Atheistforums.com

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/04/patrick-stewart-comes-out-in-favour-of-bakery-in-gay-cake-row/

QuoteVeteran actor Patrick Stewart has come out in favour of Ashers Bakery which was last month found guilty of discrimination for refusing to write “support gay marriage” on a cake.
The owners of Ashers Bakery in Belfast were last week found guilty of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation and political or religious grounds.

Last July, Ashers Baking Company â€" based in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland â€" refused the request of gay rights activist Gareth Lee for a cake showing the message ‘Support Gay Marriage’ above an image of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie.
Speaking to Evan Davis on BBC’s Newsnight last night, the famed actor discussed his campaign work for human rights.
When asked by Davis about the Ashers Bakery cake, Stewart said it was a “deliciously difficult subject”, going on to say: “Finally I found myself on the side of the bakers.”

Continuing, he said: “It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them. It was the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they found the words offensive.
“And I would support their rights to say no, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it. But I feel bad that it cost them £600 or whatever…”

The McArthur family, who own the bakery, have since the ruling said they will appeal against it after having sought legal advice.
Benjamin Cohen, the Chief Executive of PinkNews, spoke on BBC Ulster this morning on the Nolan Show, to say: “This is actually a very difficult case. It is difficult with Patrick because he is a big supporter of LGBT rights.

“This was an odd case because it was very unlike others around the world. In this particular incident the judge actually said the refusal also stemmed from the person’s sexuality, and it was that action that broke the law.

“The judge ruled that the refusal most likely wouldn’t have happened, if the people int he shop hadn’t realised the customer was gay.
“The view actually is, particularly given the marriage vote in the Republic of Ireland, is that Northern Ireland is standing out, standing alone, on this issue. The perception of Northern Ireland is that it is against the tide of equality and human rights. I think it’s a shame.”
Simon Calvert of the Christian institute argued: “Of course he’s interesting because he’s like a lot of people who support same-sex marriage”, saying he thinks “what has been done to the McArthur family has gone too far. They should not be legally obliged to help promote [same-sex marriage]. That distinction is what people see.”

Supermarket giant Tesco last week said it was ‘reviewing’ its relationship with Ashers, after the company was found guilty.
Speaking to the media after the ruling, Mr McArthur said the bakery would not close, and that despite the ruling, they did not consider that they had done anything wrong.

“We will not be closing down. We have not done anything wrong”, Mr McArthur said.
Earlier this week, the bakery announced it would begin only making baby and birthday cakes, following the ruling.

So, whats people opinion of this?

I'm really torn about it. Stewart has been in favor of gay rights like any decent thinking guy for years, and I've loved him as an actor in all his roles.

But for this, if he's speaking up for peoples freedoms to do what they want against the law, its kind of hard for me to get behind him on this, given the circumstances of the case.

When you have the cake shop saying "they did nothing wrong", thats obvious bullshit as they outright choose to refuse to bake a cake in support of gay rights, which falls on discrimination laws, and while anyone could argue across its against their right not being allowed to discriminate, since its their business, where I come from, standards and practices apply to all, under law.

A person can be against gay rights, but last time I checked, refusing to serve someone based on personal beliefs is grounds to get you fired or disciplinary action in most jobs.

I'm not sure even what Stewart is trying to appeal to here, he surely knows it wasn't right to deny a gay couple when the shop would never deny a straight couple.

Take Patrick Stewart out of the equation.  What the bakery did was either right or wrong, and this will be decided by the legal system, with pressure from public opinion to some extent.  Gay marriage seems like a civil right, speaking out against it is free speech and also a civil right.  I'd probably be content calling the owner of the bakery a dickhead and finding another bakery.  Until the higher courts find him guilty of refusal of service or something, he's probably within his rights.  But the laws need to be clarified so that bakers can then decide whether their silly bigotry is worth going to jail over, or others can start looking around for bigotry free bakers.

As a side issue, why is this always about bakers?  There are book sellers, film makers, and sanitary engineers who probably have differing opinions, but it seems like this always centers around bakers and their cakes.  Next time, I have a debate with someone about gay rights, I can say, "Oh stop acting like a baker, and quit being an ass."

Well to be honest I wouldn't be going to a bakers to have such a cake baked anyway, my mum taught me well enough to bake my own and it would also feel personal

Though, as someone said in the comment section of the article.

QuoteHonestly from a legal perspective for me it's as simple as this:

You are a business that serves the public

Therefore you must follow public discrimination laws

And thankfully here the law states that you may not discriminate toward someone based on their sexuality/race/gender

Therefore the bakery must oblige

It's not a question of personal desires/beliefs it's a question of legality and business - if a bakery refused to write on a cake "support racial equality" there would be an absolute uproar I really don't understand why it's any different in this case

When I worked as a front of house and customer service assistant years ago, I had to serve and help customers of every detail and enquiry. I would never have refused anyone in that role to serve them, both because I'm not racist, sexist, or discriminatory to anyones creed (save religious zealots). If I did what this cake company did, it be the same as be refusing to serve a priest if one walked in with his priestly collar on. And I would have been fired for not helping him, and rightly so.

There are a lot of people fumbling with this "baker" issue right now, including the courts and political institutions.  Like you, I'm torn about it too.  Legal clarity would help a great deal. 

Another thing I thought about is that we are talking about two entirely separate issues that appear to be in conflict, but it's kind of an unrelated conflict.  Equality and free speech are two entirely different things, and one doesn't really affect the other.  No matter what it turns out that bakers can do, it's not going to have any effect on equality issues.  That's a separate issue that is well on it's way to public acceptance.  People can stand on the tracks and yell at the train to stop, but good sense eventually will dictate that it's a better idea to just get out of the way.

I agree with Patrick Stewart. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake with a penis, crucifix, Smurf or whatever she shouldn't be forced by law. It is one thing to refuse service to someone because of race, sex or sexual orientation and another to create something you find, for whatever reason, offensive. If the baker says she will bake a wedding cake for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals, or black people, or the elderly, that is different then saying I don't make penis cakes for anyone. Period.

I'm sleep deprived but that is my initial impression.

Lets raise another for instance here. If a gay couple, who had been travelling cross country all day, came to a B&B to hire a room for the night, or a motel, and asked for a double bed, it being all they can afford, and the owner refuses to give them the room because he doesn't like the idea of two men sleeping together, and because they can't afford to pay for two rooms, they are forced to leave and try and find another B&B.

I remember a case like that some years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266

QuoteA gay couple who were turned away from a bed and breakfast were discriminated against, it has been ruled.
Michael Black and John Morgan were refused a double room at Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire by its owner.
The pair from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, were awarded £1,800 each at Reading County Court for "injury to feelings".
Cambridgeshire Police said it was looking into complaints following comments made on Twitter by BNP leader Nick Griffin about the couple.
'Rights of all'
The MEP is alleged to have asked for the couple's address and called for a demonstration to be held outside their home.
One of the complained about tweets read: "We'll hold demo for rights of all home owners, gays included, to rent or not rent rooms to whomsoever they wish."
Mr Griffin's Twitter account was subsequently suspended.
A police spokesman said: "We have received a number of calls in relations to the tweets and are looking into the complaints we have received.
"Officers will also visit the men mentioned in the tweets as part of our inquiries."
Mr Black, 64, and Mr Morgan, 59, booked a double room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire via email.
When they arrived in March 2010, owner Susanne Wilkinson would not let them stay in a room with a double bed.
Recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".
It comes as a similar case in Cornwall awaits a Supreme Court hearing.
'Like a triumph'
Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the Christian owners of a guesthouse in Marazion who also turned away a gay couple have won permission to appeal against their ruling.
In the latest case, the judge accepted Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.
Reacting to the ruling, Mrs Wilkinson said: "Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings.
"We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."
The Christian Institute had backed Mrs Wilkinson's case.
Mrs Wilkinson was granted permission to appeal against the ruling and said she would give it "serious consideration".
Mr Black said the ruling felt "like a triumph".
He said: "It's taken two and a half years to get this far so to get the judgement and be vindicated in it is a great feeling."
'Simply unacceptable'
He said the only drawback was that Mrs Wilkinson had leave to appeal and, because the case involving the Cornwall guesthouse was due to go to the Supreme Court in late 2013 or early 2014, their own case was unlikely to be heard until after that.
When asked about Mrs Wilkinson's religious beliefs, Mr Black said he was not trying to fight anyone's beliefs. He said: "Running a B&B is not a religion.
"If you are running a B&B you have to abide by the law so either change your job or carry on running a B&B and let gay couples stay."
When asked if the couple were willing to take the case as far as the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Morgan said: "If it is still quite common for this sort of discrimination to take place then I think it needs to be taken all the way to be stopped."
James Welch, from civil rights group Liberty which took up the men's case, said: "It is simply unacceptable for people running a business to refuse to provide a service because of someone's sexual orientation."

A bakery and a b&b are a public service. If the person who owns either wants to discriminate based on their personal opinion and belief, they have every right to, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws in place to come down on them for refusal without proper reason.

I think whenever the law looks deeper into an event and sits around trying to determine the intentions behind actions, there are an infinite number of ways to interpret it.

If you also take the words "support gay marriage" out of the equation and put in something truly awful that almost everyone would object to, would we feel the same way? Would we support a bakery that refused to do emblazon "I hate black people (perhaps insert even worse pejorative that starts with the letter n)"? Generally not.

I think it comes down to personal lines of decency, and in the wise words of Daniel Tosh, we shouldn't have to pretend to know what everyone's are. We should even cross our own from time to time to know that we have them.

