Should it be illegal to refuse to provide a service to gay customers...

[mencken]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yes

[ON Progressive]

Yes

[mencken]

Yes

In both scenarios?

[America Needs R'hllor]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

[mencken]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

But the psychiatrist is also offering his services to the general public. The psychiatrist must be a bigot if he is refusing to serve gay customers.

[ON Progressive]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

But the psychiatrist is also offering his services to the general public. The psychiatrist must be a bigot if he is refusing to serve gay customers.

Except gay conversion therapy is harmful pseudoscience that nobody should be serviced. It's not even in the same universe as a baker providing a cake.

[dead0man]

If they are the only place providing that service in a reasonable area, maybe.  Otherwise no.  Why would you want to give money to someone that hates you when there are alternatives that don't hate you?  So funking stupid.  This is NOTHING like white's only services in the times of Torie's youth.

[DC Al Fine]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

It depends

[mencken]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

But the psychiatrist is also offering his services to the general public. The psychiatrist must be a bigot if he is refusing to serve gay customers.

Except gay conversion therapy is harmful pseudoscience that nobody should be serviced. It's not even in the same universe as a baker providing a cake.

The psychiatrist in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his scientific beliefs. The baker in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his religious beliefs. Thus far, the only defense I can hear from leftists for the contradictory attitude toward the two individuals is that the psychiatrist is correct (and thus everyone must follow his opinion) and the baker is incorrect (and thus everyone must go against his opinion)

I really should have known better than to expect a more nuanced viewpoint, referring to my signature

[Brittain33]

But the psychiatrist is also offering his services to the general public. The psychiatrist must be a bigot if he is refusing to serve gay customers.

That's disingenuous. Your analogy requires belief that straight people would pursue gay aversion therapy, which makes no sense. That's like saying "gay people have the right to marry, they can marry someone of the opposite sex."

[Brittain33]

The psychiatrist in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his scientific beliefs. The baker in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his religious beliefs.

The word "beliefs" is carrying a lot of weight there. In America, generally we don't equate science with an individual's interpretation of what their religion teaches.

[twenty42]

You’re framing the issue. A proprietor of a private business can refuse service to whomever they want. Beliefs are a non-issue...we are talking about a first amendment right.

[HillGoose]

You can refuse service to anyone, but if you do that you also have to realize that it's fair for the media and public opinion to attack you for it.

[here2view]

You can refuse service to anyone, but if you do that you also have to realize that it's fair for the media and public opinion to attack you for it.

[Brittain33]

You can refuse service to anyone, but if you do that you also have to realize that it's fair for the media and public opinion to attack you for it.

Cool with Jim Crow as long as it's self-regulating. Ok.

[America Needs R'hllor]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

But the psychiatrist is also offering his services to the general public. The psychiatrist must be a bigot if he is refusing to serve gay customers.

Except gay conversion therapy is harmful pseudoscience that nobody should be serviced. It's not even in the same universe as a baker providing a cake.

The psychiatrist in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his scientific beliefs. The baker in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his religious beliefs. Thus far, the only defense I can hear from leftists for the contradictory attitude toward the two individuals is that the psychiatrist is correct (and thus everyone must follow his opinion) and the baker is incorrect (and thus everyone must go against his opinion)

I really should have known better than to expect a more nuanced viewpoint, referring to my signature

Lmao. You managed to keep a civil debate for about, what, one post, and complain that people here don't make nuanced viewpoints?

Well, in addition to what others pointed out, here's what's wrong and quite unnuanced in your "arugment". Science is not a belief, science are cold, hard facts, and treating it as equal to faith is theocratic and just quite... illogical, I'll use that word. If you read any research done about conversion therapy, how ineffective it is and how mentally scarring and horrible it is you'd probably be speaking differently. Just like a doctor definitely has the right to refuse to cut off a perfectly good limb, a psychiatrist has a full right to refuse to conduct an ineffective, extremely damaging mental health process. Meanwhile, a baker who is offering his ware to the general public can't arbitrarily decide that some of the general public is unworthy of this ware because of religious bigotry.

But go on, keep acting like we're all stupid and can't make a nuanced point.

