ofrm1 said:
It has nothing to do with what is harsher on the bigots. It has to do with protecting the rights of minorities in a liberal society. If Chick Fil A at some point decided to refuse service to gays and there was no law preventing them from doing so, they would not fold. There would be a mass of people that would support the resturaunt out of principle. The same goes with minorities. This is why principles that guide one's action must be universal principles, like the categorical imperative. Otherwise there will be cases where your principles cannot apply, so you must abandon them, which defeats the purpose of having principles if you abandon them at the drop of a hat. |
There are no laws in many states preventing Chic Fil A from not providing service to gay people, yet they still provide services to gay people in those states. Why? Because they know if they didn't they'd lose a lot of revenue and their competitors would gain market power. A company doesn't have to fold for its owner/owners to be hurt by poor choices. Large companies like Chic Fil A aren't in the business of losing customers or forcing people from buying their food. They are in the business to make money and gain market power. Discrimination was only so debilitating in the southern states because the southern states forced everyone to do it, making it cheaper and less harmful for the people who wanted to do it and much more harmful for those who didn't want to do it.
