It's Simple: Searching For Fairness Should Not Harm Or Bankrupt Another

I keep hearing people defend the notion that if a business does not, say, bake a cake for a gay customer, it's acceptable to sue. It matters little or not if it results in bankruptcy.

It never is correct to do so. 

Not baking a cake should not result in bankruptcy. The punishment simply does not fit the crime. It's a grotesque version of justice.

It's important to distinguish something here. That I find it outrageous a citizen has that kind of power doesn't mean I condone the actions of the business. I don't believe one set of citizens should ever have access to power above another. For example, here in Quebec a person can levy a complaint to the language office which in turn can lead to a fine to another citizen for speaking a language other than French. The law or regulation creates two-classes of citizens with one holding the ultimate advantage.

This is not justice or fair under any definition no matter what Quebec intellectuals argue to justify it. In the end, when thought to its logical end, it's 'well, we are the majority, so too bad'.

I can't stress it enough on this blog. A society must eternally protect and preserve the sanctity of freedom of speech and expression for all - even those we don't agree with. If not, said society abandons its right to claim liberty.

Regarding demanding cakes be baked for gays, I consider the wider implication of judges handing out sentences that effectively suspend or put a permanent end to small business operations.

In the case of gay couple who sue a small business under the guise of 'fairness' strikes me more as vindictive and the state or laws, as mentioned, should not give power to such retaliation. Moreover, if driven by principles that is offset by the result - that is bankruptcy.

Those who support this, accept a form of Puritanism driven by the irrational fear that somewhere a small business will be able to make business decisions they disagree with thus accepting a government agency stepping in to essentially take part in an of revenge.

I understand a business shouldn't discriminate but it's one thing to protest its practices and quite another to actively seek to destroy with the aid of the state in my view. There has to be better options - and there are. First among them, is to move on to another place of business.

Again, to cite Quebec's handling of language policies, the Montreal Canadiens, for example, have a hiring practice that will not consider candidates who don't speak French. To me, this is a form of discrimination but it's tolerated for some reason and one may argue at the expense of the organization's sole objective: Winning.

True it doesn't impact me personally but I wouldn't seek to destroy hockey operations because of it. Instead, I as my own moral agent I choose to not support the team emotionally or financially.

I suppose I can feign moral outrage and make an issue of it but I also understand this is just  my personal view. If I had the power to take down the club I would be a pariah to an entire community (loss of jobs, a team of significance to a city etc.) and for what? I'll exercise my protest privately.

I see the bake me a cake or else travesty in a similar vain except the potential for destroying a business is more direct. Remember, it's irrelevant if you think 'they deserve it'. Everyone thinks someone 'deserves' their comeuppance all the time through all walks of life all over the world every single moment either through action or karma.

The degree of triviality, I suppose, is what determines if you think you should proceed with a lawsuit.

I don't see how rewarding people with large settlements forcing a business to close its doors (think of the unseen implication of this and its impact on families, employees and community at large) is sound law or justice.

They could have gone to the news, bring light on the issue (which is appropriate) and let the market determine if a business with prejudicial practices succeeds. That's an 'organic' form of justice I consider legitimate and one I possibly would support.

We are all our own moral agents and they had a choice to go elsewhere. Instead, they chose to exercise the full power of state coercion to destroy a business and a family while depriving others of a service they may like.

This is not justice.

It's vengeful retaliation.