Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

[baskev]

Do you guys honestly feel a business has the right to refuse service based solely on sex? If yes, how do you feel about businesses who refuse service based on race?

Yes and yes...if its a private owned business then yeah. Even though i feel its wrong.
You see they are forced to let gay people in we could be forced to help neo nazi's, kkk , taliban etc when they enter our bakery's, bars etc...
On top of that forcing a private NON live threatening business to do something is wrong. It does not hurt anyone...their are a million other bakers to go to. And you can cost a A-hole like that allot of clients if you go online with allot of people and tell them how bad they are!!!

[Endus]

So here's my question. If a person went in to a bakery and said "Hey, I want a cake which depicts Mohammad as a dance clown for my sons birthday" and I was refused by the Muslim baker, are you going to be as vocal in support of my lawsuit and the subsequent use of force against that baker?

Not remotely the same. That's a specific message that the baker won't put on the cake. That's fine.

In this case, they refused to sell them any wedding cake, because they were gay. It's like if a Jew walked into a Muslim's bake shop, and the baker said "I don't serve filthy Jews, get out". And yes, the Muslim guy's an anti-semite in that case, and he's in the wrong, for exactly the same reasons.

[baskev]

Its not the same, political affiliation is not a protected status.

No its not indeed. But the argument will be made!!!
And it is the thought of it!
What about someone you know is a sex offender ( but lack of evidence could not put him in jail)...should you be able to bar him from a private playground ( arcade hall)?!?!?

Do not get me wrong. But it is a double edged sword.

[Nurasu]

This is where we have a legal disagreement and one in which many people have already weighed in citing the decision not being good.

Things you need to be aware of before going on about this subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inters...ce_Act_of_1887
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_...d_of_Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffi..._Edward_County
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Very distinctly the following section...
https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii...accommodations


Interestingly enough, I CAN deny you based upon...

Hair color
Clothing
Missing teeth
Weight
Political Alignment
Type of Car
Ordor ... ect ect...


WHY is this a problem...

Well, let Cornell Law explain it...



Thus the biggest issue is from a Legal point of view and the lack of clear definition of "commerce." However, given that the act is literally called "Interstate Commerce" I'd side with "commerce across states."

This particular case boils down to state discrimination laws, which are a form of civil rights. I didn't refer to the Civil Rights Act and neither did you. I was just pointing out that your comparison was funny to me because it was so ridiculous. I've already read all of the citations for bakeries specifically being an accommodation and the relevant state statutes. What any of this has to do with the Commerce Clause you'd have to explain in more detail.

- - - Updated - - -

No its not indeed. But the argument will be made!!!
And it is the thought of it!
What about someone you know is a sex offender ( but lack of evidence could not put him in jail)...should you be able to bar him from a private playground ( arcade hall)?!?!?

Do not get me wrong. But it is a double edged sword.

There is no argument to be made outside of the law This baker is violating the law, in my opinion, and I expect the Supreme Court will agree.

[agnarr]

If it's a right-to-work state, potentially. What, exactly, is your point? Just trying to figure out exactly what ways it's legal to be a bigot?

The "right-to-work state" is important because in States or countries where that's NOT the standard, like Canada, you need to show cause to justify a firing, in the first place. And tying "they have a blog I don't like" to cause is going to be nearly impossible.

Either you have no idea what, "Right to work State" means, or it has completely different meanings in different States / Countries.

Specifically, where I live, and it being a right-to-work-state, it means that you do not have to join a Union to be hired by an employer that has Union workers. Thus, "Right to work".

[Nurasu]

Either you have no idea what, "Right to work State" means, or it has completely different meanings in different States / Countries.

Specifically, where I live, and it being a right-to-work-state, it means that you do not have to join a Union to be hired by an employer that has Union workers. Thus, "Right to work".

Yes, he means "at will employment", but it goes hand in hand with "right to work" because really the only place it doesn't apply is in unions and the public sector.

[agnarr]

Yes, he means "at will employment", but it goes hand in hand with "right to work" because really the only place it doesn't apply is in unions and the public sector.

If you're implying that there is no such thing as wrongful termination lawsuits in a "right-to-work-state", I would have to inform you that you are incorrect. But I think the left tries to conflate terminology to add stigma to something that should have no stigma attached.

[Derah]

I like how ever example people who support these bakers make. Are not actually equal to the situation at hand.

These bakers happen to make wedding cakes among the services they provide. People were not demanding them conduct a service they don't already offer.

The fact that simply trying to lie about the situation is the only way you can justify it. Should tell you a lot about your position.

Don't try to presume my position.

I for one think that baker is an asshole, and an idiot for turning away a perfectly good client. What kind of businessman refuses to take money? a bad businessman.

