Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Baker who refused to make a cake for same sex couple says he prefers gay sex without the commitment   (opposingviews.com) divider line 314
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, gay sex  
•       •       •

1174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 9:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



314 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-11 02:27:19 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.

If I went to a Walmart and stuck sharp objects in my eyes would they sell me a 3 bedroom ranch style house in Reseda?

Naw, but it might get you a 2 bedroom trailer in Compton.


Yeah sure, blind guy in Compton.
 
2013-12-11 02:29:48 PM  

EWreckedSean: So if I opened a super chain, whites only, required membership to use it and didn't offer it up for public stock options (I really feel this has nothing to do with the public issue though), we think it would be legal?


Not a super chain, I don't think so (but I don't know how courts would rule). Again, if I were a lawyer (IANAL but I play one on Fark) I would argue that the business is indistinguishable from any other super chain, and that the membership was a legal fiction simply intended to skirt the Civil Rights laws.

I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking aboutyou would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.
 
2013-12-11 02:30:45 PM  

James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.

If I went to a Walmart and stuck sharp objects in my eyes would they sell me a 3 bedroom ranch style house in Reseda?

Naw, but it might get you a 2 bedroom trailer in Compton.

Yeah sure, blind guy in Compton.


Fine, it's a 3 bed in Reseda.

LIKE YOU KNOW, BLIND GUY!!!


AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
 
2013-12-11 02:38:15 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.

If I went to a Walmart and stuck sharp objects in my eyes would they sell me a 3 bedroom ranch style house in Reseda?

Naw, but it might get you a 2 bedroom trailer in Compton.

Yeah sure, blind guy in Compton.

Fine, it's a 3 bed in Reseda.

LIKE YOU KNOW, BLIND GUY!!!


AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


I wanted to post the old video from SNL of what it would look like if the Mormon tabernacle choir drove seven inch spikes into their eyes, but it's been removed.
 
2013-12-11 02:43:25 PM  

Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.


If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.
 
2013-12-11 02:47:25 PM  

James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.

If I went to a Walmart and stuck sharp objects in my eyes would they sell me a 3 bedroom ranch style house in Reseda?

Naw, but it might get you a 2 bedroom trailer in Compton.

Yeah sure, blind guy in Compton.

Fine, it's a 3 bed in Reseda.

LIKE YOU KNOW, BLIND GUY!!!


AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I wanted to post the old video from SNL of what it would look like if the Mormon tabernacle choir drove seven inch spikes into their eyes, but it's been removed.


hotoffpress.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-11 02:51:49 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.

If I went to a Walmart and stuck sharp objects in my eyes would they sell me a 3 bedroom ranch style house in Reseda?

Naw, but it might get you a 2 bedroom trailer in Compton.

Yeah sure, blind guy in Compton.

Fine, it's a 3 bed in Reseda.

LIKE YOU KNOW, BLIND GUY!!!


AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I wanted to post the old video from SNL of what it would look like if the Mormon tabernacle choir drove seven inch spikes into their eyes, but it's been removed.

[hotoffpress.files.wordpress.com image 570x440]


shiat yeah.
 
2013-12-11 02:53:26 PM  

runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.


Plus 1 million members with 2,400 lodges in all 50 states makes them pretty "Super Chain"y.
 
2013-12-11 02:59:23 PM  
Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?
 
2013-12-11 03:03:18 PM  

runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.


I believe there are specific requirements to operate as a private "members only" club. For example, advertising is generally severely restricted. You can't be private and members-only then take out ads pushing your services to any and all EXCEPT THESE PEOPLE, and the like. You must keep lists of members and memberships, etc.

I am currently in albuquerque for work, and a local bar is a "members only" club - not to restrict members but mostly it seems to be able to allow smoking within. But only members are allowed in, and a non-,ember walking up will be asked to join by paying some nominal dues, and showing ID so their name can be added to the membership list. If they started just letting anyone in without checking, the yd likely lose their status as a private club.

