No. It compels them to treat them like any other customer.

Post #386,770 by Another Scott 2/24/14 1:55:13 PM Reply	No. It compels them to treat them like any other customer. People understand that just because a 7-11 sells some bikers in Hell's Angels a case of Pepsi doesn't mean that 7-11 "endorses" Hell's Angels. This isn't hard. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,834 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 9:57:17 AM Reply	That's a little disingenous. Are you really equating selling a case of soft drinks with creating a wedding cake and/or providing flowers for a wedding? I'm exhausted. Rand's Sullivan post (albeit demeaning in some respects) is a pretty good summation of my position. No one should be compelled to participate in anything they don't want to participate in. It's funny that some who purportedly advocate the position of "live and let live" are the very same folks who do not want to allow those who disagree with them to do the same.
Post #386,837 by drook 2/25/14 10:20:45 AM Reply	Please enumerate all the services that represent endorsement Your position (now that you've been challenged at least three times to replace "gay" with "black" in your statements) seems to be that some services represent an endorsement, while others do not. That's the only sensible reading of your question. So ... please provide a detailed list of all services that represent an "endorsement" and can therefore legally be denied to gays? If you can't provide a detailed list of all "privileged" services, then explain the criteria. -- Drew
Post #386,839 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 10:26:46 AM Reply	There's a reason why I didn't take the bait. Race != sexual orientation. Good try, though. I'd say active participation in an event is endorsement of that event. Like baking the wedding cake, supplying floral arrangements or taking wedding pictures. Even as the courts rule otherwise, at least one Justice was given pause. Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily. ÂThe Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,Â he wrote. ÂThey only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.Â Instead, they Âare compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.Â ÂThough the rule of law requires it,Â Justice Bosson wrote, Âthe result is sobering.Â http://www.nytimes.c...eremony.html?_r=0
Post #386,840 by drook 2/25/14 10:44:58 AM Reply	Why? How is race different from sexual orientation? You tried to walk back from "abnormal" to "atypical". By most accounts about 10% of the population is homosexual. (Though in fairness gender isn't a binary position, but let's simplify.) American Indians make up less than 1% of the population of the U.S. That's pretty atypical. Can I refuse service to them? But back to my original question: define "active participation". * Officiating * Taking pictures * Playing the organ * Renting the facility * Delivering the cake * Baking the cake * Selling flour to the cake shop * Milling wheat into flour for the cake shop * Growing wheat to be milled into flour What exactly constitutes "active participation"? Before you say that's ridiculous, do you really believe that if you got your way, deep in the bible belt "the gay bakery" wouldn't find it hard to buy supplies? And remember that every time someone asks a direct question and you answer something else it reinforces the appearance that you have your answer and you're fishing for a justification. -- Drew
Post #386,843 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 11:24:12 AM Reply	10%? Update your stats. It's more like 1.7% Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. In total, the study suggests that approximately 9 million Americans Â roughly the population of New Jersey Â identify as LGBT. Among adults who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay); http://williamsinsti...-and-transgender/ I gave you three examples. I'd also include officiating (obviously) and playing the organ from your list. I didn't try to "walk back" from anything. I tried clarifying what I meant (I had this very same problem with the word "deviates" before). I think in the Deep South if the "gay bakery" found it difficult to buy supplies there are more than ample legal remedies for that. Again, I'm not advocating the refusal of service wholesale, only the refusal of services which provide at least a tacit statement of approval of a particular event: what I've called (probably inappropriately) "active participation." I'm still not taking the race-baiting question. As concerns your American Indian question, suppose you own a bakery and they want a cake depicting Custer's slaughter at the Little Big Horn which they need for a celebration of Custer's death. Do I think you have a right to refuse to supply such a cake? Yes, I do. I've tried to be as direct here as I could. That good enough?
Post #386,849 by drook 2/25/14 12:09:40 PM Reply	Another half-step back Endorsement -> active participation -> at least a tacit statement of approval What are the criteria? I think in the Deep South if the "gay bakery" found it difficult to buy supplies there are more than ample legal remedies for that. Those are precisely the remedies you want to eliminate. In the example cases the couples didn't ask for explicitly offensive cakes. They asked for the same cakes/flowers as other people get. As AScott already pointed out, civil rights law does not address the nature of the product or service being denied, only the status of those to whom it's being denied. -- Drew
Post #386,870 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:54:05 PM Reply	Bzzzzt. Wrong. Those are precisely the remedies you want to eliminate. No, I've no opposition to laws preventing the wholesale denial of services. In the example cases the couples didn't ask for explicitly offensive cakes. That's the whole point, isn't it? The cakes were explicitly offensive in nature to the bakers. As such, I believe they ought to have the right not to be coerced into making them anyway. You believe they should have no such right. We're okay (I think) to agree to disagree on this point. I'll even grant that the law is with you on this point. I won't, however, agree that the law is just. ;0)
Post #386,850 by malraux 2/25/14 12:22:40 PM Reply	Try again. As concerns your American Indian question, suppose you own a bakery and they want a cake depicting Custer's slaughter at the Little Big Horn which they need for a celebration of Custer's death. The bakery in question didn't bother to find out what was on the cake before refusing service. I don't buy that businesses providing materials are participating in the ceremony, either. There is a qualitative difference between someone singing in the choir and someone who won't even be there. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,853 by Another Scott 2/25/14 12:40:33 PM Reply	Good catch. Well said.
