But how did that method/approach work regarding black discrimination in the 150+ years since the US civil war?


But the cake is just another cake celebrating a marriage. Yes, a gay marriage. One could have a cake celebrating a straight marriage, a mixed race marriage, a black marriage, an asian marriage, a native american marriage, and so on. Nothing is different about the cake except the status/orientation/race of the people getting married.


This is an interesting question. We all know that a change of opinion causes a change of behavior. Fewer people understand that a change of behavior also causes a change of opinion. Legislating behavior has historically worked to a degree in the usa. Yes, it would be nice if we did not have to do so, but some people are pretty hateful.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Okay, but I already said I am denying service based on the theme of the cake, not the people ordering. People are a protected class, cake themes obviously aren't.

And I'm just going to state once again for the record... in the case of the baker denying the service of baking a gay wedding cake, I don't like the baker... I'll bake rainbow cakes all day long. Won't be very good but I'll do it. I'm playing devil's advocate to make my point people should be able to deny service of whatever they want.

Well didn't work to well in the south, for .. well someone might say it still doesn't.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Yeah I don't know the details of the cake. In my mind there is something about it that differentiates it from a "standard" cake, but I could be totally wrong on that and that is a pretty crucial detail to this whole deal. In general legislation should be the "don't do this" list, not "you have to do this..." Trail mentioned the term "slippery slope" which I think is used quite often but actually really applies here.

While your ideas are interesting, it is hard to know what works or does not work on a purely philosophical basis. But looking directly at what has worked and what has not worked in the distant and recent past, that is a test and a pile of evidence that, I think, prevails in this debate.

And, irrelevant of your opinion or mine, market forces failed miserably at changing US discrimination against former US slaves. Still failing to this day. So I highly doubt that we can rely on market forces solving other cases of blatant discrimination.

Or, if not, tell me what I am missing.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I don't think you are missing anything at all... It's a complex situation with infinite "what-ifs". I still think though you are looking at it as discriminating towards people because of their race/religion/sexual orientation/etc... as opposed to denying a certain service that may go against your beliefs. But in reality it isn't a fine line of course. At the end of the day the only way I see to logically avoid all the "what-ifs" is to not mandate that people do things they don't want to do. Otherwise you go down the rabbit hole and eventually we get to a place that we'd all agree is crazy...

Markets are an economic mechanism, not a social values mechanism. The market corrects for poorly made product, or product the consumer doesn’t want, or over/underpriced goods, etc.

They’re not supposed to be the mechanism by which all of societal values are adjudicated. Capitalism is just a model for economics, and people probably should stop trying to apply its theory to everything else as is economic laws are universal to all other areas of thought or human interaction.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

But I don't think the baker is denying the gay clients because making wedding cakes goes against his beliefs.

Because he loves making wedding cakes. He just does not want to make wedding cakes for gay people's weddings. Next he will decide that his religious beliefs preclude him from making wedding cakes for mixed race marriages (people with such beliefs do exist, there are lots of them, but maybe none of them are wedding cake bakers ... yet ...).

Should we let wedding cake bakers that have religious views against mixed race marriages (and such religions exist in the usa) also flagrantly discriminate? And should we just let market forces do all of the heavy lifting here as well ? Even though market forces have historically failed in such cases, and failed quite badly?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I don't disagree entirely but it's equally as troublesome to legislate societal values and morality.

That shouldn't be troublesome. That's part of what the Legislature is for. We come together as a society because we presumably share some values. We send our representatives to make laws that reflect those values.

That's kind of the whole point.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I have to take a timeout for dinner... I'll be back shortly.

I'm enjoying this discussion and peoples' opinions...

From the link and the court case, with a healthy dose of rewriting (but keeping to the spirit of the dilemma):

"Enter Jane Doe, the owner of ReligilousUnCreative LLC, a designer of websites and graphics based in Crazytown, CO. Doe is a devout Christian nutter who believes that marriage “is only between one man and one woman of the same race.” So although Doe wants to expand her business to include wedding websites, she does not want to design websites for mixed race weddings, and she wants to post a message on her own website to make that clear."

OK, so you're a justice in the scotus. How would you rule?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I’d rule that describing the plaintiff as a “nutter” is prejudicial.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well done !



(But, yeah, truthfully, l think that people that are against mixed race marriages ARE nutters ... )

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Man here we go with the "what-ifs", Pandora's Box is open... perfect because I've got a few drinks in me now.