Likewise, if this baker gentleman wanted to do that, bully for him, but everyone that walks through the door would have to be a member and pay some sort of dues, and in many jurisdictions he'd be very limited on what advertising he was allowed to do. For a business that wants to cater to the general public, having to keep a membership list of everyone that walks in your door - before you can even talk to them about your cakes -  isn't worth it. That's why it's mostly bars and organizations that do so.

If said "superstore" wanted it follow the various rules for being "private", it probably could, but in particular advertising restrictions might make it useless to do so.
 
2013-12-11 03:05:30 PM  

Churchill2004: While this guy is an absolute jackass, so too are the couple making a big legal case out of it. Being turned away from a hotel room or a meal at a restaurant because you're gay? Absolutely, throw the book at the bigot. But a friggin' wedding cake? None of the rationales for why antidiscrimination law should trump freedom of religion and association (which is what they do, justified or not) apply here. There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot. Ditto with the recent case involving a wedding photographer.


That's some bizarre logic. I mean, if you're like Rand Paul and you disagree with the Civil Rights Act in its entirety, that's one thing. But to agree with antidiscrimination laws in general, and then arbitrarily claim that they shouldn't apply to certain public accommodations - that's just not very coherent.
 
2013-12-11 03:07:25 PM  

EWreckedSean: runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.

Plus 1 million members with 2,400 lodges in all 50 states makes them pretty "Super Chain"y.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-11 03:08:30 PM  

dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?


Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?
 
2013-12-11 03:08:34 PM  

EWreckedSean: Well I picked a good example then I guess. While I have no interest in joining a white guys only club myself, if that's who these people feel comfortable hanging out with, why shouldn't by free association that have the right to?


That's exactly right, they do have that right, and no-one is denying it to them.

And what really is the difference between the lodge and the baker?

The difference is that the baker is offering a public service to all; and choosing to discriminate against some; whereas the club is a private organization that does not offer a public service to anyone.

In one sense it has to do with scope. A private club; even one that is nationwide; has no real impact on public life. Most people get along just fine without joining a private club.

A public service however, is different. Most people will go to a bakery at some point; most people will buy a wedding cake at some point. If those people's options are restricted by widespread bigotry, then that restricts the liberty of those people.

As a society, we've decided that continuing to allow that sort of loss of liberty is unacceptable; and we've decide that the loss of rotten bigots ability to discriminate in public accommodation is preferable.

Our society is better for having made that choice.
 
2013-12-11 03:12:03 PM  

James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?


Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?
 
2013-12-11 03:14:17 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


What if you went into a Denny's and God was sitting at the next booth, but he's like totally saused... could they deny you service for being drunk.  I mean they already gave drunk jesus his moons over my hammy.
 
2013-12-11 03:20:07 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?



Well, since god is imaginary, then I don't think he could create either.


But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?
 
2013-12-11 03:23:15 PM  

dinomyar: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


Well, since god is imaginary, then I don't think he could create either.


But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?


It completely addresses the question.  It's like, what if god were one of us, you know? Just a stranger on the bus?  Would I be able to by a hunting rifle at an Arby's?
 
2013-12-11 03:26:07 PM  

dinomyar: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


Well, since god is imaginary, then I don't think he could create either.


But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?


Yes, he could refuse. As has already been explained to you, you cannot be forced to provide a service you do not normally provide.
 
2013-12-11 03:28:23 PM  

maddogdelta: EWreckedSean: The idea that a judge can force a private business owner to perform services against his own, warped as they may be, morals is ridiculous in a free country.

[www.loc.gov image 800x659]
*ahem*


The funniest thing is that the original Greensboro guys apparently didn't even want anything from the counter; the entire reason they did it was to protest segregation. So if these gay people are assholes for making a scene over something we've arbitrarily declared as too silly or trivial to warrant proper antidiscrimination protection (a wedding cake), then those black guys from the 60s must be even bigger assholes because they made a scene for the sole purpose of making a scene.

