# Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529 "2015-07-08T00:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/601 "2015-07-21T09:33:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t believe this to be the case, but let’s assume that you are correct in that any opposition to SSM means that someone has a prejudice against gay people. SO WHAT?! You’ve now moved into the territory of thought crime, **Miller**. As you may know, there is no law against thinking that gay people—or any other group—are second-class citizens. We are allowed (for now, anyway) to dislike, despise, or otherwise think ill of any group. We just can’t act in a way that discriminates against _individuals_ based on their membership in a protected class. > > The baker in question has demonstrated by his actions that he has no problem serving gay individuals. But he does have a specific religious/moral problem with SS weddings, which is an _event_. As far as I know, “events” do not have rights, nor are they “members” of a protected class. > > What you want to do is 1) define any action that _may_ align with bigotry as bigotry, then 2) outlaw bigotry, and finally, 3) outlaw any action that may align with bigotry. > > This leads to the possibility of a scenario in which you have a religious baker who knowingly serves gays every day, but feels morally compelled to not in any way support SSM, being forced to act in a way that violates his religious conviction. > > Revisiting my hypothetical in which Sue wants to gift Joe and John with a wedding cake, how would Sue, a heterosexual, sue the bakery? On what grounds? She’s not gay, she’s not a member of a protected class. What is her standing? How has she been damaged? I bring this up again because I think it demonstrates that is is perfectly possible to separate out the event, that one can have different feeling about gays generally and the event specifically. That they are not one and the same. > > Tell me, do you think that baker should also be forced to make the “Happy Divorce” cake? Or how about a cake for a polygamous wedding? Again, let’s say that Bob and Ann and Carol go into his bakery almost every day. But when asked to make a cake that says, “Congratulations on your wedding day, Bob & Ann & Carol”, the baker says that doing so violates his faith as it presents a version of marriage that does not comport with his religious convictions. Should he be forced to make the cake? What would be the grounds of the lawsuit against him? > > Finally, do you grant the religious baker any allowance as to what type of cake he might decline to make on religious grounds? If so, what may some of those exceptions be? I am trying to work with your example. Much of it is centered on the inscription on the cake. Is that what makes or breaks the case here? If for a moment we assume that wedding cakes do not have inscriptions - they are all the same - would you then agree that the baker should not be allowed to refuse making such a cake for the wedding of Joe and John? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/602 "2015-07-21T11:27:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t believe this to be the case, but let’s assume that you are correct in that any opposition to SSM means that someone has a prejudice against gay people. SO WHAT?! You’ve now moved into the territory of thought crime, **Miller**. As you may know, there is no law against thinking that gay people—or any other group—are second-class citizens. We are allowed (for now, anyway) to dislike, despise, or otherwise think ill of any group. We just can’t act in a way that discriminates against _individuals_ based on their membership in a protected class. As far as I can see you still haven’t answered the following question that has been asked multiple times: do you feel the same way about a baker who has a religious objection to interracial marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/603 "2015-07-21T13:21:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The baker in question has demonstrated by his actions that he has no problem serving gay individuals. But he does have a specific religious/moral problem with SS weddings, which is an _event_. As far as I know, “events” do not have rights, nor are they “members” of a protected class. Let’s say I own several apartment buildings. I happily rent apartments to African Americans. However, I will not rent apartments to African Americans in the complex in which I live. Do you really believe that my refusal to do certain things is not discriminatory on the basis that I happily do other things involving this protected class? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/604 "2015-07-21T13:28:10Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > There are multiple different [protected classes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class) under various laws. And the federal courts have evaluated cases at different [levels of scrutiny](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm) for one protected class as opposed to another. > > As odd as that sounds, it means certain protected classes get less protection under federal law. For example, racial discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny. But discrimination based upon age is subject to [intermediate scrutiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny). Does that mean that should a case present itself in which a racial discrimination claim is pitted against an age discrimination claim that the racial discrimination claim would win out as it is “more protected”? Maybe. > > Per the RFRA, laws targeting religious beliefs and practices must stand up to strict scrutiny. But that is the same level of scrutiny that race or national origin classifications are subject to. Is it a wash and the court must use some other means of resolving such cases? > > Finally, currently sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal laws. There is a [very recent case from the