Bakery Free speech question for liberals

OK, so its kinda stolen from YAHOO Answers (I woulda exactly stole it, but I can't find it again):

"So Liberals are all upset because Christian Bakers won't bake cakes for Gay/Lesbian weddings, but how would you react if a Black baker refused to bake a cake for a White Supremacist wedding?" Took me a while to disassemble it but try your hand

It's so cute when conservatives think they got a "gotcha" question.

The answer, of course, is simple: The same rules apply. A black baker can't refuse to serve a white supremacist based on that simple fact alone. If this hypothetical baker shop is open to the public, it must be open to all aspects of the public. If the hypothetical customer however behaves in ways abhorrent to the baker in the course of this transaction, then he can certainly refuse service. If, for example, the customer wishes to express his white supremacy on the cake by featuring white power symbology or white supremacist messaging. Or if he calls the baker a stupid nigger.

Because we're having a stupid postal vote on same sex marriage at present, there is lots of talk here on this supposed potential for litigation.
Firstly only a trouble maker deliberately wanting to set an example (from either side) would go to a baker or florist knowing that they disagreed.
Secondly just quote a ridiculous price, odds are they will leave, but if not you laugh all the way to the bank.

The E wrote:It's so cute when conservatives think they got a "gotcha" question.

The answer, of course, is simple: The same rules apply. A black baker can't refuse to serve a white supremacist based on that simple fact alone. If this hypothetical baker shop is open to the public, it must be open to all aspects of the public. If the hypothetical customer however behaves in ways abhorrent to the baker in the course of this transaction, then he can certainly refuse service. If, for example, the customer wishes to express his white supremacy on the cake by featuring white power symbology or white supremacist messaging. Or if he calls the baker a stupid nigger.

pappilon wrote:OK, so its kinda stolen from YAHOO Answers (I woulda exactly stole it, but I can't find it again):

"So Liberals are all upset because Christian Bakers won't bake cakes for Gay/Lesbian weddings, but how would you react if a Black baker refused to bake a cake for a White Supremacist wedding?" Took me a while to disassemble it but try your hand

The true answer to this is to pass an Equal Rights Act that includes biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. Any business with a license from the government must adhere to government policy regarding "protected classes". White Supremacists would not be a protected class.

If the baker is a member of one of your 'Official Protected Classes', should the government force people to do business with them? Force racists to buy from black-owned stores, fundies to eat at gay-owned restaurants? If enough people choose not to eat at the restaurant, it will go out of business, placing a hardship on the gay owners! The Government Must Protect Them, right?

You don't give up your rights just because you run a business. You should have the same right not to serve any customer, for any reason, as the customer has to avoid doing business with you. Businesses that turn away customers provide opportunities for other businesses to serve them.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to prevent some people from being assholes. It's one of the prices of freedom — some people will choose to be assholes. Having the government stomp on them is a cure worse than the disease.

I also detest the way such policies enable the Professional Victim Class, those self-entitled whiners that go around shoving their victim-hood in everybody's faces. Waaaaah! That baker was mean to me! I wants money, lots and lots of money! I wants that meanie to be bankrupt, and his whole family homeless!

People are mean to me sometimes, too, but I don't go around whining about it.
———————————
Oh, no, we can't call them 'brain eating zombies'! They are partially ambulatory formerly-living persons with specific dietary preferences and a limited vocabulary.

Imaginos1892 wrote:If the baker is a member of one of your 'Official Protected Classes', should the government force people to do business with them? Force racists to buy from black-owned stores, fundies to eat at gay-owned restaurants? If enough people choose not to eat at the restaurant, it will go out of business, placing a hardship on the gay owners! The Government Must Protect Them, right?

This is like arguing that a Catholic girl cannot refuse to have sex with you because she'd possibly be preventing a birth. More reductio ad absurdam gotcha tactics.

Imaginos1892 wrote:You don't give up your rights just because you run a business. You should have the same right not to serve any customer, for any reason, as the customer has to avoid doing business with you. Businesses that turn away customers provide opportunities for other businesses to serve them.

So you'd be okay with a Jewish doctor refusing to perform life-saving surgery on your kid because she's goyishe?

Imaginos1892 wrote:There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to prevent some people from being assholes. It's one of the prices of freedom — some people will choose to be assholes. Having the government stomp on them is a cure worse than the disease.

It's actually the FIRST thing in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I also detest the way such policies enable the Professional Victim Class, those self-entitled whiners that go around shoving their victim-hood in everybody's faces. Waaaaah! That baker was mean to me! I wants money, lots and lots of money! I wants that meanie to be bankrupt, and his whole family homeless!

People are mean to me sometimes, too, but I don't go around whining about it.

When you're used to privilege, equality looks like prejudice.

Imaginos1892 wrote:If the baker is a member of one of your 'Official Protected Classes', should the government force people to do business with them? Force racists to buy from black-owned stores, fundies to eat at gay-owned restaurants? If enough people choose not to eat at the restaurant, it will go out of business, placing a hardship on the gay owners! The Government Must Protect Them, right?

dscott8 wrote:This is like arguing that a Catholic girl cannot refuse to have sex with you because she'd possibly be preventing a birth. More reductio ad absurdam gotcha tactics.

