Why do gay people want the state to force bigots to accept their money?

[CatoMinor]

I understand and agree that people refusing service on account of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc are bigots but what I do not get is why their are lawsuits trying to force the bigots to take gay people's money. I personally would rather not do business with those store owners.

[Cassius]

Well, there's more than a little bit of schadenfreude going on.

[bedstuy]

As far as I know, these cases occur in the case of a same-sex marriage.  I'm fairly certain that the plaintiff doesn't just postpone their marriage ceremony and then hire an angry, homophobic person who they just fought with in Court.  That would be ridiculous, yes.

I think the posture of these cases is that the gay person is denied service, reports the incident to the municipal human rights commission and then hires someone else.  The result is not that the business is forced to bake that person a homosexual cake.  If the business loses, I assume they receive some type of fine and/or the ALJ imposes an injunction to cease discrimination.

[Lief 🗽]

I understand and agree that people refusing service on account of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc are bigots but what I do not get is why their are lawsuits trying to force the bigots to take gay people's money. I personally would rather not do business with those store owners.

Because they want to be treated like equal citizens, with the same access to public businesses and accommodations as everyone else. They don't want constant reminders of their second-classedness every time they attempt to go somewhere owned by a bigot.

[AggregateDemand]

I understand and agree that people refusing service on account of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc are bigots but what I do not get is why their are lawsuits trying to force the bigots to take gay people's money. I personally would rather not do business with those store owners.

It's worse. The same laws and legal precedents would also force gay business owners to serve bigots and homophobes.

People shouldn't have these petty problems, but they do. Using specific performance as a billy club to encourage good behavior is a waste of time.

[bedstuy]

It's worse. The same laws and legal precedents would also force gay business owners to serve bigots and homophobes.

No, they won't.  That's totally unrealistic in a practical sense and not the law.

People shouldn't have these petty problems, but they do. Using specific performance as a billy club to encourage good behavior is a waste of time.

As I pointed out, when is that actually happening?  It doesn't make sense to get your knickers in a knot about something that has happened zero times.

[AggregateDemand]

As I pointed out, when is that actually happening?  It doesn't make sense to get your knickers in a knot about something that has happened zero times.

The Colorado baker was ordered to bake a cake for the gay wedding.

[bedstuy]

As I pointed out, when is that actually happening?  It doesn't make sense to get your knickers in a knot about something that has happened zero times.

The Colorado baker was ordered to bake a cake for the gay wedding.

Here's the order.  There's no specific performance, they just have to "cease and desist from discriminating."

[OkThen]

I understand and agree that people refusing service on account of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc are bigots but what I do not get is why their are lawsuits trying to force the bigots to take gay people's money. I personally would rather not do business with those store owners.

Because it's saying that what they are doing is ok/fine. And guess what? It's not. For me personally as a gay person, would I spend money at such a place? No way. But should they have the right to NOT ALLOW me to because of their prejudice? HECK no.

[AggregateDemand]

Here's the order.  There's no specific performance, they just have to "cease and desist from discriminating."

Anti-discrimination is de facto specific performance, when specific performance doesn't apply

[bedstuy]

Here's the order.  There's no specific performance, they just have to "cease and desist from discriminating."

Anti-discrimination is de facto specific performance, when specific performance doesn't apply

Well, we could just call it an injunction because that's what it is.

[Peter the Lefty]

Well, there's more than a little bit of schadenfreude going on.

Wanting not to be discriminated against for one's sexual orientation is not schadenfreude.  Just stop.