For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

Limiting the services I provide is not discrimination, however limiting my customer base to only Christians would be discrimination.

 

[Silhouette]

No. That is not what you have said. If the baker refuses to put two men on the cake that is discrimination. You said it. So if you refuse to put the words on the graphic, then that is discrimination. The discrimination for the baker is about sexual orientation, your discrimination is about religion. Both are protected classes under the same law. If one is discrimination, then both are.

So that some of you can understand what discrimination actually is . . .
The Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) enforces Oregon´s civil rights laws. These laws ban discrimination against individuals because of characteristics that make them part of a protected class. Anyone claiming to have been discriminated against at work, in a place where the public is served such as a restaurant or a hotel, when buying or renting housing or when applying for or attending a career school can file a complaint with the BOLI´s Civil Rights Division.

Oh how slippery you are. Perhaps the worst I've seen in the whole lot of you. You failed to mention that that law in Oregon prohibits violating people's civil rights. ALL OF THEM, not just your pet favorites. And like Prachett keeps reminding you, the 1st Amendment is a civil right.

Your PA laws are not, nor can ever be dominant to another civil right. They are on equal footing; particularly so because in the examples he and I have been giving you, it's principles vs principles, not "race" vs principles.

Equal application under the law. Your cult should be familiar with that saying. After all, they beat it to death and milked it for all it was worth over the last 5 years or so.

So I'll ask again:

IF A CHRISTIAN WANTS A GAY BILLBOARD DESIGNER TO MAKE ONE THAT SAYS "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN UNTO GOD" FOR A BUSY HIGHWAY, AND THE GAY DESIGNER REFUSES ON PRINCIPLE, DOES THE CHRISTIAN HAVE A RIGHT TO SUE HIM?????

YES OR NO?

 

[PratchettFan]

So that some of you can understand what discrimination actually is . . .

The Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) enforces Oregon´s civil rights laws. These laws ban discrimination against individuals because of characteristics that make them part of a protected class. Anyone claiming to have been discriminated against at work, in a place where the public is served such as a restaurant or a hotel, when buying or renting housing or when applying for or attending a career school can file a complaint with the BOLI´s Civil Rights Division.

You are citing the employment discrimination laws. They do not apply to this.

Did you read it? Here . . . "anyone claiming to have been discriminated against at work, in a place where the public is served, such as a restaurant or hotel . . . "

Yes. Did you read it? This is employment. I posted the public accommodation law - which this is not.

 

[ChrisL]

But you can't omit writing if you're a graphic gay artist..

Yes, I can. I have every right to limit which services I will provide. What I cannot do is refuse to do business with a certain sector of the public.

 

[ChrisL]

So that some of you can understand what discrimination actually is . . .

The Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) enforces Oregon´s civil rights laws. These laws ban discrimination against individuals because of characteristics that make them part of a protected class. Anyone claiming to have been discriminated against at work, in a place where the public is served such as a restaurant or a hotel, when buying or renting housing or when applying for or attending a career school can file a complaint with the BOLI´s Civil Rights Division.

You are citing the employment discrimination laws. They do not apply to this.

Did you read it? Here . . . "anyone claiming to have been discriminated against at work, in a place where the public is served, such as a restaurant or hotel . . . "

Yes. Did you read it? This is employment. I posted the public accommodation law - which this is not.

What are you disagreeing with me about? Be specific. Here is my claim . . . I can limit which services I provide to the public. Agree or disagree?

I cannot limit WHO I provide those services to. Agree or disagree?

 

[ChrisL]

If I open a business, I most certainly am within my right to say that I will not print things that contain hate speech. What I cannot do is refuse to do business with a certain segment of my community. This is really quite simple concept. I cannot understand why you all are having such a difficult time understanding it.

Limiting the services you provide the public is not discrimination. Lol. Refusing to serve a person because he or she is gay, black, or whatever, is discrimination. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

 

[martybegan]

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

Employment law is something else, and the line there has to be drawn only around if the sexuality of the person is in conflict with the job to be done.

Hospitals deal with time and life sensitive issues, government has a compelling reason to force them to act equally.

Hotels should be required to provide rooms equally, however they should be able to choose events they wish to host.

Banquet halls should be allowed to choose the events they wish to hold

It's actually easy to figure out which ones result in actual harm, and which ones only result in people feeling sad that people don't agree with their lifestyle.