That being said, I still think its his right to decide who he wants to service and who he doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

And it has been established that you do not have any such right with regards to protected classes.

define "protected classes". Are you saying its okay to refuse service to some people, but not okay to refuse service to other people? because that's worse.

[Nurasu]

If you're implying that there is no such thing as wrongful termination lawsuits in a "right-to-work-state", I would have to inform you that you are incorrect. But I think the left tries to conflate terminology to add stigma to something that should have no stigma attached.

Wrongful termination lawsuits don't apply to at will either tho. And of course the burden of proof would be on the employee.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't try to presume my position.

I for one think that baker is an asshole, and an idiot for turning away a perfectly good client. What kind of businessman refuses to take money? a bad businessman.

That being said, I still think its his right to decide who he wants to service and who he doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -



define "protected classes". Are you saying its okay to refuse service to some people, but not okay to refuse service to other people? because that's worse.

Protected classes in the US are groups that you aren't allowed to discriminate against, yes, but they apply equally to everyone - they are not exclusive.
Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Sex, Age, Physical or mental disability, Veteran status, and in this case orientation because of State law.

[baskev]

This particular case boils down to state discrimination laws, which are a form of civil rights. I didn't refer to the Civil Rights Act and neither did you. I was just pointing out that your comparison was funny to me because it was so ridiculous. I've already read all of the citations for bakeries specifically being an accommodation and the relevant state statutes. What any of this has to do with the Commerce Clause you'd have to explain in more detail.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no argument to be made outside of the law This baker is violating the law, in my opinion, and I expect the Supreme Court will agree.

Their is....a law is a thought before it comes law...??? From discussion laws are made, changed or removed.
Yes he is is violating the law....i said that they where right on this point. And i agree with the fact its a crime. I am just saying its a slippery slope. And how can we force a individual to comply with our way of thinking. That is not what we want. We want them even if they do not agree with us, to see us as human beings. And be respect full to us.

A question have you ever experienced rascism because of race or sexuality first hand?!?!?! I have its not fun. But as much as i get respect from other people...i should give other people the same respect in their choices. And yes race, sex etc are not choices. But even then. Its a persons OWN space. Its not a public property...If the baker would sell the cake's out of his home...could he refuse the person?!?! And if he did not comment why he refused ( even if you know its because of being gay, muslim etc) could you punish him??

Do not get me wrong. A service like health care, police, government etc all should service everyone!! But a small business should be able to choose its clientele. Otherwise its forced labor....

[Dald]

First, if you would be okay with that, there is no real point in discussing this with you, as you are beyond the point of reason.

What if the businesses in question were a coalition of gas stations, taxi companies, and bus companies, and they all refused to serve black people? You have a town where none of the black people can purchase fuel, nor can they purchase transportation to go somewhere else.

What if it was all the grocery stores? All the black people get to starve? I guess they could go to the next town over, but that will be hard with no gas for their cars and no bus or taxi willing to drive them.

What if it was a privately owned hospital? That black man is suffering from serious malnutrition, he is very sick, and will die before he reaches the next hospital. I guess he just dies then?

What if it was a privately owned fire department? The black man's house just burns to the ground?

I hope the fire insurance company didn't have a similar policy of just not insuring black homeowners.

Government intervention in these EXTREME AND VERY UNLIKELY TO OCCUR instances. Any large business isn't going to refuse money, though.

[Derah]

Protected classes in the US are groups that you aren't allowed to discriminate against, yes, but they apply equally to everyone - they are not exclusive.
Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Sex, Age, Physical or mental disability, Veteran status, and in this case orientation because of State law.

whoa whoa whoa, hold the fucking phone......

"Not allowed"? Does that mean there's groups that you ARE allowed to discriminate against? shouldn't this cover everyone? every race, gender, religion, blah blah?

- - - Updated - - -

Do not get me wrong. A service like health care, police, government etc all should service everyone!! But a small business should be able to choose its clientele. Otherwise its forced labor....

Hammer: Meet nail.

Well said.

There's things that by right should be made available to everyone, but small services, are things that one should be allowed to decide on. Right of Admission and all that.

[Orbitus]

whoa whoa whoa, hold the fucking phone......

"Not allowed"? Does that mean there's groups that you ARE allowed to discriminate against? shouldn't this cover everyone? every race, gender, religion, blah blah?

- - - Updated - - -



Hammer: Meet nail.

Well said.

There's things that by right should be made available to everyone, but small services, are things that one should be allowed to decide on. Right of Admission and all that.

