The debate "The owner of the bakery has the right to refuse service to the gay couple." was started by
May 24, 2019, 8:31 pm.
86 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 134 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
JDAWG9693 posted 31 arguments, Hellow posted 5 arguments, HobNobTheHob posted 2 arguments, bernie posted 1 argument, Allirix posted 11 arguments, yoitzflex posted 1 argument, maksonmakson posted 4 arguments, thuy posted 1 argument, MrStealyogrill posted 5 arguments, MightyJackalope posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 46 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 3 arguments, DanielSays posted 1 argument, mingbcc164 posted 1 argument, vanshika652000 posted 1 argument, Threelip posted 1 argument, sakshi posted 3 arguments, babymarie posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
JDAWG9693, MADHURA, Hellow, wtann6979, Potatochiper, HobNobTheHob, bernie, Allirix, kingofrubik, maksonmakson, Bratzela, yoitzflex, fireball4thewin, boispendaddy, thuy, MrStealyogrill, Miguel, John, hollieg, Deat, GotWood, Light, mtbtheboss, MightyJackalope, CastLight, DebatorOfFacts, Agrumentman, Andrew_Sagirius and 58 visitors agree.
justincase, imjustheretommorow, Damian, DanielSays, mingbcc164, vanshika652000, sssk, Aditya_17, kadijatu, DrWho, Nemiroff, Threelip, Potato, swara, historybuff, babymarie, lemonpimp, TPSYT1, trent, EmiMoro, nikhil, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, Communistguy, mar, Manuel, YEET, balckqueen_27, chelseat99, StarianaMusicINFP, Debatelegend, Audrey23, Rayyan989, chelrasonjohn and 101 visitors disagree.
I think everyone agrees there are ground upon which you can refuse service. For example, if a store puts up a sign that says "no shoes, no shirt, no service" they are perfectly justified in refusing to serve someone who comes in without a shirt on.
I would hope that most people would agree that there are grounds that you should not be permitted to refuse service for. To me, this would be anything that person cannot control. This would include their race, their gender etc. If a store puts up a sign saying they won't serve black people, that is obviously not ok.
In this example, a store refused service based on something the customer didn't have any control over, their sexuality. To me that is blatant discrimination and should not be permissible.
For your example of the KKK cake, I would say it depends on the request. If they are asking for a cake that says "Happy Birthday" or has no message at all,then yes, discriminating against them would be wrong. If they are asking for a cake that has an explicitly racist message or something, then they would have grounds to refuse. However the cake the in the topic was just a generic wedding cake, no different than any other cake that shop would make.
I agree. My argument is simple: should a gay couple have to bake a cake for a kkk rally?
So they have the right because of religious liberty
Yes discrimination is immoral but this case is more complicated than just an anti-discrimination case. It's a clash of religious liberty and anti-discrimination.
Firstly, you can obviously discriminate based on sexual orientation. It should be a federally protected class. But, in the Colorado case service was not denied because of the customer's identity. They did not refuse to make the a cake because the customer requesting it was gay. If that was the case it couldn't have gone to the supreme court. They refused service because the cake was to be used in a ritual they cited as agasint their religious beliefs. Yes, their identity is related to the ritual but it is not the ritual.
I believe their denial is unethical, but I see it like denying service to a black person requesting a cake to be used in a satanic ritual. They wouldn't be denying the service based on the customer's race but based on the cake maker's religious beliefs. In the Colorado case the customer's identity and ritual align so it's easy to conflate the two, but that's not the case. So the supreme court ruled the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was guilty of religious discrimination.
As a non-theist I abhor dogmatic religious beliefs, especially outdated thought like this that marginalises those who have been historically marginalised, but I also believe a secular society MUST protect religious liberty, even if it costs regressing positive norms for the gay community.
where is the right that says businesses can refuse service to people who did nothing wrong? sorry, I disagree with you. its immoral, and its unchristian. honestly, its despicable.
Except they do have a right... so... yeah. if you don't support homosexuality, you can just be polite and say "sorry, we don't want to make a cake with a homosexual message on it. I know a bakery close by that does that though, sorry for any inconvenience" That is what shop owners have a right to do, mate.
not the same thing. It went against that person's beliefs. it wasn't the person, it was what the person wanted on the cake. No discrimination involved, mate??
