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

[America Needs R'hllor]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

Because large corporations being discretionary can make certain types of consumers discriminated by society in general(Since they are large enough to basically control the marker in a particular town or city) while a small business do not have that power. The reason why the government has to step in when it comes to large corporations is for that reason, not because they are corporations.


Also, in this case, I am not sure he is doing it for bigotry reasons(he could be but I am not sure) because according to a story he doesn't sell cakes with alcohol as that goes against his religious beliefs. So it may be possible he may not bake a wedding cake for any type of wedding(including say Atheist ones or ones from other religions)  other than then say ones that follow his religious beliefs.

But what if a corporation has strong competition? This is just so arbitrary and seems to me like a political dogma about protecting "small businesses", one both Democrats and Republicans seem to indulge in. Businesses are great for stimulating the economy and increasing life quality. But that doesn't give them any right to discriminate against homosexuals, women, minorities or anyone else if they're offering their services to the general public.

Oh, please, that POS refused to serve a gay couple and purposefully made himself a homophobic icon. He's definitely doing it for bigoted reasons.

Sole Proprietorship, for one, are subject to significantly more litigation than LLC's and unlike LLC 's they aren't legal entities either. Sole Proprietorships unlike LLC's have no separate existence from the owner and are taxes at the individual rate. Partnerships also are ligited far more than LLC's

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/sole-proprietorship

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/partnership


So by defintion of these they deseve to be far less regulated than Corporations .

Ok, but these are economic terms. I agree that SP businesses should be far less regulated economically, but when you offer your wares to everyone, you offer them to everyone. Period. There's no difference between discriminating lgbt individuals and discriminating racial minorities, and if the latter is illegal for SPs, so should the former.

[OSR stands with Israel]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

Because large corporations being discretionary can make certain types of consumers discriminated by society in general(Since they are large enough to basically control the marker in a particular town or city) while a small business do not have that power. The reason why the government has to step in when it comes to large corporations is for that reason, not because they are corporations.


Also, in this case, I am not sure he is doing it for bigotry reasons(he could be but I am not sure) because according to a story he doesn't sell cakes with alcohol as that goes against his religious beliefs. So it may be possible he may not bake a wedding cake for any type of wedding(including say Atheist ones or ones from other religions)  other than then say ones that follow his religious beliefs.

But what if a corporation has strong competition? This is just so arbitrary and seems to me like a political dogma about protecting "small businesses", one both Democrats and Republicans seem to indulge in. Businesses are great for stimulating the economy and increasing life quality. But that doesn't give them any right to discriminate against homosexuals, women, minorities or anyone else if they're offering their services to the general public.

Oh, please, that POS refused to serve a gay couple and purposefully made himself a homophobic icon. He's definitely doing it for bigoted reasons.

Sole Proprietorship, for one, are subject to significantly more litigation than LLC's and unlike LLC 's they aren't legal entities either. Sole Proprietorships unlike LLC's have no separate existence from the owner and are taxes at the individual rate. Partnerships also are ligited far more than LLC's

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/sole-proprietorship

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/partnership


So by defintion of these they deseve to be far less regulated than Corporations .

Ok, but these are economic terms. I agree that SP businesses should be far less regulated economically, but when you offer your wares to everyone, you offer them to everyone. Period. There's no difference between discriminating lgbt individuals and discriminating racial minorities, and if the latter is illegal for SPs, so should the former.

I would say whether they should be legally punished should go on a case by case basis. For a wedding cake I would say the baker should be able to deny it to ANY type of wedding that the baker he wants(As long as its their own bakery, and I would also say if they provide a list of which types of wedding cakes they wont bake a cake for ).



On the other hand I would agree with you,  if say a restaurant discriminated against LGBT or any individual, then I would say yes they should be punished.

[America Needs R'hllor]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

Because large corporations being discretionary can make certain types of consumers discriminated by society in general(Since they are large enough to basically control the marker in a particular town or city) while a small business do not have that power. The reason why the government has to step in when it comes to large corporations is for that reason, not because they are corporations.


