Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

[ArchAngel]

There's a reason why my main philosophy to life is "people are idiots."

That's a bad philosophy.

[Sstavix]

There's a reason why my main philosophy to life is "people are idiots."

That's a bad philosophy.

I agree. But sometimes it's the only explanation I have for things that I see happening in the world.

[Wildebear]

There's a reason why my main philosophy to life is "people are idiots."

That's a bad philosophy.

I agree. But sometimes it's the only explanation I have for things that I see happening in the world.

You are correct. People are inherently, bad natured. Why? Well the answer is simple: Adam and Eve. Since The Fall, sin has been an inherent part of mankind. There is no way to shake or defeat it, because it's a part of us. Galatians as whole addresses the "law" (ten commandments) pretty well. We even fail at following ten simple rules. That's why Jesus came and died for our sins.

What I've realized in my whole life is how much denial there is about sin. This denial has had such a significant impact on our world views that we don't quite think of the impact of sin on the world - in its entirety. This world is destined to die. Before each man and woman the choice is placed: be part of the world, its prosperity, its wonder, its truths, its lies, its decay and its end ...or be part of the eternal kingdom, but you'll be an outsider in this world. As Matthews 7 states, people like the first choice more. The temporary prosperity of this world is feasible and observable. It's easier believing in fairy tales. The path is wide with many companions whereas the eternal path is narrow, filled with the despair of knowing.

This baker has done nothing wrong. On the contrary, he proved to many other Christians(once again) that the sinful world wants to drive us to obedience and conformity.

[blacksinow]

In the end, we suffer for our morality. You want the moral highground, well you don't get to have it and win sometimes. Unfair I know, but the reason is so. While people do sin, I don't believe that people are all bad-natures, we just struggle with our flesh.

[ChickenSoup]

I've actually been there for years now. There's a reason why my main philosophy to life is "people are idiots." ArcticFox, there's more than enough room on my little island if you want to join me in my isolation. My wife and family have the hut over by the coconut trees, but there's room for another hut by the crab pots.

I was more referring to him leaving in a huff when a large group of people disagreed with him, accusing everyone of failing to even try to actually understand the issue.

I'm just all

Wat

[ArchAngel]

I'm not sure, but I'd guess his frustration is a result of people talking about two different ideas. In this specific case, the baker does not want to participate in a gay wedding, but reportedly has offered to make them something else and was not an outright refusal to serve homosexuals. From what I've got from you, you were talking more general about anti-homosexual attitudes in the church.

Does a person have the right to refuse service? Does a customer have a right to not be discriminated? I think there really is room for a nuanced discussion here. Between these two rights, there really can be a gradated scale as they interact.
Between a bakery openly refusing to serve homosexuals to the baker refusing to bake a giant phallic cake defiling a bible, where would you draw the line?

[Sstavix]

I've actually been there for years now. There's a reason why my main philosophy to life is "people are idiots." ArcticFox, there's more than enough room on my little island if you want to join me in my isolation. My wife and family have the hut over by the coconut trees, but there's room for another hut by the crab pots.

I was more referring to him leaving in a huff when a large group of people disagreed with him, accusing everyone of failing to even try to actually understand the issue.

I'm just all

Wat

My apologies if anyone thought I was referring to anyone here in the thread as an idiot. My statement isn't even in relation with the argument about gay marriage. But when I see something that, to me is just so blatantly obvious, It irritates me to no end when society tends to be completely blind to the same thing. It makes me lose what little respect I had for humanity.

Between a bakery openly refusing to serve homosexuals to the baker refusing to bake a giant phallic cake defiling a bible, where would you draw the line?

I wouldn't draw the line. In fact, I would argue that it is fundamentally wrong to draw a line in the first place. If someone wants to refuse to serve homosexuals, that's fine. If someone wants to make a phallic cake defiling a Bible, that's fine, too. In my opinion, both are protected under the First Amendment. Now, don't expect me to purchase the latter cake, but that baker has a right to free speech and artistic expression, and can use it however he or she wishes.

To me, this issue goes beyond gay marriage - that's just the red herring in the issue. What this is all about is control. The State has come forth to decree that THIS is what constitutes moral behavior, and if someone has the audacity to disagree... well, that person just needs to be "re-educated," that's all.

This approach is practically lifted straight out of the fascist handbook. This is the kind of thing that the United States has fought for decades. We even fought for independence against this kind of totalitarian control. It boggles my mind that people seem to be completely blind to this. And for those that think that, in this issue, the State is actually doing the right thing... well, I refer to my philosophy about people being idiots.

[ArchAngel]

The question was when can the baker refuse, so you'd draw the line where he can refuse any service, any reason, for anyone.

Okay, I can understand that. I can also understand the other side. It's a unfair and presumptuous stance, though, to just call them idiots because it doesn't make sense for you. It's one of the things liberals often do when addressing conservative stand points and it irks me to no end.