This argument is referring to the Asher's case. They did get into legal trouble and won, the judge said that it wasn't discrimination to do something against your beliefs. The gay couple wanted a cake with a gay message on it. if they wanted a cake that said "happy birthday!" they would have made it. but it didn't. it goes against their beliefs, so they have a right to deny service.
it's not discrimination, they don't support homosexuality, so they wouldn't be comfortable making a cake with a homosexual message. They don't turn them down because they are gay. if they wanted a cake that said 'happy Saint Patrick's Day!' they would have happily made it. But it didn't. it goes against their beliefs, and they have a right to refuse service to something that goes against their morals.
If you don't support something, it's not discrimination to refuse service to something that goes against your morals and beliefs. You are talking about the Asher's case, aren't you? Well, they have a right to their beliefs and it is not discrimination to turn down a request that goes against your morals, beliefs and religion. Just go to another flipping bakery, man! you don't need to waste everyone's time and money over a cake.
of course a packed schedule or limited supply are valid reasons, and easily proven. im talking about inexcusable discrimination based solely on the person, and not the situation.
As a manager you're not only denying customers based on the customer themselves though. It can be based on your own limited ability and resources.
the solution, imo, is very simple. if someone comes in, is vulgar, violent, indecent, or tries to steal, ban them. it doesnt matter if they are a gay, handicapped, African American, Muslim, women.
on the other hand, If the customer did nothing wrong, even if they are a white male... provide your usual services at the usual price, or dont run a business that is "open to the public".
Yeah I'm coming around to this opinion. I'm just fearful of the slippery slope of legislation progressively changing the power of case law around contracts. If you wish to not give your services to someone for whatever reason, which is a contract seen by case law, if that person happens to be a protected class you're liable for a discrimination payout even if their status wasn't your reason for denying service. Race, age, sex are all clear things we can easily recognise so managers can be careful if they are in a position where they cannot provide a service so I'm more accepting of anti-discrimination laws protecting them. But, being gay or transgender is often hidden so I'm just more fearful of them becoming a protected class
I think the owner has the right to refuse service to any people if their behavior are improper or rude. But should he discriminate transgender people then this is a huge problem.
There is no such thing as "passively condoning" homosexuality. You either condone it or you don't. If you allow people to discriminate against others based on things they have no control over, you are no longer a free society. You are now a society that condones bigotry and discrimination. Is that the kind of society you want?
What if someone decided they didn't want to serve black people? Would you be ok with that?
for sure they have the right to deny to the service. .
Yes, and those decorators will passively condone homosexuality. But, if they fundamentally disagree with homosexuality, then they should have the right to refuse their services
I would have to agree to the statement of historybuff. .If you have a public shop you can't deny selling anything. ..For sure if they would have disrespected the shopkeeper he already have the right to property and he can say no....The couple are going to be getting married it's going to be auspicious event and participating in any such event directly or indirectly is good...The people who would decorate their wedding hall will too participate for sure indirectly but will...
And, I would argue that the person does not have to be physically present to be a part of the ceremony. Though the baker would not have been actively encouraging it, he would have been passively condoning actions which he stood against.
of course...if one would deny giving service as he is the owner and it's his choice for sure...The couple would go to the another bakery who would not mind as who they are...Their wedding cake is more important than any baker. ..
I think in order to justify the argument that they would be participating in the ceremony, they would have to be there. There is nothing about selling cake to gay person than there is about selling one to a straight person. They don't even have to leave their shop if they don't want to. It is literally no imposition on the shop keeper at all. But it could potentially be a huge imposition on the person being denied service.
If you own a public business, you should not have the right to deny someone service based on who they are. If they have done something wrong, you can deny service. But denying service to someone for being gay is no different than denying them service for being black. It is blatant discrimination.
It's not because they were gay, necessarily. It's about his religious opposition to homosexuality and, especially, his participation in the ceremony. I would say that he participated (or would have if he made the cake) enough to justify denying service. The couple should have just gone somewhere else that would serve them.
an owner should not be able to refuse service to someone just because they are gay there people to and they deserve to be treated like everyone else not any different
You are right.....but here's no pacifist we are talking about a baker who is trying to be rude to his customers not important whether they are gay...no caste , color , class matters ...We are shouting equality but when will we be able to see them?....that matters...
But, if the pacifist were a contractor, he would be condoning the violence, even if he's not directly participating. Also, he would be indirectly participating in the war/military
I think work is worship. ...and work is work the baker shouldn't treat his customers in such way...even if they are anyone. ..from this we are making a strong disapproval that gays will never be accepted in the society as they are different. .....that's all...thankyou.
the point of that analogy is that the contractors, although contributing to the military, are not part of the military. they have no loyalty or stake in the military beyond the print of their contract, much like the baker.
as to your draft concern, I did say no special orders. so a dish tv company cannot be forces to create some sort of spy equipment, but cannot refuse to wire the local base for dish TV service. I dont think that constitutes some sort of draft.
I would say that that would be more analogous to a pacifist being drafted. They got to be not drafted; similarly, the baker shouldn't have to bake the wedding cake for a gay wedding
but any and all perishable goods, not limited to a "wedding" cake, but any pastry, any food stuffs, etc?
I find a strong distinction between someone making something for the ritual, and for a contract. like a friend who decides to make an object for the ceremony free of cost or just material costs. would an analogy with military contractors not being veterans fit? they are considered civilians even if they were hired by the military, they arent part of the military.
Providing any service or object specifically for that ritual. So, your chair example wouldn't count because it wasn't for the ritual, it was for the building. The cake, however, is for the ritual, however generic it may have been.
not necessarily, we just identified the core of the disagreement, we could make one last push. would you like to state what qualifies, in your opinion, as being part of a ritual, and what does not? in general that is.
Yeah, I was just about to say that I think we just have to agree to disagree on this line.
One side of your analogy is very weighted, but your right, using weapons makes for a weak analogy in this situation. one should certainly be allowed to refuse to make an item clearly for criminal use... however the gay wedding was not a crime.
The Baker has no part in the ritual. anyone who must be present or is making a different then usual product can refuse. the Baker, in this situation, doesnt fit the description.
our dispute seems to lie entirely in what constitutes being part of a ritual.
If I buy a gun from someone and show that there's a reasonable belief that I will commit a crime with that firearm, then that person is partly liable.
No, because I can do a LOT of things with firearms, melee weapons, and blades other than crimes. I can do one thing as a gay couple ordering a wedding cake for my gay wedding: use the cake for my gay wedding (granted the wedding happens).
and I think that is ludicrous. manufacturers of kitchen knives and construction tools will be liable if they are used in a murder or any crime. that's insane. dont you agree?
if this guy is part of the ritual because his cake was, then gun manufacturers are part of the murder because their gun was.
and my claim is that he is not part of the ritual, like for example the priest, the performer, or even the servers.
if the product is that relevant to the producer at all, then gun and knife manufacturers should be guilty for their part in crimes.... but they arent, because the product and the producer have little to do with each other. he makes a cake. how it is used has nothing to do with him.
if he was presenting the cake or it was some super special custom work, I would understand. but a generic wedding cake is not grounds for refusal.
My claim is that if it was just servicing the couple in general, like a dozen muffins for a picnic or something, he would have no right to refuse service. But, because it was for a religious ritual, that's where his right to refuse comes in.
the founding fathers had to specify the right, and limits, of speaking freely. what makes you think that actions can be free by default? once again, which right are you referring to because no, you do not have full freedom in any modern society. if you want unrestricted freedom, go to a 3rd world country without an effective government or leave society altogether and live in the woods. pure freedom = rule of the strong = no freedom for most. that's why the founding father were very specific as to what freedoms are given to the people and any restrictions on those freedoms.
you do not have the right to take away the rights of others. if you dont want to serve the public as a whole, dont open a business to the public.
no we dont agree. if you choose to open a business to the public you must serve all individuals who violated no rules, and any rules of your establishment must be enforced equally. you can do whatever you want as a private individual, but businesses do not have the right to discriminate.
I'm not quite sure what we're disagreeing on. We agree that "they don't have to do anything they don't want to do". That's pretty much all argument for "the right to deny a customer service" is. We agree it's bad for business, but the customer does not have the right to your time and effort as a private individual. You have the right to enter contacts with whomever you want based on whatever weird world views you have.
