I understand the need for accommodating religion, but I don't think it should be limited to religion in the first place. If someone wants me to bake them a cake that says "rape is awesome", I'm hard pressed to find a good reason I shouldn't be able to deny that request... which has nothing to do with religion. I think the whole "religious accommodation" argument should be wrapped up into a broader right to refuse. So while I believe this right to refuse should exist, I also understand the need for anti-discrimination measures. The line between is very murky to me. I've heard it explained that that when people deny service to a gay wedding, they're not discriminating agaisnt gays, they're just exercising their right not to perform specific actions... this logic rests on the idea that you could call participating in a gay wedding to be a "different action" than participating in a straight wedding. If I make generic looking wedding cakes, is it the "same thing" if I sell that generic cake to someone using it for a straight vs gay wedding? What if I had to deliver it to the location of the wedding? Is that the same or different action? What if I had to cut the cake and hand it out to guests? Is that the same, or different action? What if I had to put pictures on the cake? Is that the same or different action? Does it depend on what the pictures are? Is it different if I bake generic pizzas? Donno who would want pizza catered to their wedding, but if they did, can they distinguish between a gay wedding and a straight wedding? To quote scotus, "a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on jews". In other words, even if you are not targeting the person them self, if you target a common action they perform or object they use, this can still be seen as targeting the person. But if I'm refusing to put the words "rape is awesome" on a cake, does that mean I'm discriminating against the person, or the action? What makes these two cases different? The only significant difference I can see is that one burdens a protected class, while the other does not. It seems to me that what we are dealing with is two competing rights that have to be balanced against one another... on the one hand, the right to refuse service to something you may find offensive, like promoting rape. And on the other hand, the right of protected classes not to be burdened and marginalized. Since we're dealing with two competing rights, the question to me is where the balance must be struck... whether there is an absolute right for protected classes to get service, whether there is an absolute right to refuse service, or whether there has to be a measure of "reasonable accommodation" that is allowed. For example, what if I gave you the name and number of another local bakery who would make your cake, is that reasonable accommodation? What if I couldn't find another bakery that would do it, does that mean I should have to? That, to me, seems fairly reasonable. Donno, still trying to wrap my head around the nuances of the arguments. Anybody else have any thoughts on the matter?
A private business should be able to discriminate on any grounds they choose as long as it does not place a significant burden on the individual. eg) If a gas station is the only supplier for 100 miles denying a black person from purchasing fuel could put their life in danger, doctors denying a procedure could result in delayed care resulting in death or injury, publicly traded companies could be invested in by a gay person - can't discriminate, utilities are a public service and usually use taxpayer owned property to opperate, ect... I also feel like the company should be required to post notice of who they do not serve but that may place a significant burden on the business owner so maybe not. It should not be based on religion though, that is unequal treatment based on class. A bakery (locally, small business) should be able to tell you to get the hell out with no legal recourse. You can then however go on social media and let others know how they treated you.
I think we're basically in agreement overall. I have a hard time imagining a small business significantly burdening anybody, provide that business isn't the only one in 100 miles, as you say. That said, there are probably some small businesses that CAN significantly burden you... restaurants, for example. If a restaurant denies service to a [fill in blank] person who was escorting his business clients in for a lunch-meeting, this significantly burdens (in my opinion) the ability of the [fill in blank] person to make a living. I guess the difference here is a restaurant is more "open to the public" than a bakery is, which means you're more likely to be effected by their discrimination on a day to day basis, and it's harder to recover from. That said, if that "fill in the blank" was "smelly person who hasn't showered in months", this significantly burdens the business owner... so the tables are turned. So there are still nuances to be played with here imo, but generally the question of "significant burden" is what it boils down to. So I'm fine with the concept of allowing people great discretion in what they decide to provide service for if there is no significant burden caused by their refusal. On the other hand, if there IS a significant burden caused, then the burden must be weighed in importance against the "degree of protection"... for even if you were the only bakery in town, you can still deny service to someone who wants a cake for their "rape is awesome event"... the person who wants the cake is "significantly burdened", but it's not an "important burden" (i.e. they won't die if they don't get the cake). On the other hand, if you're the only gas station in 100 miles, and you are selling gas to someone who is driving to the "rape is awesome event", you cannot deny them service because the risk to life of the individual is important enough to override. On the other hand, if that prior example was a "jewish event" rather than a "rape is awesome event", then the "Degree of protection" can override. As a protected class, the bakery cannot deny service if there are no other reasonable options because it would significantly burden the protected class of jewish people. There are still questions of what kind of services you must provide, i.e. should you be required to draw the star of david, if you're willing to draw a christian cross? I don't know, that's a nuance I haven't worked through yet...
