U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[Emily Lake]

...To the best of my knowledge, however, there are no acknowledged organized religions that view blackness as a sin. So there is no conflict between competing rights. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a religion out there that teaches that blackness is a choice and is sinful?...

Actually, for the sake of historical accuracy, you are not quite right. The Mormon Church historically used the  curse of Ham as an excuse to discriminate against blacks until 1978, when a sudden revelation from God reversed that practice. Until then, at least, Mormon bakers might have used that as an excuse to deny wedding cakes to black customers, but I doubt that the issue came up. In theory, one could use a religious doctrine to discriminate on the basis of race or anything else. This ruling did not go so far as to allow for that kind of discrimination, but the ruling was so nuanced that most people believe it did. A really bad example of SCOTUS trying to thread the needle and sticking it in the eye of the public.

Thanks for the info

I suppose I was assuming "current" into my view, but I certainly didn't say so!

 

[laughing dog]

It's not permanently etched into our DNA by any means, but it's incredibly hard to change, and it has impacts on how we see the world, what we view as true, and how we define morality. In short, I think that for most people, there's a lot less choice involved than you are assuming.

I think you vastly over-estimate how hard it is to choose one's religion. The evidence from the USA and Europe is clear - the citizens have become less religious over time (excluding recent immigrants). "Lapsed" Catholics are a common occurrence.

 

[bilby]

I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore the completely unnecessary hostility in your post and focus on this:



To the best of my knowledge, however, there are no acknowledged organized religions that view blackness as a sin. So there is no conflict between competing rights. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a religion out there that teaches that blackness is a choice and is sinful?

On the other hand, there are several religions (and sects within those religions) that teach that homosexuality is a choice and is sinful. I disagree with that belief, and I think it's a stupid belief... but it IS a part of that religious foundation. Seriously, there's a whole crap-ton of stuff in christianity and islam that I find horribly offensive and discriminatory toward women, and I disagree with it quote strongly and think it's incredibly dumb... but it's *still* actually a part of the beliefs of those religions.

- - - Updated - - -

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.

That really depends on the religion.

No, it really doesn't. For the reasons I gave, that you didn't quote.

 

[untermensche]

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.

That really depends on the religion.

Fine.

But the three great religions that arose in what is now Israel are all especially intolerant.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I disagree with that belief, and I think it's a stupid belief... but it IS a part of that religious foundation.

So what? Does bigotry being a religious foundation make it any more acceptable? Does wearing a mask in a high security area become more acceptable if it is done for now"deeply held religious conviction"? Should we excuse genital mutilation for that reason? Should we excuse misogyny because people really truly believe an invisible authority's figure decrees it?

This "religious accommodation" bullshit needs to end. If a muslima can cover her face, so can I. If Sikhs can carry daggers and cover their hair in courtrooms, so can I. Being delusional, or pretending to be, should not give anyone special rights forbidden to the rest of us.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore the completely unnecessary hostility in your post and focus on this:



To the best of my knowledge, however, there are no acknowledged organized religions that view blackness as a sin. So there is no conflict between competing rights. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a religion out there that teaches that blackness is a choice and is sinful?

On the other hand, there are several religions (and sects within those religions) that teach that homosexuality is a choice and is sinful. I disagree with that belief, and I think it's a stupid belief... but it IS a part of that religious foundation. Seriously, there's a whole crap-ton of stuff in christianity and islam that I find horribly offensive and discriminatory toward women, and I disagree with it quote strongly and think it's incredibly dumb... but it's *still* actually a part of the beliefs of those religions.

- - - Updated - - -

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.

That really depends on the religion.

No, it really doesn't. For the reasons I gave, that you didn't quote.

The reasons you provided don't apply to all religions, and particularly doesn't apply to those I mentioned in my response to Juma:

No it doesnt. A religion is all about beleiving, and acting, on shit info. That is not how to build tolerance.

There are several sects of hinduism that are almost explicitly about tolerance (not hard when the cornerstone of that belief is that brahma is part of all things, all things are brahma). Similarly, Taosim is pretty seriously far from intolerant, as is buddhism. There might arguably be a fair bit of "shit info" involved in all of them, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that any of those religions aren't tolerant as a foundation of the beliefs themselves.

If you want to limit it to the pantheon of judaic religions, then you'd have a point. But those aren't the entirety of religions in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.

That really depends on the religion.

Fine.

