Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute in Oregon

[jamil]

Do you think they didn't? That attitudes prevalent about segregation in, say 1950, are equally as prevalent and as strongly held today?

What about the forced integration of the US military? Do you think prevalent attitudes today about something like white soldiers serving under a black officer may have evolved a bit from the prevalent attitudes of pre-integration soldiers?

We're getting way off course. The military's handling of segregation is irrelevant to the discussion. There's no where near the same possibility for natural social evolution. I'm not saying that forcing people to interact with each other won't eventually affect how they view each other. I am saying that I doubt the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is directly and singularly responsible for the progress we've made. You can't force people to like each other. Generations later, race relations are better. But some people still hate people who don't look or behave like them and they always will.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The simple truth is you can't choose who you serve. Not any more. Well, unless you're carrying a firearm, in which case we CAN refuse to serve YOU. After all, people who carry firearms are a danger to themselves and everyone around them...so that's different. So, there is legal segregation, just not as much as there used to be.

 

[churchmouse]

In my trade I can choose who I work for. Always have....always will.

But I do not make cup cakes.

 

[HoughMade]

What societal ills justify forcing people to do what they don't want to do with their own property?

Some? All? Where is the line drawn?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

What societal ills justify forcing people to do what they don't want to do with their own property?

Some? All? Where is the line drawn?

Some very good friends of ours just moved into their new home. Their fixed retirement income is much much smaller now - why? I69 took their property and did not give them fair compensation. Talk to some of the people who've basically been run off their property in the name of progress. Private property rights are subject to the will of the masses and it's not always fair, in this case it's seldom fair. Just making one point that's close to home for us in southern Indiana - private property isn't as private as we like to think.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Like Jamil - I'd serve folks, because I believe it's right. And because I'm greedy. I'll make them a cake with a dude and a donkey on it if that's what they want. I would choose not to do anything pornographic - but that would apply evenly to all.

Whether I agree with gay marriage or not is not relevant to me. Once I've baked the cake, I really don't care what you do with it. You can sit on it and spin around for all I care.

If you are a snotty customer (gay,straight, bi or martian) - I reserve the right to invoke the happy clause. If you're not happy, or I'm not happy, we go our separate ways. Peacefully. I don't work for jackasses.

If someone has the gall to put up a sign saying "we don't serve homosexuals [or whatever group]" then let the marketplace fix it. It WILL fix it. In the modern age , with the speed of communications - the marketplace levels itself quickly.

100 years ago things were really bad for civil rights. 50 years ago they improved - at least in part due to the light that television shined on the situation. And now EVERYONE has a camera and can let fly on Youtube. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. It works.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We're getting way off course. The military's handling of segregation is irrelevant to the discussion. There's no where near the same possibility for natural social evolution. I'm not saying that forcing people to interact with each other won't eventually affect how they view each other. I am saying that I doubt the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is directly and singularly responsible for the progress we've made. You can't force people to like each other. Generations later, race relations are better. But some people still hate people who don't look or behave like them and they always will.

I don't think anyone is claiming it singularly did so. That would be ridiculous. However do you think it played no part?

How is desegregation of schools and work places so different than military units in the context of changing attitudes over the long term?

 

[jamil]

I don't think anyone is claiming it singularly did so. That would be ridiculous. However do you think it played no part?

How is desegregation of schools and work places so different than military units in the context of changing attitudes over the long term?

First, I have no philosophical problem with desegregation of public schools or the military. If we must have federally mandated, government run, public schools, then they get to make the rules. If you're going to join the Army, you should expect to follow their rules. Effective or not, in either case, they get to make the rules. Rights of ownership aren't involeved with either. That's my problem with the CRA. It denies the right of ownership. Neither desegregation in the military or schools deal with that.

I've already answered about the potential eventual effect of forcing people to associate so I don't know why you've asked about that. But I'll say it another way if that helps. If two people are forced to associate because they're both stuck in the same elevator for hours, when finally rescued they may walk away having become good friends, because of an association that they wouldn't have had otherwise. Or they may walk away bitter enemies.

So let's get back to what you're implying. To me your first response and the whole back and forth implies that you think if business owners maintained the right to serve whomever they please, black people still wouldn't be able to sit at a lunch counter. I think people themselves can handle social situations without the government forcing it.

That's not to say there's no role for government in civil rights. Punishing coercion. People with power threatened business owners who had no problem serving blacks. That problem was partially solved by the CRA. But it could have been solved in a way that leaves rights of ownership intact, while addressing the root of that problem. Instead, the CRA created a system of ever evolving positive rights.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll throw an opinion out that has something for everyone to hate!

Simple rule:
If you would sell the same item to anyone else, you must sell it to anyone who will pay for it. If I will sell a straight couple a red velvet cupcake for $1, I must sell a gay couple a red velvet cupcake for $1.
If you want something custom, such as a red velvet cupcake with genitals done in icing on it, and I would not make that for anyone else, I do not have to make it for you. Straight couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no, gay couple asks for genital cupcakes, I say no.

Reasoning:
Allowing people to refuse to do business with entire classes of people allows those people to be effectively barred from neighborhoods. We saw this with segregation. If black people can't buy food, rent an apartment, etc. they are effectively banned from living in an area. This strikes me as a larger infringement on the American ideals of freedom than the business owner's rights to elect to not serve a certain class.

HOWEVER, it also does not give fringe groups the right to terrorize local businesses by forcing them to comply with or do things that offend their sensibilities. I cannot force you to put rainbows on your cupcakes if you don't normally offer rainbows. I can't force you to put crossed...thingies...on a cake if you don't normally do so.

Result:
People get to live and do business where they choose. Businesses get to decide what products they make.

