You decide: the wedding cake issue.

[Henrin]

How about "There is no stopping progress." then? We will no go back to the days of Jim Crow so quit your dreaming.

Also, no one in this thread is supporting going back to Jim Crow.

 

[jimbo]

It actually makes sense. We can't very well live in a society where every proprietor decides who he wants to serve or not. Imagine you are in a pinch, call a lawyer to get you out of it, and he says, "Sorry, can't help you, I only serve Jews." It would be chaos.

I have no issue with a baker in a bakery, one which offers a wide array of goods and services, denying service for a specific good or event. And, you are correct by stating that as long as he serves the person of color, sexual orientation, etc in other ways, those which are not good or event specific, by treating them as equals and selling them whatever else they want, he is not really violating their rights.

In fact, I'll say it is a dick move for someone to demand a wedding cake from someone who does not want to bake a cake for their wedding, regardless of the reason for them not wanting to do it. But...

Two statements. 8 posts apart. Seems contradictory to me.

 

[devildavid]

Freedom of association has nothing to do with commerce or shopping. A purchase from a store is not an association with that store on the part of the proprietor or the customer. It is merely a one shot deal business transaction. No association has transpired.

 

[matchlight]

The owner owns the property. It is not public property. It is private property just as one's home is private property. He'll even if it is an empty lot, it is private property. The owner has the right to say who comes on the property and who doesn't for any reason. Placing a business there should not affect that right.

It's not quite that simple. You might want to read Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, in which the Court discussed this issue at length. Justice Powell's comments in his concurrence about how a small shop owner probably would not need to allow his property to be used to promote views he disagreed with, even if the owner of a large shopping mall had to tolerate such views, is especially interesting.

Pruneyard did involve private property that is open to the public, but it is more about the freedom of speech. In particular, it is one of a line of decisions by the Court on government-compelled speech, which is normally unconstitutional. Some prominent First Amendment lawyers think state laws which punish private owners and operators of public accommodations for discriminating on the basis of sexual preference may be most vulnerable to attack on the ground they constitute government-compelled speech. That is particularly true as regards public accommodations which provide services that entail individual creativity or artistic expression.

 

[HonestJoe]

Ok, I can go with that. Bad wording on my part. How about certain conditions? I'm not sure how better to word it. My main point remains, is that only some conditions are protected though. A store owner might not be able to (openly) refuse service based on sexual orientation, but they can certainly do on dress style, or hair color, or pretty much anything other than the protected statuses.

The categories which anti-discrimination laws apply to are generally those where there is established socially engrained (and sometimes legally engrained) discrimination. Religion, gender, race, disability and now sexual orientation have all had massive changes in how they’re recognised but people can be slow to respond to such wider social changes and it is that these laws are largely in place to account for. If it somehow became common practice to discriminate on grounds like hair colour or height, those categories could be included in the laws.

Then no one should have been allowed to refuse to play for Trump's inauguration either. The law doesn't recognize the difference between any kind of inauguration. How is that any different?

On that basis it isn’t. The key differences are that performing at that kind of event is a one-off thing rather than a standard advertised service and discrimination on political or party grounds isn’t legally prohibited anyway.

The law doesn't say anything about whether one can refuse business over types of events, only people's status. Thus if they can show where they still do business with gays for other events, they are not refusing based on the individual's sexual orientation. And if the law doesn't recognize any difference between mixed and same gendered weddings, then they are simply refusing an individual wedding.

Discrimination is about treating people differently, not only not serving them at all. It doesn’t matter what ese a business does, if they treat a single customer differently on the basis of any of the specified categories, they’re breaking the law.

Let’s be clear here. You’re far from the first person to try to probe for this imaginary loop-hole and some of them have tried in actual court cases. It simply doesn’t exist, most certainly legally and nor IMO logically. More to the point, the only rationale I can see for pushing at it is to try to open the door for businesses to actually discriminate and get away with it. Your opening post suggested that wasn’t your intention but I can’t see any other reasoning.

 

[joG]

It actually makes sense. We can't very well live in a society where every proprietor decides who he wants to serve or not. Imagine you are in a pinch, call a lawyer to get you out of it, and he says, "Sorry, can't help you, I only serve Jews." It would be chaos.

I would sincerely prefer him telling me that to employing him against his will. Especially, if he is a lawyer and I am in a pinch.

 

[joG]

So you want to bring back segregation?

As I have pointed out many times, the civil rights movement had some very important issues that urgently required addressing. That was half a century ago. It is time to remove the bigoted overshoot. It is doing a lot of damage and is creating a backlash that could wash away much of the improvement we have gained.

