and very disturbing to read. I've thought about visiting some sothern states, but now, I'm not so sure anymore. How many of the people in the south would you estimate are true racists? Cause, I mean, idiots are everywhere, but is it a huge percentage in the south?

[Sundaymorning]

youtube.com/watch?v=SzXXvUjg8Fo

Now, since you think I have no idea about those anti-discrimination laws and how you need them, what do you think of this young, black man, who thinks anti-dicrimination laws are "stupid"?

I realize he is quite harsh. But he has some very good points.

[browncoatslytherin]

[browncoatslytherin]

Thank you for your answer. That is interesting and very disturbing to read. I've thought about visiting some sothern states, but now, I'm not so sure anymore. How many of the people in the south would you estimate are true racists? Cause, I mean, idiots are everywhere, but is it a huge percentage in the south?

in some areas, it depends. the "tourist trap" areas typically aren't bad areas that you'll see anything. they tend to whitewash anything that does exist to make it look nice for anyone visiting. there are also places in the south that are just plain more progressive than others. as far as percentages go, when it comes to this, it's hard to give a hard and fast number, or even just a guesstimate, because some places are different than others, and just because it appears more prevalent doesn't mean that all areas are affected.

and just for the record, i think there are a huge percentage of idiots everywhere. :P

[Sundaymorning]

Ding ding ding! A million gold stars to you.

Your rights are more important than everyone else's. It is called egoism, which I should be studying for my Ethics class.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I don't think I'm an egoist. I would actually profit most from all those government laws. Nowdays, since all the anti-discrimination and equal pay laws for women didn't really work, and they are still heavily underrepresented in management, some people and government officials in Europe are discussion quota laws where a business would be obliged by law to fill a certain percentage of the top management and the board of administration by women. With my education, I would probably benefit from this law. But I'm still against it. How is that egoistical for example?

I'm against those laws not because I'm an egoist, but because I want to limit government power over all. Which I'm convinced would be hugely beneficial to everybody.

Oh and, just because I'm curious, what do you think about quota laws? Do you think that businesses should be forced by law to employ a certain percentage of non-whites, women, disabled people, gays, or any other minority?

[Sundaymorning]

[browncoatslytherin]

[Sundaymorning]

[Mama Mia]

I need to get on with my day so a few points- war on drugs, pot is legal in a couple states, more states are likely to follow and are looking into it. I don't think legalizing heroine and meth are a good idea.

The right for women to choose- What would no limits or restrictions on abortion look like to you? Just curioise.

What would happen if nothing at all was done on terror?

Who cannot grow vegetables in thier front yard?

government might make it hard for some small businesses, but for some reason it has not prevented my husband from running one. There is not a lack of them in my area. I generally dislike unions , but do realize the need for them. Imagine no protection for workers. People being forced to work long hours against thier will for little pay in terrible conditions.......

What would happen to small businesses if government had no dealings in how large corporations were run?

What if farmers had no restrictions on the kinds of pesticides used, or the quality of the food produced, tainted meat- who cares right?

If you have to go look up obscure dumb laws to prove your point I don't think this is worth talking about. I guess I would like how lack of these laws would play out in your mind. Your going from one extreme to another and not looking at the shades of gray. You have one mindset, and don't seem to be considering the alternatives.

Wow, this is a really interesting conversation! I really appreciate seeing the various viewpoints. And so many perspectives I wouldn't have considered.

I am in favor of anti- discrimination laws, but do understand the libertarian approach to social issues to an extent.

I do think the War on Drugs is a really good example of government regulation being not only overbearing - but targeted at a particular group. The U.S. Does have the highest incarceration rate in the world. And the majority of those incarcerated are young black and brown people ( especially young men) on drug charges. Do young black and brown people use drugs more frequently than young white people? No. They do not. But young black and brown people tend to go to prison for it, while young white people do not, to nearly the same extent. It is vastly disproportionate.

