7 ms·

This is completely false. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, “prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color

This is completely false. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, “prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.” https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-servi...

j16sdiz 8y ago
The act say race,color, etc because this law is specific. If we think this law is outdated and need to be expanded, there are due process to change the law. We don't extend law just because we feel right.
- kennywinker 8y ago
  Actually, no. The courts frequently modify the interpretation of the law to adapt to a changing world. For example to handle new technology. I agree we should change the law for the sake of clarity, but laws change how they work in practice due to legal decisions all the time.
013a 8y ago
Wasn't the original case here something along the lines of refusing to bake a cake with homosexual imagery on it, not necessarily because the customers were a homosexual couple? The OP's point should be revised: It's the bakers right to bake cakes however they want. And that's mostly true. If a KKK member came in and asked for a cake with lynching imagery on it, its their right to refuse service. Everything more morally noble than that is just shades of gray, and you do not want the courts and law getting involved in that kind of shades of gray. Leave it to the markets. I'm increasingly convinced that the left is moving us toward a 1984-era world of pushing every little offense into the courts and law. They don't understand how important these fundamental liberties are, which doesn't mean they can't be tempered with things like the Civil Rights Act, but the spirit is still important. When the 2A goes, that's when its all over.
- geofft 8y ago
  > Everything more morally noble than that is just shades of gray, and you do not want the courts and law getting involved in that kind of shades of gray. Leave it to the markets. The Civil Rights Act seems to have worked out fine. The legal ability to refuse to sell houses to KKK members, but not to black people, seems to have not caused serious problems in society, a lack of fundamental liberties, whatever. Are there serious problems that I'm not noticing?
- kennywinker 8y ago
  Generally speaking the interpretation “it’s the bakers right to bake cakes however they want” works how the law works - though of course that type of rule can still lead to discrimination (e.g. I don’t sell houses in that “neighborhood”). However, your point about the left moving us towards orwellianism due to over litigating seems like B.S. to me. The second amendment isn’t a freedom canary (see australia). The Right just used the courts to redefine money as speech. I don’t see how free speech is destoryed if sexual orientation or gender expression become protected classes like race, or country of origin.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    OP was referring to the expression of free speech, which though the court didn’t rule on would likely have given the same outcome. Designing the cake and decorating could easily fall under free speech, and weakening the 1st amendment is a bad idea. Imagine you’re a Jewish artist and sell your premade work in a gallery to the public, and also offer custom portrait commissions. An avowed Nazi can come and purchase your paintings, but you should never be forced to paint their portrait. You can imagine this scenario any number of ways, gay artist and fundamentalist anti-gay preacher for instance. It’s not so much a slippery slope as a bright line, once you give the majority that power it will be abused.
- scottmf 8y ago
  >Wasn't the original case here something along the lines of refusing to bake a cake with homosexual imagery on it, not necessarily because the customers were a homosexual couple? No. They had not discussed the content of the cake when they were refused service. >I'm increasingly convinced that the left is moving us toward a 1984-era world... Of course you are, because that narrative creates fear and fear sells. Considering you’re not aware of the basic facts of this case, if your perception of such cases informs your paranoid worldview then perhaps it’s time to reassess it.
dorp 8y ago
That's not sexuality though.
- kennywinker 8y ago
  True. I wonder if that’s why the lgbt community has been fighting for “gay civil rights” since 1969...?
  - dorp 8y ago
    Well, sexuality is private you can't tell someone is gay by looking at them.
    - kennywinker 8y ago
      Not unless they go a place with a romantic partner, anyway. But nobody ever does that.
praxeum 8y ago
Note that it doesn't say sexual preference.
- kennywinker 8y ago
  I think you mean sexual orientation
  - amaccuish 8y ago
    Cheers. I never chose, no one does :)

j16sdiz 8y ago

The act say race,color, etc because this law is specific. If we think this law is outdated and need to be expanded, there are due process to change the law. We don't extend law just because we feel right.

kennywinker 8y ago
Actually, no. The courts frequently modify the interpretation of the law to adapt to a changing world. For example to handle new technology. I agree we should change the law for the sake of clarity, but laws change how they work in practice due to legal decisions all the time.

013a 8y ago

Wasn't the original case here something along the lines of refusing to bake a cake with homosexual imagery on it, not necessarily because the customers were a homosexual couple? The OP's point should be revised: It's the bakers right to bake cakes however they want. And that's mostly true. If a KKK member came in and asked for a cake with lynching imagery on it, its their right to refuse service. Everything more morally noble than that is just shades of gray, and you do not want the courts and law getting involved in that kind of shades of gray. Leave it to the markets. I'm increasingly convinced that the left is moving us toward a 1984-era world of pushing every little offense into the courts and law. They don't understand how important these fundamental liberties are, which doesn't mean they can't be tempered with things like the Civil Rights Act, but the spirit is still important. When the 2A goes, that's when its all over.

geofft 8y ago
> Everything more morally noble than that is just shades of gray, and you do not want the courts and law getting involved in that kind of shades of gray. Leave it to the markets. The Civil Rights Act seems to have worked out fine. The legal ability to refuse to sell houses to KKK members, but not to black people, seems to have not caused serious problems in society, a lack of fundamental liberties, whatever. Are there serious problems that I'm not noticing?
kennywinker 8y ago
Generally speaking the interpretation “it’s the bakers right to bake cakes however they want” works how the law works - though of course that type of rule can still lead to discrimination (e.g. I don’t sell houses in that “neighborhood”). However, your point about the left moving us towards orwellianism due to over litigating seems like B.S. to me. The second amendment isn’t a freedom canary (see australia). The Right just used the courts to redefine money as speech. I don’t see how free speech is destoryed if sexual orientation or gender expression become protected classes like race, or country of origin.
- dahdum 8y ago
  OP was referring to the expression of free speech, which though the court didn’t rule on would likely have given the same outcome. Designing the cake and decorating could easily fall under free speech, and weakening the 1st amendment is a bad idea. Imagine you’re a Jewish artist and sell your premade work in a gallery to the public, and also offer custom portrait commissions. An avowed Nazi can come and purchase your paintings, but you should never be forced to paint their portrait. You can imagine this scenario any number of ways, gay artist and fundamentalist anti-gay preacher for instance. It’s not so much a slippery slope as a bright line, once you give the majority that power it will be abused.
scottmf 8y ago
>Wasn't the original case here something along the lines of refusing to bake a cake with homosexual imagery on it, not necessarily because the customers were a homosexual couple? No. They had not discussed the content of the cake when they were refused service. >I'm increasingly convinced that the left is moving us toward a 1984-era world... Of course you are, because that narrative creates fear and fear sells. Considering you’re not aware of the basic facts of this case, if your perception of such cases informs your paranoid worldview then perhaps it’s time to reassess it.

dorp 8y ago

That's not sexuality though.

kennywinker 8y ago
True. I wonder if that’s why the lgbt community has been fighting for “gay civil rights” since 1969...?
- dorp 8y ago
  Well, sexuality is private you can't tell someone is gay by looking at them.
  - kennywinker 8y ago
    Not unless they go a place with a romantic partner, anyway. But nobody ever does that.

praxeum 8y ago

Note that it doesn't say sexual preference.

kennywinker 8y ago
I think you mean sexual orientation
- amaccuish 8y ago
  Cheers. I never chose, no one does :)