Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

[Gulo Blue]

Well, one distinction would be he's not engaging in wholesale discrimination against gay people - he's perfectly willing to do business with them, selling his other products for them to use however they choose. His opposition is to same sex marriage, not gay people. That's different than the wholesale discrimination against a protected class - you couldn't reasonably argue that you have a religiously based moral opposition to building houses for black people. I'm not aware of any builders who claim their religion would allow them to renovate a black couple's bathroom but not build them a house.

It's not cut and dry, a bit of a gray area but I think his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump their right to compel him to participate in something he's morally opposed to. You can be opposed to same sex marriage and not hate gay people.

Personally, I think the government has no business and no real interest in sanctioning or regulating marriage, regardless of whatever wrongheaded decision the Supreme Court made about it. Beyond my tax filing status, the piece of paper I have from the state of New Jersey saying I'm married is meaningless to me. The one I have from the Catholic Church matters way more.

Then what is the legal distinction between wholesale discrimination and some other, presumably more limited form of discrimination against a protected class? Does it specifically have to involve marriage? Would he also be right to not bake a requested custom cake celebrating anniversaries, moving in together, adoption of a kid, or some other aspect of the same sex couple's life as a couple that he objects to? Where is the line between a marriage ceremony and building a life together in a home that a seller might sell? In my opinion, the lifestyle is far more important to the nature of a person's life than a ceremony.

 

[tinselwolverine]

pop culture and it's bastard offsping, PC culture are what's rotting this country from the inside. Get out of Hollywood while you still can. You already think the Big Bang Theory is a good show, I'd hate log on one day and read you quoting Two Broke Girls or a Tyler Perry movie.

I can?t think of anything more PC culture than an objection to the term ?slut? regarding the centuries long celebration of Halloween.

Perhaps it is YOU who should be spending more time in Hollywood with the likes of me.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Then what is the legal distinction between wholesale discrimination and some other, presumably more limited form of discrimination against a protected class? Does it specifically have to involve marriage? Would he also be right to not bake a requested custom cake celebrating anniversaries, moving in together, adoption of a kid, or some other aspect of the same sex couple's life as a couple that he objects to? Where is the line between a marriage ceremony and building a life together in a home that a seller might sell? In my opinion, the lifestyle is far more important to the nature of a person's life than a ceremony.

What if a person demanded a custom cake celebrating their love for Satan?

What if a person demanded a custom cake celebrating his bagging his 200th chick out of wedlock?

What if an abortion doctor demanded a custom cake celebrating his or her 1thousandth abortion?

 

[Spartanmack]

I can?t think of anything more PC culture than an objection to the term ?slut? regarding the centuries long celebration of Halloween.

I don't have any objection to the use of the term "slut" so long as it's used properly...

Perhaps it is YOU who should be spending more time in Hollywood with the likes of me.

Hard to come up with a good argument against this point...

 

[Spartanmack]

What if a person demanded a custom cake celebrating their love for Satan?

What if a person demanded a custom cake celebrating his bagging his 200th chick out of wedlock?

What if an abortion doctor demanded a custom cake celebrating his or her 1thousandth abortion?

you beat me to it again. Personally, I think people should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. America is nowhere near as racist or bigoted as the bjchamps (how's that for a mashup) of the world might have you think, and the result of someone refusing to serve protected groups (racial, ethnic, religious, physical or sexual) people will judge them appropriately and take their business elsewhere. I wouldn't shop at a store, dine at a restaurant, etc that refused to serve people based on their immutable characteristcs. I'd probably be ok with a bakery, florist or photographer that didn't participate in gay weddings due to religious beliefs but not if they refused to serve gay people in other ways and I wouldn't prioritize a business that held those beliefs.

 

[Gulo Blue]

America is nowhere near as racist or bigoted as the bjchamps (how's that for a mashup) of the world might have you think

Maybe we should sticky the racial bias thread.

Identical resumes with white sounding names are 50% more likely to get call back than resumes with black sounding names.

When doctors were shown patient histories and asked to make judgments about heart disease, they were much less likely to recommend cardiac catheterization (a helpful procedure) to black patients ? even when their medical files were statistically identical to those of white patients.

When whites and blacks were sent to bargain for a used car, blacks were offered initial prices roughly $700 higher, and they received far smaller concessions.

