Support NeoGAF

[Parch]

They chose to use the religious excuse, but since gay marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland, would it have been different if they refused service because they didn't want to make a cake displaying illegal activity?

 

[Red Arremer]

They chose to use the religious excuse, but since gay marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland, would it have been different if they refused service because they didn't want to make a cake displaying illegal activity?

It's not illegal. It's just not legally recognized. There's a big difference.

 

[Opiate]

They'd do this cake for heterosexual couples?

This seems like the central question to me. The central question is: are the proprietors of the cake shop discriminating against a specific cake design, or are they discriminating against a specific couple?

If they are discriminating against a specific couple, then here is what that would mean: they would make cakes X, Y, and Z for a different couple, but not X, Y and Z for the couple in question. In that case, they are refusing regular service to specific individual(s) -- services they would provide to other customers.

If they are instead discriminating against a specific cake design, here is what that would mean: there are some specific cake designs that these designers would not do for anyone, whether those customers be straight or gay or black or white or Muslim or Atheist. If someone asks for a cake which says "Vaccines are healthy for everyone," a cake designer would have the right to refuse to make that cake, whatever the customer's religion, ethnicity, or gender was.

I am not fine with the former form of discrimination. I believe the second form of discrimination should be protected, even if I don't happen to agree with the cake designers' beliefs.

 

[Deified Data]

Here's how I feel

If they company was asked to do a porn cake, they'd be in the right to deny it because that's not based on any fundamental human rights or attributes, religious belief, gender or orientation.

But they were asked to do a couple of puppet characters. Since they already do similar cakes for heterosexual couples they are in the wrong to deny the same service for same-sex couples because what they are being asked to do is to provide the same service they provide for others, and something that is based on a fundamental human attribute.

Ergo, they should have made the cake and should face consequences by failing to do so.

Re: the bolded, if indeed they've done such gaudy cakes for straight couples you'd be totally in the right. Do you have pics?

 

[Parch]

It's not illegal. It's just not legally recognized. There's a big difference.

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where gay marriage is still not legal.

Spin it however you want, but if it's not legal in Northern Ireland, then it's not legal.
The laws of the country are probably going to be a big factor in any legal action. Of course it's discrimination, but how can you charge a bakery with discrimination when they're supporting the laws of the country?

 

[The Technomancer]

Spin it however you want, but if it's not legal in Northern Ireland, then it's not legal.
The laws of the country are probably going to be a big factor in any legal action. Of course it's discrimination, but how can you charge a bakery with discrimination when they're supporting the laws of the country?

What? No, its not spin, its a very real difference. If a gay couple finds a priest willing to marry them in Northern Ireland they're not going to get arrested for performing an illegal activity, they simply won't be recognized as married in a legal sense.

 

[Gotchaye]

Spin it however you want, but if it's not legal in Northern Ireland, then it's not legal.
The laws of the country are probably going to be a big factor in any legal action. Of course it's discrimination, but how can you charge a bakery with discrimination when they're supporting the laws of the country?

But, again, there's no law against supporting legal gay marriage, or even against celebrating a religious gay marriage. There are, afaik, laws against discriminating against people for being gay.

If I'm in the US and I want to get a bunch of signs printed which say "Repeal Obamacare!", and a print shop refused to do business with me because they disagreed with my message or didn't like that I identified with the Tea Party, it'd be bizarre to say that that's just fine because they're just "supporting the laws of the country". It's fine or not fine only if it's fine or not fine to discriminate between political messages or to discriminate against people on the basis of political affiliation.

 

[_Ryo_]

They'd do this cake for heterosexual couples?

Replace Gay with Traditional and yes, you can bet your ass they would do that for heterosexual couples.

If you're just going to distort what I'm saying then any conversation is going to be moot.

Re: the bolded, if indeed they've done such gaudy cakes for straight couples you'd be totally in the right. Do you have pics?

Being that the company has already stated that the reason they aren't making the cake is because of their religious belief that does not support Marriage Equality one could easily come to the conclusion that would indeed not be opposed to doing the opposite for traditional marriage. I'm not arguing about the cake design but the context of the cake design.

This seems like the central question to me. The central question is: are the proprietors of the cake shop discriminating against a specific cake design, or are they discriminating against a specific couple?

If they are discriminating against a specific couple, then here is what that would mean: they would make cakes X, Y, and Z for a different couple, but not X, Y and Z for the couple in question. In that case, they are refusing regular service to specific individual(s) -- services they would provide to other customers.

