Since when did having an opinion become an insult?

[wolfgirl90]

Sure, I dont think its fair to cut out a whole group because you disagree with their life views [in this case, being homosexual], but its thats business's right to do so.

No, it isn't. I kinda went over that. Again, I don't know where the hell people are getting this idea that businesses have the "right" to basically discriminate against people while using values as a front. I can't help but think that if this was a group of minorities getting refused service that this would be an ENTIRELY different thread.

I'll go over it again. Businesses do have a right to refuse service, however, they by no means have the "right" to refuse service to ANYONE. Civil rights acts (federal, state and local) still apply to them and businesses (the vast majority of which are classified as "public accommodations") can't discriminate against people. This law was made in 1964, so again, I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that businesses can discriminate against people.

[Ωmega]

No, it isn't. I kinda went over that. Again, I don't know where the hell people are getting this idea that businesses have the "right" to basically discriminate against people while using values as a front. I can't help but think that if this was a group of minorities getting refused service that this would be an ENTIRELY different thread.

I'll go over it again. Businesses do have a right to refuse service, however, they by no means have the "right" to refuse service to ANYONE. Civil rights acts (federal, state and local) still apply to them and businesses (the vast majority of which are classified as "public accommodations") can't discriminate against people. This law was made in 1964, so again, I don't know where you guys are getting this idea that businesses can discriminate against people.

In this case, yes they can.

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.
In addition to protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.
In the 1960's, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals or Republicans, solely because of who they were.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors" or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business in preventing fights between rival club members.
On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where its policy was to only seat two people of the opposite sex in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.
In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, while others were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.
Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.
It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents or members of the clergy, in order to attract their business.
Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations far outweighs the individual liberties involved.

Businesses cant deny you service for race, color, religion, or national origin. In *some* states, they cant for sexual preference or for how you look/dress.

Now I didnt read the article, but unless it was in Calir or one of the other states where sexual preference is protected, then the business was in its right to refuse its services. If it *was*, then theres a good chance they were able to dance around the act like in the case of the funeral home.

[Furore]

It's not like he wasn't serving them.
He just wasn't making them a special order as I doubt rainbow cakes were on the menu to begin with. That isn't uncommon in some bakeries, even when the item isn't one the baker finds controversial.

[brolyx74]

I don't really see it as discrimination against people. Discrimination against homosexuals would be if they refused to sell the cupcakes to them because they were gay. They refused to sell them the cupcakes because the cupcakes were gay. Last time I checked, it was fine to discriminate against cupcakes. They would have refused to sell the rainbow cupcakes to anybody, gay, straight, whatever, if it was for a gay rally or whatever. They weren't by any means discriminating against the people themselves, so you can't really go against them on the grounds that they were.

[Hypnotik]

To everyone who still thinks this wasn't discrimination:
You obviously did not click on the wiki links. Opinion is just that, opinion. Discrimination is then taking that opinion and using it to justify some kind of action. In this case, refusing to make the rainbow sprinkle cupcakes. By its very DEFINITION, this is discrimination. There is no arguing that.

You obviously don't get it do you?
They weren't refusing service to the patrons because they were gay. They were refusing to fulfill the order because of what the cupcakes stood for. If those same gay patrons wanted a order of 400 chocolate chip cookies with smiley faces on them the order would have been fulfilled. Just as the others have said as well.

[wolfgirl90]

In this case, yes they can.

Businesses cant deny you service for race, color, religion, or national origin. In *some* states, they cant for sexual preference or for how you look/dress.

Now I didnt read the article, but unless it was in Calir or one of the other states where sexual preference is protected, then the business was in its right to refuse its services. If it *was*, then theres a good chance they were able to dance around the act like in the case of the funeral home.

This is unrelated, but what's funny is that I know precisely where you got that information from. I have read it before. Not questioning its validity; just stating I read it just hours ago.

Anyway, again, I already pointed out that there is a hole in the discrimination laws concerning homosexuals. Its the reason why the students acted the way that they did, so I am not arguing against the fact that businesses can discriminate against homosexuals without repercussion (unless they are in the 20 states and in D.C that have laws against it).

