Which people are bakeries allowed to deny service to? Discrimination against Nazis is still discrimination. If you are going to use government to deny property rights, there's an equal protection kind of requirement. We all agree that the bakers' homes have property rights you would deny to their places of business. Such as, you aren't going to require the bakers to allow gays in their homes, are you? So it is the "public" nature of the bakery that gives you some line of reasoning to deny them their 1st amendment and numerous other constitutional property rights. As terrible as it is, the idiot bakers do have 1st amendment rights. Supporting gay person's lifestyle in any form is something they get from their religion (of peace and goodness). Baking a wedding cake is participating in the ceremony to them. Any imagry or figures illustrated on the cake are sacrilege. The Jewish bakers are motivated by what, exactly? Certainly not 1st amendment freedom of religion.
Shoeless people, if they choose to. People who aren't annually paying members of their Cake Club, if they choose to. The default is that they can restrict services--there are exceptions to that default, and those are mostly based on religion, race, gender and sexuality. Again, you need a good reason why Nazis should also be exceptions. The reason I laid out above for protected minorities is considered a good reason by many (but not everyone--as I said, Ron Paul would certainly disagree).
You choose to be a Nazi. You do not choose to be Black or gay. Last I heard Nazis were not a group facing historical and current discrimination. Still trying to make excuses for bigotry .
The choice or not has nothing to do with how you're going to deprive people of their property rights. I was born without shoes and a shirt. But "no shirt, no shoes, no service."
I gave you the ultimate reason. Equal treatment/protection under the law. If X is given a right, so is Y. No getting around it.
Doesn't work that way. The "protected minority" exceptions to certain rights are probably here to stay for the foreseeable future. They haven't been struck down as unconstitutional so there is, apparently, getting around it.
Gays have not been a "protected minority." Nor should they be. Throwing stuff against the wall hoping something sticks?
Why shouldn't they be? They're not a protected class federally, but they are increasingly becoming one at the state level, as per actions to ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexuality and such. In fact, hiring is a good comparison to this baker conundrum. Like bakers and denial of service, businesses have wide latitude over hiring. They can choose not to hire someone due to perceived lack of experience, prestige of the school they attended, not liking their attitude or personality in the interview, etc. But they can't choose not to hire based on various protected minority statuses. Increasingly, homosexuality is one of those. As far as I'm concerned, a bakery's denial of service does and should work the same way.
While you are bloviating over hypothetical Nazis being persecuted by hypothetical Jews, real people are suffering from persecution and discrimination and guess what, they are NOT Nazis. Transpeople have used restrooms since forever but now it's the wedge issue in attacking gays generally. A survey showed in the past year, BEFORE passage of Hate Bill 2 in North Carolina, 59% of trans people have avoided using public restrooms because they feared confrontation. 12% reported that they had been attacked, harassed, or sexually assaulted in a bathroom in the past year. 31% reported having avoided eating or drinking during the previous year so that they would not need to use a restroom. 24% reported that in the previous year someone had told them they were in the wrong restroom or questioned their presence in a restroom. 9% reported being denied access to a restroom appropriate to their gender identity at some point during the previous year. 8% reported having developed a kidney or urinary tract infection during the previous year caused by avoiding restrooms. I have yet to hear of your hypothetical persecuted Nazis getting kidney infections because they can't relieve themselves. Jim Obergefell, of Obergefell v Hodges, testified before the Congressional committee hearing on the bigot bill. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/7/13/jim-obergefell-takes-religious-liberty-bill-congressional-hearing His partner of 21 years, John Arthur, was dying and his dying wish was to be married, but Ohio, where they lived, did not allow it. They weren't sacred enough. John was too sick to travel commercial but generous donors equipped a medical plane so they could fly to Maryland and be married, on the plane since John was too sick to disembark. When he died shortly thereafter, Jim Obergefell was not listed as next of kin on death certificate even though they had been legally married. The state said he was an unrelated friend. Nazis can and do get married in churches like Church of Jesus Christ Aryan (yes it exists) where they kneel, not before a regular crucifix, but before a swastika. The groom and male guests wear full Nazi replica uniforms. The marriages are legal and recognized in all states with full rights. They are sacred heterosexual marriages. The spouses are legally next of kin. Jim Obergefell and John Arthur were not so sacred. This shit about hypothetical persecuted Nazis is like the garbage that straight men will pretend to be transgender women so they can rape little white girls in public restrooms. Hasn't happened, doesn't happen. It's shit. Flush it down the toilet. Does anyone really believe that gay people must be discriminated against in order to protect hypothetical Nazis from being persecuted by hypothetical Jews, or that transpeople need to be persecuted because straight men always run around pretending to be trans? It's shit. It's an excuse. You don't want to say flat out that gay, lesbian, bi and transgender people are lesser human beings, you want to be a bigot without being called a bigot and so you bring in Jesus, persecuted Nazis, and straight men raping girls in the ladies' room. Flush this shit down the toilet where it belongs. Minstrel, you are a rare ray of light and you have the issues exactly right.
I remember growing up seeing signs that said something about reserving the right not to serve anyone (or something like that). If you don't give a reason, can you just turn people away?
I ask that because, if a baker is going to use religious conviction to deny services to gay people wouldn't they also be able to extend that to denying services to weddings for other religions? I'm asking because I've never heard of a Christian bakery turning away a wedding cake for a Muslim ceremony. Would they have the right to do that?
Why shouldn't they be? Protected class is the former negro slaves. While I sympathize greatly with the struggle for civil rights for LGBT folks, they do not qualify as a protected class. As far as I'm concerned, bakeries should deny service to liberals because they fuck up the country. See how that works? Seriously, you do have to draw the line if you're going to pick and choose who gets special invented rights. It's going to depend on who has the power to decide. And no, I don't really want bakeries to deny service to anyone. You just haven't made a compelling case that the state should violate the constitutional right to religion of some to satisfy your agenda.
That's what I'm asking, would they have the right? I've never heard of a lawsuit about a Christian/Muslim/etc. couple being turned away from a Muslim/Christian/etc. bakery.
