So, a business owner could have a bar for whites only? Is that what you're saying?

vitus979 wrote:

For one thing, religion IS a protected class, while sexual orientation isn't.

I tend to agree with much of your position on this incident, but this statement of yours simply isn't correct. From page 2 of the Washington State Human Rights Commission's Guide to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and the Washington State Law Against Discrimination:

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

I meant federally. And in some of the states in which small private businesses got in trouble for not baking cakes. While sexual orientation is a protected class in Washington, that doesn't really apply in this case.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

IMO, if they weren't making any kind of disturbance, then no, he shouldn't be able to refuse service because they are anti-abortion activists.

As A-A-Ron said, if you have to bake a gay cake, then you have to serve anti-abortion coffee.


As to the "service for everyone," or "refusal to anyone" argument, I would normally agree with you in principle, that being that you should have the freedom to choose who you do and do not serve. As others have said, get your coffee somewhere else, or have someone else bake your cake. The reason why I don't take this position is because we've seen this result in entire classes of people being significantly oppressed. "Go next door to buy a cake," is often rathe, "Drive 200 miles to buy a cake, and good luck getting a job or a bank loan, and, oh, and your kids don't have any friends because the parents are afraid that they may not be allowed into their favorite restaurants anymore," etc. etc.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

The reason why I don't take this position is because we've seen this result in entire classes of people being significantly oppressed. "Go next door to buy a cake," is often rathe, "Drive 200 miles to buy a cake, and good luck getting a job or a bank loan, and, oh, and your kids don't have any friends because the parents are afraid that they may not be allowed into their favorite restaurants anymore," etc. etc.

When?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Seriously?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

This is absolutely the case. Business indeed don't have the right to compel someone to work for them yet consumers have a right to demand services from a business. This is a form of forced labor. The cake ruling this week will be interesting, because I see this as the pivot point of this whole argument. It doesn't matter if it's cake, coffee, flowers or even oil.

In this coffee case, everybody is acting like assholes. Can a business legally turn away a customer because they are jerks? As a small business owner I have found creative and tactful ways of turning away business. But I am providing a custom product and can use phrases like "that is beyond our area of expertise". All a coffee shop can do is provide bad service to those they don't want coming back.

Well, I agree that whether or not sexual orientation is a protected class doesn't apply in this particular case; however, you are the one who stated that this case is somewhat more egregious because sexual orientation isn't a protected class while religion generally is. Sexual orientation discrimination may not be prohibited in most states (about 30), but Washington isn't one of those, so your comparison really isn't accurate.

FWIW, as of 2015, 19 states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. These include such "small states" as California, Illinois, New York, and Washington, as well as geographically small, but population large states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. My state, Colorado, is also in that mix. The other 10 are: Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine (none of which are "small states"), Vermont, Delaware, D.C., and Rhode Island. In addition, Utah outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace and in housing, but not public accommodations.

All that said, I merely wished to correct what I perceived to be a misstatement. I agree with you that it's rather hypocritical to try to have it both ways. One can't credibly argue against punishing a cake decorator for refusing to make a gay wedding cake on religious grounds and then turn around and state that it's permissible for a gay coffee shop owner to refuse to serve people with particular religious views simply because those views don't mesh with the person's gay life style.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

Yes, I seriously want to know if Barry thinks a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple or a coffee shop owner who doesn't want to serve Christians is equivalent to the situation under Jim Crow laws. I seriously want to know that entire classes of people have often found this to be a major issue in their lives. I seriously want to know if he thinks its a serious problem if a gay couple has to find a second baker to get a cake, or if a Christian activist has to walk down the block to another coffee shop.

Yeah, seriously.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"When?"

Specifically regarding buying a gay wedding cake? You didn't hear hear about the incident in Montgomery Alabama in 1955 when a lesbian couple was about to get married but had to drive 200 miles to get a wedding cake?

Oh wait, I forgot. Lesbians couldn't marry each other in 1955, so they probably weren't trying to buy gay wedding cakes. I must be getting my stories confused.

Yes, specifically regarding the purchasing of gay cakes, I'm guessing none has ever had to drive 200 miles to get one.

BTW, why does Montgomery Alabama ring a bell?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Stating the obvious, Western culture made a helova lot of progress re. treating folks of different <whatever> better. Some credit to civil rights legislation, but imo the change was primarily cultural and the legislation was a product of the cultural change. Laws don't change values. Values create laws.