Now, I'll sit back and wait for everyone to tell me what a horrible idea this is.

I don't see anything to hate on here. It's very similar to how I would state it: if someone comes in to purchase a pre-made cake that is for sale, there really are no grounds to refuse the sale. On the other hand, if someone comes in and requests a custom product, and that product, or its creation, would violate the conscience of the producer, then the request can legally and morally be refused.

To wit: buy a pre-made, undecorated wedding cake? Yep. Demand someone decorate a wedding cake with Adam and Steve, and congratulatory wording? Nope.

Now, personally, I would not view that as something that violates my conscience. I'm not participating or condoning the actions of others, and I wish for them the same freedom to live their lives according to their own free will as I wish for myself. But for some people, being forced to "participate" in a ceremony that celebrates something that is sinful/morally repugnant is a sincere violation of conscience.

 

[edporch]

Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute - CBS News

On the subject of damages, if I can't buy a cake at one bakery and I have to buy it from another bakery, what are my ACTUAL damages?
The only ones I can see is:
- If the cake from the second bakery costs more, the difference in price between the two cakes.
- If I have to drive further to get to the other bakery, the difference in mileage costs.

Anything more is frivolous.
Additionally, WHY would I want to eat food made by somebody I FORCED to make it for me?

The point is, we ALL have been discriminated against at times in our lives with regard to businesses.
I KNOW I have on multiple occasions.

But it never occurred to me to sue them or otherwise try to "punish" them.

I just went down the road and did business with somebody who wanted my business.

 

[printcraft]

I don't know but custom cakes take a long time and are very expensive.

 

[BogWalker]

So for what reasons can anyone ever refuse service? Isn't any refusal of service, no matter the reason, some form of discrimination or another?

 

[jamil]

So for what reasons can anyone ever refuse service? Isn't any refusal of service, no matter the reason, some form of discrimination or another?

You can refuse service to unprotected classes. For exmaple, no shirt, no shoes, no service. I saw a good one at the sheriff's office this morning, something to the effect of. "We'll be happy to serve you when your telephone conversation is finished."

But all persons, regardless of race, color, religion or national origin, are entitled without segregation, to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation. Some states have expanded that to include sexual orientation.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So let's get back to what you're implying. To me your first response and the whole back and forth implies that you think if business owners maintained the right to serve whomever they please, black people still wouldn't be able to sit at a lunch counter. I think people themselves can handle social situations without the government forcing it.

Ah, not the point I was trying to make with the lunch counter comment. I have no idea if segregation would still be the norm or if attitudes would have eventually shifted anyway. I'm not sure how you *could* know. I suppose those with the background to do so could argue about the speed at which attitudes changed, etc, but I'd be well out of my depth to attempt to do so.

My lunch counter comment was based solely on what I responded to:

"The only reason this is even a story is because a political group wants to make a big deal of it."

Same thing for segregation protests at lunch counters. It wasn't a story until it was, and that was when it got the momentum of a political movement behind it. I don't find that to be a reason to be so dismissive of the issue.

You can refuse service to unprotected classes. For exmaple, no shirt, no shoes, no service.

Isn't that a health concern issue, not a "class" issue?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So for what reasons can anyone ever refuse service? Isn't any refusal of service, no matter the reason, some form of discrimination or another?

Are we talking hypothetically or as it actually stands at this time?

 

[chipbennett]

You can refuse service to unprotected classes. For exmaple, no shirt, no shoes, no service. I saw a good one at the sheriff's office this morning, something to the effect of. "We'll be happy to serve you when your telephone conversation is finished."

These are behaviors (and, in the case of the former, health/sanitation issues), not classes of people.

But all persons, regardless of race, color, religion or national origin, are entitled without segregation, to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation. Some states have expanded that to include sexual orientation.

Note: this same principle should apply to those who choose to exercise their natural and constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

That said, if I were a business owner I'd probably serve just about everyone because I'm a greedy bastard and I want your money.

OK, so being a greedy bastard, what would you do in this case:

You have a very small demographic of customers who are very nice folks and good customers, they're just "different" than the rest of your customers.

Your main demographic of customers, the ones who really support your business, don't like to see you serving that other small group. In fact, many of them would openly say that if they see you serving that other group, they will take their business elsewhere.

Still gonna serve who you want, how you want? Or would your definition of who and how "evolve".

 

[CampingJosh]

Perhaps it's worth remembering that a wedding is primarily a religious service (the legal side is way more for divorce than for actually being married).

Forcing a person to participate in a wedding that isn't sanctioned by that person's religion (or worse, actually against the person's religion) is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[hornadylnl]

Perhaps it's worth remembering that a wedding is primarily a religious service (the legal side is way more for divorce than for actually being married).

Forcing a person to participate in a wedding that isn't sanctioned by that person's religion (or worse, actually against the person's religion) is a violation of the First Amendment.

Similarly, wouldn't banning a wedding from taking place based on one persons religion be a violation of the first amendment?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

OK, so being a greedy bastard, what would you do in this case:

You have a very small demographic of customers who are very nice folks and good customers, they're just "different" than the rest of your customers.

Your main demographic of customers, the ones who really support your business, don't like to see you serving that other small group. In fact, many of them would openly say that if they see you serving that other group, they will take their business elsewhere.

Still gonna serve who you want, how you want? Or would your definition of who and how "evolve".

Most of the time - even in the most racist communities - the ACTUAL number of loud mouthed racists that ACTUALLY take their business else where is small. It's a vocal minority. I serve everyone and tell the racists/whatever-ists to have a nice day.

If you are so worried about who ELSE I'm serving - you are a nosey bastard. Tough. See my post above about me not working for jackasses.