If they are instead discriminating against a specific cake design, here is what that would mean: there are some specific cake designs that these designers would not do for anyone, whether those customers be straight or gay or black or white or Muslim or Atheist. If someone asks for a cake which says "Vaccines are healthy for everyone," a cake designer would have the right to refuse to make that cake, whatever the customer's religion, ethnicity, or gender was.

I am not fine with the former form of discrimination. I believe the second form of discrimination should be protected, even if I don't happen to agree with the cake designers' beliefs.

Yes.

 

[Abounder]

The last line of the concluding paragraph from a legalzoom article basically sums up my thoughts:

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

To me it's not much different than refusing to make a police officer figurine wedding cake because you have some beef against cops. It's discrimination, or at least it's more like discrimination than say entitlement. But as always businesses can operate in a gray area if they're not explicit with their wording and intentions. However when it comes to the cake wars the bakeries explicitly are denying them because the cake seems gay/religious beliefs and that seems like discrimination to me

 

[Zoe]

Replace Gay with Traditional and yes, you can bet your ass they would do that for heterosexual couples.

If you're just going to distort what I'm saying then any conversation is going to be moot.

That's not the same thing. A member of an advocacy group does not have to be a part of the demographic. So if a straight member of Queer Space came in with that exact design, would they be turned away? Is it still discrimination then?

 

[Deified Data]

Replace Gay with Traditional and yes, you can bet your ass they would do that for heterosexual couples.

If you're just going to distort what I'm saying then any conversation is going to be moot.

I'd need to see some evidence of this before I arrived at a conclusion one way or another.

Being that the company has already stated that the reason they aren't making the cake is because of their religious belief that does not support Marriage Equality one could easily come to the conclusion that would indeed not be opposed to doing the opposite for traditional marriage. I'm not arguing about the cake design but the context of the cake design..

Yes, but that's their stated reason for not wanting to make a cake, not for refusing service to a customer. If the bakery would make a different cake for the same couple the issue's pretty much null and void as far as I'm concerned. If they refused to do even that, however, they'd certainly be in the wrong.

 

[orochi91]

This reminds me of a case in Toronto where this lady walked into a Muslim owned
barber shop, where the barber said he couldn't cut her hair because his religion
forbade him. She brought in a Rights Tribunal and they came to some secret resolution.

I do feel that religious beliefs shouldn't be brought into the workplace, but I recognize
that isn't fair to religious people.

Balancing rights is a tricky business; I'm conflicted.

 

[CyclopsRock]

FYI there was an interview with the law guys mentioned in the OP today who said that they're happy to serve gay people in their bakery, but that it was this specific cake thy they wouldn't make. The guy likened it to expecting a bakery with strongly held feminist beliefs refusing to make a cake promoting the use of Sharia Law.

 

[Wolfe]

Different situation. They were refuse because they were gay, not the case here when it's the cake that's the issue rather than the people.

No it's basically the same situation, they likely wouldn't have brought that order in unless they were gay. And even if they weren't it's in regards to a message that is supportive of gay marriage. The cake still represents being gay and therefore the issue is with being gay.

FYI there was an interview with the law guys mentioned in the OP today who said that they're happy to serve gay people in their bakery, but that it was this specific cake thy they wouldn't make. The guy likened it to expecting a bakery with strongly held feminist beliefs refusing to make a cake promoting the use of Sharia Law.

See that doesn't fly with me, like they're ok with it as long as it's not something they have to acknowledge on a certain level. I also don't see how it's anywhere remotely comparable to something that like Sharia Law.

 

[Vercetti84]

but the bible says

 

[CyclopsRock]

No it's basically the same situation, they likely wouldn't have brought that order in unless they were gay. And even if they weren't it's in regards to a message that is supportive of gay marriage. The cake still represents being gay and therefore the issue is with being gay.

I don't think anyone's denying that it's an 'issue with being gay' - clearly homosexuality is 'the thing' here. The question is whether their refusal to provide the cake was due to the customer's homosexuality, or the specific nature of this request. It's an important distinction.

 

[The Adder]

While I don't approve of this shit, they didn't refuse these people's business because the people were gay. They refused it because they didn't want to make that particular kind of cake.

If this qualifies then if someone did the opposite and asked at another bakery for a cake with a disgusting anti-gay message on it then tha bakery wouldn't be able to refuse to make it. And that would be bullshit.

 

[lorebringer]

The cake still represents being gay and therefore the issue is with being gay.

