"We can refuse service for any reason" -> NOPE according to the appeals Court

[DrPizza]

You're saying religion is NOT a protect class? You're simply wrong. There's no way to sugar coat this.

Looks like other people have already tried the trolling I've suggested:
Muslim sues Abercrombie & Fitch over hijab - she won $5 million in that lawsuit.
UPS sued over no-beard policy

This is where ultra liberal policies lead. You're not allowed to have any standards whatsoever because some of them might offend someone. If I want a cake that says Happy 9/11 Day, you are required by law to make it for me. If you offend me or any of my weird beliefs, I can sue you into the ground. By law, my feelings are more important than your rights.

Out of curiosity, are you somewhere between 12 and 15 years old? I'm not sure how naive you have to be to think that your retarded feelings equate to a recognized religion. Then again, you'd win your lawsuit, because mental retardation is recognized as a handicap, and you'd succeed due to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

edit: meh, on second thought, I worked with people with mental handicaps, and my response is a disservice to them. I don't think they'd want to be grouped with people like you.

 

[Spungo]

Out of curiosity, are you somewhere between 12 and 15 years old? I'm not sure how naive you have to be to think that your retarded feelings equate to a recognized religion.

So now you're claiming Islam and Christianity are not recognized religions? Fascinating.

The liberal position is that you should be required by law to make cakes for those people. The conservative position is that store owners should have a right to refuse service or jobs to people they don't like.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So now you're claiming Islam and Christianity are not recognized religions? Fascinating.

The liberal position is that you should be required by law to make cakes for those people. The conservative position is that store owners should have a right to refuse service or jobs to people they don't like.

Sigh, its a law that has been in place to protect people from discrimination without the law people were discriminated against. There is no law saying you can't hold a sign.
So in your opinion what is unacceptable:
Not serving someone because of their race
Not serving a Single female because she should be married by her age
Not serving an atheist
Not serving someone who interprets the Bible differently than you
Not serving someone because you think they are gay
Does it just end with Gays?

Honestly even the Pope has stated Christians get too mired in gay issues its every Christians job to love every person and give them a chance at redemption.
The very simple solution to the 10-15 people nation wide that own bakeries that are that against making a gay wedding cakes is to stop making wedding cakes then you never have to make one for a gay couple.

 

[fskimospy]

So now you're claiming Islam and Christianity are not recognized religions? Fascinating.

No, he's saying that store owners aren't required to print hate speech. You are not denying them service for being Christian, you are denying them service for asking you to write hate speech on the cake.

The liberal position is that you should be required by law to make cakes for those people. The conservative position is that store owners should have a right to refuse service or jobs to people they don't like.

No, the liberal position is that you cannot refuse to make cakes for them BECAUSE they are Muslims or Christians. This does not mean you are required to make a 'Death to America' cake. These are really basic concepts. I will note that it's funny that you're absolutely outraged about a legal situation that does not exist and won't take people telling you that you have nothing to be outraged over as an answer.

You keep repeating that you have this foolproof plan to literally make MILLIONS of dollars by doing this. Honest question: what is holding you back? Why aren't you out becoming a millionaire RIGHT NOW? Did you take a vow of poverty? Are you stupid? Or are you just trolling? (I know which I would bet on)

 

[Spungo]

Sigh, its a law that has been in place to protect people from discrimination without the law people were discriminated against. There is no law saying you can't hold a sign.
So in your opinion what is unacceptable:
Not serving someone because of their race
Not serving a Single female because she should be married by her age
Not serving an atheist
Not serving someone who interprets the Bible differently than you
Not serving someone because you think they are gay
Does it just end with Gays?

Exactly. I believe store owners have a right to do whatever the hell they want. If you come into my sign making business and say you want a sign that says HATE AMERICA with some arabic writing under it, I think it's my right to refuse service. Your position is that I should not have that right. I should not have the right to refuse service to Christians. I should not have a right to refuse service to Muslims. I should not have a right to refuse service to NAMBA. I should not have a right to refuse service to the KKK. I should not have a right to refuse service to Dick Cheney. You're saying I should be forced to make a sign for these people, and if I refuse, I should be sued into bankruptcy.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly. I believe store owners have a right to do whatever the hell they want. If you come into my sign making business and say you want a sign that says HATE AMERICA with some arabic writing under it, I think it's my right to refuse service.

This is already your right.

Your position is that I should not have that right.