EEOC](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0717/Sexual-orientation-discrimination-is-sex-discrimination-EEOC-rules) equating sexual orientation discrimination as being a types of sex discrimination. (That runs counter to decisions in prior lower court cases.) Even with that, sex discrimination is only subject to intermediate scrutiny. Perhaps the religious discrimination complaint wins out in a conflict with a sexual orientation discrimination complaint? That’s all true. However, I only asked **magellon** about the strict-scrutiny classifications from the CRA. He’s spent many pages arguing, that CRA-type protections against discrimination in public accommodations should not apply to sexual orientation. I would like to know whether he thinks that CRA-type protections _should not exist_, period, or _should not exist for gay people_. > [@Iggy](#): > > But it’s their sincerely held religious beliefs that you object to as being bigoted. And for that reason you would, and should, lose a religious discrimination case for refusing to serve the WBC on those grounds. At least if we’re going to hold that the catering venture is a public accommodation. > > Cuts both ways. > [@Trinopus](#): > > **Iggy** ’s right here. We cannot refuse service to members of WBC, no matter how bigoted they may be. > > We can insist they not engage in bigoted speech during their duration in our shop. If they say, “God hates fags” out loud, we can say, “None of that kind of talk in here,” and we can make that stick. > > But we can’t discriminate against them solely on the basis of their religious affiliation. Is there any case law that supports these contentions? (That refusing to serve the WBC is and can only be discrimination on the basis of their religion, as opposing to their political activities and protests?) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/605 "2015-07-21T18:07:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I don’t believe this to be the case, but let’s assume that you are correct in that any opposition to SSM means that someone has a prejudice against gay people. SO WHAT?! You’ve now moved into the territory of thought crime, **Miller**. As you may know, there is no law against thinking that gay people—or any other group—are second-class citizens. We are allowed (for now, anyway) to dislike, despise, or otherwise think ill of any group. We just can’t act in a way that discriminates against _individuals_ based on their membership in a protected class. Right. And the baker in question discriminated against individuals based on their membership in a protected (locally, not federally) class. You’re the one bringing motivation into, trying to argue that there’s a legitimate reason to discriminate against gay people. I’m just talking about the action: refuse to serve someone because they’re gay, you’ve violated the law. > [@](#): > > The baker in question has demonstrated by his actions that he has no problem serving gay individuals. But he does have a specific religious/moral problem with SS weddings, which is an _event_. As far as I know, “events” do not have rights, nor are they “members” of a protected class. This is just semantic jiggery-pokery. You can take any act of bigotry, and describe it as having a problem with an “event,” instead of a person. Don’t think blacks should vote? You don’t have a problem with black people, you just have a problem with the “event” of black people participating in elections. Don’t think women should be allowed to work outside the home? You’re not a misogynist, you just object to the “event” of women going to work. Don’t think Jews should be allowed to live in the nice part of town? You don’t hate Jews, you just object to the “event” of a Jew moving in next door. And, again, the fact that someone is willing to deal with a class of people in one context, does not mean his refusal to deal with them in a different context is not bigoted. Short of outright genocide, there’s always contexts in which bigots are willing to deal with a discriminated minority. Back when redlining was a thing in real estate, there were sellers who would work with Jews or blacks - but only if they bought in certain neighborhoods. If you were willing to sell a house in Harlem to a black guy, but wouldn’t sell him a house in Tribeca, you’re still a bigot. > [@](#): > > What you want to do is 1) define any action that _may_ align with bigotry as bigotry, then 2) outlaw bigotry, and finally, 3) outlaw any action that may align with bigotry. I want bigoted actions to be recognized for what they are, and I don’t believe you can excuse your own bigotry by pinning it on imaginary people. “God said to do it,” does not make a bigot into a non-bigot. It makes him into a bigot who doesn’t have the courage to own his own convictions. > [@](#): > > This leads to the possibility of a scenario in which you have a religious baker who knowingly serves gays every day, but feels morally compelled to not in any way support SSM, being forced to act in a way that violates his religious conviction. Yeah. I don’t have a problem with that. Can you give me a reason why I should? > [@](#): > > Revisiting my hypothetical in which Sue wants to gift Joe and John with a wedding cake, how would Sue, a heterosexual, sue the bakery? On what grounds? She’s not gay, she’s not a member of a protected class. What is her standing? How has she been damaged? I bring this up again because I think it demonstrates that is is perfectly possible to separate out the event, that one can have different feeling about gays generally and the event specifically. That they are not one and the same. If I buy a birthday cake for my Jewish friend, and the baker refuses to take my order when he finds out the name he’s supposed to put on the cake, is that evidence that the baker is not anti-Semitic? Or is the baker merely objecting to the “event” of a Jew living for another year? > [@](#): > > Tell me, do you think that baker should also be forced to make the “Happy Divorce” cake? Or how about a cake for a polygamous wedding? Again, let’s say that