6 ms·

>to all comers Isn't this a category error? The gay couple's cake is a category of _people_ being refused service.[1] The gun assembly video is a category of

by jasode 9y ago

>to all comers Isn't this a category error? The gay couple's cake is a category of _people_ being refused service.[1] The gun assembly video is a category of _topic_ being censored. You can can discriminate against topics and simultaneously not discriminate against people. As an example of juxtapositions... a "gun rights owner" can upload a video of "iphone disassembly" and the video will not be deleted. On the other hand, a gun-control advocate who wants to ban gun ownership can show a video about "gun assembly" and the video will be removed. It's the topic not the people. Businesses have exercised editorial control over topics for hundreds of years. Same as The New York Times or website forums where users "upload" words such as HN. If you submit a topic to HN that goes against the moderator's rules, it will be flagged and deleted. It doesn't matter if the HN user is gay or gun-control or any protected group. [1] https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...

purple-again 9y ago
Not a lawyer. I’m guess I’m just really confused because I’m reading all of these comments and still not seeing a distinction. YouTube can ban all homosexual videos from its platform so long as it doesn’t ban unrelated videos from homosexual people? That doesn’t sound right to me but it’s what I’m interpreting from your post. Further are you saying the baker could refuse to sell them the cake they wanted because it had some gay theme ( two girl names I think) so long as they offered to sell them a Superman cake at the same time?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > YouTube can ban all homosexual videos from its platform so long as it doesn’t ban unrelated videos from homosexual people? Yes (at least in states where sexual orientation is a protected class). > Further are you saying the baker could refuse to sell them the cake they wanted because it had some gay theme ( two girl names I think) so long as they offered to sell them a Superman cake at the same time? AFAIK this is not a settled issue. I imagine a reasonable test might boil down to "If you have a policy that you never put names on cakes then you can refuse to write 'Jane and Jill'. But if you will write 'Jack and Jill' when asked, then you also need to write 'Jane and Jill' when asked." In other words, the store may not have a policy that is functionally indistinguishable from refusing service to a protected class. Notice that Google banning videos about homosexuality would definitely not be equivalent to banning homosexuals from using its public service. This gets hairy; e.g., religion is a protected class. Could a Satanist cult compel a cake-making business owner to write down a disavowal of his God (in frosting)? Evaluating hairy edge-cases on a case-by-case basis are why human judges exist. IANAL.
  - chrisweekly 9y ago
    Every time I see that IANAL acronym, it's like this: iMac, iOS, iPhone, iAnal TMI?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Pyxl101 9y ago
> The gay couple's cake is a category of _people_ being refused service. The gun assembly video is a category of _topic_ being censored. So should it be OK for a bakery to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, as long as it's willing to bake other kinds of products for gay people? In other words, it's refusing only to provide service to the specific topic of gay marriage, not gay people generally; gay people can still use the rest of the bakery's services, just not services involving gay weddings specifically. E.g., a gay person can order a cake for another straight person's wedding, or can order any other product. As a thought experiment, this should suffice to categorize the bakery's action as a "topic" being refused service (gay marriage) rather than category of people. I have to agree with the original comment that it does seem spurious that companies in some cases are allowed to choose their customers, and are not in others. I understand that laws have been passed to create these distinctions, but I don't see a solid ethical foundation underlying which distinctions should to be protected or not. At some point it feels to me like the services offered by these companies will become so integral to the fabric of society that they'll become "public goods" of a sort. Would we tolerate it if the phone company refused service to gun's rights advocates, or if airlines or bus companies refused them transportation? In legal fact, perhaps they could, but in reality they do not - however, Internet firms like Google and Facebook ban large swaths of content off their platforms. As the Internet becomes vital to our lives and interpersonal communication, it's beginning to feel unfair that private companies have such tremendous and capricious control over these pseudo-public spaces.
- Sacho 9y ago
  > Would we tolerate it if the phone company refused service to gun's rights advocates, or if airlines or bus companies refused them transportation? In legal fact, perhaps they could, but in reality they do not - however, Internet firms like Google and Facebook ban large swaths of content off their platforms. That's an interesting question, and it's not hypothetical(assuming you consider financial services as part of your "public goods" argument) - https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-directs-department-financial-services-urge-companies-weigh-reputational-risk https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-directs-depa...
DuskStar 9y ago
> The gay couple's cake is a category of _people_ being refused service. We aren't denying service to gun users, just restricting certain kinds of content. Gun users can make videos on the evils of gun ownership just like the grabbers can, no discrimination against a category of people here! Just like gay people can order cakes for heterosexual marriages, exactly the same as straight people can.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Just like gay people can order cakes for heterosexual marriages, exactly the same as straight people can. If the gay couple goes in to the baker's to buy a standard cake, complete with heterosexual couple on top, I'm going to guess the dude would ask them questions to make sure they weren't buying it for themselves, either because one might have worn a dress, didn't want figurines on their cake, or were going to replace the figurine topper with one more fitting to their relationship. A straight person wouldn't have this sort of questioning.
TangoTrotFox 9y ago
The baker did not refuse to service the individuals in question. He told them that he's not willing to bake a cake that, in his view, promotes homosexuality because it goes against his religious views, but he would be willing to bake them anything else or sell them anything within the shop. He was not refusing service to them, but refusing to allow that one specific 'topic'. And he also would have refused service if, for instance, a heterosexual couple wanted him to bake a cake that, in his view, promoted homosexuality. This is a regular part of his practice. For instance he also refuses to bake Halloween related goods, again believing that it goes against his faith. Another issue that's not considered in this case is that another [gay owned] bakery, in extremely close vicinity to the 'no gay cakes' bakery, was asked to bake in the shape of a bible with a quote stating that homosexuality was a sin. They refused to do so, and this decision was upheld [locally]. That is extremely inconsistent and evidence of bias and prejudice in the local enforcement of law. I think most people don't realize that this case is actually pending judgement from the US Supreme Court. And the implications are enormous. If they judge against him, it's going to open the door to all sorts of things, such as for instance, the behavior of online sites. It would also open the door to trolling in real life like the aforementioned 'bible cake' or even, for instance, going into an Islamic owned shop and forcing them to blaspheme. Of course if the court rules in favor of him then it's also going to open the door to discrimination in the same form as a child might tease another of, 'not touching you, not touching you!' as they hover their finger 1 cm away from a person. I'm actually somewhat surprised they chose to hear it because of this. There is no good judgement, but now they're going to have to decide one way or the other - setting national precedent.
- Nerdoid 9y ago
  > That is extremely inconsistent and evidence of bias and prejudice in the local enforcement of law. That is not inconsistent, as one is denying someone based on what they are, and the other is denying someone based on harassment. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to write on the cake that heterosexuality was immoral. There's an obvious difference between affirming the culture of the customer, and antagonistically denying the culture of the producer. And I do think think that the baker's refusal was about what they are, since the conditions to bake the cake required that it didn't acknowledge what they are. It's like saying, "I will bake a cake for a black person, but only if it doesn't reference black culture in any way."

