Supreme Court Sides with baker who turned away gay couple

[Kung Wu]

When a drunk man is seated at your restaurant (he came into the establishment already drunk, you didn't serve him any liquor) and becomes very loud and starts saying obnoxious things about other patrons (to the point where some of the patrons are quietly asking for their check) -- does management have the right to ask him to leave?

[Kung Wu]

Yeah, I'm advocating an approach where any time you are engaged in a commercial activity in any capacity--whether as a business owner under any legal structure, or as an employee-agent--you have a tougher road to claim a hypothetical religious exception to a hypothetical gay protected class.

So to use your analogies, any caterer using any entity structure, McDonald's, or the employees of McDonald's, all do not necessarily have the same rights of refusal as an individual. A person who is asked to lend their car--as long as they are not engaged in the business of lending cars for a profit--can refuse the request for any reason.

I realize this favors consumers of a protected class. But I think that's the point of a protected class.

Oh boy, that's the ***** in all of this, isn't it? I don't have a great answer to that. Obviously, the courts in hindsight can decide the purpose. A contract could define a purpose, but do we really want a society where we have to sign a contract just to buy a wedding cake?

You're good at giving me plenty to mentally chew on.

Great point. As I said in another post, if physical presence is required I could see that as being a legitimate concern. But where do we draw the line? Could a third party beverage distributor refuse service to a gay wedding reception (assuming they did not provide bartenders)? Seems kind of ridiculous to me. But an event planner objecting to doing a gay wedding reception because he/she is required to be at the celebration as part of providing his service is not as ridiculous.

Wait, why are you discriminating against atheists that take a stance that homosexuality is not natural based on laws of nature? Only religious entities are capable of taking issue with homosexuality?

[Kung Wu]

Some businesses promote that they are a "Christian" business. That, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean they would refuse service to anyone, but that they are trying to attract business of other Christians. How do you all stand with those who target such businesses, forcing them into compromising positions with their faith or try to legally put them out of business if they won't compromise their faith.

Screw them, kick 'em out of the building!

Also, screw the "Christians" that come into the building with signs calling our military "f*gs". Kick them out too!

We don't need laws saying people have rights to patronize a business. The businessman is taking a large risk and employing people. He wants to serve as many people as possible -- let him. If he feels he has to turn people away, that's his right (whether he is right or wrong). Every bad decision he makes is an opportunity for someone else to step up and compete.

Problem solved.

[ShockTalk]

You may have to wait for responses. It appears that other than me, the rest have checked out for now. I will want to check this thread out when they get back.

[wufan]

When a drunk man is seated at your restaurant (he came into the establishment already drunk, you didn't serve him any liquor) and becomes very loud and starts saying obnoxious things about other patrons (to the point where some of the patrons are quietly asking for their check) -- does management have the right to ask him to leave?

Yes.

[wufan]

I think it's easy to frame it as "compelled labor." Especially when the purpose of the argument is to paint the request in a negative light. But isn't the very purpose of laws to compel one to behave in a certain way? At a dark time in our history, some businesses were allowed to refuse service to African Americans--until we compelled them to. I would hope all of us agree that was the right thing to do. Some people used religion as the basis of their racism, and again I would hope all of us agree that was a distortion of the Christian faith. In a similar way, many people use their religious faith to discriminate against gay people--but one can use the same Bible to advocate for fair and equal treatment in all situations. I think that's @jdshock's concern in all of this--using government to determine which religious beliefs are appropriate. Race issues are easier than this--this is an incredibly tough issue and we're having a fantastic debate here on how to handle it.

Why do you disagree on the definition of art? I'm just curious--perhaps I'm not taking something into consideration.

I appreciate your point on the reception being part of the celebration. I guess my hang up is only forcing someone to participate in the actual act of a gay marriage. Participating in the celebration of the act is a valid concern, though. And it's obviously the baker's. If indeed his presence was requested/required as ShockTalk alluded to, then in my view his case gets substantially stronger.

On compelled labor and laws:

In a country founded on the sovereignty of the individual, laws should compel you NOT to do something, rather than forcing you to do something. Don’t murder, don’t steal, etc. Certain exceptions are granted based on the States need to defend/support these freedoms, for instance taxation and conscription.

The covil rights act act was an overturning of Jim Crow which required you to maintain separate facilities for different races, so there was no new compulsion, just different compulsion. Even so, I believe this to be a necessary (or at least expedient) solution due to the circumstances of the time.

On art:

I would describe art as anything that was designed and created with an aesthetic purpose. A cake would certainly fall into this category as would many manufactured goods (as well as hair design, photography, chocolate fountains, and ice sculptures). The long term durability of art is of little consequence. For instance, Rihana recently dismissed one of her male dancers as he was white and she was going for an all black aesthetic. Surely dance is an art? One concern here is that aesthetics are ridiculously subjective and having the gov define them is probably a bad idea.

