supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[Almost there]

Its a whole different story with government, which has an obligation in principle to serve all citizens.

Well, actually their job is to protect us and provide a safe place to live our lives. This is why I'm against all entitlement programs and other government intrusion into hour our culture works.

It used to be that the only contact the average citizen had with any representative of the US Government was their mail man.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, actually their job is to protect us and provide a safe place to live our lives. This is why I'm against all entitlement programs and other government intrusion into hour our culture works.

It used to be that the only contact the average citizen had with any representative of the US Government was their mail man.

Whether you'd prefer the smallest govt possible, or a big nanny state, the principle that govt serves all citizens still applies.

 

[Almost there]

Whether you'd prefer the smallest govt possible, or a big nanny state, the principle that govt serves all citizens still applies.

Absolutely. The constitution is founded on the concept of the rights of the individual citizen. We are each one of those - are all all sellers of products and buyers of products. And the first amendment protects both.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Why do people who support a business right to refuse service to a homosexual couple get all bent out of shape when a business refuses to serve police officers?

 

[FireDragon76]

Why do people who support a business right to refuse service to a homosexual couple get all bent out of shape when a business refuses to serve police officers?

'Cause gays are icky, and police never do anything bad to anybody.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

'Cause gays are icky, and police never do anything bad to anybody.

Thugs and criminals excluded of course.

 

[Almost there]

Why do people who support a business right to refuse service to a homosexual couple get all bent out of shape when a business refuses to serve police officers?

Because that is how they think it should work. They get bent out of shape and refuse to to business with the place that refused to serve police officers. They don't argue that there should be a law requiring them to serve police officers. At least I don't.

And this freedom is important for a reason a lot of people don't mention: Being free enough to hang yourself.

To be free, you have to have the freedom to both succeed and fail. If you are free to run your business like a bigoted jerk, you are free to fail. And businesses that have done this sort of stuff HAVE failed, and people have applauded that fact. That's part of the beauty of free markets. Good businesses succeed and bad ones fail.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do people who support a business right to refuse service to a homosexual couple get all bent out of shape when a business refuses to serve police officers?

Or when private employers don't require their employees to stand during the national anthem?

 

[KCfromNC]

To be free, you have to have the freedom to both succeed and fail.

It would also be nice to have the freedom to live and shop where you choose rather than being discriminated against.

 

[DaisyDay]

Absolutely. The constitution is founded on the concept of the rights of the individual citizen. We are each one of those - are all all sellers of products and buyers of products. And the first amendment protects both.

The First Amendment does that how? I honestly don't believe it protects sellers of products from discriminating against classes of people (children excepted).

To be free, you have to have the freedom to both succeed and fail. If you are free to run your business like a bigoted jerk, you are free to fail. And businesses that have done this sort of stuff HAVE failed, and people have applauded that fact. That's part of the beauty of free markets. Good businesses succeed and bad ones fail.

Before the antidiscrimination laws went into effect, these businesses did not fail because people, in general, like to exclude, they like to feel that their company is exclusive - and do well to charge a premium for the exclusivity.

 

[bhsmte]

The First Amendment does that how? I honestly don't believe it protects sellers of products from discriminating against classes of people (children excepted).

Before the antidiscrimination laws went into effect, these businesses did not fail because people, in general, like to exclude, they like to feel that their company is exclusive - and do well to charge a premium for the exclusivity.

What the poster you replied to, keeps losing site of this reality; no rights are limitless and they reach their limit, when they infringe on the rights of others. In private situations, people can discriminate against others quite a bit. In public situations, not as much.

 

[Auriga]

Why do people who support a business right to refuse service to a homosexual couple get all bent out of shape when a business refuses to serve police officers?

Did the business refuse to serve a police officer because the officer wanted something that the owner wouldn't normally provide, or was it simply because he/she was a police officer?

 

[Auriga]

What the poster you replied to, keeps losing site of this reality; no rights are limitless and they reach their limit, when they infringe on the rights of others. In private situations, people can discriminate against others quite a bit. In public situations, not as much.

Refusing to sell one particular item to someone is not discriminating against the person. It is discriminating against an item.

 

[bhsmte]

Refusing to sell one particular item to someone is not discriminating against the person. It is discriminating against an item.

If the item is something they sell to other people, it is in fact discrimination against a certain person.

 

[Auriga]

If the item is something they sell to other people, it is in fact discrimination against a certain person.

If they don't normally sell wedding cakes that feature 2 men or 2 women figurines on it, or whatever other decorations that would indicate that it's for celebrating 2 people of the same sex being married to each other, then I don't really see how not selling one like that would be discriminating.

 

[bhsmte]

If they don't normally sell wedding cakes that feature 2 men or 2 women figurines on it, or whatever other decorations that would indicate that it's for celebrating 2 people of the same sex being married to each other, then I don't really see how not selling one like that would be discriminating.

If they don't typically sell same sex figurines as a normal course, they wouldn't have to sell it. Did this specific case ask the baker to provide figurines they don't normally sell to others?

 

[Auriga]

If they don't typically sell same sex figurines as a normal course, they wouldn't have to sell it. Did this specific case ask the baker to provide figurines they don't normally sell to others?

I looked through the article in the link (actually clicked another link within that article) and the most detail I could find about that is in the following:

"Craig says Phillips “started to explain he had gay friends. And he would sell us cookies or cupcakes. But we left.”

Phillips recalls their anger. “They swore at me, flipped me off and stormed out,” he said."

From what I can tell, it appears that he wasn't going to make a cake for a same-sex event, but was still willing to sell them other things. So it's not like he was outright denying them service just because they were gay. It sounds like they then became unruly and decided to leave instead of buying anything.

 

[RDKirk]

Did the business refuse to serve a police officer because the officer wanted something that the owner wouldn't normally provide, or was it simply because he/she was a police officer?

Explicitly because he was a police officer...and that's happened quite often in the last couple of years.

Well, let me correct that. I haven't heard of any circumstances in which the business management has such a policy. It's always (so far as I've heard) been an ad hoc action by an employee, such as a waitress or cashier. But it's been reported a fair number of times.

 

[RDKirk]

If they don't normally sell wedding cakes that feature 2 men or 2 women figurines on it, or whatever other decorations that would indicate that it's for celebrating 2 people of the same sex being married to each other, then I don't really see how not selling one like that would be discriminating.

I think the better action would be not to sell any cakes with figurines already on top. Just sell them as a side item.

That's one of the reasons why I, as a portrait photographer, don't do sexualized portraits (such as boudoir) for anybody.

 

[Auriga]

Explicitly because he was a police officer...and that's happened quite often in the last couple of years.

Well, let me correct that. I haven't heard of any circumstances in which the business management has such a policy. It's always (so far as I've heard) been an ad hoc action by an employee, such as a waitress or cashier. But it's been reported a fair number of times.

Is that something police officers have been able to sue the business for?