Bakery Lost Discrimination Case

[Moralnihilist]

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.

Being the son of a lesbian, I fully understand and respect the anti-discrimination laws. My issue is one of legal precedent. For instance, in my businesses there is a strict no religion rule. I don't give a damn what religion you are, on my property it don't get talked about. Now then because some people in this country think that suing people is the answer to all of lives problems, how much should I worry that eventually some religious nut is going to get bent out of shape and sue me. And because of the legal precedent set by this case if his lawyer argues better than mine does in the deep south(where I live) should I have to worry that I may catch a religious nutter judge who then tries to force me to allow religious crap in my gym? One of the most important things I have learned in my life is that the courts system isn't about right and wrong, its about who argues better.

[hrdlr110]

This had to go to the courts, and they had to lose. If not, the problem of their bigotry would never be resolved, and they would go on feeling high and mighty in their religious justification for not serving gays. Now that there is a verdict, we have precedence, with precedence (provided it stands on appeal)it is less likely that it will be an issue again. Precedence can stave off future bigotry of this nature for fear of losing in court. If this bakery goes out of business soon, their tombstone of a shop front could serve as a further deterrent.

[DunkleSeele]

Being the son of a lesbian, I fully understand and respect the anti-discrimination laws. My issue is one of legal precedent. For instance, in my businesses there is a strict no religion rule. I don't give a damn what religion you are, on my property it don't get talked about. Now then because some people in this country think that suing people is the answer to all of lives problems, how much should I worry that eventually some religious nut is going to get bent out of shape and sue me. And because of the legal precedent set by this case if his lawyer argues better than mine does in the deep south(where I live) should I have to worry that I may catch a religious nutter judge who then tries to force me to allow religious crap in my gym? One of the most important things I have learned in my life is that the courts system isn't about right and wrong, its about who argues better.

But the point is, you're not refusing your service to religious people, therefore this case couldn't serve as a precedent in case some nutjob would sue you. The law is about providing service regardless of customer's sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc., therefore you're in the clear, the bakery was not.

By the way, a point that hasn't been mentioned is that the bakery in question had a history of refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, as for the admission of the baker himself (at least, according to the link in the OP). A court case was long overdue.

[SGOS]

This had to go to the courts, and they had to lose. If not, the problem of their bigotry would never be resolved, and they would go on feeling high and mighty in their religious justification for not serving gays. Now that there is a verdict, we have precedence, with precedence (provided it stands on appeal)it is less likely that it will be an issue again. Precedence can stave off future bigotry of this nature for fear of losing in court. If this bakery goes out of business soon, their tombstone of a shop front could serve as a further deterrent.

There's probably lots of aspects of gay marriage yet to be tested in courts.  Both sides will attempt to get clarification on different points or try to gain an advantage with a subtly different aspect or twist in a case they present.  It seems like gay marriage issue is well on it's way to being settled, but it's probably not.  I anticipate lots of cases yet going to court.  My guess is that eventually gay marriage in the US will be decided by the US Supreme Court, and will be guaranteed by the Federal government.

And I agree, it needs to go to the courts for clarification.  Otherwise, the status quo continues by inertia.  Of course, some people would prefer that.  There is a certain comfort in inertia, but it has little to do with reasoned discussion and certainly nothing to do with fairness.  It's just a way of maintaining something for no other reason than to perpetuate it.  It's what kept slavery alive for so long.

[aileron]

Being the son of a lesbian, I fully understand and respect the anti-discrimination laws. My issue is one of legal precedent. For instance, in my businesses there is a strict no religion rule. I don't give a damn what religion you are, on my property it don't get talked about. Now then because some people in this country think that suing people is the answer to all of lives problems, how much should I worry that eventually some religious nut is going to get bent out of shape and sue me. And because of the legal precedent set by this case if his lawyer argues better than mine does in the deep south(where I live) should I have to worry that I may catch a religious nutter judge who then tries to force me to allow religious crap in my gym? One of the most important things I have learned in my life is that the courts system isn't about right and wrong, its about who argues better.

IIRC, you own a gym, right?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the standard that would apply here is "reasonable accommodation."  For example, if your no religion rule means someone can't plop down a soapbox to stand on and shout at the members to repent as they're working out, then you're fine.  You could also enforce rules to prevent members from handing out flyers, accosting other members for religious outreach, etc.

Where such a policy would no longer be a reasonable accommodation is if you have a Muslim customer who works out for several hours a day and needs to pray five times a day.  You could certainly ask him to be reasonable, as in the reasonable accommodation standard, by asking him to go to a private room for that purpose.  Also the rule couldn't go as far as asking to remove religious jewelry, not read from the bible if they're not asking others to join in, etc.  The key word for these kinds of private business rules is reasonable.