by jasode 9y ago

purple-again 9y ago

Not a lawyer. I’m guess I’m just really confused because I’m reading all of these comments and still not seeing a distinction. YouTube can ban all homosexual videos from its platform so long as it doesn’t ban unrelated videos from homosexual people? That doesn’t sound right to me but it’s what I’m interpreting from your post. Further are you saying the baker could refuse to sell them the cake they wanted because it had some gay theme ( two girl names I think) so long as they offered to sell them a Superman cake at the same time?

throwawayjava 9y ago
> YouTube can ban all homosexual videos from its platform so long as it doesn’t ban unrelated videos from homosexual people? Yes (at least in states where sexual orientation is a protected class). > Further are you saying the baker could refuse to sell them the cake they wanted because it had some gay theme ( two girl names I think) so long as they offered to sell them a Superman cake at the same time? AFAIK this is not a settled issue. I imagine a reasonable test might boil down to "If you have a policy that you never put names on cakes then you can refuse to write 'Jane and Jill'. But if you will write 'Jack and Jill' when asked, then you also need to write 'Jane and Jill' when asked." In other words, the store may not have a policy that is functionally indistinguishable from refusing service to a protected class. Notice that Google banning videos about homosexuality would definitely not be equivalent to banning homosexuals from using its public service. This gets hairy; e.g., religion is a protected class. Could a Satanist cult compel a cake-making business owner to write down a disavowal of his God (in frosting)? Evaluating hairy edge-cases on a case-by-case basis are why human judges exist. IANAL.
- chrisweekly 9y ago
  Every time I see that IANAL acronym, it's like this: iMac, iOS, iPhone, iAnal TMI?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Pyxl101 9y ago

