I feel like running a museum is a lot more like a form of expression than running a cafe is. “Who is the audience for art?” seems like a topic where a government-imposed “correct answer” is more of a problem than it would be if the topic were “Who eats a sandwich?”
Comment on Mona: Court rules women’s-only exhibit must allow male visitors
wahming@monyet.cc 7 months agoI tend to think that this ought to mean it can be sexist if that’s what the people running it want
IDK, I’d see issues with a cafe saying ‘No colored people allowed’.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
bluGill@kbin.social 7 months ago
I (a white person) wouldn't knowingly going into such a Cafe, but I still allow them to exist. It is a matter of defending - as much as possible - the right of others to do things I find stupid. There are lines, but I try to use them to cover as little as possible: all lines can be used against me.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I don’t mind other people doing things that are stupid. I do mind other people doing things that are harmful. The difficult part is finding where that line is, if and how to legislate it and what the implications are on other important societal values.
In this example of a cafe refusing to serve people based in race, I’m personally totally fine with that being illegal.
quindraco@lemm.ee 7 months ago
How do you ban such a cafe while also banning slavery? How do you draw a line between permissible and impermissible compulsory labor when you’re drafting your Constitution to reign in future politicians?
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
It is not permitted to own another human being.
It is not permitted to discriminate against a human being based on a protected class such as race.
Is there some contradiction there that I’m not seeing?
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 7 months ago
To deny access to any one group on the basis of an immutable characteristic of their physical being is a dangerous precedent to set for a government. It just gives a license to discriminate against any out group. I believe you have a right to do whatever you want, so long as doing so does not violate the rights of others.
To take it to a logical extreme, would you defend the right to drink and drive, given that stupid people should be allowed to do stupid things, even if it is incredibly dangerous to the drinking party and everyone else around them? No? Then don’t tolerate the intolerance of others. That’s how the social contract frays.
zaph@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
So you’d be fine with a towns only hospital receiving a patient in the ER while the only doctor on the clock refuses to treat the patient based on them being part of a protected class? Or do we need to create a law that says doctors can’t discriminate but everyone else can?
bluGill@kbin.social 7 months ago
There are lines. Make them as narrow as possible but no more.
that covers your situation and many others.
zaph@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I’d rather we just don’t encourage people to be horrible.
Kedly@lemm.ee 7 months ago
The lack of lines lets the strong oppress the weak moreso than the lines themselves ever could