Post #386,857 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:01:53 PM Reply	They did, however, determine what the cake represented and that was the basis of their objection. So, you aren't participating in a Klan rally (or endorsing it) if all you did was build the cross knowing the purpose the Klansmen had for asking you to build it, right? If part of my textile business involves the manufacture of armbands with swastikas I am not condoning or working in a way that furthers the cause of Nazism either, I suppose. I think there is a closer relation to the builders of a ceremony's props to the ceremonies themselves than you're willing to admit. But, that's okay. We can disagree about that.
Post #386,883 by malraux 2/25/14 3:55:20 PM Reply	Already covered that. determine what the cake represented and that was the basis of their objection. They also said they wouldn't make a cake for a gay civil union or a gay "commitment ceremony", so the actual objection was the "gay", not the "marriage". Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,842 by Another Scott 2/25/14 10:53:54 AM Reply	Having a business isn't a right. That's where you're going off the rails. If you have a business, you have to treat members of protected classes equally. Full stop. If you don't like it, then don't have a business. If you don't think gays should be a protected class, that's a permissible (though mistaken IMO) opinion to have. But that's not the question in these cases. The question is - Should a business be able to discriminate against a protected class for claimed religious reasons? The answer, clearly, is no. If you don't like gays being a protected class, then work to get the public accommodations laws changed. Don't claim that your poor fee-fees trump the law. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,845 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 11:40:04 AM Reply	But Free Speech is. So is the free exercise of religion. Both are falling short (in the law) of consumer interests. While I find no pleasure in "being on the side of the churches", I do think that all Americans should have the right to say, "No. I do not want to participate in that." Surely that right should supercede anyone else's right to force a baker to make a cake for any event they deem proper. Let me ask you a hypothetical. I open a tatoo parlor. And, just to add emphasis to the hypothetical, suppose I lost my parents in the holocaust. Should I be forced to tatoo a swastika on a Hindu who comes into my shop? That symbol (to a Hindu) plainly does not mean the same thing it does to me. But you seem to be arguing that what I think about what I am supplying in my business does not matter. So, I'd guess you'd say that I do have to provide that tatoo because, after all, I'm doing business with the public. If that is your position, doesn't that give you pause?
Post #386,847 by Another Scott 2/25/14 11:57:36 AM Reply	Lots of "speech" is restricted for businesses. Again, protected class and public accommodation laws covers a lot. There are lots and lots of offensive tatoos - e.g. http://www.imef.mari...F/EOA/Tattoos.ppt I don't know the details about the laws for getting them. Minors are obviously a different category. It seems to me that if someone is in the tatoo business, they know what their clientele is likely to be. There's a whole subculture about what "artists" will and won't do - e.g. http://www.reddit.co.../comments/1ckq2w/ Tatoos are kinda permanent. No, it doesn't give me pause that businesses have to follow public accommodations rules for protected classes. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,848 by boxley 2/25/14 12:01:13 PM Reply	why would you have a problem with that? since the hindu wanting a what you think is a swastika is no such thing. It points the other way Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,858 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:02:35 PM Reply	Is it the Buddhists that had it the same way? I forget.
Post #386,863 by boxley 2/25/14 1:22:04 PM Reply	no, it was the nazi's that flipped it Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #386,867 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:30:24 PM Reply	Ah. Thanks!
Post #386,854 by folkert 2/25/14 12:40:37 PM Reply	"No. I do not want to participate in that." FULL STOP "No. I do not want to participate in that." FULL STOP. Adding in "Because you are Muslim." or Adding in "Due to your being a gay-bay-homo." or Adding in "You are a 1912 Southern Baptist Reformer." or Adding in "You are a Hindu." or Adding in "because I don't serve Spics." or Adding in "you're a porch monkey." or Adding in "eww, you are Yellow Skinner." or Adding in "you are a Skin Head." Makes you a racist hater that has broken the law in equal access terms. If you didn't add those later phrases (or similar ones to it)... you could be a racists hater all you want. Yeah, Mike... you aren't doing well here. Once you realize, Business that is public... is public and constrained by those same things. I'm reminded of a scene from a "A few good men..." In the court-martial proceeding with Judge Randolph: Kaffee: Colonel Jessep, did you order the Code Red? Judge Randolph: You don't have to answer that question! Col. Jessep: I'll answer the question! [to Kaffee] Col. Jessep: You want answers? Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to. Col. Jessep: You want answers? Kaffee: I want the truth! Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth! [pauses] Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red? Col. Jessep: I did the job I... Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red? Col. Jessep: You're Goddamn right I did! Do see what he did there? Even though it was for the apparent "Good of the Unit" it wasn't proper and in fact illegal. You aren't looking at this from a reasonable person's perspective. You are using the excuses. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Welcome to IWETHEY!