But of course, that's not how we look at them - instead, we (for the most part) look at the Greensboro guys as having engaged in a valid and justified form of protest, even though the law didn't actually support what they were asking for at the time. I guess in time the same will apply to people like the couple in TFA - people will regard them as "true" civil rights activists while casually dismissing and insulting contemporary activists in analogous situations.
 
2013-12-11 03:30:47 PM  

dinomyar: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


Well, since god is imaginary, then I don't think he could create either.


But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?


Well I suppose it would be ok if jesus walked into a motel, threw 3 giant iron nails on the counter and asked to be put up for the night.

I suppose it would be ok to refuse that.
 
2013-12-11 03:32:35 PM  

Zasteva: give me doughnuts: Zasteva: - This is a government taking of liberty and property on the part of the baker -- no dispute there.
- The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here

Big dispute.
There is due process (courts, judges, all that stuff). The court isn't making him give the cake away, just to sell it like he does every day to lots of other people.

I'm not sure why you are taking my thing out of context, especially since the very next thing I said was:

"- There has been a process of law (still underway). -- no dispute there

So it seems to me you've got one possible argument -- that somehow the process of law so far does not constitute "due process".

That would be a discussion I'm willing to have."

I share your view that the baker is in the wrong, and that the law is correct and the baker should be compelled to serve them or suffer the consequences if he refuses (probably compensatory and punitive damages, or perhaps contempt of court depending oh how he goes about it).

What you are reading is my attempts to guide EWreckedSean to fully explore the topic from another point of view; something he seems willing to do. You are actually making that more difficult. Why did you do that?


I didn't. Your first statement was incorrect.
 
2013-12-11 03:36:00 PM  

G. Tarrant: runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.

I believe there are specific requirements to operate as a private "members only" club. For example, advertising is generally severely restricted. You can't be private and members-only then take out ads pushing your services to any and all EXCEPT THESE PEOPLE, and the like. You must keep lists of members and memberships, etc.

I am currently in albuquerque for work, and a local bar is a "members only" club - not to restrict members but mostly it seems to be able to allow smoking within. But only members are allowed in, and a non-,ember walking up will be asked to join by paying some nominal dues, and showing ID so their name can be added to the membership list. If they started just letting anyone in without checking, the yd likely lose their status as a private club.

Likewise, if this baker gentleman wanted to do that, bully for him, but everyone that walks through the door would have to be a member and pay some sort of dues, and in many jurisdictions he'd be very limited on what advertising he was allowed to do. For a busines ...


So then, in the case of a place like SAMs club it would be allowed for them to deny membership to blacks or women since they don't advertise (at least as far as I'm aware), they require nominal dues, and keep a membership list?
 
2013-12-11 03:41:41 PM  

runin800m: So then, in the case of a place like SAMs club it would be allowed for them to deny membership to blacks or women since they don't advertise (at least as far as I'm aware), they require nominal dues, and keep a membership list?



They advertise.
 
2013-12-11 03:50:51 PM  

grumpfuff: Yes, he could refuse. As has already been explained to you, you cannot be forced to provide a service you do not normally provide.



If a tattoo artist will create any image you request, how can he refuse an image of Mohammad?

Could a Muslim dry cleaner refuse a shirt that was covered in bacon fat?

Could any bakery refuse to put certain words on a cake, if they find them offensive to their religious beliefs?
 
2013-12-11 03:54:35 PM  
Someone doesn't have anything to do.
 
2013-12-11 03:57:40 PM  

runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.


Really good question. I just spent about 10 minutes reading the Supreme Court opinion, to try to get a better handle on it and I think maybe the case is more convoluted than it's been represented here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/407/163

Some things I took away from it:

1) the Supreme Court definitely distinguishes between public and private domain for discrimination cases; as we've all discussed here.
2) the Moose Lodge actually changed their policy to allow blacks to be served when brought as guests
3) it seems like it wasn't the state that was trying to pull their liquor license, but that the guest himself was arguing that the state issuing a license meant that the denial of service was a "state action" and therefore the state issuing the license was discriminatory.

