Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as were doing discriminating Muslim hypotheticals, here's a fun one.
A blind man goes out for some drinks on New Years, and being responsible, he arranges a cab in advance. When the cab comes, the Muslim cab owner refuses to let the blind man in the cab because of his seeing eye dog. Blind man is now stranded late at night unable to get another cab because it's New Years.
Well, that's an interesting one. Would a "religious freedom" law override laws about service animals? Hmmmm.
And wouldn't someone who is part of the "Christian Identity" movement be able to argue that they have the right to only serve whites, as that is part of their version of Christianity?
If you open a business serving the public, you basically should be required to provide the same level of service to every person who deals with you respectfully, has reasonable expectations (as in, doesn't expect a giant penis cake, which could reflect poorly on the business providing it) and can pay the price for your services. Anything less and we risk sliding down a very slippery slope with regard to civil rights.
And wouldn't someone who is part of the "Christian Identity" movement be able to argue that they have the right to only serve whites, as that is part of their version of Christianity?
I recall a lawsuit from 1964 where some black people sued a chain of restaurants (Piggie Park BBQ) that was refusing to serve black people in violation of an anti-discrimination law. The owner of Piggie Park BBQ (Maurice Bessinger) was a devout Christian who believed - sincerely - that God commanded the races not mix and in what he referred to as "Biblical slavery." When sued, he argued in his defense that anti-discrimination laws requiring him to serve black people in the same restaurant where he served white people violated his 1st Amendment rights as a Christian.
However, if I were requesting a cake for something and the baker refused for a petty reason, I'd simply take my business to a person who is of a reasonable enough level of civility to deserve my business.
You and I and many others would take our business elsewhere...and normally, so would the gay people who are refused a 'decorated' cake. But that isn't the point, to them. They will press it, and insist upon making a circus of it, because it is a political act. They are the ones who are being unreasonable.
To me, this is a very simple matter to fix. Let the bakers just bake the cakes, and perhaps put the frosting on them in the desired color (no designs). The customer then has the option to bring the cake to a custom cake decorator, who will add whatever 'decor' is desired. 1) Baker is relieved of all responsibility, 2) a new business is born, employing more people, and 3) problem is solved.
You and I and many others would take our business elsewhere...and normally, so would the gay people who are refused a 'decorated' cake. But that isn't the point, to them. They will press it, and insist upon making a circus of it, because it is a political act. They are the ones who are being unreasonable.
To me, this is a very simple matter to fix. Let the bakers just bake the cakes, and perhaps put the frosting on them in the desired color (no designs). The customer then has the option to bring the cake to a custom cake decorator, who will add whatever 'decor' is desired. 1) Baker is relieved of all responsibility, 2) a new business is born, employing more people, and 3) problem is solved.
I think one difference that people are failing to mention is the fact that I'm sure most of these business owners would SERVE gay customers when it came to other services. The bakers who refused to make the lesbian couple a cake in Gresham, OR would have served the customers if they were simply buying cookies or even a birthday cake. It was the WEDDING part that they disagreed with, thus refusing to make the cake.
I think one difference that people are failing to mention is the fact that I'm sure most of these business owners would SERVE gay customers when it came to other services. The bakers who refused to make the lesbian couple a cake in Gresham, OR would have served the customers if they were simply buying cookies or even a birthday cake. It was the WEDDING part that they disagreed with, thus refusing to make the cake.
I don't think people are failing to understand that. The response is "so what"? It's still discriminating against a gay person because he's gay.
If I run a bookstore and I'm willing to sell all the books in the store to black people except the books on, oh let's says chemistry, because I don't think black people should have THAT knowledge, I'm still discriminating against black people because of their race. The fact that I'll sell them a cookbook doesn't negate that.
I don't think people are failing to understand that. The response is "so what"? It's still discriminating against a gay person because he's gay.
If I run a bookstore and I'm willing to sell all the books in the store to black people except the books on, oh let's says chemistry, because I don't think black people should have THAT knowledge, I'm still discriminating against black people because of their race. The fact that I'll sell them a cookbook doesn't negate that.