I find the baker's actions troubling.  If any business can say that they can refuse to provide a service they advertise for simply because it would go against their beliefs, is wrong--and troubling.  All businesses that cater to the public, are in a sense, owned by that public.  The public should expect any legal service that that business offers or provides.  This is different than 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' signs.  And I also see it different than 'we reserve the right to not serve anybody.', as well.  Unruly or disruptive or unclean customs should not have to be tolerated.  The bakery was given an order that was not illegal.  They should have to fulfill it.  Should a pharmacy be allowed to not fill a legal prescription because they   find the drug or item morally offensive?  I don't think so--and I see it being the same thing. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 11:00:49 AM
Should a pharmacy be allowed to not fill a legal prescription because they   find the drug or item morally offensive?  I don't think so--and I see it being the same thing. 

If pharmacies can refuse to sell birth control, it's going to be an uphill battle forcing bakers to sell wedding cakes to gays, I think.  The Federal Government has no say in the matter.  State laws seem to be "iffy" at best:

https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file119_29548.pdf

Quote
Does a pharmacy or pharmacist violate a woman’s
federal constitutional rights by refusing to satisfy
her request to purchase birth control?

No. A pharmacy’s or pharmacist’s refusal to sell birth
control does not violate a woman’s federal constitutional
rights. The U.S. Constitution imposes no limitations
on nongovernmental institutions like privately
owned pharmacies. Even if the refusal takes place in
a state-owned pharmacy, a woman has no federal
constitutional right to receive contraception. Although
the Constitution protects a woman’s right to contraception,
it does not ensure that women can access
reproductive health services.

Is it sex discrimination when a pharmacy refuses to
sell medications that onlywomen need?

Some states have laws that prevent businesses from
discriminating against customers based on their sex.
Under these “public accommodation laws,” a pharmacy
that refuses to satisfy a woman’s request for a medication
that only women use â€" such as birth control pills
â€" may be discriminating on the basis of her sex.

Do women have any recourse if a pharmacy refuses
to satisfy her request for birth control?

If a woman is treated unfairly by her pharmacist or her
pharmacy, she can file a complaint with the state
board of pharmacy. The board of pharmacy will investigate
her complaint, evaluating whether the individual
pharmacist or pharmacy acted unprofessionally or
otherwise violated the state pharmacy code. All 50
states and the District of Columbia have complaint
procedures for consumers. For assistance filing a
complaint in any state or exploring other legal options,
please contact rfp@aclu.org or (212) 549-2633.

Why would the bakery refuse to put that on a cake unless they were bigots against gays? They didn't ask to have a penis on the cake as far as I know---did they?

Quote from: SGOS on June 04, 2015, 11:22:07 AM
If pharmacies can refuse to sell birth control, it's going to be an uphill battle forcing bakers to sell wedding cakes to gays, I think.  The Federal Government has no say in the matter.  State laws seem to be "iffy" at best:

https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file119_29548.pdf

It is becoming more and more obvious that corporations have more human rights than people do.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 12:01:20 PM
It is becoming more and more obvious that corporations have more human rights than people do.

That's where the campaign money comes from.

The cakery thing is a side issue of lesser importance distracting from much larger issues. The main reason people wanted equal protection wasn't to be able to sue bakeries, but to marry, be happy and to be able to have a say so in health care, survivors benefits and so on. Anyone who can write can hold a cake decorating bag to write whatever they want. To me these suits remind me of the way police pursue drug users by almost always going after the low hanging fruit and tossing low level users in jail instead of going after the dealers and the distribution networks.
In this case it's bakeries because someone gets butthurt over a cake. Why not go after bigger fish like the insurance industry and lawmakers who seem to content to pander to homophobic fears?

I think that may be the point Patrick Stewart was making.

Well until he clarified it the great liberal vacuum of non-thinkers are probably going to label him and try to crucify him as a biggot..

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 04, 2015, 01:00:11 PM
Well until he clarified it the great liberal vacuum of non-thinkers are probably going to label him and try to crucify him as a biggot..

And that's just it, I don't want to do that, especially when he's said he's backed gay rights. But he's not covered enough to explain his reasoning, which I hope he does.

I really hope Saud is a typo.. I'd hate to think of him as Saudi royalty. .

Bloody kindle, misspelling my diction

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 11:00:49 AM
I find the baker's actions troubling.  If any business can say that they can refuse to provide a service they advertise for simply because it would go against their beliefs, is wrong--and troubling.  All businesses that cater to the public, are in a sense, owned by that public.  The public should expect any legal service that that business offers or provides.  This is different than 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' signs.  And I also see it different than 'we reserve the right to not serve anybody.', as well.  Unruly or disruptive or unclean customs should not have to be tolerated.  The bakery was given an order that was not illegal.  They should have to fulfill it.  Should a pharmacy be allowed to not fill a legal prescription because they   find the drug or item morally offensive?  I don't think so--and I see it being the same thing. 

I could not disagree more. Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals. However retailers and service provides can and absolutely should be allowed to decide exactly which services they want to offer.

The argument is this particular baker refused to write 'support gay marriage' on a cake because the customer was gay. So here's the test. I'm completely straight. Suppose I go to that baker and try to order the same cake. If they say sure no problem the yes, they should be charged. However if they also refuse to fill that order when it comes from me, then that is completely within their rights.

Lets suppose I want to get a birthday cake for my lovely wife. Suppose I want the baker to write on said cake 'Happy Birthday to my lovely wife. Now suck my cock you dirty whore'. It should absolutely be that bakers right to say no I won't write that on a cake for you. And if the baker can say no I won't write suck my cock you dirty whore on a cake then that baker should also be able to say I won't write support gay marriage.

Okay, Johan, you are making my head hurt. :)  Thinking does that.  Okay, I think I'm sort of leaning toward your take on the bakery thing.

What do you think of the pharmacy being able to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control meds for moral reasons?

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2015, 07:42:00 PM
What do you think of the pharmacy being able to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control meds for moral reasons?

So long as they refuse to sell birth control to 100% of their customers, its absolutely within their right. They don't have to sell it and if you disagree, you don't have to shop there. Now if a pharmacy decided to fill birth control scripts for married customers but not unmarried ones, that's an entirely different story. But someone doesn't want to sell birth control, they don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that. Free enterprise is called free enterprise for a reason.

Getting back to the baker example. Suppose the baker is named Chaim Witz (bonus points if you can say who that is without googling) and you walk in his bakery and order a cake that says Chaim Witz's mother will suck your cock behind a gas station for a cigarette. Do you really want to live in a world where Chaim is bound by law to fill that order? I don't.

Quote from: Johan on June 04, 2015, 08:00:51 PM
Getting back to the baker example. Suppose the baker is named Chaim Witz (bonus points if you can say who that is without googling) and you walk in his bakery and order a cake that says Chaim Witz's mother will suck your cock behind a gas station for a cigarette. Do you really want to live in a world where Chaim is bound by law to fill that order? I don't.

I'm thinking glam rock, makeup, and a prehensile tongue...

Quote from: Johan on June 04, 2015, 07:25:27 PM
I could not disagree more. Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals. However retailers and service provides can and absolutely should be allowed to decide exactly which services they want to offer.

This is a good point, even though it negates my comparison.  The birth control issue would have to be selective to be similar to the gay cake examples.  However, I think where Patrick Stewart would disagree is with this part of your comment:  "Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals."

I think such actions would be dickish and arbitrary, but a quick search of my mind, I can't think of a legal precedent that would agree with you.  Congress would have to enact a constitutional law that forbids this type of discrimination.  Maybe they have.  I'm not sure what it is.

Quote from: Johan on June 04, 2015, 08:00:51 PM
So long as they refuse to sell birth control to 100% of their customers, its absolutely within their right. They don't have to sell it and if you disagree, you don't have to shop there. Now if a pharmacy decided to fill birth control scripts for married customers but not unmarried ones, that's an entirely different story. But someone doesn't want to sell birth control, they don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that. Free enterprise is called free enterprise for a reason.

Getting back to the baker example. Suppose the baker is named Chaim Witz (bonus points if you can say who that is without googling) and you walk in his bakery and order a cake that says Chaim Witz's mother will suck your cock behind a gas station for a cigarette. Do you really want to live in a world where Chaim is bound by law to fill that order? I don't.

You know, the more I think about this the more I dislike your take on this and my take on this.  Damn!  I need to take more time and look at it from the 'shoes' of everybody involved.  Damn--more thinking.

Quote from: trdsf on June 04, 2015, 09:23:13 PM
I'm thinking glam rock, makeup, and a prehensile tongue...

Correct. ...and its sort of related because he will happily sell anything to anyone if it puts a buck in his pocket.

Quote from: SGOS on June 05, 2015, 06:37:24 AM
This is a good point, even though it negates my comparison.  The birth control issue would have to be selective to be similar to the gay cake examples.  However, I think where Patrick Stewart would disagree is with this part of your comment:  "Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals."

I think such actions would be dickish and arbitrary, but a quick search of my mind, I can't think of a legal precedent that would agree with you.  Congress would have to enact a constitutional law that forbids this type of discrimination.  Maybe they have.  I'm not sure what it is.

You're right, but I worded that poorly. What I meant was retailers should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to someone based on things like race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 05, 2015, 09:30:26 AM
You know, the more I think about this the more I dislike your take on this and my take on this.  Damn!  I need to take more time and look at it from the 'shoes' of everybody involved.  Damn--more thinking.

Sorry about that. FWIW my opinion on the subject is based at least in part on the whole slippery slope theory. Once we start writing legislation which says if you're going to call yourself X or if you're going to be business that sells Y then you MUST also sell Z. Once we start down that path, where does it end?

If a pharmacist can be sued or otherwise suffer legal consequences for choosing not to sell birth control, then what's to stop us from suing a restaurant that doesn't have a tune melt on the menu? Or bringing fines against a hardware store that doesn't sell drill bits? And at that point, who in their right mind would want to be a business owner?

The free market does an excellent job of dictating what goods and services business owners should offer.

