Chuckie
Member
Ok, so wouldn't that be the same case with a gay couple?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'Gay wedding cake' case hits US Supreme Court
- Thread starter llien
- Start date
Ok, so wouldn't that be the same case with a gay couple?
Blood Borne
Member
You're not 100% but favour of the couple is the right thing to do?
You're a bigoted rightist who doesn't understand racism, so I doubt you don't understand discrimination. Before 1964, white business owners were allowed to refuse service to black people Asian people, etc. SO from your stance, I assume you see no problem if this cake shop owner told an interracial or black couple that he doesn't make cakes for black marriages and cites the Bible as his reason. (Christianity was seen as the justification for slavery, so this is plausible) After Civil Rights of 1964, Congress deemed this illegal as to the protections outlined in the 14th and 15th amendment.
Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark marriage Supreme Court case, confirmed gay people as a protected class by referring to the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection.
When baker refuses to serve the gay couple, strictly because of his "religious beliefs", he's using his "freedom of religion" to infringe on the rights of that couple, by discriminating against them. Freedom of religion does not give you the privilege to disrupt anyone elses freedom to equality. That is especially so when you own a business.
InterMusketeer
Member
I don't know about the right to getting served, but IMO such a law would just open a can of worms I wouldn't want any part of.
What if a confused and aggressive man tries to buy a handaxe or gun? Should he have the right to purchase those wares or can the shop owner refuse?
What if a particular person is known to dine and dash. A new restaurant has opened and the owner has been made aware that this person is known for this crime. Should they be forced to serve them food anyway? Is it discrimination if they ask payment up front, when others are allowed to pay afterwards?
Or how about an example with relgious aspects. What if a muslim goes to an ecological farm to buy a sheep for Eid al-Adha (that's when muslims sacrifice sheep to God). The seller is made aware that the sheep is going to get sacrificed and is against this. Should he be forced to sell the sheep anyway?
I cannot say with a straight face that in the above examples, sellers shoudn't be able to discriminate. I think they should. Maybe there's other laws to take care of that stuff, I don't know, I'm no expert, but if not, that just seems messed up to me.
What if a confused and aggressive man tries to buy a handaxe or gun? Should he have the right to purchase those wares or can the shop owner refuse?
What if a particular person is known to dine and dash. A new restaurant has opened and the owner has been made aware that this person is known for this crime. Should they be forced to serve them food anyway? Is it discrimination if they ask payment up front, when others are allowed to pay afterwards?
Or how about an example with relgious aspects. What if a muslim goes to an ecological farm to buy a sheep for Eid al-Adha (that's when muslims sacrifice sheep to God). The seller is made aware that the sheep is going to get sacrificed and is against this. Should he be forced to sell the sheep anyway?
I cannot say with a straight face that in the above examples, sellers shoudn't be able to discriminate. I think they should. Maybe there's other laws to take care of that stuff, I don't know, I'm no expert, but if not, that just seems messed up to me.
The first ones are not affected by it since they are not discriminating a group but rather refuse service to a customer. In this case the bakery refused a group service.
The religious one however would fall into it.
Vicetrailia
Member
There's no muddy waters, all of those customers can get refused.
Dude Abides
Banned
The bakery is violating the couples right to be treated the same as a straight couple. Your reasoning ability is questionable. You dont care about religious freedom, you just care about whose ox is being gored.
Your dumb tucker video remains irrelevant.
Blood Borne
Member
No. It's not a human right to force service from someone. You're a violating that person's human right. Transactions must be voluntary and not mandatory. Force and coercion is always a net negative.
Lots of stock brokers don't sell to women.
Lots of realtors don't sell to Indians.
Forcing an electrician who is Hindu to provide service for a person who owns a cow slaughterhouse is wrong and totalitarian.
The electrician can provide service for a pig or chicken slaughterhouse, but he has the right to refuse service to a cow slaughterhouse.
I'm sure the supreme Court will rule in the baker's favour. You guys are totalitarians.
InterMusketeer
Member
But if a straight couple came in to buy a wedding cake for their friends' gay wedding, he would have refused as well. At least, I assume so.
