Support NeoGAF

[casmith07]

I'm all about equality but if this is a private actor there should be no jail time.

The only way they should prevail is in a civil suit.

Edit: fuck. Come on people use Google. This thread should be edited.

 

[BowieZ]

Yeah, I prefer pie, tbqh.

Same.

Much prefer a good cream pie.

 

[Kangi]

Thank you for the edit, mods.

 

[jakonovski]

us americans huh, i guess we're a borgly collective.

I just mean that Americans as a whole should take action. The accuracy of this particular news story notwithstanding.

 

[Emerson]

I guess I'm kind of in the camp that believes businesses should (I understand they don't) have the right to discriminate based on any grounds they want and let the market bear it out. Businesses with a "no blacks" sign simply wouldn't survive anymore, and soon enough ones with a "no gays" one wouldn't either. But I don't really like the idea of the courts stepping in and saying that the owner has to deliver the service. Why are privately-owned business public property? I'd definitely like to hear other opinions about this though.

And for anyone that can't read, nowhere in this post did I say I wouldn't serve gays, or that I think that's a reasonable or moral approach.

 

[The Technomancer]

That's how capitalism is supposed to work. You run your business how you want and if you fuck up you lose costumers and worst case scenario you're dealing with a boycott.

Again, have we forgotten Chik Fil A appreciation day? We cannot count on "the public" to "punish" businesses with vocally bigoted positions or discriminatory policies.

Stuff like this makes me sick (the penalty). If I were the baker, of course I'd give these dudes cake, but I also should reserve the right not to if it's my own business and for any reason I want. A big issue was also the fact that it was a wedding cake, clearly gay marriage is a big issue and just because there's a lot of back-patting going on here about how it's 'objectively right' doesn't make it so. If this guy were to refuse service to a Hindu couple and said "No, I don't want you sell you this cake for your arranged marriage because it's against my personal beliefs" people wouldn't even bat an eye.

I also hope anyone in this thread who is clicking their heels that this guy is getting locked up is literally promoting penalization over a moral issue. You know, that stuff you get so mad at the Bible-thumping conservatives about.

Uh, I don't know about you, but I sure would. If you're not worried about them committing a crime it shouldn't be any of your business what people do with what you're selling.

 

[Hunter S.]

Oh well.

 

[besada]

A year in prison is ridiculous.

He won't do a year in prison. It's an old, never used criminal penalty in Colorado for discrimination. And they repealed it in April. You can look for more details about it by searching SENATE BILL 13-184 for Colorado, including the actual bill, which mostly just removes the criminal penalties and leaves civil penalties.

 

[Midnight Moon]

This hitting the news will probably end up with him losing business. That's just the icing on the cake, now isn't it? :3

 

[Koomaster]

How many cases is this now against bakeries refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings? Or other businesses like B&Bs turning away gay customers for that matter. These are always highly publicized cases and I have yet to see one where it goes in the business owner's favor.

So I have to ask; why are these people even in business if they don't want to make money? When you serve the public your opinions about your customers should not figure into your business. Not only is it morally wrong but it's fiscally stupid.

A $500 fine is nothing for an established business so I am fine with possible jail time. Seriously show bigoted business owners that they can't get away with this shit anymore. Things are hard enough for gay people without having to deal with shit like this. If business owners aren't scared of seeing others like them lose court cases, then it's about time to ramp up the consequences.

 

[bomma_man]

I guess I'm kind of in the camp that believes businesses should (I understand they don't) have the right to discriminate based on any grounds they want and let the market bear it out. Businesses with a "no blacks" sign simply wouldn't survive anymore, and soon enough ones with a "no gays" one wouldn't either. But I don't really like the idea of the courts stepping in and saying that the owner has to deliver the service. Why are privately-owned business public property? I'd definitely like to hear other opinions about this though.

And for anyone that can't read, nowhere in this post did I say I wouldn't serve gays, or that I think that's a reasonable or moral approach.

Can't go into detail, on my phone, but it's legally accepted today that private and public aren't the only ways that property can be classified, that there can be 'semi-private/public' spaces too in which the owner cannot exclude people for arbitrary reasons.

If you want a practical reason, the market way might work in a big city where there are plenty of alternatives, but what about in some hick country town? Is allowing the owner of the only petrol station in town to discriminate more important than letting a black family get petrol?

Personally I don't see why the right to discriminate is more important than the right to participate in the consumer economy and the right to buy necessities, but I'm not American.