So, first of all, even though membership is denied to blacks, they couldn't (or chose not to) refuse entrance to a black man brought as a guest. Secondly, they were actually forced to change their policies based on the suit, so that they now offer the same services to black guests as they do to any other guests.

Oh, and I found this, which was very illuminating:

http://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no %2 0print%20marks.pdf

"Q: What standards indicate a "truly private" club?
 A: Among the standards that courts and the IRS often reference to determine whether a club is truly private are:

Selectivity in membership admission and exclusiveness in membership criteria. The limitations on the number of new members and the intensive screening process used by the club to evaluate new members are often seen as the most crucial elements of a club's truly private nature.

The size of the club. The club's membership should be sufficiently small enough to allow for deep attachments and commitments to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a special community of thoughts, experiences and beliefs, but also distinctly personal aspects of one's life.

The degree of membership control over governance. Membership control over governance of the organization (particularly the procedures with respect to the selection of new members) is most important.

A clearly stated non-business purpose. Associations of individuals that have, implicitly or expressly, a goal that is commercial or business-directed, are uniformly held not to be private clubs.

Limited availability of club facilities and services to nonmembers. The extent to which a club encourages the use of its facility and services to nonmembers, even on a non-systematic basis, will augur against classifying the club as private.

If the club is operated not for profit. "For profit" objectives are generally a challenge to private club status. While being nonprofit would not be the sole factor controlling whether an organization is a private club, the converse is probably true. "

So the super chain would probably not qualify for most of those -- certainly Costco or Sam's Club wouldn't.

On the other hand, it sounds like a SuperChain restricted to whites who were willing to undergo a significant initiation and screening process (Moose Lodges have killed several people in their initiations), allow membership to control the organization, have a clear non-business purpose, and operate as a non-profit, and limit availability to guests, then you've got yourself a legal winner! And almost certainly a commercial flop.
 
2013-12-11 04:00:01 PM  

EWreckedSean: runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.

Plus 1 million members with 2,400 lodges in all 50 states makes them pretty "Super Chain"y.


Actually they are about 800,000 now; but more importantly, they aren't a business and have significant initiation and screening processes. (Several people have died from Moose Lodge initiations).

Check this out -- legal distinctions that determine whether something is a private club or not:

http://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no %2 0print%20marks.pdf
 
2013-12-11 04:01:14 PM  

dinomyar: If a tattoo artist will create any image you request, how can he refuse an image of Mohammad?


Most tattoo artists will not create "any image" you request. For example, a friend of mine is a tattoo artist, and he refuses to do tribal stuff. If you ask him to do it, he politely turns you down and refers you to a friend of his.

dinomyar: Could a Muslim dry cleaner refuse a shirt that was covered in bacon fat?

Could any bakery refuse to put certain words on a cake, if they find them offensive to their religious beliefs?


Again. You keep missing the point.

Do they provide those services to some people? Then yes, they must provide them to all. If they do not provide those services to anyone, they cannot be forced to.
 
2013-12-11 04:01:14 PM  

dinomyar: If a tattoo artist will create any image you request


There's your first mistake. Tattoo artists aren't under any obligation to agree to give you whatever tattoo you want. What they can't do is refuse to give you something that they give to other customers, if the refusal is on the basis of gender, religion, race etc.
 
2013-12-11 04:02:48 PM  

dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?


Yes.

But he couldn't create them for only for straight people and refuse them to for gays.

You keep asking the same questions, and we keep giving the same answers.
 
2013-12-11 04:05:13 PM  

grumpfuff: Most tattoo artists will not create "any image" you request. For example, a friend of mine is a tattoo artist, and he refuses to do tribal stuff. If you ask him to do it, he politely turns you down and refers you to a friend of his.


The more obvious example would be tattooists who refuse to do Nazi imagery. I doubt whether you'd even get a referral out of that.
 
2013-12-11 04:09:35 PM  

grumpfuff: dinomyar: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


Well, since god is imaginary, then I don't think he could create either.


But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?