But the three great religions that arose in what is now Israel are all especially intolerant.

Agreed on that point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

t can't be about speech. The cake is not the speech of the baker. The baker is the maker of a cake. Not a speech maker.

And some Taliban on the Supreme Court agreed with him.

Speech can be more than words.

Burning the flag can be speech. But it is the speech of the person burning the flag. Not the speech of the flag maker.

The baker is a disinterested third party in public service.

There may be limits of decency but the line was drawn way too far on the side of pure discrimination based on delusion here.

It shows the US to be a primitive nation.

As you say, burning the flag can be speech--so can making any form of artwork.

Besides, you're ignoring what the Supreme Court really said. They didn't say the bakers could discriminate, they said they weren't treated correctly in this case. It's akin to ordering a new trial, not to declaring someone innocent.

 

[Emily Lake]

I disagree with that belief, and I think it's a stupid belief... but it IS a part of that religious foundation.

So what? Does bigotry being a religious foundation make it any more acceptable?

It doesn't make it any more acceptable to you or I, but it does make it protected.

Does wearing a mask in a high security area become more acceptable if it is done for now"deeply held religious conviction"? Should we excuse genital mutilation for that reason? Should we excuse misogyny because people really truly believe an invisible authority's figure decrees it?

This "religious accommodation" bullshit needs to end. If a muslima can cover her face, so can I. If Sikhs can carry daggers and cover their hair in courtrooms, so can I. Being delusional, or pretending to be, should not give anyone special rights forbidden to the rest of us.

I understand where you're coming from - I hold very similar personal beliefs. But I also recognize that my personal beliefs aren't necessarily law

Give some thought to some alternative statements: If a trans-gendered person with male genitalia can use the women's restroom, so can I! If a native american can get a native american scholarship, so can I! It doesn't always work. The majority of us at TF share the same beliefs regarding religion. Heck, most of us share the same basic values regarding almost all social matters (with some varying degrees). It's easy for us to dismiss religion from consideration, and to argue that religious beliefs shouldn't be protected because we don't believe. But the majority of the world does hold to some religion or other, and it's important to them (as well as to a well-functioning society) to be respectful of their beliefs where doing so doesn't directly harm other people.

It's when rights come into conflict that things get a lot more complicated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is one of those conflicts of rights situations that really leaves me fence-sitting. I end up trying to come up with alternative scenarios where I would decide differently, so I can figure out if it's my own personal sentiment and values guiding my reaction, or whether it's objective application of law.

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

So I've been rolling around other scenarios. Imagine a halal butcher where the owner is orthodox muslim. Imagine that the butcher does special orders on request. Now imagine that I walked in the door and asked him to special order a rasher of bacon for me. Would he be within his rights, based on religious protection, to refuse me service because it violated his truly held belief?

Let's step it up a notch, and let's say I came into his store as a woman with my hair uncovered. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do business with me, on the basis that his truly held religious belief is that women with uncovered heads are obscene? I have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender... and there are no laws prohibiting me from showing my hair to all and sundry... but to him, it would be sinful to interact with me.

I don't think there's a clear answer to these sorts of questions. The best we (as laymen) can do is to consider the way in which we rank our own values. It's up to the courts to decide with right wins out... and I don't envy them the job.

Yeah, I've had similar thoughts about this case. To me it comes down to the product vs the customer.

Refusing to order the bacon: I have no problem with this. If he doesn't want to deal in pig products that's his choice. I do think he should be required to post a sign to that effect, though.

Hair uncovered: If he serves men with their hair uncovered then he needs to serve you also. Equal treatment.

The cake: My understanding of the case is they were refused simply on the basis of wanting a cake for a lesbian wedding--the customer, not the product. I don't think they should even have the right to refuse to put two brides on a cake (since they put brides on cakes.) However, if they were asking for a cake decorated with a rainbow I would take their side of it so long as their policy was not to decorate cakes in controversial ways. (Now, if they refused the rainbow but did a swastika I would have a problem.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Give some thought to some alternative statements: If a trans-gendered person with male genitalia can use the women's restroom, so can I! If a native american can get a native american scholarship, so can I! It doesn't always work.

I say it does and subscribe to both of those statements you make in jest. I SHOULD be allowed to use whatever washroom I like if a trans person (or binary person) can do so. Unisex bathrooms are an easy answer to that. And scholarships should not exist based on race or gender, nor should people be admitted on lower standards due to race or gender.

