Suppose Sid and Nancy travel through time and go to the bake shop for a wedding cake. They reek of alcohol, smell, throwing up all over the place, and so high they are incoherent. They are behaving badly and the baker won't make them a cake.

Now suppose Jim and Bob come to the store and want a cake. They aren't behaving badly. Their "crime" is being gay. As gay men, Jim and Bob belong to a socially identifiable class or group that is discrimated against. The baker knows exactly who and what they are -- so when she doesn't want to put "Bob + Jim" on the cake she claims that to do so "goes aginst her religion" as a dodge. It's no different from Jim Crow era laws that kept "the wrong kind of people" from attempting to register to vote.

The origin of homosexuality and same-sex attraction does not matter.

Belonging to a socially idenifiable group that is singled out does.


Forget cakes. Call up an apartment complex in a nice neighbourhood and tell them your name is Jamal or Lakeshia and see what happens. Then do it again and tell them you want to rent it jointly with your boyfriend. Discrimination is wrong. Just wrong.


http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/20/could-you-pass-this-test-given-to-black-people-registering-to-vote-in-america-in-1964-6941338/


https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2018/01/10/paducah-kentucky-passes-ordinance-protect-lgbt-community/1019961001/


Scene from "Gentleman's Agreement" (1947)
Gregory Peck gets turned away from a "gentiles only" hotel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNgek-QaRYM#t=1m22s



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 11:54PM by anybody.

They'd lose my business. Fortunately, there are many options. I choose to do business with people who treat me well. There's florist in town who didn't want to follow my instructions because of their religious/moral proclivities, and I go to the next town or order on line now.

what if immediacy or distance doesn't give you any other options?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 08:14AM by anybody.

I don't know of a single person anywhere who doesn't have a computer or a way to go to a different place of business to buy flowers.

Anyone can use a telephone or computer to order mail order items. Cakes and be sent frozen. Flowers can sometimes last for days if they are of the right type and boxed appropriately. Rural areas don't offer the same variety of services as urban areas. Anyone who can't order a cake or flowers because they are homeless or whatever wouldn't likely have the inclination or resources to do so.

I know about rural living. That's how I grew up. People out in the sticks don't usually shop for specialty cakes and flowers unless it's during a trip to town every three to six months. Once in town, they have a number of options.

Suppose a customer visits a bakery to order a cake. The bakery offers cakes "A", "C" or "D". But the customer wants a cake "L", "G", "B", "T" or "Q". Is it not now the customer's preference that rejects the cakes offered to them?

Sometimes I have to go to both stores within a week. That's my choice if I want items not carried in one store or the other. This is why I sometimes use a phone or computer to check out what vendors offer before I make purchases.

That's why I put up the clip from the old "Gentleman's Agreement" movie.

Have you ever heard of "The Green Book?"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

Imagine you were travelling and you couldn't be sure where to go to get gas, food, lodging or even go to the bathroom.

It's the principle of basic fairness and decency that's at stake.

So what if a place "discriminates"? They'll lose your business and lose the business of many others, who will simply go to their competitors. The market will resolve this issue and the last thing we need is a nanny state telling business owners what they should or shouldn't do. Business is guided by $$$, not morals.

The "free market" may resolve the issue, or it may not. In some places, there are plenty of bigots (or people who don't care)who will frequent a bigoted business to keep it open for a long time.

You don't have to care if a business illegally discriminates. You can be uncaring about your fellow human beings getting treated fairly.

I do care. So do lots of others. We'll continue to speak up.

StilllAnon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Business is guided by $$$, not morals.

On a macro (national, for example) level this is often, but not always, true...

...but on smaller and more local levels, prejudices can be (and frequently are) much more powerful than money.

In real life, the law is frequently the means by which those of us human beings who are parts of perceived "minorities" (women...people of comparatively lower socio-economic class..."Californians" ;) ...those of us who are not of the locally-preferred racial tones or accents...those of us who are not of the locally preferred religious backgrounds, or those of us whose immigrant forebears did (Native Americans, Hispanics) or did not (Asians) come from "preferred" places) are legally considered "equal" in the public sphere.

The law---not the free market---is the intended means by which our individual personal liberties and rights are not overruled by private prejudices.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 01:17PM by Tevai.

Why should anyone have to "go to a different place?"

I don't see any reason to let bigots treat people they irrationally hate unfairly. Call them on it. Don't let them get away with being bigots in business, or with treating people unfairly.