[Moralnihilist]

IIRC, you own a gym, right?

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the standard that would apply here is "reasonable accommodation."  For example, if your no religion rule means someone can't plop down a soapbox to stand on and shout at the members to repent as they're working out, then you're fine.  You could also enforce rules to prevent members from handing out flyers, accosting other members for religious outreach, etc.

Where such a policy would no longer be a reasonable accommodation is if you have a Muslim customer who works out for several hours a day and needs to pray five times a day.  You could certainly ask him to be reasonable, as in the reasonable accommodation standard, by asking him to go to a private room for that purpose.  Also the rule couldn't go as far as asking to remove religious jewelry, not read from the bible if they're not asking others to join in, etc.  The key word for these kinds of private business rules is reasonable.

I don't accommodate any religion. Jewelry is against the rules because it can break or be harmful. Muslims praying, not in my gym. No religion is allowed anything in my gyms. I tell all those who want to join up that mine is a house of combat not a house of worship. I am quite equal in the fact that no religion is allowed therefore, in my mind, there is no discrimination.

[Brian37]

Yes them losing the lawsuit IS FAIR. We are not a theocracy. They have no right to discriminate against gays PERIOD. Religious Christians in the past used their bible as an excuse to keep blacks out of their businesses and or using separate water fountains or bathrooms. Religious Christians also read their bibles and used them as excuses to prevent women from voting.

Equal protection under the law is not silencing them. No one is telling them to shut their business down, merely saying you cant discriminate whom you serve. They are merely being fucking bigoted crybabies.

[SGOS]

They are merely being fucking bigoted crybabies.

^ This!

[Brian37]

I think what our Libertarian friend doesn't get here is that the government IS not forcing them to shut down, but merely saying you cannot deny services to someone based on that issue. No different than we no longer force blacks to use separate bathrooms.

These same idiots denying a wedding cake to gays would not like a gay owner denying a cake to a straight couple. And yes it would be even more absurd with ER doctors. Would these same bigoted assholes like an atheist doctor saying "Nope, I don't help theists".

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

When I defend the individual rights of those seeking to purchase this cake, which to me includes things like "life", "liberty", "property", "freedom of speech", "freedom of association", etc, I do not see how "freedom to buy a cake" fits in.

I guess your name-calling was self-referential.

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.

One of those is not like the others.  I'll leave you with the puzzle of trying to figure out which one it is.

I think what our Libertarian friend doesn't get here is that the government IS not forcing them to shut down, but merely saying you cannot deny services to someone based on that issue.

Which means they must either provide that service or shut down.  What do you think will happen to the baker if he says "I am going to continue to not provide that service"?

No different than we no longer force blacks to use separate bathrooms.

You mean the Jim Crow LAWS where businesses were required to discriminate?  That's an interesting point, because the basis of those laws it the same as the basis of those cheering the outcome of this lawsuit - that the government can dictate to businesses who they can and cannot serve.  Jim Crow LAWS are merely the opposite side of your coin.

These same idiots denying a wedding cake to gays would not like a gay owner denying a cake to a straight couple.

I'd have no problem with that.

Yes them losing the lawsuit IS FAIR. We are not a theocracy.

Freedom of association can exist outside of a theocracy, and in fact is usually limited in the opposite direction under theocracies.  See the section on Jim Crow above.

Yes them losing the lawsuit IS FAIR. We are not a theocracy. They have no right to discriminate against gays PERIOD. Religious Christians in the past used their bible as an excuse to keep blacks out of their businesses and or using separate water fountains or bathrooms. Religious Christians also read their bibles and used them as excuses to prevent women from voting.

Earlier there was someone who could not tell the difference between "I won't have anything to do with that person" and "I want to assault and attempt to kill that person."  Now we have someone who can't tell the difference between "I won't have anything to do with that person" and "pass a law to forbid ANYONE from having anything to do with that person."

Equal protection under the law is not silencing them. No one is telling them to shut their business down, merely saying you cant discriminate whom you serve. They are merely being fucking bigoted crybabies.

So if the baker decides to sell wedding cakes, but to not sell them to gays, then nothing will happen to him?  He won't have his business shut down for ignoring the court order?  Ok then, this lawsuit is actually about nothing.

Or, more likely, your argument contains nothing.

[the_antithesis]

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

It's called "being professional." It's what people do when they want to run a respectable business.

