Bakery Lost Discrimination Case

[GSOgymrat]

On one hand, I agree that businesses can't discriminate based solely on who is fucking who where. On the other hand, as a business owner I have an issue with the courts telling someone how to run their business.

I understand the libertarian argument that people should be able to run their businesses with as little government intervention as possible, and generally I agree, but I believe requiring businesses to provide services to all groups of people is reasonable in the best interests of everyone. Companies and businesses like to operate independently but the reality is they rely on transactions, transportation and communication that is support by society and the government. The government ensures that people are not going to walk into your store and take your merchandise without consequence by providing law enforcement and a court system. The government provides roadways for moving goods, currencies, stable utilities... the list is long. Allowing Walmart to refuse to sell merchandise to black people is in no one's interest. Allowing hospitals to refuse treatment to Hispanic people isn't fair. Allowing a local power company to refuse to provide electricity to a church, or a strip club, is wrong. If businesses want to play the game they need to abide by some basic rules and not refusing services to entire groups of people is pretty basic.

I don't want to live in a country where Amazon won't sell merchandise to me because they know from the books I have purchased, and from my search history that they purchased from Google, that I'm an atheist, arguing that they are a company with Christian values and therefore don't support my godless lifestyle. After all, I can just buy books from Barnes and Noble right?

[Shol'va]

On one hand, I agree that businesses can't discriminate based solely on who is fucking who where. On the other hand, as a business owner I have an issue with the courts telling someone how to run their business.

The statement "telling someone how to run their business" is too vague.
They're not telling them how to run their business, they're telling them not to be assholes and stop discriminating, and to start treating all customers equally.
Additionally, the customer is doing business with the business, not the individual. Think of what precedent a different ruling in this case might have set. If I'm an atheist working the front counter at the DMV, I might turn away all theists on the grounds that it somehow interferes with my views.

Your business bakes wedding cakes. Someone is having a wedding. They need cake. So shut up and take their money.
Don't want to? That's absolutely fine. Don't be in the business.

[PopeyesPappy]

On one hand, I agree that businesses can't discriminate based solely on who is fucking who where. On the other hand, as a business owner I have an issue with the courts telling someone how to run their business.

I'll support your right as a business owner to refuse services to an individual (be it a person or another business/organization) for at least a million different reasons, but not to a class of people based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, age (for adults) or sexual orientation.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You know what is so simple? People have no rights to be offended bu other people's sexual preference and if they do AND take action with it, they should be sanctioned by law. This is not democracy or freedom. Most of the rights people enjoy became reality exactly this way. They pushed people to get black people in by the law. They pushed people to accept that women will vote...etc.

Like I said, you have a  fucked up understanding of freedom.

When you say "and take action with it" you are conflating not associating with them with going out and beating them up.

If you cannot tell the two apart, no wonder you think I have a fucked up understanding of freedom.

A surgeon could hate me for any reason whatsoever, too many to cover in a single or even a series of job interviews. I don't expect a surgeon to like me, or care if he does. I expect a surgeon to be a professional, to do his job competently no matter who he may operate on.

Baking is the same way. It is a profession.

And what of the gay couple who now has no way to have a professionally done wedding cake for their special day because the bakery gave them a fuck you? And keep in mind, it's the bakery that gave them the fuck you, not any one baker in the bakery â€" if it was the latter, then another baker in that bakery would take over the job and we wouldn't even have a lawsuit in the first place. Equal treatment only applies to people, and bakeries are not people.

But bakers are people, unless they stop being people the moment they show up for work.

Now I know, not having a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available is the worst crime imaginable.  After all, drunkenshoe cannot tell the difference between a bigot who just won't have anything to do with the people the bigot dislikes, and a bigot who goes out and assaults and tries to murder the people the bigot dislikes.  And if the couple cannot get a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available they are not able to get married at all, they have to cancel the wedding, tell the preacher or judge to go home, rescind the wedding invitations, cancel the reception, cancel the band, cancel the caterer, return their marriage license applications, and never speak to each other again.  All because they didn't get a cake from that particular baker.

No.  You know that particular baker doesn't want to serve them, so it is very vital to make sure that particular baker does serve them.  It is of utmost paramount importance that that particular baker be the one to bake the cake specifically because he doesn't want to.

The issue is service. If you have a business that is available to the general public and then after the fact select out certain groups as not eligible for your services, that act by itself is prejudicial. The baker singled out a specific group of people as ineligible despite the fact that in every other sense they should be, and also willing to serve every other group but them; again prejudicial.

What about the Red and Black Cafe, that refuses to ever serve cops?

[Moralnihilist]

I'll support your right as a business owner to refuse services to an individual (be it a person or another business/organization) for at least a million different reasons, but not to a class of people based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, age (for adults) or sexual orientation.

