Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Skylar]

... Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage...

Except no one is requiring any bakery to "participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage." That is the responsibility of those to be wed. The baker is being asked to do only what he does for other weddings .. bake a fucking cake! The bakery should be required to not discriminate against consumers on the basis of their sexual orientation and anyone with "deep moral conviction" should know that to do so is not just wrong but also deeply hypocritical. Woo.

No one said anything about "PLANNING a wedding." They are participating in it. Doing anything for a wedding is participating in it.

They're not getting married. No one is asking a baker to marry a homosexual. Or to have gay sex. They're asked to do nothing more than what they already do: sell cake.

If their religion makes it impossible for them to do their jobs, then they should find another job.

No one said they were getting married. You predelection for straw man arguments it. As I said previously, they determine what their job is, not you or a gang of militant fascist queers.

Then they're not participating in the wedding. They're baking a cake. If they're religion prevents them from doing their job....they should find another job.

And it really doesn't matter what you 'said', as you don't know what you're talking about. Business is commerce. And intrastate commerce is within the authority of the State to regulate. That you 'say' otherwise is meaningless gibberish. As you don't define any legal principle. Nor is your personal agreement with PA laws necessary for them to be authoritative and enforcible.

You seem to be hung up on the misconception that you citing you means a fucking thing is this scenario. It really doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

They did not deny anything at all to gays. They chose not to provide a product that was against their moral convictions. It had nothing to do with the gays personally. It had everything to do with the baker's choice not to participate in something the baker could not condone.

If it was gay bakers not wanting to participate in a Westboro Baptist wedding and refusing to bake a wedding cake for it, I would be 100% on the side of the gay bakers.

 

[Skylar]

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

They did not deny anything at all to gays.

Sure they did. They refused to bake a cake for gays. Or to sell pizza to gays. These are both products that they normally carry. Simply destroying your 'demanding a priority to provide a produce he would not normally carry' nonsense.

The proprietor will sell it to you....if you're straight. If you're gay, they won't. That's a violation of PA laws.

And how is this significantly different than denying blacks service at a lunch counter? You've never been able to explain the distinction. And you won't be able to...as there is none. All we've done is swap out race for sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

They did not deny anything at all to gays.

Sure they did. They refused to bake a cake for gays. Or to sell pizza to gays. These are both products that they normally carry. Simply destroying your 'demanding a priority to provide a produce he would not normally carry' nonsense.

The proprietor will sell it to you....if you're straight. If you're gay, they won't. That's a violation of PA laws.

And how is this significantly different than denying blacks service at a lunch counter? You've never been able to explain the distinction. And you won't be able to...as there is none. All we've done is swap out race for sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination.

The difference is that serving blacks at a lunch counter requires nothing of the proprietor that he does not provide for every other customer. It does not require the restaurant owner to provide any product or participate in any event or go to any place that he would not normally choose to go. If the gay people had wanted to pick up a generic cake off the shelf and call it a wedding cake, I'm quite certain they would have been provided the cake. But most wedding cakes these days require the baker to transport the cake to the reception hall, put it together, and finish the decorations on location. That requires participation in an event and if the business owner does not want to be associated with or participate in the event he or she should not have to no matter what the event is or who is sponsoring it.

No business should be required to furnish decorations or anything else in a product that the business owner believes to be offensive or unacceptable or morally wrong.

 

[Skylar]

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

They did not deny anything at all to gays.

Sure they did. They refused to bake a cake for gays. Or to sell pizza to gays. These are both products that they normally carry. Simply destroying your 'demanding a priority to provide a produce he would not normally carry' nonsense.

The proprietor will sell it to you....if you're straight. If you're gay, they won't. That's a violation of PA laws.

And how is this significantly different than denying blacks service at a lunch counter? You've never been able to explain the distinction. And you won't be able to...as there is none. All we've done is swap out race for sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination.

The difference is that serving blacks at a lunch counter requires nothing of the proprietor that he does not provide for every other customer.

A baker bakes cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. Again, gays aren't ordering anything the proprietor doesn't sell. Nor requesting any service that the proprietor doesn't offer.