[Hakurei Reimu]

When I defend the individual rights of those seeking to purchase this cake, which to me includes things like "life", "liberty", "property", "freedom of speech", "freedom of association", etc, I do not see how "freedom to buy a cake" fits in.

You do know that we have rights not explicitly spelled out in the constitution, right? That pesky ninth ammendment?

I also like it how you're trying to trivialize gay rights to "freedom to buy a cake" instead of "having the right to reasonable service to a business open to the general public."

I guess your name-calling was self-referential.

Go fuck yourself, jackass.

One of those is not like the others.  I'll leave you with the puzzle of trying to figure out which one it is.

I see nowhere where your spiel about "supporting gay rights" is anything more than lip service.

See, your mewlings sounds much like the rationale under Jim Crowe segregation laws. Whites didn't want to associate with blacks, and so they created zones within society designed to keep them separate. Separate but equal was the word of the day, and it was up to individual owners to decide whether and how they would accomodate the two races. This is your Liberitarian spiel taken to its logical extreme â€" we can't beat down dem niggers an' keep 'em ignrant and shit, but we certainly don' need ta associate with 'em.

But then, we passed laws doing away with that, because not only were the segregated facilities manifestly not equal, but the segregation itself was a social stigma imposed upon blacks: they were not good enough to associate with whites, even drinking at the same fountains.

But this is just the beginning. Just because the businessowner happens to be a person doesn't mean that he has the full rights of a random person on the street when he acts as a businessperson.

Let me draw you an analogy. If some random citizen walks up to you and tells you to blow up a building, then you are perfectly within your rights to refuse to do it â€" and I would hope that you do. If there is danger threatening, you are perfectly within your rights to flee to safety. Once you become a soldier, you lose those rights. You cannot disobey a lawful order given to you by your superior officer without severe consequences, even if your superior tells you to blow up a building. You cannot flee at the first sign of the enemy without severe consequences, as that's called desertion. Even though every soldier is an individual, their rights are curtailed because they have willingly accepted the role of a soldier.

If you don't want to be subject to military law, then don't join the military.

If some random citizen walks up to you and demands you bake a cake, then you are perfectly within your rights to refuse them on any grounds whatsoever. When you run a bake shop open to the general public, you lose that right. You must obey the rules and regulations regarding businesses, including the civil rights laws. The courts have ruled that denial of certain services are against the law. Even though every businessman is an individual, their rights are curtailed when acting in their capacity as businessmen because they have willingly accepted the role of a businessman.

If you don't want to be subject to business law, then don't start a business.

If your straight, then you can expect reasonable service from any business, and most businesses would not bat an eye to hear that a white man is marrying a black woman and still be at least professional about it. When you are a gay man, you lose that expectation. Now, you can be turned down even though your request is not really out of line with what is possible for the bakery. Even though every gay guy is an individual, their rights are curtailed because they have the role of a gay guy.

If you don't want to be subject to gay discrimination, then don't be gay...

Wait. Oops. One of these things is not like the other. You can stop being a businessman and you can stop being a soldier. The gay guy can't stop being gay.

Which means they must either provide that service or shut down.  What do you think will happen to the baker if he says "I am going to continue to not provide that service"?

He gets shut down, because he's in contempt of court. You seem to think that he should be able to flout the law and the courts without consequences.

You mean the Jim Crow LAWS where businesses were required to discriminate?

Racial segregation was also de facto in the north in many places, where there were no such laws. The Civil Rights acts did away with them, too.

[Sargon The Grape]

I love watching people who have no understanding of sociology try to argue about sociology.

[Shiranu]

I refuse to serve them, they are black.
I refuse to serve them, they are women.
I refuse to serve them, they are gay.

"The People" had their chance to sort these issues out, like the libertarian dream that the market would fix the problem. History lesson; it didn't, it took the court to fix all these issues.

The right to be protected from discrimination because of your skin, culture and sexuality outweighs the owner's right to operate his business in any means he sees fit. Same reason we don't (didn't?) allow oil companies to build pipes through refuges or (use to) keep businesses from completely scamming and ripping off their clients... the people, at the end of the day, come first.

The needs of society outweigh the needs of the business. If you do not like this, then practice what you preach and stop buying this product; either get enough people to boycott it so it changes (vote in libertarians [good luck]), change companies (governments) or refuse to follow it's rules.

[Munch]

They're stupid, then.

That's not supporting gay marriage.

That's profiting from gay marriage.

If they can't tell the difference, they deserve to lose their business.

This ^

fuck them, if someone asks for a satanist cake they should prepare it, its money and religious beliefs won't put food on the table.