mrswdk wrote:Hurr, freedom.
So if Walmart put in place a policy saying staff are not allowed to refuse service to gay customers, is that bad because it has just reduced the autonomy of the individual sales clerk?
Pretty sure your answer to that is going to be 'it's a private company so it can enforce whatever policy it likes', which then brings us to the same question I just asked Duk: why is it okay for a private company to force its employees to serve gay customers, but its not okay for the government to force its citizens to serve gay customers?
The employee doesn't own the store. Similarly, if you enter my home you can't start moving the furniture around. As an employee they perform services for their employer and are compensated, which may include serving some persons they disagree with.
mrswdk wrote:You still haven't really said why 'freedom' means that morally it is desirable for a government to allow its citizens to discriminate against people they don't like. Does 'freedom' also mean governments should allow its citizens to assault people they don't like?
It's a particularly confusing stance when at the same time you state that, morally, governments should prohibit their own employees from discriminating against anyone. Why is it okay for Apple or Google to refuse to hire black web developers but not okay for the Department of Education to do the same thing?
That argument doesn't follow. In fact, you're suffering a breakdown of logic. The u.s. constitution is written with the concepts of classical liberalism in mind: that the rights of an individual cannot be infringed simply because one is outnumbered by the many. Assault violates a person's right to life, therefore is illegal. Shopping for a cake at one store is not a positive right, and refusing service does not violate a right. The truly liberal philosophy here is to allow private individuals, who are separate from a governing body, the right of refusal of service.
To flip your argument, should all stores be forced to serve any customer? Should the shirtless, shoeless bum be served against the owner's will? Must the swank country club allow xtratabasco into their membership? How do you negotiate your argument that citizens must treat each other equally (what a crock) any time a community or group is involved? There always will come a point where the dividing line of us/them, i/they arises.
Now i can see your argument applied to essential services like medical treatment, i.e. one can't be refused emergency treatment. Frankly it's difficult to marry that into business rights.
-TG