Being a doctor is work though, right? The doctor’s labor is required to save that person. Forcing them to do that would not be allowed if your viewpoint was made into law.
Nothing like that here.
California will not force you to make a cake.
They will force you to close your cake making business if you discriminate and refuse to make a cake on that basis.
Actually, I am quite fond of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I just don’t think it should apply in situations where someone else’s rights have to be gutted and trampled on for no good reason. If the baker wanted no choice in what kind of customers they devoted their time to, he or she could have easily taken a job at the local Kroger (it would probably pay more than running their own business). Instead, they took a risk and opened their own business, to that they, not a supervisor, or an entitled would-be customer, could determine their client base and how and when they choose to work. I think that should be respected.
I don’t think it’s too absurd to classify the making of a cake being an example of “artistic expression”.
I’d say the same for say a tattoo artist.
Of course I have a hard time believing the judge would have said that tattoo parlors could refuse to serve gay people or, say, Hispanics.
Your second comma divides your sentence into two contradictory sections.
Perhaps I made my question too wordy. Let me try again. If the business owner did not design, bake, and decorate the cake herself–and since it’s a large bakery, we can’t assume she did–how is this freedom of artistic expression?
I disagree with the implication here, for the same reason that a director of a movie is engaging in artistic expression, despite not doing all the acting, costuming etc. herself.
Making food is also “labor” so I’ll assume you feel that restaurants should have the right to refuse to serve black people else they would, in your words, be “enslaved” by their customers.
An ER doctor has usually signed a contract stating he or she will labor on any and all patients that come through the ER’s door. Now outside of the ER the matter because more complicated. Is the doctor compiled to use his or her knowledge to help any injured person they encountered? I would say there is a moral duty to help strangers if possible. I am not comfortable saying there is a legal duty to do so.
The ER doctor is not the only doctor in the world that can save you.
There’s another doctor in the hospital across town that takes “people like you”.
You are obviously not fond of the civil rights act, when you have, in this thread, specifically said that you don’t think it should apply to the very people it was intended to apply towards, business owners.
The reason that someone opens their own business has many reasons, but being able to discriminate against minorities is not one of them.
I think they should have the right to refuse to serve anyone, black, white or green, they don’t want to have as a customer. Of course, they will also have to deal with the ramifications of such refusal on their customer base.
I don’t think ZPG Zealot’s garden path is super helpful to wander down at this point, so I’m done with it. The takeaway for other folks should be the salient point she’s making: this is a path to an end-run around the Civil Rights Act for people who want to discriminate with impunity, including against folks in protected classes.
Posters who approve of this judge’s decision need to grapple with her point.
That’s not in the same ballpark as a wedding cake.
The constitution doesn’t comment on the seriousness of the expression, however. If expression cannot be compelled, can a surgeon claim that her work comprises expression, and she will not be compelled to speech when it means speaking against his religion–e.g., agreeing to treat a woman?
When did I say that? I’m extending ZPG Zealot’s point to its logical conclusion. Did you see the post I was replying to with that?
So, when you say that you are fond of the Civil Rights Act, is it just the font that you like?
Because what you said here is the exact opposite.
The ER doctor is not the only doctor in the world that can save you.
There’s another doctor in the hospital across town that takes “people like you”.
[/QUOTE]
The situation is not equivalent. The time necessary to reach the hospital across town is relevant to the patients chances of survival. A decorated cake is not necessary to anyone’s survival.
People open their own businesses for a variety of reasons and being able to choose who they will work for and reject others (rather than being forced to take all customers the boss sends their way) is a major reason.
So then your earlier claim that you were “fond” of “the 1964 Civil Rights act”, which was crafted specifically to prohibit such behavior, is demonstrably false.
Note, I’m not accusing you of lying, merely making a statement that was false. Now perhaps if you clarify what you meant that would be different.
Wanting to be a bigot seems like one of the worst reasons to open your own business.
Oh, you’re not going to die on the way over to that other hospital. You’ll just be in excruciating pain.
Anyone who opened a business in the United States since 1964 has been very aware that they may not simply choose who they work for and reject others.
We open our own businesses because we are tired of working for idiot bosses. We want to make our own hours (all of them), we want to try to run things in a different way than we were allowed by others.
Your idea that people open their own businesses so that they are free to discriminate is not rooted in reality.