What I AM arguing against is the fact that some people, including YOU (so don't try backpedaling out of it now), said that businesses have the "right" to refuse service to anyone when they don't (and again, I don't know where people are getting that idea).

The Civil Rights Act makes discrimination illegal against those classes. It does NOT mean that a business still retains the "right" to discriminate against those not covered within the act or other acts made by the state. It ONLY means that no criminal action can be taken against them for the discrimination. Just because one can't discriminate against women or minorities doesn't mean they have the "right" to discriminate against homosexuals.

Also, I don't think I understood what you meant when you brought up the funeral home. In that case, the funeral home DID have the right to get rid of the punk rockers, but failed to exercise that right due in part to their interpretation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Nobody "danced" around the Act.

[Ωmega]

What I AM arguing against is the fact that some people, including YOU (so don't try backpedaling out of it now), said that businesses have the "right" to refuse service to anyone when they don't (and again, I don't know where people are getting that idea).

No, now youre twisting my words. I stated [feel free to go down to my first post]

I dont think its fair to cut out a whole group because you disagree with their life views [in this case, being homosexual], but its thats business's right to do so.

By law, they have that right. I dont think its fair, but *by law* [since its doesnt fall under race, color, religion, or national origin] they have the right to refuse service for sexual preference and/or appearance.

[Albear]

Its written because its controversial. Normally stories with even a hint of controversy will make the local news/newspapers/etc.

[Forgotten Show]

Have a few more thousand post and a few more years added to your name and we'll talk.

Way to qualify yourself as any sort of mature, reasonable debater. If anyone didn't facepalm after reading this, here's your second chance.

It's not like he wasn't serving them.
He just wasn't making them a special order as I doubt rainbow cakes were on the menu to begin with. That isn't uncommon in some bakeries, even when the item isn't one the baker finds controversial.

This point is a pretty good one. Bakeries do this all the time when folks want to special order cakes and the like with questionable phrases or slogans on them, as do food/dessert shops who refuse to use molds of religious symbols. It is not discrimination to avoid participation; as Obsidion Judge said, there's a good chance that folks on the other side of the issue would've been denied service too. If it's not on the menu, is the baker required to make it? (Think of the implications that would have...)

Interesting follow-up question: would denying service to WBC members wanting "God Hates Fags" on cupcakes be religious discrimination? If so, does anyone have the right to refuse service to a person in one of those categories mentioned in discrimination laws, even if the reason for refusal is not because of that person's race, religion, etc.? (More implications...)

I don't usually like the slippery slope argument, but in this case, given the legislative and judicial history of our country, I wonder.



Bad Memory

[Sanosuke23]

To everyone still trying to say this is entirely about discrimination:

You're making the same inaccurate accusations the author of OP's article did. He did not, I say I say he did not refuse them service because they are gay. He refused them service because they wanted him to make a special order in support of a cause he does not agree with. Doing so would attach his bakery to the event and perhaps he didn't wish it. There really isn't anything wrong with that, and here is the part where a lot of us seem to agree except for maybe the OP who's a bit hypocritical in this, there is similarly nothing wrong with people reacting to this choice negatively by peacefully protesting/boycotting the establishment. If they were sending sprinkles they'd be in the wrong, just as if a group of people who disagreed with homosexuality would be wrong to send, say, Caps rainbow sprinkles in the mail en masse. That falls under harassment.

Speaking of, all the stuff Caps mentioned? Old lady was in the wrong, there was no need to come over to you guys and point out how particularly offended she was by watching you cuddle and make out in a dark movie theater or hold hands and such on the way in/out(She must have been watching you guys pretty intently, which I think says more about her than it does about you folks). Coworkers are wrong, as it isn't company policy to give warnings to same-sex couples for signs of affection in-store. The couple, provided they didn't spit on you or go on this big rant about how much they hate fags or something, were within their rights to say "No, we'll take the next one." You are also within your rights to be hurt by this, and attempt to change their opinion on homosexuals or just sit there with people that disagree with them and go "Man, what a-holes." Provided they didn't try to shove you off or demand you wait for the next one, they're entitled to their jackarse opinion and were I slated to be sharing an inner tube with them next, I would have waited for the next one because I don't want to spoil my experience by sharing the ride with bigots.