And prison is not only a huge business - it is also a huge source of control and socio- economic regulation. The government reinforces keeping people down by having a felony conviction for drug charges being the ONLY crime that will categorically deny access to college aid and other benefits. Mass murderer, but did your time? Sure get a pell grant and rehabilitate! Got busted for using? -- sorry, get the fuck out. So you have young people with records, with minimal chance to now get a job or education....so what are they going to do? Why sell drugs of course! And selling drugs is a very rough trade, so then you get all the assorted violence and dysfunction that goes with that.

So you have government regulation that is aimed at what most would consider a good idea: stopping people from ruining their own and their families lives by being addicts.

On the surface that sounds good. But in implementation it has been horribly, horribly bad.

At least that's what I got out of what Sundaymornings was saying.

On the stupid over-reaching laws: I have never been allowed to hang my laundry outside. Everyplace I've lived has regulations against this. The apartment complexes are allowed to make these regulations because the law allows them to control whatever they want. Now this seems like a stupid tiny thing. But, it means people need to use more energy than needed, and it means that you either need a clothes dryer, or go to the laundromat to dry and add that to your budget. Or find a way to hang up wet clothes to dry inside your crowded apartment. And I would be willing to bet that there are millions of families with the same regulations. That adds up.

Anyway. Just an observation. I don't agree with getting rid of anti discrimination laws, but think the discussion on when is government intervention helpful or harmful really interesting.

And I really learned a lot from FormerGothardites post describing how difficult it would be in rural areas, with limited stores. I hadn't thought about the impact of that before.

[browncoatslytherin]

[Sundaymorning]

[browncoatslytherin]

That is highly interesting. So, you are for the freedom of speech, but against the freedom to chose with who you want to do business with? I actually think hate speech is way worse and more dangerous and harmful than just saying to someone: Sorry, but i don't want to bake you a cake. Hate speech, even if you don't threaten immediate harm against others, is one of the main reasons things like racism and homophobia still exist.

And you are completely right, there are a lot of other possible consequences other than fines and jail time for hate speech. But at the same time, I think that is the same case with racist or homophobic store owners.

thing is, people are going to think however they want. in private, they will say what they want. in public...legally they can say what they want, though they may not be safe from certain consequences for it. saying they can't isn't going to affect their beliefs and make racism and homophobia disappear.

what i believe in, is in public, everyone should try to act like a mature adult. saying to someone "i don't want to bake you a cake because i disagree with your ideology" to me is pretty petty and childish. you're running a business, and if your business offers such a service, the ideology of your customers should not affect your ability to serve them. the general idea i believe in is that people should be able to professionally interact with others regardless of their background, race, ideology, or any other factors that make them different.

of course, not everyone is a mature adult about things. they like to whine and bitch and moan because they want something this way and why can't they have it. they don't want to wait. they want it now. they want to be accommodated. working in customer service, i know this quite well. and this whiny, bitchy, entitled attitude, for some, leaks over into "i don't want to bake them a wedding cake because they're gay and i believe that's wrong and i shouldn't be forced to because i'm a christian" when, in actuality, if you offer wedding cakes, the relationship is irrelevant. you are offering a service, and someone else is offering payment in return for that service, which is what you are presumably in business for. we need to learn to be able to interact with people in a professional manner and "play nice" despite our differences, because that is what civilized people should be expected to do.

sad that playground lessons don't carry over into adulthood. like i said, some adults aren't mature about things, so that's where certain laws come into play, like anti-discrimination laws, and that's why i support them. the people who aren't idiots and can be mature adults about things aren't affected by it in any way, as they will continue to act the same way. but the people who will lash out and abuse and harm others if they aren't in place are deterred because of the penalties.

[Sundaymorning]

Also, as I think about it, its intersting how different countries consider different kinds of hateful behaviour ban-worthy. In some US states, it's refusing to serve a gay couple with a wedding cake. Where I live, nobody has to bake gay people a wedding cake (and there even aren't any gay weddings unfortunately).

