BIGOTRY.

Quelle surprise.

except the ones that apply to only white people

Pretty broad brush you are painting with.

Not all Christians support this guy.

How many here would think it would be right for a judge to force a jewish baker to make a cake ordered by a white supremacist group to celebrate hitler's birthday?

And before you tell me there is no comparison. Remember, someone's Creed is a protected class while sexual orientation is not.


I understand that a business that is open to the public should not be able to discriminate, but ones sexual orientation is not a protected class. This baker got a lot of bad press, and as people change their minds, hopefully his bigotry will start costing him business.

I don't know. Kind of a slippery slope.

or constitutional article/amendment that makes creed a protected class?

That seems fishy to me, I have to admit.

Bryant

Like quoting Fux Noise makes you think you're discussing something instead of repeating something verbatim.

The White Supremacist celebrating Hitler's birthday is a false equivalency to a couple wishing to celebrate their marriage.
The same-sex couple is nothing like those in your example, who are in favor of discrimination and, by association with Hitler, would seem to be in favor of a policy of extermination.
The Christian baker is discriminating against something legal and does not imply any change in his attitudes and beliefs or equality as a citizen. He is simply offended.
The Jewish baker is the object of discrimination by the WS people who would curtail his rights and equality. He is threatened.

What if the same couple went to a Muslim owned and staffed catering business and demanded pork sausage and pork ribs be on the menu of their event?

If a Muslim was comfortable selling pork but not consuming it … no problem for the customer
If the Muslim did not sell pork at all … no discrimination.

If the business owner did not want to handle pork at all, then how could a customer claim discrimination?
As in the potato salad comment, below.

This couple is going to a place that sells wedding cakes and buying a wedding cake. What would be similar to your scenario would be going to a place that sells wedding cakes and demanding they make potato salad.

...that I can think of. My example was as close as I could get.

What if a maid/matron of honor wanted a penis shaped cake for a bachellorette party? Should a court step in and force the baker to make that cake also?

I guess my point is there are other bakers in town. This specific baker refuses business for religious reasons at the peril of his business.

so it comes down to not wanting to serve to that particular couple. In places where gay people are not a protected class, they can legally discriminate, but in places where gay people are a protected class, like apparently Colorado, they can't legally discriminate against gay people any more than they can against African Americans or Jewish people or immigrants from any particular country. No matter the reason. What if they refused to make a wedding cake for a Jewish family because they said that was against their religion? This is like that.

I have to admit there are elements to this argument that trouble me, but that is well put as to the limits of this argument.

The only other anology I was thinking about over lunch was bookstores - say you went into a bookstore that catered predominently to the local Gay and Lesbian community and loudly requested they order a book attacking Gays and Lesbians. Would the bookseller be required to order it for you?

But I think that would be like going to a comic shop and asking them for a history textbook. Yes the comic shop sells books (or "graphic novels&quot , but it's not reasonable to expect them to fulfill all possible book orders.

So well said.

Bryant

going into a gay and lesbian community bookstore and ordering a book they have on the shelf and regularly carry, but then having them refuse to sell it to you because you're straight. And if sexual orientation weren't a protected class, as it is in Colorado, then they'd be allowed by law to discriminate against straight people and refuse to sell them the book. But in Colorado, they would have to sell the book to the straight person.

Certainly most of the time I have asked about a book in a store that they don't have they say something like "We don't have it but we could order it for you."

While a store should spend their money on books they think their customers will like (I note, for example, our local Books A-Million believes their customers want to read right wing screeds (or did the last time i went there)), should they be required to order books that they find morally objectionable?

Presumably they could just say "We don't carry that book" and move on with their lives.

Bryant

because if the person doesn't actually pick it up and pay for it, then they're out money. But I see your point.

I can wrap my head around that.

She cooked a lot of pork and bacon dishes beautifully - and wore those clear kitchen gloves to keep the pork and grease off her hands. She might not have been able to taste her dishes, but her sense of smell was good enough she could work with the flavor profile well enough to challenge a Michelin star chef and his sous for "immunity" in a competition that required cooking with pork products - and beat him.