In summary, while you CAN infer his stance on homosexuality by this and react within reason, the act itself wasn't denying service to homosexuals, it was denying service to people who wanted him to fill an order that was specifically in support of a cause he doesn't agree with because he doesn't want to be attached to it. I personally think he's a d-bag for lumping support for homosexuality in with profanity, but he's entitled to it.

Unless, of course, in addition to the rainbow sprinkles they wanted something like "Fags Rule!" on the cupcakes as well, then the entire argument against him is way off base.

[Capernicus]

Again, I said the baker was within his rights to refuse service to whoever. The statements made by the baker seem to imply that he would be perfectly fine with supplying them, say, chocolate chip cookies, and I would really like to go to that establishment and see if that is true. I have my doubts. But anyway, I shall assume he would have been fine with that. In that case, I would say it is still discrimination, but that is debatable. Regardless, I hardly see how mailing him rainbow sprinkles is harassment. Perhaps if people were also sending vaguely threatening letters and/or causing a scene inside his bakery, sure. I would think he would be glad for the free sprinkles, unless he objects to receiving practical gifts from gay people.

Also Kuwabara, you never cease to amaze me. Gay cupcakes? You need to go read more books, kthxbai.

[Anoleis]

Also Kuwabara, you never cease to amaze me. Gay cupcakes? You need to go read more books, kthxbai.

Somewhere there is a picture of cupcakes with vulva shaped frosting, after that "gay cupcakes" are easy to imagine.

[wolfgirl90]

No, now youre twisting my words. I stated [feel free to go down to my first post]

I said that you (PLUS OTHERS) were saying that businesses have the right to refuse to service to anyone. You post only makes it seem that you are specifying that the case was about homosexuals rather than stating that homosexuals were the exceptions in the law (at least, not until your second post or so), so I lumped you with the others.

By law, they have that right. I dont think its fair, but *by law* [since its doesnt fall under race, color, religion, or national origin] they have the right to refuse service for sexual preference and/or appearance.

You are not getting it. Just because the law made something illegal doesn't mean that you have the "right" to do something not covered by the law.

In this case, the Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate against federally protected groups. Discriminating against people has never been a "right" granted to anybody, so the law simply made it illegal to discriminate against those groups; that doesn't mean that discrimination based on sexual preference is still a "right" that businesses have, since they never had the "right" to begin with. It only means that they are not breaking the law when they do.

One has natural rights, rights that they are entitled to, rights that are owed to them and legal rights, rights that are given to them. Just because something is not against the law doesn't make it a right. Its not illegal to walk around in a wolf costume but that doesn't that I have the right to walk around in a wolf costume.

The "right to refuse service" is really focusing on business' ability to throw out an unruly customer threatening patrons, those with poor hygiene, overcapacity, etc, things that affect the operation of the business and its patrons. A public accommodation, such as the bakery, can refuse service based on this but it really doesn't go beyond that (at least, not without a very specific moral reason).

The owner of Just Cookies never really states a specific reason as to why he refused to make the rainbow frosted cookies (which is why I was wondering why he didn't just come out and say it), only that his business was family-run, that he had two impressionable daughters (who are 17 and 20) and that "maybe it was best not to do that". When it came to "values", he only talked about business values, such as not making cookies with obscenities (as if rainbows and obscenities are on the same level).

[Izzy Stizzlebonk]

I love this thread 'cause the repeated mentioning of cupcakes and cookies. It was like this thread was begging me to post something it in. Normally, I wouldn't post in a serious thread like this, but I got a sweet tooth.

If I was le boulanger, I would have baked them. I would never turn down business. But I can understand why those folks didn't. If they weren't comfortable makin' them, the customers can't force them to make them, right? I guess in this case, the bakers really, really hold their values and beliefs close to heart. I think the overall question is why some people are like this?

And a final note: I will eat a rainbow frosted cupcake, but I much rather prefer a rainbow frosted cooooooooooookieeeeee.

[Skylar1]

Its not illegal to walk around in a wolf costume but that doesn't that I have the right to walk around in a wolf costume.