I don't agree with the "oh, just go someplace else" laissez-faire approach. They're breaking the law, and treating people like crap. They've earned the lawsuits and public criticism.

From the famous "This I Believe" program:

https://thisibelieve.org/essay/92236/


I believe all people be treated equally. Race, religion, sex, age, and other petty differences should not matter. People in general are equal but hold different statuses in life. You can hold a higher status, have special laws for you race, and be considered above the rest but in the end we are all still the same. Every one has a right to be here, on Earth. They have a right to be heard. In school especially, as well as our daily lives, we learn in America to live by the idea of “freedom and equality for all”.

It may seem as if this is the standard of society, but these ideas of equality have been fought over since the beginning of written history. Even in America today, prejudice still exists. The Constitution created “The 14Th Amendment” which means, equal protection under the law. This amendment permanently changed constitutional law by empowering the Federal government’s jurisdiction to include local and state governments which would be required to abide by new standards of civil rights and privileges. The United States Senate dropped one of the original proposals stating, “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of press or trial by jury in criminal cases”, something that the fourteenth amendment would address.

I hope that some day, when a person looks at another they won’t judge them until they actually meet them. Race, religion, sex, and age don’t make someone any less of a person. A person’s age should not mater. Both young and old should have the same rights. As long as a person is educated, they have a right to form an opinion about it. Children are no less of people because they are young.

Sex should not matter. Both men and women are people; therefore, they should be treated the same and with respect. Many men and women are harassed every day by the opposite sex. Without the opposite sex, it would mean the end of the human race. So, I believe both men and women are just as important as the other.

Religion should not matter. A person is raised to believe something. Everyone should have a choice on their “beliefs’’. No religion is wrong.

Reverse discrimination is also wrong. It isn’t a person’s fault that people of their race and sex usually have many troubles. All discrimination is the same. No one should discriminate against, especially if it is to bring themselves up. In society today we kill and will continue to kill to bring justice. Will we ever learn that as long as we keep trying to get people back for what others have done to us, there will never be peace?

>Don't let them get away with being bigots in business, or with treating people unfairly.

If you honestly think so-and-so is a bigot, by all means boycott their business, buy from their competitors instead. But pursuing legal action against someone who hurt your feelings is plain silly and it's part of the reason why our justice system is bogged down with baseless cases that should never have gotten to court in the first place. People should just act like an adult and go somewhere else instead of crying like a baby on social media and waiting for the grown-ups in government to solve all your problems.

If only there were grown-ups in government. ;)

StilllAnon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you honestly think so-and-so is a bigot, by all
> means boycott their business, buy from their
> competitors instead. But pursuing legal action
> against someone who hurt your feelings is plain
> silly...

Their actions are illegal. Pursuing legal action isn't "silly," it's justice. It's what our legal system exists for.

Holding businesses accountable for their illegal acts isn't "crying like a baby," either. Talk about needing to "grow up..."

What law, specifically, are you referring to?

I ask so that we are all talking about the same thing; such as whether we are discussing a criminal matter or a civil matter, or even whether we want a matter of personal belief to become a matter of law, in either direction.

Without that clarification, it seems as though people are talking past each other and reacting to what is perceived as opposed to what is actually stated.

The Public Accommodation Law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a

I thought we were discussing sexual orientation discrimination. The law you cited doesn't mention sexual orientation; I believe that is left to the states.

DH and I had a friend who suffered a serious surgery. We thought it would cheer him up to get flowers with a Playboy magazine and a bottle of his favorite ale incorporated in the arrangement. The florist was appalled by the request and said no. We got what we wanted somewhere else after we laughed our way out of that shop where we saw a Christian fish in the corner of the window. The woman was probably glad to lose our business. That was about 15 years ago and I've been happy with every other florist since.

The issue isn't being treated badly, so just go to a different business. The issue is being treated illegally, and putting up with it.

If an employee is sexually harassed on the job, the remedy should not be to get a different job. Sexual harassment is illegal, and should be fought, not simply walked away from.

Same with discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In the lunch counter sit-ins in the 1960s, blacks weren't there because the lunch counter at Woolworth's was such a great place to eat. There was a principle at stake.

+infinity!

Nailed it and them some. Those are words used the way they should be.

Thanks for this.

Here is the difference: the customer is requesting (nay, demanding) that the vendor creator a product that they do not sell especially for their preferences.

The same sex couple is welcome to buy any wedding cake in stock in a style the vendor supplies. But they reject them all because they do not conform to the customer's notion of how their wedding should be celebrated.