We have already litigated this entire debacle with the Civil Rights act of 64. Because before then we had diners and companies that had "No Negros Allowed" signs on their establishments. Not to mention the whole segregated bathrooms and water fountains. If you want to be in a business, you have to comply with state and federal laws. Not just serve who you want.

[Nurasu]

whoa whoa whoa, hold the fucking phone......

"Not allowed"? Does that mean there's groups that you ARE allowed to discriminate against? shouldn't this cover everyone? every race, gender, religion, blah blah?

- - - Updated - - -



Hammer: Meet nail.

Well said.

There's things that by right should be made available to everyone, but small services, are things that one should be allowed to decide on. Right of Admission and all that.

Yes, there are, such a neo nazis, antifa, republicans, democrats, etc. It does cover every race and religion as I just said, however.

- - - Updated - - -

Their is....a law is a thought before it comes law...??? From discussion laws are made, changed or removed.
Yes he is is violating the law....i said that they where right on this point. And i agree with the fact its a crime. I am just saying its a slippery slope. And how can we force a individual to comply with our way of thinking. That is not what we want. We want them even if they do not agree with us, to see us as human beings. And be respect full to us.

A question have you ever experienced rascism because of race or sexuality first hand?!?!?! I have its not fun. But as much as i get respect from other people...i should give other people the same respect in their choices. And yes race, sex etc are not choices. But even then. Its a persons OWN space. Its not a public property...If the baker would sell the cake's out of his home...could he refuse the person?!?! And if he did not comment why he refused ( even if you know its because of being gay, muslim etc) could you punish him??

Do not get me wrong. A service like health care, police, government etc all should service everyone!! But a small business should be able to choose its clientele. Otherwise its forced labor....

If you agree he's breaking the law, why would you advocate the Supreme Court ignoring said law, because it may become a "slippery slope" (even though, as history has shown, it takes a huge amount of public support and as well as decades of time to become a protected class).

To answer your other question, no, I have not, but I'm not as "flamboyant" as others of my persuasion. I still think it's asinine that these people will justify discriminating against them, however, because a book says "don't fuck men" and they warp it into "don't bake cake for gays".

[Derah]

Yes, there are, such a neo nazis, antifa, republicans, democrats, etc. It does cover every race and religion as I just said, however.

Well that seems a little hypocritical.

"here's your list of who you can be a dick to, and who you are morally and legally obligated to deal with regardless of your personal opinion on the matter".

It should be either not be allowed to be a dick to anyone, or be allowed to be a dick to everyone. Half-measures are hardly a good solution.

[Endus]

Well that seems a little hypocritical.

"here's your list of who you can be a dick to, and who you are morally and legally obligated to deal with regardless of your personal opinion on the matter".

It should be either not be allowed to be a dick to anyone, or be allowed to be a dick to everyone. Half-measures are hardly a good solution.

"Here's the context in which you're allowed to punch someone, and the rest you aren't."

"Well that's hypocritical, isn't it? You should be able to either punch everyone all the time, or never punch anyone ever."

Context matters. Pretending it doesn't isn't a reasonable argument.

[Antiganon]

Well that seems a little hypocritical.

"here's your list of who you can be a dick to, and who you are morally and legally obligated to deal with regardless of your personal opinion on the matter".

It should be either not be allowed to be a dick to anyone, or be allowed to be a dick to everyone. Half-measures are hardly a good solution.

The other poster worded it wrong. It's not " who you can discriminate against", it's "what characteristics you can discriminate against".

I can't refuse you because you are white. I can refuse you because you are a white supremacist. I can't refuse you because you are Christian. I can refuse you because you are wearing a shirt that says" God hates fags ". I can't refuse you because you're old. I can refuse you because you are annoying me.

See the distinction?

[Benggaul]

Am I being trolled or do you guys actually disagree with the civil rights movement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

It is a private business. Pretty much any private business reserves the right to refuse service for whatever reason. It is a horrible thing that this business decided to refuse service for the reason they did, but they were well within their legal right to do so. It is now up to the public to refuse them their patronage and let that shitty, bigoted business go down in flames and I sincerely hope they do.

[Antiganon]

It is a private business. Pretty much any private business reserves the right to refuse service for whatever reason. It is a horrible thing that this business decided to refuse service for the reason they did, but they were well within their legal right to do so. It is now up to the public to refuse them their patronage and let that shitty, bigoted business go down in flames and I sincerely hope they do.

Objectively 100% false.

It is illegal in Colorado to discriminate based on sexuality.

[Endus]

It is a private business. Pretty much any private business reserves the right to refuse service for whatever reason.

The thing about that is, they don't actually have the legal right to refuse service for "whatever reason". Maybe you wish that was how things worked, but it flat-out isn't, and hasn't been for over a half-century.