I don’t think you’re accurately framing the issue. The bakers in question had zero problem serving gay customers. They even served the couple that sued them numerous times before without even a hint of a problem. So the problem for them was not selling baked goods to homosexuals, it was specifically selling a wedding cake to them, as they felt it would show support for a ceremony which their religion does not condone. They view the baking of the wedding cake as both condoning and participating in something that is counter to their religion.
I’ll tell you exactly where the line should be drawn. I am free to dislike religious people all I want. But I am not free to refuse them service if I run a business.
nm
They can view it any way they like, but it’s still discrimination. The same justifications have been used to avoid doing business with black people, and with Jews. And those justifications have been shown to be without sufficient merit.
Or is it okay for me to do whatever I “feel” as long as I can claim a religious reason for it?
The beliefs and “feelings” of the majority do not excuse discrimination against a minority. AS a white middle-class male it is easy to say that you can just go to another store, but you will never encounter the need to do so. No one else should ever need to go to another store either due to the shopkeeper refusing to serve them.
I also find it disingenuous that the folks who argued that “the marketplace” will self correct to remove bigots also argue that those bigots should have their businesses affected for their discrimination.
This is exactly what the Liberals meson when they say to check your privilege.
Insert a “not” into the sentence about businesses being affected, please. The folks who argue for a shop owner’s right to discriminate also feel that the business should not suffer consequences for that discrimination.
These are the folks who can be certain that they will find a store in the next town which will cater to them but once you allow one person to discriminate you allow everyone to do so. However, despite the masturbatory right-wing victimhood fantasies, no business is going to discriminate against the majority and if there are no consequences to turning away the minority, soon there wil be no where for the minority to go to. (And don’t you dare point to a specialty gay-only wedding cake baker in Provincetown as an example of anything other than the exception that proves the rule.)
So baking a wedding cake makes you somehow complicit but not selling them a bed or making them sheets? I’m not buying it. It makes zero sense.
What about the people who rent them the hall for the reception, or the caterers, or the people who print the invitations? Some of them are surely Christian, after all.
So again I say, show where your book or your preacher is demanding this behaviour, or what consequence you suffer as a result. If you can’t come up with one I’m left thinking that really, you’ve just created a convenient individual interpretation, to claim a ‘religious exercise’ exemption to legitimize your own bigotry. And it’s extremely transparent I think.
Aren’t you being a little particleist there? Who says that a subatomic marriage can only take place between one quark and one antiquark?
So, just to check my understanding of the Dope’s position here, when the Klan comes to town for a rally and cross-burning (on private property, strictly legal, with permits and everything), if they went to a black-owned soul food kitchen that does catering and got turned down, they should sue, and win?
Being anti-discrimination is like being pro-free-speech; it doesn’t mean a damn thing if you’re only allowing groups and speech that you personally like.
Nope – being part of a racist hate group is not and should not be a protected category, in my mind. If it was a bunch of white guys and they were turned down for being white, then yes, they should sue and win. But turned down for being in the KKK? No.
That doesn’t make sense to me. There’s a history in the US of certain groups (race/religion/etc.) not being treated the same and not having their rights respected – those groups should be protected by law.
There are some details that may need to be worked out by the court but yes.
A black owned soul food kitchen should not be allowed to discriminate against an individual due to thier membership in a protected class.
Did they refuse the organizations business or did they refuse to serve an individual?
What is the reason for the refusal of service?
What is the protected class in question? White people? Religious belief?
What is the stated reason for refusal?
I still don’t understand how the same act of baking and selling a cake can be compliant or noncompliance with one’s religion depending solely on who the buyer is.
This is so exhausting.
- The market doesn’t work in eradicating discrimination. We’ve seen this already. I was just talking to someone yesterday - next year we’re holding an event at a five star place that even 50 years ago I’d probably only have been allowed in as the help. Laws and rules changed that.
- It’s not OK to discriminate against Christians, either. The rules protect everyone. I can’t, as a baker, refuse to make my butter cream cake with pink roses for your Christian wedding because I don’t like Christians or whatever.
- Women only gyms may be discriminatory but nothing is stopping men from making their own men only gyms, plus they welcome ALL women.
- It is SO easy for members of the white Christian majority to sit on their duff and not care about minority rights. I can’t help but look forward to the time when you are finally a minority, except I don’t know if I could take the whining, if this is the level of whining already.
- I really want this buttercream cake with pink roses now.
I do question where ‘success’ on the part of religious rights would lead. I think anyone who values the elevated status religion receives in this country should be skeptical of long term effects of allowing religion as a defense for bigotry. I believe it would weaken the meaning of religious freedom and give our increasingly secular society reason to remove religious exceptions from law. This also will continually put the court in the position of determining the validity of one’s beliefs, to weigh if they are firmly held. What is to stop someone from claiming belief as a means to gain exemption from laws they’d rather not follow?
I do so love these “if all the conditions of this extreme hypothetical I’'ve just come up with happened to be true, then you’d all be a bunch of hypocrites” statements that appear on this messageboard from time to time. They’re so conducive to constructive dialogue.
Ludicrous extremes are a useful tool for evaluating policy.
Ludicrous examples are a useful tool for recognizing ludicrous positions.
Both of these are true, in the “They laughed at Einstein but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown” kind of way.
I know.
Sometimes the desperate hypotheticals get into “What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?” territory.
(And, for the record, if a restaurant refused to serve KKK members because of their race or association, then I feel that restaurant should be sued. However, if they have a consistently applied “No Hoods” dress code then that is different.)
Diners are a commodity as well, but I’m pretty sure most people would find it outrageous if your local diner put a “white’s only” sign in the door.
There seems to be a misconception that anything that erodes the nearly total hegemony by white conservative Christians is a violation of their “rights”. As evident by their outrage over legislation or other civil action to fight bigotry rather over than the bigotry itself.
The reason you cry “free market” is that you hold a dominant position in the marketplace. Gays and other minorities do not because they are a minority.