Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

That depends on the specifics.If the bigots are in The International Church Of the Holy Bigoted Brethren then, though I may oppose their philosophy, I have no standing to lodge any kind of effective opposition, like maybe not join their church? Yeah, that'l hurt 'em.But, open bigotry in the marketplace is something different. There I can directly protest with my wallet, pickets and, if I'm the target of their ire, lawsuits.Your snare hasn't caught me so you have broadened the trap area in hopes that someone will drop. You have something specific in mind that you do not want to just bring open, you want to spring it on us.Ok, I'm game. You're going to try and bite me someplace where I'd rather not be bitten but, coming from you, this may actually be enlightening and fun.Hey, Coyote? Yes.

To close a business can be quite difficult financially and emotionaly. I can imagine being forced to close a business is that much more difficult. Maybe there is something the community can do to help speed and ease the process. Maybe some christian newspapers and local christian advertising flyers can give price breaks for advertising christian businesses closing because of their gay bias. Maybe there could be community-based charity groups that could organize in-store equipment and asset sales for a better price than waiting to put everything on lower-biding auctions.Any help the community can give to speed the christians out of the public business sector would be most beneficial to society in both the near and long terms. Christians could be out of their businesses with some residual assets rather than being on the public welfare rolls and the next group the christians decide to be bigoted toward wouldn't have to suffer the economic hardship of being refused common business dealings. It could be a win-win. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Maybe later. Right now the christians are the persecution target of choice. There are so many of them. And all that moaning and groaning and gnashing of teeth you hear when you crush them is just so satisfying.

Note this situation is in the UK.I think, for the US, it goes too far. Making/not making a generic cake for a gay wedding is one thing. Being forced to make a statement on a cake is something different.A standard generic wedding cake takes no political stand on anything. To refuse to provide your usual non-political product to someone because of their (insert bias) is bigotry and should have no place in the marketplace. But having government regulations that force a baker to make a political statement on their cake against their belief and against their will should be a violation of the 1st Amendment and such a ruling by a court not allowed.I think you Brits should be quite upset over this ruling. Your free speech rights just took a big hit at the hands of your government.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Here, we're not so cavalier with our Free Speech rights. There are, of course, restrictions, but those restrictions are limited to speech meant to incite imminent violence. Saving someone emotional distress is not one of the restrictions to free speech we allow. Apparently, you allow such restrictions.I am assuming here that the baker's refusal was based upon what the requested art expressed, not a general refusal to do business.This baker was not inciting any violence by their refusal to so decorate a cake. The baker was not assaulting or being harassing in any manner. The baker was taking no overt actions whatsoever except to refuse to create art the baker found personally offensive.Yet, your government stepped in and said that this baker can be forced to speak in this offensive manner. Writ large, your government can compel you to speak against your conscience giving you no license to refuse. Our governments cannot.You may see some naughtiness here and there as tarnish on the halo of Free Speech. We, here, see that as the very luster that makes this right so precious. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Interesting.The owner cannot be compelled to provide the banner, of course. But, if the hotel, as part of its business, rents its conference room to community organizations, then refusing to do so because the organization represents blacks is, imho, practicing illegal discrimination. If it could be shown that this refusal was based even partially upon the intent to discriminate by race then, again my opinion, I think the courts in this country would have the owner stripped naked, publicly flogged, then have a big "B" for bigot branded into his forehead.The people of the United States should be thankful I am not Emperor. The difference here to the UK baker example is that the hotel is refusing to extend its usual and customary business. The UK baker example included the creation of separate and unique artwork (speech) that was offensive to the baker.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I think we both agree that refusal to provide the customary and usual services offered to all other comers based on ones personal dislike of (insert bias) is unacceptable.We will disagree on whether refusing to create offensive speech, while offering to provide less offensive speech for the same purpose, is equally unacceptable.It is indeed a balancing act.What is more important, the alienation of a class of people seeking customized service or denying a power to government to intrude and force offensive speech?Cultures differ.BTW, I would extend, and I think US courts would extend, the same right to refuse making offensive speech to sky writers, sign makers, graphics designers and artists of imagery of all sorts in all mediums.If a customer wants a pair of "Entrance" and "Exit" signs special made you have no right to refuse based on who/what the customer is. If the same customer wants "No Niggers" signs special made ... that is considerably different regardless of who/what the customer is. It should be up to the proprietor and his conscience, not the force of government, whether to accept that business or not.Edited by AZPaul3, : Emotional comfort too soft. Alienation is better term.

Not weird at all. A cultural difference.This was fascinating. I'd never delved so deep into UK case law. Thank you for this.One provision in UK case law I recognized fully was this:Pg 34:

quote:

---

...it is important to realize that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respected the religion, can never of itself immunize the believer from the reach of the secular law.