It's easy for us to dismiss religion from consideration, and to argue that religious beliefs shouldn't be protected because we don't believe. But the majority of the world does hold to some religion or other, and it's important to them (as well as to a well-functioning society) to be respectful of their beliefs where doing so doesn't directly harm other people.

They should have freedom of religion as much as we should have freedom from religion. But freedom of religion means being allowed to believe whatever they want and to practice whatever rituals they want so long as they don't trample onto the rights and freedoms of the rest of us. Somebody covering their face where we are forbidden to, carrying a knife where we are forbidden to, or getting a special meal not available to us DOES trample onto our rights, and we should not tolerate it. Freedom of religion is a good tool for highlighting laws that probably shouldn't exist and demanding justification for them (ie, why can't I cover my hair and wear a hat when in court?) but should NEVER give special rights based on somebody's religious delusion or claimed religious delusion.

 

[Underseer]

https://thinkprogress.org/the-chris...y-civil-rights-laws-by-trolling-3ac9d939cd1b/

If you ask Muslims to stop persecuting homosexuals, they will accused you of persecuting Muslims.

If you ask Christians to stop persecuting homosexuals, they will accused you of persecuting Christians.

If we accept the logic of their own arguments, then that leads to the conclusion that Islam and Christianity are inherently evil, and if we do anything to oppose their evil, we are preventing them from being true Christians or Muslims.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've never been asked to stop persecuting anyone since I never started in the first place.
And if ever anyone tries to persecute me they're gonna find...

[YOUTUBE]v=tBWFofJSm-c[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Give some thought to some alternative statements: If a trans-gendered person with male genitalia can use the women's restroom, so can I! If a native american can get a native american scholarship, so can I! It doesn't always work.

I say it does and subscribe to both of those statements you make in jest. I SHOULD be allowed to use whatever washroom I like if a trans person (or binary person) can do so. Unisex bathrooms are an easy answer to that.

Yup, unisex is the way to go. End the whole issue, more efficient for all.

 

[James Madison]

The distinction, though subtle, between denying service and not serving is critical. I sell (and only sell) Pepsi--not Coke. If someone wants to buy Coke from me, then although I'm not selling that someone Coke, I'm not denying to sell him Coke. On the other hand, if I do sell Coke but refuse to sell it, then that is a denial.

What if instead of coke you're selling a photography service. Coke = clothes on. Pepsi = naked.
Should you have the right to turn away clients who want you to film their 'Pepsi' honeymoon snaps? If yes, that's discrimination.

The term "discrimination" has a negative connotation (for good reason); however, not all forms of discrimination (from a denotative perspective) are negative. Let us presuppose that not all forms of discrimination are negative despite the prevalence of its negative connotation. I'm trying to use a broader more palatable use of the term.

Underlying my thought pattern is a distinction (a general distinction) between what we might dub as people discrimination and product discrimination.

On the "people discrimination" front, suppose you adopt a rule that says something to the effect that if you're willing to do for one, you're willing to do for all, and if you're not willing to do for one, you'll do for none. For instance, if I sell Pepsi (actual Pepsi--not the alternative naked example), then no matter who from a protected group comes to purchase a Pepsi, I'll serve them or else serve no one.

I am still being discrimatory, but it's not people discrimination but rather product discrimination. Whether my reasoning is based in bias or bigotry doesn't alter that. If I won't sell figurines depicting two guys holding hands, that might very well be based on homophobia, but the distinction still holds. If I'm willing to sell figurines depicting only men and women holding hands, then despite homophobia, I must be willing to sell figurines depicting men and women holding hands to anyone who wants to purchase them.

If someone accuses me of being discrimatory, they're right, and if they say its based on homophobia, they may very well still be right, but so long as I don't turn away homosexuals willing to buy what it is that I'm only willing to sell, then I should not be found guilty of both kinds of discrimation.

Now, if a person wants me to photograph them naked, and if it's not a service that I provide, then naked people are welcome to come see me, but since it's not a service I provide (as I'm only in the business of photographing clothed people) they're application won't even be accepted.

Only accepted applications will be approved or rejected. This particular point has more to do with what I originally said to which you responded to than your question that I addressed in this post prior to this paragraph.

Imagine three people using a bow and arrow trying to hit a target. Some try and succeed while others try and fail. A little boy walks up with no bow and arrow and says, did I miss the target? One says, "you didn't hit the target, so you missed the target." In this instance, although it's true that he didn't hit the target, it's not true that he missed the target.

