Man sues because of religious discrimination when baker refuses to make anti-gay cake

[fm93]

I'm sorry, what part of the business owner's traditional "right to refuse service TO ANYONE" is the confusing part?

The "to anyone" part, because it isn't fair for someone to be allowed to refuse service to literally anyone. There has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals, and I wanted to know what he thinks are good reasons, unless you seriously mean to tell me that a doctor can refuse to treat a patient and thus possibly allow him to die because he was about to participate in a same-sex marriage soon and the doctor doesn't approve of same-sex marriages on the basis of his religion.

[KingsGambit]

The "to anyone" part, because it isn't fair for someone to be allowed to refuse service to literally anyone. There has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals, and I wanted to know what he thinks are good reasons, unless you seriously mean to tell me that a doctor can refuse to treat a patient and thus possibly allow him to die because he was about to participate in a same-sex marriage soon and the doctor doesn't approve of same-sex marriages on the basis of his religion.

I think there can be legitimate justifications to refuse service. The store where I works has a regular customer from the store next door who apparently has been bragging about stealing from our store. We haven't caught her in the act (though we found evidence of stealing left in our restroom right after she used it) but if my manager wanted to outright refuse her I think he would be within his rights, even if he doesn't have anything concrete to go on.

These days, social media will quickly take care of anybody who really is discriminating.

[fm93]

I think there can be legitimate justifications to refuse service. The store where I works has a regular customer from the store next door who apparently has been bragging about stealing from our store. We haven't caught her in the act (though we found evidence of stealing left in our restroom right after she used it) but if my manager wanted to outright refuse her I think he would be within his rights, even if he doesn't have anything concrete to go on.

These days, social media will quickly take care of anybody who really is discriminating.

Yeah, this is a good example of what I meant by "good reasons to refuse service."

[KingsGambit]

Yeah, this is a good example of what I meant by "good reasons to refuse service."

But the thing is, we wouldn't be able to outright accuse her without proof. My boss says that if we accuse someone of stealing and can't prove it, it's grounds for a lawsuit. Thus a general refusal of service without a given justification.

[Darth Executor]

There has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals, and I wanted to know what he thinks are good reasons, unless you seriously mean to tell me that a doctor can refuse to treat a patient and thus possibly allow him to die because he was about to participate in a same-sex marriage soon and the doctor doesn't approve of same-sex marriages on the basis of his religion.

Why do you keep making these moronic analogies? Someone doesn't get operated on "to participate in a same-sex marriage", they get operated on because they presumably want to live. The gay "wedding" cake has no purpose other than to support the wedding event.

[Meta Knight]

The "to anyone" part, because it isn't fair

Yes it is.

for someone to be allowed to refuse service to literally anyone. There has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals,

No, there does not.

and I wanted to know what he thinks are good reasons, unless you seriously mean to tell me that a doctor can refuse to treat a patient and thus possibly allow him to die because he was about to participate in a same-sex marriage soon and the doctor doesn't approve of same-sex marriages on the basis of his religion.

That would violate the doctor's Hippocratic Oath and would be negligent homicide or malpractice, neither of which involve discrimination law and are thus irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[seer]

Oh the horror!

A private Christian school in Tennessee has told a pair of prospective parents to look elsewhere — because they happen to be gay dads.

“I believe another education provider would be a better fit for your children. Therefore, we cannot grant admission to your children,” reads a letter from the school that was posted on Facebook Wednesday by Brian Copeland. Copeland and his husband Greg Bullard, a pastor, are the fathers of 3-year-old son who is readying to enter pre-K, as well as a daughter who is 8 months old. The letter he posted — which explains that “homosexuality” is a “lifestyle conduct which is in opposition to the mission” of the school — has been shared on Facebook more than 200 times, inciting many expressions of anger and sadness both there and on Twitter.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/kids...932018787.html

[Littlejoe]

I wonder how long it will be before a bartender or the bar itself is sued for discrimination? A person comes into a bar drunk, bartender refuses to serve him because he is obviously already over the limit. Gets sued because the person he refused to serve is homosexual, person of color...etc? You can say that the drunk part takes precedent, but there's no "proof" without a breathalyzer so it becomes his word against the other...

[Sam]

Overnight it occurred to me that one reason your distinction (about lack of message on the cake) falls flat is that the law, as currently written, doesn't make that distinction. I recall hearing about a t-shirt maker who was found guilty of breaking the law for refusing to make t-shirts with a pro-gay message.

You are in error: Colorado law, as currently written, does distinguish between general service at public accommodations (where it's illegal to deny service based on sexual orientation) and commissioned works (the content of which falls under free speech protections). The same is true in Washington, New Mexico, and other states that have protections for sexual orientation.