The civil rights laws have some problems, imo. One of them is the idea that my right to force you to bake me a cake trumps your right to refuse me. To me, that's totally at odds with the founding principles of our country. Freedom works both ways. You have a right to be an asshole, up until you do me harm.

If you don't want to bake me a cake, I should not have the recourse of using the law to force you. I should instead get the word out that you don't like charismatic middle-aged white guys and see if the harm to your business helps you adopt a more expansive worldview.

We should not have sacrificed some of our founding principles on the alter of civil rights. Sure, there were lots of corners of the country that would have moved more slowly to see the light re. racism and discrimination, in the absence of federal legislation. That's the downside. But I think that we'd have a lot less friction today if we'd have focused instead on cultural changes. Instead we trampled rights, we created a whole network of discriminatory laws designed to stop discrimination, we created the notion of protected classes, which is ridiculous, etc.

We can always use the power of the federal government to get what we want "right now". We could, tomorrow, in a green frenzy, shut down every engine and process that has the potential to pollute the environment. Or we could remain cool-headed and patient and get to where we want by coaxing folks in our desired direction, vs. using the feds to unConstitutionally "force" others to do things our way. It takes longer that way, but it doesn't damage the very principles that support our nation.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

So what if someone has to drive 200 miles to buy a wedding cake?

Not to mention, is it really your argument that anyone actually does have to drive 200 miles to buy a wedding cake? And not only someone, but entire classes of people? And the situation is so dire and so intolerable that it's necessary to trample on the individual rights of small business owners?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Wow, I guess I've heard a lot of good commentary on issues this week. I think comparing the Colorado baker and this coffee business is a very bad example.

The baker does sell cakes to everyone. In fact the gay couple were already customers. What he refused was to bake a custom wedding cake as that would be adding a message to that cake, i.e. supporting an event that he religiously disagrees with.

The coffee business only serves coffee and was targeting these specific people because of their religious beliefs telling them to leave and that the would not be served anything.

I see these as totally different. Maybe that is hard for some people to fathom, but it seems pretty clear cut.

I totally agree with you. (See post 19.)

But the fact is that a lot of people seem to have a hard time drawing the (relatively plain) distinction between, "I won't serve you," and "I won't produce that type of good." I wanted to see what those people had to say about a show owner who actually does say, "I won't serve you," when the people he won't serve are Christians.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You think he wont serve christians? Seriously? Or are you trying to conflate "these particular people happen to be christians" with he wont serve christians in general?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

"So what if someone has to drive 200 miles to buy a wedding cake?

Not to mention, is it really your argument that anyone actually does have to drive 200 miles to buy a wedding cake? And not only someone, but entire classes of people? And the situation is so dire and so intolerable that it's necessary to trample on the individual rights of small business owners? "


Do you have a problem with restaurants denying service to black people?


Please, continue with your line of argument about "what's the big deal."

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I completely agree. Furthermore, I don't think people should be forced to participate in any ceremony they disagree with.

But he did not seem to be against them for being Christians, but rather being disruptive jerks who feel their religion is cause to negatively impact others. They were distributing graphic material to children. That makes them predominantly jerks - their religion is secondary to being jerks.

He did not seem concerned with anyone who was not being a jerk’s religion so how can you say religion was the guiding concern in his decision?

Especially since some denominations are cool with abortion.

Makes sense since god aborts 30 % of all pregnancies. he apparently loves them. If god hated abortions, he wouldnt cause so many. Anti abortion activists seem to be going against gods wishes. I suppose thats why he never answers their prayers to overturn roe v wade.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Members of Abolish Human Abortion recently decided to order drinks in Seattle’s Bedlam coffee shop after posting and distributing pro-life pamphlets in the local community. Activists who joined Caleb Head and Caytie Davis on Oct. 1 were soon berated and told the leave when they were identified.
“I’m gay. You have to leave,” owner Ben Borgman said in the video.
“Are you denying us service?” Mr. Davis asked.
“I am. Yeah,” Mr. Borgman replied.


If this was the other way around, it would be on CNN for the next 24 hours and lots of angry mobs.

Odd how I hadn't heard about it until reading it here.

My dad was a barber. This was his basic strategy for keeping black people away. It didn't happen very often that a black person wanted a haircut from him, but it seemed like a big deal whenever they did. We had to hear about it that evening.