If a gay couple won't be served because of time constraints, they aren't being refused service even though they are not being serviced. The point here is just to expound on the idea that words we use have implications. Juma spoke of "denying service." Denying service implies not providing service, but the inverse is not true--kind of like how knowledge implies belief but not the other way around.

In this case, however, the service for sale was custom wedding cakes. The baker was accustomed to making custom wedding cakes. His skill is not uniquely suited or targeted to only certain and specific customers, like a female clothing store, a male clothing store, or an athletic apparel store, etcetera.

The baker discriminated, in part, based on the protected characteristic of the customers, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnG]

Maybe we can look at it like this: Does the action place an individual into a subgroup and is that subgroup denied rights?

If so, it is deemed destructive to the community at large (as discrimination is)

 

[untermensche]

Those that have faith in the judicial system are blind children.

The courts are many times 100 years behind the times.

It will take a while for the prejudice against homosexuality to be reduced in the minds of individuals.

Especially individuals selected for their rabid fanatical religious beliefs. The abortion test given to Republican judicial candidates.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It will take a while for the prejudice against homosexuality to be reduced in the minds of individuals.

So you still incorrectly think this is a christianity vs. homosexuality ruling issued by the court?

 

[fast]

The term "discrimination" has a negative connotation (for good reason); however, not all forms of discrimination (from a denotative perspective) are negative. Let us presuppose that not all forms of discrimination are negative despite the prevalence of its negative connotation. I'm trying to use a broader more palatable use of the term.

Underlying my thought pattern is a distinction (a general distinction) between what we might dub as people discrimination and product discrimination.

On the "people discrimination" front, suppose you adopt a rule that says something to the effect that if you're willing to do for one, you're willing to do for all, and if you're not willing to do for one, you'll do for none. For instance, if I sell Pepsi (actual Pepsi--not the alternative naked example), then no matter who from a protected group comes to purchase a Pepsi, I'll serve them or else serve no one.

I am still being discrimatory, but it's not people discrimination but rather product discrimination. Whether my reasoning is based in bias or bigotry doesn't alter that. If I won't sell figurines depicting two guys holding hands, that might very well be based on homophobia, but the distinction still holds. If I'm willing to sell figurines depicting only men and women holding hands, then despite homophobia, I must be willing to sell figurines depicting men and women holding hands to anyone who wants to purchase them.

If someone accuses me of being discrimatory, they're right, and if they say its based on homophobia, they may very well still be right, but so long as I don't turn away homosexuals willing to buy what it is that I'm only willing to sell, then I should not be found guilty of both kinds of discrimation.

Now, if a person wants me to photograph them naked, and if it's not a service that I provide, then naked people are welcome to come see me, but since it's not a service I provide (as I'm only in the business of photographing clothed people) they're application won't even be accepted.

Only accepted applications will be approved or rejected. This particular point has more to do with what I originally said to which you responded to than your question that I addressed in this post prior to this paragraph.

Imagine three people using a bow and arrow trying to hit a target. Some try and succeed while others try and fail. A little boy walks up with no bow and arrow and says, did I miss the target? One says, "you didn't hit the target, so you missed the target." In this instance, although it's true that he didn't hit the target, it's not true that he missed the target.

If a gay couple won't be served because of time constraints, they aren't being refused service even though they are not being serviced. The point here is just to expound on the idea that words we use have implications. Juma spoke of "denying service." Denying service implies not providing service, but the inverse is not true--kind of like how knowledge implies belief but not the other way around.

In this case, however, the service for sale was custom wedding cakes. The baker was accustomed to making custom wedding cakes. His skill is not uniquely suited or targeted to only certain and specific customers, like a female clothing store, a male clothing store, or an athletic apparel store, etcetera.

The baker discriminated, in part, based on the protected characteristic of the customers, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The baker would gladly sell a custom cake to the customer he is predjudice against--but not just any custom cake.

Let's take another example to further illustrate: retail shop A and retail shop B

Owners of both retail shops dislike blacks. Both refuse to sell figurines depicting a black Santa.

Owner A will sell figurines depicting white Santas to both whites and blacks.
Owner B will sell figurines depicting white Santas to only whites.

The baker is predjudice and therefore won't sell certain things, but whatever he's willing to sell to one, he's willing to sell to all.

