Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[tschandler]

It's interesting how people who have never actually ran a business view this issue.  If someone has a verbal/written contract to bake a cake it would be bad business to refuse to make it after agreeing to make it.  But you can't force a business to perform a service, that is a dangerous precedence.  Ideally yes we should all be "cold capitalists" to the point we should make a cake for anyone that is willing to pay.  But if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for you why would you patronize their business?  The only reason you would use the legal system in this case would be to force your world view on others.  A rational adult would simply go to another baker.  After all, businesses refuse jobs for a multitude of reasons, anyone who has been a contractor knows that. 

[tschandler]

De Jure segregation is an entirely different issue than personal/business discretion.  A law barring companies from serving LGBT people would be discrimination.   A baker refusing to serve people who are LGBT entirely would be discrimination.  Not wanting to perform a specific contracted service for an LGBT couple though?  Because if that is the case it would mean clergy can't decide against performing SSM.  You don't have the right to the services of others. 

[tschandler]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Not being served in a public business because of who you are and the owners and communities antipathy towards your type, be at a cake shop, restaurant counter, bus station, or other Private Business, yes is the exact definition of Jim Crow.

If some 1962 Bakery in Mississippi told a young black couple waiting to get married to get out of there store cuz they don't serve ns oh, you wouldn't consider that Jim Crow?

Jim Crow was de jure segregation.