TakeYouToTasker Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 For example: BAKERIES. Liberals classify as "public accommodations" whatever causes the most outrage. What gets me, as usual, is the internal logical inconsistencies. If you deem any business to no longer be private, and no longer allowed to freely associate, because they are now instead a "public accommodation", don't all businesses have to be public accomodations? I mean, who else are they serving, to turn profit, if not the general public or the public sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 is he white muslim? So, if a couple who's beliefs do not align with mine and I refuse to sell them beef because they are a homosexual, different race, different religion, a giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era, or even a tranny? What about a cross dressing giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era in a girl scout uniform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 lets say you were in a state were sexual orientation is a protected class and you are a bakery that sells wedding cakes would you have to sell a gay couple a wedding cake? yes! would you have to sell a gay couple a special vagina shaped rainbow wedding cake ? no! - lets say you do Happy Anniversary cakes where you write people's names, for instance "Happy Anniversary Bill and Betty" would you also have to do "Happy Anniversary Barb and Betty" or "Happy Anniversary Bill and Bob" ? yes! I don't go quite that far. At that point I think it's petty not to, but I see no justification for compelling him to do so. I don't see any legitimate legal foundation, particularly at the federal level, for legislation to such effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I have no problem with gay marriage .I can assure you though that sooner or later some guy will come out of the woodwork with intention of marrying several women, and yes,they all will be entitled to insurance through his employer.The exact same arguments will be made to the courts.Its coming, the wackos are taking over this country and are now making policy. What about a cross dressing giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era in a girl scout uniform? Yes, its coming. So what if an artist refuses to paint a picture of a dude sucking a dick? No artist would refuse that.Artists are open minded liberals,if they want to be accepted by those in the art community you better believe they will be on the side of whatever is in vogue at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 What about a cross dressing giant crustacean from the Paleolithic Era in a girl scout uniform? You'll pay a fine not in excess of three-fitty. No artist would refuse that.Artists are open minded liberals,if they want to be accepted by those in the art community you better believe they will be on the side of whatever is in vogue at the moment. Painting with a rather broad brush there, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 But since sexual orientation is not a protected class in Title II, The bakery case was about state or local law not Title II Oregon state law says the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 No artist would refuse that.Artists are open minded liberals,if they want to be accepted by those in the art community you better believe they will be on the side of whatever is in vogue at the moment. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Oregon state law says the same thing. This is Oregon State law Discrimination in Public Accommodation A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older). it is not the same as title II http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx Edited July 14, 2015 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This is Oregon State law it is not the same as title II http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx What, you couldn't find the actual law? And is a cake an accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege? (And note that in the decision, that's rewritten to say "accommodation, advantage, facility, service, or privilege.") Also note that one of the proprietors of the bakery was required to attend the ceremony they had a religious objection to. No problem with that? It's discriminatory to provide an on-site "accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege" at a site or occasion you're religiously opposed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 1. Not all businesses are classified as public accommodations- I doubt that an artist would be but ask your lawyer 2. a business does not have to provide a service that it does not normally provide - if a sweater shop will not provide a wedding cake for a black wedding it is not discrimination, if a pizza shop will not provide a wedding cake for a black wedding it is not discrimination, if a bakery that makes wedding cakes will not provide a wedding cake for a black wedding that is discrimination and they can be sued, - the next question would be does a bakery have to make any modifications to it's standard fare? I think the answer is no, if a bakery makes square vanilla cakes with vanilla frosting it would be under no obligation to make round chocolate cakes with chocolate frosting. - 3. basically a business of public accommodation has to sell it's standard fare or provide it's standard service regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or religion- also reasonable accommodations must be made for the disabled- as discussed before sexual orientation is not a federally protected class but is protected in 20 States and some localities 4. standard fare -a strip club would be required to let in female patrons but would not be obligated to have male strippers 5. If a artist was considered a business of public accommodation (I don't think so), what would his standard fare be ? can you make a landscape artist do portraits? I have a friend who's an artist, he does three or four paintings a year and he turns down many commissions every year for all types of reasons, for example he won't do a portrait of a living person. 6. you might find these interesting http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance Excellent post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 What, you couldn't find the actual law? And is a cake an accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege? (And note that in the decision, that's rewritten to say "accommodation, advantage, facility, service, or privilege.") Also note that one of the proprietors of the bakery was required to attend the ceremony they had a religious objection to. No problem with that? It's discriminatory to provide an on-site "accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege" at a site or occasion you're religiously opposed to? links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts