American Businesses Penalized for Refusing Service to Gay People

The_Gaurdian87 said:

Also gay people did not have the same struggles blacks had. Gays could still vote, weren't barred from using the same restroom, restaurants, public buildings, or water fountains as straight people. They weren't sprayed down with water hoes, or had attack dogs set on them or beaten/ lynched by police and citizens in the street.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's not like homosexuals faced the prospect of being locked up, given shock treatments, being totally socially ostracized or killed if they were found out. Those things never happened.

DT- you will see. The social climate has changed in this country very rapidly.

DaveW-Ohev said:

DT- you will see.

Click to expand...

See what exactly? You have thus far produced nothing other the paranoia to support your assertions.

Hank said:

OK, I don't know how to bake a cake

Click to expand...

It's really not that difficult...

The_Gaurdian87 said:

Regardless of the story, I think Christian churches and business should have the right to refuse service if it goes against the religious beliefs. I am not hateful to gays, but the society we live in now is pulling away from God. You simply can't say you believe in biblical marriages publicly without backlash and people labeling you as a bigot. Further more, it's sad some churches and Christians now accept homosexuality as natural and normal.

Click to expand...

Churches should and do have that right. Businesses, on the other hand, don't, as long as they serve a public accommodation.

The_Gaurdian87 said:

Also gay people did not have the same struggles blacks had. Gays could still vote, weren't barred from using the same restroom, restaurants, public buildings, or water fountains as straight people. They weren't sprayed down with water hoes, or had attack dogs set on them or beaten/ lynched by police and citizens in the street.

Click to expand...

Tell that to Matthew Shepard.

The_Gaurdian87 said:

Also gay people did not have the same struggles blacks had. Gays could still vote, weren't barred from using the same restroom, restaurants, public buildings, or water fountains as straight people. They weren't sprayed down with water hoes, or had attack dogs set on them or beaten/ lynched by police and citizens in the street.

Click to expand...

Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter whether one group had it worse than another.

Eudaimonist said:

I don't think that there should be a legal penalty for following your conscience, especially in a case like this. The bakery should have been legally free to reject the request, especially considering that it's easy enough to go to another bakery, or even to bake one's own wedding cake.

However, customers are also free to take their business elsewhere if they don't like what that particular bakery is doing. Boycotting is a reasonable response.

(Note: If the company in question is responsible for necessities of life, such as electricity, I can see the government stepping in and saying that they can't simply deny that service on anything other than financial grounds.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

I think it was not the original rejection, but using social media with an enhanced anti-gay campaign, that forced the government to hand down a strong sentence against blatant discrimination.

Also, sorry because I am sure that topic was argued to death over the years, but how on earth would baking a cake infringe on your right to follow a given faith and promote it? Nothing has changed. Freedom of religion is very much anchored in the US constitution. The baker still has the right to refuse his (her) service, they are not slaves, but not on grounds that conflicts with the discrimination laws of a State.
Look at it the other way: We say, no cake is fine by one outlet, and the other outlets feels the same, OK forget the cake; how about the wedding dress, dishes, catering for all the guests and so on, pretty soon, considering how many people are required to make a wedding a wedding, there is no wedding.

Hank said:

I think it was not the original rejection, but using social media with an enhanced anti-gay campaign, that forced the government to hand down a strong sentence against blatant discrimination.

Also, sorry because I am sure that topic was argued to death over the years, but how on earth would baking a cake infringe on your right to follow a given faith and promote it? Nothing has changed. Freedom of religion is very much anchored in the US constitution. The baker still has the right to refuse his (her) service, they are not slaves, but not on grounds that conflicts with the discrimination laws of a State.
Look at it the other way: We say, no cake is fine by one outlet, and the other outlets feels the same, OK forget the cake; how about the wedding dress, dishes, catering for all the guests and so on, pretty soon, considering how many people are required to make a wedding a wedding, there is no wedding.

Click to expand...

Isn't this a slippery slope argument?

Strathos said:

Isn't this a slippery slope argument?

Click to expand...

Not really...

The Slippery Slope argument fallacy starts with one simple action then proceeds to actions that are much greater in scope and magnitude.

For instance, I start with the premise that stepping on an ant isn't murder, then I progress from ant to rat to dog to monkey to human being... Notice how each item I list as part of the slippery slope increases in magnitude...

However, his argument doesn't really do that. He says...

...OK forget the cake; how about the wedding dress, dishes, catering for all the guests and so on...,

notice how the items he mentions are more or less equivalent items. If I can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding then I can refuse to sell clothing for a gay wedding or dishes or catering services... SO it's not a "slippery slope" but rather an "equivalent slope" and so his point is valid and is NOT a slippery slope argumentative fallacy.

As others have pointed out, the penalty was for being the cause of harassment to a lesbian couple that could've been prevented if they hadn't been petty about their disagreement.

And the providing of a wedding cake, photographs, flower arrangements, etc, don't constitute a moral approval, but merely the providing of a service you were paid for. The cake, photographs and flower arrangements are neither essential nor religious in character.

Frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of all the stereotyping going on around here that bakers, florists, photographers, and tailors are anti-gay. We find one case of people trying to discriminate, and now we're all worried about all the other discriminatory businesses out there, but we shouldn't be making these broad generalizations about these types of businesses. I'm pretty sure most of them are totally fine with serving gay customers.

True, but the ones that make such a fuss about the serving of people and that it goes against their religion are making a mountain out of a molehill and inventing ways for them to be persecuted, which isn't exactly something we should give so much recognition to. Then again, the popular media does that because it draws in views and such.

It's not much different with public employees of the government saying they don't want to serve gay people because it's against their religious beliefs even though what they're doing is a secular duty.

DaveW-Ohev said:

Its only a matter of time. A lawsuit has already been brought saying that it is now ok to have multiple wives. (Montana?) And in Essex England a couple is suing to get married in the local Church of England parish.

Whether the law supports it NOW or not, that challenge is coming and probably sooner rather than later.

Click to expand...

I bet you a year's salary it never happens in either of our lifetimes.

I'd try to explain the difference between lodging a law suit, and actually winning a lawsuit, but the fact that you have to go so far afield as Essex to find an example to point to when discussing a law in the US rather makes such an explanation moot.

Hank said:

I think it was not the original rejection, but using social media with an enhanced anti-gay campaign, that forced the government to hand down a strong sentence against blatant discrimination.

Click to expand...

So they are getting punished for the exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Also, sorry because I am sure that topic was argued to death over the years, but how on earth would baking a cake infringe on your right to follow a given faith and promote it?

Click to expand...

That's for them to say, not you. If they believe that participating in a gay marriage with their cake means that their values are being threatened, then they are threatened. Period.

Freedom of religion is very much anchored in the US constitution.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it needs to be anchored in law as well.

The baker still has the right to refuse his (her) service, they are not slaves, but not on grounds that conflicts with the discrimination laws of a State.

Click to expand...

That is how it may be today, but not necessarily how it should be.

Look at it the other way: We say, no cake is fine by one outlet, and the other outlets feels the same, OK forget the cake; how about the wedding dress, dishes, catering for all the guests and so on, pretty soon, considering how many people are required to make a wedding a wedding, there is no wedding.

Click to expand...

That's a very unlikely situation, especially with the Internet these days. It's hardly worth taking seriously.

And how did people ever manage weddings before these commercial trappings?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

So they are getting punished for the exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Click to expand...

It's pretty well recognised that free speech does not include a right to incite violence or criminal behaviour. Some (many?) would argue that that's exactly what the posting of the couple's personal information was.

Eudaimonist said:

So they are getting punished for the exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?



That's for them to say, not you. If they believe that participating in a gay marriage with their cake means that their values are being threatened, then they are threatened. Period.



Yes, but it needs to be anchored in law as well.



That is how it may be today, but not necessarily how it should be.



That's a very unlikely situation, especially with the Internet these days. It's hardly worth taking seriously.

And how did people ever manage weddings before these commercial trappings?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Their belief that their religion is being threatened or that the providing of a cake is somehow religious doesn't pass legal muster in the slightest. The cake itself is not religious and attaching that meaning to it is disingenuous.

Freedom of religion is not absolute, nor can you just add religious character to something to cry religious persecution or that your rights are being infringed upon when they cannot meaningfully be invoked in that situation

Personal disagreement should not be the basis for a rejection of service: serving people is not about whether you are absolutely comfortable all the time: I'm pretty sure any person who worked in retail can tell you that. You're providing a service: you can only reasonably refuse if they aren't willing to pay or if they become a disturbance in general, either through hygiene issues or violent behavior. I'm going to serve someone a cake even if they're a right wing Pentecostal nutjob who thinks Obama's trying to take their guns, as long as they aren't threatening me with violence or making my store a place where people don't feel safe.

There have always been some matter of commercial trappings, even if it was merely one baker who took payment for that service. Just because there are multiple options doesn't mean you can arbitrarily deny service: if the service sucks, then you can just not go there again, but just being a disagreeable person can set your business back anyway.

Armoured said:

It's pretty well recognised that free speech does not include a right to incite violence or criminal behaviour. Some (many?) would argue that that's exactly what the posting of the couple's personal information was.

Click to expand...

I agree that incitement to violence is a legitimate exception to First Amendment principles of free speech.

So, I suppose you would agree with me that bakers should be able to refuse services, just not to take actions that incite violence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Eudaimonist said:

I agree that incitement to violence is a legitimate exception to First Amendment principles of free speech.

So, I suppose you would agree with me that bakers should be able to refuse services, just not to take actions that incite violence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Why should a business owner that voluntarily opened their doors to the public, be able to refuse service to a portion of the public, that walks through their door?

If a business owner has such strong religious beliefs, that they will get in the way of serving a portion of the public, maybe a public accommodating business is not right for them?

The_Gaurdian87 said:

That's fine if other Christians and churches think differently. I was just saying that I couldn't attend a church that openly supported that. Not out of hate or bigotry, but because my belief in God's word and what he defined as natural marriages and relationships.

Click to expand...

Isn't this leading back to the same old problem. In that some people consider some sins as greater than other sins? Many churches just help to magnify this view. In todays society its accepted and nearly expected that the average 20 year old male will of had multiple sexual partners. Its accepted that people including many christian couples live together before marriage. Divorce and re marriage isn't considered a big deal. Many churches/Christians aren't standing up saying this is wrong, but they will say that homosexual activity is wrong.

Eudaimonist said:

I agree that incitement to violence is a legitimate exception to First Amendment principles of free speech.

So, I suppose you would agree with me that bakers should be able to refuse services, just not to take actions that incite violence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm against exclusionary practices across the board when it comes to public businesses.

Eudaimonist said:

I agree that incitement to violence is a legitimate exception to First Amendment principles of free speech.

So, I suppose you would agree with me that bakers should be able to refuse services, just not to take actions that incite violence?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Actually, I fail to see how the 1st amendment addresses the baking of cakes at all. At best, it addresses what people may or may not say while baking a cake.