Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding?

[catographer]

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

[catographer]

I think people here may need reminding as to why anti-discrimination statutes were created to begin with. Black people were being denied service in public establishments across the country, forced to either find somewhere else to do business or create their own establishments that would serve them. It was a case of separate-but-equal.

Let's remember too the harms to an individual when they're discriminated against in public accommodations. Say they need to stay in a hotel in town for a job interview. Uh-oh, the hotel refuses to rent them a room. No job interview; no job. Economic harm.

[catographer]

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

I should clarify then, only in states and jurisdictions where anti-discrimination laws are on the books (which includes many states for LGBT, and federal law for race, religion, and gender), are there "specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups." It's debatable whether bakers who are morally opposed to same-sex marriage have to serve a cake to the couple. In my estimation, the bakers are admittedly denying service to the couple because of their sexual orientation (they don't want to serve a homosexual wedding, whereas they'd be fine with a heterosexual one). Therefore I think that that would be illegal according to anti-discrimination laws.

"Protected classes" are not specific groups of people, nor do they accord any additional rights to anyone compared to others. Protected classes, at least the way I used that term in what I said, means attributes of individuals that cannot be the basis for discrimination. 100% of citizens have a race, gender, sexuality, or religious belief. Therefore, 100% of citizens are protected by anti-discrimination laws and are in "protected classes." The impetus for creating the laws however was/is to specifically defend historically marginalized minorities from being discriminated against by those in the majority; anti-discrimination laws aim to protect minority rights and ensure that everyone is "equal under the law."

Hope that cleared up what I was saying, because I don't think you understood me well. Also, it is probably against forum rules for you to call me a "dumbass" like that, but I won't report you.

[catographer]

Yeah, frankly the law is clear. There are specific protected classes of historically marginalized minority groups; based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc. Political affiliation isn't on that list. So, denying service to someone based on their politics isn't illegal, but doing so based on sexuality is.

Is that right? Should it be different? I think the law right now is fine; it generally protects people based on immutable characteristics (with religion as an exception). It applies to everyone equally to; I can't deny service to a straight couple because they're heterosexual. A Nazi can refuse to serve a Communist, and vice-versa.

Dumbass there's no law in the United States that says bakers have to serve gay wedding cakes and there shouldn't be any protected classes since we're all supposed to be equal under the law

Why did you immediately resort to name-calling??

I really want his reply to my argument too. D:

[catographer]

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

thank goodness this isn't the current law. what you're describing is law pre-1964 civil rights act. we agreed as a country in 1964 that we should not allow people to discriminate in businesses open to the public... if you wanna turn back the clock great but i'll work my butt off making sure that that never happens.

[catographer]

A private business owner should have full discretion in regards of who they do business with, and should never be required to make a sale or perform a service for anyone they don't want to.

If a business owner wants to be bigoted and hateful towards customers of a certain category, it's unfortunate, but that's his/her choice. Their community of customers will probably boycott their business and pressure them into either a) changing course or b) closing their doors.
Obviously essential services such as pharmacies, hospitals, etc. must be required to serve everyone, but most other businesses should not.

thank goodness this isn't the current law. what you're describing is law pre-1964 civil rights act. we agreed as a country in 1964 that we should not allow people to discriminate in businesses open to the public... if you wanna turn back the clock great but i'll work my butt off making sure that that never happens.

Except that's not the law and never has been nationwide.  Title II covers a specific class of businesses known as "public accommodations" which does not include all retail establishments and would include a bakery only if allowed on-premise consumption of its goods.  Many States do have more expansive laws, but those are State laws, not Federal ones.

Incidentally, whether Title VII (employment discrimination) applies to LGBT discrimination is a matter of unsettled law at present as different circuits have reached different conclusions, so it's probably headed to SCOTUS for resolution, tho with the current court, I think they'll rule Congress could expand the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation, but it hasn't chosen to do so, so it doesn't.

you're right about how the federal CRA 1964's doesnt cover LGBT discrimination. but as for the federal law definition of public accomodation... idk if you're correct. it seems on the face of the text from CRA 1964 that you'd be right, but i didnt find anything agreeing with you necessarily... could u help me find some case examples where a bakery or something similar wasnt found to be a PA under the federal CRA? the only thing i found is a quote from FindLaw.Com (idk how reliable they are):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

even tho a bakery technically doesnt serve food "on the premises," i find it a bit incredulous that a bakery that denied service to black people (for example) would not be found in violation of the law. maybe my confusion stems from the near universal existence of additional state laws that expand the definition of PA.