Making choices...

[rc51stierhoff]

The problem arises when the orange tractor dealer refuses to sell to a gay farmer because the dealer does not believe gays should farm.
Or switch gay with black or hispanic.

Maybe splitting hairs here, but that is not how the recap of the case reads, at least not to me and also not to the judiciary. It was not about the cake or the customers preference.

 

[Henro]

While I believe in respecting others for the most part, I still have a problem with a business owner not being able to refuse his service for whatever reason.

Should he have to supply something to someone who has a very poor credit rating for example? Perhaps a new roof on a house. Half down cash to cover materials, but still the risk is there that when finished the homeowner will not pay the remaining half. A lien on the property does nothing to put money in the business owners hands. So he is out expenses and profit.

I get the Racial, ethnic, or religious bias Question. Still it is a two way street. If it is just a cake, go to a different bakery. I think both sides in this equation need to apply common sense.

 

[Henro]

Maybe splitting hairs here, but that is not how the recap of the case reads, at least not to me and also not to the judiciary. It was not about the cake or the customers preference.

Reading that recap it sounds to me like one side is suppressing free speech while claiming they have a free speech right to do do..

 

[motionclone]

The problem arises when the orange tractor dealer refuses to sell to a gay farmer because the dealer does not believe gays should farm.
Or switch gay with black or hispanic.

What if the tractor dealer is gay and refuses to sell to a straight white religious male, is that ok?

 

[NCL4701]

True…but the bakery made their own “freedom of choice” to spend money on a ridiculous lawsuit instead of simply baking a damn cake.

Specialty baked goods are an “art form”….and an artist can lose “creativity” when customers demand a sandhill-crane on top of a cake…. that crane might be pretty ugly…. or might sit on top of a religious icon that others might not appreciate. (“You want two guys on top of the cake instead of a guy/gal…? Ok… I can put one in hospital garb and the other in a casket… … OR… YOU can put whatever you want on the cake, but WE don’t have “two guys” available…. sorry.”)

A large handful of harmless salt or alum in “specialty cake” recipies. could have been a lot cheaper and made the point… and probably reduced future requests from a particular line of customers.

A missed deadline might also suffice. One can choose one’s battles, ya’ know?

I don’t doubt the plaintiffs were offended that the bakery wouldn’t bake a cake while the baker had a legitimate religious objection to participating in a same sex marriage in even a small way.

That said, and while I admittedly would be hard pressed to prove it by any means beyond the circumstantial evidence of what appears on its face to be gross overreaction by both parties (in theory you correctly stated, it’s just “a damn cake” and not worth this much trouble for either side), I suspect, in reality, both plaintiff and defendant were willing representatives of larger interests, both of which wanted to advance their agenda.

 

[Mark_BX25D]

A missed deadline might also suffice. One can choose one’s battles, ya’ know?

Our country is in the toilet precisely because too many people have been unwilling to take a moral stand. It's just easier (and less expensive) to cave in.

 

[GeoHorn]

Given me a headache and time to move on.
But
As an Firefighter/EMT I was never asked my religion or sexual orientation when I walked in with my crash bag ! Did have a few people tell me they were HIV positive before I stated working with them but it never slowed me down or made me think less of them.

Nor, of course, should it… but it was the honest/honorable thing for them to advise you of it….(and may also have been legally required.)

PS: Thanks for your service.

 

[bmblank]

I can't believe I'm going to chime in here, but, here goes.
As I understood the colorado bakery case, gay couple comes in and asks for a custom cake for their wedding. Up to this point the baker has already done repeated business with at least one of the gay guys - selling cupcakes, birthday cakes, whatever. I think I recall hearing a report that they were even friendly with each other. If this is true, the baker obviously doesn't hate the customers because they're gay. He doesn't hate them at all.
When they ask for a custom cake, the baker says, look, I don't want make something to celebrate what I think is immoral. If you want one of the premade cakes, I'll sell it to you, or, here is a list of other bakers who might bake a cake for you. Note that the baker did not actually prevent the gay couple from buying any cakes.

