Oh, separate but not quite equal, eh? Yeah, that’s always a winner.
It still boils down to if you have a public business, you must serve all the public. As to the SS couple, the painter could always say that he does not offer to paint the SS logo but would be happy to paint them sans uniform. A shy painter could refuse to do nudes, a Jewish painter could refuse to paint SS uniforms. No problem.
I’m pretty sure no one is arguing that bakers have to bake cakes with specific designs. I think that a baker should be free to reject any particular design order from a customer, as long as he/she offers alternatives and does not refuse a customer because of their sexual orientation (or the orientation of the wedding), along with race, gender, interracial-status of the wedding, etc.
Yes, I am more than okay with the bakeries that refused to make his cake. Living in a relatively free society means accepting the fact that other people have rights also. It also means learning to live with not always getting your way. If a private business doesn’t want you for a customer, there is always someone else that does. Having to use Google or, gasp, the Yellow Pages is not a hardship worthy of teeth gnashing.
Actually, it is same as baking cupcakes with pork fat and knowingly serving them to Muslims: the perpetrators are maliciously tricking people into breaking religious laws. As for the legal remedy, the baker should have the right to 1.) ban the couple from their establishment and refuse to do further business with them and 2.) if they wish place any number of public announcements in the newspaper, radio, internet, etc., declaring that it was not their intention to provide the cake for Adam and Steve, they were tricked into it, and 3.) finally if it can demonstrated that having public knowledge that one of their cakes was used in a gay wedding reception has resulted in financial loss for their business (which in some evangelical communities could well be the case) sue the he77 out of Adam and Steve.
How about the extra 2 grand I had to lay out for a security deposit at the site of one of my nephews’ wedding? We call it the Roma wedding tax and with some families probably warranted. Or better yet, how about the number of wedding vendors that flat out refused our business as soon as they realized the slightly olive skinned couple weren’t Hispanic or Middle Eastern?
Sorry, no. We, in America, have decided that it is not in our interests to allow people to take advantage of the system and infrastructure we have set up if they aren’t going to provide services to Americans. If you don’t want to set up your business here, there will be plenty of others to provide that service for us. Having to use an atlas to a find a country that is consistent with your bigotry is not a hardship. To us, anyway.
Don’t let the door hit you.
IANAL but I don’t think that I am missing the legal point. The bakers could certainly appeal the decision and claim their religious beliefs as a defense and that might make it as high as the Supreme Court. I get that and they can go ahead and pursue that line.
However I stand by my original statement which is that the bakers got in trouble because they violated Oregon state law r.e. discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The REASON that they gave for breaking the law is not WHY they are in trouble. If they said “We hate gay people because they’re grody, no cake for you” they’d still be breaking the exact same law.
Here’s a quote directly from the state website:
“State discrimination law also prohibits a person from refusing to sell, lease, or rent any real property because of an individual´s race, color, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, familial status, physical or mental disability, or source of income.”
For heaven’s sake, cakes are not real property under the law.
I think that by “SS” magellan01 meant “same sex”, not the Nazi organization.
So in this context, the “SS uniform” would be two dudes in tuxedos. Perhaps with rainbow cummerbunds. 
Whoops, my bad. Wrong paragraph. Here’s the correct one, same page, immediately following.
“Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).”
Never mind, taken care of.
The cake is a lie.
What about them? That’s fucked up and I hope you brought a legal action against those vendors.
Thanks for the clarification.
Ah, the misinterpreted abbreviations. For me, the SS will always mean the Nazis. So a same sex couple… well as long as the two aren’t asking to be painted kissing or holding hands (or holding anything else), I don’t see a reason to disapprove. People take father and son portraits all the time. For something as labor intensive and intimate as a painting, one might have a little more leeway in choosing what subject matter one paints.
A reference from the game Portal. Just don’t move…the gamernerds hunt by sight.
But that’s not true. A bakery could refuse to make a cake for a skinhead wedding, or for a wedding of two Democrats, or a wedding between cat owners. You just can’t refuse service based on being in a specific set of protected groups, those listed in the Civil Rights Act, and where localities have extended those groups, to a few more such as sexual orientation.
In most of the US, it’s perfectly legal for a bakery to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.
This part that I bolded is the rub. As a general rule, businesses can choose who they want to do business with. But society realized that in some cases, a customer can’t just go to the next business over and get served there - some kinds of discrimination were so pervasive that people’s lives were affected. Those kinds of discrimination were typically based on race, national origin, and religion, so we passed a law prohibiting discrimination if it was based on those factors.
I’m generally OK with letting businesses set their own rules, and letting the market sort it out. However, the civil rights laws fixed problems that really did need to be fixed, so it’s right to make exceptions for those.
I’m a little torn on whether sexual orientation needs to be added to the list. It seems like the places that have added it are the places where it’s least needed. And places like Georgia, where a recent news team surveyed every florist in a town and none would supply to a same-sex wedding, will never add it to their local civil rights laws. If that continues to be a problem maybe adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act nationally should be done.
I have no idea what any of this means. “Roma” is a kind of tomato, and it’s what Italians call their capital city. Anything else?
And some vendors would have been willing to do business with Hispanics and Middle Easterners but not to your family? What planet did all this happen on?
Roma in this context refers to an ethnic group you may be familiar with as the Romani (or the rather politically incorrect and offensive term gypsies). ZPG Zealot is a member of said ethnic group, who are treated rather horribly in many places.