Also, in this case, I am not sure he is doing it for bigotry reasons(he could be but I am not sure) because according to a story he doesn't sell cakes with alcohol as that goes against his religious beliefs. So it may be possible he may not bake a wedding cake for any type of wedding(including say Atheist ones or ones from other religions)  other than then say ones that follow his religious beliefs.

But what if a corporation has strong competition? This is just so arbitrary and seems to me like a political dogma about protecting "small businesses", one both Democrats and Republicans seem to indulge in. Businesses are great for stimulating the economy and increasing life quality. But that doesn't give them any right to discriminate against homosexuals, women, minorities or anyone else if they're offering their services to the general public.

Oh, please, that POS refused to serve a gay couple and purposefully made himself a homophobic icon. He's definitely doing it for bigoted reasons.

Sole Proprietorship, for one, are subject to significantly more litigation than LLC's and unlike LLC 's they aren't legal entities either. Sole Proprietorships unlike LLC's have no separate existence from the owner and are taxes at the individual rate. Partnerships also are ligited far more than LLC's

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/sole-proprietorship

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/partnership


So by defintion of these they deseve to be far less regulated than Corporations .

Ok, but these are economic terms. I agree that SP businesses should be far less regulated economically, but when you offer your wares to everyone, you offer them to everyone. Period. There's no difference between discriminating lgbt individuals and discriminating racial minorities, and if the latter is illegal for SPs, so should the former.

I would say whether they should be legally punished should go on a case by case basis. For a wedding cake I would say the baker should be able to deny it to ANY type of wedding that the baker he wants(As long as its their own bakery, and I would also say if they provide a list of which types of wedding cakes they wont bake a cake for ).



On the other hand I would agree with you,  if say a restaurant discriminated against LGBT or any individual, then I would say yes they should be punished.

I guess we don't disagree on much in this issue save for a few narrow topics, then. I'm just putting the red line at any discrimination.

[Meclazine for Israel]

It's not an issue of being gay.

It's an issue of belief.

I have muslim employees in my team. When Ramadan is on, they dont want to go into the desert and explore because they will need water.

But their religious belief tells them they cannot drink water between 5:30am-5:30pm.

So i cannot send people 100km into the desert for mineral exploration without water.

You have to find alternative work for them. And next Saturday, they will be flown back to Perth for their Food Festivus.

So i look after them.

The same situation exists with Mr Straight Wedding Cake.

You cannot force him to serve customers against his belief.

To waste your time trying is more of an indictment on the person trying to stir them up to begin with.

[Badger]

Well, all I have left to say is that I'm glad we have what protections we do against discrimination now, because if we didn't, a lot of minorities and others of all kinds that need such protections would be sh**t out of luck, because there is no shortage of conservatives who have a reason for why explicit protections against discrimination is a bad idea, somehow. I still can't believe I am alive in 2018 and getting real anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people is apparently a non-starter with conservatives.

What. The. F*k.

This quote wins the thread. So succinct. So right.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

NFL

By social conservative I mean against the sexual revolution, that's how I've always distinguished social liberalism and social conservatism at least.

That's because, despite claiming to be, only a small fraction of Americans (~maybe 10%) are truly against the sexual revolution in total. Conservative opposition relies on piecemeal partial rejections that can together build a coalition approaching a majority of voters. That's also part of why conservative social positions are almost never implemented.

True.  And in 30 years Conservatives will have made peace with today's social liberalism while opposing the next big thing.  They'll say "We support X, but Y is going to far" while social liberals will say "We support X and Y, and if you dare suggest Y might lead to Z, you're a bigot."  And then in a decade or two they'll announce their support for Z and conservatives will have made peace with Y.

It's important to distinguish between different types of social issues.  For instance, gun control and immigration are social issues in a sense, but they aren't related to abortion and same-sex marriage.  What makes the latter issues so unique is that they represent the struggle between the sexual revolution and Christianity, and the two forces are currently engaged in a duel to the death.  There are only two outcomes, the sexual revolution will continue to intensify until it destroys society, or it will eventually be reversed.

