Gender/Transgender In The Military & In General

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting thoughts  BRB ... I'm going to have to think further.

So would a man marrying another man be a danger to society?  Or potentially harm one of those men?  Both the above decisions involve issues that already have guidelines assigned (legal driving age, gun purchase regulations) in order for the business owners to make the call.  To my knowledge no such thing exists with baked goods.  (though I wish that someone would decide I'm too pudgy for more cake and stop selling me cupcakes).

The examples I gave were examples where a business owner didn't sell something they normally sell because they didn't feel comfortable going through with the transaction.  They legally were allowed to sell the product, but didn't personally feel right about it.

 

[NUance]

That's always kind of been my understanding as well. If you offer a public service (like cakes), you're liable to get into trouble if you discriminate against customers on the basis of sexuality, gender or race. The reasons you discriminate are not really all that important.

Apparently the court disagreed. But at least it was a narrow ruling, so it hopefully shouldn't change all that much. It certainly won't be as damaging as, say, DC vs. Heller or Citizens United.

I suspect if they had just been selling cakes--like, say, pre-made cakes at the HyVee bakery--the decision would have been different.  But the court viewed the wedding cake as a work of art and the bakers as artisans.  The court declined to force an artisan to create a message and artwork contrary to their religious beliefs. 

 

[RedDenver]

I had a friend who wanted to buy his little son a motor cycle.  The dealer told him that he wouldn't sell him a motor cycle for the kid because he thought he was too young and would get hurt.

I remember after the Las Vegas shooting, they interviewed a gun shop owner in Vegas.  He said that he does back ground checks and also wouldn't sell a gun to someone if he has a feeling the person is not responsible or has intentions of doing harm with the gun.

So....should all decisions like this be illegal as a judgement call when selling something to the public?

Both of those are decisions based on safety not on the race, gender, beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. of the customer.

The first example is simply a matter of safety related to the age of the kid for a motor cycle, and I don't have an issue with that or think it's discriminatory in any way. (And there's a long legal history of not allowing all rights to minors.)

The second example is trickier because it's based on "has a feeling the person is not responsible or has intentions of doing harm". I'm in favor of smarter gun control in our country, so some laws that would govern how to handle cases like this would be useful. But since we don't have that, I don't think the gun store owner should be able to discriminate (i.e. the "feeling" couldn't just be race, gender, etc.). It's a gray area that the courts would have to decide.

When we get into gray areas of "judgement calls" that's what the court system was designed for.

 

[RedDenver]

I suspect if they had just been selling cakes--like, say, pre-made cakes at the HyVee bakery--the decision would have been different.  But the court viewed the wedding cake as a work of art and the bakers as artisans.  The court declined to force an artisan to create a message and artwork contrary to their religious beliefs.   

That's an interesting distinction I hadn't considered. But I don't think being an "artist" should really matter as a welder, programmer, or grocery bagger are all artists in their own right.

 

[NUance]

I suspect if they had just been selling cakes--like, say, pre-made cakes at the HyVee bakery--the decision would have been different.  But the court viewed the wedding cake as a work of art and the bakers as artisans.  The court declined to force an artisan to create a message and artwork contrary to their religious beliefs. 

That's an interesting distinction I hadn't considered. But I don't think being an "artist" should really matter as a welder, programmer, or grocery bagger are all artists in their own right.

A welder is an artist?  That's a bit of a stretch now, isn't it?  A grocery bagger?  That's just silly. 

And it's not my distinction.  That's the court's rationale.  LINK  

As for forcing artists to make creations, if a portrait painter offered a service of painting portraits from photographs, would it be okay for someone to insist that she paint a beautiful, full sized portrait of Adolf Hitler?  What if the painter was Jewish and her parents had been put to death at Dachau?  Would you still insist that she put her heart into creating that beautiful, full sized Adolf Hitler portrait?  

 

[knapplc]

It is heartening to me that, reading through all the replies, I think everyone pretty much "gets" this stuff.  We have different angles on it, but this little slice of society seems to understand the basics.  You guys cheer me up.

 

[Waldo]

Kinda does. See:  Title II of the Civil Rights Act (1964)

That act is ambiguous since they used the word certain instead of all. While I agree that all businesses should not discriminate, you are taking away 1st amendment rights from private ownership. 

 

[Mierin]

As for forcing artists to make creations, if a portrait painter offered a service of painting portraits from photographs, would it be okay for someone to insist that she paint a beautiful, full sized portrait of Adolf Hitler?  What if the painter was Jewish and her parents had been put to death at Dachau?  Would you still insist that she put her heart into creating that beautiful, full sized Adolf Hitler portrait?  

Do you know what the cake was supposed to look like? Because if it was just a normal wedding cake that looks similar regardless of who's getting married, your example doesn't apply. If it had a couple gay guys or gay gals kissing, then maybe the example applies. If it was just a normal cake, then they were denied solely for being gay, not for asking for a "gay cake." And if it was just a normal cake, the example would be that a German asked for a portrait of his dad or maybe a landscape, unrelated to Nazis, to be painted.

 

[teachercd]

I am not a business owner but if I was I would refuse service/goods to zero people...because I want everyones money...so that my business can do better and I can have more.

 

[Landlord]

But the court viewed the wedding cake as a work of art and the bakers as artisans.  The court declined to force an artisan to create a message and artwork contrary to their religious beliefs.   