The default right, since you own the business
what right is this?
But if it's your business than you have the right to not provide the customers equally if you don't want to. You're still not obligated to accept these rules.
then they don't have to open a business.
he clearly has no problem doing the task as he offers it daily, its not that he doesn't want to do something, he doesn't want to do it for a certain "type" of person. Aka discrimination
They don't have to do anything they don't want to do? That's literally what we're arguing.
if this is about rights, I still dont see the problem. it is a known rule that is applied to all business and covers all customers equally. and it is not an undo burden as it only requires you to provide services you normally provide and allows for legitamete exceptions like being out of stock or over booked.
the businessman is choosing everything from what services to offer, to how much to charge for them. they dont have to do anything they dong want to. this is an insane issue.
Did The Christ, Yehoshua, teach what I just said he did? Yes.
? did he
Jesus did not teach tolerance, he taught thought crime and he was the one that introduced eternal punishment and condoned and encouraged human sacrifice. However, we did already agree that almost all religions/religious people are hypocritical
but the rules of commerce are implied to be within legal factors, and the original question was about rights and not law. but now i am unsure how much are rights dependant of the law. i mean, i should have a right to pee, for an example, even if peeing would be illegal, (hypothetically speaking)
you are clearly confused by what it means to open a business to the PUBLIC.
if you have an artisan that does special work on request, he can refuse anyone at any time. if the same artisan also has a storefront with a list of offered services, he cannot deny those services to people who did nothing wrong.
when you open a business, you agree to extra *rules of commerce* in addition to the basic rules of individuals. it isnt that difficult of a concept.
it's his bakery, and not mine. I am gay but he still has the right to do whatever he wants with his own bakery, he has freedom in this context.
I thought it was against the Christian religion to be gay, not to not provide services to gay people.
if I'm not mistaken, jesus taught tolerance and love.
well if you look at it both sides he might be Christian and might be against his religion I'm not saying he's wrong or right but is biased for what he did but has all rights to refuse service to anyone for no reason or explanation at all
noone is asking him to paint a picture. noone is asking him to write a statement of support. not all requests are equal. I would not expect a jew, or anyone, to make a cake with a swastika on it, but I would expect a jew to make a generic wedding cake to 2 nazis getting married with no symbolism or vulgarity involved.
he can deny specific design options. I said that many times. but he cannot flatly deny them a generic product he would make anyone else. let's not falsely compare unequal requests.
Well, the artist is just painting what I asked him to; a nude portrait of several men having intercourse. He doesn't have to look at it every day, he's just making it.
Exactly! It's not good business, but he still has the right, especially when it's a commission. It's not like he was a cashier at Walmart, he was commissioned to make a specific cake.
It doesn't matter how legitimate or illogical his reason is to denying the service. It's a horrible business decision. But because it's his time, resources and energy, it's his right to decide where it goes
his product is part of a ceremony, he is not. it is just a cake. noone is asking for him to bless the union. he isnt even attending. this is insanity.
It was a specifically commissioned wedding cake. That directly has to do with the sexuality of the wedding.
I thought you were disagreeing that that was the legal principle established by this case. I was pointing out that what I said was only semantically different from the legal principle. But why do I agree with the legal principle? Why do you not have the right to private goods and services? Because it impinges on the freedom of the private business. The private business is giving their time and resources and they can freely choose where they direct it. A customer doesn't and shouldn't have the right to take that time and resources.
I'd be more willing to say you were right in some other professions, but the act of buying bread or whatever else might have been bought has nothing to do with being homosexual, bisexual or any other sexuality.
I semi agree. it is not a protected class, however the court win was based on religious exception, but inclusion of a protected class. had the religious argument not been part of it, it is likely the court would have sided with the gay couple.
either way, the current argument is that private businesses have the right to refuse anyone service, which I maintain is false.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class in Colorado (where the bakery is), so they legally can and did. I know we've already agreed that, at least for the purpose of providing goods and services, there shouldn't be protected classes. I just wanted to clarify that what the baker did was not, in fact, illegal. That's also why he won the case.
that's like saying there is a difference between me recieving a book from you and you giving a book to me. it describes the same exact action, just from a different perspective. semantically there is no difference. I dont understand your point.
They don't have the right? You could be right, but I'd say there's semantics between the lack of a right for service from private business and the right to not give service as a private business. And that's the case we're debating.
I do not know where you get the idea that they have the right to deny you business. they dont.
the fact that employment discrimination is worse doesnt mean that consumer discrimination should be tolerated. there are things worse then employment discrimination (such as violence), should employment discrimination be allowed since it's not as bad as violence? there is always something worse, that doesnt mean we should allow something that is clearly bad. that's a fallacy.
I was denied service in Japan because I'm white. They don't like us there. Not sure on the legalities on it. I don't believe I have the right to the goods of a private business though. They have the right to deny me business even if it's f***ing blood-boilingly frustrating and offensive in the moment.
I do see the discrepancies between employment law and consumer law in this regard. It's illegal to fire or not hire based on group identity so it should be illegal to not serve based on group identity. This is where pragmatism comes in. If pockets of bigotry create serious disadvantage in groups who are denied goods and service then the laws must change. That's why it's illegal in employment law. Discrimination in the workplace is a far bigger driver of disadvantage than discrimination as a consumer. It doesn't take a large group of companies to discriminate to create disadvantage in the labour market.
religious freedoms are extremely important, and no one can force their belief on others... are they asking him to change his beliefs? are they asking him to bless their wedding? are they even asking him to attend? what part of not discriminating violates religious belief? the whole argument sounds like a political one similar to the connection between faith and the crusades, only far less murderous (more civil times). think, wwjd?
this law mentions nothing of gayness. no race. no religion. it covers all people, so If you go to a neighborhood of a different "people" (race, sexuality, religion) you know you will still be able to purchase food, lodging, or anything without fear of discrimination. in this nation at least, and every other 1st world country.
can you point to any first world nation that allows such discrimination? or do you want to emulate the 3rd world or go back centuries in our development? this is immoral, it's unchristian, and it can cause suffering to many. this law is necessary.
This isn't about employee discrimination, it's about producing products that contradict your beliefs. Religious freedoms are more important than a customer's desire to private goods. It's stupid to turn away a customer because you believe your sky daddy wants you to, but religious freedom is a very important right in secular countries
it's about as much slavery as low wage work. he can always close up shop and serve noone, but if you open the business to the public, you legally CANNOT discriminate against people based on group membership.
if an individual comes in, acts rude, steals, or becomes violent, you can ban the individual. but you cannot ban people for being gay, white, female, Muslim, tall, or any other birth characteristic. that's discrimination, and its ILLEGAL (rightfully so)
I am gay do don't call me homophobic but forced service is called slavery and was made illegal in the 1800s just flip the baker off and walk away to a non homophobic baker
you and the person who liked your post, are mistaken about the supreme court hearing. the court sided with the Baker on religious freedom reasons, but religious freedom aside, you cannot discriminate against your customers.
you should reread the court decision. one is not entitled to others labor... unless the other chooses to open a businesses to the public.
I know what the court's decision is. Thank you, though c:
This discussion was more about whether the Baker should have the right to object to his labor on that basis and how that would apply to other lines of work
You don't have to RIGHT to anyone's labor
Supreme Court already called this one.
You are not entitled to the labor of the private sector.
The Christian does not have to make a "Wedding" cake (important term) on the basis of religious objection just like a Jewish bakery does not have to make a Nazi cake.
Or a Muslim bakery make a gay wedding cake.
There is a thin line between public and private life. If a gay couple wants to work , its means they want to be hired as a normal employee like when you are hiring a person for a job. It is not a ground to refuse someone on the basis of his/her sexuality
You cannot use your right for resist anyone right. any sex can have the same right isn't it? (sry for bad English)
I agree. which is why I propose making a generalized rule where businesses are forbidden to refuse service to anyone who has not demonstrated *actions* that would disqualify service. (vulgarity, violence, nudity, theft).
also, women are 80% of consumers as a whole, but we can all agree that doesnt apply to every industry. a hardware store that wont serve women wont see as high a drop in sales... but the handful of handy women will find living there difficult.