My parents owned a mom & pop hardware store until I was in my 30's. They made an ok living with it until home depot and lowes changed the paradigm and they didn't change with it. All through my childhood my parents worked seven days a week because the store was open on Sunday. The store was open on Sunday because Sunday was when the store did 15%-30% of its weekly revenue. This was because every other hardware store owner in town was owned  theists and thus closed on Sundays. Those other hardware store owners decided to allow their beliefs to limit their profit and my parents recognized that situation and took advantage of it. And I'm confident that if my folks hadn't been the ones to do it, someone else would have.

Ocean City NJ is a dry town. You can't buy a drop of alcohol anywhere in city limits. Because Ocean city is barrier island, you can only get there via one of three different roads. Every one of those three roads has a mega warehouse size liquor store within a mile of the town line. The free market regulates this kind of thing just fine.

If a pharmacy doesn't want to sell birth control, some other pharmacy is going to step up and take advantage of the profit being left on the table as a result.

Quote from: Johan on June 05, 2015, 08:42:49 PM
Sorry about that. FWIW my opinion on the subject is based at least in part on the whole slippery slope theory. Once we start writing legislation which says if you're going to call yourself X or if you're going to be business that sells Y then you MUST also sell Z. Once we start down that path, where does it end?

If a pharmacist can be sued or otherwise suffer legal consequences for choosing not to sell birth control, then what's to stop us from suing a restaurant that doesn't have a tune melt on the menu? Or bringing fines against a hardware store that doesn't sell drill bits? And at that point, who in their right mind would want to be a business owner?

The free market does an excellent job of dictating what goods and services business owners should offer.

My parents owned a mom & pop hardware store until I was in my 30's. They made an ok living with it until home depot and lowes changed the paradigm and they didn't change with it. All through my childhood my parents worked seven days a week because the store was open on Sunday. The store was open on Sunday because Sunday was when the store did 15%-30% of its weekly revenue. This was because every other hardware store owner in town was owned  theists and thus closed on Sundays. Those other hardware store owners decided to allow their beliefs to limit their profit and my parents recognized that situation and took advantage of it. And I'm confident that if my folks hadn't been the ones to do it, someone else would have.

Ocean City NJ is a dry town. You can't buy a drop of alcohol anywhere in city limits. Because Ocean city is barrier island, you can only get there via one of three different roads. Every one of those three roads has a mega warehouse size liquor store within a mile of the town line. The free market regulates this kind of thing just fine.

If a pharmacy doesn't want to sell birth control, some other pharmacy is going to step up and take advantage of the profit being left on the table as a result.

I see I did not make myself clear.  I was thinking of the instance of a pharmacy selling birth control to some and not others.  Or not to certain age groups.  I used birth control because it is used for not just birth control, but other conditions as well.  If that store does not want to carry or sell birth control at all, then there is nothing wrong with that.  If an 18 yr. old young woman had a prescription for birth control, took it to a pharmacy that sold birth control, and they refused to fill that one on moral grounds, that is wrong.   I think you would agree--I think we are on the same page here.

As for the baker, if it is store policy to not use certain words or phrases on any of it's products for anybody, the that is fine.  But if I could go into that bakery and buy the cake the gay couple wanted, then that would be wrong.  Once again, I think we are on the same page.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

We are absolutely on the same page on all counts.

But now that you've clarified the birth control scenario, I find myself, like you, wondering if I should rethink it a bit. Its touchy this one.

I mean on the one hand, the same way retailers should be able to choose what they do or don't want to sell, they should also have the right to refuse to sell anything to individuals for certain reasons at least. Say for instance you have a customer who is always belligerent or who has a habit of verbally abusing your other customers. A business owner should be able to say no soup for you in those cases. Race, creed, gender, religion etc should be protected obviously. But a customer who will only refer to you as cocksucker? You should be able to tell that customer to get the fuck out and don't come back.

But refusing to sell birth control only to certain individuals solely on moral grounds? Geez that's a tough one. I see not wanting to sell anything to an individual because you happen to feel that individual is an immoral person. I think retailers should have that right. Kinda falls under the 'I just don't like you and I don't want your money or your business' category for me.

But refusing to sell only certain items to certain individuals based on your moral beliefs? I certainly don't like the idea of it. But I think fall back on the free market regulates itself on this one. Store owners should be able to do this if they desire so long as those whom they do it to are also free to make the public aware of what the store owner did and therefore other members of the buying public are able to choose whether or not to give that business patronage.

Again, I don't like it. But let them do it. And then let the rest of the buying public decide where they want to spend their money.

Quote from: Munch on June 04, 2015, 06:02:03 AM
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/04/patrick-stewart-comes-out-in-favour-of-bakery-in-gay-cake-row/
So, whats people opinion of this?

Well, when looking at a hot button issue like this, it is good to reverse it for some perspective.

What if a customer came into a cake shop and asked for a cake that said "Homosexuality is a sin." What would happen if the shop owner refused to put that message on a cake? What would happen if the shop owner fucking shrugged and made the cake with the message and people would would be offended by that message found out where the cake was made?

I'm of several minds on the subject since I have the luxury of not having a real stake in any direction. The image of the events that I'm getting from this story is not that the shop owner refused a gay man service. He just refused to make a cake with a particular message upon it. There is a difference between those two. It is possible to refuse to make a "support gay rights" cake one day but make another that says "happy birthday" for the same person.

Is that what happened? No fucking clue. I wasn't there. But that's the reading I get.

Personally, I could understand having a "no political message" policy in your cake shop because you don't want to piss anyone off because all you want to do is sell fucking cakes. Bigots buy cakes, too.

That said, I doubt that this was an attempt at remaining neutral and more an expression of the baker's own political view. But they could have offered to make the Bert and Ernie cake but they'd have to write their own message on it.

As i said, I have no dog in this, but there is a difference between "get yer faggie ass out of my store" and "I'm sorry, but I won't put a message like that on a cake." The first one is discrimination. The other is a business owner exercising his own judgement and beliefs, whether you agree with him or not. I don't know which of these actually happened since I wasn't there, but the reports seem to indicate the latter.

Bit of further update on this.

QuotePatrick Stewart dismisses claims he is anti-gay after backing ‘gay cake’ row bakery

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/07/patrick-stewart-dismisses-claims-he-is-anti-gay-after-backing-gay-cake-row-bakery/

X-Men actor Patrick Stewart has responded to a barrage of criticism, after he declared his support for a Christian bakery that refused to make a ‘support gay marriage’ cake.
Ashers Baking Company â€" based in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland â€" last year refused to make a cake showing the message ‘Support Gay Marriage’ above an image of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie.
After the owners of Ashers Bakery in Belfast were last week found guilty of unlawful discrimination, Patrick Stewart spoke about the case on Newsnight, saying he was “on the side of the bakers” and  “supports their rights to say no”.
The actor â€" a close friend of Stonewall co-founder Sir Ian McKellen â€" has now addressed his comments in a Facebook post.
He wrote: “As part of my advocacy for Amnesty International, I gave an interview on a number of subjects related to human rights, civil rights and freedom of speech.
“During the interview, I was asked about the Irish bakers who refused to put a message on a cake which supported marriage equality, because of their beliefs.
“In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rightsâ€" and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn’t compromised in the pursuit of the other.
“I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts. I respect and understand their position, especially in this important climate where the tides of prejudices and inequality are (thankfully) turning.
“What I cannot respect is that some have conflated my position on this single matter to assume I’m anti-equality or that I share the personal beliefs of the bakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth.
“I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured.”

He's pretty much held on his statement.

I'm still two ways about it, and probably will never agree it, but same time he's got every right to his opinion, even if nobody else agrees with it.

Well again, it goes back to would the baker refuse to produce that particular cake for anyone regardless of their sexual orientation? If so, there is absolutely no way any sane person can say this is a case of discrimination IMO.

Quote from: Johan on June 07, 2015, 11:33:43 AM
Well again, it goes back to would the baker refuse to produce that particular cake for anyone regardless of their sexual orientation? If so, there is absolutely no way any sane person can say this is a case of discrimination IMO.

Except the courts, which it did.

it shouldn't matter what patrick stewart says what that bakery did was discrimination and it was wrong. Just because an actor backs something means didly squat in my book. You know what they say. Opinions are like assholes every one has one! But just because some one has an opinion doesn't make them correct. This will only confirm what people who already think this way believe but those of us who don't shouldn't really give credence to it.

I'm still baffled by it. Stewart says he backs gay rights, which I believe to be true. He is also an advocate for free speech, which I am too, i believe in freedom of expression.
But I feel like Stewart is confusing freedom of speech with that of denial of service, going by the cake sellers own beliefs. If I worked in a bakery, and a religous nutcase came in and asked me to bake a cake with the letters saying "Burn all Fags" I would consider this an offense, because its pushing a bigoted view, the same as if someone asked me to bake a cake saying "Burn on Catholics or Burn of muslims", again, regardless my own atheism, I would say this is asking me to conform to hate speech.

However the cake itself in this story was for nothing like this, it was a cake supporting gay marriage, a positive message. Now if the roles were reversed, as me being a gay atheist working in a cake shop, was asked by a straight couple to bake a wedding cake, or asked to write on a cake "Pro Feminist or Pro mens rights" or something even like "Support Jesus, Praise God", I would write it out, regardless of my own distaste for what they've asked me to write.

Creating extreme situations in what the baker could do something offensive like 'burn on gays' is not the same as what actually has happened, he refused to write a non-offensive writing on a cake, for a group that only was their to support an act.

There is a line, invisible, but its there, of what is acceptable in these situations, and what pushes over the gate into offensive territory. The message in this case was no anything offensive, anymore then if I was asked to write on a cake 'Support Jesus', because the cake isn't for me, its for whoever is buying it.

Quote from: Munch on June 07, 2015, 11:56:28 AM

However the cake itself in this story was for nothing like this, it was a cake supporting gay marriage, a positive message. Now if the roles were reversed, as me being a gay atheist working in a cake shop, was asked by a straight couple to bake a wedding cake, or asked to write on a cake "Pro Feminist or Pro mens rights" or something even like "Support Jesus, Praise God", I would write it out, regardless of my own distaste for what they've asked me to write.