We have quite a few Muslim chefs working in non-sectarian restaurants here in San Diego that will cook with pork if that's what the dish calls for. However, in an identified as Halal restaurant or business, just as in a Kosher restaurant, your hypothetical couple have no right to demand to be served bacon, ham, or sausage (or shellfish), and the owner has every right to turn them away.
As I understand under the 1960's Civil Rights act, if you set yourself up as a public business, you have to serve all the public unless they are disruptive or breaking civil law. So the only other issues I can see is the business didn't didn't make it clear they were a "Christians only" service or a club/subscription only organization when they should have to "skirt" the law - even if the bakery refunded their money after they took their order and their money, and then found out they were a gay couple, the fact they didn't advertise "we are a fundamentalist Christian business only", they were in the wrong under the law.

Sorry, if you want only a certain type of clientele, or claim religious preferences, you have to make it clear up front that you are going to do so, and not claim to be a public business.

Haele

Your explanation also makes good sense.

no you don't.

Comparing being gay to Nazism is what they do.

You are comparing someone who loves the same sex to someone who wants to kill everyone that isn't just like them. Do you not see the folly there?

The right to refuse service to anyone? I still see that sign all over the place, in bars, restaurants, barber shops ect...

And if that is still true nothing says they have to explain why they refused right?

But if they explain why and it is for a discriminatory reason then they are in violation of the equal access law.

Is that correct or am I missing something?

Do or do not businesses have a right to refuse service?

None. Those signs are just signs. Nothing more.

They do not have a right to discriminate.

It is a slippery slope and must be balanced against the fair access, anti discrimination and the unruh law against the owners rights to refuse service. Mainly applicable if the customer can be shown to be a negative or detrimental element within the establishment or has a history of not paying.

Heres a little exerp.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.
On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

California law in response to a Colorado case

Simple.

Statement implying I have some nefarious agenda. As if implying im some sort of troll.

Neither of you are worth spit. Its more of a mark of grief players and paid trolls to attack rather than discuss...whats that say about the two of you...suck it.

getting all up in arms is not becoming.

Not anything to do with right or wrong in this case. The owner is obviously breaking the law here...and is a giant douche.

I'm sorry, I think I jumped the gun on your initial question. Yes, you're right. Those right to refusal signs mean jack when it comes to discrimination.

it is discrimination and the company should be forced to recognize Christmas in all its glory. It reminds me of the old mad magazine skits "you can't win with a bigot"

I can't tell you how the minds of a FOX and Friends viewer works. But apparently it has something to do with the never ending war on Christmas.

They'd argue segregated drinking fountains were good because they increased business for plumbers.

I guess we'll just have to settle for regulated enterprise, just like we've had all along.

The bakery will not only have to serve customers without arbitrary discrimination, they'll also have to keep the place free of rats, and let customers know what ingredients are in their wares, and not dump their waste in the street, and ...

It's been downhill for non-business entities, i.e., natural persons, ever since.

faux "news" needs to learn some history.

community here.

Surprising, in'nt?

"Let me play devil's advocate" far more often than not simply means "I don't have the courage to say what I mean, so let me cower behind rhetoric and then say it..."

If someone plays 'Devil's Advocate' maybe they are taking a contrary position for the purposes of opening a line of reasoning in order to explore the topic more fully.
I saw no advocacy in his post but I do see a straw man fallacy in yours.

As I had qualified with "far more often than not..."

Regardless, I suppose I'd do my best rationalize it with false pretense too were I called on it...

passion for fancy cake decoratin'

do Ignorant things.

Thinking it's discrimination to have to sell something to one person or one group of people that you sell to other people all the time reminds me of lunch counters in the 60s or something.

I'm sure their cakes have been eaten by many a homosexual or lesbian guest or family member - or perhaps even been served as a birthday cake for a gay family member.

A paying customer is a paying customer, no matter if they're vegan, purple, tri-sexual, and 9 feet tall with extra fingers and toes.
Or if it's a cake for a dog. I'm sure someone has ordered a cake for their pet, and they went ahead and baked it because it was such a "cute" thing to do, event though an animal "has no soul" according to most conservative fundy religions.

Stupid folks.

Get on Faux news and tell the world you're a bigot! That worked out real well for Barilla's Pasta.

Watch and see. As soon as this guy starts losing business over this he's gonna be screaming about.. Discrimination!