Fortunately for freedom of expression, people are allowed to have opinions that you don't have. What they are not allowed to do is refuse to serve a specific customer on the grounds that that customer is gay. They would no doubt still refuse to make that cake if a straight person asked them to make it.

 

[Wolfe]

I don't think anyone's denying that it's an 'issue with being gay' - clearly homosexuality is 'the thing' here. The question is whether their refusal to provide the cake was due to the customer's homosexuality, or the specific nature of this request. It's an important distinction.

But that was my point, regardless of the customer sexuality the request was being denied due to homosexuality. Would it be cool if a white couple asked for a cake depicting two black people getting married and they denied it?

Besides how easy is it for them to deflect this by saying "we take orders from gay people all the time!" Yet once the cake has a gay message it's suddenly an issue? If it's so against your beliefs why are you taking orders from homosexuals to begin with? It just feels like a cop out to me, as if it's not an issue until they have to acknowledge it.

While I don't approve of this shit, they didn't refuse these people's business because the people were gay. They refused it because they didn't want to make that particular kind of cake.

And they didn't want to make that particular kind of cake because it was promoting gay marriage, which in turn discriminates against them.

Fortunately for freedom of expression, people are allowed to have opinions that you don't have. What they are not allowed to do is refuse to serve a specific customer on the grounds that that customer is gay. They would no doubt still refuse to make that cake if a straight person asked them to make it.

No doubt, I just find their excuse for refusing the order incredibly weak.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But that was my point, regardless of the customer sexuality the request was being denied due to homosexuality. Would it be cool if a white couple asked for a cake depicting two black people getting married and they denied it?

Besides how easy is it for them to deflect this by saying "we take orders from gay people all the time!" Yet once the cake has a gay message it's suddenly an issue? If it's so against your beliefs why are you taking orders from homosexuals to begin with? It just feels like a cop out to me, as if it's not an issue until they have to acknowledge it.



And they didn't want to make that particular kind of cake because it was promoting gay marriage, which in turn discriminates against them.



No doubt, I just find their excuse for refusing the order incredibly weak.

Respectfully, I suggest you read the first few pages of the thread because we have basically been going over the same arguments all evening. Ultimately the crux of the issue is that this isn't just a cake for a gay couple, or about gays, or with a photo of some gay muppets or whatever. It's a cake that has a specific political message and goal with which the bakers disagree, and that is why it's different to your argument about the black people and why it is comparable to the Sharia cake - because it's about being forced to help further a political end with which you disagree.

 

[The Adder]

And they didn't want to make that particular kind of cake because it was promoting gay marriage, which in turn discriminates against them.

No. They're discriminating against writing a pro-gay message on a cake. Which is not illegal for the same reason refusing to write an anti-gay, antisemitic, antiwoman, or any other kind of message any cake seller doesn't want to write on their cake isn't illegal.

What would be illegal is them telling the couple they wouldn't make them any cake at all. Which they didn't do.

Shitty behavior? Absolutely. Refusing a service that would be offered to anyone else? No.

 

[Two Words]

It always bugs me when people act like business owners are public servants that have no rights of their own. I think more people need to recognize that business owners are people that should have a reasonable amount of say in what their business does. The Civil Rights Movement in America already took away business owners' right to determine who they serve. Hell, there is valid argument to be made that even that is an excessive act from a business owner's point of view. I believe that trying to take away a business owner's right to choose what they make is just absurd and has no real merit behind it. It's essentially turning the customer into the owner's boss. It's saying the customer's "right" to have something exactly how he or she wants something supersedes a business owner's right to choose what he or she makes.

 

[The Adder]

It always bugs me when people act like business owners are public servants that have no rights of their own. I think more people need to recognize that business owners are people that should have a reasonable amount of say in what their business does. The Civil Rights Movement in America already took away business owners' right to determine who they serve. Hell, there is valid argument to be made that even that is an excessive act from a business owner's point of view. I believe that trying to take away a business owner's right to choose what they make is just absurd and has no real merit behind it. It's essentially turning the customer into the owner's boss. It's saying the customer's "right" to have something exactly how he or she wants something supersedes a business owner's right to choose what he or she makes.

No there isn't.

 

[sooperkool]

But, again, there's no law against supporting legal gay marriage, or even against celebrating a religious gay marriage. There are, afaik, laws against discriminating against people for being gay.

If I'm in the US and I want to get a bunch of signs printed which say "Repeal Obamacare!", and a print shop refused to do business with me because they disagreed with my message or didn't like that I identified with the Tea Party, it'd be bizarre to say that that's just fine because they're just "supporting the laws of the country". It's fine or not fine only if it's fine or not fine to discriminate between political messages or to discriminate against people on the basis of political affiliation.