Yes, he could refuse. As has already been explained to you, you cannot be forced to provide a service you do not normally provide.


Doesn't the tattoo artist normally provide the tattoos that people ask for? I don't see a real distinction. The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.

The same goes for the scenario of the Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake meant to celebrate Hitler and the holocaust. Why could they refuse to make that cake?
 
2013-12-11 04:10:18 PM  

dinomyar: But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?


If they are your religious beliefs, and you are refusing to provide that service at all times, then that's okay.

- "No swastikas" for a tattoo artists is not discrimination.
- "I'll do an swastika for a hindu but nobody" else is discrimination.

To put it another way: the race, gender, national origin, creed, or sexual orientation of your customer cannot be a factor in your decision. If it is, then you are discriminating and that is illegal.
 
2013-12-11 04:16:21 PM  

runin800m: Doesn't the tattoo artist normally provide the tattoos that people ask for? I don't see a real distinction. The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.


No. See above. Tattoo artists are not obliged to give you any tattoo you want. My friend, the one who refuses tribal designs, also generally refuses to do certain types of names - he'll tattoo your child's name on your arm, but not your SO's.

runin800m: The same goes for the scenario of the Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake meant to celebrate Hitler and the holocaust. Why could they refuse to make that cake?


Again, they are not selectively refusing to make Hitler cakes. They are refusing to make anyone a Hitler cake.
 
2013-12-11 04:16:53 PM  
give me doughnuts: Zasteva:  - The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here

Big dispute.
There is due process (courts, judges, all that stuff). The court isn't making him give the cake away, just to sell it like he does every day to lots of other people.


>sigh< okay, if you really want to argue about it.

Even if he sells it for twice the amount usual it is still a taking. He is being compelled to sell something to someone when he doesn't want to, impinging on his liberty, and he is being forced to use his time and resources to do it (his property). That he is compensated for his time and resources mitigates the property taking, but since the sale is compelled it is a taking of his liberty no matter what.

There, you made me argue in favor of the bigot. I hope you are satisfied.

/I feel dirty now
 
2013-12-11 04:17:10 PM  

runin800m: grumpfuff: dinomyar: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: dinomyar: Could a Muslim tattoo artist refuse to create a tattoo of Mohammad?

Could god microwave a burrito so hot even he couldn't eat it?

Could god make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it? What then fadda? huh?


Well, since god is imaginary, then I don't think he could create either.


But neither addresses the question, when is it acceptable to refuse service to someone based on religious beliefs?

Yes, he could refuse. As has already been explained to you, you cannot be forced to provide a service you do not normally provide.

Doesn't the tattoo artist normally provide the tattoos that people ask for? I don't see a real distinction. The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.

The same goes for the scenario of the Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake meant to celebrate Hitler and the holocaust. Why could they refuse to make that cake?


Aaah but you see he provides cakes for weddings. The fact that it is for a "gay wedding" is irrelevant. If you ordered a sandwich at Subway and they said "Sorry, we don't do black lunch, just white lunch", you don't win the argument because it's just lunch, not "black lunch". Likewise, the guy makes wedding cakes. The cakes themselves are not straight or gay, they are cakes. If he'd make a identical cake for a straight couple, he cannot (under the law as written) refuse to do so for a gay one, because the cake is just a cake.
 
2013-12-11 04:17:35 PM  

runin800m: The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.



In terms of this, he generally provides wedding cakes. He can either not make wedding cakes, or sell anyone a wedding cake. He cannot pick and chose who he sells a wedding cake to.
 
2013-12-11 04:18:34 PM  

runin800m: So then, in the case of a place like SAMs club it would be allowed for them to deny membership to blacks or women since they don't advertise (at least as far as I'm aware), they require nominal dues, and keep a membership list?


Nope, they don't fit the definition of a private club:

http://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no %2 0print%20marks.pdf

(check the first Q&A)
 
2013-12-11 04:19:44 PM  

runin800m: The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.