In your scenario, I rule that shithead LLC owner may NOT discriminate against the clients based on their race, but that they MAY object to and ultimately not accommodate certain specific aspects of the specific website design that they do not want to sign their name to.

Here is my scenario to you.

I'm a woman who once upon a time made a very difficult decision to get an abortion. Maybe it was medical in nature and it saved my life, maybe something else, whatever... For the purpose of this exercise, let's say it somehow drastically changed my life for the better. Now I design websites. Ultra religious cult type folks show up at my office, they want to make a new website AbortionIsMurder.com. Can I politely tell them to fuck off?

Yes, l think that you can tell them to f*ck off.

You can discriminate based on the nature and content of the work. You just can't discriminate based on the nature of the person. Especially if the nature of the person is protected by constitutional and/or federal law (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so on)

For example, if the mixed race couple wanted to you to make a website that celebrated their upcoming wedding and also encouraged people to donate to the nazi party of the usa, you could decline to do that. (Unless you have made identical wedding and nazi party supporting websites for white only couples).

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

Like any other service, just quote 3x going rate and availability to do work is 6-12 most out.

I remember back in the 60's and 70's a lot of stores had signs at the cash that read "Management has the right to refuse service to anyone". What happened to that?

I am curious, if you were in the scotus, how would you rule on my scenario?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

DarkSpeedWorks wrote:

I am curious, if you were in the scotus, how would you rule on my scenario?

On scenario that I posed to you? I would rule precisely how you stated you would rule:

You can discriminate based on the nature and content of the work. You just can't discriminate based on the nature of the person. Especially if the nature of the person is protected by constitutional and/or federal law (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and so on)

This matches very closely with what I said for the scenario you posed to me:

In your scenario, I rule that shithead LLC owner may NOT discriminate against the clients based on their race, but that they MAY object to and ultimately not accommodate certain specific aspects of the specific website design that they do not want to sign their name to.


I don't think you and I are that far off here on our opinions, at least it doesn't seem so. We are looking nice and consistent across the political spectrum on our supreme court LOL...

Thanks, l enjoy discussing this with you, l am hoping to gain new insight on how best to view this dilemma.

So you feel that the wedding site web designer can make a wedding announcement website with rainbows and hearts for straight couples. But then this designer can legally refuse to make an IDENTICAL wedding website with rainbows and hearts for gay couples?


On the related topic, any thoughts why market forces did not do a good job of reducing US racism in the 150 years after the civil war?

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

saw on news a good argument... a store should not be able to put up a sign "we do not serve jews or blacks" which is discriminatory. Rather the business owner should just deny the customer if they have some bias, but not be required to give reason.

I am a business owner myself as a landlord, and should be able to deny renters who I view as risk that can destroy my property , rob me, etc. .... because infact back in the day sublet to a shady roommate who tried to stab me when I asked for rent money

You can. What you can't do is decide you're not going to rent to blacks, Jews, or Christians, women, etc.

We rented our house for 10 years before selling it. You can protect yourself and property as a landlord without discriminating based on protected classes. You knew that already, but seemed to feel it necessary to post that as somehow it contributes to a conversation about business owners wanting to discriminate based on protected class. Which it doesn't.

Good analysis by the ACLU

https://www.nytimes.com/...t-supreme-court.html


303 Creative argues that it is not turning away same-sex couples because they are gay, but because it objects to the message that making a wedding website for them would convey. The company has, however, asked the court to declare its right to refuse to make any website for a same-sex couple’s wedding, even if its content is identical to one it would design for a straight couple. According to this line of argument, the company could refuse a gay couple even a site that merely announced the time and location of the wedding and recommended places to stay.

Colorado’s law doesn’t dictate the content of what a business sells. 303 Creative is free to post on all the websites it designs, “The Bible condemns gay marriage.” And by the same token, it could refuse to design a site that says, “The Bible blesses gay marriage,” if it would not design that website for anyone. In that case, the decision would not be discrimination based on the customer’s identity, but a permissible decision to define the product it sells.

303 Creative has plenty of freedom to speak or not speak as it wishes. It need not serve the public and it need not design wedding websites featuring content it would not sell to anyone. But the First Amendment does not give it an exemption from laws requiring equal treatment of customers simply because its service is “expressive.”

Otherwise, interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contains some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group. The First Amendment protects the right to have and express bigoted views, but it doesn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.