There are places where you wouldn’t want to be seen patronizing a shop that caters to those people.
Yes, and that makes them even more resentful and hateful. And, as @LSLGuy points out, they still have quite a bit of political power.
All due respect … I don’t think I’ve seen a post on this forum with which I’ve disagreed more.
What do you base all of this optimism on? The President of the US just refused to condemn white supremacy in a speech, and instead called on a white supremacist organization to ‘stand by’ for him. The Colorado baker featured in the lawsuit that keeps getting referenced, according to you, should be completely devastated by the free market by now, but is actually still in business. This all seems to be baseless assertion that directly contradicts a mountain of real world experience.
My partner went to a grocery store that was kind of near a large college town but not in it. Because she was dressed pretty butch at the time, two guys in a pickup truck got out and told her that a “Dyke bitch” coming around here ought to be dragged to death behind their truck. So no, I don’t have your boundless optimism in the goodness of man, and frankly think it’s rather suspect to want to remove laws who’s only actual effect is to prevent discrimination against minorities with the justification that the magic of the free market will protect them, when it has consistently failed to do so in the past.
Very much this.
And the next closest pharmacy might have the same sign.
And in the meantime all those living there who are in a discriminated-against class just get screwed?
Ah yes, the ‘all bigotry has gone away now, we don’t have to worry about it any more’ argument.
If that were even halfway true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And when did you last read a news site? Or do you have yours carefully tailored to only show you the sports page – no, that wouldn’t work either, would it?
If all the people were doing was ordering chopped liver and bagels, then of course they’d be served.
And if they wanted the chopped liver and bagels for a genuine coming-of-age ceremony for a religion other than Judaism, or for a secular coming-of-age ceremony (maybe a graduation or sweet sixteen party), of course they also ought to be served.
I took the hypothetical to mean that the caterers would be present and serving at the party (which is very common) and had been told that the party would be in the form of a mock religious ceremony. If the caterers took “mock” in the sense of “mockery”, even if the would-be customers didn’t think they meant it that way, I can easily see them not wanting anything to do with it. But the problem in that case wouldn’t be that the would-be customers were Muslim, or for that matter Christian or Hindu or animists or secular or even non-practicing Jews; the problem would be that they were being asked to countenance a mockery of Judaism. So long as they’d be happy to cater a Muslim ritual, I don’t see that as bigotry.
I don’t think eating in an ethnic restaurant or cooking a different ethnicity’s food is cultural appropriation. I think wearing another ethnicity’s traditional clothing is cultural appropriation, but I don’t have any problem with someone who does so. In general, I don’t think cultural appropriation isolated from intent is a bad thing. However, religion is an area where I recognise that people can be very sensitive, and where they should be allowed to decide if they want to cooperate in the cultural appropriation or not, even if it means religious discrimination. I wouldn’t be in favour of legally banning non-Jewish Bar Mitzvah style coming-of-age ceremonies. But if a Jewish caterer refused to cater such an event, I do think they should be legally entitled to do so.
Relative to your example, you made a judgement call that your customers were being jerks and decided not to serve them. I’m sure the Colorado cake baker felt the gay wedding couple were being jerks when he said he said he didn’t want to serve them and then they sued him. But suppose he had said that to them up front. For example, if he stated “I think you’re being jerks by asking me to bake a gay wedding cake and therefore I’m not going to serve you”, would that have been sufficient to justify discriminating against them? I don’t think a business should be required to judge customers’ intents before deciding whether or not to serve them. Equally, I don’t think “jerkiness” should be allowed as an automatic excuse for discrimination. Having said that, if a customer is being disruptive, it’s not discrimination to ask them to leave.
Actually, it’s not that, either. It’s a person. When a boy turns 13, he becomes bar mitzvah. He has a bar mitzvah service, and afterward, usually a bar mitzvah celebration.
People will say “There’s a bar mitzvah at shul this Shabbes,” for short, leaving off the word “service,” but some people more correctly say “We’re welcoming a bar mitzvah at shul this Shabbes.”
A girl becomes bat mitzvah.
Band name!
I don’t mean to undermine you, 'cause I usually appreciate your good arguments in most threads.
But example this is sounding like some kind of picnic, not a grand ball, wedding, or even a business banquet.
It seems to me that kind of fare could be served on paper plates – or plastic dishes if the customer wanted something fancy.
Then that could all be thrown away after the event. Reusable dishes would not be spoiled that way.
[I would personally object to some of the ecological matters, but it would solve the kosher problem.]
Indeed, and in the Colorado case I still feel that, if the bakery was recommended or reputed for its quality (or pricing, or whatever) and the customers wanted that bakery’s product the bakery management shouldn’t be protected in saying, “Sorry, but I just don’t like your kind. Go somewhere else (with lower quality, worse pricing, whatever).” Nobody was asking the bakery management to put together ingredients in an unusual way or do artwork they don’t normally do or write in Cyrillic or Sanskrit or Arabic or Chinese or use colors they can’t create. They were asking for a particular message using words that weren’t even forbidden on television. 
Then again, it also seems to me they could have easily had the (now infamous) bakery’s wedding cake made for its ingredients and delivered to the venue, then had someone else write the message and add whatever topper they desired. But these details are still not the issue. The issue is that a business owner refused to provide his normal business services/product to a customer for bigoted reasons and bigotry is not (and should not be) protected. In the Colorado case, if the courts allowed that bakery to refuse service based on its religious convictions, it would have essentialy been favoring that religion (over the customers’ religion or lack thereof) and that’s something the State cannot do.
–G!
Yeah-- I kind of meant that answer as a joke. My point was that if you go to a kosher caterer, you do so because you want kosher food. Insisting that you be served something not kosher defeats the point of going to a kosher caterer, and might get you a smart-ass response.
You don’t go to a Japanese caterer, and ask for cheeseburgers there, either.
Similarly, if Bob’s homophobic bakery doesn’t make vegan cakes, you don’t go there, ask for a vegan cake for your same-sex wedding, and when you are refused, claim you were refused because you are gay.
If the only reason he thinks they’re being jerks is because they’re asking for a cake for a gay wedding, then no, of course that’s not enough to justify it.