Question For @davidallen

[Ponca Dan]

This is a philosophical question, based on a real event, but not looking at the specific, but rather what you think is the moral thing for the government of a free society to enforce by threat of violence.

In your opinion should a baker be required by law to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Forget what the law is or what the government is requiring. I want to know if you think a gay couple has a moral right to use the police power of the state to force a baker to work for them.

Do you see a difference in a baker setting standards on who he will work for and a restaurant putting up a sign that says “No shoes, no shirt, no service,” thus establishing the parameters on who it will serve?

Oh, I almost forgot to add: if a gay couple has the right to force a baker to bake them a wedding cake, would the baker have a corresponding right to require the gay couple to buy their wedding cake from him even if they wanted to use someone else?

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

What if the baker knows the guy is into golden showers, scat, or bestiality? Should the baker be required to sell him a box of cookies or donuts, much less bake him a wedding cake?

 

[iasooner2000]

Good question for sc@david; he won’t even have to fire up the server

 

[OUSOONER67]

He won't screw the top off a bottle of wine unless the topic or question is about Racism or The Culture War.
Perhaps the OP's question might be more Syssie's area of expertise.

 

[davidallen]

This is a philosophical question, based on a real event, but not looking at the specific, but rather what you think is the moral thing for the government of a free society to enforce by threat of violence.

In your opinion should a baker be required by law to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? Forget what the law is or what the government is requiring. I want to know if you think a gay couple has a moral right to use the police power of the state to force a baker to work for them.

Do you see a difference in a baker setting standards on who he will work for and a restaurant putting up a sign that says “No shoes, no shirt, no service,” thus establishing the parameters on who it will serve?

Oh, I almost forgot to add: if a gay couple has the right to force a baker to bake them a wedding cake, would the baker have a corresponding right to require the gay couple to buy their wedding cake from him even if they wanted to use someone else?

Dan, congrats on asking a reasonable question in a reasonable way. My take on this is pretty straightforward and probably unsatisfying.

If the baker has cakes in the window advertised for sale then the baker has no justifiable reason to deny the sale of the item except for established norms (i.e. pay in US currency or via typical electronic means, generally applicable codes of conduct like shirts and shoes in the store, etc).

If the item is a customized effort, i.e. requires entering into a contract for the scope of effort and remuneration, then the baker is free to choose who they want to work with and who they do not without interference. Of course, if the baker declines to accept a commission for a reason that their larger clientele might find offensive, they risk losing business, but ostensibly they take that into account when they make these types of decisions.

Where this gets a bit wonky is if the product is complete sans customization like adding a phrase to an already baked cake. Personally, I'll find someone who doesn't mind scribing "Go Pokes" over a whiny little goon who is offended by words.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Dan, congrats on asking a reasonable question in a reasonable way. My take on this is pretty straightforward and probably unsatisfying.

If the baker has cakes in the window advertised for sale then the baker has no justifiable reason to deny the sale of the item except for established norms (i.e. pay in US currency or via typical electronic means, generally applicable codes of conduct like shirts and shoes in the store, etc).

If the item is a customized effort, i.e. requires entering into a contract for the scope of effort and remuneration, then the baker is free to choose who they want to work with and who they do not without interference. Of course, if the baker declines to accept a commission for a reason that their larger clientele might find offensive, they risk losing business, but ostensibly they take that into account when they make these types of decisions.

Where this gets a bit wonky is if the product is complete sans customization like adding a phrase to an already baked cake. Personally, I'll find someone who doesn't mind scribing "Go Pokes" over a whiny little goon who is offended by words.

Why would you think your reply is unsatisfactory? That is hands down the most rational common sense thing you have written on this board. I give it two thumbs up, and a solid 10 on a scale of 1-10. I knew there was a long-suppressed element of libertarian in you somewhere! You should encourage the little fellow to come out into the open more often!

 

[davidallen]

Why would you think your reply is unsatisfactory?

Because it is an easy answer to an easy scenario. Ask this in the context of an ER doc who is asked to perform an abortion to save a mother's life. What is your take in that scenario?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Because it is an easy answer to an easy scenario. Ask this in the context of an ER doc who is asked to perform an abortion to save a mother's life. What is your take in that scenario?

