The gay wedding cake.

Of course I'd think they're wrong. However I support their right to refuse anyone they deem fit. I'll just go somewhere else to do my shopping.

 

Right now, a coffee shop in Oakland that is denying service to cops.

“That’s a horrid act of discrimination!” Said no SJW ever

 

This is where it always gets hairy. Conservatives always assume liberals aren't objective. I can separate issues. Just because something bad happened to a minority that doesn't mean I would blindly support anything said minority does.

For instance, during the Pride that took place right after Pulse, BLM decided it was appropriate to protest the increased police presence, which I thought was wrong. The police were there for the victims during the shooting, and they were at Pride to protect us in case something happened. It made most of us feel safer knowing they were there.

I don't care who or what you are. Discrimination is assuming anyone belonging to a group of other people like them are all the same and treating them like shit because of it. Plain and simple. Whether you're gay, christian, a cop, whatever. Don't listen to the propaganda bullshit that says liberals just bitch and whine for no reason.

 

The separation and hate is fueled by the Democratic Party and mainstream media in order to assure a voting block that will vote for democrats.
I see signs in businesses all the time and have for years that they have the right to refuse business from whoever they choose. I would think that's legal and if someone didn't want my business because I'm catholic I certainly wouldn't try and force it on them. I would never do business with them and would not want to give them my business.

 

So it's a constitutional right when it's against gay people, but it should be abhorred if it's against cops?

What point are you trying to make with that unfair and unsubstantiated blanket statement?

 

That’s not what I’m trying to say.

I think it’s wrong to discriminate against gays and cops. I’m not a cop, and I’m not gay, yet I still wouldn’t support any establishment who barred services to such people. Most sane people wouldn’t.

But at the same time, customers do not have the right to demand someone provide them a service.

Had this ruling gone the other way, hate groups could force catering companies to cater their meetings. For example.

 

True believers will poke a stick in the spokes of any ones bicycle, if one veers off the path they demand. Always been thus.

 

Got this from a legal site. In general, businesses can refuse service to someone clearly inebriated, who is unhygienic or who is bothering other customers. No business can be sued because they don't have an ITEM (pork) on the menu. In general, a business CAN be sued for civil rights violations if they decide they won't serve a Catholic, Jew or gay person (though how someone would be identified in a conversation with a server as any of these, I don't know). Though the 1964 Civil Rights law covers most people, it doesn't cover sexual orientation, however, most states have enacted additional protections. "Normally, (refusal of service) would only be warranted where the customer’s presence would somehow be distracting to the wellbeing, to the safety, to the welfare of the other people in the business and the business itself. They can’t arbitrarily refuse service to some because they don’t like the way that they look,” Meynard said." So, only in a few narrow instances and in one or two states can a business refuse service. The sign, in general, doesn't carry much weight, and outside of those narrow instances, could be inviting lawsuits. You need to know your state laws on the issues.

 

What a fascinating hypothetical-- truly deserving to be on a law school or bar exam. I concur with brother Meagain in the result but disagree with his reasoning. The atheist and the baker would be in the same boat under the law--the question being what boat that is. But I would argue that the content of the message is determinative. Remember, the Colorado case that the Supreme Court recently decided overturned a decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against the baker because the Commission violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by showing animus against religion. Suppose the baker had been an atheist but held a strong conscientious conviction that homosexuality was immoral because it violated natural law.
True, atheism isn't a religion but it does "take a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics,” thereby qualifying for protection under the Free Exercise Clause of the the First Amendment under McCreary County v. ACLU. (2005), in which the Court made clear that the First Amendment requires “equal respect for the conscience of the infidel [and] the atheist” as it does to those who profess belief in God. The Supreme Court has upheld conscientious objector status to conscientious atheists United States v. Seeger (1965), the test being whether the atheist held a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those" who had routinely gotten the exemption. Likewise, the Civil Rights Act of 1964's provisions against religious discrimination extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs. So to deny the conscientious atheist baker the same rights to discriminate against gays that the religious baker enjoyed would violate both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I would distinguish the two cases on the basis of the content of the message. If the baker (religious or atheist) does wedding cakes that say "Two Hearts As One: Adam and Eve", the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act would require this. "Two Hearts as One: Adam and Steve". (the Supreme Court's opinion didn't really settle this issue). But if the Wesboro baptists wanted him to write on their cake "God Hates Fags", that would be hate speech. So the issue would become: does one person's religious liberty entitle them to require another person to engage in hate speech? I'd say "No". In West Virginia v. Barnette and Wooley v. Maynard the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment protection of Freedom of Speech also protects the right not to speak. To compel a person to engage in hate speech goes beyond the normal expectations of a baker in ordinary commerce. If a Roseanne fan ordered a cake with the message "Niggers are apes" on it, the baker obviously would not be compelled to bake such a cake. Adding the element of religion doesn't change the situation one iota. (As mentioned by the previous poster, the Civil Rights Act doesn't protect gays, but the Colorado statute does. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination inplaces of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.)