Sarkozix le Gaulois
Member
Or the gay couple is violating the baker's right to have beliefs. Works both way.
WinterIsComing
Member
Yes, I understand both parts of the story, and i'm 60-65% in favour of the couple.
Zog
Banned
Unless you are a man at a womens shelter or a man at a female only gym. Then not being served the same as everyone else is ok?
Dude Abides
Banned
So?
Wrong. The baker is free to hate gay people all he wants. He just shouldnt be allowed to refuse to sell them a consumer product.
Vicetrailia
Member
In this society, some rights matter less than others. You don't get to discriminate based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, agd, etc. If you do you open yourself up to getting sued.
The slaughterhouse service can be declined.
Realtors open themselves up to a lot of trouble if the Indians prove they did it on a basis of race.
CampbellzSoup
Member
You moron he didnt refuse to sell the product.
Harlock
Member
In the case of cakes, would be more good sense just buy in another store. On another side, I don't know if this is the same situation of being at a restaurant, with gay friends, and the owner just refuse to serve a gay couple, what is awful. Can the same law have this type of nuance?
Then why not have separated rooms areas? Let us be honest here. There are like zero shelters for men everywhere. So why not make a bt of space for them? It does not need to be 50:50 but even 10% would be more than it is now
Zog
Banned
Ah and that makes it ok. How about men not being equally served at ladies night? I would say that different prices based on gender is discrimination.
What? He Refused to bake them a cake...
Chuckie
Member
There are shelters in the Netherlands for abused men.
That is indeed discrimination.
Sorry I meant in the US it is almost Zero and if some gets opened certain people following a certain ideology show their outrage by protesting and even threaten the people managing it
Zog
Banned
So why is that discrimination ok but this isn't?
Chuckie
Member
Sarkozix le Gaulois
Member
Hate is too strong a word IMO.
Not in his head obviously but I dont think he hates them. They are regular customers of his bakery I think ?
He's probably just anti same-sex mariage.
Zog
Banned
My mistake, I misread you post. I thought you were saying the court cases against ladies night were shot down.
Here you can see that some states allow it and the cases were shot down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies'_night
Airola
Member
In Finland the shops have a right to refuse to sell energy drinks to young kids even though it's not illegal for the kids to buy them.
He offered to bake them another type of a cake.
He offered to bake them another type of a cake.
He refused them to bake a specific product because of their sexual orientation. The mental gymnastics that people are using to dispute this fact is disconcerting.
The problem is he refused because of his religious belief. So there you have two sides.
Either the couple will be discriminated against because they are gay
Or he will be discriminated against for not allowing him to follow his religious beliefs
It is not mental it is just not as black and white people believe it to.
You're really not smart. Stock brokers may discriminate, but if they openly said they won't trade for a woman, the company would be sued, would lose, and the broker would lose his license.
SLAUGHTER HOUSE OWNERS are NOT protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why does the concept of a protected class continue prove to be so difficult for you to understand? And you clearly don't understand the word totalitarian. Installing protections to the minority groups from discrimination is a bad thing to you???
There is debate as to where LGBT people are a protected class, but the gay marriage ruling lays precedent that it is.
You don't know what discrimination means, because in no way is the baker being discriminated. Please research the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Why are people saying stuff as if they're an expert when they're completely wrong? Private business are not exempt from this. They are specifically mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Manus
Member
When did I say I was an expert? I'm just saying if I start my own business I have every right to run it how I see fit. Not saying I'll discriminate people, but no government entity should be allowed to step in and tell me what to do. Why would I want to create my own business if I couldn't run every aspect of the business?
What makes it any different from a privately ran forum like Neogaf? I'm sure the admin can ban anyone he sees fit for any reason without the government stepping in and saying that's not allowed.
Because a business is not a right in the United States, it's a privilege. No one runs every aspect of their business. This is why we have the SEC, FDA, FCC, EEOC, etc. Rules and regulations are necessary. You should read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, since you're very naive on the subject. Let me guess, you're against the minimum wage???
Just another kind reminder to all. Please refrain from personal attacks. You can make the same point without calling anyone a moron.
These are just warnings for now, note that mods are paying attention to ensure a positive experience for all.