Your argument keeps shattering on this cartoon simple concept. A baker makes cake. A gay person orders cake. The baker refuses to sell to the gay person. But will sell to the straight person.

How is that different than a lunch counter refusing to sell to blacks....but being willing to sell to whites? Again, all you've done is swap out race for sexual orientation. The discrimination is identical.

 

[whitehall]

You can't park in designated areas. (Usually) a man can't piss in the ladies room. You can't do a lot of things without a bunch of federal, state and local permits. YOU CAN'T GET IN TO ELITE CLUBS UNLESS YOU PASS INSPECTION. These are all examples of discrimination. Usually we can just get along but when homosexual militants target Christian establishments to make a case it violates the 1st Amendment expanded by Bill Clinton's federal law and (recently) about a dozen state laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

They did not deny anything at all to gays.

Sure they did. They refused to bake a cake for gays. Or to sell pizza to gays. These are both products that they normally carry. Simply destroying your 'demanding a priority to provide a produce he would not normally carry' nonsense.

The proprietor will sell it to you....if you're straight. If you're gay, they won't. That's a violation of PA laws.

And how is this significantly different than denying blacks service at a lunch counter? You've never been able to explain the distinction. And you won't be able to...as there is none. All we've done is swap out race for sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination.

The difference is that serving blacks at a lunch counter requires nothing of the proprietor that he does not provide for every other customer.

A baker bakes cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. Again, gays aren't ordering anything the proprietor doesn't sell. Nor requesting any service that the proprietor doesn't offer.

Your argument keeps shattering on this cartoon simple concept. A baker makes cake. A gay person orders cake. The baker refuses to sell to the gay person. But will sell to the straight person.

How is that different than a lunch counter refusing to sell to blacks....but being willing to sell to whites? Again, all you've done is swap out race for sexual orientation. The discrimination is identical.

You keep asking the same question over and over. And I keep answering it. I shall refer you back to my previous answers for your question because it is becoming quite tiresome being asked to repeat myself.

 

[dblack]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Are you saying you want protection from ever being embarrassed?

No. How did you get that idea?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, but a baker sells cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. So how would denying those products to gays be significantly different than denying them to blacks?

No one is asking a baker to say, sell auto parts. Or a pizzaria to sell children's clothing. All that is being required of them by PA laws is that they sell what they normally carry regardless of the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or creed of their customer.

They did not deny anything at all to gays.

Sure they did. They refused to bake a cake for gays. Or to sell pizza to gays. These are both products that they normally carry. Simply destroying your 'demanding a priority to provide a produce he would not normally carry' nonsense.

The proprietor will sell it to you....if you're straight. If you're gay, they won't. That's a violation of PA laws.

And how is this significantly different than denying blacks service at a lunch counter? You've never been able to explain the distinction. And you won't be able to...as there is none. All we've done is swap out race for sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination.

The difference is that serving blacks at a lunch counter requires nothing of the proprietor that he does not provide for every other customer.

A baker bakes cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. Again, gays aren't ordering anything the proprietor doesn't sell. Nor requesting any service that the proprietor doesn't offer.

Your argument keeps shattering on this cartoon simple concept. A baker makes cake. A gay person orders cake. The baker refuses to sell to the gay person. But will sell to the straight person.

How is that different than a lunch counter refusing to sell to blacks....but being willing to sell to whites? Again, all you've done is swap out race for sexual orientation. The discrimination is identical.

You keep asking the same question over and over. And I keep answering it. I shall refer you back to my previous answers for your question because it is becoming quite tiresome being asked to repeat myself.

Your previous answers were bullshit. Asking a pizzeria to make pizza isn't requesting a product that the proprietor doesn't carry. Nor is asking a cake baker to make cake. These are both services that the proprietor offers.

Rendering your 'previous answers' moot. As your answers were predicated on the misconception that gays were requesting a good or service that the proprietor didn't offer. And your misconception is provably false.

So....with the understanding of the cartoon simple concept that a pizzeria makes pizza, how would denying a pizza to gays be any different than denying it to blacks?