Lets imagine a case completely separate from this one. Mr. A goes into a bakery and asks for 3 dozen cupcakes with his name on them. Baker B says, "Sorry, man, I'm completely booked for the next 3 months. Baker C does pretty good work though, perhaps he has an opening..." Now... Did Baker B prevent Mr. A from buying cupcakes?
Whatever his reasoning, the colorado baker did not prevent the gay couple from buying a cake - even a custom one. He just did not let them compel him to do something he didn't want to do.

Now, personally, I believe that a company SHOULD be able to do business or NOT do business with whomever they so choose, for whatever reason they choose. If a business decided they didn't want to sell to black/african american people, well, I'd find it despicable, but they should legally be allowed to do it. I'd find it despicable and would not do any business there - like so many others, that business would crash and burn before it even got up and running.


Edit:
Oh yeah, I wanted to point out a couple things, too.

If the bakery "mistakenly" used salt instead of sugar... This would hurt his business. People would be in two camps... First being, this baker used salt instead of sugar because he hates gay people. Second camp would be, this cake tastes horrible, I'm not going to an idiot baker who can't tell the difference between salt and sugar... In fact, it would probably be compounded by the fact that he's not just making a cake for one person, but for the whole wedding party. "Man, this cake tastes like shit. Who made it? Ugh, now I know where NOT to go for my kids birthday cake..."

Second issue I wanted to point out.
Do you honestly think it is a coincidence that a transgender person went to that particular bakery to request a cake for the transgender person's "coming out" party? It's very clear that the transgender person had no real expectations of getting a cake made and the transgender person was just looking for litigation and the transgender person's 15 minutes of fame.
Keep in mind, I refer to the transgender person as "the transgender person" because I honestly don't know which words to use, or this person's starting or ending points, and frankly, it doesn't matter.

 

[Henro]

Before reading bmblanks post, which I concur with, I came to the conclusion that the real question is should any of us be forced to do anything we don't want to do. Within reason.

For example, feeling one should be able to speed through a school zone at 100 MPH because they do not want to go slower would not be reasonable. And misses the point I am trying to make.

In other words should we be forced to be active rather than passive?

Of course we should be forced NOT to do things that will harm others. Let's not debate the point that the baker may have hurt another person's feelings. They may have hurt his as well.

So...Should a person be forced to do something, rather than just do nothing?

 

[skeets]

Only question I would have is,,,,, do they have the money and it is legal tender, in a capitalistic society that is all that matters

 

[NCL4701]

Before reading bmblanks post, which I concur with, I came to the conclusion that the real question is should any of us be forced to do anything we don't want to do. Within reason.

For example, feeling one should be able to speed through a school zone at 100 MPH because they do not want to go slower would not be reasonable. And misses the point I am trying to make.

In other words should we be forced to be active rather than passive?

Of course we should be forced NOT to do things that will harm others. Let's not debate the point that the baker may have hurt another person's feelings. They may have hurt his as well.

So...Should a person be forced to do something, rather than just do nothing?

In a case where you open a shop and set yourself out to bake a cake for anyone that has the money to pay for it, or set up a taxi service to transport anyone within your territory for a fee, etc. you have set yourself up to be obligated to provide that service to anyone who meets the criteria for service. You can set some guidelines such as “no shirt, no shoes, no service” but it can’t be based on criteria society has decided are unacceptable such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.

 

[rc51stierhoff]

I do not think that particular case is funny, not at all, it’s sad really…however I hope all can see the irony of this first amendment case to trample on anothers first amendment rights, which in this case was religious freedom / expression, which coincidently was one of main reasons for the first amendment in the first place. And when those protections are upheld by the amendment to do exactly that people are upset that another has the same protections as they do…that’s just Hard to process when when the world is upside down…it’s sad guess.

 

[DustyRusty]

Should a Mormon be denied his religious beliefs and teachings that it is OK to have more than one wife?

 

[Mark_BX25D]

In a case where you open a shop and set yourself out to bake a cake for anyone that has the money to pay for it, or set up a taxi service to transport anyone within your territory for a fee, etc. you have set yourself up to be obligated to provide that service to anyone who meets the criteria for service.

Says who?

When I was in Germany back in the 70s, there were some businesses with signs outside that said, "No Americans". There were signs that said, "No blacks". too.