 

[quickwhips]

Hopefully the publicity will kill business for bakery but other than that why would you want to give money to a jerk who doesn't like gay people?

 

[Trey]

Theoretically could they never refuse to make a cake for someone? Like, crazy example, KK wants a super offensive cake, can they refuse them service?

What would Krispy Kreme possibly put on their cakes?

Again, have we forgotten Chik Fil A appreciation day? We cannot count on "the public" to "punish" businesses with vocally bigoted positions or discriminatory policies.

CFA appreciation day wasn't officially recognized by CFA, the outrage was because the president/owner (I never remember which) of the company donates to groups that engage in anti-gay projects, and CFA doesn't discriminate toward customers.

The "public" punished CFA just as much as it praised and patronized them.

 

[Omegasquash]

In following with the thread...the guy is a bigot but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with potential jail time. Fine him for the incidences if found in violation, and let that be that.

 

[Relix]

Aren't they a private business? if they don't want to do it they don't need to do it. Come on, I am a 100% supporter of gay rights and I fully support gay marriage (and weed legalization and legal abortion, etc, etc) but this is excessive. They can serve whoever they want.

 

[diffusionx]

I guess I'm kind of in the camp that believes businesses should (I understand they don't) have the right to discriminate based on any grounds they want and let the market bear it out. Businesses with a "no blacks" sign simply wouldn't survive anymore, and soon enough ones with a "no gays" one wouldn't either. But I don't really like the idea of the courts stepping in and saying that the owner has to deliver the service. Why are privately-owned business public property? I'd definitely like to hear other opinions about this though.

Well, it's doubtful that a "no blacks" business would die off, depending on the area.

Strictly formal legal equality is not enough. There's a large gap between saying "you are free and equal" and actually being free and equal. We saw that starting after the passage of the 14th amendment. People worked very hard to keep blacks out of the power structure and keep them away from access to opportunities while maintaining the veneer of equality.

It's simply not enough to say "you are free" and let "the market" figure it out. We've seen that already. You let businesses ban black people and you are denying black people access to the community and fabric of the town. It's inherently indecent and against the spirit of equality.

 

[freddy]

I guess I'm kind of in the camp that believes businesses should (I understand they don't) have the right to discriminate based on any grounds they want and let the market bear it out. Businesses with a "no blacks" sign simply wouldn't survive anymore, and soon enough ones with a "no gays" one wouldn't either.

What about a small town where the only supermarket for miles around where people can get basic food supplies has an owner that doesn't want to serve gay or Asian people? What's your solution?

 

[besada]

Aren't they a private business? if they don't want to do it they don't need to do it. Come on, I am a 100% supporter of gay rights and I fully support gay marriage (and weed legalization and legal abortion, etc, etc) but this is excessive. They can serve whoever they want.

No they can't. The law doesn't work like that. You aren't allowed to discriminate against people commercially, if they are a member of a protected class. In Colorado, that means: race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), disability(physical, mental, or learning), age (40 to 70), sexual orientation, AIDS/HIV, lawful conduct outside of work, mental illness, transgender status.

So, in Colorado, you can no more legally refuse to serve gay people (because they're gay) than you can refuse service to black people, mentally ill people, women, old people, Christians, etc.

This is the way the law works, and has worked, for a long time. People's opinions that private businesses should be able to serve whoever they want have no bearing on reality or the law.

 

[Lucario]

Don't want to say something that will get me banned.....

Then either take the risk or don't post. Being passive aggressive by taunting us with your opinion that's just far too edgy for GAF isn't contributing.

 

[Relix]

No they can't. The law doesn't work like that. You aren't allowed to discriminate against people commercially, if they are a member of a protected class. In Colorado, that means: race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), disability(physical, mental, or learning), age (40 to 70), sexual orientation, AIDS/HIV, lawful conduct outside of work, mental illness, transgender status.

So, in Colorado, you can no more legally refuse to serve gay people (because they're gay) than you can refuse service to black people, mentally ill people, women, old people, Christians, etc.

This is the way the law works, and has worked, for a long time. People's opinions that private businesses should be able to serve whoever they want have no bearing on reality or the law.

Makes sense!

 

[DonasaurusRex]

wait cant the owner refuse and then get what he gets by being known as someone who wont recognize gay couples. How is that ruling even legal.

 

[Kyon]

And there it is.