I think I see the problem. You're failing to see the difference between the product (or service) itself, and the customers seeking that product (or service). No, you're not allowed point to some element related to the race, gender, religion or (in this case) the sexual orientation of the customer and then declare it to a distinct product or service that you don't normally provide.

There is no distinction between a cake provided for a gay wedding and a cake provided for a straight wedding, just as there's no distinction between a cake made for a black kid's birthday party and a cake made for a white kid's birthday party.
 
2013-12-11 04:25:11 PM  

dinomyar: grumpfuff: Yes, he could refuse. As has already been explained to you, you cannot be forced to provide a service you do not normally provide.


If a tattoo artist will create any image you request, how can he refuse an image of Mohammad?


Because he is not considering your race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. He doesn't care who wants it, he just won't do it. 

Could a Muslim dry cleaner refuse a shirt that was covered in bacon fat?

Because he is not considering your race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. He doesn't care who covered it in bacon fat or how, he just won't touch it. 

Could any bakery refuse to put certain words on a cake, if they find them offensive to their religious beliefs?

Yes, because they would refuse those words for anyone, irrespective of who they were; as long as they didn't single out a particular race, creed, national origin, gender or sexual orientation. "No profanity" is fine and legal. "No mexican holidays" is not.

How many times do we need to go over this?
 
2013-12-11 04:29:41 PM  

grumpfuff: No. See above. Tattoo artists are not obliged to give you any tattoo you want. My friend, the one who refuses tribal designs, also generally refuses to do certain types of names - he'll tattoo your child's name on your arm, but not your SO's.


So if they normally provide religious symbols, like a cross or whatever, are they then compelled to provide any religious symbol or can they discriminate against satanists or whatever other religion they wish?

grumpfuff: In terms of this, he generally provides wedding cakes. He can either not make wedding cakes, or sell anyone a wedding cake. He cannot pick and chose who he sells a wedding cake to.


OK, so following that line of logic the Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday if they generally provide birthday cakes. The baker can either choose to not make birthday cakes or sell anyone who wants a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday a cake?
 
2013-12-11 04:30:53 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.

Plus 1 million members with 2,400 lodges in all 50 states makes them pretty "Super Chain"y.

Actually they are about 800,000 now; but more importantly, they aren't a business and have significant initiation and screening processes. (Several people have died from Moose Lodge initiations).

Check this out -- legal distinctions that determine whether something is a private club or not:

http://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no %2 0print%20marks.pdf


They have a bar that sells liquor though. That pretty much defines it as a business doesn't it?
 
2013-12-11 04:33:31 PM  

Zasteva: give me doughnuts: Zasteva:  - The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here

Big dispute.
There is due process (courts, judges, all that stuff). The court isn't making him give the cake away, just to sell it like he does every day to lots of other people.

>sigh< okay, if you really want to argue about it.

Even if he sells it for twice the amount usual it is still a taking. He is being compelled to sell something to someone when he doesn't want to, impinging on his liberty, and he is being forced to use his time and resources to do it (his property). That he is compensated for his time and resources mitigates the property taking, but since the sale is compelled it is a taking of his liberty no matter what.

There, you made me argue in favor of the bigot. I hope you are satisfied.

/I feel dirty now



"Taking", in Constitutional law (and we do seem to be referring to the 5th Amendment), has a few very specific meanings. This situation doesn't fit those meanings.
 
2013-12-11 04:35:26 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: runin800m: Zasteva: I think to get away with it at the scale you are talking about you would have to show that you are using some other criteria than race to deny membership.

Plus, I think that if you are advertising to the public at large that you are whites only; that's pretty much a non-starter. I think if you do advertising, you should automatically be considered as a place of public accommodation.

If that's the case, then how is the Moose Lodge able to get away with it? As stated above, the SC has ruled that they couldn't be denied a liquor license even though they only allow white men as members which would seem to basically affirm that they are allowed to discriminate against women and those of other races. If they are able to, legally, openly use race and gender as a criteria then what would be the difference between that and his Super Chain? Is it OK only if they also have other criteria? I am not seeing any substantial difference.

