[–] NinjaKlaus ago
I miss the days when the free market capitalism was allowed to work on things like this. You don't like it, you don't shop there. They don't make money and they close.
[–] hyperoperation 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If this baker was Muslim and refused to sell cakes to any women who didn't have their faces covered I doubt anyone in the US would be running to his defense. However if the court sided in favor of the baker than the aforementioned scenario would have to be allowed as well.
[–] lord_palmerston 3 points 3 points 6 points (+6|-3) ago
baker Jack Phillips
Hmm, a white male, presumably heterosexual and avowedly Christian? Well, that's easy then: no freedom of association for your kind, you vile bigot!
[–] Allah_Ackbar 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
$10 if he was Muslim his opinion would have never been questioned.
[–] NinjaKlaus 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It's still valid but only if it doesn't violate some state or federally protected class of people. ie Skin Color, Sexual Orientation, Marital Status, Age... it's mostly up to states to decide who is protected. Basically these laws remove that right to refuse line. About the only right to refuse we still have is "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service."
[–] Acer-Red 2 points 9 points 11 points (+11|-2) ago
I'm all for equal rights, but it goes both ways. That guy has every right to be a dick and refuse service to whomever, for whatever reason. Just like consumers have the right to boycott his business into the ground for actions with which they disagree.
[–] Acer-Red 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
No, race would not be any different than any other reason. Even if a business owner decided not to serve people who wear hats. I don't care how serious or silly the deciding factor is.
Let's be real. Thankfully your hypothetical is not at all likely in today's society. The moment someone begins refusing service to anyone for some ridiculous reason like that, a competitor would see that as a golden opportunity to earn tons of business, especially from that group who was refused at the other place. "Come to Bob's Restaurant! We encourage you to wear hats!"
Also, the situation in the article, as I understand it, he didn't refuse to bake cakes for homosexuals, he refused to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. And I think it's not right to force someone to participate in something they don't believe is right. Even if I disagree with their decision and think they are on the morally wrong side, I don't think it's right to force him to bake a wedding cake for a wedding he doesn't support. And if I was homosexual and wanted a cake baked for my wedding, I certainly wouldn't want it made by someone who disagrees with my getting married and is being forced to bake the cake only because the law twisted their arm.
[–] schwanstucker ago
I wonder how they would have ruled if the issue was, say, skinheads patronizing a black restaurant? Just curious. Some of these "victories" will later be regretted by the very groups that wanted them.