Can you point to a single person who thinks this, specifically?

I should not have the right to refuse service to Christians. I should not have a right to refuse service to Muslims.

You do not have the right to discriminate based on religion, no. It's been that way in the US for about half a century now.

I should not have a right to refuse service to NAMBA. I should not have a right to refuse service to the KKK. I should not have a right to refuse service to Dick Cheney. You're saying I should be forced to make a sign for these people, and if I refuse, I should be sued into bankruptcy.

You have a right to refuse service to all of those people.

I do not think you understand the law you are complaining about.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This is already your right.



Can you point to a single person who thinks this, specifically?



You do not have the right to discriminate based on religion, no. It's been that way in the US for about half a century now.



You have a right to refuse service to all of those people.

I do not think you understand the law you are complaining about.

Thank you Eski

 

[Spungo]

(refusing to make a HATE AMERICA sign) is already your right.

You just said that religion is a protected class. If someone says they hate America because of their religion, it becomes a religious issue. If I refuse to make that sign, I am refusing service based on religious disagreements. See the case of Ambercrombie & Fitch being sued for not hiring a woman wearing a hijab. Do all Muslim women wear hijabs? No, they don't. It might even be true that most Muslim women do not wear a hijab. However, the ones who do wear a hijab do it for religious reasons. In that lawsuit, the court ruled that you are not allowed to disagree with someone, through actions, if that disagreement is based on religion. Religion says they should wear a hijab; therefore, it's illegal to not hire someone because they wear a hijab. Their religion says death to infidels, and they want a cake saying this, so it's illegal to refuse service because that would be a very clear cut case of religious discrimination. Same thing with the God Hates Fags signs. Their religion tells them god hates fags, so they want a sign saying this. If you refuse service, you are refusing service on religious grounds, which liberals say is a crime.

Can you point to a single person who thinks this, specifically?

Every single person in this thread saying the cake maker is wrong? The cake maker and the customer have a religious disagreement. Liberals are saying the customer's beliefs supercede the store owner's beliefs. Regardless of how much I disagree with someone wanting a sign saying HATE AMERICA, I'm not allowed to refuse service because that would be a case of religious discrimination. If their religion says infidels must be killed, that sign is a reflection of their religion, so I'm not allowed to refuse it. Contrary to Dr. Pizza's beliefs, religion is a protected class. It has the exact same protections against sexual orientation and race. If you can't refuse service based on sexual orientation, you can't refuse service based on religion.

 

[K1052]

Same thing with the God Hates Fags signs. Their religion tells them god hates fags, so they want a sign saying this. If you refuse service, you are refusing service on religious grounds, which liberals say is a crime.

If the business in question doesn't make "God Hates Fags" signs there is no way to compel them to do so. Generally courts will not compel anyone to perform specific speech under public accommodation law. If the bakery doesn't want to provide wedding cakes to gay couples they should stop offering wedding cakes for sale. There is no right to operate a particular business.

Your examples are really really terrible and show a complete failure to comprehend the actual issues involved.

 

[fskimospy]

You just said that religion is a protected class. If someone says they hate America because of their religion, it becomes a religious issue. If I refuse to make that sign, I am refusing service based on religious disagreements.

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of public accommodation laws. First, hating America is not a necessary part of the practice of their religion. Second, just because someone declares something part of their religion doesn't mean that suddenly everyone has to do what they want. Whenever you're coming to such a ridiculous conclusion you should reexamine your premise.

I mean do you really think if someone stabbed a guy to death in front of your shop in the name of Allah and then came in and ordered a cake you'd have to serve him until the cops arrived because he did it for religious reasons?

See the case of Ambercrombie & Fitch being sued for not hiring a woman wearing a hijab. Do all Muslim women wear hijabs? No, they don't. It might even be true that most Muslim women do not wear a hijab. However, the ones who do wear a hijab do it for religious reasons. In that lawsuit, the court ruled that you are not allowed to disagree with someone, through actions, if that disagreement is based on religion. Religion says they should wear a hijab; therefore, it's illegal to not hire someone because they wear a hijab.

This is also a profound misunderstanding. The wearing of the hijab is an explicitly required part of dress for a significant number of Muslims. The courts did not rule that you are not allowed to disagree with someone when it is based on religion, they ruled that you are not allowed to refuse to hire someone due to their religious practices, of which the hijab is an integral one, unless it would present an undue burden.