Plus 1 million members with 2,400 lodges in all 50 states makes them pretty "Super Chain"y.

Actually they are about 800,000 now; but more importantly, they aren't a business and have significant initiation and screening processes. (Several people have died from Moose Lodge initiations).

Check this out -- legal distinctions that determine whether something is a private club or not:

http://www.nationalclub.org/clientuploads/NCALegalQABooklet_FINAL_no %2 0print%20marks.pdf


This is why I love a good conversation/debate. I'm going to walk away from today with a much better understanding of the subject. Thanks for that.
 
2013-12-11 04:35:56 PM  

runin800m: Doesn't the tattoo artist normally provide the tattoos that people ask for?


No, the tattoo artist usually does the tattoos he's willing to do; for anyone who asks for one.

If the tattoo artist, however, starts picking and choosing his customers based on race, gender, etc..; then he is acting illegally.

I don't see a real distinction. The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.

The baker provides cakes. Some of them are used for weddings. Since only gay people have gay weddings, any discrimination against gay weddings is indistinguishable from discrimination against gay people. Therefore, he is picking and choosing his customers based on race, gender, etc..; and acting illegally.

The same goes for the scenario of the Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake meant to celebrate Hitler and the holocaust. Why could they refuse to make that cake?

The Jewish baker couldn't refuse to sell a cake to Nazis, regardless of their intended use for it. He could refuse to make one that said "Heil Hitler" or had a swastika on it, as long as he would do that for anyone.
 
2013-12-11 04:36:08 PM  

runin800m: OK, so following that line of logic the Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday if they generally provide birthday cakes. The baker can either choose to not make birthday cakes or sell anyone who wants a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday a cake?


Hitler is dead. He's not having any more "birthdays". What you're talking about isn't a "birthday cake"; it's a cake commemorating some historical event, which not all bakers do. Beyond that, a baker's ability do refuse service to people who want to celebrate something Hitler-related would depend on whether the law allows them to discriminate on the basis of their customers' political leanings.
 
2013-12-11 04:37:29 PM  

grumpfuff: runin800m: Doesn't the tattoo artist normally provide the tattoos that people ask for? I don't see a real distinction. The baker doesn't normally provide cakes for gay weddings.

No. See above. Tattoo artists are not obliged to give you any tattoo you want. My friend, the one who refuses tribal designs, also generally refuses to do certain types of names - he'll tattoo your child's name on your arm, but not your SO's.

runin800m: The same goes for the scenario of the Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake meant to celebrate Hitler and the holocaust. Why could they refuse to make that cake?

Again, they are not selectively refusing to make Hitler cakes. They are refusing to make anyone a Hitler cake.


What is the difference between a Hitler cake and a regular cake?
 
2013-12-11 04:39:04 PM  
I'm out for the day. Kind of funny that this cake ended in Godwin Law. Have a good night guys.
 
2013-12-11 04:43:08 PM  

runin800m: grumpfuff: No. See above. Tattoo artists are not obliged to give you any tattoo you want. My friend, the one who refuses tribal designs, also generally refuses to do certain types of names - he'll tattoo your child's name on your arm, but not your SO's.

So if they normally provide religious symbols, like a cross or whatever, are they then compelled to provide any religious symbol or can they discriminate against satanists or whatever other religion they wish?


Yes, he can refuse to do a design as long as he would not do that design for anyone. If that design were a religious symbol only used by one religion and he used it as a proxy for discriminating then it would depend on how good the lawyers were on both sides.

grumpfuff: In terms of this, he generally provides wedding cakes. He can either not make wedding cakes, or sell anyone a wedding cake. He cannot pick and chose who he sells a wedding cake to.

OK, so following that line of logic the Jewish baker would be forced to bake a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday if they generally provide birthday cakes. The baker can either choose to not make birthday cakes or sell anyone who wants a cake to celebrate Hitler's birthday a cake?


That's right, he has no right to refuse to make a birthday cake just because of the person's point of view. He could refuse to put "Happy birthday, Hitler" on it.
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report