 

[dblack]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[JFK_USA]

Then you expect any business to contract with the kkk if they demand it, any muslim restaurant to cater a Christian wedding and serve pork because they demand it, anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

Nope.

So businesses have no right to refuse service to a potential customer based on their beliefs, except when those beliefs are the same as yours? Isn't it just a little hypocritical to condemn a bakery run by someone with a deep moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong for refusing to participate in the planning of a homosexual marriage then afford a Muslim owned business the right not to serve pork because they have a deep moral conviction that eating pigs is a sin? Don't get me twisted here either. I totally understand the argument that business owners have no right to freedom of association. I don't agree with it but I can respect it. I just can't respect hypocrisy.

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

 

[Foxfyre]

They did not deny anything at all to gays.

Sure they did. They refused to bake a cake for gays. Or to sell pizza to gays. These are both products that they normally carry. Simply destroying your 'demanding a priority to provide a produce he would not normally carry' nonsense.

The proprietor will sell it to you....if you're straight. If you're gay, they won't. That's a violation of PA laws.

And how is this significantly different than denying blacks service at a lunch counter? You've never been able to explain the distinction. And you won't be able to...as there is none. All we've done is swap out race for sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination.

The difference is that serving blacks at a lunch counter requires nothing of the proprietor that he does not provide for every other customer.

A baker bakes cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. Again, gays aren't ordering anything the proprietor doesn't sell. Nor requesting any service that the proprietor doesn't offer.

Your argument keeps shattering on this cartoon simple concept. A baker makes cake. A gay person orders cake. The baker refuses to sell to the gay person. But will sell to the straight person.

How is that different than a lunch counter refusing to sell to blacks....but being willing to sell to whites? Again, all you've done is swap out race for sexual orientation. The discrimination is identical.

You keep asking the same question over and over. And I keep answering it. I shall refer you back to my previous answers for your question because it is becoming quite tiresome being asked to repeat myself.

Your previous answers were bullshit. Asking a pizzeria to make pizza isn't requesting a product that the proprietor doesn't carry. Nor is asking a cake baker to make cake. These are both services that the proprietor offers.

Rendering your 'previous answers' moot. As your answers were predicated on the misconception that gays were requesting a good or service that the proprietor didn't offer. And your misconception is provably false.

So....with the understanding of the cartoon simple concept that a pizzeria makes pizza, how would denying a pizza to gays be any different than denying it to blacks?

You know what Skylar, I will discuss anything pro or con with anybody who is willing to be reasonable and civil and who seems interested in discussing a topic. I don't enjoy discussing things with people who are anything but that plus it sort of fits in with the concept of 'only an idiot argues with. . . .". I came in because I thought dblack offered an interesting topic for discussion. And since you seem to ignore my answers even as you call them bullshit and then ask the same question again, I'll wish you a pleasant evening.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your property, be it personal or your wares. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down. I wouldn't though. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

 

[Skylar]

Sure they did. They refused to bake a cake for gays. Or to sell pizza to gays. These are both products that they normally carry. Simply destroying your 'demanding a priority to provide a produce he would not normally carry' nonsense.

The proprietor will sell it to you....if you're straight. If you're gay, they won't. That's a violation of PA laws.

And how is this significantly different than denying blacks service at a lunch counter? You've never been able to explain the distinction. And you won't be able to...as there is none. All we've done is swap out race for sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination.

The difference is that serving blacks at a lunch counter requires nothing of the proprietor that he does not provide for every other customer.

A baker bakes cake. A pizzeria makes pizza. Again, gays aren't ordering anything the proprietor doesn't sell. Nor requesting any service that the proprietor doesn't offer.

Your argument keeps shattering on this cartoon simple concept. A baker makes cake. A gay person orders cake. The baker refuses to sell to the gay person. But will sell to the straight person.

How is that different than a lunch counter refusing to sell to blacks....but being willing to sell to whites? Again, all you've done is swap out race for sexual orientation. The discrimination is identical.

You keep asking the same question over and over. And I keep answering it. I shall refer you back to my previous answers for your question because it is becoming quite tiresome being asked to repeat myself.