Just for clarification purposes, could you please describe to me with a phrase or statement of what this 'De facto non-right' would be?

[blueangel06661]

Way to qualify yourself as any sort of mature, reasonable debater. If anyone didn't facepalm after reading this, here's your second chance.

Well sorry if I don't appreciate someone completely new to this forum telling me I'm off-topic when I'm not and that I shouldn't post.

[Sanosuke23]

@Capernicus: Would you consider it harassment if a group of people mailed you bags full of rainbow sprinkles unsolicited because they didn't agree with your homosexuality?

You are not getting it. Just because the law made something illegal doesn't mean that you have the "right" to do something not covered by the law.

In this case, the Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate against federally protected groups. Discriminating against people has never been a "right" granted to anybody, so the law simply made it illegal to discriminate against those groups; that doesn't mean that discrimination based on sexual preference is still a "right" that businesses have, since they never had the "right" to begin with. It only means that they are not breaking the law when they do.

One has natural rights, rights that they are entitled to, rights that are owed to them and legal rights, rights that are given to them. Just because something is not against the law doesn't make it a right. Its not illegal to walk around in a wolf costume but that doesn't that I have the right to walk around in a wolf costume.

The "right to refuse service" is really focusing on business' ability to throw out an unruly customer threatening patrons, those with poor hygiene, overcapacity, etc, things that affect the operation of the business and its patrons. A public accommodation, such as the bakery, can refuse service based on this but it really doesn't go beyond that (at least, not without a very specific moral reason).

The owner of Just Cookies never really states a specific reason as to why he refused to make the rainbow frosted cookies (which is why I was wondering why he didn't just come out and say it), only that his business was family-run, that he had two impressionable daughters (who are 17 and 20) and that "maybe it was best not to do that". When it came to "values", he only talked about business values, such as not making cookies with obscenities (as if rainbows and obscenities are on the same level).

1) You are still acting on the assumption that he refused them specifically because they are gay and not because they were asking him to make something in support of gay rights. As several people have said in one way or another in this thread already, a refusal to participate does not equal discrimination. DOES he disapprove of homosexuality? Probably. Do you have to like him or patronize his establishment? Nope. The problem is that by telling him he HAS to provide a product in support of a cause he doesn't support, you are doing the same exact thing as someone who approaches a gay couple and tells them about how horrible they are and how they shouldn't do that sort of thing in public. This makes you a hypocrite, which I guess is fine if you're okay with it.

2) I don't see how you don't have the right to wear a wolf costume. I think that'd fall under the personal liberty portion of "unalienable rights." Now if you requested a baker custom-make pro-yiff cookies and they refused, you wouldn't have the right to demand their acquiescence. I still fail to see how him saying "No I won't get involved with this special request" is the same as "get out of my store, faggot."

[Ωmega]

@[URL=http://www.animeforum.com/member.php?u=29944]
1) You are still acting on the assumption that he refused them specifically because they are gay and not because they were asking him to make something in support of gay rights. As several people have said in one way or another in this thread already, a refusal to participate does not equal discrimination. DOES he disapprove of homosexuality? Probably. Do you have to like him or patronize his establishment? Nope. The problem is that by telling him he HAS to provide a product in support of a cause he doesn't support, you are doing the same exact thing as someone who approaches a gay couple and tells them about how horrible they are and how they shouldn't do that sort of thing in public. This makes you a hypocrite, which I guess is fine if you're okay with it.

2) I don't see how you don't have the right to wear a wolf costume. I think that'd fall under the personal liberty portion of "unalienable rights." Now if you requested a baker custom-make pro-yiff cookies and they refused, you wouldn't have the right to demand their acquiescence. I still fail to see how him saying "No I won't get involved with this special request" is the same as "get out of my store, faggot."

^^
this

Damn you Sano and your eloquent way with words.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

I said that you (PLUS OTHERS) were saying that businesses have the right to refuse to service to anyone. You post only makes it seem that you are specifying that the case was about homosexuals rather than stating that homosexuals were the exceptions in the law (at least, not until your second post or so), so I lumped you with the others.



You are not getting it. Just because the law made something illegal doesn't mean that you have the "right" to do something not covered by the law.

