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

Some people ARE allowed to project their values. Pg 8-9 of the ruling says:

Finally, 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. Respondents
have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not
make a speech.

So you can project your values as long as you "don't make a speech"?

I have said it before, I disagree with the not making of a cake or photo shoot from a business position. I disagree with the courts or government making value judgements for society.

I'm afraid that "making value judgements" is part of the job of government, particularly of the judiciary and to a fair extent the legislature and executive.

The problem comes when they exceed their mandate, which is what I think the Ariona legislators have done.

But on your examples, yes, "speech" is at issue, because freedom of speech also includes freedom to not say things.

That is clearly different from not wanting to provide a serviceto some people while providing the exsct same service to others, based on what they are rather than what they request.

You don't have to be a black/muslim cake maker to object to a commission for a racist cake for the KKK or a bigoted one for the WBC, by the way. That is actually the real problem I have with the 'respondent' - they can't seem to be able to make a case that they are not asking for unfair discrimination without using examples themselves based onputting people into a stereotype. Which itself a form of prejudice.

So choosing to not make a cake or flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding is discrimination, but not making a cake for a WBC wedding/function is not?

I would not have ANYTHING to do with Westboro. Does that make me discriminatory or not?

I object to the view that any opinion against the use of marriage as a man/woman only arrangement is intolerant and bigoted.

Brad, it probably isn't very helpful to narrow everything down to one incident in a bakery. When assessing whether this Arizona law is a good idea you have to look at the bigger picture that it might entail. If we allow any business to refuse service on religious grounds then it opens up a huge can of worms. There are I'm sure a lot of small towns in Arizona with very limited suppliers of all kind of goods and services. Would it be acceptable for every business in town to refuse to serve gay people ? What might happen if they passed a law like this in Utah ? In theory it could be impossible for gay people to buy anything at all.

bbauska wrote:So choosing to not make a cake or flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding is discrimination, but not making a cake for a WBC wedding/function is not?

Did anyone else hear that loud scraping noise? Those goalposts over there appear to have moved...

I would not have ANYTHING to do with Westboro. Does that make me discriminatory or not?/quote]Yup. But that was not your 'example' - that was whether to make a cake for the WBC that attacked the Koran (I thought their main beef was homosexuality, but of course that would not work as well as an example I guess). I can see why it is reasonable to avoid making that cake, but that is not the same as refusing to make a normal cake for someone who happens to be a member of the WBC.

I object to the view that any opinion against the use of marriage as a man/woman only arrangement is intolerant and bigoted.

You can hold your opinion. You can express your opinion. But there is a line crossed when you use that opinion as a means to withold services to someone who only wants the same thing as anyone else, but has a lifestyle that you object to.

Now you don't do that, as you say, because it's also likely to be a poor business decision (although what if you thought it would be very popular for your business to make a deal of refusing service to homosexual married couples?). But you need to be very careful about standing up for the 'rights' of those who would.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:So choosing to not make a cake or flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding is discrimination, but not making a cake for a WBC wedding/function is not?

Did anyone else hear that loud scraping noise? Those goalposts over there appear to have moved...

I would not have ANYTHING to do with Westboro. Does that make me discriminatory or not?/quote]Yup. But that was not your 'example' - that was whether to make a cake for the WBC that attacked the Koran (I thought their main beef was homosexuality, but of course that would not work as well as an example I guess). I can see why it is reasonable to avoid making that cake, but that is not the same as refusing to make a normal cake for someone who happens to be a member of the WBC.

I object to the view that any opinion against the use of marriage as a man/woman only arrangement is intolerant and bigoted.

You can hold your opinion. You can express your opinion. But there is a line crossed when you use that opinion as a means to withold services to someone who only wants the same thing as anyone else, but has a lifestyle that you object to.

Now you don't do that, as you say, because it's also likely to be a poor business decision (although what if you thought it would be very popular for your business to make a deal of refusing service to homosexual married couples?). But you need to be very careful about standing up for the 'rights' of those who would.

That was not goal post moving... I quoted the decision in the Craig v Cake decorator showing the double standard in that case.

It is the opinion of some doctors that Abortion is wrong. They can choose to withhold services to someone who wants the same thing as everyone else. That is a dichotomy and double standard.

The abortion analogy has already been dealt with. It's not the same because in that case the doctor is withholding that service from everybody, not simply from one group of people.