> The gay couple's cake is a category of _people_ being refused service. The gun assembly video is a category of _topic_ being censored. So should it be OK for a bakery to refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, as long as it's willing to bake other kinds of products for gay people? In other words, it's refusing only to provide service to the specific topic of gay marriage, not gay people generally; gay people can still use the rest of the bakery's services, just not services involving gay weddings specifically. E.g., a gay person can order a cake for another straight person's wedding, or can order any other product. As a thought experiment, this should suffice to categorize the bakery's action as a "topic" being refused service (gay marriage) rather than category of people. I have to agree with the original comment that it does seem spurious that companies in some cases are allowed to choose their customers, and are not in others. I understand that laws have been passed to create these distinctions, but I don't see a solid ethical foundation underlying which distinctions should to be protected or not. At some point it feels to me like the services offered by these companies will become so integral to the fabric of society that they'll become "public goods" of a sort. Would we tolerate it if the phone company refused service to gun's rights advocates, or if airlines or bus companies refused them transportation? In legal fact, perhaps they could, but in reality they do not - however, Internet firms like Google and Facebook ban large swaths of content off their platforms. As the Internet becomes vital to our lives and interpersonal communication, it's beginning to feel unfair that private companies have such tremendous and capricious control over these pseudo-public spaces.

Sacho 9y ago
> Would we tolerate it if the phone company refused service to gun's rights advocates, or if airlines or bus companies refused them transportation? In legal fact, perhaps they could, but in reality they do not - however, Internet firms like Google and Facebook ban large swaths of content off their platforms. That's an interesting question, and it's not hypothetical(assuming you consider financial services as part of your "public goods" argument) - https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-directs-department-financial-services-urge-companies-weigh-reputational-risk https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-directs-depa...

DuskStar 9y ago

> The gay couple's cake is a category of _people_ being refused service. We aren't denying service to gun users, just restricting certain kinds of content. Gun users can make videos on the evils of gun ownership just like the grabbers can, no discrimination against a category of people here! Just like gay people can order cakes for heterosexual marriages, exactly the same as straight people can.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago
Just like gay people can order cakes for heterosexual marriages, exactly the same as straight people can. If the gay couple goes in to the baker's to buy a standard cake, complete with heterosexual couple on top, I'm going to guess the dude would ask them questions to make sure they weren't buying it for themselves, either because one might have worn a dress, didn't want figurines on their cake, or were going to replace the figurine topper with one more fitting to their relationship. A straight person wouldn't have this sort of questioning.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago

The baker did not refuse to service the individuals in question. He told them that he's not willing to bake a cake that, in his view, promotes homosexuality because it goes against his religious views, but he would be willing to bake them anything else or sell them anything within the shop. He was not refusing service to them, but refusing to allow that one specific 'topic'. And he also would have refused service if, for instance, a heterosexual couple wanted him to bake a cake that, in his view, promoted homosexuality. This is a regular part of his practice. For instance he also refuses to bake Halloween related goods, again believing that it goes against his faith. Another issue that's not considered in this case is that another [gay owned] bakery, in extremely close vicinity to the 'no gay cakes' bakery, was asked to bake in the shape of a bible with a quote stating that homosexuality was a sin. They refused to do so, and this decision was upheld [locally]. That is extremely inconsistent and evidence of bias and prejudice in the local enforcement of law. I think most people don't realize that this case is actually pending judgement from the US Supreme Court. And the implications are enormous. If they judge against him, it's going to open the door to all sorts of things, such as for instance, the behavior of online sites. It would also open the door to trolling in real life like the aforementioned 'bible cake' or even, for instance, going into an Islamic owned shop and forcing them to blaspheme. Of course if the court rules in favor of him then it's also going to open the door to discrimination in the same form as a child might tease another of, 'not touching you, not touching you!' as they hover their finger 1 cm away from a person. I'm actually somewhat surprised they chose to hear it because of this. There is no good judgement, but now they're going to have to decide one way or the other - setting national precedent.

Nerdoid 9y ago
> That is extremely inconsistent and evidence of bias and prejudice in the local enforcement of law. That is not inconsistent, as one is denying someone based on what they are, and the other is denying someone based on harassment. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to write on the cake that heterosexuality was immoral. There's an obvious difference between affirming the culture of the customer, and antagonistically denying the culture of the producer. And I do think think that the baker's refusal was about what they are, since the conditions to bake the cake required that it didn't acknowledge what they are. It's like saying, "I will bake a cake for a black person, but only if it doesn't reference black culture in any way."