If you haven't already, read about Alfred Kinsey and his connection to Hugh Hefner and Harry Hay.  These three men are, IMO, responsible for social liberalism as we know it today.  I would encourage anyone who thinks what I just posted is insane to research these people.

[cvparty]

It's not an issue of being gay.

It's an issue of belief.

I have muslim employees in my team. When Ramadan is on, they dont want to go into the desert and explore because they will need water.

But their religious belief tells them they cannot drink water between 5:30am-5:30pm.

So i cannot send people 100km into the desert for mineral exploration without water.

You have to find alternative work for them. And next Saturday, they will be flown back to Perth for their Food Festivus.

So i look after them.

The same situation exists with Mr Straight Wedding Cake.

You cannot force him to serve customers against his belief.

To waste your time trying is more of an indictment on the person trying to stir them up to begin with.

pretty flimsy equivalency
the customers aren't asking the baker to MARRY them lmfao

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

It's not an issue of being gay.

It's an issue of belief.

I have muslim employees in my team. When Ramadan is on, they dont want to go into the desert and explore because they will need water.

But their religious belief tells them they cannot drink water between 5:30am-5:30pm.

So i cannot send people 100km into the desert for mineral exploration without water.

You have to find alternative work for them. And next Saturday, they will be flown back to Perth for their Food Festivus.

So i look after them.

The same situation exists with Mr Straight Wedding Cake.

You cannot force him to serve customers against his belief.

To waste your time trying is more of an indictment on the person trying to stir them up to begin with.

pretty flimsy equivalency
the customers aren't asking the baker to MARRY them lmfao

No, they're not. They are asking for much worse. They are asking for the art of a human being to be taken and changed to mean something other than its intended meaning by means of force to convey something that the artist does not believe.

And if force were applied strongly enough, that's the perfect time to start tinkering with your recipe.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I refined my post a bit as you were posting your reply.  The key here is the people involved, it's not really about the size of the business, it's about a person's labor and  the personal commitments (if you despise them and have no interest in understanding them, okay whatever. People with convictions don't have them to be popular or understood by the majority for them to be real convictions.). 

here's some scenarios:
1) Jack Phillips did not want to personally invest his resources and talents and personal labor into making a cake specifically for something he believes would support am immoral ceremony. This seems to me worthy of conscience protections.  To adapt a phrase from Marx, to do otherwise would be to cause an alientation from one's labor.

2) Sally Hoosiermuffin, meanwhile, works at a supermarket bakery and is called to make something she opposes - it's a trickier scenario, as her personal capital and ownership is not involved, she's an employee, but her labor is involved, and so the question has to be asked whether she can be fired legally.

3) Bobby McBobface CEO of McBob Bakeries Inc, doesn't support making gay wedding cakes, but he's not personally making them himself, so his claim I think is weaker than the other two. At the very least, if an employee of his believed it's wrong to deny the gay couple their wedding cake, that employee should be able to make them one!

When people say that the lgbt community has accomplished everything, they should refer to posts like this- I assume you believe racism is universally bad, while homophobia is a "conviction". Once we start treating homophobia as a view as illegitimate as racism, maybe then we can be an actually advanced society.

1. I'm not a fan of Marx so I don't really care. Making a cake is not participating in a wedding, and if he thinks the ceremony is immoral... well, too bad, this is as repugnant as thinking that interracial marriage is immoral. Let him change his business to "cakes for Christian weddings only" rather than "cakes for weddings".

2. Of course. If she's employed by a business to make cakes, she should do her job. Refusing to do her job for discriminatory reasons is definitely grounds for firing.

3. Bobby McBobface should face heavy fines.

I'm very far from a fan of Marx myself, but I think there's a reason why his ideas resonated and why so many people complain about "neoliberalism" having power over so many aspects of contemporary life.