Your previous answers were bullshit. Asking a pizzeria to make pizza isn't requesting a product that the proprietor doesn't carry. Nor is asking a cake baker to make cake. These are both services that the proprietor offers.

Rendering your 'previous answers' moot. As your answers were predicated on the misconception that gays were requesting a good or service that the proprietor didn't offer. And your misconception is provably false.

So....with the understanding of the cartoon simple concept that a pizzeria makes pizza, how would denying a pizza to gays be any different than denying it to blacks?

You know what Skylar, I will discuss anything pro or con with anybody who is willing to be reasonable and civil and who seems interested in discussing a topic. I don't enjoy discussing things with people who are anything but that. So I'll wish you a pleasant evening.

I'm quite interested in discussing the topic. Your argument is predicated on a provable fallacy. As asking a pizzeria to make a pizza isn't asking a proprietor to provide a product they don't carry. Which was your basis of distinction between denying gays and denying blacks.

And I'm going to call bullshit on any argument you make based on the same fallacy. With the understanding of the cartoon simple concept that a pizzeria makes pizza, how would denying a pizza to gays be any different than denying it to blacks?

Its increasingly clear that there is no distinction, nor can you articulate one. Which is exactly my point.

 

[JFK_USA]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it. I can't force you to sell me your vehicle. Should you own a bakery and refuse to sell me a muffin, then your reasons honestly don't matter. You chose to withhold your consent to that agreement. I could take it to some activist group and leave your reputation as a merchant and human being as shattered and pissed on as the business they will have shut down, but I wouldn't. That would be a violation of your rights and a pretty shitty thing to do. I'll leave destroying people's lives over a temper tantrum to the left.

And we can regulate commerce to say that you have to have a good faith and fair dealings clause implied in every contract. You don't even negotiation with a person because of something unrelated to the deal, then you are not bargaining in good faith. That's the law, discrimination laws are just an extension of that idea.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?"

Yes, yes, yes, many not any.

Agree. If you are a business that is operated to make money off the public then you need to make money off the public, no matter who they are. Otherwise, find other employment.

This right here is the stupid part...

When I was in business for myself, (as a wedding photographer, ironically), whenever I was asked to do work that I didn't want, I just bid the job accordingly, let the customer make their own decision, and moved on.

It's the dumb-ass business making an issue of the issue that make me go

Go ahead... give all private business operations the right to pick and choose their customer base by putting a sign in the window... See how long it takes for Evolution to correct that problem.

​

 

[dblack]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

 

[Skylar]

If a business had a deep religious conviction to not serve black people, is that okay? You say no now but back in 1965, that was a legitimate view people had.

Discrimination laws were established so that people could receive the services they needed without being discriminated against.

And to your example, if the Muslim owned business sells pork, I expect them to sell pork to every customer in the store. If you cater weddings, you cater weddings equally. That's your job.

Yes. A sale is a contract between a seller and a buyer. You have the right not to enter into a contract with someone, even if you're fighting your ass off to rescind that right. You still have it.

The legality of PA laws have already been thoroughly adjudicated. Its entirely within the power of the State to regulate commerce. And to require minimum codes of conduct for those engaged in commerce in their state. For example, a state can require that anyone engaged in commerce in their state must treat their customers fairly and equally.

You can certainly disagree. But neither your agreement nor disagreement has any relevance to the legality, authority, and constitutionality of such acts of regulation to commerce.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, the legality of PA laws is well established legally. Business is commerce. And commerce is well within the authority of the state to regulate.

You say otherwise. Um.....who gives a shit? Legally speaking, you're nobody. Your agreement or disagreement with well established legal precedent is irrelevant. That you're 'unpersuaded' is equally meaningless.

Then why are you bothering to discuss it?

To dispel pseudo-legal gibberish.

Heh.. ok. Well, while we're at it let's dispel the nonsensical notion that the commerce clause is anything more than a convenient excuse when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. The intent of these laws is to target unpopular prejudice, not to regulate trade.

Says you. And I'm not interested in arguing your personal opinion. I'll stick with the law.