Abercrombie may still win that lawsuit if they show it is an undue burden.

Their religion says death to infidels, and they want a cake saying this, so it's illegal to refuse service because that would be a very clear cut case of religious discrimination. Same thing with the God Hates Fags signs. Their religion tells them god hates fags, so they want a sign saying this. If you refuse service, you are refusing service on religious grounds, which liberals say is a crime.

No. You are required to serve them, but you are not required to serve them in a ways that you would not serve anyone else, and you are not compelled to write whatever objectionable speech they have asked to be written on it.

Here's an excerpt from one of the original 'gay people v. bakery' cases: (bolding is mine)

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church.

However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like.

As you can quite clearly see, you have nothing to worry about in that case. Aren't you happy now?

Every single person in this thread saying the cake maker is wrong? The cake maker and the customer have a religious disagreement. Liberals are saying the customer's beliefs supercede the store owner's beliefs. Regardless of how much I disagree with someone wanting a sign saying HATE AMERICA, I'm not allowed to refuse service because that would be a case of religious discrimination. If their religion says infidels must be killed, that sign is a reflection of their religion, so I'm not allowed to refuse it. Contrary to Dr. Pizza's beliefs, religion is a protected class. It has the exact same protections against sexual orientation and race. If you can't refuse service based on sexual orientation, you can't refuse service based on religion.

What 'liberals' are saying is that you don't understand the laws that you're complaining about. The customer's beliefs don't supercede the store owner's beliefs at all. You are most certainly allowed to refuse service to people who wear signs that say "Hate America". You're right that religious people have the same protections as same sex couples, but a same sex couple couldn't require you to write "I love gay sex" on a cake either.

I hope this has cleared up the issue for you.

 

[ivwshane]

No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of public accommodation laws. First, hating America is not a necessary part of the practice of their religion. Second, just because someone declares something part of their religion doesn't mean that suddenly everyone has to do what they want. Whenever you're coming to such a ridiculous conclusion you should reexamine your premise.

I mean do you really think if someone stabbed a guy to death in front of your shop in the name of Allah and then came in and ordered a cake you'd have to serve him until the cops arrived because he did it for religious reasons?



This is also a profound misunderstanding. The wearing of the hijab is an explicitly required part of dress for a significant number of Muslims. The courts did not rule that you are not allowed to disagree with someone when it is based on religion, they ruled that you are not allowed to refuse to hire someone due to their religious practices, of which the hijab is an integral one, unless it would present an undue burden.

Abercrombie may still win that lawsuit if they show it is an undue burden.



No. You are required to serve them, but you are not required to serve them in a ways that you would not serve anyone else, and you are not compelled to write whatever objectionable speech they have asked to be written on it.

Here's an excerpt from one of the original 'gay people v. bakery' cases: (bolding is mine)

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf



As you can quite clearly see, you have nothing to worry about in that case. Aren't you happy now?



What 'liberals' are saying is that you don't understand the laws that you're complaining about. The customer's beliefs don't supercede the store owner's beliefs at all. You are most certainly allowed to refuse service to people who wear signs that say "Hate America". You're right that religious people have the same protections as same sex couples, but a same sex couple couldn't require you to write "I love gay sex" on a cake either.

I hope this has cleared up the issue for you.

I seriously doubt it!

 

[Cozarkian]

This is an interesting case. A flag maker can refuse to make an Islamic flag, but can't generally refuse to sell the flags it does make to a Muslim. Similarly, a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake with designs hinting at homosexuality, but is generally prohibited from selling a gay couple a three-tiered cake with fondit frosting.

The twist in this case I that the owner knows the intended use of the cake. This, refusing to make the cake is akin to refusing to sell a Muslim a U.S. Flag for use in a flag-burning ceremony.

On its face, that is discrimination base on the intended use, which is not a protected class. However, when the intended use is closely correlated with the protected class (like gay marriage for gays), it is arguably indistinguishable.

Ultimately, I think the best rule is: the baker must sell them the cake, but can require all persons wishing to buy a wedding cake to sign a contract promising the cake will not be used in connection with a gay marriage or celebration thereof. That helps distinguish that the refusal of service is based on the unprotected class of "intended use."

 

[fskimospy]

This is an interesting case. A flag maker can refuse to make an Islamic flag, but can't generally refuse to sell the flags it does make to a Muslim. Similarly, a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake with designs hinting at homosexuality, but is generally prohibited from selling a gay couple a three-tiered cake with fondit frosting.