[cvparty]

You’re framing the issue. A proprietor of a private business can refuse service to whomever they want. Beliefs are a non-issue...we are talking about a first amendment right.

a privately owned business which is a public accommodation

You can refuse service to anyone, but if you do that you also have to realize that it's fair for the media and public opinion to attack you for it.

no you can't lol

[Xing]

Apples and oranges. Merely baking a cake doesn't go against one's religious beliefs. It's that some people don't like doing so for a specific subgroup of potential customers because it makes them... uncomfortable, lol.) Gay conversion therapy in and of itself is harmful pseudoscience. If we were talking about making cake with the words "I love homosexuality and the gays, and Christianity is a stupid fairy tale" on it, that would be a different story.

Gay customers should be offered the same services and opportunities that straight couples are offered. Simple as that.

[mencken]

Well, in addition to what others pointed out, here's what's wrong and quite unnuanced in your "arugment". Science is not a belief, science are cold, hard facts, and treating it as equal to faith is theocratic and just quite... illogical, I'll use that word.

I do not think they are equal, I merely believe in something called individual liberty. People should not be compelled into performing labor against their will, regardless of how well-informed or baseless their reasoning is.

And no, science is not facts, it is a process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should all harmful, unscientific things be banned? Even when they have the informed consent of the affected party?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wedding cakes have to be custom made, it's not like the cakes are just sitting under glass waiting for the customer to order them. From what I gather, the baker objects to the function, not the customers themselves.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Yes

[Mr. Reactionary]

You can refuse service to anyone, but if you do that you also have to realize that it's fair for the media and public opinion to attack you for it.

Cool with Jim Crow as long as it's self-regulating. Ok.

Are you still pushing this nonsense? Muh wedding cake freedom is jim crow!!!

[America Needs R'hllor]

Wedding cakes have to be custom made, it's not like the cakes are just sitting under glass waiting for the customer to order them. From what I gather, the baker objects to the function, not the customers themselves.

The baker denied them his service before hearing what they actually want on the cake. Like xīngkěruì said, he deined them his services because of his "discomfort" with homosexuals, read bigotry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should all harmful, unscientific things be banned? Even when they have the informed consent of the affected party?

When the harm is drastic enough? Absolutely. Again, just like cutting off limbs would obviously not be allowed, so is such a strong harming of mental health, regardless of what the patient wants.
Of course, you're speaking from a libertarian point of view. It's fine. I respect your views, and hopefully you respect the views of people who think otherwise. What I take issue in, is the attempt to equate such wildly different scenarios, which I found especially outrageous as a gay person.

[here2view]

You can refuse service to anyone, but if you do that you also have to realize that it's fair for the media and public opinion to attack you for it.

Cool with Jim Crow as long as it's self-regulating. Ok.

Are you still pushing this nonsense? Muh wedding cake freedom is jim crow!!!

[Badger]

...that violates the service provider's personal beliefs?

Should it be illegal for a bakery to refuse to prepare a wedding cake to gay customers custom-made for their same-sex marriage?
Should it be illegal for a psychiatrist to refuse to provide gay conversion therapy to a gay customer seeking to change his sexuality?

Discuss.

1. Yes, because he's offering his services to the genral public and not to a specific sector. If he wants, he can provide services for "christian weddings", but he can't discriminate gays because he's a bigot.
2. No, because conversion therapy should be illegal.

But the psychiatrist is also offering his services to the general public. The psychiatrist must be a bigot if he is refusing to serve gay customers.

Except gay conversion therapy is harmful pseudoscience that nobody should be serviced. It's not even in the same universe as a baker providing a cake.

The psychiatrist in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his scientific beliefs. The baker in this example is being asked to provide a specific service that goes against his religious beliefs. Thus far, the only defense I can hear from leftists for the contradictory attitude toward the two individuals is that the psychiatrist is correct (and thus everyone must follow his opinion) and the baker is incorrect (and thus everyone must go against his opinion)

I really should have known better than to expect a more nuanced viewpoint, referring to my signature

No, this like asking someone to provide trepanning because the patient believes drilling holes in their skull will release all the evil demons. Gay conversion therapy is every bit as much medical malpractice as that, regardless of how fervently the "doctor" buys into it. Nor would it make an iota of difference if the scenario involved a heterosexual seeking psychiatric "conversion" to becoming gay.