Where I could most easily compromise is in the possibility that an already created and priced item...perhaps you must sell these to anyone? I don’t like this for many reasons, but it’s reasonable if people are worried about discrimination.

[Kung Wu]

Yes.

Obvious. What if it's a she? And she is black? And homosexual? Still no problem, right? I mean, you are not kicking her our for any of the race or sexual identification reasons, right?

[wufan]

Obvious. What if it's a she? And she is black? And homosexual? Still no problem, right? I mean, you are not kicking her our for any of the race or sexual identification reasons, right?

That is the problem with anti-discrimination laws. Now the gov has to come in and determine intent. The reverse is also true. The owner could be a bigot that just hates women/blacks/homosexuals and is using a minor incident as an excuse to discriminate. I think the gov should stay out of transactions that occur within a single state’s boundaries. This is for a business or individual. Didn’t SCOTUS decide that businesses are people too anyhow?

[WuDrWu]

Kung Wu makes the point (I think) that I wanted to make. The problem isn't any longer discrimination by the business against these so called protected groups. The problems far more lie with the protected groups themselves. I routinely have customers that use my product in ways that are unintended. The customer lies to me then causes damage to the product I sell and also to other customers. I don't care who they are or how they look. But if they're a protected class, then it's immediately all about discrimination.....And I mean 95% of the time. At least.

The problem may have once been, but it is no longer. The vast responsibility of the problem rests with the "protected classes" because people continue to tell them they get special rights and privileges. Making more laws is absolutely the wrong thing to do. And I'm absolutely convinced that's exactly what the do nothing thinkers and talkers in this country are still going to do.

[Kung Wu]

That is the problem with anti-discrimination laws. Now the gov has to come in and determine intent. The reverse is also true. The owner could be a bigot that just hates women/blacks/homosexuals and is using a minor incident as an excuse to discriminate. I think the gov should stay out of transactions that occur within a single state’s boundaries. This is for a business or individual. Didn’t SCOTUS decide that businesses are people too anyhow?

The cost to defend the case is likely enough to shut the doors of the restaurant, regardless of whether the owner is likely to win.

[WuDrWu]

I refer back to a story I told long ago. I had a customer, who's activities (some illegal, most unpleasant, selfish and detrimental to all other customers) cost my company over $1000 in one day. When I informed him I no longer wanted him as a customer, he threatened bodily harm and directly stated that I better not ever run into him on the street. Shortly thereafter I received a call from the local NAACP chapter who, in a thinly veiled threat, stated that I needed to accommodate his friend, otherwise it would be really bad press for my company when the newspaper and local news outlets heard that my company was racist. Fortunately he didn't follow through on his threat or I likely would have been out of business.

Variations of this scenario happen monthly at a small business.....I can't imagine what it's like at a larger one. And basically none of it is our fault, and precisely none of it has to do with denying anyone anything. These are bad people doing damage to fair businesses. Then doubling down with threats of intimidation and lawsuits.

The problems are NOT with picky bakers. Too many don't get that.

[wufan]

I don’t think free market was a solution to racism. Free market wins out against racism. Racism still exists, but now the racists are poor. It also doesn’t favor the majority. It ONLY favors economics, and if you want to win that game, best not discriminate on any grounds other than merit.

Commented on wrong post. Oh well.

[jdshock]

False accusations definitely seem like a growing problem, but they are not caused by the laws that protect people. They are caused by a legal system that offers very little downside to bringing a suit like this.

These cases tend to be very easy to win if you weren't intending to discriminate. Yes the legal costs are still a problem, but that is a problem with our legal system. We could very easily say the loser has to pay the other side's attorney fees.

As a reminder, the baker has admitted he did not serve them because they were gay. This is not a case that is at all relevant to false accusations. Even if the court had said "yep your religious rights trump all those other rules," false accusations could still be made. Instead of saying you kicked someone out for being unruly, you could say you kicked them out for religious reasons. Under either scenario, they can say that is not really the true reason.

[jdshock]

WuDrWu - The left definitely has a tendency to focus on smaller problems than they need to. I honestly think we're going to see a swing back in the next few years. Somewhat off topic, I think stand up comedy can be a fairly good barometer for where a lot of young folks are and where they're headed. I'm starting to hear a lot more comedy making fun of certain types of liberals that have taken some of these issues too far (e.g., the silly prom dress thing a month or so ago).

But I don't think this is an example of that. I obviously believe the government should protect minority groups more than most on here. Many people here believe the free market is a good solution, but I don't think it is when you're talking about minority groups because they, by definition, have fewer resources to impact free market change than others. During Jim Crow, it's not like store owners were saying "I'm getting killed out here because I'm refusing to serve black people!" I think the government had to step in to prevent that kind of discrimination or else the free market would've NEVER adjusted.