My take remains the same: it’s up to the provider of a service, in this case perform an abortion, to choose whether to provide the service or not. Just like the baker he will have to weigh the potential social and financial costs against his conscience. From a strictly philosophical standpoint the answer remains as easy as before.

 

[davidallen]

My take remains the same: it’s up to the provider of a service, in this case perform an abortion, to choose whether to provide the service or not. Just like the baker he will have to weigh the potential social and financial costs against his conscience. From a strictly philosophical standpoint the answer remains as easy as before.

I won't pretend the consequences of baking a cake and an emergency abortion are the same. Even from a philosophical standpoint.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I won't pretend the consequences of baking a cake and an emergency abortion are the same. Even from a philosophical standpoint.

Then you will be in philosophical error. Consequences are immaterial to a philosophical principle. A philosophical
principle is an irreducible primary. It either applies or it does not. A baker has a right to work for whomever he chooses, or he does not. The same applies to the potential abortionist.

That’s not to say denying the abortion should be done without social and/or financial condemnation. IMO it should be condemned. But, assuming we are talking about a free society the doctor must be free to exercise his free will and his conscience without interference from an outside source. If the principle calls for freedom for one to choose whomever one wants to provide a service, then it by necessity must be universal. Therefore the principle applies to the doctor with the same moral force as the baker.

 

[davidallen]

Then you will be in philosophical error. Consequences are immaterial to a philosophical principle. A philosophical
principle is an irreducible primary. It either applies or it does not. A baker has a right to work for whomever he chooses, or he does not. The same applies to the potential abortionist.

That’s not to say denying the abortion should be done without social and/or financial condemnation. IMO it should be condemned. But, assuming we are talking about a free society the doctor must be free to exercise his free will and his conscience without interference from an outside source. If the principle calls for freedom for one to choose whomever one wants to provide a service, then it by necessity must be universal. Therefore the principle applies to the doctor with the same moral force as the baker.

And this is the crux of the matter. A cake is not a baby. The ethical standards of the baking profession and medicine are quite different. The legal implications of a woman's death and someone not getting a custom cake are not equivalent. We could go on, but the absurdity of your position is sufficiently exposed that I see no need to.

 

[Ponca Dan]

And this is the crux of the matter. A cake is not a baby. The ethical standards of the baking profession and medicine are quite different. The legal implications of a woman's death and someone not getting a custom cake are not equivalent. We could go on, but the absurdity of your position is sufficiently exposed that I see no need to.

You are wanting to add addendums to the principle. That is fine under personal moral requirements, but it is voodoo as a political requirement. It’s the “exceptions” to applying a principle that always distort the principle. You and I can agree that the surgeon is under absolute personal moral requirement to help the victim, But there are other gray areas that have not been introduced where we will disagree, and that’s where it becomes a battle royale over which one of us can gain control of the situation and everything becomes contextual. My opinion is anything but absurd. Cleaving to my opinion is how a free society can operate with fewer conflicts.

 

[davidallen]

You are wanting to add addendums to the principle. That is fine under personal moral requirements, but it is voodoo as a political requirement. It’s the “exceptions” to applying a principle that always distort the principle. You and I can agree that the surgeon is under absolute personal moral requirement to help the victim, But there are other gray areas that have not been introduced where we will disagree, and that’s where it becomes a battle royale over which one of us can gain control of the situation and everything becomes contextual. My opinion is anything but absurd. Cleaving to my opinion is how a free society can operate with fewer conflicts.

I am not adding addendums, rather I am operating from a different frame of reference.

From my readings (my undergraduate degree is in Philosophy) the libertarian view holds that there is no valid preemption of individual choice. You and I discussed this concept in a thread about drunk driving. As I recall it, you took the position that drunk driving checks are a usurpation of your rights. As I recall, your stance was that the state has no valid reason to preemptively check a citizen's inebriation status, rather they would only have a duty/opportunity to intervene AFTER an accident in which case the drunk driver would be accountable for the damage done. Do I have that point correct? Does that position align with your beliefs?