---

I can see clearly where Judge Brownlie felt the ruling given was appropriate considering the secular law in force. A right and proper decision from the perspective of judicial temperment in the UK.The difference here in the US is a difference in secular law: The 1st Amendment.SCOTUS has always safeguarded the sanctity of the Free Speech provision even in the face of the most blatant bias. Government has no power to curtail political speech and can not compel speech against conscience. This case would not turn on a religious right in the US, as in the UK, but on a Free Speech right.Again, this is limited to a personal objection to having to make specific speech whether that be through icing on a cake or a printed sign; through any voice or imagery meant to convey a message. A free speech defense is not available for a bigoted action except as pertains to the making/refuse making of political statements."I'll bake you the cake but it won't have a swastika on it," is defensible but, "Git outa my store, faggot," is not.Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity? Let's hope.

You're right. Bad example. I wouldn't be too sure of that. The laws say, if you bake wedding cakes you cannot refuse to make such a cake just because the couple is gay. Wedding toppers have not been in contention as far as I can determine. It's been the outright refusal to take the order, to do business that has been at issue. In both the Colorado and the Oregon cases I do not find any reference to cake toppers. Just the flat refusal to do business.To my mind a two groom topper (Colorado) or a two bride topper (Oregon) are indeed symbols conveying meaning and are thus speech.When we hear in the news a bakery has refused to sell a "Gay Wedding Cake" are we in fact talking about a 2 groom topper or just a wedding cake (topper undisclosed). The media likes the visage of the two black-tux'ed grooms on a cake when hyping their stories but as far as I can tell no topper even enters into the complaints.So if a baker agreed to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple but refused to provide a 2 groom topper or only to provide the usual bride-groom topper, is this actionable under commercial anti-discrimination laws?I donno. A smart baker intent on holding to her conscience would maybe up-charge the price, provide two bride-groom sets and let the customer pick and choose to their hearts content.As for the additional verbiage on the wedding cake, that may indeed cross the line and, my opinion, the courts would not force the baker to speak such words especially since they are not usual or customary on a cake.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

To get a lawyer to smile for a photo tell him to say "fees".

Giving it some second thought the courts may see the speech issue involved in the cake topper as being so trivial to the overall conduct of the business transaction, which the state has a compelling interest to foster, they may find requiring such a decoration be provided in the customary course of the business as insufficient imposition on the conscience to warrant protection.Who knows? Wait and see.

Like the mule from Missouri:Show me any instance where a christian, or anyone else for that matter, was arrested for speaking their religious opinion.Show me any law, bill, pending or submitted, in Congress or any legislature, that criminalizes a christian, or anyone else, for speaking their religious opinion.I'll show you plenty of laws, nationally and from every state in the Union, that protect christians, and everyone else, in speaking their religious opinions.As for this persecution of christians for their bigoted actions, I'll show you where, how and why those actions are barred to everyone, christian, jew, moslim, gay, liberal, atheist, everyone.Show me one instance of this persecution of christians, Faith. The only time you go to jail is when you break the law. And that law applies to everyone not just christians.Show me this persecution, Faith.

"criminalizes a Bible teaching"?What law would that be? A law that allowed gays to marry? How does that criminalize your bible? How does that criminalize you?I think because of your assumed christian privilege you think that ignoring you and your bible's bigotry that you and your bigoted bible have somehow been named as criminal.You and your bible are not criminal, Faith, just ignored.When you take bigoted actions like discriminating in providing service in the public marketplace then that action is criminal. The criminal is the bigot doing the actual harmful bigotry, not your bible.Guess what? Your fear-mongering bigoted priests are not going to be arrested for preaching fear-mongering bigoted things. That is allowed in this country.You can continue to read your bible, Faith. You and yours can continue to preach from it, pray to it, wave signs with passages from it all you want. Nothing criminal there. Just like with your bible's bigotry against gays, the rest of the public will just ignore its other evil rantings.No arrest, no jail, no lions.

You mean if huge numbers of you "self-styled 'Bible believers'" viciously discriminate against fellow human beings like not serving them in your businesses just like you once didn't want to serve blacks? You mean if huge numbers of you "self-styled 'Bible believers'" become criminals by your own deliberate actions?Well then, you're right. We will have no second thoughts. We will take the position that you deserve it since you deliberately acted against the law and did it to yourselves.The more of you that go bust and close up business the more room in the marketplace there will be for un-hate-filled christians and others to open businesses in your place.

Faith, really now. To criminalize someone is to punish them for active abuse of another human being. If you and your fellow biblicans insist on abusing the rights of US citizens then I will not shed a tear as you march into prison by the thousands.I think you overestimate the strength of this self-imposed christian persecution wish. You all can cry a good one in your rantings but when it comes to the nut cutting I'll bet most of your zealous bigots will fold in just like the old southern whites.