Is there any evidence, and I mean any evidence at all, that gay people face a similar type of discrimination today as blacks did in the 1950s in the south?
If so, I would support such laws. But as it is today, if a baker won’t make the cake, you just go to his competitor. This law is a solution in search of a problem and only serves to force this guy to go against his sincerely held beliefs. That is not a legitimate function of government.
Further, I understand the anger on the other side. You have fought for years for the idea that a same sex marriage is no different than a traditional marriage and by God you want to eradicate any perceived differences from society. I understand that, but do not agree with it.
Also, is there any law that says he has to be polite? If he bakes the cake, but does wildly offensive things while performing the transaction, has he violated the law? Can he refer to the customers as “faggots” every third word? Can he spray the credit card with lysol under the guise that he does not want to get AIDS? Can he say “fuck you” to them every five seconds so long as he serves the cake?
Then why are there laws that say some classes are protected and make discrimination in business illegal? Why do such laws fail to make clear that they only apply to you if crosses are burning on your lawn?
I think you’re exaggerating. Nobody expects straight couples to pretend to be gay in order to conform.
Now THIS is an interesting question.
For myself I’m a little torn. On the one hand it would be interesting to see what percentage of the baker’s customers have a problem with them being a complete and total asshole. (My rough guess: 50% of religious people stand in solidarity and open praise of assholery.) On the other hand I’m picturing areas where, contrary to conservative assertions, there aren’t convenient alternatives. At that point the bigoted abuse becomes a barrier to business, and functionally operates as the deliberate and overt effort it is to flout the law and deny protected classes business. From that perspective I’d wonder if the asshole should be censured - but I find myself doubting that there’s a legal argument for doing so.
Because that was the rationale for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It was not meant as a middle finger to bigoted white business owners. It was a realization that across the south, blacks had to drive for sometimes hundreds of miles to find a hotel or restaurant that would serve them. The situation was so bad that there had to be a guide published so that blacks would know where they could eat or sleep.
That was balanced against the interests of a private business. Yes, it was recognized, that generally a person who owns a business may refuse service to whomever he chooses. That’s a part of ownership of property. But given the vast social problem on one hand and the de minimis nature of serving a black man the same food you serve a white man, it was decided that the law was needed.
With gay people, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case. Many states and the federal government have no protection for sexual orientation. Do we have any anecdotal evidence even that gay couples in these areas are having cakeless weddings or had to travel great distances to get cakes? If not, then the only reason for these laws is to give a middle finger to those business owners who oppose same sex marriage, which in my view is not a legitimate exercise of governmental power.
I don’t think any standard would be manageable. Maybe a court could stop the name calling and the obviously offensive remarks, but what about the “We are busy right now, someone will be with you very shortly” sort of passive resistance?
I’d like to see that work its way through the legal system. The law can compel the baker to bake cakes for gay couples. The law cannot compel the baker to approve of homosexuality. I can easily see his disapproval, if he expresses it, construed as a barrier. Once that is established, rude shopkeepers beware…
Yes, the court cases that are the topic of this thread (or rather, the events which led to those court cases) are evidence for that type of discrimination.
I disagree with your final sentence. The goal here is not and never was to ‘give a middle finger’ to the poor oppressed bigots out there. The goal is to prevent the negative effects of bigotry from marginalizing and oppressing a population. And no, a little oppression is not okay. A little oppression is a foot in the door - if you want to have any chance of stopping the “lot of oppression” situation, you have to draw the line before it occurs. It doesn’t make sense to make a law that says you can punch a stranger five times in the face, but the sixth is assault - that’s an enforcement nightmare. You just ban face punching and be done with it.
Your argument is essentially that the house is only a little on fire, so we don’t need a fire department. I disagree. Plus we already have a fire department, so you kind of have to argue for why fire departments are bad and bigotry can’t possibly be a problem ever. (Which the bigots do try to do…unconvincingly.)
That “passive resistance” is functionally equivalent to tossing them out of the shop and locking the door. I’d expect it to be much easier to legislate against than giving them prompt service with a hearty ‘fuck you’.
Contrary to Justice Kennedy’s feelings, I see no right to be treated with dignity or respect when dealing with another private individual. I share your lack of concern with the rights of bigots.
However, a free people must be ever vigilant against intrusions by government over very basic liberties, one of which is to be nasty to certain people whatever your reason. With the groundwork laid, I can easily see where a future tyrant might make Republicans, for example, a protected class and any disfavor towards them considered “bigotry.”
A business owner has the freedom to be as disrespectful as he wants to be to me, only at the risk of losing future business. I see nothing in our Constitution or fundamentally that says that another person has to be nice to me.
And it was not the point of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Without any evidence, I do not see how if left unchecked that gays will be shut off from public accommodations and a guide book of “gay friendly” businesses will need to be published. So, I think your fire department analogy is inapt as I don’t see the danger of widespread exclusion of gays from society. The acceptance of homosexuality is growing each year and the number of people who would refuse business from them is vanishingly small. As I see it, the harassment of this cake shop owner serves no purpose other than to force him to comply with modern social norms: something that nobody else ever has to do.