Bob and Ann and Carol go into his bakery almost every day. But when asked to make a cake that says, “Congratulations on your wedding day, Bob & Ann & Carol”, the baker says that doing so violates his faith as it presents a version of marriage that does not comport with his religious convictions. Should he be forced to make the cake? What would be the grounds of the lawsuit against him? Are divorced people a protected class? Are poly people a protected class? No? Then I guess you have your answer. > [@](#): > > Finally, do you grant the religious baker any allowance as to what type of cake he might decline to make on religious grounds? If so, what may some of those exceptions be? A baker can decline to make any cake, for any reason, so long as it’s not in violation of equal protection laws. If he _is_ violating equal protection laws, then, “My religion says it’s okay to be a bigot,” is not an excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/606 "2015-07-21T18:27:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The ad hominem being what, “bigot?” I’m assigning it to him because it best describes his actions. > > What? I don’t understand what any of that has to do with my post. I think the baker’s refusal to bake the cake is bigotry. It’s a form of bigotry that, in some states, has been made illegal. I’d like to see it made illegal in all states. I don’t think people opposing this idea are necessarily bigots or assholes (although, naturally _some_ of them are). I think they’re misguided, in that I don’t think the baker’s rights have been violated by making him comply with the law. > > I fully support and deeply admire the ACLU for standing up for the speech rights of even deeply evil organizations like the KKK or Westboro Baptist. I have no idea what the relevance of the ACLU is to my post. As far as I’m aware, the ACLU has supported the plaintiffs in this case, not the bakery. > > Considering that it takes precisely the opposite position of what I actually wrote, no, I would not agree that that is an accurate representation of the events. The baker is not objecting to the event: he has no issue with marriage or wedding cakes in general. He objects to a _certain class of people_ being able to participate in weddings. That he is willing to serve them in other capacities does not excuse or exculpate his bigotry in the issue of marriage. It just means that he is less bigoted than he possibly could be. We’ve already had this argument in a different context (and perhaps different rules apply). The fact that the baker would be more than happy to make a wedding cake for a gay man marrying a lesbian does not mean he is not a bigot for refusing to make a wedding cake for two gay men or two lesbians. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/607 "2015-07-21T18:45:17Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But I’m not rejecting it because it’s religious, I’m rejecting it because it’s bigoted. If I’m Jewish, I can’t refuse to cater for a Muslim party just because they’re Muslims. But I can refuse to cater if they’re organizing a “kill the Jews” rally, because that’s something I’d refuse to do for anyone, not just Muslims. Well that’s the issue. They’re willing to sell wedding cakes to gays but only if they are marrying someone of the opposite sex. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/608 "2015-07-21T18:58:07Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > I am trying to work with your example. Much of it is centered on the inscription on the cake. Is that what makes or breaks the case here? If for a moment we assume that wedding cakes do not have inscriptions - they are all the same - would you then agree that the baker should not be allowed to refuse making such a cake for the wedding of Joe and John? Lets use caterer or band. Somehow we have gotten caught up in intellectual property issues and its getting silly. I understand that the actual case is a baker but lets say that there is only one really good caterer in town and the cost of a good caterer from another town is a little higher because the travel involved. The food is about as necessary for the wedding as the cake, so can the caterer refuse to serve at a gay wedding based on religious objection? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/609 "2015-07-21T20:01:21Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Are divorced people a protected class? Are poly people a protected class? No? Then I guess you have your answer. And what does that have to do with bigotry? Just because there isn’t a critical mass pushing for a particular label doesn’t mean that bigotry against polygamy or other non protected classes is any less wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/610 "2015-07-21T22:34:51Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > . . . Is there any case law that supports these contentions? (That refusing to serve the WBC is and can only be discrimination on the basis of their religion, as opposing to their political activities and protests?) There are probably some relevant cases, but I’m not the one to know how to search 'em out. But you’d have to be careful to prevent this from being generalized. e.g., “I would happily rent an apartment unit to a Catholic, but not to anyone who belongs to an organization that opposes abortion rights.” The key is still discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/611 "2015-07-22T08:07:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Lets use caterer or band. Somehow we have gotten caught up in intellectual property issues and its getting silly. I understand that the actual case is a baker but lets say that there is only one really good caterer in town and the cost of a good caterer from another town is a little higher because the travel involved. > > The food is about as necessary for the wedding as the cake, so can the caterer refuse to serve at a gay wedding based on religious objection? My opinion: No he should not be allowed to refuse, just as he should not be allowed to refuse service to a Jewish or mixed-race wedding. I believe it is the duty of the state to protect minorities, i.e. to make sure that people of a minority race, religion or sexual orientation do not suffer worse living conditions than the majority. If you allow to deny them services that the majority has access to, you have not sufficiently protected them. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/612 "2015-07-22T20:27:04Z")