All business which are not religious institutions have to follow the same laws. You are not being singled out.

AGAIN, the rights of free exercise are not limited to religious institutions, but to the people. You have to come up with a better reason to restrict them than "someone's feelings are hurt"

 

[Silhouette]

But you can't omit writing if you're a graphic gay artist..

Yes, I can. I have every right to limit which services I will provide. What I cannot do is refuse to do business with a certain sector of the public.

CHRISTIANS AREN'T REFUSING TO SERVE GAYS A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVING (an action, not a noun) BIRTHDAYS AREN'T AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. A "GAY WEDDING" IS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

I know you know the difference.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

Employment law is something else, and the line there has to be drawn only around if the sexuality of the person is in conflict with the job to be done.

Hospitals deal with time and life sensitive issues, government has a compelling reason to force them to act equally.

Hotels should be required to provide rooms equally, however they should be able to choose events they wish to host.

Banquet halls should be allowed to choose the events they wish to hold

It's actually easy to figure out which ones result in actual harm, and which ones only result in people feeling sad that people don't agree with their lifestyle.

All business which are not religious institutions have to follow the same laws. You are not being singled out.

AGAIN, the rights of free exercise are not limited to religious institutions, but to the people. You have to come up with a better reason to restrict them than "someone's feelings are hurt"

Apparently the state of Oregon disagrees with you.

 

[martybegan]

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

No I don't. If a Christian went to have a cake baked, and the baker refused on religious grounds, the exact same thing is going to happen.

Not likely. But I'm sure if it did happen you would figure some way to let the baker weasel out of it, especially if they had political, social or moral leanings you agree with.

No I wouldn't I see all people as equal human beings.

Bullshit.

I see all people as equal human beings. I don't discriminate. I know gay people, Christian people, black people. If I opened a business, I wouldn't discriminate against any of them.

You are just projecting and think everyone else must be hateful as you are. That's just not the case.

That's all and well for you and for people that think just like you.
And again, if all you can do is assume hate that doesn't exist in me, then, i guess you just can't understand that which you don't agree with.

 

[ChrisL]

But you can't omit writing if you're a graphic gay artist..

Yes, I can. I have every right to limit which services I will provide. What I cannot do is refuse to do business with a certain sector of the public.

CHRISTIANS AREN'T REFUSING TO SERVE GAYS A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVING (an action, not a noun) BIRTHDAYS AREN'T AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. A "GAY WEDDING" IS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

I know you know the difference.

Then don't offer wedding cakes to the public. Problem solved.

 

[ChrisL]

No I don't. If a Christian went to have a cake baked, and the baker refused on religious grounds, the exact same thing is going to happen.

Not likely. But I'm sure if it did happen you would figure some way to let the baker weasel out of it, especially if they had political, social or moral leanings you agree with.

No I wouldn't I see all people as equal human beings.

Bullshit.

I see all people as equal human beings. I don't discriminate. I know gay people, Christian people, black people. If I opened a business, I wouldn't discriminate against any of them.

You are just projecting and think everyone else must be hateful as you are. That's just not the case.

That's all and well for you and for people that think just like you.
And again, if all you can do is assume hate that doesn't exist in me, then, i guess you just can't understand that which you don't agree with.

I don't understand. You are right. I am glad that I don't.

 

[martybegan]

If I open a business, I most certainly am within my right to say that I will not print things that contain hate speech. What I cannot do is refuse to do business with a certain segment of my community. This is really quite simple concept. I cannot understand why you all are having such a difficult time understanding it.

Limiting the services you provide the public is not discrimination. Lol. Refusing to serve a person because he or she is gay, black, or whatever, is discrimination. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

Interesting the distinction allows YOU to decide who to work for yet still letting you think others should be forced to work for people they don't want to work for, unless of course there is a compelling government interest.

 

[martybegan]

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

Employment law is something else, and the line there has to be drawn only around if the sexuality of the person is in conflict with the job to be done.

Hospitals deal with time and life sensitive issues, government has a compelling reason to force them to act equally.

Hotels should be required to provide rooms equally, however they should be able to choose events they wish to host.