Why would "cakes for Christian weddings only" be more acceptable?  If not wanting to contribute to the recognition of a same-sex marriage is discriminatory, why would not the same for non-Christian weddings not be discriminatory also?    And what happens when a gay couple comes in saying they are Christian and are going to be married in the liberal mainline church down the street?

[Cold War Liberal]

It's not an issue of being gay.

It's an issue of belief.

I have muslim employees in my team. When Ramadan is on, they dont want to go into the desert and explore because they will need water.

But their religious belief tells them they cannot drink water between 5:30am-5:30pm.

So i cannot send people 100km into the desert for mineral exploration without water.

You have to find alternative work for them. And next Saturday, they will be flown back to Perth for their Food Festivus.

So i look after them.

The same situation exists with Mr Straight Wedding Cake.

You cannot force him to serve customers against his belief.

To waste your time trying is more of an indictment on the person trying to stir them up to begin with.

pretty flimsy equivalency
the customers aren't asking the baker to MARRY them lmfao

No, they're not. They are asking for much worse. They are asking for the art of a human being to be taken and changed to mean something other than its intended meaning by means of force to convey something that the artist does not believe.

And if force were applied strongly enough, that's the perfect time to start tinkering with your recipe.

What the actual eff is this?

Are you suggesting that cake bakers should poison gay people for wanting the same access to all goods and services as straight people?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

It's not an issue of being gay.

It's an issue of belief.

I have muslim employees in my team. When Ramadan is on, they dont want to go into the desert and explore because they will need water.

But their religious belief tells them they cannot drink water between 5:30am-5:30pm.

So i cannot send people 100km into the desert for mineral exploration without water.

You have to find alternative work for them. And next Saturday, they will be flown back to Perth for their Food Festivus.

So i look after them.

The same situation exists with Mr Straight Wedding Cake.

You cannot force him to serve customers against his belief.

To waste your time trying is more of an indictment on the person trying to stir them up to begin with.

pretty flimsy equivalency
the customers aren't asking the baker to MARRY them lmfao

No, they're not. They are asking for much worse. They are asking for the art of a human being to be taken and changed to mean something other than its intended meaning by means of force to convey something that the artist does not believe.

And if force were applied strongly enough, that's the perfect time to start tinkering with your recipe.

What the actual eff is this?

Are you suggesting that cake bakers should poison gay people for wanting the same access to all goods and services as straight people?

Uhhh, of course not? Geez, that's sick. I'm just saying it's easy to provide an unappealing product. Sugarless. Flavorless. Whatever.

[UncleSam]

The baker must sell anything in his store open to the public. He is not required to fill a custom order, however.

This is precisely the same as it is in all other disciplines. If a neonazi walks into Lowe’s to buy a hammer for building the stage of their next gathering, he cannot be refused service. If he then attempts to hire Bob Dylan to play at said gathering there is no legal requirement for Bob Dylan to show up because that is a custom service provided outside of the scope of normal offerings. Or even easier, the Lowe’s staff is not required to provide a custom hammer with a swastica on it.

If you open a store for the general public you must provide basic services to all, no exceptions. You are never and can never be required to provide custom services which require any amount of additional effort beyond agreeing to sell.

[elcorazon]

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.

So you're saying a restaurant shouldn't have to serve black people. Welcome to the first half of the 20th century!

[Progressive Pessimist]

The baker must sell anything in his store open to the public. He is not required to fill a custom order, however.

This is precisely the same as it is in all other disciplines. If a neonazi walks into Lowe’s to buy a hammer for building the stage of their next gathering, he cannot be refused service. If he then attempts to hire Bob Dylan to play at said gathering there is no legal requirement for Bob Dylan to show up because that is a custom service provided outside of the scope of normal offerings. Or even easier, the Lowe’s staff is not required to provide a custom hammer with a swastica on it.

If you open a store for the general public you must provide basic services to all, no exceptions. You are never and can never be required to provide custom services which require any amount of additional effort beyond agreeing to sell.

Being a neonazi is a conscious choice, one's sexuality is not. Find a new example to justify this already! I have heard that countless times and it is never even close to resembling the real issue at hand.