Isn't the defining distinction between mob rule, and democracy the protection of the minority from the majority? In a democracy, the majority can't just vote minorities into second class citizenship, that's what it means to be in a democracy in the first place.

That doesn't exactly address your point, but I think that it speaks to the spirit of it.

I'm weary of all power structures ripe for abuse, and corruption. Every political system works perfectly when they're just and benevolent, but not so much when they're mercurial and corrupt.

Private powers with little oversight, transparency, regulation, or accountability are particularly worrisome, and as a matter of principle, I think that precautions and restraints need to be imposed -- but I have no objections when it works out in the favor of justness, and humanitarianism.

Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results? — Hanover

Yes, no, no. Good result, not so good method.

Of course, I'm glad the bill was vetoed by the governor.

It's always possible for some corporate committee or executive (whoever is able to speak on behalf of the company) to be on the side of the angels. Agents of Apple, Corp., for instance, have been on the 'correct side' of rights issues a number of times.

But still, I'm not happy about corporate executives leveraging the wealth of their corporations (the employment it provides, contributions to state economies, etc.) to influence politics. The president of Apple has every right as a citizen to speak on issues. The head of the Southern Baptist Convention, or the president of Emory University has a right to speak as a citizen about whatever they please. I would prefer to see both of these men speak as the individuals they are, rather than leverage the prestige of the organizations they head up.

It's one thing for Frank Page, citizen, to say "I am against gay rights." It is (IMHO) improper for him to say "As president of the Southern Baptist Convention, I am against (or for) gay rights."

The CEO of Target, Corp. (or someone able to make the decision) decided to make a corporate contribution to the anti-gay marriage campaign in Minnesota a while back. The donation garnered a lot of local negative publicity for Target. It would have been as inappropriate for Target to have donated the money, instead, to the pro-gay marriage campaign. Target employees (including the CEO) could make their own donations to whoever they pleased.

"The Corporation" isn't a citizen, isn't a voter, isn't a person, and doesn't have opinions or positions on political issues.

For example, if a baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake with two grooms on it, then the law would protect their right from a lawsuit or other sanction for that discrimination. — Hanover

It seems to me that public businesses are bound to serve any customer who walks in the door and makes a reasonable request. If I asked a bakery to sell me a large pie with four and twenty live blackbirds contained within the delicious flaky crust, they might reasonably refuse -- no blackbirds in stock, no knowledge about how big a pie to make, no knowledge of how to actually bake a blackbird pie without ending up with dead blackbirds, and so on. Fair enough. Maybe the bakery down the street has the recipe.

On the other hand, they wouldn't be entitled (as a public enterprise) to refuse to write "Happy Gay Pride" on a sheet cake -- a task which they are more than adequately capable of performing. Just because they don't like gay pride, or the Irish, or railroad buffs, or whatever cake decoration is needed, is no basis for the bakery to refuse service.

Right?

Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results?

"Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The role these corporations and others played in the legislative arena can be compared to that of lawyers in the judicial arena. Just as lawyers provide the trier of fact (judge or jury) with points of view on the legal issues pertaining to a case, so do lobbyists provide local, state, and federal policymakers with points of view on public policy issues. Corporate lobbying is a big powerful business in Washington, the fact that in Georgia, these corporations decided to do it without employ of a professional lobbyist does not change the fact that it is a legal form of address.

Capital is the dynamic binding agent that holds our market system together, and keeps it going. The threat of its removal is sufficient to change public policy.

It ought to be interesting to see how North Carolina, with its 'Toilet Law' makes out. Jim Crow redux. North Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday that he would refuse to defend the state's new bathroom law in court.

On the other hand, they wouldn't be entitled (as a public enterprise) to refuse to write "Happy Gay Pride" on a sheet cake -- a task which they are more than adequately capable of performing. Just because they don't like gay pride, or the Irish, or railroad buffs, or whatever cake decoration is needed, is no basis for the bakery to refuse service.

Right? — Bitter Crank

It's a complicated enough area that I'm not going to try to answer it definitively, and it's also a bit unsettled, and I don't do discrimination law. But, what the hell, I'll take a stab at it:

An employee can sue an employer for discrimination for certain specified reasons. I know this isn't exactly the cake baking question, but you can see the enumerated sorts of things you're not permitted to discriminate against: (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/)

You will note that they relate to age, gender, race, disability, and the other things you'd expect. You won't see "sexual orientation" on that list, although I think it is accepted that that falls under sex discrimination generally. http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/16/sexual_orientation_discrimination_at_work_eeoc_says_it_s_illegal_under_federal.html

Such is federal law. The state of Colorado though has a law that prohibits "public accommodations" from discriminating on the basis of sexual preference, so if you are a bakery that sells to the general public, you have to bake a cake and put two grooms on it if requested. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ I suspect that Georgia was trying to make sure it never became Colorado, so it tried to pass its recent law, although it vetoed.