Banquet halls should be allowed to choose the events they wish to hold

It's actually easy to figure out which ones result in actual harm, and which ones only result in people feeling sad that people don't agree with their lifestyle.

All business which are not religious institutions have to follow the same laws. You are not being singled out.

AGAIN, the rights of free exercise are not limited to religious institutions, but to the people. You have to come up with a better reason to restrict them than "someone's feelings are hurt"

Apparently the state of Oregon disagrees with you.

apparently the state of Oregon is full of nosey prissy twats.

 

[martybegan]

But you can't omit writing if you're a graphic gay artist..

Yes, I can. I have every right to limit which services I will provide. What I cannot do is refuse to do business with a certain sector of the public.

CHRISTIANS AREN'T REFUSING TO SERVE GAYS A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVING (an action, not a noun) BIRTHDAYS AREN'T AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. A "GAY WEDDING" IS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

I know you know the difference.

Then don't offer wedding cakes to the public. Problem solved.

Then go to a baker that wants to bake you a cake, problem solved.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then you'd have no problem with your faith/cult being sued by Christians? If a Christian walked into a gay graphic arts studio and demanded a billboard sign for a busy highway that said "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", would that Christian be allowed to sue the gay artist for not complying?

Yes or no?

No because you are not refusing to do business with that person based on who they are, but on the product being requested. If you don't supply those types of products to any customers, then it is not discrimination.

And they have a rule they apply to everyone. Your rule (which you apply in an arbitrary manner, given the example given was not hate speech - just a religious position you disagree with) is the basis to discriminate against a protected class. It is discrimination, and would probably be seen as a violation of the PA law in Oregon.

It would not be applied arbitrarily is the point you are missing. I can refuse to make a specific product. I cannot refuse to serve specific customers.

Of course it is arbitrary. You are deciding in a completely arbitrary manner as to what is or is not hate speech. Your product is to produce graphics, just as a baker produces cakes. You are denying your product to someone based entirely upon their religious beliefs. If they wanted it to say "Kittens are Nice" you would not deny them service, so it is entirely about the religious expression. That is discrimination. Why is it ok for you to discriminate but not the baker?

Cite the Oregon law where it is illegal or discriminatory business practice to control what services you provide? Oh right, because THAT is not discrimination.

659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]

Exactly, and only providing a limited service to everyone is not discrimination. I can refuse to put toppers on cakes. That is not discriminatory business practice.

That is not what it says. "entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction" Providing limited service is discrimination if it falls within a protected class. Religion is a protected class. Either the law is applied equally to everyone, or it is a violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[ChrisL]

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

Employment law is something else, and the line there has to be drawn only around if the sexuality of the person is in conflict with the job to be done.

Hospitals deal with time and life sensitive issues, government has a compelling reason to force them to act equally.

Hotels should be required to provide rooms equally, however they should be able to choose events they wish to host.

Banquet halls should be allowed to choose the events they wish to hold

It's actually easy to figure out which ones result in actual harm, and which ones only result in people feeling sad that people don't agree with their lifestyle.

All business which are not religious institutions have to follow the same laws. You are not being singled out.

AGAIN, the rights of free exercise are not limited to religious institutions, but to the people. You have to come up with a better reason to restrict them than "someone's feelings are hurt"

Apparently the state of Oregon disagrees with you.

apparently the state of Oregon is full of nosey prissy twats.

I think they are doing a good job at making sure everyone is treated as equals when it comes to business practice.

 

[martybegan]

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

No one said it should. It does, however, require that you follow that law.

Just like all those black people should have followed segregation laws and let whitey have his way, right?

 

[ChrisL]

But you can't omit writing if you're a graphic gay artist..

Yes, I can. I have every right to limit which services I will provide. What I cannot do is refuse to do business with a certain sector of the public.

CHRISTIANS AREN'T REFUSING TO SERVE GAYS A BIRTHDAY CAKE, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVING (an action, not a noun) BIRTHDAYS AREN'T AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. A "GAY WEDDING" IS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

I know you know the difference.

Then don't offer wedding cakes to the public. Problem solved.

Then go to a baker that wants to bake you a cake, problem solved.

Sorry, but you have to be in compliance with your state and local laws. If you are going to blatantly discriminate, the state is going to step in.

 

[Silhouette]

Local laws don't trump the 1st Amendment.