Sexes are protected classes, though.
But, we already agreed that there shouldn't be protected classes and only a disturbance should be what servers can dismiss.
I'm only playing devil's advocate with the religious argument
not if I'm the only store in town, or if I'm in an area where I'm not the only business doing that. women will simply need to bring an escort or too bad.
If you're a private business, then you're gonna lose a lot of money because females, statistically, account for about 80% of consumerism
what if, instead of black people, I were to refuse to serve all women due to the garden of eden story.
1. it's their fault we are all living in sin.
2. she was made secondary to men, and her curse involved alot of subservience (if my memory is correct). therefore she will be served when she is with her husband or father.
let's not forget that the main religion of the United states is protestantism, which is highly decentralized with many churches teaching unique interpretations of certain verses, often different from other churches of the same denomination.
without a centralized standard, saying that someone is wrong in their interpretation becomes even more perilous.
how can you question someone's religious beliefs?
That's a false analogy, though, because being black, at the store, has nothing even close to do with religion.
I would say that a legitimate religious activity should be protected. So a priest should not be forced to officiate at a gay wedding for example. But anything short of that should not be protected. A person making a wedding cake is not a religious activity. The gay couple didn't ask them to do anything that they don't do every single day. If they don't like gay weddings, then they don't have to attend one. But they should not be protected in turning people away because of their sexual orientation. It is no different than telling people they can't shop at your store because they are black, that would not be tolerated.
I would say a lot of people are discriminated against no matter what you are though.
Sorry if you don't agree dude. What's your reasoning? please elaborate.
Are you gonna give rationalization for your argument, or?...
That is a law. DISCRIMINATION.
Oh, absolutely. Most Christians are the epitome of hypocrisy. But, it doesn't really matter what faith it is, as long as it's a faith argument for not participating in the ritual (to relate back to the legality). But, yes I agree, it is not even Christian to act as he did, but I don't really expect most Christians to act Christ-like, except for most Quakers.
the legality aside. by denying service to homosexuals due to his Christian faith, he is acting against his Christian faith.
christ obviously did not partake in prostitution, but he did not shun prostitutes. he welcomed them into his arms and blessed them. what would jesus do if homosexuals came to him asking for his craft in exchange for fair payment?
No, I'm not saying that it was cake boss worthy, but it was custom. Like how a tattoo is often custom. Even if I just get, say, a cross tattoo (something fairly common), it's still custom and the tattoo artist shouldn't be made to give that tattoo if he hates religion.
That being said, a different tattoo artist who will do it will be making more profits and, most likely, the other artist will go out of business because he wouldn't do religious tattoos (full circle, haha)
I doubt it was celebrity/super rich custom order worthy of being presented by the Baker himself. it was probably about as fancy as the average wedding cake. I'm sure it would have been mentioned if it was something extravagent.
I will admit that I don't really know how unique the requested cake was, but I think that unless it was just a white slab of cake, it is unique enough because being a baker was all he did. It wasn't just like buying donuts from Safeway, it was ordering a custom cake.
I made an exception for bakers who are present and have high creative freedom to make a unique and meaningful cake... like cake boss for example. very much like a live band.
but a Baker who isnt present for the ritual, and is making a generic cake... that's like playing the band's CD.
the key word is generic. if cake boss makes generic cakes for the storefront as well, then he is compelled to provide one of those. but one cannot be expected to make a *grand presentation* for something the dont believe in. the Baker is at best delivering the cake. he isnt presenting it, much less unveiling a thoughtful surprise.
No, obviously the baker is nowhere near as involved as the priest in the ritual. But, he is far more involved than the chair manufacturer. The building asked for the chairs for general use; the gay couple asked for the specific cake, specifically for their ritual. How would the baker be on a separate level than a band, like you said?
I cant help but feel that the Baker is closer to the manufacturer then to the priest. the chair was commissioned by the building, but they are being used in a ritual they are against, so I don't really see the distinction as being at all strong.
heres my heiarchy and why:
1. the priest. the guy literally sanctified the marriage before God giving it his blessing. obviously you can't force any sort of blessing.
2. a live perforner. and in this I can include bakers amd florests such as cake boss who fulfill some criteria, such as having strong creative freedom, and being present at the ritual.