 

[davidallen]

I am not adding addendums, rather I am operating from a different frame of reference.

From my readings (my undergraduate degree is in Philosophy) the libertarian view holds that there is no valid preemption of individual choice. You and I discussed this concept in a thread about drunk driving. As I recall it, you took the position that drunk driving checks are a usurpation of your rights. As I recall, your stance was that the state has no valid reason to preemptively check a citizen's inebriation status, rather they would only have a duty/opportunity to intervene AFTER an accident in which case the drunk driver would be accountable for the damage done. Do I have that point correct? Does that position align with your beliefs?

Do you wear your seatbelt @Ponca Dan ?

 

[Syskatine]

@Ponca Dan are you against nuclear regulation and federal air traffic control? How about wireless spectrum regulation?

 

[Ponca Dan]

I am not adding addendums, rather I am operating from a different frame of reference.

From my readings (my undergraduate degree is in Philosophy) the libertarian view holds that there is no valid preemption of individual choice. You and I discussed this concept in a thread about drunk driving. As I recall it, you took the position that drunk driving checks are a usurpation of your rights. As I recall, your stance was that the state has no valid reason to preemptively check a citizen's inebriation status, rather they would only have a duty/opportunity to intervene AFTER an accident in which case the drunk driver would be accountable for the damage done. Do I have that point correct? Does that position align with your beliefs?

Yes

 

[Ponca Dan]

Do you wear your seatbelt @Ponca Dan ?

Yes

 

[Ponca Dan]

@Ponca Dan are you against nuclear regulation and federal air traffic control? How about wireless spectrum regulation?

Yes

 

[davidallen]

Yes

Good to know. Hope you never have to test the efficacy of that seat belt, or the airbags, or the interior trunk release, et al.

Back to our theoretical baker for a moment. What I proposed, and you applauded, was a compromise position whereby the over-the-counter sale was not at the choice of the baker but the commissioned work was. I would suggest to you that this is probably the least of the compromises the baker has had to make in establishing her shop. The baker likely was required to get a business permit, to carry liability insurance, to suffer inspections for health and safety, to train their employees according to the mandates of the state. I would suppose there are similar requirements for plumbers, electricians, and others.

Do you accept this yielding of rights? Is this compliance with the norms of society consistent with libertarianism as you understand it?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Good to know. Hope you never have to test the efficacy of that seat belt, or the airbags, or the interior trunk release, et al.

Back to our theoretical baker for a moment. What I proposed, and you applauded, was a compromise position whereby the over-the-counter sale was not at the choice of the baker but the commissioned work was. I would suggest to you that this is probably the least of the compromises the baker has had to make in establishing her shop. The baker likely was required to get a business permit, to carry liability insurance, to suffer inspections for health and safety, to train their employees according to the mandates of the state. I would suppose there are similar requirements for plumbers, electricians, and others.

Do you accept this yielding of rights? Is this compliance with the norms of society consistent with libertarianism as you understand it?

There is probably a "wing" of libertarianism, the minarchists, who accept those requirements, or at least some of them, as necessary. I'm from the anarchist wing, so, no, I don't accept them as morally appropriate. It is baffling to me how anyone cannot see that a free society would be perfectly capable "imposing" requirements on individuals and businesses, often with the same intent as currently exists, with the difference being bakers and buyers, for example, would understand they are responsible for their own choices and their own protections. Human nature is a strange phenomenon. On the one hand we plead to have someone protect us from perceived outside dangers, while simultaneously chaffing at having someone tell us what to do. I think it's that contradiction in human nature that gives government the window of opportunity to burrow into society. Government agents expose - or make up - outside dangers and insist they know how to offer protection. Look at the adoration so many Trump supporters have for the man. They have been convinced he is about the only thing standing between the good life and the perdition of the American hating socialist Democrats. I don't know if human nature will ever evolve beyond its current condition, governments have been around for a long time. My anarchism is philosophical. I do not argue against society having standards of conduct for individuals or businesses, but that a free society would be just as capable of concocting those standards as a top-down edict from a government agent that threatens violence against any dissent.