 

[calamity]

I would sincerely prefer him telling me that to employing him against his will. Especially, if he is a lawyer and I am in a pinch.

Unfortunately I learned that lesson the expensive way. Always best to hire a lawyer who buys into you as a client and not one who thinks you are a POS. I had to fire one once, mid case, and hire me a new one at double the price.

 

[maquiscat]

How about "There is no stopping progress." then? We will no go back to the days of Jim Crow so quit your dreaming.

As noted we do not want to go back to Jim Crow Laws because they cause the same rights violations. That is your own strawman.

 

[maquiscat]

They don't change backwards and they won't stop the progress of human equality. You are a part of the past that is best left there.

Whether those laws are progressive or regressive is subjective. There is no absolute. As is, I do not want to be a part of the past, you do. You want to restrict freedoms in the same manner that the Jim Crow laws did, only on the opposite side of the coin. Instead of saying who they must keep out you want to control who they cannot keep out. Both violate private property rights and freedom of association.

 

[maquiscat]

You should pick better examples, I'm sure they exist I'm not being a smart ass because sometimes settled law is overturned. But these ones are bad because they work against you. In all the examples the settled law was changed to stop discrimination and violation of rights. That the exact opposite of what you are saying. You want to allow that stuff.

What we currently have only stops certain discrimination. There is no laws that says I can not discriminate on the basis of hair color, for example. As to rights violations, it is the business owner's whose rights are violated. Both buyer and seller have the right to seek to do business with another of their choice. However, that right ends at the other's decision. The seller may want to sell to the buyer, but if the buyer doesn't want to engage with the seller, then he doesn't have to. It doesn't matter the reason. Likewise the buyer may want to buy from the seller, but if the seller doesn't want to engage with the buyer he doesn't have to. It doesn't matter the reason. But you want laws, and currently have them, that violate the rights of the seller to not engage with any buyer he doesn't want to.

Let's look at the discrimination issue, if you want. Currently, a seller cannot say, "You're white. I will not sell to you." Yet a buyer can say, "You're white. I will not buy from you." You support one form of discrimination, but not the other. Or at least you support allowing laws for one type over the other.

 

[Eric7216]

I am opposed to privilege. Well, privilege that is being legislated and mandated by government. You can't get away from cultural privilege as people have the freedom to associate with whomever they want and often they will associate with like-minded people, at the detriment of others.

But currently we have civil rights legislation that mandates privilege to select politically powerful groups. There was some logic for this 50 years ago but that logic is greatly diminished now. A business is allowed to refuse service to anyone EXCEPT those who can claim that the refusal is based on their membership in one of those privileged classes. Seems wrong.

 

[maquiscat]

Freedom of association has nothing to do with commerce or shopping. A purchase from a store is not an association with that store on the part of the proprietor or the customer. It is merely a one shot deal business transaction. No association has transpired.

So,then you would support laws that would make it illegal to not shop a store because the owner is black?

 

[Eric7216]

It actually makes sense. We can't very well live in a society where every proprietor decides who he wants to serve or not. Imagine you are in a pinch, call a lawyer to get you out of it, and he says, "Sorry, can't help you, I only serve Jews." It would be chaos.

Anyone can do that now, refusing to service someone. They only need to be "smart" and not say it like that. Simply saw that you can't take the case. The bakers were honest and stated why they did not want to make the damn cake. They should have simply stated that they were busy at that time the cake was needed.
Seems foolish to have laws that encourage lying.

 

[maquiscat]

On that basis it isn’t. The key differences are that performing at that kind of event is a one-off thing rather than a standard advertised service...

They are hardly one off. Presidential Inaugurations happen every four years like clockwork, and there are plenty of other events that these performers engage in on a regular basis. While their advertising may not be billboard and flyer, they certainly do have people out there advertising their ability to play at various venues. How is that really any different from any other business?

...and discrimination on political or party grounds isn’t legally prohibited anyway.

Ah, so I can put a sign up in my store saying, "We do not serve Republicians"?

Discrimination is about treating people differently, not only not serving them at all. It doesn’t matter what ese a business does, if they treat a single customer differently on the basis of any of the specified categories, they’re breaking the law.

There is no question about what the current laws are. We are talking about what the laws should be. Should they be as they currently are or should they be different and if so how? It is a question we commonly ask and laws do get changed because of asking that question. Let me ask this. Current laws aside, what right is violated if a business owner say they will not serve X group?