If a baker refused to bake a cake that said "I love Reading Railroad," he could not be sued for discriminating against railroad enthusiasts because they are not a recognized protected class. It's generally accepted railroad people are stupid anyway. I mean, really, get a car.

Requiring public businesses to cater to all comers is something that arose out of necessity in the old South, where African Americans literally could not find places to lodge, to eat, or to repair their vehicles if they broke down along the way. While I recognize that improper discrimination is a wrong regardless of who it is committed against on a theoretical level, I see the situation between not being able to find lodging very different than a gay couple who insists that a resistant baker bake them a cake. The gay couple could easily find someone more receptive and get their cake (and from someone who's not going to half bake it).

My point is that I think that all this legislation and litigation is to make a declaration of equality as opposed to really helping an injured party. Not that declarations aren't important, but it should be kept in perspective.

If you refuse to bake a cake with a decoration you find immoral, aren't you discriminating against the cake rather than against the person who wants you to bake it? Surely to be discriminatory against gay people is to refuse to serve gay people just because they are gay, no matter what kind of cake they want?

IMHO, the matter of cake decorations seems too trivial to take up time in the judicial system, but public accommodation in general is a weighty issue. Thanks for your response.

The majority of results from corporations do not benefit the average person or protect civil liberties. You can of course find examples of the kind you mention, but these are the exception, not the norm. They also further prove that corporations only care about profit, not the welfare or liberties of citizens. Their mentality is that if they happen to coincide, so be it, and if not, so be it.

The standard, whether it be as applied to corporations, individuals, sweet little old ladies, or whatever, is that entities tend toward protecting their own interests. If a corporation is for profit, it wants profits. If a gay advocacy group wants laws protecting gay rights, that's what it will fight for. The fact that a gay rights group doesn't spend time advocating for veteran's rights hardly means it's evil or opposed to veterans rights. By the same token, you needn't get angry at your local corporate grocer for being more concerned with selling tomatoes than in making sure gay rights are protected. Do they really need to apologize for prioritizing the sale of tomatoes just because there are other higher goods they can be accomplishing?

Kind of. I think it's more what the cake stands for. Maybe if you told the baker that you were planning to destroy it with a baseball bat in front of a homophobic audience at an anti-gay convention as an act of symbolism, then perhaps he'd bake it.

There are all sorts of angles here one can look at to determine whether it makes sense to require people to serve all comers. Should the same baker be required to bake a cake at the request of a Klansman with depictions of racial bigotry attached? Suppose they argued their racist views were related to their religious views? If a Jewish person married a Christian, should an Orthodox Jewish caterer be required to cater the wedding, even though he is opposed to interfaith marriages? If a baker were opposed to a fundamentalist Muslim's view regarding the role of women in society, could he refuse to serve Muslims if it were a matter of conscience? Suppose this particular Muslim had particularly offensive sexist views and wanted that depicted on his cake?

Does it really just come down to making bakers bake cakes that conform to societal standards and nothing else and there really isn't some deeper underlying principle?

Isn't the defining distinction between mob rule, and democracy the protection of the minority from the majority? In a democracy, the majority can't just vote minorities into second class citizenship, that's what it means to be in a democracy in the first place. — Wosret

A criticism of democracy is that it will devolve into mob rule, yet Western democracies actually pass laws via the majority that protect minorities. This means that the concern is often overstated and does not represent what actually occurs.

Also, the way the laws have been created is to distinguish various classes that are often discriminated against (sex, race, age, etc) and then they are protected regardless of whether they are in the minority. That is, it is just as illegal to fire someone who is black because they are black as it is to do the same to someone who is white. The same applies to firing the young versus the old, Christians versus Muslims, or men versus women. We protect classifications of people, without regard to whether they are in the majority or minority. There are no protections afforded to Canadians however, so stay up in your frozen wasteland.

It wasn't a concern for it occurring as much as a justification for ignoring it when it does. I read you as suggesting that when the majority voted for the discrimination law it was all fairsies, but a corruption of the system to have corporate powers get involved for justice! The implication being that we'd be cool with it when we agree with the result, and inconsistently denounce it when we don't.

Point was that it's not fairsies -- and results matter, so I'd have no objection to anything when it works, but don't trust plenty of things to reliably work.

And Canada pwns, and you know it.

There are all sorts of angles here one can look at to determine whether it makes sense to require people to serve all comers. — Hanover

"The Law" one hopes, "is not an ass"ª and will not stoop to negotiating frosting. There are more substantive issues in public accommodation.