Actually, in this country (US). It is just fine though. As a business you can choose to refuse business based upon certain beliefs. Its tough to determine when being discriminatory is being too discriminatory.

 

[Two Words]

No there isn't.

I don't want to change this into the topic, but I'll give you this post. This is an issue that I don't find easy to simply say one side is completely right and the other is wrong. If you disagree with it, I won't try and change our mind on it though or anything.


I think there is an argument, and I say that as a black man. It's akin to being able to deny any person access to your home for whatever reason. Racism is wrong. I hate racism. But it can also be argued that it is wrong to tell a private owner what to do with his business.

If the counter argument is going to be "That private business owner is given several privileges to aid his business in part due to the tax dollars from those very same people he is discriminating", then I'd agree with that. I am no economist, so I can't really argue that it really fits in a realistic way, but this is my idea about it. If you want to be a racist bar that serves only whomever you please, then you should get absolutely zero tax breaks. You should have to pay higher taxes to make up for the taxes that pay for the infrastructure that your business depends on. Now, chances are that most businesses would not be able to afford these tax hikes, correct? But hypothetically, if some idiotic company was rich enough to afford paying these heavy tax hikes and just keep losing money so they can retain some small racist oasis or whatever, and are able to sustain all necessary components of a proper business with zero tax breaks, is it not fair for them to run their little racist shop as they please? What would make that hypothetical business any different than a privately owned house?

 

[APF]

Realistically no country can really abide by businesses practicing active discrimination against protected classes; among other things it doesn't make any practical sense / there is no practical value in allowing discrimination of that nature to be defended.

 

[Gotchaye]

I don't want to change this into the topic, but I'll give you this post. This is an issue that I don't find easy to simply say one side is completely right and the other is wrong. If you disagree with it, I won't try and change our mind on it though or anything.


I think there is an argument, and I say that as a black man. It's akin to being able to deny any person access to your home for whatever reason. Racism is wrong. I hate racism. But it can also be argued that it is wrong to tell a private owner what to do with his business.

If the counter argument is going to be "That private business owner is given several privileges to aid his business in part due to the tax dollars from those very same people he is discriminating", then I'd agree with that. I am no economist, so I can't really argue that it really fits in a realistic way, but this is my idea about it. If you want to be a racist bar that serves only whomever you please, then you should get absolutely zero tax breaks. You should have to pay higher taxes to make up for the taxes that pay for the infrastructure that your business depends on. Now, chances are that most businesses would not be able to afford these tax hikes, correct? But hypothetically, if some idiotic company was rich enough to afford paying these heavy tax hikes and just keep losing money so they can retain some small racist oasis or whatever, and are able to sustain all necessary components of a proper business with zero tax breaks, is it not fair for them to run their little racist shop as they please? What would make that hypothetical business any different than a privately owned house?

The word "fair" is doing an awful lot of work here, and it's not a concept you can just leave implicit in something like this. I mean, you're straightforwardly saying that fairness might demand that people be unfairly denied service, if the right people want to deny them service badly enough.

A concept you don't bring up, but which seems to capture what you're getting at, is that of a strong property right in certain things, like homes or businesses, such that an owner can control his or her property, excluding others from using it or whatever, for any reason including bad reasons. But it's really hard to actually argue that strong property rights of this sort ought to be respected for reasons beyond the utility of a system of strong property rights. Moral libertarians keep trying, but there's not much there - certainly they've failed to persuade more than a small percentage of the people who they've been making their case to.

So to be persuasive you have to sell people on the idea that society is better off if we allow racists to run their businesses as racist businesses. It's easy to do this for homes - enforcement would be a privacy-invading nightmare, and it's not like we can just demand that people like each other (which is generally an important part of inviting others to your home). But businesses are of necessity rather public, so it's easy to spot offenders, and the vast majority of the value of businesses to society has nothing to do with business-owners liking their customers. So we gain quite a bit by forcing them to act decently and we lose very little - mostly we just annoy some racist business-owners, who are already, by virtue of being business-owners, doing better than most of society anyway. Especially when you start talking about higher taxes for racists and whatnot, you're weirdly limiting your concern to the people who are already doing really well - they're the ones who can afford to pay your higher taxes.