The customer has rejected the vendor - not the vendor rejecting the customer.

Show me proof of your assertion. My understanding is that the customers wanted a wedding cake. Period.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that the customers wanted a wedding cake. Period.

Then why didn't they take one out of the case?

They didn't have one in the case. They had regular cakes for sale, but wedding cakes are made to order.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-bakery-refuse-cakes-same-035822734.html

Lampe (the judge) denied this request, and said his decision hinged on the fact that Miller had not yet prepared the wedding cake, The Bakersfield Californian reports. It would have been a discriminatory act, however, if the cake had been on display in the shop and Miller had refused to sell it to the Rodriguez-Del Rios.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They didn't have one in the case. They had regular cakes for sale, but wedding cakes are made to order.

> https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-bakery-refuse-cakes-same-035822734.html

>Lampe (the judge) denied this request, and said his decision hinged on the fact that Miller had not yet prepared the wedding cake, The Bakersfield Californian reports. It would have been a discriminatory act, however, if the cake had been on display in the shop and Miller had refused to sell it to the Rodriguez-Del Rios.


You are wrong. I have been in the bakery several times (I live here) and there has ALWAYS been a wedding cake or two in the case. The couple wanted a cake customized for them that, of course, would have been a made to order cake. What the judge is referring to in the quote is that it would have been a discriminatory act, however, if THEIR cake had been on display in the shop and Miller had refused to sell it to the Rodriguez-Del Rios.

No...they could have walked out with a generic wedding cake from the case. Problem is...they were shopping for a lawsuit, not a wedding cake.

Cake isnt the issue? The issue is how you come across as a petty cry bully control freak just because you didnt get your custom order cake the way you wanted it.

The court acknowledged that the shop was willing to sell the customer any cake they already had available which fulfilled the public accommodation requirement. Any custom orders are individual works of art and are above and beyond public accommodations.

Wrong. If your business is open to the public, and your business sells wedding cakes and you have a portfolio of wedding cakes that you make, your must not discriminate on the basis of who your customers are. The law is called the Public Accommodation Law.

Are you really so stupid to think that 2 wedding cakes would come out the same. Do you really think someone is like I want the exact same wedding cake that the other people in my town had? Do you really think that? No. Obviously they want a different wedding cake that is exactly how they wanted it. The bakery refused to make it. Get over it. Grow up.

Wrong? When a person orders a wedding cake they normally want it to be specially designed for their wedding. They want it to have their names on it. They want it to be a profession of their love. They want to customize its colors, flavors, and designs. They want it to be fabulous to make it memorable. They want a topper on it and they want it 3 stories tall at least. That is all called customization. Custom orders are not considered standard. I know it hurts your feelings but your feelings are not the arbiters of truth or law.

The Public Accommodation Law states that if a place of business offers to make wedding cake and sells them to the public, they are not allowed to discriminate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a

No discrimination. There were several wedding cakes in the case to choose from that the baker would have sold them.

Quote from the baker - “I am very happy to serve everything from my cases to anybody,” she said.

Lampe denied this request, and said his decision hinged on the fact that Miller had not yet prepared the wedding cake, The Bakersfield Californian reports. It would have been a discriminatory act, however, if the cake had been on display in the shop and Miller had refused to sell it to the Rodriguez-Del Rios.

Even still the law you linked to doesnt say what you think it says and doesnt apply to this situation. Get real.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lampe denied this request, and said his decision hinged on the fact that Miller had not yet prepared the wedding cake, The Bakersfield Californian reports. It would have been a discriminatory act, however, if the cake had been on display in the shop and Miller had refused to sell it to the Rodriguez-Del Rios.

Exactly!! Miller had not prepared a cake for THEM. She DID NOT however deny them from purchasing A wedding cake from her case. And yes, there are generic wedding cakes in her case. Been there, seen them.

What is the difference between a "regular" cake and a "wedding" cake? Customization. The bakery refused to customize the cake. Big deal. Grow up.

Geez, the excuses some people come up with to be OK with bigotry...

The baker refused to do business with gays.
That's illegal.

Period.

You just come off as delusional when you act like the Judge in this case was just a bigot and not following the law. I cant help but notice you didnt cite any laws either. Your feelings dont determine what is legal and illegal. Sorry. You should have grown out of the "it hurt my feelz" mentality by now.