Your counter argument is that I'm mistaken since he claims to be in the business of selling custom cakes yet refuses to sell one to the customer he has a problem with. The problem is that even though it's true that he's in the business of selling custom cakes, he's not willing to sell just any ole custom cake regardless of who you are. He's not going to sell homo-themed cakes to straights either--for instance if a straight person wanted to buy it for his homosexual friend.

I'm not denying that it's predjudicial. I'm just pointing out a distinction that lies between the product and the people. We need to have laws that protect us from people like owner B who decide not to sell anything to members of a particular protected group. How further we will go to protect customers from those that are predjudicial is another matter.

If I find homosexuals to be devients of society, I must still sell to them if I sell to others; however, its questionable that I must also sell what I don't want to sell. The baker wants to sell custom wedding cakes, but he doesn't want to be associated with selling to homosexuals, but if he wants to remain in business, he has no choice, so he has made the choice to sell custom cakes he deems appropriate, and no matter how predjudiced he might be in his selection of how his custom cakes are, he must be willing to sell those very same cakes to anyone that might cross his path, so long as they're protected by law.

At any rate, it's a distinction, for what it's worth.

 

[untermensche]

It will take a while for the prejudice against homosexuality to be reduced in the minds of individuals.

So you still incorrectly think this is a christianity vs. homosexuality ruling issued by the court?

I know.

Your masters have told you it has nothing to do with their hatred of homosexuals.

<Personal attack deleted--staff edit>

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The term "discrimination" has a negative connotation (for good reason); however, not all forms of discrimination (from a denotative perspective) are negative. Let us presuppose that not all forms of discrimination are negative despite the prevalence of its negative connotation. I'm trying to use a broader more palatable use of the term.

Underlying my thought pattern is a distinction (a general distinction) between what we might dub as people discrimination and product discrimination.

On the "people discrimination" front, suppose you adopt a rule that says something to the effect that if you're willing to do for one, you're willing to do for all, and if you're not willing to do for one, you'll do for none. For instance, if I sell Pepsi (actual Pepsi--not the alternative naked example), then no matter who from a protected group comes to purchase a Pepsi, I'll serve them or else serve no one.

I am still being discrimatory, but it's not people discrimination but rather product discrimination. Whether my reasoning is based in bias or bigotry doesn't alter that. If I won't sell figurines depicting two guys holding hands, that might very well be based on homophobia, but the distinction still holds. If I'm willing to sell figurines depicting only men and women holding hands, then despite homophobia, I must be willing to sell figurines depicting men and women holding hands to anyone who wants to purchase them.

If someone accuses me of being discrimatory, they're right, and if they say its based on homophobia, they may very well still be right, but so long as I don't turn away homosexuals willing to buy what it is that I'm only willing to sell, then I should not be found guilty of both kinds of discrimation.

Now, if a person wants me to photograph them naked, and if it's not a service that I provide, then naked people are welcome to come see me, but since it's not a service I provide (as I'm only in the business of photographing clothed people) they're application won't even be accepted.

Only accepted applications will be approved or rejected. This particular point has more to do with what I originally said to which you responded to than your question that I addressed in this post prior to this paragraph.

Imagine three people using a bow and arrow trying to hit a target. Some try and succeed while others try and fail. A little boy walks up with no bow and arrow and says, did I miss the target? One says, "you didn't hit the target, so you missed the target." In this instance, although it's true that he didn't hit the target, it's not true that he missed the target.

If a gay couple won't be served because of time constraints, they aren't being refused service even though they are not being serviced. The point here is just to expound on the idea that words we use have implications. Juma spoke of "denying service." Denying service implies not providing service, but the inverse is not true--kind of like how knowledge implies belief but not the other way around.

In this case, however, the service for sale was custom wedding cakes. The baker was accustomed to making custom wedding cakes. His skill is not uniquely suited or targeted to only certain and specific customers, like a female clothing store, a male clothing store, or an athletic apparel store, etcetera.

The baker discriminated, in part, based on the protected characteristic of the customers, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More precisely, he discriminated on the basis of the use they intended to put the cake to. If the customers had been straight people buying a wedding cake for their gay friends, the baker probably would have discriminated just as much. But if the customers had been gay people buying a wedding cake for their straight friends, I'd say probably he would not have discriminated (though he would sell them, say, brownies even if the brownies were used later in a gay wedding, but he wouldn't sell wedding cakes to be used in a gay wedding).