We don't live in that perfect world. We live in the one where people practice undue discrimination against whole segments of the population. Anti-discrimination laws aim to prevent that practice from becoming so widespread that it makes disfavored minorities into a marginalized underclass. The only way we've found to do that is to have laws that explicitly protect these classes of people from undue discrimination. It is the flip side of laws that seek to create a classification for the purpose of marginalizing an entire group of people.
I also believe there can be reasonable accommodation made in the law. The question of where to draw the lines is a difficult one. I think an business should be able to refuse requests that they write or depict something that is offensive to them, and which could damage the business' reputation if they complied with the request. I don't think anyone should have to perform work that requires them to attend a religious ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs. Beyond that, I think it's much murkier. I don't think that 'speech' should be interpreted too broadly. I disagree, for example, with the idea that providing equal service to someone who is gay should be considered a violation of one's freedom of speech, when the transaction is nothing more than the transfer of goods or the performance of some service that requires no actual statement or depiction implying the business is a supporter of homosexuality. Such overly broad protections would unfairly burden, disadvantage, and marginalize people of same-sex orientation.
I do not own a bakery. If I did, and the hottest woman in the world asked me to make a cake with the words....."Congratulations on the Abortion" I would ask her to take a hike. I would not expect a Muslim to write upon a cake the words "Jesus is the Truth"
You would certainly be well within your rights and no one should expect them to. The government should not infringe on this.
So does that mean that a bakery in a small town with limited option shoudl be required to service both the "rape is awesome" group and the jewish group, or deny service to both? I think the creation of protected classes is more of a necessary evil and pragmatic solution, not really an end unto itself. Kinda like police... we have them because we need them, not because we want them or that they "should" exist. While everyone should be treated equally, there are characteristics that suffer more than their fair share of unequal and disadvantaged treatment. Having been burdened more than others, it seems reasonable that support is given to them.... not to treat them "better" than anybody else, but to make up for the fact that they take a disproportional burden of negative treatment. I find this to be reasonable, provided that it is not construed to treat them better than anybody else... which is probably another fine line filled with nuance.
Yosemite, Zion, or do you have another preferred destination? So does that mean you subscribe to the idea that you should be able to deny service unless it "significantly burdens" the other, or a more "absolute" right to refuse? Like the previous example, what if you owned a gas station that was over a hundred miles from any other. If the hottest woman in the world asked you to fill her tank so she could continue off to an abortion clinic in the next city, should you deny her request? If you were driving to a church event of some type who's slogan was "Jesus is truth", should the Muslim owner of such a gas station be able to deny you? Is the right to deny service absolute, or where would you draw the line for required accommodation for "significant burdens". For example, on the opposite extreme, I think most would agree that emergency service providers (like police, paramedics and ER doctors) should have very little discretion in who they decide to provide their service to. A police man responding to a woman pregnant and giving birth to a child on the side of a highway should not treat that woman or the child differently if he finds out she is married to the other woman in the car than if she was married to a man. I think there are obvious cases where treatment should absolutely be the same. It gets much murkier when you're dealing with "non-essential services". Even then, I'm concerned with the prospect of marginalizing people. Murky murky murky.
let's say I'm the only baker within 1,000 miles (Alaska) I'd sell them a cake and give them a tube of icing to write whatever they want on it both sides are served
That would be reasonable imo. I still don't know why anyone would want to eat something that they pressured someone else to make
I'd say we're in agreement then. shocking On a side note, I still find it funny that someone who would claim a religious reason for not doing something would be more willing to sell the cake intended for a use that violates their religion, provided they just don't have to write the words on it... I would think that if god is against you writing the words on the cake for a sinful purpose, he'd be just as against selling the cake for the sinful purpose.... so I don't understand this line of reasoning. That said, in terms of satisfying the needs for equal accommodation, I would find it to be a reasonable compromise.
The reason this is a murky issue is because gay rights has to do with behavior not skin color. It is pretty cut and dry when people discriminate because of a physical characteristic. Not so much with a behavior. This is what happens when civil rights is based on how people choose to use their genitals.
I think the notion that people only have rights if they are unable to change them and that choices can be taken away without good reason can be just as dangerous. Biological characteristics are not an exuse for taking away the rights of others. Not having a biological characteristic also not an excuse for suppressing the characteristic.
