I am totally opposed to this kind of legislation. I want to know who my enemies are and treat them accordingly, rather than forcing them to look like my friends.
If they are defined as “public accommodations”, then yes.
[/QUOTE]
No, constitutional prohibitions only apply to government agencies. Businesses that provide services to the public are covered by statutory bars on discrimination, such as the Civil Rights Act, or state anti-discrimination statutes.
It works the same way in Canada, Karl Gauss - the Charter prohibits governments from discriminating, and governments in turn have passed human rights codes which prevent businesses from discriminating in providing services to the public.
Unless the couple want a yoda and luke skywalker topper the whole 2 guys topper would give it away. 
Actually if you are dumb enough to want to make wedding cakes for a living and restrict who you sell to, it is not impossible to have a sign on the door stating 'by appointment only, and requiring both people of the couple to show up. [I hate making over elaborate wedding cakes, some of them are hideous.] Actually, in general a lot of cakemakers I know actually do request appointments and both halves of the couple and frequently their wedding planner to all show up for the consult. It saves time and effort in deciding which of a zillion cakes, frostings, colors, toppers and froufrou parts to be chosen from.
And sometimes you can’t easily. As a transgender activist, I hear stories weekly of someone even in very trans-tolerant Kansas City (don’t laugh, the metro area is one of the most trans-tolerant areas in the United States) being told they aren’t allowed to shop at their local supermarket, or being harassed by the checkout people, managers, etc. until there is such a hostile atmosphere they can’t go. Once at JC Penney’s I was present when a ladies sales attendant, dressed in full Muslim traditional covering, harassed a fellow transwoman who didn’t pass well enough for coming into the ladies dressing room. I didn’t cause a scene then, out of respect for the woman I was with, but went back the next day to lay down the law with the manager.
Many of my trans sisters are very poor, due to job discrimination or other reasons, and can’t just easily hop in their nonexistent car and drive 10 blocks to the next store.
Because I do pass, and because I’m Honey T-Girl (as in, “don’t give a fuck”*), I chaperone transwomen to shopping malls etc. because they have had bad experiences with store staff, they are terrified to appear in public. At least lesbians, gays, and bisexual people can be stealth in public - unless you’re wearing a rainbow ruana or smooching your girlfriend, few know you’re a lesbian by looking. A transwoman who doesn’t pass has no such options. It’s one of the last frontiers of Civil Rights, and I intend to drag those filled with ignorance, prejudice, fear, and hate into the 21st century.
Since they wanted the cake back in July 2012, no doubt they ended up ordering one from a different baker for their reception. The suit was not so that they themselves could obtain a cake, but that the baker had to “cease and desist” in refusing to serve individuals on the basis of sexual preference.
The suit served a purpose even if gays decide not to patronize this baker on the basis of his bigotry, in giving notice that such practices by any other business won’t be tolerated.
The power of the federal government to regulate any activity that might touch in interstate commerce allows them to say what a farmer may grow for his own private consumption because it effects demand on the larger economy.
Also, I presumably cannot grow opium poppies in my backyard for the same reason.
I don’t care if their my friend or my enemy, I just want them to sell me a fucking cake.
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples
“I’ll have half a dozen doughnuts, a large unsliced wholegrain loaf and a gay couple to go, please”.
I think most folks want to get through their day without having to worry if the shopkeeper is a friend or an enemy. I just want them to be a service provider. If I have the cash and I’m not doing anything to disrupt their place of business, just serve me.
In some cases, yes. Do you really want to order food from someone who hates you, though?
*Guy #1: Ugh, this cake tastes like shit.
Guy #2: Well, it’s not very good, but I wouldn’t say it tastes like shit.
Guy #1: No, no. I’m saying it actually tastes like shit!!*
Guy #2: :eek:
Selling a cake that had been adulterated or sabotaged in some way… well, now the baker’s gone from civil to criminal court, and he served up three tiers of evidence.
So would that baker.
Do you want a guy who breaks the law in doing so to get away with it, creating an atmosphere that encourages other bigots to do the same?
It seems to me that business transactions relating to personalized events like weddings should be placed in a very different category from everyday purchases. If a black guy walks into your restaurant and asks for a hamburger and you refuse to give him one on account of his race, that should be illegal. But if you’re a portrait artist or an architect or a wedding cake designer, you should be allowed to make your contracts with whomever you please.
And you may do so, as long as it isn’t an illegal reason. Such as you don’t like black or gay people. If the middle school bully wanders into your MMA gym looking to get back into shape in late middle age, and you still hate him/her, you may refuse service on that grounds: that you do not like that particular person. That may vary if you run an emergency room or some such, but you don’t have to cater to your personal enemies.
How is a wedding cake designer different from a hamburger designer?
Well, that was exaggerated for effect. In practice, the baker might simply spit into the cake. Who’s to know?
cite please? because I don’t believe any of that statement is accurate -
1964 called. It wants its bigotry-disguised-as-libertarianism back.
Wickard v. Filburn.
" The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government."