- - - Updated - - -

The term "discrimination" has a negative connotation (for good reason); however, not all forms of discrimination (from a denotative perspective) are negative. Let us presuppose that not all forms of discrimination are negative despite the prevalence of its negative connotation. I'm trying to use a broader more palatable use of the term.

Underlying my thought pattern is a distinction (a general distinction) between what we might dub as people discrimination and product discrimination.

On the "people discrimination" front, suppose you adopt a rule that says something to the effect that if you're willing to do for one, you're willing to do for all, and if you're not willing to do for one, you'll do for none. For instance, if I sell Pepsi (actual Pepsi--not the alternative naked example), then no matter who from a protected group comes to purchase a Pepsi, I'll serve them or else serve no one.

I am still being discrimatory, but it's not people discrimination but rather product discrimination. Whether my reasoning is based in bias or bigotry doesn't alter that. If I won't sell figurines depicting two guys holding hands, that might very well be based on homophobia, but the distinction still holds. If I'm willing to sell figurines depicting only men and women holding hands, then despite homophobia, I must be willing to sell figurines depicting men and women holding hands to anyone who wants to purchase them.

If someone accuses me of being discrimatory, they're right, and if they say its based on homophobia, they may very well still be right, but so long as I don't turn away homosexuals willing to buy what it is that I'm only willing to sell, then I should not be found guilty of both kinds of discrimation.

Now, if a person wants me to photograph them naked, and if it's not a service that I provide, then naked people are welcome to come see me, but since it's not a service I provide (as I'm only in the business of photographing clothed people) they're application won't even be accepted.

Only accepted applications will be approved or rejected. This particular point has more to do with what I originally said to which you responded to than your question that I addressed in this post prior to this paragraph.

Imagine three people using a bow and arrow trying to hit a target. Some try and succeed while others try and fail. A little boy walks up with no bow and arrow and says, did I miss the target? One says, "you didn't hit the target, so you missed the target." In this instance, although it's true that he didn't hit the target, it's not true that he missed the target.

If a gay couple won't be served because of time constraints, they aren't being refused service even though they are not being serviced. The point here is just to expound on the idea that words we use have implications. Juma spoke of "denying service." Denying service implies not providing service, but the inverse is not true--kind of like how knowledge implies belief but not the other way around.

In this case, however, the service for sale was custom wedding cakes. The baker was accustomed to making custom wedding cakes. His skill is not uniquely suited or targeted to only certain and specific customers, like a female clothing store, a male clothing store, or an athletic apparel store, etcetera.

The baker discriminated, in part, based on the protected characteristic of the customers, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The baker would gladly sell a custom cake to the customer he is predjudice against--but not just any custom cake.

Let's take another example to further illustrate: retail shop A and retail shop B

Owners of both retail shops dislike blacks. Both refuse to sell figurines depicting a black Santa.

Owner A will sell figurines depicting white Santas to both whites and blacks.
Owner B will sell figurines depicting white Santas to only whites.

The baker is predjudice and therefore won't sell certain things, but whatever he's willing to sell to one, he's willing to sell to all.

Your counter argument is that I'm mistaken since he claims to be in the business of selling custom cakes yet refuses to sell one to the customer he has a problem with. The problem is that even though it's true that he's in the business of selling custom cakes, he's not willing to sell just any ole custom cake regardless of who you are. He's not going to sell homo-themed cakes to straights either--for instance if a straight person wanted to buy it for his homosexual friend.

I'm not denying that it's predjudicial. I'm just pointing out a distinction that lies between the product and the people. We need to have laws that protect us from people like owner B who decide not to sell anything to members of a particular protected group. How further we will go to protect customers from those that are predjudicial is another matter.

If I find homosexuals to be devients of society, I must still sell to them if I sell to others; however, its questionable that I must also sell what I don't want to sell. The baker wants to sell custom wedding cakes, but he doesn't want to be associated with selling to homosexuals, but if he wants to remain in business, he has no choice, so he has made the choice to sell custom cakes he deems appropriate, and no matter how predjudiced he might be in his selection of how his custom cakes are, he must be willing to sell those very same cakes to anyone that might cross his path, so long as they're protected by law.

At any rate, it's a distinction, for what it's worth.

That does not seem to be this case. It seems he just wouldn't sell custom cakes for gay weddings, even if the cake did not have a gay theme.