Ok but that's not exactly having the roles reversed. You, as employee of a cake shop would be (presumably) bound by whatever policies the store management dictated. If you refused to produce a cake which was within the stores policy to make, you would be fired and it would end there. If you refused to produce a cake because it was the policy of the store not to produce such a cake, the store and its management would be liable, not you the employee.

And would dare say that in most cases, store employees are not able to decide what cakes the store will produce and what cakes it won't.

QuoteCreating extreme situations in what the baker could do something offensive like 'burn on gays' is not the same as what actually has happened, he refused to write a non-offensive writing on a cake, for a group that only was their to support an act.

Offensive is subjective.

QuoteThere is a line, invisible, but its there, of what is acceptable in these situations, and what pushes over the gate into offensive territory.

Offensive is subjective.

QuoteThe message in this case was no anything offensive, anymore then if I was asked to write on a cake 'Support Jesus', because the cake isn't for me, its for whoever is buying it.

And once again, offensive is subjective. But more importantly, offensive does not matter one bit in this case. A business owner or its management has the right to decide what they will or will not offer for sale regardless of who does or does not find it offensive.

Lets frame it another way. I personally don't like sports. I don't watch sports, I don't follow sports and I don't participate in any sports. Now lets say I own a bakery and a customer comes in and orders a birthday cake for their young son. This particular tyke happens to love football so the parents would like to buy a birthday cake with the top decorated like a football field with the words happy birthday champ on it. I don't like sports and I own the business and I decide that I really don't care to create a cake with that particular decoration on it. Its not that I find it offensive, I just would rather not do it. I will happily make the customer a non-sports themed cake if they like or they're free to find another bakery who will make them the football cake they want.

Now I ask you, is that discrimination? If so why? And if not, why is the support gay marriage situation any different?

Quote from: Munch on June 07, 2015, 11:56:28 AM
I'm still baffled by it. Stewart says he backs gay rights, which I believe to be true. He is also an advocate for free speech, which I am too, i believe in freedom of expression.
But I feel like Stewart is confusing freedom of speech with that of denial of service, going by the cake sellers own beliefs. If I worked in a bakery, and a religous nutcase came in and asked me to bake a cake with the letters saying "Burn all Fags" I would consider this an offense, because its pushing a bigoted view, the same as if someone asked me to bake a cake saying "Burn on Catholics or Burn of muslims", again, regardless my own atheism, I would say this is asking me to conform to hate speech.

However the cake itself in this story was for nothing like this, it was a cake supporting gay marriage, a positive message. Now if the roles were reversed, as me being a gay atheist working in a cake shop, was asked by a straight couple to bake a wedding cake, or asked to write on a cake "Pro Feminist or Pro mens rights" or something even like "Support Jesus, Praise God", I would write it out, regardless of my own distaste for what they've asked me to write.

Creating extreme situations in what the baker could do something offensive like 'burn on gays' is not the same as what actually has happened, he refused to write a non-offensive writing on a cake, for a group that only was their to support an act.

There is a line, invisible, but its there, of what is acceptable in these situations, and what pushes over the gate into offensive territory. The message in this case was no anything offensive, anymore then if I was asked to write on a cake 'Support Jesus', because the cake isn't for me, its for whoever is buying it.

Let's pretend I'm a gay man and I own a bakery. I've got my little support gay marriage rainbow flag in the window and I have a lot of LGBT friendly customers. A political group comes in and orders a cake that says "Support Amendment One" which will make gay marriage illegal in NC (and it did). They tell me they are going to use this cake in their fundraising and prominently display "Cake by GSOgymrat Bakery" so that everyone will know I support Amendment One. They also remind me that by law I must make this cake to their specifications and if I don't they will take me to court. Clearly they are using this law to damage my business but as a small business owner I can't afford litigation. Do you believe I should be forced by law to make this cake?

I'm all for business being able to deny a customer service/product, within reason of course. I also think it's not OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I'm ambivalent. No one bats an eye when a too drunk patron is denied any more alcoholic beverages, and I think that is within reason, unless someone thinks they should be allowed to drink themselves further into a stupor. But that isn't exactly based on personal beliefs, but the state in which the customer is in. I don't know, should we allow people be assholes in their customer service, based on their personal preference?

Quote from: Munch on June 07, 2015, 11:56:28 AM
But I feel like Stewart is confusing freedom of speech with that of denial of service, going by the cake sellers own beliefs.

That's what makes this thing so interesting.  Is the bakery exercising free speech or not?  It's the thing that perplexes me.  The courts seem to agree with you.  I don't know if the decision would be the same in the US. 

I really don't know where I am on this issue, so I'm just going to sort of casually stroll through my thinking and probably ultimately come to the conclusion that I still don't know where I am on the issue.

1) I'm not a First Amendment absolutist, but I'm pretty close to one.  I'm of the opinion that very little speech can or should be banned, and that which can be needs to present a realistic danger (the classic shouting of fire in a crowded theater).  Hate speech comes close, but as distasteful as it is, if it's not inciteful, it's permissible.  "No Fag Marriage" on a cake is hateful, but not inciteful.  "Kill All Fags" is inciteful.

2) Unless you're in business as a church, or make it explicitly clear that you're running a religious business, one's religious opinions need to be put aside.  Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion, and customers are coming in for a service being offered to the public, not to one particular sect.  So it's no more proper for a public business to arbitrarily withhold their services from a couple who are gay because their church teaches homosexuality is wrong than it would be to withhold their services from a couple who are Jewish because their church teaches that "Jews are Christ-killers".  In a civil society -- which, despite the efforts of the Talebangelical wingnuts in this country, we still are -- your dogma stops at your church door.

Quote from: trdsf on June 07, 2015, 07:16:05 PM

1) I'm not a First Amendment absolutist, but I'm pretty close to one.  I'm of the opinion that very little speech can or should be banned, and that which can be needs to present a realistic danger (the classic shouting of fire in a crowded theater).  Hate speech comes close, but as distasteful as it is, if it's not inciteful, it's permissible.  "No Fag Marriage" on a cake is hateful, but not inciteful.  "Kill All Fags" is inciteful.

I agree. But the first five words of the first amendment are Congress shall pass no law. A bakery is not congress. And while your right to free speech allows you to wear a t-shirt which calls out my wife by name and says that she is in fact a whore, I can assure you that if you were to try to enter my home wearing such a t-shirt, you would quickly find that the first amendment does not protect you from jack shit in my house when it comes to speech. And that is exactly as it should be. Businesses are no different.

Quote2) Unless you're in business as a church, or make it explicitly clear that you're running a religious business, one's religious opinions need to be put aside.  Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion, and customers are coming in for a service being offered to the public, not to one particular sect.  So it's no more proper for a public business to arbitrarily withhold their services from a couple who are gay because their church teaches homosexuality is wrong than it would be to withhold their services from a couple who are Jewish because their church teaches that "Jews are Christ-killers".  In a civil society -- which, despite the efforts of the Talebangelical wingnuts in this country, we still are -- your dogma stops at your church door.

Ok fair enough. But should a business be forced to do work if they feel performing said work could have a negative impact on future sales?

Let me give an example. This is not a hypothetical, this actually happened. During my stint as a commercial pilot, I flew advertising banners up and down the beaches of NJ. While flying a banner on the beach one day, I saw a plane from another company pulling a very large fabric billboard panel (looked to be about 45ftx120ft IIRC) which had a very large black and white photograph of an aborted fetus along with some anti-abortion copy. I mentioned seeing the panel to my boss and he told me the group who was paying for that panel had called our company first but he refused to take the work. Not because of his own views on abortion. He was a business man, he could give a fuck. But because he was concerned that some of our other accounts would drop us if they found out we were also flying the abortion picture banner.

So was it wrong of my boss to turn down that work? Should that anti-abortion group have been able to sue us legally over it? I would argue that they should not. And I would further argue that no business should ever be forced to provide services to anyone if they simply don't want to. I'm not saying you can refuse to serve someone because they're black or because they're white or because they're a woman or a jew or gay. But if a customer wants you to sell something which you do not want to sell for any other reason, you should legally be able to say no.

And this, Johan, is why I say I don't know where I stand.  :)

Fair enough. Its a tricky one for sure. For me, as someone who grew up with parents owning and running a small business, I think I tend to see the issue through the eyes of the business owner. And I think one of the reasons people struggle to figure out where they stand on this topic is because this particular event involves a gay customer wanting to buy a cake with a gay hot topic message on it.

For me it comes down to asking some very basic questions. Would the shop have made a cake with a different message for the customer? Would the shop have made the cake with the requested message for a heterosexual customer? If its yes to the first and no to the second I have a hard time understanding how anyone could see that as discrimination.

Now obviously I wasn't at the store and I wasn't at the trial so I don't know how they would answer to either question. They were found guilty of discrimination which suggests how they might have answered. But Patrick Stewart said what he said on the topic which suggests (assuming he knows more about it than we do) they might have given different answers.  The store is going to appeal. Perhaps the appeal will reveal more info on the subject.

I think in the main in this specific case, I come down against the bakery, because the message is not what we would commonly or reasonably refer to as incitement.  The bakery is in business as a business, it is not in business as a church; it's not their job to pass editorial--and even less so to pass moral--judgment on the customer's needs.  I would feel obliged to prepare a cake that said "Welcome Westboro Baptist Church" -- it's distasteful to me personally, but it's not incitement.  I would even prepare one that read "God Hates Fags" since in my mind, that's the equivalent of saying "Leprechauns Hate Fags" or "The Easter Bunny Hates Fags".  I would tell them exactly what I thought of them after they paid for it, though.

I would feel perfectly justified in turning down a request for a cake that said "Kill All Fags" as that clearly is incitement.  They would have been justified in turning down a cake that said "Kill All Breeders" for the same reason.