Really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You just come off as delusional when you act like
> the Judge in this case was just a bigot and not
> following the law. I cant help but notice you
> didnt cite any laws either. Your feelings dont
> determine what is legal and illegal. Sorry. You
> should have grown out of the "it hurt my feelz"
> mentality by now.

This small-town christian-white-straight local judge's "ruling" runs counter to the CA statute.

It'll be overturned on appeal -- which the plaintiff is filing.

When it is, will you come back and post about how wrong you were?
Somehow I doubt it.

Another emotional argument. Imagine my shock. Cite the law. We are talking about the law not your feelings.

Really Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another emotional argument. Imagine my shock. Cite
> the law. We are talking about the law not your
> feelings.

What in there was "emotion?"
I stated that his decision ran counter to the CA statute.

Your bigotry doesn't determine the law, either.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This small-town christian-white-straight local judge's "ruling" runs counter to the CA statute.

> It'll be overturned on appeal -- which the plaintiff is filing.

> When it is, will you come back and post about how wrong you were? Somehow I doubt it.


Sheesh!! No, actually it is YOU that is wrong.

The ruling was just on a motion for preliminary injunction. The full case hasn't even come to trial yet and the next hearing for the case is scheduled for June. Miller's attorney said he will move for dismissal of the case immediately because of the strength of the Judge's ruling.

And this assertion that the plaintiff is filing an appeal...can a preliminary injunction even be appealed? Please provide a link to said "appeal" by the plaintiffs.

My bad. I thought this quote:

" But it’s not over. Our fight against bigotry and discrimination is only beginning. I am going to speaking with the attorney that represents DFEH to plan the next step."

...was indicative of appeal.
I was wrong on that point.

Not on any other :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My bad. I thought this quote:
>
> " But it’s not over. Our fight against bigotry
> and discrimination is only beginning. I am going
> to speaking with the attorney that represents DFEH
> to plan the next step."
>
> ...was indicative of appeal.
> I was wrong on that point.
>
> Not on any other :)

Thanks for stepping up.

we would be discriminated against, if we were ever both widowed or divorced and wanted to rent an apartment together. There was never anything sexual between us; we would have had two bedrooms and two bathrooms.

But it never came to that. She had to go into a nursing home and eventually died there. I am still hanging on with my DH and living in my own, rattly old house.

She and I were emotionally as close as sisters, but there was never anything physical like kissing or hand-holding.

I guess we will never know.

So customization is now the issue?

I suppose if all those uppity blacks at the lunch counters in the 1960s had just ordered cold pre-made sandwiches, and not made the cooks touch a hot sandwich that was going to a black person, there wouldn't have been any problems then.

I'm being snarky, but I spent part of my youth in the Jim Crow south. Here is what I saw. We had a favorite BBQ place. Black people could come to a side door and order food and take it out. They just couldn't come in and sit down with the white folk. In fact, they couldn't come into the room with the white folks and place their order. They had to stand out by the side door.

This was viewed as the only civilized way to treat them, because it would have made them terribly uncomfortable to have to stand around in front of a bunch of whites. The fact that the business went to the trouble of having a side door, and staffing it to take orders from blacks, was proof of how progressive the business was. They were just looking out for them darkies.

Made sense to me. But then, I was 7.

Another good one, Brother of Jerry. Some of these posters have too little experience in the history of bigotry to ever understand. Nice of you to try though. I wasn't in the south, but Jim Crow was close enough in Utah.

And even in Vegas, Sammy Davis Junior had to go through the kitchen to do his show. BUT, this wasn't discrimination--they just had a special door for him!

"We can't let you in the front door with the rest of the rat pack, Sammy, but you can try the door at the kitchen. We hear they are letting blacks in there. Glad to be of help!"

"We can't make a cake for you guys, but we here there's a baker down the street that will. Glad to be of help!"

Thanks. I'm kind of gobsmacked that there are this many people here who can't see the parallels. There used to be a fair amount of homophobia here 10 to 15 years ago, but it seemed mostly to disappear in recent years. I guess it just needed the right trigger.

Forcing county clerks to issue marriage licenses, OK.

Forcing business people to serve homosexual customers, a bridge too far for some.

I also vaguely remember the Coon Chicken Inn in SLC. It was in Sugarhouse, near where 1300 E makes that weird crossing with Highland Drive. Had a big Black Sambo face, the mouth framing the entrance.

If someone ordered a cake with foul language or racial slurs, or explicit pornographic content, a cake maker should not have to comply if it offends their sensibilities.