O

Yup my plea still stands then.

LOCK HIM UP

 

[boiled goose]

Not selling someone a good is commercial discrimination, and commerce is a public good.
So I guess it makes sense.

Can private businesses discriminate with their hires based on the protected classes?

Private and exclusive clubs obviously are still allowed.
What if the store was an X-group-only cake club?

 

[NH Apache]

So if I understand this correctly, the bakery would have been ok if they had simply refused the order without the explanation. When pressed, they could have said they are at capacity.

But because he went into the I don't do cakes for gays thing, it's not ok.

 

[Aureon]

So the old saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." is a lie? You learn something new everyday.....

You filthy blacks are not allowed in this white-people bar!


Prison is harsh, but by setting up a public service, you do not get to discriminate on the basis of protected categories (Sexual orientation, Faith and Race are in those, among others)

 

[Horsemama1956]

Damn, sucks there is only one bakery in Colorado.

 

[KHarvey16]

Damn, sucks there is only one bakery in Colorado.

Astute analysis, thanks.

 

[Eric C]

He's not facing a year in jail for descrimination. He potentially faces a year in jail if he defies a court order.

You can see more info at the bottom of this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...nation-alleged-wedding-cake-article-1.1366148

Yep, the potential jail time wouldn't be for refusing to serve a gay couple.

The potential jail time would be for deifying a court order. A potential jail sentence for disobeying a court order seems pretty standard when dealing with the courts.

 

[Ties]

This is ridiculously. As if gay guys eat cake.

Come and put your name on it, put your name on it.

 

[Broder Salsa]

imo they should not go to jail, but instead be forced to deliver bread to a gay parade.

 

[chaostrophy]

This mickey mouse half-and-half legal system we have only takes the worst parts of socialism and capitalism, forces it down our throats, and then tells us it's freedom.

Yeah, the US should make up its mind about regulation and choose to be either like the USSR or Somalia. Nothing in between.

 

[ivysaur12]

This topic apparently pissed off enough banned GAFers at the NeoGaf facebook group that they felt the need to post. Current topic: That being white actually has no inherent benefits to society, so we don't need public accommodation laws.

 

[Kangi]

This topic apparently pissed off enough banned GAFers at the NeoGaf facebook group that they felt the need to post. Current topic: That being white actually has no inherent benefits to society, so we don't need public accommodation laws.

That sounds lovely.

 

[HerbertFish]

Sounds like the episode of What Would You Do? that aired friday.

 

[besada]

This topic apparently pissed off enough banned GAFers at the NeoGaf facebook group that they felt the need to post. Current topic: That being white actually has no inherent benefits to society, so we don't need public accommodation laws.

Sounds like pig ignorance at its finest. I'm glad they're no longer with us, though sad that they feel the need to follow a forum that spat them out into the cold, uncaring world.

Also a misunderstanding of the law, as white guys are part of protected classes, too. Sex, race, religion, and age all apply to white people, too. If a gay/black/young baker refused service to a straight.white/old customer and was dumb enough to explicitly say why, they could get sued, too.

 

[JDSN]

This topic apparently pissed off enough banned GAFers at the NeoGaf facebook group that they felt the need to post. Current topic: That being white actually has no inherent benefits to society, so we don't need public accommodation laws.

Ha, I saw that and im surprised no one posted about it, the Milton guy and Nick Ward sound like a couple of assholes.

 

[Rubbish King]

That phrase has been taken out of context.

It was made for unruly customers.

But people use it to discriminate all the time.

You think it's right to refuse service to someone just 'cause they are a Jew?

But the thing is they do have the right to refuse anybody their services and I'm pretty sure that's that. It's their business and they may do as they please, what they did was wrong but I am having a tough time seeing where law comes into it, the company will probably suffer because of it, but jail time? I'm pretty skeptical.. Just thinking about the logistics of arresting all bigots in america.....you'd need one big-ass prison

 

[Earthstrike]

But the thing is they do have the right to refuse anybody their services and I'm pretty sure that's that. It's their business and they may do as they please, what they did was wrong but I am having a tough time seeing where law comes into it, the company will probably suffer because of it, but jail time? I'm pretty skeptical.. Just thinking about the logistics of arresting all bigots in america.....you'd need one big-ass prison

i got an idea! Let's contract one out to a private interest?

But seriously though, there are several posts throughout this thread that demonstrate the lawfulness of this kind of action.