That aside, let's stretch the scale out.

Public utilities company? A private company that the city uses for water, electricity, etc. Can they discriminate?

Follow up: Small town, and the one grocery story is owned by a manager that does not want to serve homosexuals. Can he refuse service to them because they are gay?

[ccgr]

Some cases discrimination is okay for example girls cannot join boy scouts and vice-versa Nothing wrong with that. Private business owners have a right to be snobs, jerks, or racist. (Not saying it's right and sure doesn't make a whole lot of business sense.) In return people have a right to shop where they want. We have a few gamestops by us and some are more courteous than others and we avoid the ones with the non-helpful employees. That's our right isn't it? While Home Depot was donating to pride parades, we shopped at Lowes instead. Again, we choose where to spend our money. If a company has rude employees or open supports things we don't we'll shop elsewhere. Simple. The government need not get involved, word will spread and these places will change their policies/employees or go under.

Now as a private home business owner I have a right to decline jobs as I see fit. For example if I were called to a dangerous part of town that I didn't feel safe, it's within my right to refuse that job. (Illinois gun laws are rather strict y'know) I design websites and have turned down defamatory ones. I'd rather not get involved and possibly sued for slander. It's my right isn't it? Do I need the government to get involved and force me to do these? What if I chose not to design a gay dating site or, a website for the church of satan, or a site promoting abortion as birth control. Yes my rates are very competitive but I shouldn't have to be FORCED to do work I am not comfortable with. I would be tactful in turning down the jobs but it is still within my right to do so. Don't you agree?

[Sstavix]

Some cases discrimination is okay for example girls cannot join boy scouts and vice-versa Nothing wrong with that. Private business owners have a right to be snobs, jerks, or racist. (Not saying it's right and sure doesn't make a whole lot of business sense.) In return people have a right to shop where they want. We have a few gamestops by us and some are more courteous than others and we avoid the ones with the non-helpful employees. That's our right isn't it? While Home Depot was donating to pride parades, we shopped at Lowes instead. Again, we choose where to spend our money. If a company has rude employees or open supports things we don't we'll shop elsewhere. Simple. The government need not get involved, word will spread and these places will change their policies/employees or go under.

Now as a private home business owner I have a right to decline jobs as I see fit. For example if I were called to a dangerous part of town that I didn't feel safe, it's within my right to refuse that job. (Illinois gun laws are rather strict y'know) I design websites and have turned down defamatory ones. I'd rather not get involved and possibly sued for slander. It's my right isn't it? Do I need the government to get involved and force me to do these? What if I chose not to design a gay dating site or, a website for the church of satan, or a site promoting abortion as birth control. Yes my rates are very competitive but I shouldn't have to be FORCED to do work I am not comfortable with. I would be tactful in turning down the jobs but it is still within my right to do so. Don't you agree?

I fully agree, and I also appreciate ccgr's input as a business owner.

Some people are just jerks. That's one of the prices we have to pay for living in a free society. But if the choice is living in a society where the people are essentially slaves of the totalitarian state or living free with a bunch of jerks... I'll stick with the jerks, please.

[ArchAngel]

My questions were still unanswered.

I'm trying to gauge where people draw the line on discrimination. This isn't all or nothing issue and I don't even know what you think you are arguing against. Nobody is pushing for everybody to be "slaves of a totalitarian government," so it's inference is either irrelevant or a strawman.
I want to know where you guys draw the line so we can discuss the issue.

Here are the questions again, plus one extra:

Small town, and the one grocery story is owned by a manager that does not want to serve homosexuals. Can he refuse service to them because they are gay?

Public utilities company? A private company that the city uses for water, electricity, etc. Can they discriminate?

Can the government discriminate on it's services?

[ccgr]

we live in an entitled society colleges both state (public) and private discriminate by grades and tuition prices. How long before someone sues to go to one these schools they weren't deemed smart or rich enough to go to??

money wise, utilities are often held accountable when they shut off power to non-paying customers (it's their right isn't it??) As long as a customer is paying for a utility (public) service, they should get it.

Food and essentials should not be discriminated against. However if that gay couple went to the bakery and wanted an obscenely shaped cake, the bakery should have the ability to refuse it. But by all means still sell them groceries.

The government does discriminate on poverty and race. Seriously call the police to report a robbery in a rich neighborhood vs a poor one. Or better yet have an African american call and see how fast/slow they come compared to a rich white person's house.

[ArchAngel]

we live in an entitled society colleges both state (public) and private discriminate by grades and tuition prices. How long before someone sues to go to one these schools they weren't deemed smart or rich enough to go to??

Those are not quite civil rights issues, and I'm sure people have tried on those grounds but have been ruled against. In the case of money, education is a positive right and it's why we have public education. It's a Slippery Slope argument to argue against anti-discrimination law on race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender because someone might use it for money or grades, the precedent is simply not there.

money wise, utilities are often held accountable when they shut off power to non-paying customers (it's their right isn't it??) As long as a customer is paying for a utility (public) service, they should get it.

