I noticed that too. Weird huh?
And the problem with the ‘but I don’t want to do it because it’s against my religion’ excuse is that it’s a slippery slope that can and will then be used by people to do just that…to refuse service based on, well, just about anything and everything people are prejudiced against. Don’t like Jews? Well, it’s against my religion to bake you a cake! Don’t like Muslims? Well, they will just have to go down the street to find another cake baker! Hate liberals? Well, if they were God Fearing folks I’d consider it, but they need to just move along to someone who will bake those heathens something tasty. Dislike blacks/hispanics/asians/whatever? Well, you get the point…that’s where all of this can and will lead too.
As a society there are times when we simply can’t tolerate this sort of attitude, because it will set a precedence that can and will be exploited down the road. If it’s simply too much for Mr Cake Baker, well, as I’ve heard often, he can always move to some other country more in line with his thinking and desire to do things his way. Otherwise, just bake the fucking cakes and shut the fuck up about your opinions concerning the morals of who is eating those cakes. If you REALLY believe in God, and think that God REALLY has an issue, well, God will settle things him or herself down the pike.
Yes.
I partly agree: mainline Christianity, Islam and Judaism don’t have guidelines for cake-baking customers. But American Fundamentalist Christianity -as opposed to the historical kind- most definitely does. I agree that their positions have nothing to do with holy scripture --that’s evident. But I accept their religious beliefs. I also believe that it’s legitimate for the government to enforce anti-discriminatory laws, regulate drugs and enforce public health regulations, though they may conflict with certain religious beliefs. Judicial review of course is appropriate.
It’s their hotel. They should have the right to refuse service to whoever they want to for whatever reason they want to. I mean, I don’t like the idea. I doubt I’d patronize a business that did that. I’d tell the people I knew not to patronize a business like that. But it’s their hotel.
And what happens to the black people who can’t get a hotel anymore? Or food, or water, or gas, or anything? That’s exactly how it used to work you know; there were many regions where blacks were simply unable to do any business at all. What makes you think permitting segregation was a good idea?
It’s their place of public accommodation. NOT their personal private dwelling.
If we were talking about the right of individuals to refuse hospitality to interracial couples in their personal private dwelling, I’d be right with you. Private individuals are free to discriminate against others in their private lives, no matter how loathsome the prejudices prompting such discrimination may be. If, say, you stop inviting your favorite niece for weekend visits once she marries a guy of a different race because you don’t want race mixing under your roof, that’s entirely up to you: your niece and nephew-in-law are not entitled to be under your roof if you don’t want them there.
But if you’re a hotelier running a commercial enterprise offering services for money to the general public? Hell to the NO, you don’t get to pick and choose which racial combinations among the general public are allowed to enter into that contract with you.
Too many people have the mistaken notion that privately owned businesses are or should be as completely controlled by their owner as private homes are. No, that’s not the way it works. The government regulates commerce for the good of the public, and it has decreed that there are certain kinds of arbitrary restrictions that business owners may not apply to the customers they serve.
When you register as a business, you are making a deal with the government that they will recognize your commercial entity in exchange for your following their rules. If you want to say “This is MY place and I alone get to decide who’s allowed to be here!”, save it for your own private dwelling, not your public business.
Right–just for all homosexual related activity for which he bakes cakes for the equivalent heterosexual related activity. If he won’t bake a “steak and a blowjob day” cake for straight couples, nobody is saying he has to bake one for gay couples.
Of course he is–based upon the sexual orientation of the recipient of the product. How is this not bleeding obvious?
I agree with you that that’s what the law says.
I’m very strongly pro-gay-rights, and in general I think that bakers should be required to bake cakes for gay weddings.
That said, I think there’s at least a HINT of reason in the argument that Magellan and others are trying to make. For instance, suppose that I put an ad in the phone book saying that I am a poet for hire, and people can pay me money to commission poems. I think I would have the right to refuse a commission if they wanted me to write a poem unironically glorifying the life of Fred Phelps. Even though poem-writing is a business which I expect to get paid for, it’s also a personal artistic pursuit.
Renting a hotel room to someone, or selling food at a restaurant or grocery store, or gas at a gas station, on the other hand, very clearly is NOT.
I can see an argument that it’s at least ambiguous which of those categories baking a wedding cake is closer to… and the more personalized and customized the wedding cake is, the closer it falls to the artistic/personal as opposed to purely commercial.
In a way I can see that distinction. However, unless you use a cake topper with two guys on it, you don’t know it’s a cake for a same sex wedding. It is otherwise completely identical and even without a topper is still a wedding cake just like any other. Most wedding cakes done by a baker are exactly the same and many that I’ve seen do a handful of styles. The poem writing is entirely different in my mind because it’s a totally unique work with an obvious intent, style and message.
I realize that last post sounds like I’m denigrating the art of baking, but I’m really not meaning to. Having done both poetry/story writing and having worked on wedding cakes, I do see a difference in the artistic expression of the two pursuits.
And what possible argument is there for having the law say different, besides the feeble and fuzzy-minded “well the hotel is theirs so they should be able to do whatever they want with it”?
Should the law also say that the hotel can have rats in the bedrooms and accumulated excrement in the baths if the owners happen to want it that way? If not, why not?
Ultimately, commerce exists for the good of the public as a whole, and the government has a legitimate interest in making commerce safe, reliable and accessible to the public. Unregulated commerce is an inefficient and unaccountable mishmash of scams, ripoffs, cabals, and uncertainty.
You can apply whatever bizarre conditions you like to your private dwelling (as long as you’re not creating an actual public nuisance or safety hazard). But as soon as you throw open your doors and proclaim to the public at large, “Here’s what I’m selling, come and get it!”, Nanny Gummint is entitled to stick her nose in to make sure the public is being usefully served.
Incidentally private clubs are permitted to discriminate in the basis of race or sex in certain jurisdictions. So there is a special libertarian carve-out for them.
Did clubs in the US with de facto and even de jure discrimination against black or female membership persist in the US? Despite occasional doe eyed conservative protestations that of course nobody would associate with such establishments? But of course. In practice if the facilities are good, people will join even if they don’t like all of the policies.
Of course I’ll pompously claim that I would never associate with such establishments because talk is cheap after all.
Couldn’t agree more and from what I understand it doesn’t.
Do you have a cite for that assertion?
It’s not an assertion, it’s a statement of principle. If you disagree with that principle, feel free to state your own opinion about what commerce is for.
I think the point is that *the baker *would know it was for a gay wedding.
The good of the individual who pursues the endeavor. What on earth are you on about? What grocery store clerk is doing it for a better world?
Very few are in business “for a better world”; they’re in business to make a living.
However, society (the collective ‘we’) wants a better world, and we want businesses to help us get there. Health regulations, laws about illegal dumping, fair labor standards, and anti-discrimination rules are all part of how we make businesses help us get there.
If somebody came up and said they believed their god told them to dump toxic waste in the nearest river, would anybody expect us to respect that belief? For all we know, it may be a sincerely held religious belief, but it’s still not going to fly.
A grocery store clerk isn’t engaging in commerce, so much as participating in it. As is the captain of industry.
In the sense that Kimstu is using the term, “commerce” is the playground itself; the grocery store clerk and captain of industry are kids playing on the playground.
Please correct me if I’m mistaken, Kimstu.