This I agree with. If the guy had called them assholes and refused to make them a cake then I would be supporting this guy 100%, but since the baker went out of his way to go the discrimination route I can't.  The issue I have is when the government steps in and tells someone how to run their business when it comes to who is served vs not. There are other ways that this guy should have handled the situation this I agree. The baker under no circumstances is allowed to use religion to cover the fact that he is a bigot.

[Hakurei Reimu]

But bakers are people, unless they stop being people the moment they show up for work.

They're professionals. When you are a professional, you're expected to leave your bigotry at the door, and concentrate on servicing your customers because that is what you were hired to do. If you can't do that, too bad but you're not a professional in the field and should not expect to be hired as a professional in the field or continue to work as a professional in that field. The only way a professional would be allowed to do such is if the institution he works for has it as a policy. The reason we know this is a bakery policy is because the bigot baker was not immediately thrown out on his ass for not providing service to an honest customer and missing a sale when this came to light.

We, as a society, have made a statement that denying service to people based on sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. is out of bounds for any professional. Bakers are professionals, and they are subject to this rule.

Now I know, not having a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available is the worst crime imaginable.  After all, drunkenshoe cannot tell the difference between a bigot who just won't have anything to do with the people the bigot dislikes, and a bigot who goes out and assaults and tries to murder the people the bigot dislikes.  And if the couple cannot get a cake by that particular baker out of all the options available they are not able to get married at all, they have to cancel the wedding, tell the preacher or judge to go home, rescind the wedding invitations, cancel the reception, cancel the band, cancel the caterer, return their marriage license applications, and never speak to each other again.  All because they didn't get a cake from that particular baker.

No.  You know that particular baker doesn't want to serve them, so it is very vital to make sure that particular baker does serve them.  It is of utmost paramount importance that that particular baker be the one to bake the cake specifically because he doesn't want to.

Again, this is not just about just a baker refusing to bake one cake. This is about a bakery refusing service to a whole group of people based on their sexual orientation, as exemplified by that one case. If it were just the baker, he would have been fired for losing a sale due to his unprofessional behavior, and as such, should rethink whether or not he is cut out to be a baker or if his bigotry is worth giving up his profession.

Also, I find this funny juxtaposed with your crowings that Liberitarians have been on the gays' side long before anyone else, because what you're saying is that gays can be gays, but bigots have a right to discriminate against them.

Don't you realize that this is exactly the problem?

Even with the progress that gay rights has made in the past years, it's still a homophobic country. If left alone, that bakery will have set a precident that it's okay to discriminate against gays, and so homophobic customers will be free to ask their own bakeries if they make "gay cakes", and as such other bakeries stands to lose big in certain areas if they don't cave to their louder and more odious homophobic base. And it would not be restricted to bakeries, either. All manner of businesses will fall under the same pressure, and suddenly, you have a lot of services that become much more difficult for gays to purchase.

You are trying to pretend that this is just about one baker who refused to bake one wedding cake. It is not. It is about the attitude of professionals of all stripes, and what we consider appropriate behavior for those professionals. You pay your lip service in support of gay rights, but in every other capacity â€"the ones that matterâ€" you don't.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes.  Because we protect EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of special minorities.  We protect individual rights, not the rights of groups.

That's why we are in favor of gay marriage and also in favor of the baker not having to bake that cake.  Because rights cannot be in conflict.  And in this case they aren't in conflict.  The gays can get married and the baker cannot stop them.  The baker can refuse business, and the gays cannot stop him.

By the way, we really need to settle the distinction here on baker/bakery.  It is a distinction I made with surgeon/hospital, and had that distinction refused.

The boss sets the rules in a business.  (No silly rebuttals about the boss ordering the employee to rob a bank.)  If the boss says "bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker bakes the cake for the gay couple.  If the boss says "don't bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker doesn't bake the cake for the gay couple.  It isn't up to the baker in that instance.  When I say "the baker is still a person even after he enters the bakery" I am assuming for the sake of convenience that the baker is the owner of the bakery.

That's why I corrected the surgeon in the hospital example with two options - the hospital owner telling the surgeon to not operate, or the surgeon not getting hired in the first place for bigotry.  Both options were refused.  That's why I think most arguments about moralizing pharmacists are silly, because unless the pharmacist is also the pharmacy owner the pharmacist dispenses any drugs that his employment contract dictates.

If we're going to talk about baker/bakery, then for the sake of simplicity I have to assume that the bakery is the sole proprietorship of the baker.  In that case it does come back to the individual of the baker, not the "but the bakery is a business" but that the baker is a person.  In spite of the baker owning the bakery, the baker is still a person.

I don't say "this group has rights, this group doesn't".  That's your argument, not mine.  And I certainly don't say "you lose your rights because you opened a business."  The argument "but they're professionals" carries no water with me, because they're still individuals first and foremost, first and last and everything in between.  They are individuals who are professionals, they are individuals.