So, public utilities companies cannot refuse service to someone because they are gay or black?

Food and essentials should not be discriminated against. However if that gay couple went to the bakery and wanted an obscenely shaped cake, the bakery should have the ability to refuse it. But by all means still sell them groceries.

So, a bakery, restaurant, or grocery store cannot necessarily refuse service to someone because they are gay?

The government does discriminate on poverty and race. Seriously call the police to report a robbery in a rich neighborhood vs a poor one. Or better yet have an African american call and see how fast/slow they come compared to a rich white person's house.

Yes, and this is awful. An abridgment of justice. It is not justified by law, but is a failing in execution. This needs to stop.


In a repeated attempt to simplify the discussion, I'm presenting a scale. I'm curious where people sit on this issue.
If you see some problems with the scale, I'll try to fix it.

I'm curious, and not just ccgr, Sstavix, and C$, but anybody, at which level are they fine for the law to be at.
The scale assumes you are okay with everything after the number you have selected and not okay with above.

Discrimination in this scale is related to race, religion, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation and unless mentioned specifically, directed towards people.

• 1. The government can discriminate it's services.
• 2. Public utility companies can discriminate it's services.
• 3. Limited public accommodations, such as toll bridges or the grocery store in a small town, can discriminate it's services on sexual orientation.
• 4. Public accommodations, such as hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc, can discriminate it's services on sexual orientation.
• 5. Public accommodations can refuse service related to the discrimination criteria, such as a wedding cake for a gay wedding, a plate of delicious pork egg rolls for a church fundraiser, or hosting an Belgium convention in a hotel meeting room.
• 6. Public accommodations can refuse service related to the discrimination criteria if a "reasonable person" finds it obscene or objectionable (phallic cakes and nazi meetings will not be required to be respected). Other non-public accommodation private business can discriminate on these criteria.
• 7. Private business cannot refuse service in any way relating to the discrimination clause, even if a "reasonable person" does find the work obscene or objectionable.

I understand this still not nuanced enough to capture everybody's views, so please add clarifications if you wish, and this is really just a starting point for a discussion.

I'm between a 5 and a 6, leaning to 5. Maybe better put is that I'm a 5 with some qualifications.

Please try out the scale, I worked real hard on this. Well, not really hard, but sufficiently hard.


As a note, Law often does use the concept of a "reasonable person" to make determinations, because the law can't be both specific enough to handle all cases while remaining flexible to adjust with the times. For example, a "threat" is protected under free speech so long as a reasonable person can tell it's not made in seriousness. This is from a court case where someone'd "threatened" the president, but the courts protected his rights because it was clear he was not actually intending on doing harm. A little background to that.

[ChickenSoup]

I'd probably be a 6.

Let me put it this way. If I ran a bakery, I would likely not be inclined to serve the smelly, arrogant, rude, loudmouthed lady who comes in with her 6 hyperactive kids.

...that's not really a religious thing or anything, there's just gonna be some people I'm gonna have to go Pastry Nazi on because they're terrible humans and don't deserve my service.

I'm not sure what should be legislated, but I personally wouldn't deny people of differing religions/ideologies service based on that sole fact. Unless, I don't know, a neo-Nazi came into the building preaching the good news of Hitler. That guy can GDIAF.

[Sstavix]

My only problem with your scale is that you seem to confuse public services with private enterprises. Thinking about it, it's easy to see how the two could be confused.

My thoughts is that the government is not allowed to discriminate. Ever. Regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, you name it. The government is supposed to be completely impartial in regards to this aspect. Everyone is supposed to be afforded equal protection under the law - justice is supposed to be blind. It may not be possible, just because of everyone's individual natures, but it is an ideal that all aspects of government should strive for - and repeat violators should be removed from their positions (e.g. fired) and possibly imprisoned for violating the law.

Private individuals and businesses are just the opposite. Private companies can discriminate however their owners wish, even if they are the only grocery store in town. It often isn't economically feasible - for example, if a company has a reputation for discriminating against a certain race or gender, people may refuse to shop there, and they will lose business. But the owners of the business have that right, and that right should not be infringed upon.

But when a private company received taxpayer funds or other forms of government assistance, it enters into a nebulous middle ground. Is it still a private company, or is it subsidized to the point where it could be an extension of the government? Public utilities fall into this category, certainly, but there are plenty of other examples as well, such as the banking industry and the Federal Reserve, oil companies (especially those receiving permits for offshore drilling), broadcasting companies that fall under the regulation of the FCC, and so forth. It's probably something to be left up to the lawyers and considered on a case-by-case basis, but my inclination is that if a company receives significant taxpayer funds, it is prohibited by the same rules as the government in terms of discrimination.

So on your scale I would probably rank around a 3 or a 4. It depends entirely on whether or not the business receives government support, and if so, how much.