**Hiker** : Agreed. And doubly so when the group in question has suffered systematic and organized repression. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/613 "2015-07-23T21:34:04Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > He was willing to serve the heterosexual woman until he found out the cake was ultimately going to a gay couple. That shows that the bias is, indeed, towards the individuals - as soon as he found out who the individuals involved were, he refused the work. Presumably he would have been willing to cater a wedding between a gay man and a lesbian. If that is the case then its the event and not the people. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/614 "2015-07-23T21:37:42Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > My opinion: No he should not be allowed to refuse, just as he should not be allowed to refuse service to a Jewish or mixed-race wedding. > > I believe it is the duty of the state to protect minorities, i.e. to make sure that people of a minority race, religion or sexual orientation do not suffer worse living conditions than the majority. If you allow to deny them services that the majority has access to, you have not sufficiently protected them. And that is not something that a court can do on its own. Congress must do it and they just might but right now you are stuck with gay friendly states and gay hostile states. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/615 "2015-07-23T21:46:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Presumably he would have been willing to cater a wedding between a gay man and a lesbian. If that is the case then its the event and not the people. “It’s not discrimination! Gay people can still marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people!” was a stupid argument when I first heard it ten years ago. It has not gotten any less stupid in the intervening decade. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/616 "2015-07-23T22:28:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Presumably he would have been willing to cater a wedding between a gay man and a lesbian. If that is the case then its the event and not the people. I’m willing to allow Republicans to eat in my restaurant…so long as they don’t vote Republican on election day. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/617 "2015-07-24T15:19:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’m willing to allow Republicans to eat in my restaurant…so long as they don’t vote Republican on election day. No, the caterer is willing to sell stuff to the gay couple even after they get married as long as it isn’t for the wedding. He does not condition his services on their promise not to be gay in the future. There is a particular event that he objects to. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/618 "2015-07-24T15:27:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “It’s not discrimination! Gay people can still marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straight people!” was a stupid argument when I first heard it ten years ago. It has not gotten any less stupid in the intervening decade. Of course that is how the law works. The law prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. The government is in a different position than private citizens because private citizens are not bound by the due process clause. The burden on government (and society) is no greater with gay couples than with straight couples. This is not so with a person that has religious convictions that view gay marriage as an abomination. Unlike corporations (which apparently can have religious convictions), our government cannot and must make the decision to permit gay marriage on more reasoned rational bases. People on the other hand may be as irrational as they wish as long as they are not breaking the law. And no law is being broken here. At least at the federal level. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/619 "2015-07-24T16:34:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Of course that is how the law works. The law prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. I’m not sure if you [heard the news](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/), but it turns out you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > And no law is being broken here. At least at the federal level. Are we talking about federal law? No. No, we are not talking about federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/620 "2015-07-24T20:34:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, the caterer is willing to sell stuff to the gay couple even after they get married as long as it isn’t for the wedding. He does not condition his services on their promise not to be gay in the future. There is a particular event that he objects to. The model I was responding to was that the baker would sell a cake for the marriage of a gay man and a lesbian. i.e., that the non-discrimination was based on behavior, not on the actual personal individual traits. I gave a counterexample involving discrimination based solely on behavior…showing that in many cases behavior is intrinsic to the person in question. A gay man who never has gay sex is a very, very limited example of a gay man, just as a Republican who never votes Republican would be. If we are allowed to discriminate on the basis of behavior, then my example is as good as the example I responded to. That “there is a partiular event that he objects to” is the common point of the original example and my rebuttal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=32)