This Is Why We Have Anti Gay Laws In North Carolina and Mississippi

One couple is solely responsible for all the anti gay legislature that is currently in place and being written up.

For those that don't know a baker was asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and refused saying that he did not agree. Now instead of the couple saying "that's fine we'll take our business elsewhere" they instead screamed and yelled and then sued the baker.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0425/Cake-wars-Colo.-Supreme-Court-won-t-allow-baker-to-deny-gay-couple-service

Now Colorado has spent a boatload of money on everything to do with this case and more importantly other states have gone on the offensive to make sure that their state isn't the next one that has this happen. North Carolina and Mississippi's laws are a reaction to this.

This couple wasn't refused service. They weren't denied entrance to the store nor were they denied buying a cake. The cake artist refused to create and decorate a cake for them. As an artist myself that would be like someone asking me to draw Bernie Sanders and I refuse so they sue me.

Also it's not like the baker could charge extra for a job he disliked because then he would be sued for that too.

How is it fair that a new precedent has been created that all artists must create whatever asked of them or they'll be sued?

The couple WERE refused service since that baker advertised putting any message or design they wanted on their cake - then turned around and said no.

As a business owner that caters to the public, the owner had a civic duty to serve his customers in whatever they wanted. He can have whatever personal beliefs he wants, but that doesn't mean he can use his business as some kind of weapon to discriminate against people he has a personal problem with.

The Right to Refuse Service law cannot be used as a get out of jail free card and does not give businesses the power to turn away customers based on sexuality, race or gender. If he really did refuse to serve them because of their sexuality, they are perfectly within their rights to sue.

If the customers desire from a product was unreasonable or the price wasn't agreed upon then the Business can refuse the customer. If it's simply cause the business dislike the person due to their lifechoice then it's not really a valid reason to refuse them.

That said I don't think suing the business is in the right either.

In my opinion, the owner calls the shots around here, even that person has to be religious whatever his/her beliefs. If this person refuse to make a Cake for same-sex, then that person has every right to do so. The only lose here, is losing money and possibly reputations.

No, it'd be something like a person asking you to draw anything and you refusing because you don't agree with their ethnicity. That's more comparable to what this is.

It's like you're not even trying to quite grasp the situation.

Anti gay laws is Miss. ...... how come I´m not surprised ?

Except being gay isn't a choice.

No. The freedom to practice your religion isn't the same as the freedom to enforce your religion on to other people. A person may be refused service for a number of reasons, but a characteristic beyond their control assigned at birth (or before, in the case of colour, gender and orientation) can't be one of those reasons.

True, Perhaps Lifechoice was the wrong therm to use. What I ment was refusing a customer due to a dislike about their sexuality, race, clothing style, religion, nationality etc. is not a valid reason to refuse them.

It doesn't matter what my reason is.

There is now precedent in Colorado that every single artist has to make what is asked of them or they'll be sued.

This is also a matter of being human, this couple started all of this. If this couple just went "that's ok, fair enough we'll find someone else" none of these laws would be popping up.

People are getting tired of being bullied by these groups and North Carolina and Mississippi just nipped it in the bud. I bet you if Colorado knew this couple was going to attack this owner and make the state spend millions dealing with it they would have been the first state to put this law into action. Instead they are literally paying the price.

That's racist...

Whut, now Mississippians are a race ?!? that´s a new one.

@raugutcon: You're judging Americans based on racial stereotypes. It doesn't matter what part of the country they're from.

• Yes, it does, because depending on your reason you're either simply conducting your business, or discriminating based on random birth assignments, which is something you can't do.
• No, there isn't such a precedent, because you are allowed to deny service so long as you aren't doing so based on random birth assignments
• Sure, the couple could've said "that's ok, fair enough" except it's neither okay nor fair, because they had no control over the random birth assignments for which their being denied, so screw that option.
• I'm sorry you feel a mild exasperation over the "bullies" demanding they be treated equally in the eyes of the law, but hey, look on the bright side, at least your annoyance pales in comparison to the shame, pain, sadness and fear gay people have been forced to feel throughout history.

If you want to ramble on about your vague notion of what you think the constitution should allow you to do, then go ahead, be my guest, just know that you're wrong.

If a person is Gay or wants to be Gay I don't care. Gay partners wanted to be recognized legally to receive benefits from their partner so Civil Unions were recognized. They wanted to go one more step and be married which in their case was an oxymoron. The word marriage had to be changed. Gay marriage was illegal in most state constitutions. The Supreme Court had to rule gay marriage was legal. It may be legal but it may never be accepted by the majority of the people. Now comes the public restroom issue where a line has to be drawn and common sense come into play for what is being ask now is violating the rights of the rest of us. We also have rights that have to be respected.

And if that business sent you away because you were black, would you feel the same way?

-Byshop

@ianhh6: you are allowed to deny service so long as you aren't doing so based on random birth assignments

I'm not sure where you're from but this would NEVER be allowed in the UK for any reason.

That's not true. If QPR want to sign Wayne Rooney he has the right to say no. In doing so he is denying QPR his services, but he's doing so for a number of reasons, be they location, wage, the chance to offer his services to a different club he prefers for its quality. None of these reasons are discriminating based on the ethnic or sexual characteristics of anybody at QPR, so his reasons for denying them his services are valid.

The same can be said for any transaction.

@ianhh6: That's an absurd example. Wayne Rooney is a human being with rights of his own.

@Starshine_M2A2: Fine. You're selling your old bike and someone offers 50 quid. You were expecting something more like 80 so you say no.

Boom, transaction avoided, services denied.

No discrimination.

@ianhh6: That's not relevant either since selling someone your bike is not considered a public service.

