The non-PC PC Thread

[Ginger]

The case of the baker and the gay wedding cake issue was settled correctly IMO as you can not force someone to do business with someone they don't want to do business with.

You can, actually, in the States, under the doctrine of "public accomodation", which holds that the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging a healthy economy, and that denying certain people the right to participate in economically essential activities threatens that interest. That arose from the railroads attempting to stifle long-distance trucking in the 1920s, which they correctly saw as a dangerous competitor. The railroads had been built through the empty spaces of the Great Plains and the Desert, at great expense (and with government grants), and formed settled strips in the wilderness, with hotels, restaurants, and gas stations in the depot towns, often the only ones for miles. The railroads tried to limit use of these businesses (generally built on railroad-owned land) to farmers hauling produce and freight to and from the depot, shutting out long distance truckers. The Supreme Court struck that right down, in the process framing the doctrine that you cannot arbitrarily prevent people from doing business necessary to conduct business of their own (e.g., buy gasoline, or stay in the hotel).

In the decades afterward, particularly under the Warren court, that was used to cover pretty much every "civil rights" issue, including the right of negroes to go to the movie theatre, eat in the ice cream parlour, and play golf, none of which (ignoring all issues of fairness) seems economically necessary to me. I was shocked by the verdict, and I struggle to see the least bit of difference between this case and those. There's no doubt in my mind that the Warren Court misapplied a narrow doctrine, but are we now going to revist those other cases, and decide them by the new (and arguably original) standard?

[Svensson]

You can, actually, in the States, under the doctrine of "public accomodation", which holds that the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging a healthy economy, and that denying certain people the right to participate in economically essential activities threatens that interest. That arose from the railroads attempting to stifle long-distance trucking in the 1920s, which they correctly saw as a dangerous competitor. The railroads had been built through the empty spaces of the Great Plains and the Desert, at great expense (and with government grants), and formed settled strips in the wilderness, with hotels, restaurants, and gas stations in the depot towns, often the only ones for miles. The railroads tried to limit use of these businesses (generally built on railroad-owned land) to farmers hauling produce and freight to and from the depot, shutting out long distance truckers. The Supreme Court struck that right down, in the process framing the doctrine that you cannot arbitrarily prevent people from doing business necessary to conduct business of their own (e.g., buy gasoline, or stay in the hotel).

In the decades afterward, particularly under the Warren court, that was used to cover pretty much every "civil rights" issue, including the right of negroes to go to the movie theatre, eat in the ice cream parlour, and play golf, none of which (ignoring all issues of fairness) seems economically necessary to me. I was shocked by the verdict, and I struggle to see the least bit of difference between this case and those. There's no doubt in my mind that the Warren Court misapplied a narrow doctrine, but are we now going to revist those other cases, and decide them by the new (and arguably original) standard?

Yes, good examples of how the government had to intervene on behalf of the customers of potential customers. I have no legal argument for this, just a gut feeling, but I think that both issues were about inherently unfair business practices rather than about the merit of refusing an individual transaction. I think the argument can be made that unfair business practices are against the public interest or public accommodation. Maybe the wedding cake case would have been different had the baker put a sign into his shop-window saying "we don't serve gays" or to that effect...