Uh, how, exactly? Not seeing any correlation there. As for reductio ad absurdum, it’s not my fault your arguments lend themselves to it so perfectly.

Imaginos1892 wrote:You don't give up your rights just because you run a business. You should have the same right not to serve any customer, for any reason, as the customer has to avoid doing business with you. Businesses that turn away customers provide opportunities for other businesses to serve them.

dscott8 wrote: you'd be okay with a Jewish doctor refusing to perform life-saving surgery on your kid because she's goyishe?

Well, that would depend on whether you consider the doctor a free citizen, or a slave. Would you really want to force a doctor to operate on your child against his will? I'd much rather find another doctor.

Imaginos1892 wrote:There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to prevent some people from being assholes. It's one of the prices of freedom — some people will choose to be assholes. Having the government stomp on them is a cure worse than the disease.

dscott8 wrote:It's actually the FIRST thing in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Funny, I don’t see anything in there that either requires or authorizes the government to force people to violate their beliefs just because they run a business. Even if you disagree with those beliefs. In fact, it looks to me like it says just the opposite.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I also detest the way such policies enable the Professional Victim Class, those self-entitled whiners that go around shoving their victim-hood in everybody's faces. Waaaaah! That baker was mean to me! I wants money, lots and lots of money! I wants that meanie to be bankrupt, and his whole family homeless!

People are mean to me sometimes, too, but I don't go around whining about it.

It's called growing up. We could use a lot more of it in this country.

dscott8 wrote:When you're used to privilege, equality looks like prejudice.

Ah, yes, the great privilege I’ve had to work for a living these last 40 years. If the Professional Victim Class did some working, they'd have less time for whining.
———————————
Freedom means everybody is free to not be just like you.

Imaginos1892 wrote:]

dscott8 wrote:This is like arguing that a Catholic girl cannot refuse to have sex with you because she'd possibly be preventing a birth. More reductio ad absurdam gotcha tactics.

Uh, how, exactly? Not seeing any correlation there. As for reductio ad absurdum, it’s not my fault your arguments lend themselves to it so perfectly.

Imaginos1892 wrote:You don't give up your rights just because you run a business. You should have the same right not to serve any customer, for any reason, as the customer has to avoid doing business with you. Businesses that turn away customers provide opportunities for other businesses to serve them.

dscott8 wrote: you'd be okay with a Jewish doctor refusing to perform life-saving surgery on your kid because she's goyishe?

Well, that would depend on whether you consider the doctor a free citizen, or a slave. Would you really want to force a doctor to operate on your child against his will? I'd much rather find another doctor.

Imaginos1892 wrote:There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to prevent some people from being assholes. It's one of the prices of freedom — some people will choose to be assholes. Having the government stomp on them is a cure worse than the disease.

Funny, I don’t see anything in there that either requires or authorizes the government to force people to violate their beliefs just because they run a business. Even if you disagree with those beliefs. In fact, it looks to me like it says just the opposite.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I also detest the way such policies enable the Professional Victim Class, those self-entitled whiners that go around shoving their victim-hood in everybody's faces. Waaaaah! That baker was mean to me! I wants money, lots and lots of money! I wants that meanie to be bankrupt, and his whole family homeless!

People are mean to me sometimes, too, but I don't go around whining about it.

It's called growing up. We could use a lot more of it in this country.

dscott8 wrote:When you're used to privilege, equality looks like prejudice.

Ah, yes, the great privilege I’ve had to work for a living these last 40 years. If the Professional Victim Class did some working, they'd have less time for whining.
———————————
Freedom means everybody is free to not be just like you.

There is such a law prohibiting discrimination based on race creed and sexual orientation. Christians hate the law because it no longer recognizes their primacy as the unoffiial official religion of the United States. And by Christians it is assumed to mean either the Southern Baptist Convention or any number of fundamentalist Christian sects. Specifically excluded are Catholics of all stripes (Roman, Greek, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic).

The constitution gives the sole authority to interpret the Constitution to the Supreme Court. No exemptions for snowflakes who get their feelers hurt when some legal opinion contradicts their worldview.

Yes there is a tradition of Civil Disobedience, mostly around the Civil rights Movement. Rosa parks broke the law by sitting in the front of the bus, She got arrested, she went to court, She pled guilty. She paid her fine/did her time. That is the moral essence of Civil Disobedience. One does not break the law, plead not guilty, fight the conviction to avoid the consequences of your law breaking all the way to the supreme court.

Baker (1) is claiming that his Christian Artistic expression allows him to put himself above the law. His artistic cakes (not based on Christian themes) Should not be used for legal-yet-immoral purposes. Baker (2) [hypothetical, by the way] IMO Claims that although "White Supremacy" is a social movement, its intent is to violate the law. Therefore it is an evil social movement. The only thing needed for evil movements to flourish is for good people to do nothing. I, by God, am doing something.

Just found this, if anyone is interested.

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Judge Tunheim said in his ruling that the couple's conduct was "akin to a 'White Applicants Only' sign" and could be outlawed without infringing on First Amendment rights. "Posting language on a website telling potential customers that a business will discriminate based on sexual orientation is part of the act of sexual orientation discrimination itself," Tunheim stated. "As conduct carried out through language, this act is not protected by the First Amendment."