I don’t understand how the florist (or the baker for that matter) that everyone uses as an example in these discrimination law cases is being “harmed”.
No one can explain it to me.
He or she makes a product. A price is set. I’m offering to pay. Let’s do this.
The florist shouldn’t care if I’m white, black, straight, gay, German, Irish, Asian, male, female, Jewish, Presbyterian, evangelical, Russian, South African, Catholic, Muslim or Hindu.
Are people going to need to fill out a questionnaire every time they make a purchase? Whew … I’m glad this florist likes people with foreign sounding last names, the last 5 refused.
I don’t understand how selling goods that you are offering for sale is “harming” you.
You're not even supporting something you don't believe in. You are selling me a product. Once I buy it, I can do whatever I want with it. Once I buy it, you can't tell me how it should be used.
You don’t have to like me. You don’t have to agree with me. You can believe whatever you want to believe. What you can’t do is say, “Well, I’d sell to anyone else. But I can’t sell to you because you’re one of them (whoever 'them' is).”
If you have a problem selling your product to someone who wants to buy it simply because that person is different from you, maybe you should be in a different line of work. Maybe you’d be better off in a line of work that isn’t so … how should I say it … public facing.
Owning a business in the United States is a privilege.
You have access to some of the most well-off customers in the world. Instead of complaining about what a “burden” it is when someone offers to buy your goods maybe you should take my money and focus on growing your flowers.
---
David Akadjian is the author of The Little Book of Revolution: A Distributive Strategy for Democracy.