They had much less problem with racism than we do. Forcing "acceptance" down people's throats is not a recipe for good things, and in fact, the federal government has zero authority to make such laws.

 

[DustyRusty]

Says who?

When I was in Germany back in the 70s, there were some businesses with signs outside that said, "No Americans". There were signs that said, "No blacks". too.

They had much less problem with racism than we do. Forcing "acceptance" down people's throats is not a recipe for good things, and in fact, the federal government has zero authority to make such laws.

In the 1930's they had signs that said "no Jews", and we all know how that worked out for the Jews. Extermination of approximately six million European Jews and at least five million prisoners of war, Romany, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and other victims.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/holocaust

 

[Mark_BX25D]

In the 1930's they had signs that said "no Jews", and we all know how that worked out for the Jews. Extermination of approximately six million European Jews and at least five million prisoners of war, Romany, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals, and other victims.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/holocaust

Not even close to being comparable.

 

[NCL4701]

Says who?

When I was in Germany back in the 70s, there were some businesses with signs outside that said, "No Americans". There were signs that said, "No blacks". too.

They had much less problem with racism than we do. Forcing "acceptance" down people's throats is not a recipe for good things, and in fact, the federal government has zero authority to make such laws.

While I don’t entirely disagree, specifically in regard to governmental authority to enact and enforce such laws, at least as it relates to the United States, there are a plethora of anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on specific basis such as race, gender, religion.

I personally don’t believe a business holding itself out as open to the public should have the latitude to refuse service to black people. When I was a child, I lived in such a society. It was starting to change, but not without resistance and not over night. There are certainly some who would like to return to that system. Don’t know if there are any here, but I definitely know some outside of here. However, I believe the vast majority of the U.S. population would currently agree that is inappropriate to the point of being abhorrent.

The question is how far does that go? If a business can’t discriminate racially, are there any other characteristics which are unlawful for businesses to use as basis for discrimination in regard to whom they serve? Gender? Religion? Sexual orientation?

So, to answer your question directly, in relation solely to the U.S.A., various state legislatures, Congress, and the court system from local district court level to SCOTUS and everything in between.

Is that beyond the Constitutional scope of government? Even if yes, it would be far from unique in the catalog of government activities in that regard. Whether I agree, you agree, or the various members of this forum agree is immaterial unless a majority of SCOTUS agree.

 

[mikester]

Maybe I'm missing something. But if I have a business, should I not be able to decide if I want to take a job or not? EVEN if I publish my prices?

So I kind of have a problem with people thinking that they should force me to do something I don't want to do, even if they are willing to pay my normal charges.

What the heck am I missing here?

I guess it depends on what your business is.

I sell product from my place of business, FOB my site. I don't do service, visit or work at a customers site. I post my prices and sales policies so no surprises. It's pay for the product, here's the invoice, it's loaded on your tailgate provided you show up with appropriate transportation, sorry I won't load 3,000 lbs of product into the back of your honda civic with my forklift.

If someone comes and wants "a deal" or expects me to work for free I say no thank you it's take it or leave it.

I find it easier and cheaper to walk away from a sale then to spend 90% of my time on a 10% problem customer. Usually time-wasting tire-kicking BS'rs don't put cash on the table and aren't worth the time or effort.

If you are doing service at a customer's site you can always ask for the customer's references. There are a lot of deadbeat customers and you don't have to take them on. You can always be too busy to take on extra work.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

Any business should have the right to refuse doing business with any customer, it's that simple.

Recently guy comes to my shop wants me to go to his house and install the BNIB Kconnect and snowblower on his BX2380(?), which means the deck has to come off. I know his garage is cold, damp, poorly lit and stuffed. He actually expected me to drop what I was doing ,go there and do the install !
I said no, too busy (he can SEE I have 3 projects 'on the go'....but, call next week....
time passes, It's Monday 10am..he calls saying 'well you said you'd do it now, where are you ?'. I said, 'i said call NOT that I'd be there, but if YOU haul everything over here, I'll get to it next weekend.
Haven't seen him yet... probably never will.
If this happened in the states, I'd be sued.. here in Ontario, well I'll just not see him..until April when he'll call and demand I remove snowblower and put the deck on...

 

[hagrid]

I don't want salt cake.