In this case, the Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate against federally protected groups. Discriminating against people has never been a "right" granted to anybody, so the law simply made it illegal to discriminate against those groups; that doesn't mean that discrimination based on sexual preference is still a "right" that businesses have, since they never had the "right" to begin with. It only means that they are not breaking the law when they do.

One has natural rights, rights that they are entitled to, rights that are owed to them and legal rights, rights that are given to them. Just because something is not against the law doesn't make it a right. Its not illegal to walk around in a wolf costume but that doesn't that I have the right to walk around in a wolf costume.

The "right to refuse service" is really focusing on business' ability to throw out an unruly customer threatening patrons, those with poor hygiene, overcapacity, etc, things that affect the operation of the business and its patrons. A public accommodation, such as the bakery, can refuse service based on this but it really doesn't go beyond that (at least, not without a very specific moral reason).

The owner of Just Cookies never really states a specific reason as to why he refused to make the rainbow frosted cookies (which is why I was wondering why he didn't just come out and say it), only that his business was family-run, that he had two impressionable daughters (who are 17 and 20) and that "maybe it was best not to do that". When it came to "values", he only talked about business values, such as not making cookies with obscenities (as if rainbows and obscenities are on the same level).

Wait? Since when it was wrong to refuse service in a business? Like the member Saunosuke said, and in fact many others...it was more of a "I don't want to be partake of (insert event here)" than a "I don't do service to your kind, **** off". So really, how is the former wrong? And like they also said above, they refused to make that special order not refused to provide service to the customer overall. So tell me, how is this discrimination again?

I don't know what you're trying yo say here but I'll respond from the conclusions I got;

I do have the right to wear a "wolf costume". I don't see what could be wrong with that, will I look like an clown? Perhaps, but I am within my right to wear it, and it doesn't affect anybody.

I do have the right to wear that wolf costume. It might hurt others, but I still have my right, even if it's wrong. I believe it's called right to free speech? If I see a white dude with a shirt saying "Spanish speakers, go back to Mexico!" All I'll say is "Racist bastard" and just move on, there's nothing I can do about it...even if it's wrong, he still has every right to do so.

Oh and my example is also would show how ignorant the person would be. =3

I don't really see it as discrimination against people. Discrimination against homosexuals would be if they refused to sell the cupcakes to them because they were gay. They refused to sell them the cupcakes because the cupcakes were gay. Last time I checked, it was fine to discriminate against cupcakes. They would have refused to sell the rainbow cupcakes to anybody, gay, straight, whatever, if it was for a gay rally or whatever. They weren't by any means discriminating against the people themselves, so you can't really go against them on the grounds that they were.

I don't really see it as discrimination against people. Discrimination against homosexuals would be if they refused to sell the cupcakes to them because they were gay. They refused to sell them the cupcakes because the cupcakes were gay.

because the cupcakes were gay.

cupcakes gay.

Are you serious? You're a good kid and all but you say some stupid stuff, man. Really stupid.

[Light Buster]

Looks like someone has temper problems. People misquote people these days, like the Beatles back then.

[Anoleis]

It seems this thread in now about discrimination and what qualifies as such...

[Light Buster]

It seems this thread in now about discrimination and what qualifies as such...

I agree. It should be closed as soon as possible.

[Forgotten Show]

Well sorry if I don't appreciate someone completely new to this forum telling me I'm off-topic when I'm not and that I shouldn't post.

It doesn't strike you as interesting that someone who is not an admin or site owner (like you) is telling someone else how to behave in their sandbox... by referencing post count as a measure of qualification, no less?

Heh.

I disagree that this topic should be closed because it begs the question of what qualifies as discrimination. The whole topic hinges on this clarification.


Bad Memory

[TomoyoSakagami]

It seems this thread in now about discrimination and what qualifies as such...

This. I wonder why this thread still isn't locked. Oh and

/inb4lock

[Anoleis]

Oh great and powerful Eris. Give us a sign as to guide us on our lofty quest of knowledge.

I disagree that this topic should be closed because it begs the question of what qualifies as discrimination.

Discrimination - unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender.
dead thread, LET DIE!