In a truly free and diverse society, a business owner would be allowed to conduct business with those of his own choosing - the principle of "freedom of contract", which is further described below.
In the case of the bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and the photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding, it is possible that a case could be made for harm IF there were no other bakeries or photographers available to perform these services. In both cases the businesses were intentionally sought out because the gay parties knew they would refuse to do business with them. There were plenty of other businesses willing and able to perform the requested services, therefore the gay parties were not harmed in any way.
The only entities truly harmed were the businesses who lost revenue because of their beliefs. However this financial loss was one they were willing to incur.
"Classical contract theory rests upon three fundamental propositions. First, the exercise of freedom of contract between equal parties in markets of perfect competition is the key to individual welfare and the common good. Freedom of contract is defined as the power to decide whether to contract and to establish the terms of the bargain. "We have been proud of our 'freedom of contract,' confident that the maximum of social progress will result from encouragement of each man's initiative and ambition by giving him the right to use his economic power to the full. Second, enforcement of bargains as made protects the reasonable expectations of the parties that promises will be performed and contributes to certainty and stability in the marketplace. "It is a presupposition of the whole economic order that promises will be kept. Indeed, the whole matter goes deeper. The social order rests upon stability and predictability of conduct, of which keeping promises is a large item."'Thus, the bargain contract is the manifestation of liberty in the marketplace and the vehicle to facilitate the most efficient allocation of resources in the economic order. "Contract thus became the indispensable instrument of the enterpriser, enabling him to go about his affairs in a rational way." Finally, state action "is an evil, for it can only have for its object the regulation of the exercise of rights, and to regulate the exercise of a right is inevitably to limit it." Accordingly, it is the duty of government to exercise restraint and to protect the right of the individual to contract freely."
Originally Posted by Wheretonow
Now let's assume "religion" has no bearing on this controversy. Then can you explain how this Oregon bakery and Elane Photography could have lawfully refused business dealings with gays, lesbians, and any particular ethnic gruop they cared to single out? By openly doing businesses with the general public, they are legally obligated to enter contractual relations with willing patrons capable of fulfilling the terms and conditions of the said pact, so long as the contractual acts are not prohibited by the laws. Would you please explain how gays and lesbians are less capable of holding their end of the bargains than others, Professor?
Now please follow me closely on this one: A wrongdoing is a wrongdoing, the end result won't alter its nature at all. If a burglar broke into a residence and got himself shot by the homeowner acting in self-defense, the fact still is that he broke the law, even if he was the only one who suffered the "harm" by his own wrongdoing. And you ought to know how the rest goes....
State action, according to you, is evil. But you somehow concede it's a necessary evil. The Solution? Think about the use/abuse of the deadly force by the police, we can't eliminate its occurance, but we surely can do something to curb its abuse....