Of course, this is merely a statutory argument. The ideological basis of the argument, that groups of people should not be discriminated against based on fundamental or inherent properties (e.g., race, religion, sex) is well established. It's only because a certain party in Congress is far behind the public opinion that sexual orientation is not a federally protected status.

The right of freedom of association is actually equal protection. If it were upheld as it should be, then everyone would be equally protected in their right to enter or refrain from entering what mutually voluntary interactions they wish. An individual making or refusing to make an exchange is in no sense a violation of the equal protection of the law. It's just an individual exercising his freedom of choice, which everyone should have equally.

On the other hand anti-discrimination laws are a violation of equal protection. They limit sellers, for instance, while still leaving it legal for customers in general to discriminate against sellers (e.g. based on skin color).

If person A wants to make exchange X with person B, but person B doesn't want to make that exchange, then you have two options: you can consistently defend the equal protection of each person and their property, or you can make the law unequal by forcing B to make the exchange (i.e. threatening punishment if B refuses).


(There are multiple principles violated by such anti-discrimination laws. Another example is the freedom of thought.)

You can hold this philosophy and continue to advocate it. You are, however, at clear odds with well-established history, constitutional law, and a good number of SCOTUS decisions. In other words, you can have your opinion all right but you can't very well claim constitutional authority in doing so.

—Sam

[Kristian Joensen]

Barring the government or medical services, anyone should have the right to discriminate anyone for any reason whatsoever. I should have the right to refuse service to racist bastards if I want to.

All anti-discrimination, hate crime and maybe even all libel and slander laws should be repealed.

[KingsGambit]

Barring the government or medical services, anyone should have the right to discriminate anyone for any reason whatsoever. I should have the right to refuse service to racist bastards if I want to.

All anti-discrimination, hate crime and maybe even all libel and slander laws should be repealed.

I'm curious about your take on libel and slander laws, but that is a different topic altogether...

[seer]

You can hold this philosophy and continue to advocate it. You are, however, at clear odds with well-established history, constitutional law, and a good number of SCOTUS decisions. In other words, you can have your opinion all right but you can't very well claim constitutional authority in doing so.

—Sam

No Sam, we are only at odds with recent history, and no we certainly are not at odds with The Constitution. I would like to know which constitutional principle claims that any man has a right to my labor.

[Jedidiah]

There has to be a good reason to refuse service to some individuals, . . .

Why?

[Joel]

The "to anyone" part, because it isn't fair for someone to be allowed to refuse service to literally anyone.

It is fair, in the sense of equality before the law, assuming that everyone is equally free in that respect.

There has to be a good reason to ....

No, in a free country, people are free to do things even for stupid reasons.
To punish person A for doing something because of A's reason for doing it is an example of thought crime!

You can hold this philosophy and continue to advocate it. You are, however, at clear odds with well-established history, constitutional law, and a good number of SCOTUS decisions. In other words, you can have your opinion all right but you can't very well claim constitutional authority in doing so.

This thread is a discussion regarding what the law ought to be. Obviously I disagree with the current state of the law. That existing laws violate freedom of association and equal protection, as I was explaining. They are bad laws. So I don't understand how your pointing out the existing state of the law is some kind of argument against what I'm saying. Or are you saying that SCOTUS has addressed the specific argument I made and refuted it? If that's the case you need to present that logical refutation here, and we can examine whether it is a sound counter-argument.

[Sam]

This thread is a discussion regarding what the law ought to be. Obviously I disagree with the current state of the law. That existing laws violate freedom of association and equal protection, as I was explaining. They are bad laws. So I don't understand how your pointing out the existing state of the law is some kind of argument against what I'm saying. Or are you saying that SCOTUS has addressed the specific argument I made and refuted it? If that's the case you need to present that logical refutation here, and we can examine whether it is a sound counter-argument.

It seemed that the gist of the OP and the general thrust of the thread was not "What should the law be?" but "If the law demands X, then X should apply to everyone." I took you as arguing that if a baker had to provide service to same-sex couples then a baker should have to provide service to someone requesting objectionable content. I noted that these are actually distinct situations, governed by distinct parts of the law.

The broader argument of whether the law should prevent at least some forms of discrimination has been hashed over even more times than this specific question of discrimination. I personally find it anachronistic and desperately uninteresting. The idea that the government can and should ensure some form of equal opportunity and protect at least some groups from discrimination on a broad scale hardly seems like it should be a contentious topic at this point in history. If that's the future of the thread, rather than the slightly more interesting topic of public accommodation/general service/commissioned work, y'all have fun. We have a fundamental difference of opinion which neither of us will budge on that philosophy.

—Sam