Several studies found that sending emails with stereotypically black names in response to apartment-rental ads on Craigslist elicited fewer responses than sending ones with white names. A regularly repeated study by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development sent African-Americans and whites to look at apartments and found that African-Americans were shown fewer apartments to rent and houses for sale.

White state legislators were found to be less likely to respond to constituents with African-American names. This was true of legislators in both political parties.Emails sent to faculty members at universities, asking to talk about research opportunities, were more likely to get a reply if a stereotypically white name was used.

Even eBay auctions were not immune. When iPods were auctioned on eBay, researchers randomly varied the skin color on the hand holding the iPod. A white hand holding the iPod received 21 percent more offers than a black hand.

Elementary school teachers were asked to watch a video of children to look for misbehaving kids while having their eyeballs tracked. They spent 42% of the time watching black boys (compared to 34% of the time watching white boys.)

Racial bias exists in customer surveys, which companies use to determine bonuses, raises, and promotions.

Here's a $175m settlement after Well's Fargo was shown to use prejudicial practices that forced 34,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers across 36 states and the District of Columbia to pay higher rates for loans simply because of their race.

African Americans may have to wait in a crosswalk about 32 percent longer than white people before drivers stop.

Ballpark 15-20% of medical students hold incorrect beliefs about black physiology, like "blacks' nerve endings are less sensitive than whites'" (This is offered as a possible explanation for why there are differences in how races are treated medically.)

I wouldn't call this a controlled study, but these researchers think they see racial bias in Yelp reviews, which very directly impacts wealth.

 

[Gulo Blue]

What if a person demanded a custom cake celebrating their love for Satan?

What if a person demanded a custom cake celebrating his bagging his 200th chick out of wedlock?

What if an abortion doctor demanded a custom cake celebrating his or her 1thousandth abortion?

You can turn away the chick banging and the abortion cake seekers, but you have to serve the Satanist in a fashion similar to anyone else, so long as the cake itself doesn't constitute speech (and I'm not sure where that line is.)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects certain groups from undue discrimination. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal anti-discrimination laws, a person may not be discriminated against based on any of the following:

• Age
• Race
• National origin
• Religious beliefs
• Gender
• Disability
• Pregnancy
• Veteran status

Many states also have their own protected class laws that may often be more inclusive and broad than federal statutes. For example, some state laws also protect:

• Gender identity
• Sexual orientation
• Political ideology
• Serving in a state militia

 

[Gulo Blue]

Hard to come up with a good argument against this point...

With regard to 'location vs. location' comparisons, I am most compelled by food-driven arguments.

 

[Michchamp]

That would be pretty hilarious if some guy threw a party to celebrate banging his 200th chick, and had a cake baked for it.

"Being a total cock" is bad, but after a certain point it transcends all judgment and becomes hilarious.

 

[Michchamp]

Serving in a state militia is a protected class?

I assume only in the sense that you can't be fired for doing your one weekend a month.

 

[tinselwolverine]

That would be pretty hilarious if some guy threw a party to celebrate banging his 200th chick, and had a cake baked for it.

"Being a total cock" is bad, but after a certain point it transcends all judgment and becomes hilarious.

I wish I could take credit for the concept but it’s actually from “how I Met your mother” based on the character Barney Stinson portrayed by Neil Patrick Harris.

The creators of the show had been writers on Letterman for years.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3htVoHJm7OM

EXIT: I can’t find a clip from the episode anyone has posted online, but in season four episode 22 “Right Place, Right Time,” Barneys celebrates his 200th sexual conquest.

I don’t remember that there was any cake involved, but there would have been some pie.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofh1R5MB8MA

 

[Spartanmack]

Maybe we should sticky the racial bias thread.

oh my goodness America is the most racist place in the world. I'm convinced.

 

[Gulo Blue]

oh my goodness America is the most racist place in the world. I'm convinced.

For this conversation, we only need to worry if America is racist enough to need nondiscrimination laws to keep from businesses treating certain races unfairly.

Can we just trust that nobody would charge minorities higher interest rates on home loans because people would judge them appropriately and take their business elsewhere?

 

[tinselwolverine]

For this conversation, we only need to worry if America is racist enough to need nondiscrimination laws to keep from businesses treating certain races unfairly.