Thats not the same thing. Suppose the bookstore didn't sell the chemistry books at all (meaning to any customer) but then now are being forced to sell them because the customers demand it. That's whats going on here. A person may not bake gay themed wedding cakes, but some want the government to force them to add gay-themed cakes to their inventory.
Now I don't think that they should be allowed to discriminate on WHO they sell to but they should have control over WHAT they sell.
I agree with most of this, its a very slippery slope that the government is engaging in because if they're essentially telling companies what they can sell and who they can sell it to, than you could be putting the business at risk of failure...people want to succeed or fail on their own, they don't need "big bro" getting in the way and passing some laws that could cripple their business to the point of folding up shop.
I know personally if i was running a company, i wouldnt' turn away any customers because i know that the difference between succeeding and failing as a business owner is razor thin....i wouldnt presume i'm good enough to get rid of customers because i didnt' agree with their moral views.
How exactly is refusing to serve properly attired Latinos or blacks just because they're Latinos or blacks a business decision?
How exactly is a hotel or resort refusing reservations from Jews a business decision?
How exactly is stores putting "No Irish need apply" in their windows a business decision?
NONE of the above are business decisions but are simply expressions of bigotry that used to be accepted as "the norm" at various times in American history. There is absolutely no difference between the bigotry in the above examples and the homophobia that some business owners wanted to wrap up in a cloak of "morality".
What's immoral is the bigotry of their actions and the excuses that other people make for supporting them in promoting their bigotry.
Thats not the same thing. Suppose the bookstore didn't sell the chemistry books at all (meaning to any customer) but then now are being forced to sell them because the customers demand it. That's whats going on here. A person may not bake gay themed wedding cakes, but some want the government to force them to add gay-themed cakes to their inventory.
No. That's not what's going on here at all. In all of the real world cases, the purchasing of the wedding cake never even got to the design stage - as soon as the baker realized it was for gay people, the sale was denied. Denied not because of some offensive design, but simply because the customer requesting the service was gay.
Quote:
Now I don't think that they should be allowed to discriminate on WHO they sell to but they should have control over WHAT they sell.
I agree entirely. And that's EXACTLY what anti-discrimination laws do. If two gay men came in and requested a wedding cake in the shape of an ejaculating penis, or two lesbians wanted a fondant vagina cake, any baker absolutely could refuse that order as long as they would likewise refuse it for any other non-homosexual customer.
And what on God's green Earth is a gay themed wedding cake? I've been to many weddings - both gay and straight - and while each cake was different, there was no way to distinguish between the "gay cakes" and the "straight cakes." A three tiered cake covered in piped buttercream rosettes is a three tiered cake covered in piped buttercream rosettes no matter where it is.
"....I don't think that they should be allowed to discriminate on WHO they sell to but they should have control over WHAT they sell."
I tend to agree with this but now, I guess, there needs to be some understanding of what they are willing to sell. If you do work based on an explicit request or commission you need to inform your patrons of whatever conditions or limitations you would impose. If a vegan walked into a butcher shop and demanded soy products - they should know better because it is clearly a meat market and is advertised as such. If you are a sign painter and you decide you will not paint obscene signs, you need to let that be known. If you are a portrait photographer and you have standards of what type of photos you are willing to take and reproduce for your customers there needs to be an explicit understanding.
When we purchase software we have to agree to "terms of use" as part of the license agreement that sets out certain conditions. If we don't agree, we can opt out and seek another software product. Business owners probably need to have a similar implied or explicit statement of services or products (and any limitations) they are willing to provide and that those services or products are offered for profit to all who are willing to pay the price.
A religious publishing house that publishes bibles or religious tracts for a profit would not be expected to print pornography and most people would know that but maybe now they might need an explicit statement of their products and services - maybe a catalogue would serve the purpose. If it isn't in the catalogue it isn't available. They would be obligated to sell their products to all paying customers.
It is ridiculous to assert that your business is offended on any religious grounds if you are primarily in business to make a profit. A 'for profit' business or enterprise has no religion. People have religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