3. staff, like servers or photographers. I wouldnt want to be somewhere I am uncomfortable.
but that's it.
4. any behind the scene staff who will not be present and make generic products are not part of the ritual in any way.
I have no clue how you equate "providing the cake" with "specifically blessing the wedding". providing the cake is far more similar to providing the chairs.
No, the chair manufacturer gave an order to the building, at best. The baker is specifically providing the cake for the wedding (the ritual). Just like how the priest is specifically blessing the wedding. The clean up crew is after the fact, so I don't think it would even count as the ritual has already ended, but even of we were to say that they did, they clean the building in general just as the chair company provided for the building in general. Plus, I'm sure that they have a contract stating that they will clean no matter what, but the baker was specifically commissioned for the ritual that he wished not to take part in.
define participation in the ritual. I understand the priest who has to be there and actively provide his blessing before god... but is the chair manufacturer who is just filling an order part of the ritual? dont you have to be present at the ritual to be part of the ritual?
this is stretching the meaning of part of the ritual into ridiculousness. maybe we should ask the clean up crew for the hall for their approval as well? this is very ridiculous and senseless. these people are stretching excuses seeking for a way to discriminate against those they disagree with. that is unamerican.
I would argue for the "rowdy" law, rather than protected classes, for refusing service at least.
And, I would say that baking a cake for a gay couple, as a religious argument, is still valid in saying that that is enabling homosexuality. It's still participating in the ritual.
And, again, I don't agree with it, but if it were so, that's what I would say (me arguing on behalf of the religious baker)
ideally there wouldn't as the classes will be protected by default with non targeted criteria. however I reserve generalized judgement for case by case situations where using protected classes make a reasonable law more clearer or effective. ideally no, but I'm not making any absolute case.
as for the religious argument. I would concede if this was a priest who is blessing the marriage before a God against his beliefs... but a Fin Baker? hes not blessing anything. he is just making a cake. he doesn't even have to be there. even if we go with the art argument. this is a commissioned work for hire, not artistic expression for his soul. part of the expected work of any artist throughout history.
OK, I don't believe someone would just have Bigoted reasons for banning someone though, it may happen all the time. Discrimination may happen all the time.
maybe the Baker just doesn't like gay people. That's bad for business if most gay people go to your shop. Do we know why he disliked gay people?
No, I don't agree with their reasoning. But, you brought up how clothing and them and such is not condemned in the Holy Bible, so I was counter arguing what I imagine they would say.
And, if the law were to change in such a manner, would there be any use for protected classes? I think that changing the law that way would be a better alternative to what we have now
as someone with your professed history, do you believe these feelings are something that can be enabled or disabled? the expression can be silenced, but will it be disabled?
as for the law, instead of listing exempt people, perhaps we should list ban-able offenses. also in my experience offical laws have referenced the line "offenses include *but are not limited to*...") so they do give discretion to judges and police. imperfect as it is, it may be the best solution for complex reality)
banning someone for not wearing a shirt is reasonable. banning someone for wearing dreadlocks is not.
Many theists who are against homosexuality would argue that doing such things would be enabling homosexuality.
And, a social contract is vastly different than laws (which I know is a kind of social contract, but not in the same way that one shouldn't pick their nose in public).
And, I might agree that the law should stop naming specific groups, but what is "rowdy" would then also have to be defined and such. Otherwise, we're right back at square one with loose definitions and/or regulations
perhaps, but that seems like a technicality argument that leans more on the law being inadequate rather then wrong.
although only certain groups were listed, the idea is that one shouldnt be discriminated against based on group identity. As long as they arent individually acting inappropriately, they should not be banned, and although their group isnt currently covered by that law... they should be.
