Clearly the baker is an asshole, but why do we not let the marketplace determine what businesses survive when they do stupid shit?
This isn’t the first case of its kind; florists and photographers have been in the hot seat for the same reason.
It seems to me that letting the community know a business’s stance on the issue will punish them more than just forcing them to put their head down and quietly make cakes and flowers for all comers.
Does my sandal shop have to serve smelly South Dakotans if I don’t want to?
“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”
Again, a business offends customers at its peril, but what is the specific statute that mandates inclusion lest we hurt someone’s feelings or cost society something? And what exactly is that cost?
So not to worry, you apparently can discriminate in your sandal shop on account of smelliness. Or no shirt. But those with no shoes you may want to market to.
Because civil rights are more important than the marketplace. And because there’s no reason to presume that the marketplace will favor greater social justice, or even the desires of most of the customers. And because it’s entirely possible for companies to simple ignore the marketplace and take a hit for some non-business agenda.
Or, it will instead create a massive influx of business as bigots show up to show their solidarity with the bigoted business. Remember what happened with Chick-fil-A?
There are many millions of bigots in America, bigots who are willing to make a public display of their bigotry in order to support a business that makes a stand for that bigotry. The prohibition against same sex marriage wouldn’t have passed here in California if the majority of the population wasn’t bigots, and California is supposedly one of the more liberal states. That’s more than enough people to push the marketplace towards supporting bigotry, not eliminating it as you are assuming it would.
The fact that you can easily end up with large swathes of people with no businesses willing to serve them.
And you can still discriminate on the basis of state origin. I wouldn’t want any South Dakotans in my bakery shop, no sirree! And nobody from states that I can’t spell easily: Connecticut and Mass…Mass…um… Nobody from Boston, either.
Look, if you’re confused when it comes to decisions like this, it’s really simple: imagine that they were denying a black person, or a mixed-race couple service on account of race. The analogy works pretty darn well - skin color and sexual orientation are both immutable characteristics with very limited actual difference from the “norm”, and both have suffered fairly extreme discrimination from disgusting bigots who consider such discrimination to be not only justified but the right thing to do. So… If this baker was saying, “Black people can’t buy at my store”, would the judge be justified in saying, “No, you can’t do that”? YES.
As long as they’re asking for the same product, I agree that a gay couple should not be discriminated against. On the other hand, I would not expect the baker to carry every possible permutation of cake topper. That would quickly become ridiculous, if you have to carry thirty times as many in case a black man and a redheaded white man come in looking for a wedding cake.
History is chock full of examples where “the market” was shitty at guiding morality. Bad businesses often thrive, and still do. Only society, the state, government, the people, whatever you want to call it, can have a meaningful impact on how businesses treat their customers. The free market does not solve all ills. It barely solves any.
I have asked similar questions here and was reminded that only government agencies are prohibited from discrimination on the basis of race, etc. On the other hand, I was told that private ventures are under no such constraints.
So, let me ask - do the Constitutional prohibitions against discrimination (on the basis of race, religion, creed, . . . ) that apply to the government also apply to non-governmental, private entities? And, as an example to bring the issue down to earth, if a private golf club chooses to bar Jews or black people from membership, do those denied membership have any legal recourse?
Easy then, someone comes in wanting a cake, you look at your schedule [holding the screen so they can’t see it] and simply say - hm, Saturday Feb 22nd? Sorry, we are already booked for cakes for that weekend. Might I suggest you try XZ Bakery over in Boulder? Avoids all issues with race, creed, color or sexual orientation - as far as they know you are booked solid for making what is really a fairly time and labor intense item, it isn’t as if you can simply add a 30 or 40 man hour item to an already full schedule.
If they are defined as “public accommodations”, then yes.
That depends. If they truly don’t allow members of the public to “pay to play”, other than perhaps as an invited guest of a member, then they likely can avoid being defined as a public accommodation and can discriminate to their heart’s content.
OK. How do you answer if an individual (not accompanied by his/her soon-to-be partner) comes in and asks “Can I get a fancy three-tier wedding cake made for Saturday Feb 22? Can I see all your available decorations for the top of the cake?”. IMHO it’s not difficult to give enough details in an orientation-neutral fashion that they have to indicate availabilty without knowing anything about the participants’ orientation.
Out of curiosity, in the real world what would happen if someone did this? If say someone in a Boston store said “We don’t serve people from the South here; take your business somewhere else.” Or by another class like political affiliation “I see the Romney sticker on your car. We don’t sell to Conservatives here. Good bye.”
After 1964 my parents, who are white, posed as buyers for homes that had been denied to Black buyers days or hours earlier. The next buyer would have a subpoena in his pocket. In this era of internet social networking, sting volunteers would be even easier to recruit.