Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 14, 2019, 04:53:30 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Austere Religious Scholar, Apocrypha)
  Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding? (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?
#1yes  
#2no  
#3no, and I see what you're trying to do here and it's not going to work  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 188

Author Topic: Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?  (Read 12917 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,451
United States


P
WWW
« on: April 16, 2016, 07:57:53 pm »

Define "public service". Granted, it certainly is upsetting to be told by a bigot that they won't bake your wedding cake, but even if every baker within 100 miles refuses, denying people equal access to wedding cakes only rises to the level of insult and not to the level of denying people what they need to function. Wedding cakes are not jobs and they are not places to live.  They are not a necessary part of anything essential such as the ability to move freely from place to place or the ability to be safe in one's own person. (Tho they may serve as a marker of where that ability may be in danger.)

Basically, I don't acknowledge the existence of a right to be not insulted, and I don't see failure to bake custom wedding cakes as rising beyond the level of an insult.  (Now if a baker had ready-made generic wedding cakes for sale, that would be different, because at that point it is a good rather than a service, and goods don't imply personal involvement.)
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,451
United States


P
WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2018, 10:33:07 pm »

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.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37,451
United States


P
WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2018, 09:46:01 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC