Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

[Idaho Conservative]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

[IceAgeComing]

Its always been interesting to me that the people who feel the need to moralise about ECONOMIC FREEDOM (which is a nonsense term to describe liberal economics anyway, but I won't get started on that) and talk about how discrimination isn't that bad and you can go elsewhere to get services always tend to be people that, eh, don't really ever face discrimination so don't know the consequences of it.  Its incredibly easy to moralise about something which you never really have to suffer...

One thing that was brought up earlier in the thread was the hotel thing; since that actually was a relatively big thing five years or so ago when a B&B owner basically refused to let a couple that he'd sold a room to stay there because he didn't approve of two men sleeping together.  Their legal defence was basically that it was because they disapproved of unmarried couples (which I think may have included civil partnerships because this was before marriage equality) sharing a double room together, but the court elected to rule against them mostly because they admitted to never refusing a straight couple a room on that basis (probably because they didn't ask the question), which seriously hurt that argument.  The laws here are different (although Freedom of Religion is protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act; precedent is that when a business or person is providing services to people and that service isn't exempt under the Equality Act (which is basically things like religious ministers or those in spiritual positions, hiring actors or models for a role where you need a specific type of person, where you might have certain cultural sensitivities to meet such as hiring only men to interview male survivors of domestic violence or on a hotline for men currently experiencing domestic violence and vice versa, very sensible things) then you have to meet the provisions of the equality act, which ban discrimination based on gender, race, disability sexual orientation, gender identity and age.  The US naturally does not have Federal anti-discrimination laws, and even though Colorado does have state laws on the subject they are on sketchier ground because the precedent allows for a much wider definition of the Freedom of Religion to include acts done through a business since that's seen as an extension of the person rather than a separate legal entity.  I mean in my eyes the couple are on the right side of this; but its certainly not a case that they're sadly guaranteed to win...

[ProudModerate2]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

[Santander]

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

Some people choose a gay lifestyle to troll or to rebel against their parents.

[Idaho Conservative]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

The gay couple in the masterpiece case is so loving that they took the baker all the way to the courthouse after they didn't get their cake.  My solution is simple, be a man and go to a different store.
 Still, you can't formulate persuasive or logical arguments, just belief statements of identity politics and vague discussion of love and hate.  In your name you call yourself a moderate but moderates generally don't debate by crying "racist."  Are you from the SF Bay area?  Only there would you be considered a moderate.

[Kamala]

The problem most people aren't getting about this case is that this isn't just about cakes - having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent. Sure, it's cakes today. But what if every business owner decides to stop serving/catering to LGBT?

Laws are normative, they apply to everyone. Thus, they must not just work "for the current situation" where just one specific baker refuses to make a cake. They must work in a theoretical situation as well - what if every baker in a town refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they disagree with it? What if every baker refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple's wedding because they claim their religion disapproves of it? What if every bake refused to bake a cake for a wedding between a man and a divorced woman? Even if these scenarios don't exist in real life, the law put in place must be able to provide a solution in them.

[Alabama_Indy10]

How dare someone make a cake of hate!

[Idaho Conservative]

Its always been interesting to me that the people who feel the need to moralise about ECONOMIC FREEDOM (which is a nonsense term to describe liberal economics anyway, but I won't get started on that) and talk about how discrimination isn't that bad and you can go elsewhere to get services always tend to be people that, eh, don't really ever face discrimination so don't know the consequences of it.  Its incredibly easy to moralise about something which you never really have to suffer...

One thing that was brought up earlier in the thread was the hotel thing; since that actually was a relatively big thing five years or so ago when a B&B owner basically refused to let a couple that he'd sold a room to stay there because he didn't approve of two men sleeping together.  Their legal defence was basically that it was because they disapproved of unmarried couples (which I think may have included civil partnerships because this was before marriage equality) sharing a double room together, but the court elected to rule against them mostly because they admitted to never refusing a straight couple a room on that basis (probably because they didn't ask the question), which seriously hurt that argument.  The laws here are different (although Freedom of Religion is protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act; precedent is that when a business or person is providing services to people and that service isn't exempt under the Equality Act (which is basically things like religious ministers or those in spiritual positions, hiring actors or models for a role where you need a specific type of person, where you might have certain cultural sensitivities to meet such as hiring only men to interview male survivors of domestic violence or on a hotline for men currently experiencing domestic violence and vice versa, very sensible things) then you have to meet the provisions of the equality act, which ban discrimination based on gender, race, disability sexual orientation, gender identity and age.  The US naturally does not have Federal anti-discrimination laws, and even though Colorado does have state laws on the subject they are on sketchier ground because the precedent allows for a much wider definition of the Freedom of Religion to include acts done through a business since that's seen as an extension of the person rather than a separate legal entity.  I mean in my eyes the couple are on the right side of this; but its certainly not a case that they're sadly guaranteed to win...

Actually the US does have non discrimination laws (unfortunately) but they don't apply to sexual orientation on a national level.   You mention that the morality of private property is not valid but what other moral issue is there here?  Yes there can be a moral debate whether private businesses should service all but to me it is immoral to force them to do so.  Also have a moral authority on this subject because I own property and would not want to be force do anything with my property that goes against my morals.   You have a right to one persons labor, and that person is you.   I guess in Belgium they have different world views on these issues, especially considering anti discrimination laws frequently pass unopposed in other countries but in America they always have many opponents like me.   I fail to understand these world views, especially in European countries which profess to be very live and let live and socially liberal, except when it comes to economic freedom and property rights.

[Idaho Conservative]

The problem most people aren't getting about this case is that this isn't just about cakes - having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent. Sure, it's cakes today. But what if every business owner decides to stop serving/catering to LGBT?

Laws are normative, they apply to everyone. Thus, they must not just work "for the current situation" where just one specific baker refuses to make a cake. They must work in a theoretical situation as well - what if every baker in a town refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they disagree with it? What if every baker refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple's wedding because they claim their religion disapproves of it? What if every bake refused to bake a cake for a wedding between a man and a divorced woman? Even if these scenarios don't exist in real life, the law put in place must be able to provide a solution in them.

"having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent" That's the idea.  It is good to have such rulings a precedent because it will have far reaching effects.  My dream Is this sets off a set of dominoes which eventually can strike down Title II of the Civil Rights Act and numerous state and local ordinances.  One this happens, there will be no more religious freedom issues with small businesses.  At least if I were on the court, I would rule that way.

[Kamala]

"having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent" That's the idea.  It is good to have such rulings a precedent because it will have far reaching effects.  My dream Is this sets off a set of dominoes which eventually can strike down Title II of the Civil Rights Act and numerous state and local ordinances.  One this happens, there will be no more religious freedom issues with small businesses.  At least if I were on the court, I would rule that way.

Thank God you're not.

[ProudModerate2]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

The gay couple in the masterpiece case is so loving that they took the baker all the way to the courthouse after they didn't get their cake.  My solution is simple, be a man and go to a different store.
 Still, you can't formulate persuasive or logical arguments, just belief statements of identity politics and vague discussion of love and hate.  In your name you call yourself a moderate but moderates generally don't debate by crying "racist."  Are you from the SF Bay area?  Only there would you be considered a moderate.

You are ignorant. Just because you take someone to court does not mean you "hate" the other party. It's just that an injustice has been committed, and the parties seek the courts to find resolution.
Sometimes, a debate comes down to simple issues, like love and hate. Of course you cant except that, because you have such a sh**tty life full of hatred, that it hurts you just to hear the word "love." I mean listen to yourself .... you are so hung-up on the definition of a "moderate" and then trying to find some obtuse link to it with "the SF Bay area." Really ?
LOL. I just laugh at people like you.

[Idaho Conservative]

"having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent" That's the idea.  It is good to have such rulings a precedent because it will have far reaching effects.  My dream Is this sets off a set of dominoes which eventually can strike down Title II of the Civil Rights Act and numerous state and local ordinances.  One this happens, there will be no more religious freedom issues with small businesses.  At least if I were on the court, I would rule that way.

Thank God you're not.

same to you

[Idaho Conservative]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

The gay couple in the masterpiece case is so loving that they took the baker all the way to the courthouse after they didn't get their cake.  My solution is simple, be a man and go to a different store.
 Still, you can't formulate persuasive or logical arguments, just belief statements of identity politics and vague discussion of love and hate.  In your name you call yourself a moderate but moderates generally don't debate by crying "racist."  Are you from the SF Bay area?  Only there would you be considered a moderate.

You are ignorant. Just because you take someone to court does not mean you "hate" the other party. It's just that an injustice has been committed, and the parties seek the courts to find resolution.
Sometimes, a debate comes down to simple issues, like love and hate. Of course you cant except that, because you have such a sh**tty life full of hatred, that it hurts you just to hear the word "love." I mean listen to yourself .... you are so hung-up on the definition of a "moderate" and then trying to find some obtuse link to it with "the SF Bay area." Really ?
LOL. I just laugh at people like you.

Uhhh.... still no logical arguments about why a business should or shouldn't be forced to participate in a gay wedding.  I never said the gay couple hated the Christian baker (but get real. they absolutely do)  No injustice was committed except for that Colorado law that was passed that made this a legal issue at all. No, I don't laugh back at you because I realize people like you vote for people that make laws that affect ME.  Your state does send some great people to congress like Doug LaMalfa, Tom McClintock, and Dana Rohrabacher though.   Doesn't make up for Kamala Harris and Pelosi........  At least you reverting to profanity and name calling shows that I am winning the argument and you know it.  Roasted.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The problem most people aren't getting about this case is that this isn't just about cakes - having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent. Sure, it's cakes today. But what if every business owner decides to stop serving/catering to LGBT?

This business doesn't refuse to cater to people who are LGBT, they refuse to bake a cake for a wedding involving people of the same gender.  I'm sure they would bake a birthday cake for a gay person.

Almost every major corporation is very liberal on sexual issues.  In fact, it is business that is responsible for legalizing SSM as all the corporate donations allowed supporters to massively outspend opponents.  It is business that freaks out whenever a religious liberty law is proposed.  That's the reason most Republican politicians have surrendered on social issues.  America is moving rapidly to the left on social issues, but somehow, social liberals think that they are the ones who "fight the power" to quote an old song.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

Not getting your preferred cake of choice =/= Jim Crow.

Sigh... Are you done whacking that straw man? I'm saying in the bolded parts that it can and (given U.S. history) will get to that point in certain places because of "religious liberty;" one of the same reasons that were used to push forward Jim Crow laws. If you don't get that, then there's no breaking through. You are attempting to rationalize yourself out of the point.

There are large parts of the U.S. today where there is no legal recourse for being refused the sale of a wedding cake because who is being wed, yet I have yet to hear of any case where people who wanted a wedding cake were unable to obtain one from a different source than the one they'd originally intended to get it from.  The idea that we're in any danger of Him Crow laws where wedding cake bakers have to have separate sales counters for straight and gay couples or similar Jim Crow-esque legislation is ludicrous in the extreme.

The reason for focusing on wedding cakes isn't because it's a serious problem, but because it's a photogenic yet minor aspect of a larger problem, much like the why the WWF uses a panda for a logo because it's cute and cuddly instead of some icky creature which would cause a greater impact on the world's ecology if it were lost from the wild.

[Idaho Conservative]

Do you think they should be forced to provide that cake?

[IceAgeComing]

I mean my opinion in this is that if there is no equivalent service within a practical distance then there definitely ought to be some protections - since then being refused service is a real barrier for that person (in practice, that would be the primary reason why you'd have these laws anyway).  I mean the ruddy cake isn't the important part of this; there are other services that are a lot more important (like protection from housing discrimination, and other similarly serious things) and if a precedent applies to them then they apply for all.

There's also another way of looking at it that's probably a bit... unique - there's the old Marxist distinction of personal and private property (the main difference between the two is that the former is personal possessions; the latter are things that are more productive in nature, generally also involving  a relationship between worker and owner as well)  and it could be argued that the rights that one has for the former are different to those that you have for the latter - i.e. for personal property a person has an absolute right to deny any use of that to anyone for any reason, but as soon as you're talking about more productive aims there are other responsibilities that one has.  I mean I don't think this exactly works for the case of the baker (unless bakeries now count as the means of production, which I support they technically are!) and its not something that I really sign up for: but I think that the distinction between personal and private property is something to consider when you think about issues like this...

Random question that's a little off topic but I believe its important to be asked since I think its a logical extension of your argument: do you think that trans people have a legal right to have a gender transition recognised by the state?  After all; ones body is the most personal of property that one has, and considering your position that a person has the absolute right to do with their property what they wish, the logical extension is that you support that, right?

[tschandler]

It's interesting how people who have never actually ran a business view this issue.  If someone has a verbal/written contract to bake a cake it would be bad business to refuse to make it after agreeing to make it.  But you can't force a business to perform a service, that is a dangerous precedence.  Ideally yes we should all be "cold capitalists" to the point we should make a cake for anyone that is willing to pay.  But if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you why would you patronize their business?  The only reason you would use the legal system in this case would be to force your world view on others.  A rational adult would simply go to another baker.  After all, businesses refuse jobs for a multitude of reasons, anyone who has been a contractor knows that. 

[Tintrlvr]

It's interesting how people who have never actually ran a business view this issue.  If someone has a verbal/written contract to bake a cake it would be bad business to refuse to make it after agreeing to make it.  But you can't force a business to perform a service, that is a dangerous precedence.  Ideally yes we should all be "cold capitalists" to the point we should make a cake for anyone that is willing to pay.  But if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you why would you patronize their business?  The only reason you would use the legal system in this case would be to force your world view on others.  A rational adult would simply go to another baker.  After all, businesses refuse jobs for a multitude of reasons, anyone who has been a contractor knows that.  

How about all of those rational black people who could have just eaten at another lunch counter?

Business refuse jobs for a wide variety of reasons. We proscribe them from refusing jobs for a small handful of reasons related to discrimination against protected classes, including race, sex and sexual orientation, among others. It's not a big ask for the government to tell you not to be a bigot.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's interesting how people who have never actually ran a business view this issue.  If someone has a verbal/written contract to bake a cake it would be bad business to refuse to make it after agreeing to make it.  But you can't force a business to perform a service, that is a dangerous precedence.  Ideally yes we should all be "cold capitalists" to the point we should make a cake for anyone that is willing to pay.  But if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you why would you patronize their business?  The only reason you would use the legal system in this case would be to force your world view on others.  A rational adult would simply go to another baker.  After all, businesses refuse jobs for a multitude of reasons, anyone who has been a contractor knows that.  

How about all of those rational black people who could have just eaten at another lunch counter?

And that precisely is the difference that justified the Civil Rights Act of 1965's interference with private actions. Bigotry was so pervasive in some areas of this country that it made a material difference in the ability of some people to work, travel, and shop. I have yet to hear of a single one of these wedding cake cases in which the couple had difficulty in obtaining one from a different source.

[Tintrlvr]

It's interesting how people who have never actually ran a business view this issue.  If someone has a verbal/written contract to bake a cake it would be bad business to refuse to make it after agreeing to make it.  But you can't force a business to perform a service, that is a dangerous precedence.  Ideally yes we should all be "cold capitalists" to the point we should make a cake for anyone that is willing to pay.  But if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you why would you patronize their business?  The only reason you would use the legal system in this case would be to force your world view on others.  A rational adult would simply go to another baker.  After all, businesses refuse jobs for a multitude of reasons, anyone who has been a contractor knows that.  

How about all of those rational black people who could have just eaten at another lunch counter?

And that precisely is the difference that justified the Civil Rights Act of 1965's interference with private actions. Bigotry was so pervasive in some areas of this country that it made a material difference in the ability of some people to work, travel, and shop. I have yet to hear of a single one of these wedding cake cases in which the couple had difficulty in obtaining one from a different source.

But that wasn't the rationale used at the time (or in the courts). Instead, they pointed to the offense to the dignity of black people who might have been able to (or preferred) to patronize a black-friendly lunch counter but were being pushed out of a service provided to others.

And this is consistent with how we treat such things today; surely today, black people are not refused service at most lunch counters (or bake shops), yet it would still be clearly illegal to refuse them service at one.

[Badger]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Not being served in a public business because of who you are and the owners and communities antipathy towards your type, be at a cake shop, restaurant counter, bus station, or other Private Business, yes is the exact definition of Jim Crow.

If some 1962 Bakery in Mississippi told a young black couple waiting to get married to get out of there store cuz they don't serve ns oh, you wouldn't consider that Jim Crow?

[Santander]

Don't be ridiculous. There was no such thing as racism until Trump started running for President.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's interesting how people who have never actually ran a business view this issue.  If someone has a verbal/written contract to bake a cake it would be bad business to refuse to make it after agreeing to make it.  But you can't force a business to perform a service, that is a dangerous precedence.  Ideally yes we should all be "cold capitalists" to the point we should make a cake for anyone that is willing to pay.  But if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you why would you patronize their business?  The only reason you would use the legal system in this case would be to force your world view on others.  A rational adult would simply go to another baker.  After all, businesses refuse jobs for a multitude of reasons, anyone who has been a contractor knows that.  

How about all of those rational black people who could have just eaten at another lunch counter?

And that precisely is the difference that justified the Civil Rights Act of 1965's interference with private actions. Bigotry was so pervasive in some areas of this country that it made a material difference in the ability of some people to work, travel, and shop. I have yet to hear of a single one of these wedding cake cases in which the couple had difficulty in obtaining one from a different source.

But that wasn't the rationale used at the time (or in the courts). Instead, they pointed to the offense to the dignity of black people who might have been able to (or preferred) to patronize a black-friendly lunch counter but were being pushed out of a service provided to others.

And this is consistent with how we treat such things today; surely today, black people are not refused service at most lunch counters (or bake shops), yet it would still be clearly illegal to refuse them service at one.

The CRA is on the books, and while personally I doubt that there would be much refusal of public accommodation to blacks (ethnic groups perceived as foreign would be far likelier to be subject to refusal), a conservative approach to the law argues in favor of not changing it, especially since there are other parts of the CRA that could easily be justified even with my hands-off approach to what the law should be.

There's also the separate matter that I don't consider every form of commerce to fall under the umbrella of "public accommodation". Selling custom-made baked goods is not providing a public accommodation.