The term "discrimination" has a negative connotation (for good reason); however, not all forms of discrimination (from a denotative perspective) are negative. Let us presuppose that not all forms of discrimination are negative despite the prevalence of its negative connotation. I'm trying to use a broader more palatable use of the term.
Underlying my thought pattern is a distinction (a general distinction) between what we might dub as people discrimination and product discrimination.
On the "people discrimination" front, suppose you adopt a rule that says something to the effect that if you're willing to do for one, you're willing to do for all, and if you're not willing to do for one, you'll do for none. For instance, if I sell Pepsi (actual Pepsi--not the alternative naked example), then no matter who from a protected group comes to purchase a Pepsi, I'll serve them or else serve no one.
I am still being discrimatory, but it's not people discrimination but rather product discrimination. Whether my reasoning is based in bias or bigotry doesn't alter that. If I won't sell figurines depicting two guys holding hands, that might very well be based on homophobia, but the distinction still holds. If I'm willing to sell figurines depicting only men and women holding hands, then despite homophobia, I must be willing to sell figurines depicting men and women holding hands to anyone who wants to purchase them.
If someone accuses me of being discrimatory, they're right, and if they say its based on homophobia, they may very well still be right, but so long as I don't turn away homosexuals willing to buy what it is that I'm only willing to sell, then I should not be found guilty of both kinds of discrimation.
Now, if a person wants me to photograph them naked, and if it's not a service that I provide, then naked people are welcome to come see me, but since it's not a service I provide (as I'm only in the business of photographing clothed people) they're application won't even be accepted.
Only accepted applications will be approved or rejected. This particular point has more to do with what I originally said to which you responded to than your question that I addressed in this post prior to this paragraph.
Imagine three people using a bow and arrow trying to hit a target. Some try and succeed while others try and fail. A little boy walks up with no bow and arrow and says, did I miss the target? One says, "you didn't hit the target, so you missed the target." In this instance, although it's true that he didn't hit the target, it's not true that he missed the target.
If a gay couple won't be served because of time constraints, they aren't being refused service even though they are not being serviced. The point here is just to expound on the idea that words we use have implications. Juma spoke of "denying service." Denying service implies not providing service, but the inverse is not true--kind of like how knowledge implies belief but not the other way around.
In this case, however, the service for sale was custom wedding cakes. The baker was accustomed to making custom wedding cakes. His skill is not uniquely suited or targeted to only certain and specific customers, like a female clothing store, a male clothing store, or an athletic apparel store, etcetera.
The baker discriminated, in part, based on the protected characteristic of the customers, right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The baker would gladly sell a custom cake to the customer he is predjudice against--but not just any custom cake.
Let's take another example to further illustrate: retail shop A and retail shop B
Owners of both retail shops dislike blacks. Both refuse to sell figurines depicting a black Santa.
Owner A will sell figurines depicting white Santas to both whites and blacks.
Owner B will sell figurines depicting white Santas to only whites.
The baker is predjudice and therefore won't sell certain things, but whatever he's willing to sell to one, he's willing to sell to all.
Your counter argument is that I'm mistaken since he claims to be in the business of selling custom cakes yet refuses to sell one to the customer he has a problem with. The problem is that even though it's true that he's in the business of selling custom cakes, he's not willing to sell just any ole custom cake regardless of who you are. He's not going to sell homo-themed cakes to straights either--for instance if a straight person wanted to buy it for his homosexual friend.
I'm not denying that it's predjudicial. I'm just pointing out a distinction that lies between the product and the people. We need to have laws that protect us from people like owner B who decide not to sell anything to members of a particular protected group. How further we will go to protect customers from those that are predjudicial is another matter.
If I find homosexuals to be devients of society, I must still sell to them if I sell to others; however, its questionable that I must also sell what I don't want to sell. The baker wants to sell custom wedding cakes, but he doesn't want to be associated with selling to homosexuals, but if he wants to remain in business, he has no choice, so he has made the choice to sell custom cakes he deems appropriate, and no matter how predjudiced he might be in his selection of how his custom cakes are, he must be willing to sell those very same cakes to anyone that might cross his path, so long as they're protected by law.
At any rate, it's a distinction, for what it's worth.
