There are protected classes for real reasons that exist in the real world. Everyone getting to do exactly what they want all the time would be great, but sometimes it causes societal problems which are worse than some restriction on personal liberty so we collectively decide things like it's not cool for restaurants to not allow black people or for bakers to not make wedding cakes for gay people.

You can decide what products you want to sell.

Having decided what products you want to sell, you have to sell them to everyone.

You guys aren't arguing with those statements, right?

It seems like you're mostly focusing on the fact that you can't discriminate in terms of *who* you do business with. And I agree with that. But that's not the argument here. The argument here is that the baker makes certain types of cakes, and for those cakes, he'll sell them to anyone. But there are other cakes that he's not willing to make, including cakes that feature alcohol of Halloween. And he won't make those cakes for anyone.

I think, factually, he *did* discriminate on the customer, because they didn't talk long enough to describe the *type* of cake they wanted. So his unwillingness had to be based on the customer. And under that fact pattern, the baker engaged in illegal discrimination and should be compelled to make/sell them a cake.

But, on the other hand, I do not think the baker should be forced to create a cake that features alcohol or Halloween, or other decorative features that he does not ever create.

This is all just repeating stuff from earlier in the thread, so I think I should stop now.

Only if they are legal. Sure you can sell cocaine but only till you get caught.
Most everyone, there are tons of local laws that make a difference between who you can discriminate against. Let’s pretend those don’t exist and keep this as generally what we’d like to see.
A cake is a cake. Saying you don’t want to make gay cakes should be illegal. Creating a second class of person who doesn’t get the good stuff because of a group they are in is wrong.

That’s a very obtuse interpretation of the problem which doesn’t seem to match the situation.
I’m still interested in why you think a business has the right to limit the free speech of its customers.

This seems bananas to me. I honestly don't believe that you think bakers should be forced to create cakes that say "God Hates ****" simply because they create other cakes.

The business is doing absolutely nothing to limit the free speech of its customers. If I had to frame it in terms of the customers' free speech, the business *is* choosing not to provide a microphone for that speech. I honestly don't understand your "customers' free speech" argument at all.

In this particular case, the baker's objection was to a message the customers wanted him to put on the cake. When he said he would sell them a blank one, he meant a frosted, fully complete cake, just one without words on it.

lol

I am arguing with that. Neither of those are absolute.

I don't think the baker should be forced to make cakes for Halloween either, but they should be forced to make Ramadan cakes if they make Christmas cakes or gay wedding cakes if they make straight wedding cakes.

There's not one principle here, there are two competing principles. One is about individual freedom and the other is having a society that doesn't suck. Start with freedom, but then if society sucks hard enough because of it then make exceptions. But don't over-react and say bakers can never discriminate about anything (make a hitler cake for example) just for the sake of consistency.

FWIW, I argued with someone about this case yesterday, they were also making a 1st amendment argument, but the other direction, saying that he wanted to preserve the baker's first amendment rights. I found this unpersuasive since we're not talking about the baker's message, it's the customer's, and nobody would reasonably think the message was one the baker was expressing personally.

so basically your position is "we should force people to do good things and not force them to do bad things"?

I disagree with you, but at least I think I understand your argument. I'm not sure I understand your Hitler comment - what do you think of this story?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12...ery-store.html

Is ShopRite doing something wrong (in your opinion) when they refuse to make that cake? (I do not think that ShopRite should be compelled to make that cake.)

I have no problem if they complain about the language, but I don’t give the baker the same leeway as a newspaper as far as the content is concerned. The message isn’t for the baker and is not being attributed to the baker, it’s the customer’s message. In the majority of cases the only difference between Straight and gay wedding cakes are the figures on top which the baker didn’t create he just bought them so saying he’s never made a gay wedding cake is kind of ridiculous.

Maybe not, maybe it’s straight discrimination, I don’t think a businesses right to free speech trumps a customer’s right to be served. The whole point of a democracy is that everyone is treated equally, seems pretty straight forward.

Who you do business with isn't speech. What kind of widgets your company produces isn't speech. What messages you put on cakes is probably speech, and a form of artistic expression in some cases.

We also let businesses decide who to do business with based on broad categories currently. I can absolutely open a coffee shop and say "I will not serve coffee to republicans".

TBH I'm pretty unfamiliar with the facts of this case, but I wouldn't assume it's a slam dunk either way. I'm assuming this state made sexual preference a protected class. There are still questions of whether a wedding cake bakery is a public accommodation subject to anti-discrimination laws, whether writing "Congrats Bob and Bob" is actually speech/artistic expression, whether refusing to do so is more akin to refusing to serve black people at your diner or more akin to refusing to hang a BLM poster in your diner.

In a perfect world bakers wouldn't be able to turn down gay couples, but I'm not comfortable with a policy of "if you do business with the public, you're mandated to do business with anyone that walks in your door".

Who puts words on wedding cakes? That destroys some stereotypes... As long as the message wasn’t profane I see no reason for the baker to legally refuse.

Sometimes. Does anyone understand that laws are not a math or logic exam? If we want to force some good things and not others and allow some bad things and not others we get to do it. The universe won't blow a fuse like NOMAD.

Again why? ‘Icky’ isn’t a valid reason to refuse service.

My point with the Hitler comment was that cake decorators refusing to decorate a cake with Hitler doesn't rise to the level of a societal problem which should be addressed by law. I don't think the law should get involved there.

The moral path for the baby Hitler cake decorator? I don't know. I'd probably refuse to take part in some neo-nazi inflicting that on their child.

Depends. Public accommodation laws in some locations have been extended to cover political views.
It doesn’t really work any other way, which I fear we are going to find out if this “deeply held belief” exception becomes the law. The fairest system is one where you serve everyone the same. As soon as you open the door to exceptions you have a system that’s going to screw someone over.

You don't need a reason to decide what products/services you provide. If I make Donald Trump pinatas, I don't also have to make Barack Obama pinatas. I get to decide if I want to sell birthday cakes features images of the KKK lynching people.

I went back to the beginning of this conversation (post #194) and we are literally repeating everything from 6 months ago. So I'll bow out.

I thought the cake maker in this case would not even sell a blank cake to the couple.

What message you put on a cake can be speech, but not in the case where the customer is literally dictating to you verbatim what they want on the cake.

I think you're confusing how you think legal systems should work ("if everyone just agrees with my personal idea of 'common sense' then we'll be fine!") and how they actually do work.

My understanding is that he offered several variations to the customers, the sticking point was over the words they wanted on the cake. DISCLAIMER: I've read maybe 10% of one story that was published about this case.

That's not consistent with the initial inquiry.

But like, I'm fine with screwing over the parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell. I don't see what's wrong with the current system of "you don't have to serve anyone you don't want to, with the exception of these specifically enumerated protected classes, which are approved by the legislature".

It's not my personal view, it's based on some process that to some degree or another reflects the opinions of the people in the society. That's why race, and in some places, sexual orientation are protected classes. Enough people and/or enough people with enough power have done enough to make those things laws. That's how legal systems do work.

Do you think laws are made by some axioms like "all good things must be required by law"?