1964 just called and they want their domestic and civil rights policy back.

 

[Michchamp]

For this conversation, we only need to worry if America is racist enough to need nondiscrimination laws to keep from businesses treating certain races unfairly.

Can we just trust that nobody would charge minorities higher interest rates on home loans because people would judge them appropriately and take their business elsewhere?

Why you try say AMerica is most racist country in the word?

 

[Spartanmack]

For this conversation, we only need to worry if America is racist enough to need nondiscrimination laws to keep from businesses treating certain races unfairly.

Can we just trust that nobody would charge minorities higher interest rates on home loans because people would judge them appropriately and take their business elsewhere?

I'm not saying wipe all anti-discrimination laws off the books. I'm talking specifically about the right to refuse service. Laws related to anti-discrimination in employment or pricing differences make sense for both government and private businesses.

As for your specific example, refusal of service is different than pricing disparities. If bank X had a policy that said they wouldn't lend money to blacks or gays, yes I think people would take their business elsewhere. If bank X is charging higher rates based solely on skin color or some other immutable characteristic, I think you can trust that they're going to lose business to bank Y who will happily make money charging them an appropriate risk based rate. I don't think you will get institutional collusion to charge a class of people higher rates based on immutable characteristics.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not saying wipe all anti-discrimination laws off the books. I'm talking specifically about the right to refuse service. Laws related to anti-discrimination in employment or pricing differences make sense for both government and private businesses.

As for your specific example, refusal of service is different than pricing disparities. If bank X had a policy that said they wouldn't lend money to blacks or gays, yes I think people would take their business elsewhere. If bank X is charging higher rates based solely on skin color or some other immutable characteristic, I think you can trust that they're going to lose business to bank Y who will happily make money charging them an appropriate risk based rate. I don't think you will get institutional collusion to charge a class of people higher rates based on immutable characteristics.

Your ability to keep repeating elementary Econ 101 arguments that bear no resemblance to the real world, & have the sort of blind faith in them that would put Abraham to shame is amazing.

By "amazing," I mean, "really fuckin' dumb."

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not saying wipe all anti-discrimination laws off the books. I'm talking specifically about the right to refuse service. Laws related to anti-discrimination in employment or pricing differences make sense for both government and private businesses.

As for your specific example, refusal of service is different than pricing disparities. If bank X had a policy that said they wouldn't lend money to blacks or gays, yes I think people would take their business elsewhere. If bank X is charging higher rates based solely on skin color or some other immutable characteristic, I think you can trust that they're going to lose business to bank Y who will happily make money charging them an appropriate risk based rate. I don't think you will get institutional collusion to charge a class of people higher rates based on immutable characteristics.

There is no good reason to believe that. We have these laws because the thing you trust in wasn't true back when baby boomers were young adults. There is no reason to believe things have changed that much. When it comes to housing (and education), people do not make decisions based on their principles and what companies treat others fairly. There are enough tradeoffs and enough motivation for a person just trying to do what's best for their family. I get that there's a difference between lending at different rates and not lending, but what I'm asserting is that if people don't take their business elsewhere over rate discrimination, they won't take their business elsewhere over discrimination by refusal.

 

[tinselwolverine]

There is no good reason to believe that. We have these laws because the thing you trust in wasn't true back when baby boomers were young adults. There is no reason to believe things have changed that much. When it comes to housing (and education), people do not make decisions based on their principles and what companies treat others fairly. There are enough tradeoffs and enough motivation for a person just trying to do what's best for their family. I get that there's a difference between lending at different rates and not lending, but what I'm asserting is that if people don't take their business elsewhere over rate discrimination, they won't take their business elsewhere over discrimination by refusal.

So, you're saying that codified anti-discrimination laws, most exemplified by the Civil Rights of 1964, are a good thing, and we should keep those in place I take it, right?

 

[Gulo Blue]

So, you're saying that codified anti-discrimination laws, most exemplified by the Civil Rights of 1964, are a good thing, and we should keep those in place I take it, right?

I know. I'm being super controversial. I made the comparison looking for some legal distinction between 2 protected classes assuming we were settled on race. I didn't expect to have to defend anti-racial discrimination protections.


But I do remember people making the argument with respect to voting requirements that we don't need these dated rules that we've evolved beyond, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.