Look, there are always going to be grey areas in the application of any law. You invariably seek to find the most simplistic solution possible that can be applied across the board in every case. I get where you're coming from but I don't agree with the approach. In most cases all it'll achieve is to cause more harm than good. In this case what we're in effect having to do is balance two conflicting freedoms, one is the freedom to discriminate and the other is the freedom not to be discrciminated against. In most cases I'd say that the latter should have greater weight. Obviously there will be exceptions to this (I wouldn't want to force churches to host gay weddings for example), but generally speaking I'm not too sympathetic if somebody says "but what about my freedom to be an @#$! ?"

Sassenach wrote:The abortion analogy has already been dealt with. It's not the same because in that case the doctor is withholding that service from everybody, not simply from one group of people.

Look, there are always going to be grey areas in the application of any law. You invariably seek to find the most simplistic solution possible that can be applied across the board in every case. I get where you're coming from but I don't agree with the approach. In most cases all it'll achieve is to cause more harm than good. In this case what we're in effect having to do is balance two conflicting freedoms, one is the freedom to discriminate and the other is the freedom not to be discrciminated against. In most cases I'd say that the latter should have greater weight. Obviously there will be exceptions to this (I wouldn't want to force churches to host gay weddings for example), but generally speaking I'm not too sympathetic if somebody says "but what about my freedom to be an @#$! ?"

Thank you for the understanding, Sass. Why do you feel that churches can withhold services it provides.

A non-member comes to a church and asks to rent the church and pastoral services for a wedding. It is a hetero wedding. The church accepts.

Another non-member comes to the same church and asks to rent the church and pastoral services for a same-sex wedding. The church refuses.

Any reason for discrimination?

My point is that the consumer has a right to go elsewhere. The point that there are not other cake decorators or flower arrangers available in the city in question is something that I am willing to investigate to put that point to rest.

Supposed you take the job and provide crappy service. Is that acceptable? Why would anyone want to have a business that did not support your wedding make a cake for it when there are other options.

The whole thing just looks like a trap game to me. Let's find someone who will refuse service based upon their values and screw them over.

bbauska wrote:That was not goal post moving... I quoted the decision in the Craig v Cake decorator showing the double standard in that case.

You think it's a double standard. I think the excerpt shows that there is actually a distinction. That you disagree does not 'prove' a double standard, it just demonstrates that you can't see the difference.

You are conflating "making a normal cake for people, who may or may not want it for a gay wedding", with "making cakes with statements on them, for people who may want to say things on the cake that you find offensive, or not". They are not the same thing.

It is the opinion of some doctors that Abortion is wrong. They can choose to withhold services to someone who wants the same thing as everyone else. That is a dichotomy and double standard.

This is nonsense and Sass already addressed it, but just in case you can't see why, I'll try it out.

If a doctor does not want to provide abortions, they don't do it. If they don't disagree with them, they may do (depending on whether it's part of their specialty). As only people who want abortions want abortions, the service, being 'an abortion' is either provided or not on a universal basis by doctors.

Otherwise you'd have the situation of a doctor who only provided abortions for people who don't want one.

bbauska wrote:Thank you for the understanding, Sass. Why do you feel that churches can withhold services it provides.

A non-member comes to a church and asks to rent the church and pastoral services for a wedding. It is a hetero wedding. The church accepts.

Another non-member comes to the same church and asks to rent the church and pastoral services for a same-sex wedding. The church refuses.

Any reason for discrimination?

Because the churches are able to have religious freedoms as explicitly religious bodies and on religious concerns. What a church allows on its own premises is down to them.

That is not the same thing as a commercial service (which is not the appropriate place to start imposing a religious position on people).

My point is that the consumer has a right to go elsewhere.

Assuming that there is an 'elsewhere' that is not too far away that will not also bar them.

The point that there are not other cake decorators or flower arrangers available in the city in question is something that I am willing to investigate to put that point to rest.

That would not put the whole thing to rest, because what if that's not the only city where someone wants to do this? Or even if there are loads in the same city, but all of the rest still want to discriminate? We don't actually have laws that are dependent on such circumstantial stuff, we make them on the general case. Which is - it is right to withhold services simply because you want to make a value judgement about particular customers?

Supposed you take the job and provide crappy service. Is that acceptable? Why would anyone want to have a business that did not support your wedding make a cake for it when there are other options.

If you are not very good generally, then that's legal and basically your problem. If you selectively provide a rubbish service it is also unacceptable. Why would you want to have to check with each provider whether they 'approve' of your wedding? Why should you even need to worry about that stuff?

The whole thing just looks like a trap game to me. Let's find someone who will refuse service based upon their values and screw them over.