The twist in this case I that the owner knows the intended use of the cake. This, refusing to make the cake is akin to refusing to sell a Muslim a U.S. Flag for use in a flag-burning ceremony.

On its face, that is discrimination base on the intended use, which is not a protected class. However, when the intended use is closely correlated with the protected class (like gay marriage for gays), it is arguably indistinguishable.

Ultimately, I think the best rule is: the baker must sell them the cake, but can require all persons wishing to buy a wedding cake to sign a contract promising the cake will not be used in connection with a gay marriage or celebration thereof. That helps distinguish that the refusal of service is based on the unprotected class of "intended use."

This would also be illegal. You aren't allowed to discriminate based on fundamental attributes of a protected class either, of which participating in gay weddings would be one. This is so people can't pull an end around on the law.

Like you couldn't say "I'm not discriminating against Christians, I just won't serve anyone who owns a bible". That wouldn't work either.

 

[glenn1]

This is an interesting case. A flag maker can refuse to make an Islamic flag, but can't generally refuse to sell the flags it does make to a Muslim. Similarly, a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake with designs hinting at homosexuality, but is generally prohibited from selling a gay couple a three-tiered cake with fondit frosting.

The twist in this case I that the owner knows the intended use of the cake. This, refusing to make the cake is akin to refusing to sell a Muslim a U.S. Flag for use in a flag-burning ceremony.

On its face, that is discrimination base on the intended use, which is not a protected class. However, when the intended use is closely correlated with the protected class (like gay marriage for gays), it is arguably indistinguishable.

Ultimately, I think the best rule is: the baker must sell them the cake, but can require all persons wishing to buy a wedding cake to sign a contract promising the cake will not be used in connection with a gay marriage or celebration thereof. That helps distinguish that the refusal of service is based on the unprotected class of "intended use."

Or we just do the simple and logically consistent thing, which is only allow refusal of services on universally applicable behavior standards ("no shirt, no shoes, no service"). Services that embody speech like a baker writing on a wedding cake could only be prohibited when they represent clear 1st amendment safe harbors (obscenity, "fighting words," and the like). Of course, the left will reject that because they want to allow censorship of politically incorrect speech as well like the "oppose gay marriage" cake. Free speech is fine with them until they dislike the content.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Exactly. I believe store owners have a right to do whatever the hell they want. If you come into my sign making business and say you want a sign that says HATE AMERICA with some arabic writing under it, I think it's my right to refuse service. Your position is that I should not have that right. I should not have the right to refuse service to Christians. I should not have a right to refuse service to Muslims. I should not have a right to refuse service to NAMBA. I should not have a right to refuse service to the KKK. I should not have a right to refuse service to Dick Cheney. You're saying I should be forced to make a sign for these people, and if I refuse, I should be sued into bankruptcy.

Just to confirm what you said. You're ok with a business not serving someone based on their race.

 

[brycejones]

Or we just do the simple and logically consistent thing, which is only allow refusal of services on universally applicable behavior standards ("no shirt, no shoes, no service"). Services that embody speech like a baker writing on a wedding cake could only be prohibited when they represent clear 1st amendment safe harbors (obscenity, "fighting words," and the like). Of course, the left will reject that because they want to allow censorship of politically incorrect speech as well like the "oppose gay marriage" cake. Free speech is fine with them until they dislike the content.

Damn son, you kicked the shit out of that straw man. Been working out lately?

 

[Cozarkian]

Like you couldn't say "I'm not discriminating against Christians, I just won't serve anyone who owns a bible". That wouldn't work either.

Agreed, but that is different then this situation.

Here, the baker would sell a wedding cake to a gay couple purchasing the cake for their child's heterosexual wedding. However, it would not sell a heterosexual couple a wedding cake for use in their child's homosexual wedding.

As illustrated by he above, the discrimination is literally based on the nature of the intended use. It is not merely an attempt to conceal the true nature of the discrimination, as is the case with your example.

Granted, it is still a borderline case. For example, a car salesman probably can't require a contract promising that the car will never be used to drive to church. Literally that is based on the intended use, because Christians can still buy a car, but there is clearly a disparate impact that affects the customer's life on a weekly basis.

