The decline to moral bankruptcy of the GOP

[arrendek]

How about if you made the nazi a nice giant cake with their phrase on the outside, like, “Heil hitler” or whatever… I dunno what nazis say now. And then when they cut into it the hidden message appears in the cake cross-section. “Fuck nazis”, presumably.

Nah, on second thought it wouldn’t be worth it. You just say it to their face instead.

[BennyProfane]

Yeah, it seems to me that this argument is talking past the notion of differences that are intrinsic vs. differences that are chosen. As Timex points out, some folks will argue until they die that being gay is a choice, but those are the same people who deny climate change is happening, claim vaccines are dangerous, and probably think the Earth is flat.

Discrimination because of intrinsic difference should always be disallowed. Discrimination because of a choice on the part of the (for example) purchaser of the pack of gum is and probably should be allowable. I am more than happy to throw somebody out of my store who stinks because they choose to not shower. After all, they are probably doing more damage to my business by standing around stinking and driving other shoppers out than I benefit from selling to them.

[Pyperkub]

Honestly, I’m not even commenting on whether homosexuals are considered a protected class (although there is no clear precedent to establish that they are).

In Colorado, gays are explicitly a protected class. Colorado’s argument here was that the baker’s free speech rights were not infringed because there was no specific message sent by the cake, and no one seeing the cake could infer the baker’s beliefs from it. He still absolutely had the right to say whatever he wanted to say about gay rights. The Court’s ruling didn’t touch on this, but rather on the “religious animus” shown by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Case defeated on procedural grounds, with the merits of either argument not considered. I think it’s pretty clear that the baker’s actions were illegal in Colorado, just as the Oregon bakers’ actions were illegal there.

Yeah, vis a vis State Constitutions there are a fair amount of states where the protected classes have been more explicitly defined than they are in Federal law.

[Telefrog]

So I can throw the Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/etc out of my store because religion is a choice?

[BennyProfane]

An interesting question. Part of the First Amendment expressly addresses the treatment of religion, but not from an individual’s perspective, only from the governments. I suspect the answer to your question would be “yes.”

[Miramon]

Also the republicans and democrats and bisexuals who unfairly choose to marry someone from the other gender than you.

[Matt_W]

An interesting question. Part of the First Amendment expressly addresses the treatment of religion, but not from an individual’s perspective, only from the governments. I suspect the answer to your question would be “yes.”

Incorrect. Religion is explicitly defined as a protected class under federal law for the provision of goods and services:

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
> (a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishmentstrong text

[magnet]

No, you can’t. Religion is a protected class, so it’s illegal to throw someone out of your store on the basis of religion.

And since religion is indeed a choice, talk about “intrinsic” differences is a red herring. Protected classes aren’t protected merely because they are immutable. They are protected because they have a history of unjust discrimination. In other words, we’ve already tried the Timex-preferred method of letting the market sort things out. And it didn’t work, because markets aren’t perfect. Thus, there is a need for more restrictive measures.

[RichVR]

Religion is a protected class, so it’s illegal to throw someone out of your store on the basis of religion.

So just throw them out because of something allowed. Don’t tell them that it’s because of religion. Is that okay?

[BennyProfane]

An interesting question. Part of the First Amendment expressly addresses the treatment of religion, but not from an individual’s perspective, only from the governments. I suspect the answer to your question would be “yes.”

Incorrect. Religion is explicitly defined as a protected class under federal law for the provision of goods and services:

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
> (a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishmentstrong text

Cool, that answers the problem easily then.

[Matt_W]

So just throw them out because of something allowed. Don’t tell them that it’s because of religion. Is that okay?

Yes. Anti-discrimination suits are hard to prove, because you have to prove you were discriminated against specifically because you’re a member of a protected class. In the Oregon bakers’ case, the bakers appeared on TV specifically saying they’d refused because the couple were lesbians. In Colorado, the baker told the plaintiffs–and never contested–that he was refusing to make a wedding cake for them because he opposed gay marriage on religious grounds.

[Telefrog]

So just throw them out because of something allowed. Don’t tell them that it’s because of religion. Is that okay?

Obviously not okay, but people get away with all sorts of discriminatory practices by citing other reasons.

[Gordon_Cameron]

So just throw them out because of something allowed.

How about “I don’t like your ugly mug?” That’s kind of a classic.

[Matt_W]

Obviously not okay, but people get away with all sorts of discriminatory practices by citing other reasons

Note that if you consistently refuse to serve Christians and happily serve everyone else, it’s possible to make a pretty strong case that your actions are discriminatory, no matter what reasons you cite.

[Telefrog]

Sure. No argument there. I’m just saying that weaseling under a discrimination law is a time-honored tactic.

[RichVR]

[Matt_W]

Putting up a sign doesn’t allow you to break the law.

[RichVR]

Is refusing service illegal? I thought it was a given.

[Banzai]

And I have a great deal of respect for the way you’ve kept your eyes open and not just gone along with the horrible path the GOP has taken in the last decade or so. Choosing to speak up when things aren’t going right is fundamental to our democracy, but it’s not easy when the group you’ve associated with has changed so much that it’s now anathema to you. So good job, you’re an american doing what an american should do.

I do feel that the civil rights laws have pushed people into doing what is right, even though they still may not like it, and that it has been of benefit to our country as a whole. I feel the same needs to happen for gay and transgendered people, if they continue to suffer from discrimination in things as basic as purchasing goods. I don’t see much of that in my personal life now, but in a small town in the deep south, I’ll bet things are different, and such protections may well be needed.

[Timex]

But what is the problem with simply declaring sexual orientation to be a protected class? Why is that not good enough?