The 'trap' game is finding examples that are different and claiming they are the same so you can claim 'double standards' and declare come kind of logical victory.

And let's be clear, the debate here started when legislators tried to change the law to make it OK to discriminate on 'moral' / 'religious' grounds. So the idea that this was some 'trap' set by people who oppose that kind of thing is just foolish.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:That was not goal post moving... I quoted the decision in the Craig v Cake decorator showing the double standard in that case.

You think it's a double standard. I think the excerpt shows that there is actually a distinction. That you disagree does not 'prove' a double standard, it just demonstrates that you can't see the difference.

You are conflating "making a normal cake for people, who may or may not want it for a gay wedding", with "making cakes with statements on them, for people who may want to say things on the cake that you find offensive, or not". They are not the same thing.

A wedding cake is not a statement? Did you check with your wife before making that opinion?

The wedding cake is indeed a statement. The entire wedding is a statement. If it was not, then there would not be much of a reason for the wedding to take place at all. Just go to the local official and get your license. When I got married it was a statement; a statement to my God, my wife, my family and my community.

If it was not a statement then it would not be a big deal to same-sex couples just have a civil union license and fore go the wedding ceremony.

I know we have opposite opinions. I appreciate all of your tone and honesty on this. It is refreshing to see that Redscape is still able to achieve that.

http://www.engaygedweddings.com/

BTW, There is a market for gay wedding planners, bakers et. al. Apparently there was a need for that. Can anyone explain why you would want to go to a person who does not support your position when you can get the same service elsewhere?

The church turns into a commercial interest when it provides it's building for rent. [sidestep...]

Brad, I think it's pretty obvious that there's a difference between the law obliging churches to host gay weddings and obliging caterers not to explicitly refuse to provide food to gay weddings. Sure, if you really want to you can make the argument that both are essentially business transactions and as such there's no real difference, but ultimately it seems a little petty to do so. Yes, it's a grey area and it requires us to draw the line somewhere, and I've chosen to draw it here. I think most reasonable people would agree with me, so I'm cool with it.

Like I said, there are always grey areas in the application of the law. I know you of old and I know that when you see a grey area you like to try and advance some kind of libertarian solution that will eliminate them. I get that, and I also know that you're not personally a bigot. I just don't happen to agree that your apparently simple solutions to complex problems are actually a good idea in most cases. Certainly not in this one.

Brad, why do you think it is better that people be able to discriminate based on their religious or perhaps other views? Is is better for society, it is better for markets, it is better for capitalism if people's business transactions are not based on discrimination against certain groups. You say it makes no business sense to discriminate, but why does it make sense to sanction a person's freedom to discriminate in business against a particular group?

As for why people would go to people that don't like them, I don't think it works like that Someone goes somewhere to get a cake and the bakery refuses because it is for a gay wedding. That upsets them so they sue. So I don't think they choose to go somewhere that doesn't want them. Imagine how upsetting it would be if 10% of the stores you went said no thanks we don't want your business because you are in such and such group? Come on, Brad, you would not treat people that way. Why are you defending people that would? Because society is picking on religious people and not respecting their reliefs? People can have strong religious beliefs but that does not mean they can't treat people right.

I will say that there is a line where you can have more sympathy for someone in business who is asked to participate in something they think is wrong. The dividing line is to what extent are they participating in something they think is wrong or are they merely discriminating against someone because they don't like what they are doing. Clearly, a baker not selling a cake to someone just because they are gay would be wrong--can we agree on that? Certainly, we would say a pastor does not have to preside over a gay wedding. A church could refuse to have a gay wedding on its property, even if has heterosexual weddings on it. A photographer probably is more involved at a gay wedding that someone baking a cake. I'm not sure I believe that baking a wedding cake that has no particular message on it is enough of a participation in a wedding to find someone could refuse based on religious grounds. It is too likely they are refusing to do so because of anti-gay prejudice rather than religious grounds and in any case the effect on them is pretty de minimis.

btw--I think for a person to even attempt to deny services based on religious ground they have to show some basis for it--they need to point to some tenet in their religion that prohibits doing what they are refusing to do.

I'm a family law attorney. Suppose after a few years of working for my firm I decide to go out on my own. Further, let's say my experience leads me to believe that courts tend to favor women in divorce proceedings, especially in the custody realm. I decide to have my new practice focus on representing only men. I refuse to represent any women.

Am I discriminating against women? After all I am refusing to provide a service based on their sex

Or is my discrimination one of those acceptable parts of the gray areas?

If it not in the acceptable side of the gray area why not? Why should I not be allowed to follow that business plan.