So for you, incitement is the benchmark one must hit before declining an order can be justified. So am I correct in assuming that fear of loss of current/future regular sales should not be allowed to enter into it for you then?

I am just probing here--not quite sure how I feel about the aspect I want to bring up about this subject.  I remember in the Baltimore riots recently, went the CVS pharmacy was burned, it was mentioned that there was not another pharmacy within a mile of the place.  I imagine that some of the residents of that area were put under considerable pressure to find another one to get to.  Does a business, such as a pharmacy, have an obligation to serve the customers of that area in a neutral way--and with as much service as it can within the confines of it's business?  Maybe I'm trying to make too fine a distinction here.  Should an auto repair shop be forced to also sell tires?  No, I don't think so.  Should a pharmacy be forced to sell all common medicines?  Maybe. 

I have a lot to say about this, but Johan already said it. I am a big proponent of gay rights, even though I am not gay. I even get in arguments with family over bigotry toward gays from time to time. But this isn't a question of bigotry, it's a question of free speech: no one should be compelled, by law, to make a statement, any more than they should be prevented, by law, from making a statement Suppose I am an atheist publisher, and someone wants me to publish a Christian book. Suppose I am an atheist artist or musician, am I to be required to draw crucifixes or play hymns, if I do my art for hire?

Discriminating in your choice of ideas, is not the same as discrimination against a person.

The pharmacy question is different. Unlike most retail situations. the products that a pharmacy offers are a special case. Those requesting them, have a medical need for them, and I don't have a problem forcing them to stock controversial medications.

Quote from: Johan on June 08, 2015, 06:17:02 AM
So for you, incitement is the benchmark one must hit before declining an order can be justified. So am I correct in assuming that fear of loss of current/future regular sales should not be allowed to enter into it for you then?

It doesn't for me, anyway.  I consider civil rights more important than economic ones.  The case you referenced earlier about the abortion banner is rather a special case (and I would be willing to entertain an argument that the inclusion of the picture made it unacceptable) -- I don't know what text was on it, but 'abortion is murder' certainly approaches the incitement line given the fact that clinics have been bombed and doctors murdered.

Under normal circumstances, no one else knows--or even cares--about who performed the service unless it's far enough above what's expected they want to seek out the business, or far enough below they want to avoid it.  A customer walks out of a bakery with a cake in a box, not waving a huge banner displaying what was on it, and when they get to their destination the baker isn't there personally announcing they made it to everyone who comes to get a piece.  So I don't think the economic argument stands, not in the vast majority of cases.

You have obviously never owned a business. From the sound of it, I'd wager you've never managed one either.

Quote from: Johan on June 08, 2015, 02:50:50 PM
You have obviously never owned a business. From the sound of it, I'd wager you've never managed one either.

How is that relevant?  I have worked at both small and large businesses -- do you think my eyes were closed the whole time?  Surely you're not suggesting that I have to run my own company in order to have my own opinion about corporate behavior.

No I'm not suggesting that. You obviously don't need business ownership experience to have an opinion on it. But I am suggesting that very few people have the ability to understand the perspective being a business owner brings to these subjects without actually owning a business.

And what you're suggesting, that businesses be forced to fill any order they're capable of filling, would create a situations where anyone could force a business to do things which could cause them real financial harm. And why? So no one ever has to suffer the unconscionable indignity of having to go back to the phone book and call another bakery.

Quote from: Johan on June 08, 2015, 08:12:02 PM
No I'm not suggesting that. You obviously don't need business ownership experience to have an opinion on it. But I am suggesting that very few people have the ability to understand the perspective being a business owner brings to these subjects without actually owning a business.

And what you're suggesting, that businesses be forced to fill any order they're capable of filling, would create a situations where anyone could force a business to do things which could cause them real financial harm. And why? So no one ever has to suffer the unconscionable indignity of having to go back to the phone book and call another bakery.

I think you're assuming a lot more financial harm than is realistically in play in these situations -- exactly what financial harm does a bakery face for baking a cake for a gay wedding and not making a fuss about it?  They're in business to provide a service -- generally speaking, you don't get to pick and choose your customers on the basis of your beliefs.  A business in the public sphere needs to serve the public.  If they want to limit their clientele to just those who share their beliefs, that's on the business owners to make known up front, not for the client to find out by running into the owner's prejudices.

And in any case, why is theoretical financial harm worth more than real-world emotional harm?

Anyone saying they won't bake a cake for a gay wedding is just a bigot and stupid, period. In some sense they brought it on themselves and deserve to be called out for it. There are so many ways to dodge the issue without declaring yourself a bigot, such as saying you are too busy, don't have the required expertise or any number of craft related excuses the issue would never come up.

To my mind they set themselves up for it by making that declaration. The mere act of prohibiting based on declaring a societal group as unworthy is no different than a southern baker in the 50's saying black people can't have wedding cakes. I don't see it as any more difficult than that.

Quote from: trdsf on June 08, 2015, 08:19:33 PM
I think you're assuming a lot more financial harm than is realistically in play in these situations

The abortion banner I mentioned earlier? They wanted to fly it because they wanted to get press out of it. They made the panel to be shocking because they were hoping it would make the the 6 o-clock news. It stands to reason that some of that press could turn negative against the company flying the panel.  IIRC the client wanted to fly that panel one or two long flight days only which meant it would have brought in about $5k in revenue tops. At the time we were also flying several national accounts. If we had gotten bad press from flying the abortion thing, there is very real chance those other companies would have dropped us which would have meant well over $100k loss in revenue for the year.

Quote-- exactly what financial harm does a bakery face for baking a cake for a gay wedding and not making a fuss about it? 

Picture a small bakery in a small town of mostly catholic, mostly bigoted people. Perhaps 10% of that bakeries annual revenue comes from providing services to local church events. The church makes no secret of not liking gay marriage. Easy to see how making one cake could end up costing you 10% of your annual revenue in that situation.

QuoteThey're in business to provide a service -- generally speaking, you don't get to pick and choose your customers on the basis of your beliefs.

Nope you don't. Or at least you shouldn't. Unfortunately the same is not true in reverse. Customers can and do pick the businesses they choose to patronize and therefore the businesses they choose not to patronize based on their own beliefs. So sometimes serving one customer can mean you lose one hundred others. And business owners, at least successful ones, factor that into the decisions they make.


 

QuoteA business in the public sphere needs to serve the public.  If they want to limit their clientele to just those who share their beliefs, that's on the business owners to make known up front, not for the client to find out by running into the owner's prejudices.

So you're ok with it as long as they put up a sign?

QuoteAnd in any case, why is theoretical financial harm worth more than real-world emotional harm?

Is it all that emotionally harmful for a business to tell you no they won't do that? I mean I hear no from businesses I try to patronize all the time and I don't need therapy because of it.

Quote from: Johan on June 09, 2015, 06:37:03 AM
The abortion banner I mentioned earlier? They wanted to fly it because they wanted to get press out of it. They made the panel to be shocking because they were hoping it would make the the 6 o-clock news. It stands to reason that some of that press could turn negative against the company flying the panel.  IIRC the client wanted to fly that panel one or two long flight days only which meant it would have brought in about $5k in revenue tops. At the time we were also flying several national accounts. If we had gotten bad press from flying the abortion thing, there is very real chance those other companies would have dropped us which would have meant well over $100k loss in revenue for the year.

Yes, and I addressed that several posts ago as a special case.

Quote from: Johan on June 09, 2015, 06:37:03 AM
Picture a small bakery in a small town of mostly catholic, mostly bigoted people. Perhaps 10% of that bakeries annual revenue comes from providing services to local church events. The church makes no secret of not liking gay marriage. Easy to see how making one cake could end up costing you 10% of your annual revenue in that situation.

How many bakeries are you assuming a small town can support?  And you're talking about this as if the purchasers of the service were running around the town square waving a banner that says "Mom's Bakery made us a gay cake!"  Customer services are not, for the most part, widely spread Internet events.

Quote from: Johan on June 09, 2015, 06:37:03 AM
Nope you don't. Or at least you shouldn't. Unfortunately the same is not true in reverse. Customers can and do pick the businesses they choose to patronize and therefore the businesses they choose not to patronize based on their own beliefs. So sometimes serving one customer can mean you lose one hundred others. And business owners, at least successful ones, factor that into the decisions they make.

Again, you're talking like the purchaser is running around telling everyone "Mom's Bakery made me a gay cake!"  I just came back from the corner store, and I couldn't tell you what the person in line ahead of me bought.  The vast majority of people either don't know, or don't care, and that's the way the system works.

It comes into the public eye when a business owner -- for non-business reasons -- refuses service to a customer that they provide for anyone else.  It doesn't come into the public eye when the customer goes in, makes a purchase, and goes home with it.

And I begin to suspect that some of these places are starting to do it deliberately, because they know that the first couple places started getting orders from all over the country from other religious bigots offering their financial "support".

Quote from: Johan on June 09, 2015, 06:37:03 AM
So you're ok with it as long as they put up a sign?

That would be more honest of them.  Then a customer would know not to go in there and expect service.

Quote from: Johan on June 09, 2015, 06:37:03 AM
Is it all that emotionally harmful for a business to tell you no they won't do that? I mean I hear no from businesses I try to patronize all the time and I don't need therapy because of it.

I strongly doubt that you hear 'no' from businesses regarding services that they will perform for anyone else, and told no on the basis of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the business transaction itself.

If you happened to be a redhead and walked into a barber shop and were told "We don't serve ginger people," you'd sue, and rightly so.  This is the same thing, and I don't see this as being any different from the old "Whites Only" policies in the old South.

Ok, lets extend this a little more. In Edmonton recently, a report came that a father, along with his wife and two daughters, were riding to a bike shop in edmonton to get bike parts to fix them up.
But when they got to the bikeworks, the father was ordered that he wasn't allowed to enter the premises, but his wife and daughters could, due to the bike shop owners, which was volenteer based, telling him men who were not trans or Non-Binary could not enter the premise.

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/1383872/edmonton-cyclist-denied-entry-to-bike-shop-based-on-gender/

QuoteOn a recent Sunday evening, John (who asked for his full name to be withheld) was riding his bike with his wife and two daughters.

The family needed bike parts and was interested in buying a bike, so they rode to the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society’s BikeWorks South, near Whyte Avenue.

But at the volunteer-staffed shop, people at the bike works allegedly told John he couldn’t come inside, yet his wife could. “I was denied entry based on gender. I was surprised,” he said.

Despite an open for business sign, John said he was barred entry because of the society’s “Women, Trans and Gender Non-Binary” program that was being held at the shop that Sunday.

The Sunday afternoon program is held three times a month, and allows individuals identifying with those specific groups to participate in what the society’s website describes as a “safe space” at BikeWorks.

“If you do not identify as woman, trans or non-binary, you can support this important initiative by … respecting the space and not entering during the Women, Trans & Gender Non-Binary program,” reads the society’s website.

Regardless, John said he felt excluded based on gender â€" and has filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission solely because of his exclusion, not because of the program.

“I have no problem with a program that is trying to get women, trans-gendered and non-binary people in there, but don’t segregate,” he said.

This is not the first time Edmonton Bicycle Commuters has heard complaints from people who felt barred from entering the shop during the program, which started in 2010, said Chris Chan, executive director of EBC.

But Chan said this program and others that the group runs cater to specific demands from local cyclists.

“We offer a range of classes and programs because not everyone feels comfortable in every single situation all the time,” he said.

“It’s about finding that balance in making sure our shop is affordable and accessible but still providing a service to as many people as possible. I don’t think we can provide a single, unified service that everybody would feel comfortable with all the time, at the same time.”

Chan said the society is examining all of its programs to see if they are most effectively meeting the needs of cyclists.

“We certainly are looking at this program and constantly thinking about it, and we are thinking about it more at the moment. We’ve updated the wording on our website so there’s less confusion about what the program is. I think that’s a lot of it.”

â€"With files from Tim Querengesser
In their own words, according to Edmonton Bicycle Commuters Society

Here’s what EBC’s website says about why they have a women, trans and gender non-binary bike repair program.

“(S)tudies show a 3:1 ratio of male to female cyclists, and the numbers are even more imbalanced in the world of bike repair.”
“Mechanical repair has traditionally been a male-dominated field. Bike repair shops are often staffed entirely by male mechanics, and genders may be treated differently, sometimes in subtle ways.”
“Our Women, Trans & Gender Non-Binary program helps reduce barriers to bringing more women, trans and non-binary persons into our shop, which helps EBC to train & recruit non-male mechanics for public shop days, making those days more welcoming for everyone.”

Now, in the same vain as with the cake shop, whats your opinion of this, it follows the same premise and their website makes the statement that they will only welcome women, trans and non-binary into their store at certain times.

Is this as equally acceptable behavior for a business?

Quote from: trdsf on June 10, 2015, 04:37:08 AM
Yes, and I addressed that several posts ago as a special case.

Special case? It is EXACTLY the same concept. Exactly the same. We turned down work because we felt there was a chance it might have been seen as controversial by some of our larger clients and thus could jeopardize the revenue we made from those clients. 

QuoteAgain, you're talking like the purchaser is running around telling everyone "Mom's Bakery made me a gay cake!"  I just came back from the corner store, and I couldn't tell you what the person in line ahead of me bought.  The vast majority of people either don't know, or don't care, and that's the way the system works.

It comes into the public eye when a business owner -- for non-business reasons -- refuses service to a customer that they provide for anyone else.  It doesn't come into the public eye when the customer goes in, makes a purchase, and goes home with it.

Look at the words I bolded above. Just because its unlikely anyone would find out does not mean its guaranteed no one would find out. We didn't turn down that banner work because he knew the other clients would find out. We had no way of knowing if they would find out. Hell we had no way of knowing whether they'd even care if they did find out. We made a business decision based on what we felt was a possibility. That is how tons of business decisions are made.

QuoteThat would be more honest of them.  Then a customer would know not to go in there and expect service.

Fair enough. http://www.amazon.com/RESERVE-REFUSE-SERVICE-ANYONE-Plastic/dp/B0022VT47U (http://www.amazon.com/RESERVE-REFUSE-SERVICE-ANYONE-Plastic/dp/B0022VT47U)

QuoteI strongly doubt that you hear 'no' from businesses regarding services that they will perform for anyone else, and told no on the basis of something that has absolutely nothing to do with the business transaction itself.

You would be wrong about that.

QuoteIf you happened to be a redhead and walked into a barber shop and were told "We don't serve ginger people," you'd sue, and rightly so.  This is the same thing, and I don't see this as being any different from the old "Whites Only" policies in the old South.

And again, you would be right if the bakery did indeed refuse to sell any cake to the customer. Do we know for a fact that is what happened here? Because there seems to be some speculation that the bakery refused to create that one particular cake for the customer, meaning they were perfectly willing to sell the customer a cake with a different message on it. And if that's the case then no, it is NOT exactly the same at all.

Walk into an Apple store and tell them you'd like a purple iphone and see if they make you one.

Quote from: Munch on June 10, 2015, 05:43:39 AM
Ok, lets extend this a little more. In Edmonton recently, a report came that a father, along with his wife and two daughters, were riding to a bike shop in edmonton to get bike parts to fix them up.
But when they got to the bikeworks, the father was ordered that he wasn't allowed to enter the premises, but his wife and daughters could, due to the bike shop owners, which was volenteer based, telling him men who were not trans or Non-Binary could not enter the premise.

http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/1383872/edmonton-cyclist-denied-entry-to-bike-shop-based-on-gender/

Now, in the same vain as with the cake shop, whats your opinion of this, it follows the same premise and their website makes the statement that they will only welcome women, trans and non-binary into their store at certain times.

Is this as equally acceptable behavior for a business?

I think it's crazy behavior, bur it's at least something they make known ahead of time, and something they have regularly scheduled -- hopefully they have more than just a notice on their website, otherwise you get situations like this where someone is blindsided, so I suspect they didn't have a sign on the door that they were hosting a semiprivate event.  I wouldn't blame the family if they took their business elsewhere after this, though.

I don't know about you, but if I'm passing a bike shop and decide to stop in, I don't pull out my phone and check their website before going in.  I just go in.

Quote from: Johan on June 10, 2015, 07:52:18 PM
Special case? It is EXACTLY the same concept. Exactly the same. We turned down work because we felt there was a chance it might have been seen as controversial by some of our larger clients and thus could jeopardize the revenue we made from those clients.

Look at the words I bolded above. Just because its unlikely anyone would find out does not mean its guaranteed no one would find out. We didn't turn down that banner work because he knew the other clients would find out. We had no way of knowing if they would find out. Hell we had no way of knowing whether they'd even care if they did find out. We made a business decision based on what we felt was a possibility. That is how tons of business decisions are made.

In what sense is the baker compelled to carry the cake through the town shouting "HEY LOOK WE BAKED A GAY CAKE FOR THESE PEOPLE!"?  It's completely different and you know it.  Being in the plane towing the banner creates -- rightly or wrongly -- a connection between the messenger and the message.  You are not obliged to publicly associate yourself with a message that's not yours.

In no way is that comparable to the bakery case.  The baker isn't required to put it on display, not required to personally deliver it, not even required to hand it over in a box with a clear plastic top.  This isn't a case of a business declining to publicly associate with a message they disagree with, this is a business publicly making a message of their own -- IMO, the only message they're delivering is that they're homophobic bigots.

Quote from: Johan on June 10, 2015, 07:52:18 PM
You would be wrong about that.
And again, you would be right if the bakery did indeed refuse to sell any cake to the customer. Do we know for a fact that is what happened here? Because there seems to be some speculation that the bakery refused to create that one particular cake for the customer, meaning they were perfectly willing to sell the customer a cake with a different message on it. And if that's the case then no, it is NOT exactly the same at all.

Walk into an Apple store and tell them you'd like a purple iphone and see if they make you one.

Utter nonsense.  There's a huge difference between going in and asking for a product that a business makes or is perfectly capable of making with the materials at hand, and asking for a non-existent product.  There is no barrier to creating the cake as ordered -- it's not like the customer went into the bakery and asked for a cement plinth.  They asked for a product that the business is perfectly capable of creating without any special equipment, ingredients, anything.

You may as well suggest that Ford can refuse to sell cars in Las Vegas because people might drive to a casino and they don't want to endorse gambling.

Quote from: trdsf on June 10, 2015, 08:58:08 PM
In what sense is the baker compelled to carry the cake through the town shouting "HEY LOOK WE BAKED A GAY CAKE FOR THESE PEOPLE!"?  It's completely different and you know it.  Being in the plane towing the banner creates -- rightly or wrongly -- a connection between the messenger and the message.  You are not obliged to publicly associate yourself with a message that's not yours.

In no way is that comparable to the bakery case.  The baker isn't required to put it on display, not required to personally deliver it, not even required to hand it over in a box with a clear plastic top.  This isn't a case of a business declining to publicly associate with a message they disagree with, this is a business publicly making a message of their own

Ah I see. So because the banner company is flying something that is on display to the general public, its reasonable that the public would associate that message with the company flying the banner. But because a cake isn't on display to the public, the public therefore has absolutely no way to ever find out where the cake came from. Got it.

Think about things like facebook. If I want to buy a cake that says 'support gay marriage' on it, isn't it at least plausible to think I might take a pic of said cake and put it on my facebook page? Do you have facebook friends who live in the same town as you? Now think about the question you asked me in a previous post. Just how many bakeries can a small town support? Now think about the last time you saw a plane pulling a banner. Did you know by looking at the plane and the banner what company was flying it or where it came from?

These business decisions are made based on what the business owners think might happen. The possibility is at least equal in both cases and possibly more likely in the case of a bakery in a small town.