I think the issue is more to do with refusing a service to a specific group that you offer to others. I find it strange that this has only become a bone of contention since SSM started to become a reality, prior to that businesses were more than content to abide by public accommodation laws even to the extent of selling their services to people whose religion was not their own, despite that also being against their beliefs. To me the whole argument has very little to do with being free and able to refuse service it is more about discrimination based on orientation, add to that-that the bible has little to say on SSM and homosexuality .. well that is the bibles that have not been changed to suit the particular religions agenda .. and it is easy to see that the religious argument is one of convenience and not one of conscious. There is a simple answer, if, as a business, you want to pick and choose who you serve then become a private club with a membership, that way you would not be violating any laws.
Up until recently, I never understood why people would say that homosexuals are becoming a special protected class. But then I see these issues play out in the media and in each case there is a point in which a simple transaction makes a drastic transition into a anti-discrimination case.... and that is when one party mentions that they are gay. Allow me to explain... There are 3 ways homosexuals can choose to go about their business: Trying not to stand out Being treated equally to everybody else Being treated as a special protected class The average joe usually goes about his business somewhere between options 1 and 2. Then comes the homosexual. They could order a cake, request a pizza, take a cab just like all the other patrons do on a daily basis. No one needs to be concerned whether or not you are gay to perform a service. Remember this little anecdote: So what changes between a regular transaction and these cases where the media explodes and anti-discrimination lawsuits start raining down? Simple, one of the parties involved plays the gay card. It is at this point that things get tense. Now the service provider is on eggshells, what are they allowed to say so that this transaction does not end up in a anti-discrimination lawsuit? what are they allowed to do so that the transaction does not end up in an anti-discrimination lawsuit? Do they treat the homosexual like everybody else or do they treat them like Her Royal Majesty the Queen? This is the dilemma that homosexuals have created on service providers. Are they trying not to stand out? Clearly not, they announce that they are homosexuals when no one asked them or was concerned. Once that tid-bit is out in the open and known... it's like walking through a business place in god mode. Do they want to be treated equally like everybody else? Nope, that couldn't be it either. Ask the cabbie that was fined $15,000 based on his response to the lesbians kissing. Nevermind that he says he would have done the same thing if it was a heterosexual couple, once the lesbians played the homosexual card it was all over for the cabbie before it even begun. Do they want to be treated as a special protected class? This is the only remaining logical avenue that has been impressed upon the public. And not just any special class.... it needs to be a super special protected class. Ask the school that had to cough up $70,000 to a transgender kid because they didn't have the facilities in place for them. Never mind that the school had no prior reason to have those facilities in the first place. And never mind that the kid even got special treatment by being allowed to use the staff bathroom. But no, that wasn't enough.... go ahead, suck $70,000 out of the school district budget. Money that could have gone into the education of how many kids now goes into the coffers of one transgender kid. This is the reality that people must realize. This is the climate that business people operate under. Once the gay card is played, all bets are off... they are not just another person that you see thousands of everyday, they are gay Be on your P's and Q's else you might find an anti-discrimination lawsuit up your a$$
There have been over 10,000 Same Sex Marriages. Very few law suits so obviously the vast majority of gay people are working with businesses that support gay marriage. There have been numerous hetrosexual couples who have sued over refusal of service over the years. The media has blown this out of proportion to make it appear as if all gays are running around trying to force businesses to bake them cakes. I work with numerous gay business owners - they are going about their business as any successful business does. Will there be some lawsuits? Of course. But hetrosexual people sue businesses all the time. Some people like confrontation. Some people make it a business. Doesn't matter what sexual orientation they have.
You seem to be the alternate login for Progressive Patriot who also posts on these topics. Both of you have this obsession with same sex marriage. Re-read my posts, use the search function even and see if I even mention the word marriage once in there. Marriage has no bearing on the point I am trying to bring across when it comes down to a service provider and a homosexual person These are the issues that are being played out in the media This is the narrative that is being portrayed by the gay community This is the route that people in the gay community take to have their way Why not play fair? Play on the same level as everybody else that is not gay Why, at even the slightest hint of resistance do homosexuals play the gay card? Crying discrimination from sea to shining sea. Numerous people sue for refusal of service you say Heterosexuals, blacks, muslims, gun-lovers.... never mind the grouping you find yourself into... you are first and foremost a human being, just like everybody else. Why don't gays sue on the same playing field as everybody else? They run to homosexual discrimination lawsuits before even trying to work out differences like rational human beings Of course the media blows these things out of proportion. But it is the homosexual person that is putting it to the media in the first place; its almost as if they want it to get out of hand. In the same breath, nowhere in your post do you show any inkling of sympathy for the person that has to payout for these ridiculous lawsuits.... I'm inclined to believe you silently support these type of cases. I'm asking for a level playing field. You give the impression that homosexuals want it too, but you'll never be the one to point out that they're sitting atop a hill