@Starshine_M2A2: look, if you don't want to see it, then fine, but it's what it is.

So you think that a bartender saying to a gay person 'GET OUT! We don't serve [edited - ianhh6]!' is okay? Because it isn't...

Oh. Maybe you misunderstood the original phrase of mine you quoted. I'm saying that isn't fine. Denial of services is something that exists in any market, but it CANNOT be due to racial or sexual biases. That's what I'm saying.

We're in agreement... I think?

I may live in Mexico but I am American too, actually I´ve been to more America than most americans will ever be.

Since I'm not white, if that was the case then I won't complain about it. The owner lose money and I'll go somewhere else that wants to make money. If the owner doesn't want my money because I'm black, that's fine, I'll go to another place that wants my hard earn money.

Unless you have citizenship, you cannot call yourself an American. It doesn't matter how much time you've spent there.

And it doesn't matter anyway since you can be racist towards your own ethnic group - it's called internalized racism.

I'm guessing he's not talking about citizenship to the United States when he says "american" and "america"

Fair enough.

We are in agreement.

I know you're not white (neither am I... mostly) which is one of the reasons I asked.

What you propose is a perfectly valid response and it probably works to your benefit and to the detriment of the bakery who refused you service, but keep in mind that while this is true of this specific example it wasn't always true. Today, the bakery that would refuse to serve you or I would be the "odd one out", but go back even 50 or so years and it would have been the other way around. You and I can choose to go elsewhere because we obviously would have a ton of options, but there was a time when most business might refuse to serve us. It's one thing if one jerk baker refuses service when you can walk another block or two and give your money to someone who treats you better, but what if it's -every- baker in your town? Or in your city? What if you have to drive 50 miles to find a baker who will serve you even though there are literally dozens where you live? Would you still be OK with that, or would this be something that you might put some effort into changing, especially since you know that the law is on your side and that people aren't supposed to treat you that way anymore?

-Byshop

Apples and oranges.

Homosexuals have the religious factor in there.

People who are strict in their religion are set up up differently towards homosexuals. Black people don't have a link like that.

No, owners don't have to do whatever their customers wanted. That "civic duty" doesn't supercede the business owner's own civil liberty and right. How is not wanting to compromise their values equate to utilizing their business as "weapons"? Businesses are not obligated to serve and customers have the right go elsewhere. Discrimination would ultimately hurt the business by limiting their market so it's not something government should or need to intervene in.

You may want to brush up on your history, because religion absolutely was used as a justification for discrimination against African Americans.

Bob Jones University (a non-denominational Protestant college) used to deny admission to all black students, and when they finally did let them in, for the first four years they only allowed "married" blacks for fear of them dating white women at the college.

Theodore Bilbo was a Mississippi senator (and KKK member) who ran on a platform of "purity of the white race being a gift of god" and wrote a book titled "Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization".

There are many other examples, but discrimination is discrimination. Pretty much the one thing that all forms of discrimination have in common is that each one tries to justify why -this- form of discrimination is actually justified even if those others aren't for ________ reason, but it's always the same basic rhetoric.

And no, this isn't a precedent of "artists not being allowed to create what they want". The bakery isn't being sued for refusing to make a design, they are being sued for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding, which is discriminatory and illegal. In what looks like a similar case on the surface, another Colorado baker was sued by a customer for religious discrimination when the Christian run bakery refused to write "god hates gays" on a cake. They lost, because the bakery didn't refuse them service because of who they were, they refused to write discriminatory messages on the cakes at the customer's request. You might not get the difference, but I think most people (and those who make the laws) do.

http://legacy.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/04/03/state-finds-no-discrimination-after-shop-refuses-anti-gay-cake/25268515/

-Byshop

This is a hard call. Government has no right to interfere in private business, but in this case doing nothing could have major societal implications for individuals. Just like taxes, I consider this to be a necessary evil.

Now, as I understand it, the artist had no problem with the motif but rather with the costumers themselves. If the couple had asked the baker to create a specific gay friendly motif, then the baker should have all the rights in the world to deny it. But if this wasn't the case then your analogy doesn't hold up.

Well technically he was right. Selling private property is not public service.

It's odd how America has a holiday named after Martin Luther King Jr yet so many Americans want to repeal the laws he died to have put in place.

Gay marriage is already accepted by the majority of the people

59% approve

39% disagree

the rest no opinion


http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

All I can say every time gay marriage was put up for a vote it loses doesn't matter what some pool says.

lol MN rejected our anti-gay marriage vote in 2012 then replaced our state senate with people who pushed through an amendment legalizing gay marriage.

So no, bigots resoundingly lost that year. But keep moving those goalposts.

In my opinion, they should've just walked out and took their business somewhere else. I don't see why they had to sue the business over it, you could've just never go there again and make sure people knew about your past experience there.

@JimB: the world moves on.

You mean like that time the Supreme Court voted?

world's moving on dude, you're lagging behind.

People of a state are not a race. Racism is based upon a reasoning that states people of different races are inferior due to biological reasons. Being from one state or another does not change one's genes, and Your reasoning has no merit.

@magicalclick: I wish there were more gay people like you..... I like you a lot in a non-sexual way :P

The couple should have just left and went somewhere else. Word of mouth would have been sufficient. The business may have suffered, went under, or not affected at all. Life goes on.

cake artist

yeah, good one ^^

Why do people even buy the "I'm religious" excuse? The government should make a separate clause for religious businesses requiring a customer questionnaire. Ask questions like: "Have ever worked on a Saturday?" or "Have you ever committed adultery"? or "Have you ever taken the lord's name in vain?", and then refuse service. See how many customers they have left if they are so committed to theocratic lunacy.