QuoteUtter nonsense.  There's a huge difference between going in and asking for a product that a business makes or is perfectly capable of making with the materials at hand, and asking for a non-existent product.  There is no barrier to creating the cake as ordered -- it's not like the customer went into the bakery and asked for a cement plinth.  They asked for a product that the business is perfectly capable of creating without any special equipment, ingredients, anything.

Ok bad example. Fair enough. Lets use a different example then. Lets keep it to artistic creative output by individuals capable of creating such things. So I'm an uber rich guy and I want to hire a sculptor to sculpt me a statue that I will then place in my garden. I love myself so I want the statue to be of me. I find a sculptor and hire him and he does a great job and I pay him a bundle for the service. Now lets say I decide to go back to that sculptor and make me another statue. This time I want a statue of the sculptors own wife who is a very lovely woman and I want that statue of her to be bending over as if to tend to a flower on the ground. The sculptor tells me to go fuck myself.

I mean the sculptor is already in the business of creating statues of real people and is perfectly capable of producing the statue I want. He knows I pay well for his work. The statue I want is not offensive to anyone except perhaps the sculptor himself and his wife and their family. But they won't see it because it will be in my own garden. I never told him it will be placed in such a way so as to make it look the statue of me is fucking his wife from behind so he would have no way of knowing that, even though he might suspect it. But lets face it, its my god damn garden and its none of their god damn business what statues I put in it so what right does that sculptor have to refuse to make the statue I want?

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 06:49:06 AM
Think about things like facebook. If I want to buy a cake that says 'support gay marriage' on it, isn't it at least plausible to think I might take a pic of said cake and put it on my facebook page? Do you have facebook friends who live in the same town as you? Now think about the question you asked me in a previous post. Just how many bakeries can a small town support? Now think about the last time you saw a plane pulling a banner. Did you know by looking at the plane and the banner what company was flying it or where it came from?

These business decisions are made based on what the business owners think might happen. The possibility is at least equal in both cases and possibly more likely in the case of a bakery in a small town.

That's an awful lot of ifs, though.  If they're the only bakery in a small town and if it's a conservative, religious town and if there exists an out gay couple in this conservative religious town that wants a cake and if they 'go public' with it and post it online, and if other members of this small town notice it because they follow that person's page (although it's fair to say that someone likely to make a fuss over such a thing would be online friendly with the stipulated gay couple in the first place), and if there's enough information to identify who made it for them and if some third party decides to make a fuss about it -- and it completely ignores the more common cases like the one in Boulder (not a conservative small town) where a baker refused service to a gay couple because it offended his religion.

In the main, I still have to come down in favor of the client over the business.  The business exists to provide a service, and refusing it on the basis of the owner's religious opinions is not within the corporate remit.  They're there to offer a service, not a moral judgment.

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 06:49:06 AM
Ok bad example. Fair enough. Lets use a different example then. Lets keep it to artistic creative output by individuals capable of creating such things. So I'm an uber rich guy and I want to hire a sculptor to sculpt me a statue that I will then place in my garden. I love myself so I want the statue to be of me. I find a sculptor and hire him and he does a great job and I pay him a bundle for the service. Now lets say I decide to go back to that sculptor and make me another statue. This time I want a statue of the sculptors own wife who is a very lovely woman and I want that statue of her to be bending over as if to tend to a flower on the ground. The sculptor tells me to go fuck myself.

I mean the sculptor is already in the business of creating statues of real people and is perfectly capable of producing the statue I want. He knows I pay well for his work. The statue I want is not offensive to anyone except perhaps the sculptor himself and his wife and their family. But they won't see it because it will be in my own garden. I never told him it will be placed in such a way so as to make it look the statue of me is fucking his wife from behind so he would have no way of knowing that, even though he might suspect it. But lets face it, its my god damn garden and its none of their god damn business what statues I put in it so what right does that sculptor have to refuse to make the statue I want?

I think the wife has rights over the use of her image -- that is, herself.  She does not have to agree to be immortalized in stone (or whatever) if she doesn't want to be.  But I think that's her decision more than the sculptor's, and that this example is not wholly germane to the situation.  No one (so far as I know) has gone into a bakery and asked for a design of the baker in the nude on the cake.

I think a more relevant example is a hypothetical man who goes in to an Apple store to buy a pink iPod and is refused by a clerk because "pink is for girls".  It's just not their place to make that judgment.

Ok lets use the example I mentioned earlier then. Jack the baker owns Jack's bakery. Jack HATES sports. Customer comes in and asks for a birthday cake for their jock son. They want it decorated like a football field with the words Happy Birthday Champ on it. Jack says nope I won't make that cake. He's in the business of making cakes with custom decoration and he's perfectly capable of making the cake in question. The decoration in question is not offensive to anyone and no permission from anyone is required.

So should the customer be able to sue Jack for not making the cake or otherwise cause jack to suffer legal consequences simply because he doesn't want to make that particular cake?


Here's another example and this one isn't hypothetical. This one actually happened to me. There is a thai restaurant near where I used to live. My all time favorite thai dish is pad thai. I love it and its far and away one of the most popular thai dishes. We went to the restaurant for dinner one night and they didn't have pad thai on the menu. I asked if they had it and I was told they did make pad thai, but only on their lunch menu and only sometimes. They could make it and in fact did make it. But they wouldn't make it for me because I work during the day and therefore could only get to their establishment at night during dinner service. Should I be able to sue because they refused to make the dish for me? Should they be required by law to put up a sign letting me know there is no pad thai on the menu?

Quote from: trdsf on June 11, 2015, 05:11:32 PM
That's an awful lot of ifs, though.  If they're the only bakery in a small town and if it's a conservative, religious town and if there exists an out gay couple in this conservative religious town that wants a cake and if they 'go public' with it and post it online, and if other members of this small town notice it because they follow that person's page (although it's fair to say that someone likely to make a fuss over such a thing would be online friendly with the stipulated gay couple in the first place), and if there's enough information to identify who made it for them and if some third party decides to make a fuss about it

Yep its a lot of ifs. So?

Quote-- and it completely ignores the more common cases like the one in Boulder (not a conservative small town) where a baker refused service to a gay couple because it offended his religion.

Of course it does. That was deliberate because I believe we already agree on that situation completely. It is absolutely unacceptable to refuse service to anyone because they're gay.

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 08:04:02 PM
Ok lets use the example I mentioned earlier then. Jack the baker owns Jack's bakery. Jack HATES sports. Customer comes in and asks for a birthday cake for their jock son. They want it decorated like a football field with the words Happy Birthday Champ on it. Jack says nope I won't make that cake. He's in the business of making cakes with custom decoration and he's perfectly capable of making the cake in question. The decoration in question is not offensive to anyone and no permission from anyone is required.

So should the customer be able to sue Jack for not making the cake or otherwise cause jack to suffer legal consequences simply because he doesn't want to make that particular cake?

And the difference here is that this is the same answer Jack would give anyone who asked for a sports-themed cake.  It's dumb, but it's not discriminatory.  A comparable example would be if Jack would have made a comparable cake for someone else but denied it to this customer; this example as provided is a blanket and consistent policy that applies to everyone.

And that's the point -- these businesses are only refusing some clients for reasons of personal prejudice.  It's not a blanket policy that affects all patrons equally.  It's a policy that targets a particular class.

Would we even be having this conversation if a baker had refused to make a cake for an interracial straight couple for effectively the same reason, that this kind of marriage offended their personal beliefs?  I think not.

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 08:04:02 PM
Here's another example and this one isn't hypothetical. This one actually happened to me. There is a thai restaurant near where I used to live. My all time favorite thai dish is pad thai. I love it and its far and away one of the most popular thai dishes. We went to the restaurant for dinner one night and they didn't have pad thai on the menu. I asked if they had it and I was told they did make pad thai, but only on their lunch menu and only sometimes. They could make it and in fact did make it. But they wouldn't make it for me because I work during the day and therefore could only get to their establishment at night during dinner service. Should I be able to sue because they refused to make the dish for me? Should they be required by law to put up a sign letting me know there is no pad thai on the menu?

Again, this is not really a good comparison -- it's not on the menu, therefore they're not denying you anything that they are making for another patron in the restaurant.  They're denying you something that, for whatever reason, they don't make for dinners, and they don't make all the time.  They didn't say, "We don't serve pad thai to non-Asians."  They didn't make it exclusionary to you for any reason related to you.  They don't make it for anyone for dinner, so you're not being denied something that someone else who had come in in your place would have gotten.

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 08:11:47 PM
Yep its a lot of ifs. So?

And the comparable string of ifs on the other side is: if the bakery denies service to a gay couple that they would have provided a straight couple, then they have committed a discriminatory act.  That's a much more clear-cut string of consequences; the long string of ifs on the business side don't even end with a definite then.  They end with a might suffer some economic inconvenience.  So why is the definite discrimination outweighed by the potential--not real, but feared--possible economic inconvenience?

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 08:11:47 PM
Of course it does. That was deliberate because I believe we already agree on that situation completely. It is absolutely unacceptable to refuse service to anyone because they're gay.

But you seem to be making the case that in some circumstances, it is okay to do it, because of local social pressures, or fear of the potential--and not necessarily realized--financial circumstances.  I would say the discrimination remains wrong; "I live in a small bigoted town" is not an excuse that any court would accept for racially discriminatory business policies.  Neither does it justify sexually-oriented discriminatory policies.

Quote from: trdsf on June 11, 2015, 09:41:49 PM
But you seem to be making the case that in some circumstances, it is okay to do it,

'the fuck? I do? Where? I think you should go back read the very first post I made in this thread

Quote from: Johan
The argument is this particular baker refused to write 'support gay marriage' on a cake because the customer was gay. So here's the test. I'm completely straight. Suppose I go to that baker and try to order the same cake. If they say sure no problem the yes, they should be charged. However if they also refuse to fill that order when it comes from me, then that is completely within their rights.