But, PPs movies about the Jews and a lot of his sermons would be banned and would cause a huge! public outrage. He would probably getting sued on a daily basis. In the US, his hatered is covered by the right to free speech.

I guess it depends on the country and its history and traumatas which horrible kind of behaviour is actually banned and which is tolerated by the law.

[Sundaymorning]

thing is, people are going to think however they want. in private, they will say what they want. in public...legally they can say what they want, though they may not be safe from certain consequences for it. saying they can't isn't going to affect their beliefs and make racism and homophobia disappear.

what i believe in, is in public, everyone should try to act like a mature adult. saying to someone "i don't want to bake you a cake because i disagree with your ideology" to me is pretty petty and childish. you're running a business, and if your business offers such a service, the ideology of your customers should not affect your ability to serve them. the general idea i believe in is that people should be able to professionally interact with others regardless of their background, race, ideology, or any other factors that make them different.

of course, not everyone is a mature adult about things. they like to whine and bitch and moan because they want something this way and why can't they have it. they don't want to wait. they want it now. they want to be accommodated. working in customer service, i know this quite well. and this whiny, bitchy, entitled attitude, for some, leaks over into "i don't want to bake them a wedding cake because they're gay and i believe that's wrong and i shouldn't be forced to because i'm a christian" when, in actuality, if you offer wedding cakes, the relationship is irrelevant. you are offering a service, and someone else is offering payment in return for that service, which is what you are presumably in business for. we need to learn to be able to interact with people in a professional manner and "play nice" despite our differences, because that is what civilized people should be expected to do.

sad that playground lessons don't carry over into adulthood. like i said, some adults aren't mature about things, so that's where certain laws come into play, like anti-discrimination laws, and that's why i support them. the people who aren't idiots and can be mature adults about things aren't affected by it in any way, as they will continue to act the same way. but the people who will lash out and abuse and harm others if they aren't in place are deterred because of the penalties.

But considering your argument about people behaving like mature adults: if they have to behave like mature adults in their own private store, it would be just as logical to legally expect them to behave like mature adults whenever they are in a public place. If you can force homophobic bakers to bake cakes, or force racist store owners to serve non-white people, you should also be able to prohibit westboro baptist church from picketing funerals and yelling hate speech at people.

And yes, I think hate speech in public and stupid movies like PPs are more dangerous than racist or homophobic store owners.

[Firiel]

Also, as I think about it, its intersting how different countries consider different kinds of hateful behaviour ban-worthy. In some US states, it's refusing to serve a gay couple with a wedding cake. Where I live, nobody has to bake gay people a wedding cake (and there even aren't any gay weddings unfortunately).

But, PPs movies about the Jews and a lot of his sermons would be banned and would cause a huge! public outrage. He would probably getting sued on a daily basis. In the US, his hatered is covered by the right to free speech.

I guess it depends on the country and its history and traumatas which horrible kind of behaviour is actually banned and which is tolerated by the law.

You know, that is really interesting.

As an American, I have an immediate impulse to defend free speech. I was raised with free speech being one of those inalienable human rights, and it's only been recently that I've realized that other perfectly functional governments don't promise that right, or at least don't include hate speech in that right.

I do agree that hate speech is often more overtly aggressive than refusing service to someone, but in general, hate speech doesn't affect the other person in a tangible/economic way like not serving someone would (think of formergothardite's anecdote about her Muslim friends above). Intangible/emotional harm is still done, though.

[Sundaymorning]

You know, that is really interesting.

As an American, I have an immediate impulse to defend free speech. I was raised with free speech being one of those inalienable human rights, and it's only been recently that I've realized that other perfectly functional governments don't promise that right, or at least don't include hate speech in that right.

I do agree that hate speech is often more overtly aggressive than refusing service to someone, but in general, hate speech doesn't affect the other person in a tangible/economic way like not serving someone would (think of formergothardite's anecdote about her Muslim friends above). Intangible/emotional harm is still done, though.