A hotel-owning klansman white supremacist, or a restaurant-owning lesbian separatist (maybe they could go into business together) deal in materially significant goods (shelter and food) and services. Same for real estate brokers, plumbers, bankers, carpenters, doctors, lawyers, and septic tank clearing services--all materially significant services for which equal public accommodation is important -- both constitutionally, but also for purposes of public safety, health, and prosperity.

ª1838, Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, ch. 61: "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass..."

In pursuing their own interests, corporations infringe on the well being and rights of others to a disproportionate degree. In your example, the law ought to have been passed democratically. If it was alleged to violate the constitution, it would then be sent to the court system. A corporation telling a governor what to do is not democracy, but plutocracy, no matter the outcome.

You may not be aware of the case of the bakers in Belfast who were found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake with the statement 'Support gay marriage' on it. Peter Tatchell, the long-time gay activist here in the UK, wrote a nuanced article about how he thought there should be a distinction between say a baker offering *services* to different groups that one might personally disapprove of, and being required to endorse an opinion the baker disagrees with. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

In pursuing their own interests, corporations infringe on the well being and rights of others to a disproportionate degree. In your example, the law ought to have been passed democratically. If it was alleged to violate the constitution, it would then be sent to the court system. A corporation telling a governor what to do is not democracy, but plutocracy, no matter the outcome. — Thorongil

Since you insist upon drawing a literal distinction between corporations and people, where corporations (as opposed to people) should be prohibited from engaging in the democratic process, it seems rather obvious that corporations cannot participate in the democratic process because they are purely legal constructs. It is only the people who can speak and vote and urge the Governor to act one way or the other.

So, the corporation did not tell the Governor to do anything. It was the many people who would be adversely affected as well as the people who ran the corporations that did the speaking. How is that not democratic?

You may not be aware of the case of the bakers in Belfast who were found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake with the statement 'Support gay marriage' on it. — mcdoodle

I wasn't aware, and I don't really know how UK law works. If the baker had refused to write "Deny gay marriage" would he have been guilty of discriminating against Christians?

So, the corporation did not tell the Governor to do anything. It was the many people who would be adversely affected as well as the people who ran the corporations that did the speaking. How is that not democratic? — Hanover

Because laws are passed by representatives who are democratically elected by the people, not by corporations. If the latter call up the governor of a state, himself democratically elected, and yes indeed tell him what to do (for this is what "corporate influence" entails), that is not democracy. Representatives are beholden to their constituency's interests as a whole, not exclusively to a tiny minority whose only distinguishing feature is how much wealth they control and money they have.

Representatives are beholden to their constituency's interests as a whole, not exclusively to a tiny minority whose only distinguishing feature is how much wealth they control and money they have. — Thorongil

You can't just declare that politics is what you think it ought to be. A representative is beholden to whomever keeps him in office, and under no actual situation will that be that no one person has no more influence than another. It's just the case that politicians are going to listen to community leaders and other influential people than they are to average folks.

Regarding a politician listening to a major business owner, it's nonsense to say that owner doesn't significantly affect the community's interest as a whole. He can pull up stakes and leave, and while you think that's not fair that he have more say than you or I, that's super until he leaves and you realize how much more he contributed to the community than you or I.

You can't just declare that politics is what you think it ought to be. — Hanover

This is not what I'm doing. I'm simply describing to you how the US government and democracy in general function.

He can pull up stakes and leave, and while you think that's not fair that he have more say than you or I, that's super until he leaves and you realize how much more he contributed to the community than you or I. — Hanover

First, it's not only unfair, but undemocratic, which has consistently been my point. Second, if he does leave, then he doesn't deserve any tax breaks, subsidies, or other forms of corporate welfare, since he's reaping all the benefits of living in the US while working to undermine them by destroying his fellow citizens' livelihood.

Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results? — Hanover

So, just to make sure I'm getting this right, am I opposed to the corporatocratic shenanigans even though they led to a good outcome?

Ahem...well FIRST OF ALL I'd like to say that WE'RE ALL HYPOCRITES at some points in life...

No, in all seriousness I think that corporations should play a certain role in the democratic process. Corporations are owned by citizens, and the citizens who run them should be able to utilize them. There's gotta be a balance.

It's tough to say this but I don't think I would consider this event "corporate bullying". More like "social responsibility". But I suppose it does depend on what side you are on.

I wasn't aware, and I don't really know how UK law works. If the baker had refused to write "Deny gay marriage" would he have been guilty of discriminating against Christians? — Hanover

The UK law is summarised here: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/about-discrimination/equality-act-2010-discrimination-and-your-rights/

It protects you against religious discrimination as well as discrimination on various other counts (nine in all) including sexual orientation.

