The bakers and the lesbians--what really happened

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The contract is that he must serve them all, but not that he must perform anything that violates his conscience or is distasteful. Those who require this he can refuse.

The "social contract" does not require those in business to ever violate their conscience or perform anything distasteful. There's no legitimate purpose for this being part of the social contract. And "distasteful" is defined by the vendor or business.

Sure, but it's defined by their product offerings, not by what the customer does with that product. The Hitler cake may have some grey area in terms of decorations, but the case in the op is less ambiguous. The baker is in the business of making wedding cakes, and the request was for the sort of wedding cakes that baker bakes. It is unreasonable to argue the baker finds making a wedding cake so distasteful they will refuse to do it as a matter of business when that is the very thing their business does.

What the baker objected to was not the service they were requested to provide; they objected to what the purchaser intended to do with the product, but that is at the discretion of the customer to decide, not the baker.

But we're talking about a company serving a customer, in the 2 examples. And in both cases the customer is requesting a service the vendor objects to. In general, the seller should have the discretion in those cases and not be required to do something objectionable.

To reiterate, the lesbian couple was not requesting a service the vendor found objectionable; they were requesting a service the vendor regularly provides. What the vendor found objectionable was the customer's personal choice for her own life.

But setting that aside, there have to be certain minimum standards for doing business. People depend on commerce to live. Whether it is cakes, gasoline, clothing, shelter, or a dildo shaped like satan, buying and selling things is pretty much the way of life in America. As such, there has to be some degree of protection ensuring people can do business without being penalized for innate characteristics or exercising certain fundamental freedoms in their lives. Failure to ensure that in part or in whole is to embed inequality into society. While perfect equality amongst all people in all facets of life is likely not possible, this is one area where something really can be done.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL -- and THE VENDOR IS ALWAYS RIGHT. This works 99.9% of the time.

But a customer needn't give the vendor any unnecessary comments about what the product is to be used for. If the customer does this, then the vendor is entitled to refuse.

What's wrong with this rule?

Lots. We'd end up unable to conduct any business without lawyers present for both sides.

No, you're imagining things. Companies already do this. I.e., the above is generally the rule that is followed. And there are no problems. No lawyers. When a company refuses what the customer wants, that customer just takes his/her business elsewhere.

This is the status quo. And even where it's illegal for a vendor to refuse, they still do it anyway, and nothing happens. Nor should anything happen. And such a law making it illegal is not enforced and should not be.

What, exactly, is 'necessary information?'

Seldom matters, because usually the seller wants to serve the customer. But in those difficult cases, where the customer might demand something objectionable, anything beyond the minimum to just get the product, pay for it and get out, is unnecessary. The "necessary" part would be the name of the product, and the price, and paying for it.

If there's any semantics problem, the vendor is always right, not the customer. The slogan that "the customer is always right" is a good rule for business if they want to be profitable. But it should not be the law, to force a vendor to provide something objectionable. In that matter, it's the vendor who is always right.

If the customer is required to only part with necessary information, does the vendor have to reveal their push-button issues beforehand?

Does the baker really NEED to know the gender of the birthday child? Will he be offended if the birthday boy is a brony and refuse to make a My Little Pony cake for a boy?

If there is any dispute here, and the customer is requesting something the seller doesn't want to do, then the seller is always right. This is in fact the status quo, and it works fine. It hardly ever happens, because the seller wants to make more money and will do whatever's necessary. We're talking about extremely rare cases. Maybe only once a year for a typical small business.

Should the checkout girl be allowed to pull fattening foods out of the order of an overweight customer? Just how much protection do you want to give to the terribly opinionated among us?

Any store that does something like that won't stay in business, so it doesn't matter.

Shouldn't an atheist baker be entitled to refuse to sell a cake to a Christian event, if they tell him this will be served at an evangelical rally to win souls to Jesus?

Why would an atheist give a shit if they're trying to win souls for Jesus or capture fairies for Lord Voldemort? SPEND more money on your invisible sky buddy. Would you like a box of cookies along with that?

"Why" doesn't matter. The vendor should be entitled to refuse. He probably won't. But in those cases where there's an objection to something, it should be the vendor's decision. That works out best for everyone.

They didn't have to tell him that. It should be the vendor's discretion if they say more than what is necessary.

Again, how do we determine what is and isn't 'necessary?' What's your standard?

The vendor defines all the terms. That's the current status quo, and it works fine.

What's a good legal basis for how much a vendor 'needs' to know about his customer?

In practice, the vendor defines this. If he does a poor job of defining his product/service, then he won't do well. So the market works OK without much need for "legal" actions to decide any dispute of this kind. When a vendor says "no I won't do that," the customer just goes elsewhere. And that's the end. No "legal basis" needed.

Wouldn't it just be easier to figure that if you can't run a secular business without pissing off the sky fairies, you shouldn't be in a secular business?

Let the market take care of it.