To your second point, I’m not suggesting that the shop is so busy that they never get around to the customer. They just “lose” the order and stuff like that. Unless the state is going to regulate good business practices, I cannot see how that would ever be enforced.
You are trying to coral the reach of the civil rights act to fit your personal desires. It was not limited to the most extreme cases of bigotry. It covers mere inconveniences as well.
Part of the reason it is important is prior to the civil rights act we were forcing our civil servants to enforce the rights of bigots over the rights of oppressed minorities. If a police officer was called to a bigoted store front demanding a black person be removed, they had to side with the store owner. This was a terrible use of our resources and gave bigots more power over minorities.
The black guys sitting around at the Woolworth’s lunch counter could have easily gone down to the other restaurant down the street. It really wasn’t a great burden in that one instance. The issue is why should a minority need to endure any burden to appease a bigot, the bigot is the problem. I’d much rather the laws inconvenience bigots rather than have a minority walk a minefield of businesses that may or may not serve them.
And I said it would be interesting to see what would happen if a business owner decided that he was simply going to go into “I shall now demonstrate that conservative religious people are complete pieces of shit” mode when dealing with gay people, and that I didn’t think it would be easy to legislate against that as long as the shittiness of the human shitbag didn’t interfere with the shitbag’s ability to do business.
It occurs to me that an entertaining way to legislate this is if the business in question makes any overtures in documentary form (like say, advertisements) that they’re a friendly business. 'Your honor, I didn’t just want to order a cake, I wanted to order friendly service, and was denied the product that he has offered to others before me."
People are forced to comply with modern social norms all the time - tossing blacks out of businesses is still illegal, you know. It’s (not) okay to torture your arguments, but you shouldn’t completely divest yourself from reality.
And your not seeing the danger of widespread exclusion of gays from society was entirely the point of my fire department analogy. Your stated position is that a little bit of bigotry is awesomesauce because there’s no possible way it could actually be a problem for anyone now or ever. (I assume we’re presuming that small towns with only one or two bakers, all conservative, literally don’t exist.) Which it to say, you think that a little bit of fire is fine, only one or two rooms on fire, it couldn’t possibly spread so why should the big bad government step in? The only fires worth putting out are the ones burning the entire building - and that’s not currently happening allegedly so that means we can dismantle the fire department completely.
To mix it up, let me look at it another way. If we presume you’re not arguing disingenuously, in a town with ten bakers, you seem to be arguing that if, say, three of them are tossing gay people out that should be legal - but if all ten bakers are doing it, it should be illegal. So consider this situation.
Baker 1 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 2 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 3 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 4 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 5 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 6 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 7 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 8 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 9 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
Then baker 10 hangs up a ‘no gays’ sign.
In your opinion, which one of them should be charged with breaking the law? What law are you going to write that prevents this situation while acheiving the alleged end of letting some bakers be bigots but denying the rights of other bakers have equal legal treatment with them?
Lose the order, don’t call me back, you’ve just denied me business. (Upraised finger) To court!
I’d have to convince the judge that the ‘loss’ wasn’t an accident once I got there, of course.
On an off-topic note, I heard once that being atheism was now considered to be a protected class equal to that of being religious, so presuming that we’re not throwing agnostics to the curb, doesn’t that mean that second-amendment protections now apply to . . . EVERYONE!
(It’s probably worth noting that regarding these protections, and protected class protections, they only apply if the bigotry is against you for specifically being that class. I can still deny business to gays/republicans/christians/atheists all day so long as I convince the courts that my cruelty isn’t related to their protected statii.)
It was a gamble the GOP should not have been allowed to take. They were betting with someone else’s money. That was Obama’s nomination to make and the GOP senate usurped that presidential prerogative. So for now and forever more, GOP cannot complain if Democratic senates refuse to meet with or give hearings to the nominees presented by GOP presidents. Until a GOP President nominates Garland (or Obama, at the rate things are going, probably Malia Obama).
If you want to change the Senate’s role in getting Justices onto the Supreme Court, you are going to have to amend the Constitution. They weren’t betting anyone’s money - their role is to advise the President on nominees, and either give or withhold their consent. That’s what they did.
They didn’t do anything of the sort. Obama did nominate Garland - the Senate did not prevent this. The Senate advised Obama that they were not going to consent to that appointment. Just like the Constitution says.
True. They will anyway, but it’s still true. The GOP will have no right to complain then, just like the Democrats have no right to complain now.
Fortunately Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are relatively young, although Notorious RBG will cling to her seat like grim death. We shall see who is sitting in the Oval Office, and who controls the Senate, when next the Supremes are looking for a back up singer.
Ultimately, the government isn’t forcing any individual to bake a cake. What they are doing, is demanding that anyone who wants to be in the cake making business follow a set of standards, one of which is non-discrimination. Other standards include things like storing food safely and using wholesome ingredients.
That would suck, but that is not what is happening here.
What is happening here is that the government is requiring business open to the public to not discriminate against people for being a member of a protected class.
If they were racist, rather than homophobic, and disapproved of miscegenation, would you have the same objection that the government is forcing them to participate in a religious ceremony that they didn’t agree with?