A wedding is presumably once in a lifetime, so I don't think a no-gay marriage contract creates the same level of discrimination. I wouldn't object to an expansion of accommodation laws to prohibit such a contract, but I would prefer to see the solution in legislative changes, not a broad interpretation by the court of current law.

 

[glenn1]

Damn son, you kicked the shit out of that straw man. Been working out lately?

It's not a straw man. There was a thread here about this subject where many on the left were fine with censoring "speech" based on content. A gay baker refused to sell a cake to someone inscribed "oppose gay marriage" and the progressives thought that was great. But change that to refusing to write "happy marriage David and David" on a cake and that to them is illegal. They can't even maintain logical consistency between two identical situations.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not a straw man. There was a thread here about this subject where many on the left were fine with censoring "speech" based on content. A gay baker refused to sell a cake to someone inscribed "oppose gay marriage" and the progressives thought that was great. But change that to refusing to write "happy marriage David and David" on a cake and that to them is illegal. They can't even maintain logical consistency between two identical situations.

Who said that refusing to write happy marriage to David and David on a cake was illegal?

Everyone has free speech rights. A christian baker can't be forced to write 'I love gay marriage' on a cake and another baker can't be forced to write 'I hate gay marriage' either.

Instead of confusing censorship with its polar opposite, free speech, why not just listen to what people are actually saying as opposed to what you wished they were saying?

 

[glenn1]

Who said that refusing to write happy marriage to David and David on a cake was illegal?

Everyone has free speech rights. A christian baker can't be forced to write 'I love gay marriage' on a cake and another baker can't be forced to write 'I hate gay marriage' either.

Instead of confusing censorship with its polar opposite, free speech, why not just listen to what people are actually saying as opposed to what you wished they were saying?

Because the David and David is just as much speech as the later two examples. There is no bright line determining when someone could assert 1st Amendment rights given your "logic."

 

[bshole]

Who said that refusing to write happy marriage to David and David on a cake was illegal?

Everyone has free speech rights. A christian baker can't be forced to write 'I love gay marriage' on a cake and another baker can't be forced to write 'I hate gay marriage' either.

Are you sure? If that is what the customer asks for, do they not have to fulfill the request? If they refuse, aren't they in violation of federal law and subject to lawsuits and worse? It is my impression that they have to honor the request of their customer.

 

[K1052]

Are you sure? If that is what the customer asks for, do they not have to fulfill the request? If they refuse, aren't they in violation of federal law and subject to lawsuits and worse? It is my impression that they have to honor the request of their customer.

No.

 

[brycejones]

It's not a straw man. There was a thread here about this subject where many on the left were fine with censoring "speech" based on content. A gay baker refused to sell a cake to someone inscribed "oppose gay marriage" and the progressives thought that was great. But change that to refusing to write "happy marriage David and David" on a cake and that to them is illegal. They can't even maintain logical consistency between two identical situations.

Sorry it was a straw man. And you're still trying to beat it up some more.

 

[Cozarkian]

Or we just do the simple and logically consistent thing, which is only allow refusal of services on universally applicable behavior standards ("no shirt, no shoes, no service"). Services that embody speech like a baker writing on a wedding cake could only be prohibited when they represent clear 1st amendment safe harbors (obscenity, "fighting words," and the like). Of course, the left will reject that because they want to allow censorship of politically incorrect speech as well like the "oppose gay marriage" cake. Free speech is fine with them until they dislike the content.

Would you please clarify the application of your proposed rule by indicating which of the following would be legal for a flag-making business?

1. We only make U.S. Flags
2. We only make U.S. Flags that won't be burned or desecrated
3. We make official flags of any state or country except those where Islam is the official religion.
4. Same as the above except will make Islamic flags if they will be burned or desecrated.
5. Makes custom flags based on the purchaser's design but will not make designs incorporating swastikas or pentagrams.
6. Will design and make flags based on criteria supplied by customers but refuses to incorporate swastikas, pentagrams into the design
7. Will design and make flags - but won't incorporate rabbits into the design (don't ask - childhood trauma)

Personally, I think all of them should be legal. Now, #4 is a horrible person, but it is the cost of keeping #2 legal. I'll admit, I am a bit on the fence on that one and could be persuaded otherwise.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you sure? If that is what the customer asks for, do they not have to fulfill the request? If they refuse, aren't they in violation of federal law and subject to lawsuits and worse? It is my impression that they have to honor the request of their customer.

Your impression is incorrect.