Let’s be clear here. You’re far from the first person to try to probe for this imaginary loop-hole and some of them have tried in actual court cases. It simply doesn’t exist, most certainly legally and nor IMO logically. More to the point, the only rationale I can see for pushing at it is to try to open the door for businesses to actually discriminate and get away with it. Your opening post suggested that wasn’t your intention but I can’t see any other reasoning.

My preference is that freedom prevails and that we stamp out such behavior through social pressure. I see a major difference between someone "getting away with" a given action legally, but not doing so socially.

 

[maquiscat]

I am opposed to privilege. Well, privilege that is being legislated and mandated by government. You can't get away from cultural privilege as people have the freedom to associate with whomever they want and often they will associate with like-minded people, at the detriment of others.

But currently we have civil rights legislation that mandates privilege to select politically powerful groups. There was some logic for this 50 years ago but that logic is greatly diminished now. A business is allowed to refuse service to anyone EXCEPT those who can claim that the refusal is based on their membership in one of those privileged classes. Seems wrong.

Well let's play fair here, I can ban a black man from my store, but I have to do so on the basis of something other than him being black. We see him shoplifting, it's fine, even if he wants to try to claim racism.

 

[Eric7216]

Well let's play fair here, I can ban a black man from my store, but I have to do so on the basis of something other than him being black. We see him shoplifting, it's fine, even if he wants to try to claim racism.

Agreed. I stated the same thing in my response to Calamity:

Anyone can do that now, refusing to service someone. They only need to be "smart" and not say it like that. Simply say that you can't take the case. The bakers were honest and stated why they did not want to make the damn cake. They should have simply stated that they were busy at that time the cake was needed.
Seems foolish to have laws that encourage lying.

But our current laws do attempt to provide privilege to certain groups. Like most laws, they can be easily subverted but that doesn't make the laws tolerable.

 

[devildavid]

So,then you would support laws that would make it illegal to not shop a store because the owner is black?

That doesn't follow. Opening a store to the public makes it open to all. Barring people from a store open to the public is not the equivalent of not shopping where you don't want to shop. One shopper's choice does not stop anyone from having a store or shopping at any store they want. Buying and selling has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of association.

 

[calamity]

That doesn't follow. Opening a store to the public makes it open to all. Barring people from a store open to the public is not the equivalent of not shopping where you don't want to shop. One shopper's choice does not stop anyone from having a store or shopping at any store they want. Buying and selling has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of association.

The "libertarians" among us here do not seem to get this basic fact.

 

[Ikari]

Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

My basic take on it was that for non-emergency types of service, such as a bakery, anyone should be able to come in and buy anything off the shelf. If you're ordering a specialty item, such as a wedding cake, that service can be refused. One does not fundamentally own the resources and labor of another, and cannot force them to labor for their end. Items on the shelf are already made and have been made available to the public. Specialty items have not. There are many reasons one may not want to agree to make a specialty item, and it's on them.

That's not to say they couldn't or shouldn't suffer backlash or consumer pressures. That's all part of the consumer-regulated marketplace as well.

 

[LaylaWindu]

What we currently have only stops certain discrimination.

I agree and it doesn't even stop it, It only curbs it some just like all laws and rights, nothign new. Just like rape, murder, speeding laws etc

There is no laws that says I can not discriminate on the basis of hair color, for example.

Correct, there's not nor does that matter or is it the topic.

As to rights violations, it is the business owner's whose rights are violated.

You already made the claim and it has already been proven to be fallacious.

Both buyer and seller have the right to seek to do business with another of their choice. However, that right ends at the other's decision.

See this is where you are making mistakes and mixing things, neither of those things are a "right" as you state them.

The seller may want to sell to the buyer, but if the buyer doesn't want to engage with the seller, then he doesn't have to. It doesn't matter the reason. Likewise the buyer may want to buy from the seller, but if the seller doesn't want to engage with the buyer he doesn't have to. It doesn't matter the reason. But you want laws, and currently have them, that violate the rights of the seller to not engage with any buyer he doesn't want to.

No I don't want laws that do that at all. That's not even close to accurate or intellectually honest about the laws now either. That's why your whole claim falls apart. You haven't mentioned one right of the seller yet that are actually violated, the seller is completely free to not run a public access business. I notice you keep skipping that. I can open a private business right now and not sell to whatever you may be. A white straight male? But if I choose to open a public access business then that's an agreement to rules and laws I am choosing to follow. I can't cry about breaking the law/contract after and claim some imaginary right was infringed on, that's stupid.

Let's look at the discrimination issue, if you want. Currently, a seller cannot say, "You're white. I will not sell to you." Yet a buyer can say, "You're white. I will not buy from you." You support one form of discrimination, but not the other. Or at least you support allowing laws for one type over the other.

