No, of course I’m not. I think these are terrible social evils which need to be combated when they occur. But I’m also convinced that using the courts to combat these practices is not the best way to do so. Preventing such people from speaking, from being able to maintain their freedom of association (and of disassociation), through legal means temporarily drives the hatred and racism underground, to resurface at a later time in a subtler yet more insidious way.
The best way to combat such views, to remove discrimination from our society, to actually change people, is for the views to be openly stated and shown to be wrong. Daryl Davis, a black musician who has befriended over 200 members of the Ku Klux Klan, and convinced them to hang up their robes, is the best example of what I’m talking about.
Pursuing legal recourse against the baker just gives other bigots a chance to say “Look! My views are being oppressed!” and, through confirmation bias, may even strengthen their bigotry.
From our own policy page:
It’s our very first platform, so I assume we hold freedom of speech to be of utmost importance. At least at some level, our policy links protecting speech to protecting the right to act on what we say (in bold above). Philosophically, I link freedom of speech to freedom of association and freedom of disassociation. I’m a bit surprised that my fellow party members don’t seem to value this freedom as highly as I do (and I hope I’m wrong in this assessment of my fellow pirates).
I support marriage equality and believe that our policy is the best way to implement it, but it has been brought to my attention and I have become concerned about the ways some in the Yes side are suppressing the free speech of the No side. If there’s already been a boycott of a beer company for promoting polite conversations (not even for taking the wrong side), and a petition to de-register a doctor for expressing an opinion (I know Getup has removed the petition from their site), before marriage equality has even been legalised, what will happen to free speech afterwards?
All I’m saying is that I hope our participation in the debate somehow limits this aspect of the yes campaign.