I have said all along that it is completely wrong to refuse service for gay people simply because they are gay. But I have also said all along that if a baker does not feel comfortable producing a cake with a particular message, for any reason, it should be perfectly within that bakers rights to say no I won't make that particular cake for you nor anyone else. That has been my exact opinion all along and everything I've written reflects that. I will admit I did not add the 'nor anyone else' part in those exact words. But only because I thought I was already making my opinion very clear. My apologies if I wasn't.

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 11:32:37 PM
'the fuck? I do? Where? I think you should go back read the very first post I made in this thread

The small conservative town case was one you kept coming back to, so it did look to me like you were trying to make that particular point.

Quote from: Johan on June 11, 2015, 11:32:37 PM
I have said all along that it is completely wrong to refuse service for gay people simply because they are gay. But I have also said all along that if a baker does not feel comfortable producing a cake with a particular message, for any reason, it should be perfectly within that bakers rights to say no I won't make that particular cake for you nor anyone else. That has been my exact opinion all along and everything I've written reflects that. I will admit I did not add the 'nor anyone else' part in those exact words. But only because I thought I was already making my opinion very clear. My apologies if I wasn't.

Yeah, the 'nor anyone else' part (or something comparable) makes all the difference.  In that case, I think we're on the same page.  If they're going to a) refuse service and b) not make that service available to anyone else anymore, they're on more solid ground, although I think that will cost them more business in the long run, cutting off an entire line of product because their commitment to their invisible friend meant more to them than real, live human beings.  And I still think it'd be pretty assholish.

We had a case here in town about two years ago where a pizza truck refused service to a customer who, with no provocation, turned around and started cussing out and verbally abusing a gay couple who were in line behind him (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/local-community-stands-two-men-harassed-being-gay-143239645.html).  The problem I have with what happened is that they refused service for the wrong reasons -- on the basis of his hateful speech, which it was, but which he has a perfect right to.  They should have told him he was refused service for harassing other customers, which he was, and which avoids taking sides.

Now, the real take-away from this incident was the way the other customers in line -- straight and gay both -- leaped to the defense of the couple, and in opposition to what rapidly escalated to genuine hate speech.  What was more amazing was the part of town it happened in is the most gay-friendly part of the city... but idiots are everywhere, I suppose.

Quote from: trdsf on June 12, 2015, 04:00:57 AM
The small conservative town case was one you kept coming back to, so it did look to me like you were trying to make that particular point.
Yeah, the 'nor anyone else' part (or something comparable) makes all the difference.  In that case, I think we're on the same page.  If they're going to a) refuse service and b) not make that service available to anyone else anymore, they're on more solid ground, although I think that will cost them more business in the long run, cutting off an entire line of product because their commitment to their invisible friend meant more to them than real, live human beings.  And I still think it'd be pretty assholish.

Agreed, agreed and agreed. Business owners have the right to make decisions which end up costing them more business in the long run. And they also have the right to be dicks if they want to and all of that is exactly as it should be IMO.

QuoteWe had a case here in town about two years ago where a pizza truck refused service to a customer who, with no provocation, turned around and started cussing out and verbally abusing a gay couple who were in line behind him (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/local-community-stands-two-men-harassed-being-gay-143239645.html).  The problem I have with what happened is that they refused service for the wrong reasons -- on the basis of his hateful speech, which it was, but which he has a perfect right to.  They should have told him he was refused service for harassing other customers, which he was, and which avoids taking sides.

Yeah I have a pretty conservative opinion on the free speech thing. The first amendment prevents the government from imposing limits of free speech. But that's it. People like to take that to mean that therefore no one can limit free speech and that simply is not the case. It is perfectly within my rights to tell you that you cannot say this or that while you're in my home. Which means it is also perfectly within my rights to tell you that cannot say this or that while you're in my place of business. And also perfectly within my rights to say that I won't serve you if you're wearing a t-shirt which says something I don't like or if you're saying something I don't like.

Go to pretty much any internet forum which blocks curse words and/or has rules against making personal attacks of other forum members. Ask any moderator there how often they have to explain that the 1st amendment doesn't do jack shit for you on a privately owned internet forum. I cannot count how often I had to explain that the forum was not congress and the forum policies were not federal laws to people when I was mod on a forum. If I had a dime for every time I got a PM from a forum member threatening to sue me because I was taking away their right to free speech and that's against the law and I'll get a lawyer and yada yada yada and oh won't you blow me you stupid jackwagon.... :rolleyes: I don't miss being a mod.

Quote from: Johan on June 12, 2015, 06:37:25 AM
Yeah I have a pretty conservative opinion on the free speech thing. The first amendment prevents the government from imposing limits of free speech. But that's it. People like to take that to mean that therefore no one can limit free speech and that simply is not the case. It is perfectly within my rights to tell you that you cannot say this or that while you're in my home. Which means it is also perfectly within my rights to tell you that cannot say this or that while you're in my place of business. And also perfectly within my rights to say that I won't serve you if you're wearing a t-shirt which says something I don't like or if you're saying something I don't like.

Go to pretty much any internet forum which blocks curse words and/or has rules against making personal attacks of other forum members. Ask any moderator there how often they have to explain that the 1st amendment doesn't do jack shit for you on a privately owned internet forum. I cannot count how often I had to explain that the forum was not congress and the forum policies were not federal laws to people when I was mod on a forum. If I had a dime for every time I got a PM from a forum member threatening to sue me because I was taking away their right to free speech and that's against the law and I'll get a lawyer and yada yada yada and oh won't you blow me you stupid jackwagon.... :rolleyes: I don't miss being a mod.

And there are reasons other than my unsuitable temperament that I don't want to be a mod anywhere.  :)

I think the main thing that people forget about the First Amendment is that while it certainly guarantees freedom of speech, it does not imply any responsibility on my part to have to listen -- basically, my freedom of speech ends at your ears.  You may choose to listen, but you're not required to and I don't have any right to force you to.  And vice versa.

With a right comes a responsibility -- typically, to respect the equivalent and equal rights of others.

And that's among the reasons I find cases like the bigoted bakers troubling -- it's an inherently selfish act, to set one's invisible friend ahead of the real, live person standing in front of them that they are denigrating as an equal human being, and all the worse for being done in the name of a fantasy character.  And of course, we all know what kind of a screaming purple fit these people would throw if they were put in that same position on the receiving end.

I think what I find so disturbing about it is that we now live in world where one ill-advised tweet can get you fired even if you're an absolute nobody and can end your entire career if you have some level of celebrity to begin with. And yet even though that's the case, we're still seeing these small business owners choosing to let their bigot flag fly without being the least bit shy about it. It really does make you wonder whether most of these small unknown businesses are doing just for the immense of free advertising that inevitably follows.

There was a case of that recently that was close to me in a couple of ways. A business owner located about 60 miles away went on facebook and posted some kind of bigoted shit about how he will proudly refuse to serve any openly gay customers. This didn't just hit close to home for me because it was 60 miles away. It also hit close to home because this jackwagon is a vendor that I've actually used at work. I've met the guy and shaken his hand.

His business specializes in building and customizing jacked up 4x4 off road vehicles. But he also specializes in doing diesel engine conversions in those vehicles. My job is coordinating maintenance on semi trucks so we've got lots of vendors that know big truck engines inside and out. But we also have an old diesel cargo van and no one could make it run right. Those small diesel engines are a different beast and the semi guys really don't know much about them. So you need someone that specializes in them which is what this jackwagon does.

So we took it to this guy and he did a great job with it. It runs great now and my boss gave it to me to use as a company car so its now my daily driver.

So what's most offensive about this whole deal is that he got tons of free publicity by going on facebook and saying he'd refuse to serve openly gay people. He builds monster off road 4x4's. How many openly gay guys were ever going to be his customer? I'd wager very few. I'm confident the entire event was motivated entirely as a marketing/advertising ploy. And the public did their part of the job exactly as we wanted them to.

I will always continue to hope that the next time some business owner comes out as a bigot, the general public responds with a resounding ho hum and goes on with their day is if nothing happened. Because doing anything else only serves to give that business owner exactly what they want.

Quote from: Johan on June 12, 2015, 07:06:46 PM
.
.
.

It really does make you wonder whether most of these small unknown businesses are doing just for the immense of free advertising that inevitably follows.

.
.
.

I'm confident the entire event was motivated entirely as a marketing/advertising ploy. And the public did their part of the job exactly as we wanted them to.

I will always continue to hope that the next time some business owner comes out as a bigot, the general public responds with a resounding ho hum and goes on with their day is if nothing happened. Because doing anything else only serves to give that business owner exactly what they want.

I think that does drive some of these places to do exactly that -- the first couple places that denied service generated a lot of business with the wingnut brigades in support of them "standing up for jay-zus" and I agree, it's quite likely some of the ones doing it now want a piece of that.

A lot of it depends on the locality, of course.  A business here that made a similar announcement would find themselves shuttered in short order because their local business would just plain stop -- Columbus has a weird reputation as being the San Francisco of the Midwest, this is an extremely equality-friendly town, even though it's not easy to be fabulous when you're plain ol' Buckeye beige.  :)

Even some of the big-name Republicans around here have no problem with marriage equality -- the only difference between Democratic supporters and Republican supporters is that generally, the Repubs want to move more slowly towards it.  If the SCOTUS decision strikes gay marriage bans, probably half the statewide elected Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief that it's been taken out of their hands.  Gov. Kasich doesn't really care -- he's been trying to have it both ways anyway so he can position himself for 2016.  His latest tack is basically 'I'm against 'em, but if the Supreme Court says we have to have 'em, then we have to have 'em (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-kasich-supreme-court-gay-marriage).'  Which is at least a better understanding of the way our Federal government works than any of the declared GOP candidates have, I'll have to give him that.

Besides, we're Ohioans.  We suck at being extremist anything.  :D