3 ms·

I don't think the difference there is bakery v registrar, but protected classes v arbitrary groups. It's like at-will employment: you can be fired for any reaso

I don't think the difference there is bakery v registrar, but protected classes v arbitrary groups. It's like at-will employment: you can be fired for any reason except these specific protected reasons (retaliation, age, race, pregnancy, etc).

dogma1138 9y ago
A Gay couple isn't a protected class under under federal law, there are 7 protected classes based on: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. As you notice "gender" or lack there off and sexual orientation are not defined as protected classes.
- steanne 9y ago
  that's still being debated. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/doj-amicus-brief-title-vii-sexual-orientation/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/doj-amicus-brief-titl...
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Indeed, it also is more complicated than that since protected classes in the US (on a federal level) are defined by multiple laws and their protection status is not universal across all cases. You may argue that familial/marital status is a protected class in the case of the gay wedding cake, the problem is that AFIAK (IANAL) applies to housing opportunities only. You can argue in court that familial status extends beyond married/divorced/single/widowed but also to the type of marriage and then argue that the protection under title VIII of the Fair Housing Act sets a precedence for familial status being a universal protected class(this has been done for other protected classes in the past also). But in either case this is a matter for the courts, until there is a ruling not wanting to serve a gay couple isn't a crime just "abhorrent but legal". As a liberal I would much rather see the free market take over, and before people say well a free market didn't help to combat the discrimination against African Americans it wasn't the lack of a free market but regulation where you had local laws that demanded a 7 ft barrier between black and white areas in a restaurant and many other abhorrent local laws. A bakery that wouldn't want to serve gay customers will be at a disadvantage in a truly free market as they lose business from people that they do not wish to serve and people who think that behavior is abhorrent. I would also like to point out that on some level if I were in there place I wouldn't want to get a cake from a place that didn't want to make one but was forced to do so. A wedding is an important event, a wedding cake as silly as it might sound is a big part of the tradition, I would much rather take my business somewhere else than have someone who doesn't want to make a cake to be compelled to make one.

dogma1138 9y ago

A Gay couple isn't a protected class under under federal law, there are 7 protected classes based on: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. As you notice "gender" or lack there off and sexual orientation are not defined as protected classes.

steanne 9y ago
that's still being debated. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/doj-amicus-brief-title-vii-sexual-orientation/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/doj-amicus-brief-titl...
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Indeed, it also is more complicated than that since protected classes in the US (on a federal level) are defined by multiple laws and their protection status is not universal across all cases. You may argue that familial/marital status is a protected class in the case of the gay wedding cake, the problem is that AFIAK (IANAL) applies to housing opportunities only. You can argue in court that familial status extends beyond married/divorced/single/widowed but also to the type of marriage and then argue that the protection under title VIII of the Fair Housing Act sets a precedence for familial status being a universal protected class(this has been done for other protected classes in the past also). But in either case this is a matter for the courts, until there is a ruling not wanting to serve a gay couple isn't a crime just "abhorrent but legal". As a liberal I would much rather see the free market take over, and before people say well a free market didn't help to combat the discrimination against African Americans it wasn't the lack of a free market but regulation where you had local laws that demanded a 7 ft barrier between black and white areas in a restaurant and many other abhorrent local laws. A bakery that wouldn't want to serve gay customers will be at a disadvantage in a truly free market as they lose business from people that they do not wish to serve and people who think that behavior is abhorrent. I would also like to point out that on some level if I were in there place I wouldn't want to get a cake from a place that didn't want to make one but was forced to do so. A wedding is an important event, a wedding cake as silly as it might sound is a big part of the tradition, I would much rather take my business somewhere else than have someone who doesn't want to make a cake to be compelled to make one.