This stupid bullshit will continue until Women decide to make it stop.

[Eric K]

No, we have an inconvenience and an injustice. There are other bakeries. And then there are legal expenses and bankruptcy.

There's also an opportunity to start a new business that meets the needs of the neglected demographic.

[chrisd]

Depends on the circumstances. If the patient walks in and says that somebody else's nose is growing out of his face, or somebody else's teeth are mounted in his mouth, I hope most rational people would object to the medical removal of the offending bodyparts in the absence of an attempt to treat the psychology first. Of course, if you don't own your own nose, you don't own much of anything. Cut the fucking thing off yourself, and deal with the consequences.

Indeed, "It depends".

I doubt that any reputable surgeon would agree to operate if the patient walked in and said this. The two cases that happened were widely reported in the press. One patient traveled across Europe to find a surgeon willing to do the surgery. Disreputable surgeons may be found (generally unqualified) who will take on such cases, for a fee.

Legs seem to be the body part of choice for people with xenomelia.

After the surgery, the patients declared themselves to be much happier.

They had apparently sought psychiatric help and failed to find relief there.

Was it ethical for the surgeon to operate ?

How does this compare to someone who feels like they are a person with a small nose, forced to live in the body of someone with a big nose ? Should they be given counseling and therapy to learn to value themselves and their noses. Should they be free to stroll up to any of the available clinics and pay up for a nose job ?

Society appears to be okay with the latter solution. We are then faced with someone living in an altered body, passing themselves off as someone with a small delicately formed nose when they are living a lie.

[Nic Lane]

No, we have an inconvenience and an injustice. There are other bakeries. And then there are legal expenses and bankruptcy.

It may be an inconvenience if it's one bakery. But what if the inconvenience is widespread, to the point where you can't sit at the lunch counter in the South if you're black? How should societies deal with situations like that? Should it be "market based" in the sense that folks who think that's bullshit will eat elsewhere/open their own diners/live in different communities? Or is government regulation in the form of things like the Civil Rights Act ok at some point when inconvenience reaches a certain scale?

In a nutshell is there a tipping point where you think the harm increases to the point where you think the inconvenience should be shifted to the other parties?

[Mark Rippetoe]

There's also an opportunity to start a new business that meets the needs of the neglected demographic.

Now you're thinking. Who are you prepared to force into this wonderful opportunity?

It may be an inconvenience if it's one bakery. But what if the inconvenience is widespread, to the point where you can't sit at the lunch counter in the South if you're black?

Those were the Jim Crow LAWS. Who makes laws, Nic?

[Eric K]

Now you're thinking. Who are you prepared to force into this wonderful opportunity?

I think you misunderstand my point. If someone wants a service, but feels they don't have access to it, they can learn how to do it themselves. They might even try to offer that service to other people who have been in a similar situation, instead of insisting that someone else take care of their wants.

If they don't feel like learning how to do the thing, then they obviously don't value that thing as much as they value whatever else they spend their time on.

I can think that someone is an ass for refusing to serve someone without assuming that I have the right to force him to do it.

[George Christiansen]

Someone who continuously presents himself as ethically devoid speaking about being morally consistent is quite hilarious, though.

Maybe the reason I appear ethically devoid is because you are simply a self centered prick that cannot imagine how someone might have ethics that they personally adhere to but don't believe that they have the authority to force upon the rest of society.

Defending someone else's right to be a potential asshole doesn't mean I somehow in line with that potential asshole's ethics.

As far as chasing ghosts and whining goes: you must really not own a mirror if you typed that sort of horseshit with a straight face.

It may be an inconvenience if it's one bakery. But what if the inconvenience is widespread, to the point where you can't sit at the lunch counter in the South if you're black? How should societies deal with situations like that? Should it be "market based" in the sense that folks who think that's bullshit will eat elsewhere/open their own diners/live in different communities? Or is government regulation in the form of things like the Civil Rights Act ok at some point when inconvenience reaches a certain scale?

In a nutshell is there a tipping point where you think the harm increases to the point where you think the inconvenience should be shifted to the other parties?

For starters, we are nowhere near that now. So there's that. It would take even more liberal fraud than the most skeptical of us suspect in order for there to be a serious shortage of businesses unwilling to serve any particular group of people.

Even when we were having issues with this, it was only a reality because bigots had the law on their side. Maybe there were other even smaller minorities who were then at risk, but blacks had enough of themselves and sympathetic whites, even in the south, to no have to go without any particular service and to have economic prosperity without the bigoted parts of the population's services or association. I t was having laws that actually enforced the bigotry that enabled the level of suffering that blacks did endure.

Part of this whole issue for me is just the simple question of whether or not anyone should even want everyone to like them or serve them. I am personally at no risk of everyone liking me, but I'd take it as a lapse in character if some people did...and I don't particularly want anyone who doesn't like me serving me. We don't have to be friends, but jeez can I even provide an excellent service to someone I despise? I suppose if it is is a manufacturing type setting I could focus so much on the work that the product would be excellent regardless of who ultimately purchased it, but anyone in a service type ob knows that while you may not give full blown subpar service to people you think are shitty people, they certainly don't get your best.

[nykid]

No, we have an inconvenience and an injustice. There are other bakeries. And then there are legal expenses and bankruptcy.

This is a straw man, Rip. The poor baker sued out of house and home by the vindictive, callous customer who could just so easily walk down the street to another bakery. That is just not an accurate representation of the issue, in part because no one is saying that the baker *should* be materially harmed, and in part because it's just not how these things have happened throughout history.

I mean, how many times has this actually occurred? A private business owner materially harmed to a significant degree via legal fees or bankruptcy by a customer they refused to serve? More than a dozen?

And no, it's not just an inconvenience. I don't know much about the transgender issue specifically, but a black man who is denied service based on the color of his skin is not merely *inconvenienced*, he is HARMED. His liberty is infringed, and his basic human dignity undermined. He is being told he is inferior to others, and if SOCIETY permits this, then SOCIETY is echoing that message.

We're not talking about someone's private residence, here. We're talking about a place of business that is open to the public and benefits from the social contracts and structures we have in place.

[Kitsuma]

Does a black business owner have to serve a person in his local community who was a KKK prick back in the day ('60s)? Yes, this is a real scenario.

Apparently, the law requires him to, but it ain't gonna happen here in my town; We shun those idiots for life.

We need consistency in the rules that the "special" humans impose on us normal humans. Or, maybe we need less rules?

These thoughts will help my pitiful squat speed tomorrow. Thanks.

[Sean Herbison]

Have you picked up some German?

I've picked up or studied Spanish, Latin, Mandarin Chinese, German, Greek, Russian, Korean, and some of the language where I'm deployed, but I wouldn't say I can actually speak any of them. For instance, I can pronounce your Greek below, but I don't know what it means without looking it up.

That's a devastating refutation, as posts which include "I would say..." and "... seems more reasonable..." always are.

Always is a bit of an exaggeration. Some people just use language that admits their lack of 100% certainty.

[wal]

This has been done, legally, twice. A third operation by Dr. Robert Smith was cancelled on the advice of the ethics committee.

How much less ethical is this than say, rhinoplasty or orthodontistry ?

Never heard anybody ask to have their nose removed or teeth removed, even xenomeliatics still need to eat and smell the roses even if they don't want to lift weights.