 

Remember the Civil Rights act does NOT protect sexual orientation, but most states have laws in place that do. God hates fags is hate speech and would be discrimination. If a baker made such cakes, he could be sued under his state's civil rights laws. The court said the first baker, because of his religious views, did not have to create the cake for the two men. This was not refusal of service in all instances, but over the one cake due to his religious beliefs. If the baker refused to make a birthday cake that said Happy Birthday Steve, and said he was refusing because the man was gay, we're talking about discriminatory refusal of service. Religion and birthday cakes don't usually
intersect. I'm sure this baker could also refuse to make a Bar Mitzvah cake because he believes his religion is the one true religion and there are no Bar Mitzvahs in his religion....

 

And that is exactly the problem if this "religious rights" thing catches on. The Supreme Court hasn't gone that far yet. It's only held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided against the baker on unconstitutional grounds; hostility toward religion. If it comes down to it, I don't think any old atheist could claim the right to discriminate--only those who can demonstrated that their homophobia is founded on deeply held conscientious moral principles.I think it would be harder for an atheist to do that while keeping a straight face.

 

I don't see how the courts can resolve this issue sensibly than to say if you go into a business requiring service to the public, you just can't legally discriminate against anybody, period. Otherwise, you get the battle of the trolls: Westboro Baptists versus the Disciples of Michael Moore. Might make an exception:no required hate speech from reluctant public service providers.
If the courts can't handle that, then no exceptions at all. I think this whole thing is a ruse to dismantle legal protections against discrimination.

 

Who exactly is the Democratic party anyway? Just any democrat? Isn't it discrimination to assume we all feel the same way? I mean doesn't it bother you when people assume you listen to what Trump says and just believe it without fact checking? Or that you all are racist and uneducated? Or better yet that you're all rednecks who don't care what's going on as long as you have your rifles and your Chevy truck?

Just saying...maybe use your own mind instead of believing the hate mongering Trump is spewing out from his Twitter. It's easier for him to blame a faceless group of people who are supposedly ruthless and can't be stopped, than for him to tackle tasks to actually make our country better. He plays the blame game more than he ever says anything constructive. Have some sense, do your own thinking.

 

He actually wrote a tweet saying dems want to DESTROY republicans. I mean...how melodramatic! Most of us just want to live our lives without religious people forcing their beliefs on us, or being told we're lesser than for any multitude of reasons, and to get paid enough to survive. We don't have an agenda to attack anyone. Republicans are the ones who think everyone's obsessed with them while they are the ones watching everyone else and scrutinizing our every action. The rest of the sane people in the country just want zealots to leave us the fuck alone.

 

You're right, I should have said a large portion of the Democratic Party. That's not something that's you can fact check just observe over a long period of time. I'm not a trump lover but I have to say what he is doing right now, trying to negotiate better trade deals with the EU, Canada, China and Mexico is tackling a difficult task to improve life in the USA.
We have been at a disadvantage for decades over trade deals presidents of both parties have made, mostly because none of them have practical business experience..
I feel I do have a lot of sense and I also have manners which it seems you may be lacking. If you were able to carry on a constructive conversation instead of insulting someone who sees things differently than you do I might respond further but at first glance it seems to be unlikely.

 

I'm not willing to sacrifice my safety for what he says he's improving which, for the most part, the middle and lower class are not seeing any results from. A lot of republicans are using his crass way of communicating to mean they can do the same and start attacking people. I never felt like people who voted Republican would hurt me over difference of opinion until now. Just look at his Twitter and tell me honestly that he isn't creating a divide between the parties. He's creating this evil group of imaginary democrats and blaming everything that has ever been shitty on them.I

My girlfriend's mother almost disowned her for saying she didn't like trump and refused to vote for him. It also doesn't help that because he says he's so involved in faith, religious people think that means they can now commit hate crimes in the name of Jesus. The bible and the Constitution are NOT one and the same.

 

I try and stay pretty middle of the road in politics. And actually wasn't all that interested in it. But ever since Bush Jr when I began to feel it, and most certainly when Obama, whom I voted for, took office, the left have made me feel as you describe. They create a new norm of hostility towards anyone that doesn't see it their way.

So yeah now Trump has used that as a means to whip up tensions that have existed. It pains me to see him bring the Republicans down to the level of the Democrats. This radicalized crybaby attitude is what pushed me away from ever voting for the left.