Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?

[catographer]

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

thank goodness this isn't the current law. what you're describing is law pre-1964 civil rights act. we agreed as a country in 1964 that we should not allow people to discriminate in businesses open to the public... if you wanna turn back the clock great but i'll work my butt off making sure that that never happens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

thank goodness this isn't the current law. what you're describing is law pre-1964 civil rights act. we agreed as a country in 1964 that we should not allow people to discriminate in businesses open to the public... if you wanna turn back the clock great but i'll work my butt off making sure that that never happens.

Except that's not the law and never has been nationwide.  Title II covers a specific class of businesses known as "public accommodations" which does not include all retail establishments and would include a bakery only if allowed on-premise consumption of its goods.  Many States do have more expansive laws, but those are State laws, not Federal ones.

Incidentally, whether Title VII (employment discrimination) applies to LGBT discrimination is a matter of unsettled law at present as different circuits have reached different conclusions, so it's probably headed to SCOTUS for resolution, tho with the current court, I think they'll rule Congress could expand the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation, but it hasn't chosen to do so, so it doesn't.

[catographer]

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

thank goodness this isn't the current law. what you're describing is law pre-1964 civil rights act. we agreed as a country in 1964 that we should not allow people to discriminate in businesses open to the public... if you wanna turn back the clock great but i'll work my butt off making sure that that never happens.

Except that's not the law and never has been nationwide.  Title II covers a specific class of businesses known as "public accommodations" which does not include all retail establishments and would include a bakery only if allowed on-premise consumption of its goods.  Many States do have more expansive laws, but those are State laws, not Federal ones.

Incidentally, whether Title VII (employment discrimination) applies to LGBT discrimination is a matter of unsettled law at present as different circuits have reached different conclusions, so it's probably headed to SCOTUS for resolution, tho with the current court, I think they'll rule Congress could expand the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation, but it hasn't chosen to do so, so it doesn't.

you're right about how the federal CRA 1964's doesnt cover LGBT discrimination. but as for the federal law definition of public accomodation... idk if you're correct. it seems on the face of the text from CRA 1964 that you'd be right, but i didnt find anything agreeing with you necessarily... could u help me find some case examples where a bakery or something similar wasnt found to be a PA under the federal CRA? the only thing i found is a quote from FindLaw.Com (idk how reliable they are):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

even tho a bakery technically doesnt serve food "on the premises," i find it a bit incredulous that a bakery that denied service to black people (for example) would not be found in violation of the law. maybe my confusion stems from the near universal existence of additional state laws that expand the definition of PA.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do know that back in the day, cases where the defendants tried to claim that their drive-in or drive-thru restaurants didn't meet the standard of being a "public accommodation" under Title II actually managed to succeed at the trial level before being rightly overruled at the appellate.  I imagine the standard would be if the bakery in question sells its goods in quantities a single person could reasonably be expected to use at a single sitting.  I.e., if they sold individual cupcakes, they'd be covered by Title II but if they only sold them by the dozen they might not be, and if they only sold them in multiples of 48 they'd be even likelier to not be considered a public accommodation under Title II.

I also imagine the courts would take a dim view of a bakery that formerly sold cupcakes individually and them started only selling them in quantity at the same time they started trying to discriminate and/or a discrimination claim was raised against them.

In any case, I think it's fairly safe to say that a hardware store would not be covered under Title II, so Mr. Cunningham would be within his rights to tell Chachi to take a hike and stop coming into his store even if he wasn't trying to see Joanie.