I think these are just different mentalities, and it has nothing to do with someone being racist or homophobe. If someone thinks PPs sermons and movies shouldn't be banned. But around here, many people would actually tell you, if you think PP should be able to post this stuff on youtube, you are some racist and homophobe jerk.

I have to admit, I feel much more comfortable with banning hate speech than with forcing businesses to serve people they don't want to. I've been raised that way, while others feel its horrible to ban free speech, even if they hate what some people do with that right. That doesn't mean I would definitely ban it, since its againt my principles that government should restrict peoples behaviour as long as they don't hurt others. But I can justify it being banned in public places, as the public is an area which is usually kept up by taxpayers money. Even if you say that with hate speech, no economical harm is done, I think emotional harm is just as bad. And also, hate speech, even if it doesn't cleary say people should kill or hurt someone, still breeds hatered and violence I think its incredibly dangerous.

It really seems to depend on the country. Around here, we had the nazis and the holocaust. Hence anti-Semitic speech and nazi signs are strictly banned. Around here, the swastika symbol is banned, in the US, I think its legal. You had the segregation, hence, not serving black people is banned.

[browncoatslytherin]

But considering your argument about people behaving like mature adults: if they have to behave like mature adults in their own private store, it would be just as logical to legally expect them to behave like mature adults whenever they are in a public place. If you can force homophobic bakers to bake cakes, or force racist store owners to serve non-white people, you should also be able to prohibit westboro baptist church from picketing funerals and yelling hate speech at people.

And yes, I think hate speech in public and stupid movies like PPs are more dangerous than racist or homophobic store owners.

the difference is, though, that with the baker situation, there is a service or good being provided. it's a business. with hate speech protests and things of that nature, while it's offensive and serves no purpose, there's no business type of transaction going on. no goods are being offered in exchange for something of monetary value. people are existing. stupid people, yes, people with outdated thinking and offensive ideology, yes. but they are just there. and until someone can come up with an effective way of deterring hate speech without inhibiting other forms of free speech that are not hateful, i don't see a way to do so. if there was, i would support it, but as it stands, attempts to deter hate speech have far-reaching consequences that affect speech in general.

[Sundaymorning]

the difference is, though, that with the baker situation, there is a service or good being provided. it's a business. with hate speech protests and things of that nature, while it's offensive and serves no purpose, there's no business type of transaction going on. no goods are being offered in exchange for something of monetary value. people are existing. stupid people, yes, people with outdated thinking and offensive ideology, yes. but they are just there. and until someone can come up with an effective way of deterring hate speech without inhibiting other forms of free speech that are not hateful, i don't see a way to do so. if there was, i would support it, but as it stands, attempts to deter hate speech have far-reaching consequences that affect speech in general.

I can give you an example of German law, since its very detailed at this matter. Isn't surprising if you look at the nations history.

gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1200

Section 130

Incitement to hatred

(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whosoever

1. with respect to written materials (section 11(3)) which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterised by its ethnic customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group

(a) disseminates such written materials;

(b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;

© offers, supplies or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or

(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of Nos (a) to © or facilitate such use by another; or

2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in No 1 above by radio, media services, or telecommunication services

shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

(4) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying, or justifying National Socialist rule of arbitrary force shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(5) Subsection (2) above shall also apply to written materials (section 11(3)) of a content such as is indicated in subsections (3) and (4) above.

(6) In cases under subsection (2) above, also in conjunction with subsection (5) above, and in cases of subsections (3) and (4) above, section 86(3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.

What I'm trying to show here that different people have differnt view points that are also shaped by which country they live in. Some things which would cause a huge outrage and a criminal procedure around here, are considered covered by the right of free speech in other countries. On the other hand, if a gay couple would go complaining that a baker refused to bake them a cake, people would just tell them that it's his right to refuse such a thing.