[Atheon]

I like it when the hammer of justice falls on the heads of bigots.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I agree that the hammer of law has fallen on him.

[DunkleSeele]

If we're going to talk about baker/bakery, then for the sake of simplicity I have to assume that the bakery is the sole proprietorship of the baker.  In that case it does come back to the individual of the baker, not the "but the bakery is a business" but that the baker is a person.  In spite of the baker owning the bakery, the baker is still a person.

A business owner IS his business when it comes to the law, therefore the owner is responsible for his business (that is, himself) to comply to the law.

I don't say "this group has rights, this group doesn't".  That's your argument, not mine.  And I certainly don't say "you lose your rights because you opened a business."  The argument "but they're professionals" carries no water with me, because they're still individuals first and foremost, first and last and everything in between.  They are individuals who are professionals, they are individuals.

The point is that the gay couple sued the bakery (a business).  Acting on his beliefs, the business owner made his business infringe the law and the business has been punished according to the law. Simple as that.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Yes.  Because we protect EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of special minorities.  We protect individual rights, not the rights of groups.

You realize each and every one of those groups and special minorities is made up of individual people right... you know, the people whose rights had been individually violated by the bakery?

I put the right of the individual gay guy being treated as if he were a worthwhile human being deserving of respect as any other person to walk in that door over the "right" of the owner for being a bigot any day of the week.

Dumbass.

[GSOgymrat]

Yes.  Because we protect EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of special minorities.  We protect individual rights, not the rights of groups.

That's why we are in favor of gay marriage and also in favor of the baker not having to bake that cake.  Because rights cannot be in conflict.  And in this case they aren't in conflict.  The gays can get married and the baker cannot stop them.  The baker can refuse business, and the gays cannot stop him.

By the way, we really need to settle the distinction here on baker/bakery.  It is a distinction I made with surgeon/hospital, and had that distinction refused.

The boss sets the rules in a business.  (No silly rebuttals about the boss ordering the employee to rob a bank.)  If the boss says "bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker bakes the cake for the gay couple.  If the boss says "don't bake a cake for that gay couple" then the baker doesn't bake the cake for the gay couple.  It isn't up to the baker in that instance.  When I say "the baker is still a person even after he enters the bakery" I am assuming for the sake of convenience that the baker is the owner of the bakery.

That's why I corrected the surgeon in the hospital example with two options - the hospital owner telling the surgeon to not operate, or the surgeon not getting hired in the first place for bigotry.  Both options were refused.  That's why I think most arguments about moralizing pharmacists are silly, because unless the pharmacist is also the pharmacy owner the pharmacist dispenses any drugs that his employment contract dictates.

If we're going to talk about baker/bakery, then for the sake of simplicity I have to assume that the bakery is the sole proprietorship of the baker.  In that case it does come back to the individual of the baker, not the "but the bakery is a business" but that the baker is a person.  In spite of the baker owning the bakery, the baker is still a person.

I don't say "this group has rights, this group doesn't".  That's your argument, not mine.  And I certainly don't say "you lose your rights because you opened a business."  The argument "but they're professionals" carries no water with me, because they're still individuals first and foremost, first and last and everything in between.  They are individuals who are professionals, they are individuals.

So, by this thinking, Mark Zuckerberg has the right to prevent you from having a Facebook account because you are atheist. Teachers at your children's school have the right to refuse to teach your children because you are atheist. Your local internet service provider can refuse to offer you service because you are atheist. Amazon doesn't have to sell you merchandise because you are atheist. Keep in mind that corporations can be considered individuals in the United States and, just like the baker, if a corporation is designated as Christian it conceivably has the right to exercise it's conscience and operate with Christian values, including not serving people who moderate websites that disparage their beliefs.

Does the business owners right to discriminate also include employment? Should business owners and corporations be able to refuse to hire people based on their religion, race, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation? As a business owner can I fire the employees that campaign for political candidates that don't support the interests of my business? As an individual business owner, or a corporation that is considered an individual, I should be able to hire and fire whomever I please for whatever reason I like, right?

[Jason78]

Misandry

[Jason78]

Oh really?

[aileron]

Their business operates in the nation that its government established, maintains, and defends.
Their business depends in large part on public roads, parking, sidewalks, and water projects.
Their business increases its sales because consumers are confident that mandatory public health inspections improve food safety.
Their business requires ingredients and fuel sourced distributed through public infrastructure and regulated for safety.

No, no... We're a PRIVATE business.  The government has no interest in telling us who we can and can't serve.

That's cool.  Go to a place the government didn't establish the nation or defend it.  Go to a place the government doesn't improve your profits by boosting consumer confidence in food safety.  Go off grid, conquer and defend your natural resources and value chain, and you don't have to do what the government tells you to do.

This is nothing more than the typical hypocrisy of taking the benefits of government while picking and choosing the obligations as a citizen.