With where I'm at right now, this rationale is pretty hard for me to argue with personally, despite a lot of alarm bells in my head that I feel I maybe shouldn't agree with it? IDK, I'm kind of stuck in the middle.

Do you know what the cake was supposed to look like? Because if it was just a normal wedding cake that looks similar regardless of who's getting married, your example doesn't apply. If it had a couple gay guys or gay gals kissing, then maybe the example applies. If it was just a normal cake, then they were denied solely for being gay, not for asking for a "gay cake." And if it was just a normal cake, the example would be that a German asked for a portrait of his dad or maybe a landscape, unrelated to Nazis, to be painted.

I don't know what it was supposed to look like, but maybe a better hypothetical would be like... a Germany history celebration gala asking a Jewish baker to make them a generic looking cake to celebrate an occasion that she had deep seated moral troubles with.

In this specific scenario, it doesn't seem that the baker is a mean-spirited bigot, but someone led by earnest, if mistaken, personal beliefs, unwittingly caught up in something they never signed up for. What seems like more of an offense is the assault on the baker by the couple and subsequent lawsuits/civil liberties organizations/etc. Like, there are plenty of people who would be happy to make you a wedding cake as a gay couple. To take one person who refruses to to court, trying to *compel* and *MAKE* them seems like an insane response.

 

[RedDenver]

A welder is an artist?  That's a bit of a stretch now, isn't it?  A grocery bagger?  That's just silly. 

And it's not my distinction.  That's the court's rationale.  LINK  

Why can't someone claim that their work is an art form? I was once a grocery bagger, and I was awesome at it and it was definitely the work of an artist. Can I now not bag groceries for bakers because I have religious beliefs that they are all evil and fake artists? 

I understand it's the court's rationale, which I think is silly and wrong. I'm pointing out that claiming something is "art" is a definition without boundaries.

As for forcing artists to make creations, if a portrait painter offered a service of painting portraits from photographs, would it be okay for someone to insist that she paint a beautiful, full sized portrait of Adolf Hitler?  What if the painter was Jewish and her parents had been put to death at Dachau?  Would you still insist that she put her heart into creating that beautiful, full sized Adolf Hitler portrait?  

Once again, we have courts to look at gray areas in the law so we can navigate through different scenarios without having to always paint with the same brush (pun intended). In this example, forcing them to paint Hitler is anti-Semitism at best, so I wouldn't force them to paint that.

As @Moiraine pointed out, there's a huge difference between simply making a cake and having to make images of gay couples kissing.

At the end of the day, this ruling by itself is pretty meaningless since a gay couple can just go buy a wedding cake with a friend of the opposite gender and the baker is none-the-wiser. But why even force them into that lie? It's stupid and discriminatory. My concern is that this case doesn't stay narrowly applied but instead engenders more discriminatory rulings.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

It is heartening to me that, reading through all the replies, I think everyone pretty much "gets" this stuff.  We have different angles on it, but this little slice of society seems to understand the basics.  You guys cheer me up.

Agree.

I know for Chimigangas change will always be too slow and the current climate is a bit more chilling, but for someone of my era it feels like the empathy and understanding -- while long overdue -- is moving pretty fast. 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Always been a bit torn on the subject myself.

I picture the baker refusing to bake a "Make America Great Again" cake and know that baker would be saluted for taking a personal stand by many of the people disheartened by this ruling. 

It's an odd arena for government ruling and enforcement. The court of public opinion has generally done a better job in recent years. If you believe your private business is the place to make a potentially public stand, you take your consequences on the free market. You are free to be the racist tv celebrity or the homophobic baker, and the consequences are generally more harsh than whatever fine the government would enact, an intervention that tends to feed the paranoia and martyrdom of the conservative right. 

Every day,  racists and homophobes avoid serving people they don't like, using subtle and less-than-subtle techniques that would skirt legal jurisdiction. If people are allowed to declare their personal prejudice, at least we know who they are. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Always been a bit torn on the subject myself.

I picture the baker refusing to bake a "Make America Great Again" cake and know that baker would be saluted for taking a personal stand by many of the people disheartened by this ruling. 

It's an odd arena for government ruling and enforcement. The court of public opinion has generally done a better job in recent years. If you believe your private business is the place to make a potentially public stand, you take your consequences on the free market. You are free to be the racist tv celebrity or the homophobic baker, and the consequences are generally more harsh than whatever fine the government would enact, an intervention that tends to feed the paranoia and martyrdom of the conservative right. 

Every day,  racists and homophobes avoid serving people they don't like, using subtle and less-than-subtle techniques that would skirt legal jurisdiction. If people are allowed to declare their personal prejudice, at least we know who they are. 

Good points.

Would people's attitude on this ruling change if the case was based on a Neo-Nazi walking into a Starbucks with swastikas on his arm and they refuse to serve him? 

 

[Landlord]

Why can't someone claim that their work is an art form? I was once a grocery bagger, and I was awesome at it and it was definitely the work of an artist. Can I now not bag groceries for bakers because I have religious beliefs that they are all evil and fake artists?

I think a pretty big distinction in this scenario is art that functions towards commission. Bagging groceries as a grocery bagger by title isn't the same thing - now if you were an artisanal bagger who worked for yourself you could make a different argument for it being

But why even force them into that lie?

Nobody is being forced.