In that context, I think this issue is similar in the sense that we're talking about intentional discrimination and the legality of it. And yeah, it's pretty easy for me to say the "real discrimination" that exists in this country is a lot smaller of an issue than a ton of other ones, but I'm also not the one that has to deal with any of the real discrimination. I don't know what it would mean to be denied a service because of who I am.

I do know that we need clarity from the Supreme Court on these issues, though. If the baker were just saying that he was declining to serve black people because he is a racist, there would've been VERY few resources expended in enforcing that law. It's definitively against the law, and if we don't enforce it, the law would lose all meaning. The court cases are just litigation to figure out how it should be enforced in the future.

[wufan]

Remember Jim Crow laws were FORCED segregation. No one could serve black or colored people equally by law. There was probably (definitely?) enough discrimination to warrant forced integration, but the free market was not attempted as a solution in this case.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

The free market tends to act in the majority's best interests, or in the interests of a solution that has the greatest economic benefit. One shouldn't use the free market to solve social problems or problems affecting a minority.

[Kung Wu]

False accusations definitely seem like a growing problem, but they are not caused by the laws that protect people.

But isn't the existence of a law that "protects" people, in this case, EXACTLY the basis for the suit?

[jdshock]

The same way anti-theft laws are the basis for a false accusation concerning stolen property.

[wufan]

In the case of the Baker, the couple had many other options from people that wanted to have their business. Why not patronize those businesses? To me, this seems like a power play and I’m not sure the reason.

[WuDrWu]

I am.

[wufan]

Well, obviously they wanted more power, but was the reasoning for it just? Is it just to seek out equal treatment, or is it unjust to harass someone that wasn’t causing a problem?

[C0|dB|00ded]

Crack open the Old Testament for a clue.


T


...:cool:

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I do agree with the point that some use their minority status to bully non-minorities. Absolutely it happens, and it shouldn't. I also believe the vast majority of the time laws work like they should. It's easy to not notice--or to simply ignore--something when it's working right. But it's far more noticeable, and costly, when occasionally it doesn't.

I also believe that this world would be a helluva lot better place if we put ourselves in someone else's shoes and tried to understand their viewpoint before we go making judgments on them. Our society is slowly losing its ability to empathize. Imagine yourself in a place where the vast majority of citizens were gay. You're a straight guy getting married to a girl (OH the scandal!!!!). It wasn't until the past few years you actually had the legal right to marry her. You probably spent most of your life afraid to admit to anyone else that you're a "breeder" because your family might disown you or you'd lose friends. You probably feel ashamed. You finally had the courage to tell everyone you want to marry this girl, and all you want is a baker to make you a cake for the wedding. It's not like you're stealing from him--you're willing to pay him good money and you like the work he does. But he says he won't serve your kind. He's gay and his religion, whatever it is, won't allow him to participate in a detestable wedding of breeders.

When the tables are turned it's more difficult to criticize. I absolutely feel bad for the baker too. That dude has strong religious beliefs and I don't want him to feel compelled to violate them. But to say the gay couple isn't deserving of equal treatment because the baker is entitled to run his business as he wants is a strange argument. The issue here is religious rights versus gay rights. Thankfully, it's not gay rights versus "I own a business so I can basically do whatever the hell I want."

[wufan]

I do agree with the point that some use their minority status to bully non-minorities. Absolutely it happens, and it shouldn't. I also believe the vast majority of the time laws work like they should. It's easy to not notice--or to simply ignore--something when it's working right. But it's far more noticeable, and costly, when occasionally it doesn't.

I also believe that this world would be a helluva lot better place if we put ourselves in someone else's shoes and tried to understand their viewpoint before we go making judgments on them. Our society is slowly losing its ability to empathize. Imagine yourself in a place where the vast majority of citizens were gay. You're a straight guy getting married to a girl (OH the scandal!!!!). It wasn't until the past few years you actually had the legal right to marry her. You probably spent most of your life afraid to admit to anyone else that you're a "breeder" because your family might disown you or you'd lose friends. You probably feel ashamed. You finally had the courage to tell everyone you want to marry this girl, and all you want is a baker to make you a cake for the wedding. It's not like you're stealing from him--you're willing to pay him good money and you like the work he does. But he says he won't serve your kind. He's gay and his religion, whatever it is, won't allow him to participate in a detestable wedding of breeders.

When the tables are turned it's more difficult to criticize. I absolutely feel bad for the baker too. That dude has strong religious beliefs and I don't want him to feel compelled to violate them. But to say the gay couple isn't deserving of equal treatment because the baker is entitled to run his business as he wants is a strange argument. The issue here is religious rights versus gay rights. Thankfully, it's not gay rights versus "I own a business so I can basically do whatever the hell I want."

Its still really easy for me to criticize here. There are plenty of people I’ve pissed off for one reason or another, and I chose not to do business with them. In fact, I’d rather not have someone involved in my life if I thought they were an ass. Additionally, the ability to marry and the addition of a cake don’t change my love for my partner.

Obviously not everyone thinks this way, but they should! :)