I would say that the law should eliminate listing specific groups and just state that businesses can only ban people based on individual actions, such as being rowdy, or not dressed appropriately.
however we do accept that businesses open to the public are not as free as their owners would be outside of business hours. there is a social contract that is formed when one enters the markets that is in addition to the constitution, much as one agrees to terms of service when using an app, or workplace policies when joining a company.
the bible forbids homosexual love and sex. it doesn't forbid housing, feeding, or providing services to homosexuals. Jesus forgave sinners, and scolded the crowds shaming and insulting them. most modern day Christians are the exact opposite of Jesus. not only are their actions illegal, they are also immoral according to their own teachings.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class federally or in Colorado (where the bakery was) and, therefore, is a legally acceptable reason to refuse service.
this is why we are here. no disclaimer needed :)
the Baker never claimed they were disrespectful. one can certainly ban any individual that acts inappropriately. however you cant ban an individual because of who they are. such are race, gender, etc.
you can rent a place and have a white straight guys only club, but once you open it up for business, you agree to extra rules of commerce.
I am happy to debate dudes, just remember.
I genuinely agree with this topic. I believe that a owner has every right to refuse service to anyone. Including gay people. That's the author's agreement.
Nemiroff argument is that the owner should not refuse service because of what you believe is wrong.
Keep in mind, once you step in a Baker's place. They can say. "We don't want you here." I may not agree with his actions. But it's his Baker, his choice. Nemiroff, I do not think your wrong. However; Do you think it's fare have to serve someone that is disrespectful, and then goes around and says. "He didn't want to refuse service because I am gay." That sounds bad right? I don't know the full story, but the gay people may have offended the Baker in some way.
I am unable to copy paste in this app, but simply look up anti discrimination business laws to see that you are wrong as far as the law.
the reason the cake shop even was a case was because it used religious freedom as the reason to violate the anti discrimination laws. but without the religious argument, businesses are not allowed to discriminate over gender, race, etc.
if it's the only business for a long way, or if you live in an area where the discrimination is mainstream... how exactly is capitalism working?
Jim Crow was abolished. And, it very clearly has been a minute number of businesses, as we have very rarely seen it. And, capitalism does work because that person will simply take their business elsewhere.
And, it is objectively correct that a business owner does have the legal right to refuse service to any patron for any reason. Whether they should have that right or not is a separate discussion that I am happy to partake in
we as a society passed discrimination laws that are applicable to any business open to the public. you are objectively wrong about we as a society.
the harm a single business can do is very limited, but your assuming it's just one business, whereas this could be systemic discrimination of gays across the bible belt, or blacks in Jim crow south. the harm was already cited. small communities with limited shops, or widespread discrimination not limited to 1 business, can make life extremely difficult for the targets of the discrimination.
That's my point. Your views are not relevant to impacting how he acts. We, as a society, have said that a business owner can refuse service to any customer for any reason.
Also, aside from the couple's hurt feelings, what harm did the baker do by refusing service/what harm could a business owner do by refusing service to anyone?
individually correct, yet certain things are still banned for daytime TV. like sexual organs or some blatant profanities.
someone may be offended by the color blue, but generally it is accepted.
someone may find penises perfectly inoffensive, but try waving it around in public. your personal subjective views are not relevant to general social acceptability.
Who are you to judge what is vulgar and not? Homosexuality, to that baker, was obviously offensive in such a manner that they refused to create the cake. I, personally, find no words profane and only mind the context. My aunt disowned me because of my sexuality. We all have different standards, but it is not our place to decide what each other's standards should be, as to what is profane/offensive and what is not.
We do, however, have the right to refuse service to any customer for whatever reason. That is why the baker won the case. I don't think what he did was right, but I cannot infringe on his right.
if the gay couple had asked for a vulgar cake, then of course he can refuse. but not just because they are gay.
um, no he doesn't have that right. he can do whatever he wants as a private citizen, but if he wishes to make money of our economy as an owner, that is not the same as individual citizen freedoms.
if, for example, it's a small rural area, there may not be many other bakers. and if that area is in a partisan area like the bible belt, many, if not all bakers, may refuse. making life difficult, if not impossible.
certain areas would reward and support bigots, rather then drive them out. thus free market is only as good as its participants. which is why no 1st world country uses this liberitarian fantasy.
Actually, he has the legal right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
However, this is why capitalism is the best form of economy that we have, because since they refused to serve the gay couple, that couple will now go to a different bakery and give them service and, ideally, the bigoted bakery will go out of business because of it, with no governmental intervention.
he has the right to refuse service to any individual based on improper individual actions.
he has no right to refuse service to a whole group of people, whether they are gay, black, Christian, or any group. That's discrimination.