Would you support that or is imprisonment your preferred punishment?
I’d love to drop you into 1960 at the time of the Woolworth’s lunch counter sit-in and hear you ask “Why do all these black people want to be served lunch by people who don’t even like them?”
Ah. So the acceptability of bigotry is dependent on the product or service involved? Schools and housing, no; cake, yes? What about other types of food - can supermarkets discriminate, or does it depend on what the person is buying? Gas for their car - yes or no? Is furniture something one can discriminate about or does it depend on whether you’re trying to by something essential like a bed or something decorative like a display cabinet? And where do we draw the line on services - medical care, no; waitstaff table service, yes? What about dry cleaning? Or does that depend on what is being cleaned?
Or is the “it’s only cake, bruh” argument fundamentally flawed?
No, we’re talking about the principle of non-discrimination legislation. If it doesn’t hold at a cake, it doesn’t hold anywhere, and queers (and, soon enough, blacks, Jews, women, or any other group some shit-eyed bigot decides isn’t good enough for him) can be denied any service or accommodation, anywhere, simply by invoking a fucking fairy tale monster.
I know you don’t actually care about that, because it would mean valuing humans lives more than money, but stop with the “It’s just a cake,” bullshit. That’s not the issue, and you know it’s not the issue.
You mean like religious conservatives used to do to gay people and still actively advocate for?
Neither are my preferred punishment, FWIW.
And the same arguments were made about hotel rooms, restaurants, whatever - who would want to patronize a business that doesn’t want them as customers?
There are two established principles here:
(1) Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hold bigoted views if we so choose.
(2) The government can and will restrict our freedom to discriminate among customers if we choose to run a public business.
If we don’t like those restrictions, we are free to choose not to run such a business, just as we are free to refrain from driving if we dislike the restriction to driving only on the right. Your claim to a qualitative distinction based on the government owning the roads is bogus. The underlying principle is that the government places restrictions on public activity of all kinds for the common good. We may disagree on what should be the extent of those restrictions, but the restrictions do not fall into a different category based on government ownership of one thing but not the other.
Are you so desperate to ad hominem when you’re not in the wrong?
Now that we’ve gotten past your desperate ad hominems, we are at the crux of your argument. “It’s just a cake, so it shouldn’t be a big enough deal to matter to the baker that they have to stop acting like a bigot long enough to engage in business without illegally discriminating against their customers.”
Oh, wait, you meant “Cake is SUPER IMPORTANT if it being important supports my side, and NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL when we’re just talking about something petty like denying business to a protected class.”
Wait, I’m getting confused. When is cake important again?
Keeping in mind that ‘my’ Batman is a person who is concerned with whether the criminal in question is normalizing an environment where businesses can ostracize an entire subclass, I’d say probably not. Sex workers aren’t in a position to normalize anything.
Apparently it’s not so simple if SCOTUS cannot render a definitive verdict. How do think they missed such a simple thing? No matter, there may still be some CO state loopholes needing legally plumbed.
Wonder what SCOTUS will say next time around…
I don’t know if you are talking about the recent SCOTUS decision on the topic, but if so, that did not happen.
Right. You just can’t force people to do things they don’t want to do. How some people can overlook that seems a bit disingenuous. But I guess you gotta go with whatever comes up when grasping at straws to get your issue in the spotlight.
I agree that that’s discrimination. But I think the easiest proof of discrimination is if he refuses to bake an identical cake for a trans person.
Thus the test:
- Activist one goes in and says, “Hey, Mister Baker Man! My daughter just graduated high school. Her school colors are pink and blue. Could you bake a strawberry cake with blue frosting that says, ‘Congratulations Autumn’ on it?”
- Activist two goes in and says, “Hey, Mister Baker Man! I am celebrating the anniversary of my transition from male to female. Could you bake a strawberry cake with blue frosting that says, ‘Congratulations Autumn’ on it?”
If he’ll bake the first cake but not the second cake, his claim that “That’s a cake I can’t create for anybody” is patently untrue.
The situation is that you have bigots saying “my religion says I have to be a bigot, and thus thanks to the first amendment YES INDEEDY I CAN REFUSE TO SERVE GAYS OR BLACK PEOPLE OR ANYONE I WANT SCREW ALL THE OTHER LAWS HA HA.”
It’s still a simple matter of whether you can hang a shingle on your shop that says “We don’t serve your kind here”. It just that people belonging to bigoted religions have one law that they can claim is defending their right to do exactly that.
The plan is to pack the SCOTUS with people who openly suborn law for politics, right? I imagine things will work out great.
You appear to be unclear on the concept of “laws”.
Well, the reality is when you have the so-called law and armed goons you can actually do all that.
I’m really looking forward to legal prostitution and the can of worms that will be opened when people are refused.
You are calling for a return to the days of Jim Crow.
Places that didn’t cater to black people were more than just an inconvenience that required the black person to drive an extra block to a different merchant.
Indeed the inability to access a variety of services was so pervasive a guide book was published that helped black motorists know where they could find the things they needed while traveling in the US.
Remember that in parts of the south if you were a merchant who was happy to provide services for black people the local white people would shun you and you’d probably go out of business.
This is more of the same except with gay people in place of black people.
Why do you keep using this “hang a shingle” metaphor? There was never any signage in question. Cliche attention-getters don’t work with me and they did not work with the Supremes, either.
You appear to also be unclear on the concept of “metaphors”.
Do you understand why the Supremes rejected the previous case?
No legislation has been been proposed or re-evaluated over this matter, so you are absolutely and utterly wrong on that statement.
Nothing like an extreme example to make your hysterical point. Equating a small, private bakery with “public service” in this context is just irrational and a great example of the hype and stupidity of this case…
And next month or next year it will be some other minority or special interest begging for attention any way they can get it. Better luck next time…
At least I’m clear about not answering diversionary questions. 
Why advocate a weaker test with the product precisely identical, just because it’s easier to prove discrimination? We’re not trying to prove that this particular baker is a bigot. We already know that. We want to clarify the boundary - to what extent can a bigot legally discriminate in running their business?
It seems to me that if a baker (or anyone else) offers a personalized product, and two products are essentially the same, but with the only difference arising from a refusal to personalize the product to a particular person because of their identity (in a protected class), then that discrimination should be illegal.