There are also some bigger economic arguments to be made here. If Walmart comes into your town and drives all the other stores out of business, but then decides that it hates you in particular and won't sell you anything, you're just screwed. Nobody's going to open up a store just to serve you. Your right to equal participation in society seems like it's a lot more important than Walmart's right to deprive you of that right. You talked about making discriminating businesses pay extra taxes to fund infrastructure and the like, but what about the people who are made worse off by the lower density of non-discriminating businesses, since if the discriminating business didn't exist it would be easier for other businesses to compete?

 

[Dali]

I don't want to change this into the topic, but I'll give you this post. This is an issue that I don't find easy to simply say one side is completely right and the other is wrong. If you disagree with it, I won't try and change our mind on it though or anything.


I think there is an argument, and I say that as a black man. It's akin to being able to deny any person access to your home for whatever reason. Racism is wrong. I hate racism. But it can also be argued that it is wrong to tell a private owner what to do with his business.

If the counter argument is going to be "That private business owner is given several privileges to aid his business in part due to the tax dollars from those very same people he is discriminating", then I'd agree with that. I am no economist, so I can't really argue that it really fits in a realistic way, but this is my idea about it. If you want to be a racist bar that serves only whomever you please, then you should get absolutely zero tax breaks. You should have to pay higher taxes to make up for the taxes that pay for the infrastructure that your business depends on. Now, chances are that most businesses would not be able to afford these tax hikes, correct? But hypothetically, if some idiotic company was rich enough to afford paying these heavy tax hikes and just keep losing money so they can retain some small racist oasis or whatever, and are able to sustain all necessary components of a proper business with zero tax breaks, is it not fair for them to run their little racist shop as they please? What would make that hypothetical business any different than a privately owned house?

I think places pretty well segregate on their own. If a place is a redneck klan bar then you can pretty well bet there aren't going to be any black people there. I think the idea of being a proponent of being able to deny someone based on race or sexuality makes me wonder if you have even the slightest clue how things were when that was allowed.

You want to live here? Ehh sorry too black

You want to eat here? Sorry, but you cheapass Canadians don't tip.

You want the best surgeon to fix your leg? Well he says he's free that day but he doesn't do blacks. Those extra muscles in their legs throws him off.

There's already plenty of contempt for and subtle (and not subtle) racism against black people without making it legal to exclude them.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Actually, in this country (US). It is just fine though. As a business you can choose to refuse business based upon certain beliefs. Its tough to determine when being discriminatory is being too discriminatory.

The cake shop in portland had to close and was fined for not doing a gay wedding cake. I thought there was a similar case in Colorado not to long ago.

 

[Two Words]

The word "fair" is doing an awful lot of work here, and it's not a concept you can just leave implicit in something like this. I mean, you're straightforwardly saying that fairness might demand that people be unfairly denied service, if the right people want to deny them service badly enough.

A concept you don't bring up, but which seems to capture what you're getting at, is that of a strong property right in certain things, like homes or businesses, such that an owner can control his or her property, excluding others from using it or whatever, for any reason including bad reasons. But it's really hard to actually argue that strong property rights of this sort ought to be respected for reasons beyond the utility of a system of strong property rights. Moral libertarians keep trying, but there's not much there - certainly they've failed to persuade more than a small percentage of the people who they've been making their case to.

So to be persuasive you have to sell people on the idea that society is better off if we allow racists to run their businesses as racist businesses. It's easy to do this for homes - enforcement would be a privacy-invading nightmare, and it's not like we can just demand that people like each other (which is generally an important part of inviting others to your home). But businesses are of necessity rather public, so it's easy to spot offenders, and the vast majority of the value of businesses to society has nothing to do with business-owners liking their customers. So we gain quite a bit by forcing them to act decently and we lose very little - mostly we just annoy some racist business-owners, who are already, by virtue of being business-owners, doing better than most of society anyway. Especially when you start talking about higher taxes for racists and whatnot, you're weirdly limiting your concern to the people who are already doing really well - they're the ones who can afford to pay your higher taxes.

There are also some bigger economic arguments to be made here. If Walmart comes into your town and drives all the other stores out of business, but then decides that it hates you in particular and won't sell you anything, you're just screwed. Nobody's going to open up a store just to serve you. Your right to equal participation in society seems like it's a lot more important than Walmart's right to deprive you of that right. You talked about making discriminating businesses pay extra taxes to fund infrastructure and the like, but what about the people who are made worse off by the lower density of non-discriminating businesses, since if the discriminating business didn't exist it would be easier for other businesses to compete?