Thanks!
It's hard to debate with people who argue in bad faith disguised as seemingly innocuous naivete, whataboutism and false equivalences. These people are trolls. They have never suffered discrimination of the kind being discussed here because it boggles my mind how anyone in this day age be so oblivious to being to connect dots among discrimination based x,y,z basis -> Consequent protection granted from those discrimination by passing and in some cases affirmative action granted to these groups -> Violating the law and then facing the consequence.
The fact that we are relying on capitalism to solve this issue is mind bending and the fact that mods have allowed it to progress this far shows why debating is pointless, i.e. you'll be dragged to their level of filth and you'll be filthier for it and nothing more. Capitalism existed side by side with slavery back in the day, racial segregation and discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we progressed, laws were made to ensure that we don't regress and or continue to discriminate against said groups. Trolls here make it sound like "oh they'll go out of business" when it is known full well that without progressive social trends pushing laws which then pushes the society as a whole with consequences, such outcomes are untenable.
So yea, I wanted to take the time to inform you what you're up against.
Religious Discrimination
So yes you could argue that. The problem here is that while an employee does not need to serve someone because it would go against his beliefs what about the owner who is serving customers?
Again if you think this is a very clear cut I think you are wrong.
In the former case, another employee would serve that customer. The service is still being provided, hence there being no discrimination. In this case, the owner flat out refused to provide a wedding cake. If he said he can't make it BUT, [such and such employee] can make a great cake as well, he can do it, there would be no case. It's pretty clear cut.
What if no one else would be available. Let us say the owner does not know how to do it and the only employee "can't" do it because of his/her belief? Then the service also could not be provided either. Agin if this would be the only bakery in town sure but I think this was not the case here,
Personally I would also argue that none of this should matter if you run a service or work in a field where you have to do it. If you still can not maybe it is the wrong job for you.
Resident_UA
Member
What the fuck happened to GAF?!!!
Look, discrimination is discrimination -> there's nothing "if" or "maybe" about it. Refusal to do business is discrimination.
The shitty excuses like "religious right to discriminate" is a disgrace to society. By that logic you can refuse service because of race, gender or any freaking other reason. You can literally find 100 excuses in the Bible to excuse your racism and homophobia. I meant by that logic every Christian should locked inside with the lights off on Sundays so no one is forced to work.
Look, discrimination is discrimination -> there's nothing "if" or "maybe" about it. Refusal to do business is discrimination.
The shitty excuses like "religious right to discriminate" is a disgrace to society. By that logic you can refuse service because of race, gender or any freaking other reason. You can literally find 100 excuses in the Bible to excuse your racism and homophobia. I meant by that logic every Christian should locked inside with the lights off on Sundays so no one is forced to work.
Then he has it do it. It's that simple. If I were a gay black man, went to a gas station, and a white supremacist Evangelical, was the only one behind the counter, he can't refuse to ring me up. Or I can sue. You can't deny me service.
"Go somewhere else was what they told to the oppressed in the 60s", today that's not acceptable.
appaws
Banned
To me the ultimate question is whether the baker will make them a regular birthday cake, or whatever. If he does, then he is not discriminating against them as people, just choosing not to participate in a specific thing he opposes.
If he refuses to bake any cake for people because they are gay, that is illegal discrimination. For the same reason a Jewish bakery should be able to turn away a swastika cake for the local alt-right party.
If you enforce one instance and not the other, then the state is choosing between viewpoints, which is impermissible.
If he refuses to bake any cake for people because they are gay, that is illegal discrimination. For the same reason a Jewish bakery should be able to turn away a swastika cake for the local alt-right party.
If you enforce one instance and not the other, then the state is choosing between viewpoints, which is impermissible.
Again I agree if this goes for everything but sadly this is not the case. Example guy with trump hat does not get service. Man have to pay more for services etc.
I just think we need clear rules and maybe this could give us clear rules.
It's clear. Trump supporters is not a protected class. The same goes for Trump haters. That's why you can refuse service to someone without a shirt or shoes on.
Zog
Banned
Unless it's a psychological reason, right?
Similar threads
- Locked