Suppose they tell the baker that the cake will be used for a communion service and will be converted into the body of Christ. Shouldn't this atheist baker be entitled to refuse to provide the "body of Christ" to these Christian worshipers?

No, he shouldn't be entitled to do that. No more than a hotel hosting a comic convention can refuse service to Marvel people, but accept DC people.

You need to learn the meaning of quote marks.

He should be entitled to refuse their request if he objects to it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lots. We'd end up unable to conduct any business without lawyers present for both sides.

No, you're imagining things. Companies already do this. I.e., the above is generally the rule that is followed.

Where is this rule written down, Lumpy? Can you quote the company?

And there are no problems. No lawyers. When a company refuses what the customer wants, that customer just takes his/her business elsewhere.

Not in America. In America they sue. Lots of lawyers.

This is the status quo. And even where it's illegal for a vendor to refuse,

Jesus fuck, make up your mind.
Is it legal or illegal to refuse?

they still do it anyway, and nothing happens. Nor should anything happen. And such a law making it illegal is not enforced and should not be.

Wow.
What color is hte sky in your world, Lumpy?
Are there stripes?

What, exactly, is 'necessary information?'

Seldom matters, because usually the seller wants to serve the customer.

it matters a great deal if this is A Rule as you say. If this is how the law already works.
So, what's the rule? Where's the standard?
How does the non-enforcing cop know that 'you shouldn't have told him that, it's not necessary, so i'm not going to force him to obey the law." ????

But in those difficult cases, where the customer might demand something objectionable, anything beyond the minimum to just get the product, pay for it and get out, is unnecessary. The "necessary" part would be the name of the product, and the price, and paying for it.

You never worked retail, did you?
And again, why is the burden on the customer to not offend the vendor?
How do we know what will offend the vendor?
Does 'the rule' also include that the vendor make his objectionable opinions visible? A sign in the window, 'No Jews' or 'No Nazis' or 'No Abortions?'

If there's any semantics problem, the vendor is always right, not the customer.

And you say _I'M_ imagining things...

Any support for this fantasy (he laughed, knowing Lumpy never, ever comes up with support for his wild-assed assertions).

The slogan that "the customer is always right" is a good rule for business if they want to be profitable. But it should not be the law, to force a vendor to provide something objectionable. In that matter, it's the vendor who is always right.

Should not be the law?
Is it or isn't it?
Motherfuck, it's hard to keep track of what you're saying.

If the customer is required to only part with necessary information, does the vendor have to reveal their push-button issues beforehand?

Does the baker really NEED to know the gender of the birthday child?

If he's putting the child's name on the birthday cake, yes. Some names, like Bubba, are only gender-neutral in the deep, deep south. John, Joan, Jane, etc, tend to indicate gender.

Will he be offended if the birthday boy is a brony and refuse to make a My Little Pony cake for a boy?

If there is any dispute here, and the customer is requesting something the seller doesn't want to do, then the seller is always right.

Based on what legal precedent, Lumpy?

This is in fact the status quo, and it works fine.

No, it is not.
You're making shit up.

It hardly ever happens, because the seller wants to make more money and will do whatever's necessary. We're talking about extremely rare cases. Maybe only once a year for a typical small business.

Pulling numbers straight out of your ass, i see.
What a surprise.

Should the checkout girl be allowed to pull fattening foods out of the order of an overweight customer? Just how much protection do you want to give to the terribly opinionated among us?

Any store that does something like that won't stay in business, so it doesn't matter.

No, no, no. We're talking SHOULD, here. You're all full up on what hte law SHOULD be. Can't back down, now. SHOULD they have the right, the ability to refuse to sell fattening foods to people they find objectionably fat?

Shouldn't an atheist baker be entitled to refuse to sell a cake to a Christian event, if they tell him this will be served at an evangelical rally to win souls to Jesus?

Why would an atheist give a shit if they're trying to win souls for Jesus or capture fairies for Lord Voldemort? SPEND more money on your invisible sky buddy. Would you like a box of cookies along with that?

"Why" doesn't matter.

It exactly matters.
You're trying to come up with a scenario where you think the atheists here would be sympathetic to the vendor, for us to have an emotional agreement to your sad, silly argument.
So, yeah, the 'why' matters.

Because no one thinks that way, you're not getting an emotional reaction to support your bullshit.

The vendor should be entitled to refuse.

'Should?' We'r eback to should? You vacillate between he is and he should quite a bit.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.










as usual.

He probably won't. But in those cases where there's an objection to something, it should be the vendor's decision. That works out best for everyone.

No, it doesn't work out 'best' for everyone if we're writing laws to cater to personal, subjective opinion and hate being protected more than the expectations of commerce.

They didn't have to tell him that. It should be the vendor's discretion if they say more than what is necessary.

Again, how do we determine what is and isn't 'necessary?' What's your standard?

The vendor defines all the terms. That's the current status quo, and it works fine.

It's not the status quo, Lumpy. You're telling falsehoods.
Or living in some libertarian fantasy you don't quite understand.

Feh.

 

[blastula]

nm