Well, ideally, the higher taxes would make the racist business have to charge a lot more than other non-racist businesses getting tax breaks. This would allow room for competition. Not just for serving the discriminated, but everybody, and at a cheaper price. Could some billionaire villain decide to dedicate his money to funding racist businesses that do nothing but lose money? I suppose, but I can't imagine it happening. I guess what bothers me is the notion that somebody is telling a business owner "You can't do this with your business." It just seems wrong to me. Any time I make the argument, people often think I am either pro-racist, or at least kinda okay with racism (which is weird since I am black). It gets kind of frustrating, since I've always looked at it from the business-owners' rights point of view.

But yes, it is something I don't think will ever change since there is no political motivation and I'm certainly not bothered enough that racists don't have any opportunity to discriminate to start a movement. At the very least, I just don't think it as nearly a one-sided argument as most people make it out to be, know what I mean?

 

[mrduckbear]

discrimination should be snitched whenever someone is being attacked for who they are!

 

[The Adder]

The cake shop in portland had to close and was fined for not doing a gay wedding cake. I thought there was a similar case in Colorado not to long ago.

The difference is that that's a clear cut case of discrimination in that they do wedding cakes for straight couples, but won't do them for gay couples.

This is not the same as that.

 

[APF]

There are plenty of things we tell businesses they can't do. To say laws against discrimination somehow go above and beyond say labeling / packaging laws for example, seems wildly arbitrary IMO. Few libertarians will strongly argue against such regulations however (of course some will) because they provide enormous benefit to consumers. For some reason they don't see a similar benefit in discouraging discrimination, even though that too provides an enormous practical benefit to customers.

 

[poppabk]

In the U.S. we've had a couple of cases similar to this. Again, the UK's laws on the issue are different and may be interpreted by the courts differently, so these cases have no real bearing on this particular issue, but they do have bearing on the general discussion being held about whether a creative business can be made to create product they do not personally agree with.

Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock

Vanessa Willock attempted to hire Elane Photography (a sole-proprietorship) to photograph her commitment ceremony. Elane Photography refused on the grounds that she was unwilling to produce expression (photography) that expressed something she disagreed with. The Human Rights Commission found this to be incompatible with New Mexico's public accommodation laws, as it was de facto discrimination against Vanessa Willock based on her sexual orientation. The verdict was upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The SCOTUS refused to hear further appeal.

GLSO vs. Hands On Originals

I think this is a better analogue, but it hasn't gone the distance, yet. The Kentucky Gay and Lesbian Service Organization attempts to hire Hands On Originals (a t-shirt shop) to produce t-shirts for the Lexington Pride event. Hands On Originals refuses because they don't agree with the message and don't feel they should have to print messages they don't believe in (eg: should not be required to express speech they do not agree with). The county Human Rights Commission has found the refusal of service to be a violation of Kentucky public accommodation laws. Further litigation is pending.

There are a couple of other cases percolating in the same neighborhood, including atheists suing a t-shirt shop, and a gay bar suing a print shop. Frankly, most of these get handled before they get to real court. Either the business goes bust, or the people discriminated against just move on, or a local HRC tells them to quit being dicks and they get the message.

These cases are part of what's driving the desire for laws that allow people to discriminate against customers based on religious reasons, because while it's not entirely settled law in the U.S., the trends have been pretty clear if you follow the cases. Regardless of what excuse proprietors are using in any particular argument, it usually comes down to: Is the business refusing service -- and for the purposes of the courts this means any service that the business extends to any patron -- to people of a protected class. If so, the proprietor usually loses.

On this particular case, which is going to be determined by an entirely different set of laws, the local Human Rights Commission has already weighed in, so I suspect the next step will be litigation, and we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

How does the birth control pharmacy controversy play into this? Did the person in the first case object on religious grounds, as I feel that is pertinent on how the law will look at these cases. It seems the Supreme Court just set precedent for small companies to hold religious views.

 

[besada]

How does the birth control pharmacy controversy play into this? Did the person in the first case object on religious grounds, as I feel that is pertinent on how the law will look at these cases. It seems the Supreme Court just set precedent for small companies to hold religious views.

Well, the precedent set was that religious views might allow you to exclude certain kinds of health care for your employees. There wasn't a counter-balancing right -- since healthcare isn't a right under the Constitution -- to weigh the company's religious freedom against. In the case of public accommodation laws, the courts are going to consider the counter-balancing right of customers not to be discriminated against.

That said, the specific laws designed to break public accommodation laws being passed in some states will almost certainly wind up in front of the SCOTUS at some point.