Should I be allowed to refuse service to Neo-Nazis?
Should I be allowed to refuse service to Neo-Nazis?
So for all the people who think this is fine, just imagine if every and i mean literally every private business would do this. So no one could be openly gay because they would not recieve any service anywhere unless from companies owned by gay people. Companies which obviously wouldn't be running for long as no one would sell them shit to work with.
Also, why stop at gay people? Let's refuse to sell to women unless accompanied by a man, nothing wrong with that then. Let's refuse to hire women while we're at it because discrimination is fine if it's done by private companies, they have every right to do so, woohooo fuck civil rights and women rights.
@Iliyra @-aiko- @Machismo
- - - Updated - - -
Unless the people don't care or at worst agree, and suddenly minorities are fucked again, yay!
What about business' that have a quasi monopoly in the region?
With support from the Trump Justice Department, a Colorado baker who describes himself as a “cake artist” is arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that he should be allowed to refuse to supply a wedding cake to a gay couple, despite a state law prohibiting discrimination by businesses on the basis of sexual orientation. He argues that his religious objection to gay marriage entitles him to protection under the 1st Amendment.
Jack Phillips may be utterly sincere in his opposition to same-sex marriage. But a ruling permitting him to opt out of such an important anti-discrimination law on the grounds of free speech or freedom of religion would undermine the enforcement of laws against all sorts of discrimination in restaurants, hotels and other so-called public accommodations.
Phillips, his lawyers and the Justice Department emphasized in their arguments that it was a “custom” cake Phillips refused to bake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when they came into his shop in 2012.
Creating such an artistic cake, Phillips’ lawyers say, is a form of speech; it is “not just baking batter and applying icing from a tub.” If he were compelled to provide the cake, Colorado would be in effect compelling him to use the “expressive” art form of cake-baking to express a message he didn’t agree with. (According to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which ruled against Phillips, the couple left after Phillips conveyed this information “without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.”)
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...913-story.html
The Supreme Court is going to say that a business can't refuse the patronage of gay people. I'd bet $50 on it.
But yes, somebody's rights are going to get trampled on when they rule, there's no way around it.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
ehm he does ? If i want to close my shop today and just spend it naked drinking chicken soup i'm pretty sure i can, what i can't do is take ur money then deny u service, as long i didn't take money, i'm free to not serve u
also the reason he refused to is wrong, he is free to refuse since he is the owner of his own shop
The beginning of wisdom is the statement 'I do not know.' The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn
Thrall
http://youtu.be/x3ejO7Nssj8 7:20+ "Alliance remaining super power", clearly blizz favor horde too much, that they made alliance the super power
Yep, that would be on you then, but if you did that at say at a storefront, you would be arrested for indecent exposure. You CANNOT discriminate based on protected classes. Which means in this case, since sexuality is a protected class in the state of Colorado, you cannot deny them based on their sexuality. I don't know why it is so fucking hard to grasp, but we have a constitution, state constitutions, and laws for a fucking reason.
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry, but no one has the right to discriminate, especially on protected classes.
- - - Updated - - -
Since Neo-Nazis aren't a protected class, yes you can.
I think the baker should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason, but it this shit then makes it to the media (or their yelp page) I don't want to hear them bitching about the business-destroying fallout.
Again that is how private work goes since ages, I have a shop, I sell goods, I can refuse to sell u today because i woke up a bee stung me and u look like a bee to me, i didn't take ur money so i didn't scam u, i have my private owned shop i have every right to refuse anyone to sell goods just because i can, and if u say because 'public right' then this turns every little thing that happens anywhere as public 'service'
The beginning of wisdom is the statement 'I do not know.' The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn
Thrall
http://youtu.be/x3ejO7Nssj8 7:20+ "Alliance remaining super power", clearly blizz favor horde too much, that they made alliance the super power
Cant you make any comparisons that actually would be near the source?
If you close your shop for a day, you close the shop for EVERYONE, you dont discriminate anyone.
As for the popular Muslim Restaurante compares:
Muslim Restaurants probably dont serve Pork to ANYONE, so they dont discriminate anyone.
I'm a liberal and I completely support this person's religious freedom to not make a gay wedding cake as per Leviticus so long as they also do not make wedding cakes for tailors who mix fabrics, barbers/beauticians who cut hair and beards, and shellfish fishermen/shellfish retailers/shellfish-eaters as also outlined in Leviticus to be abominations unto their lord. If they don't then they are just being fucking bigots and don't deserve protection under religious freedom.
Stains on the carpet and stains on the memory
Songs about happiness murmured in dreams
When we both of us knew how the end always is...
You didn't read closely enough into my scenario. The man wanted a cake that brodcast his heterosexuality. For the sake of argument, let's remove the issue of hatred. He merely wants a cake that in some way rubs the gay owners in the wrong way for whatever reason. Now his request is protected by law (protection of sexuality, as you've described, although I assume Colorado law protects minority groups as opposed to majority, but I digress) and the gay couple are forced to make the cake regardless.
I'm sorry, but in this instance, the use of force in a private business feels wrong to me. The man is ignorant and biased and from what else I read, a little "touched" by religion in all the wrong ways. I understand that businesses, privately owned or not, must abide by state and federal laws - I'm not arguing that at all.
My personal opinion is that this whole situation - taking the man to court and pressing so hard on this - sheds more of a net negative light on the whole thing. They had every right to sue of course, but I think in this instance, their making that man's ignorance visible to the public outside of the legal system would have been far more effective, both in terms of damaging his business and in bringing support to their cause from both "sides" standing on this issue.
TL;DR,
Acceptance is an uphill battle and of course needs to be fought on every front. This isn't even an issue of picking your battles, rather pick your strategy for those battles.
"It is not wise to judge others based on your own preconceptions or by their appearances."
It's basically going to rest on what the customization was, and whether it qualifies as the baker's free expression or not, or just the product of their shop. If the couple wanted a cake with giant penises or specific messaging, he could make a solid case, and I'd agree he could refuse to make those particular decorations. If he's just refusing to take an order for a standard custom cake, then not, since that's just "here's the 8 varieties of cake we can do, the 3 types of icing options which we can do in basically any color (your choice), and here's the decoration styles we offer." That's "custom" in the same way that telling the waiter at a steak house that you want it medium-rare and with fries for your side is "custom". Not a valid claim of free expression by the chef, or the baker in this case.
And if we wanted to extend that to this, imagine the guy ran a cupcake shop, and didn't do wedding cakes. Refusing to make a wedding cake because it's not what he provides is reasonable, and what he does with all customers by rote. No discrimination.
But this guy specifically did wedding cakes.
- - - Updated - - -
The original plaintiffs aren't the ones pushing this. They sued in State court, and won. Everything past that point has been the bakery owner filing appeals and pushing for more attention.