Sounds like a double standard to me. There's no law against being a Nazi, and they're protected by the 1st amendment. Either Jews must bake the cake or nobody must.
Should an Artist creator be required to take an order for a creation from a prick that gives him bad vibes?
Seems to me that: A Jewish baker would not want to serve a Nazi because of his/her behavior - joining a Nazi party, displaying their regalia, etc. is the same as A Christian baker would not want to serve a gay wedding because of their behavior - marrying two people of the same gender. If the second is not OK, then neither should be the first.
Seems pretty simple to me, if you are a Nazi and go into a Jewish bakery to order a cake, they have to make it. If the Nazi asks for swastikas to be decorated on the cake the bakery owners can refuse but they still have to sell the cake. Now before some of you disagree with this, lots of stores have these frosting printer things for cakes, you can go in there with a USB drive with an image, give it to them and they will print it on the cake. But if you give them a picture of people having sex or a decapitated body or whatever, they have the right to say no to printing that image. As far as the gay wedding cake controversy we had here a while back, the owners of the bakery were idiots and in the wrong. If gay customers come in and ask for a wedding cake with two grooms on it instead of a bride and groom decoration, the bakery owners could have said they don't stock two groom decorations but they can bake the cake and the wedding couple can place their own decoration on the cake. If the wedding couple asks the bakery to place the decoration on the cake for them all they have to do is say is that for health reasons it's against store policy to place outside items on our cakes. Instead the bakery decided to make some political or religious statement. The bakery has to serve the public but that doesn't mean they have to provide the services the public is asking for.
Anyone who has a business license should have to serve the public. Just like if you have a license to drive, you shouldn't be allowed to speed because God told you so. I don't like working on cars where the driver smokes cigarettes or weed. I get them quite often and deal with it. If you are an artist you can create anything you want, forcing someone to paint me banging myself would not be fair by any definition.
No. The Christian (BTW, why always Christian? Would you be so quick to jump if it was a Muslim) is opposing the fact that they are gay. It is not the same. It is not close. It is legally recognized as not the same. Going back more than 50 years when Christians claimed god opposed racial integration and that as Christians they had the right to refuse service to African-Americans. Or interracial couples. Or to hire Jews. The law is clear. Religion does not give one the right to ACT in a bigoted manner, although you can THINK like a bigot if you want.
And you can try to change the subject all you want. Please justify, on the one month anniversary of the worst mass shooting in American history which just "happened" to be directed against the gay community, introduction of the most extreme antigay law in the nation's history, knowing it won't pass, knowing it has already been ruled unconstitutional, for the SOLE PURPOSE of showing how much they hate gay people. Thoughts, prayers, hate.
It seems pretty clear that bigots donate more money to politicians. That's why politicians do crap like that, for money and votes.
I'm just looking for consistency. And no, I'm not "quick to jump"--I'm just pulling the most recent example. From my perspective, there's a difference between not wanting to serve a person because that person is gay (or a Nazi), and not wanting to provide a service for a gay event (or a Nazi rally). Does it really matter if the person's ontology is by birth or by choice? Is it more acceptable to refuse to serve people with tattoos or piercings? In my mind, absolutely not. And is legality really the benchmark we want to apply? For instance, it would be legal to not serve me because I have blue eyes, but I don't think it would be right. Essentially (to me) it's the same as this forum's "attack the post and not the poster" rule. Or from a religious standpoint, the common phrase is "Hate the sin, but love the sinner". I understand that the case law in that particular case didn't differentiate, but that's simply the way I see it. Can't justify the legislation. Wouldn't want to, regardless of the timing.
I liked this but religion does give them the right to be bigots. They just can't break the law when it comes to public situations. If a Jewish kid knocks on the door of a Christian's house he can say anti semitic things to him, he just can't do that at his business. I was going to find a video of a young kid attacking a pastor holding one of those idiotic "god hates gays" signs to show how our rights aren't always right and wrong. I googled it and found way more of them than I bargained for. Made me smile.
Yes, the right to be bigots, but not to run a business in a bigoted fashion. You can THINK all the racist or antigay thoughts you want; you can express them in public although in a work environment that is harassment. You can't refuse service based on certain characteristics. I think a number of people want to find some way of saying "I'm not really a bigot" so they cite Jesus, or gays are just like Hitler as a way around admitting facts. What reasons are there for holding these hearings in Congress except to provide their homophobic bona fides?
Exactly... As I read through your first post I wondered why we are still having to discuss and legislate giving a group the rights they are already due as American citizens.
The religious folks feel the LGBT folks are forcing them to participate in the wedding. I can accept that. The Jews have reason to be bigoted against the Nazis. It's still denial of service based upon who the customer is. I'm not a fan of anyone denying service, but there are two edges to the "get government to force everyone " sword.
Are Jewish bakers currently allowed to turn away Nazi customers just for being Nazis? I'm curious, since I can't recall this coming up. That question aside, there's a significant difference between a defined hate group and other demographics (especially a demographic that's often targeted by hate groups). A more apt question is whether businesses should be allowed to turn away black people just because they're black. Hardcore libertarians (like Ron Paul) would say yes, but the vast majority of Western society would say no. For the same reasons (protections for a group that could be marginalized in society if such prejudices were allowed to be normalized), I'd say that gay people should also not be allowed to be turned away for goods and services, even by private sector businesses.
The correllary is whether a black hotel owner should be forced to rent to the KKK. As long as the hate groups aren't violating the law, you are depriving them of the same invented right as the baker/gays should enjoy. Guilt by association is not guilt.
That isn't the corollary; it depends on the same assertion you've already made, that hate groups have exactly the same protections under the law as any other demographic. The existing law is not that "everyone must be served no matter what" and the hate groups you mention are being excepted (an "imaginary right" that they're being deprived of). Businesses already have the right to refuse service to people based on all sorts of preferences (like dress codes, for example: i.e. "no shirt, no shoes, no service"). What's being discussed here is exemptions from preference-based denials for certain "protected minorities" for exactly the reason I mentioned above: without such protections, some minorities have historically been at serious risk of being unfairly marginalized in society if prejudice against them were normalized. If you feel that there's a good case to be made that the Nazis or the KKK are the types of minorities that are at risk of being unfairly marginalized, I'd be perfectly interested to hear it.
Ok, the correllary is whether Nazis should be for ed to bake a cake for Jews. The reasoning appears to be if the bakery sells to the public, they cannot refuse to sell to certain people due to their own personal convictions. Interesting background material: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/17/us/clinton-signs-law-protecting-religious-practices.html Authored by Schumer and dead Ted, signed by Clinton.
That isn't the reasoning. As I've said, businesses can already restrict service based on preference/convictions--just not certain types of preferences/convictions, exceptions which tend to include religion, race and, lately, sexuality. Jews are a religion (and a race) so, based on this reasoning, you can't restrict service. Being a Nazi is none of the above, so I find it likely that you could restrict service based on that (though I still don't know this for certain--I've never seen an example of it one way or the other). Again, if you have a good reason why the Nazis or KKK need protections against being unfairly marginalized in society, feel free to share it.