Wrong again and that's easy to prove. Actually thank you for proving my point already with your example you just don't realize it, maybe this will help you understand. The BUYER is NOT the one that chose to be in a contract and agreement with public access laws and chose to run a certain type of business. Hence why there are zero rights of the seller infringed. If your boss tells you that she'll give you money for sex that is sexual harassment, if a woman on the street tells you the same it's nothing really, she would have to do way more for it to be illegal. You are in fact mixing things that aren't the same just like I said earlier. You argument here is like saying a passenger should be able to get a DUI or your boss is forcing you to work, it is simply not accurate in anyway. So the fact still stand, public accommodation laws are not a violations of rights.

 

[Lovebug]

I have no issue with a baker in a bakery, one which offers a wide array of goods and services, denying service for a specific good or event. And, you are correct by stating that as long as he serves the person of color, sexual orientation, etc in other ways, those which are not good or event specific, by treating them as equals and selling them whatever else they want, he is not really violating their rights.

In fact, I'll say it is a dick move for someone to demand a wedding cake from someone who does not want to bake a cake for their wedding, regardless of the reason for them not wanting to do it. But...

It gets hairy when the business is in business specifically for weddings, like say a wedding planner. I do not see how such a business can legally discriminate against interracial, same sex or even pluralistic wedding ceremonies. But, thinking about it is not something that keeps me up nights.

Sums it up nicely.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

For me it is simple. Nobody, for ANY reason, whether they are black, white, polka dotted, straight, gay, leftwing, rightwing, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, or an accordian player, etc., should be required to provide a special order for a product or service that is offensive to him/her or participate in any way in an event or activity to which that person objects. For a person to have the right of their own conscience in that way discriminates against nobody so long as the the products that the person normally carries are sold to everybody who wants them.

The Jewish baker should sell the cupcakes he has to sell to the Nazi who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to accept a special order for cupcakes with swaztikas or I hate Jews on them, however.

The gay baker should sell the cupcakes he has to sell to the Westboro Baptist member who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to accept a special order for cupcakes decorated with Gays go to Hell or cater an event at the Westboro Baptist Church.

The staunchly pro life baker should have to sell cupcakes he has to sell to the Planned Parenthood staff who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to accept a special order for cupcakes decorated Pro Choice or cater a Planned Parenthood Event.

The Christian baker who cannot believe in same sex weddings should sell the cupcakes he has to sell to the obviously gay couple who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to bake a cake decorated for a same sex couple or set the cake up at their reception venue.

Rule of thumb. If you want to buy what I have to sell, you are welcome to do so. If you want me to accept a special order for something that offends me, I should have every right to say no.

 

[Casper]

Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

I do not care what they do if they follow the laws that are in place. As for boycotting a place, if people feel inclined to do so that is their right.
Personally I find this nonsense distracting from the real issues that need to be focused on and suspect most that refuse service and feel the need to announce it to the world are looking for attention, I find it best to ignore them.

 

[LaylaWindu]

For me it is simple. Nobody, for ANY reason, whether they are black, white, polka dotted, straight, gay, leftwing, rightwing, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, or an accordian player, etc., should be required to provide a product or service or participate in any way in an event or activity to which that person objects and would not normally carry. For a person to have the right of their own conscience in that way discriminates against nobody so long as the the products that the person normally carries are sold to everybody who wants them.

The Jewish baker should sell the cupcakes he has to sell to the Nazi who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to accept a special order for cupcakes with swaztikas or I hate Jews on them, however.

The gay baker should sell the cupcakes he has to sell to the Westboro Baptist member who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to accept a special order for cupcakes decorated with Gays go to Hell or cater an event at the Westboro Baptist Church.

The staunchly pro life baker should have to sell cupcakes he has to sell to the Planned Parenthood staff who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to accept a special order for cupcakes decorated Pro Choice or cater a Planned Parenthood Event.

The Christian baker who cannot believe in same sex weddings should sell the cupcakes he has to sell to the obviously gay couple who comes into the shop to buy them. He should not have to bake a cake decorated for a same sex couple or set the cake up at their reception venue.

Rule of thumb. If you want to buy what I have to sell, you are welcome to do so. If you want me to accept a special order for something that offends me, I should have every right to say no.

I don't agree and neither does the law but that aside that is confusing. What you want, which you explained at the beginning and end, doesn't match all the examples in between.
Why did you use cupcakes consistently through all the examples except the christian baker which you switch between cupcakes and cake. And why do you allow the christian baker to refuse an order because of belief and not the others? Just a mistake?