The odd thing about the case of the Belfast bakers is that they claimed that they were happy to serve anyone, regardless of sexual orientation; but they just wouldn't put a pro-gay marriage slogan on the cake and have it known that it was baked by them.

Lots of old legislation was codified together in 2010, so naturally there are various areas where it remains to be clarified by judges how they will interpret it.

Regarding a politician listening to a major business owner, it's nonsense to say that owner doesn't significantly affect the community's interest as a whole. He can pull up stakes and leave, and while you think that's not fair that he have more say than you or I, that's super until he leaves and you realize how much more he contributed to the community than you or I. — Hanover

We shouldn't pander to major business owners just because they threaten to throw their toys out of the pram. I agree that it's a problem, but one difference between left and right on this issue is the kind of solution endorsed. The right tend to offer a carrot, e.g. by cutting corporation tax and "red tape" (even though, oddly enough, corporation tax has been lower in the past, and this didn't cause an exodus like the scaremongers suggested; and even though cutting "red tape" might lead, for example, to greater exploitation and the unfair diminishment of workers rights), whereas the left tend to go for the stick, e.g. by doing the opposite of what I just mentioned. If there was sufficient unity, then the stick approach would be best, in my opinion. That way, it sets things right and effectively rules out the alternative of the grass being greener on the other side.

You use the word "corporation" as if it's a synonym for evil. It's entirely possible that you'll run off an unincorporated businessman who offered reasonable employment to people. He's no more obligated to provide employment opportunities to the citizens than the citizens are obligated to provide a lucrative business environment. It would seem that a far sighted legislator would look beyond the knee jerk reactions of some of his constituency and vote in a way that is overall best for his district. Demanding that he redistribute his wealth will only result in his demise, which would be to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

What sorts of corporate welfare does Joe the baker (for example) get that enslaves him to provide employment opportunities for you? This has less to do with corporate obligation (or non corporate) than it has to do with what you believe you are entitled to.

I wasn't aware, and I don't really know how UK law works. If the baker had refused to write "Deny gay marriage" would he have been guilty of discriminating against Christians? — Hanover

No, because in the UK and Ireland most Christians probably support gay marriage. But in any case, if the baker can be compelled to write "Allow gay marriage" it should be that he can be compelled to write "Deny gay marriage" or anything else that doesn't fall under the bounds of hate speech. He can't be compelled to write "The Holocaust never happened" or "Fuck the Queen", for example, but other than that his personal opinions shouldn't be allowed to infringe on the rights of customers to a reasonable level of service. In just the same way you should be allowed to expel someone from a pub or restaurant for inciting hatred but not for being on either side of a contentious public debate like gay marriage or abortion etc. The tricky part then becomes where exactly to draw the line.

It's entirely possible that you'll run off an unincorporated businessman who offered reasonable employment to people. — Hanover

Where would he go? What would he do? My solution would cut out the alternative of the grass being greener on the other side. The grass would be just as green here as elsewhere. He'd have two options: he could either maintain his business fairly, by according with the law, and if he's fortunate, he could reap the reward; or he could close down his business, or carry on and refuse to cooperate with the law - the long arm of which would eventually tap him on the shoulder.

That's how it should be. Cooperate or face the consequences.

He's no more obligated to provide employment opportunities to the citizens than the citizens are obligated to provide a lucrative business environment. — Hanover

That's the way it is now. Doesn't mean that that's the way that it should or has to be. Things can change, and change for the better. Just look at what we've done already. No more nonsense about there being a divine right of kings, to give but one important historical example.

It would seem that a far sighted legislator would look beyond the knee jerk reactions of some of his constituency and vote in a way that is overall best for his district. — Hanover

Yes, but what's overall best for his district might not be reflected in the views of the majority within his district or in the views of major business owners within his district. It might in fact be reflected in the views of the minority within his district or in the views of those outside of his district. Democracy with some enlightened laws is most fair.

Demanding that he redistribute his wealth will only result in his demise, which would be to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. — Hanover

No, it wouldn't. Not necessarily. The business could be maintained, but ownership could transfer and/or the power structure could be altered, and wealth could be distributed more fairly. This way, more people profit. That wouldn't be getting rid of the goose or it's golden egg; that would be more like taking the golden egg, melting it down, splitting it up fairly, then handing out the reformed gold amongst those who deserve it.

Broccoli.

Your utopia entails absolute control over the global market so you can eliminate every worker's ability to innovate or create their own market. Such totalitarianism is required
for your system to work, and the outcome will follow the predictable pattern of all other Marxist countries.