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

None, "Jerks" is not a protected class of people.

Mod specifically addressed your point when he explained that you are being just as discriminatory as denying your service to "people wearing yarmulkes", which has been ruled as being discriminatory against Jews.

Mod's point never made any sense to me and it still doesn't, and I've answered it already. Again, I'm never talking about denying service to any persons at all, wearing yarmulkes or not, only specifically denying a specific service. And if a person came in wearing a yarmulke and wanted to order a wedding cake for the gay wedding of a couple of friends of his I'd have to turn him down too. I might try to interest him in a cupcake though.

Talk about impossible to get across... Right, all you'd have to say is that your bakery doesn't provide cakes that have people wearing yarmulkes. And there you go: you're not, according to your view, denying anyone services. You're just not making a particular kind of cake.But this has been ruled to being discrimination.Just like you not making a "gay cake" is also discrimination.Its not that your point isn't being understood, its just that it is wrong.

quote:

---

Mod's point never made any sense to me and it still doesn't, and I've answered it already. Again, I'm never talking about denying service to any persons at all, wearing yarmulkes or not, only specifically denying a specific service

---

That's because you haven't read the court decisions. Acquainting yourself with the relevant facts is always a good idea.Also I must add that insisting that the service is "providing a wedding cake to a gay wedding" rather than simply "providing a wedding cake" is rather pushing things. But if the service is just "providing a wedding cake" there really doesn't seem any question that the baker is engaging in discrimination, is there ?Anyway, a gay getting married will naturally be having a gay wedding - in fact only gays will be having gay weddings, just like only Jews will be wearing yarmulkes. Therefore there is no nice clean divide between the service - or at least your idea of the service - and the person. Refusing to provide wedding cakes for gay weddings is discrimination against gays for being gay. Which isn't allowed.

The law is nuts if that's what it says.

Now the yarmulke is on the cake rather than the person? Curiouser and curiouser.

quote:

---

The law is nuts if that's what it says.

---

It is entirely sensible to point out that there is no neat distinction between "having a gay wedding" and "being gay".It is entirely sensible for a law to avoid providing convenient loopholes that would make it difficult to enforce, or worse, effectively nullify it.That's why the segregationists weren't allowed to appeal to their belief that segregation was God's law when they wanted to discriminate against Blacks. Do you say that that was wrong ?

The Bible does not support discrimination against blacks, and as soon as the law went against it the claim was dropped because it was obviously bogus.. However the Bible does require that I refuse to do anything to acknowledge or validate a gay wedding and this isn't going to change no matter what the law says..

quote:

---

The Bible does not support discrimination against blacks, and as soon as the law went against it the claim was dropped because it was obviously bogus.

---

It wasn't obviously bogus to Buzsaw who appealed to the idea on this forum. Bob Jones University infamously had a ban on inter-racial dating up until the year 2000.But, more to the point, are you really asking the courts to judge the truth of religious belief ? To say that the segregationists beliefs are wrong and therefore invalid, no matter how deeply held that they might be ?One of the basic points underlying freedom of religion is that the law is to regulate behaviour not belief. To allow behaviour considered unacceptable because of some beliefs and not others seems to me to step over that line.

quote:

---

However the Bible does require that I refuse to do anything to acknowledge or validate a gay wedding and this isn't going to change no matter what the law says..

---

Maybe you should point us to the place where the Bible says that, then. It's very odd that you haven't, and have even pointed to a place which says you should obey the secular law instead. If you're correct.

The issue isn't whether or not the barber can take offense; it's whether or not he can legitimately refuse service based on that offense. Can he refuse sevice to a racist? Can he refuse service to somebody who tells bad jokes? If "I take offense" is an excuse, there's really nobody you can't refuse service to.

Who's behaving badly? You're talking about throwing somebody out for having behaved badly in the past - and there was nothing about his "bad behaviour" that was legally actionable either. The way I see it, it suggests that you don't think much of your wife. Who defends her when you're not around? You could charge him with theft but you couldn't legitimately refuse service to a thief. The customer could make a complaint to whomever handles such complaints in your jurisdiction. You could act as a witness in his behalf but you couldn't refuse service to a racist.Edited by ringo, : Acidentally omitted myself.

What if the wedding dress was a cotton-polyester blend? What if they were serving shrimp cocktail at the reception? Would you be able to "validate" that wedding?

How is this so hard for you to understand?Let's say that it is against someone's religion to promote a Jewish wedding and that they believe that they cannot make a cake for a Jewish wedding. So, to avoid discriminating against Jews directly, they come up with the idea that their business does not provide the service of making cakes that involve yarmulkes.You think that is not discriminatory because its not that they are denying any services to Jews, they just don't provide services that involve yarmulkes. Well, it turns out that the courts have ruled on this and found that denying a service that involves yarmulkes actually is discriminatory against Jews.And that makes sense, because who else wears yarmulkes besides Jews? Not providing services that involve yarmulkes is, in effect, not providing services to Jews.In the same way, your idea that the business just does not provide the service of make gay wedding cakes is actually discriminatory against gays.

You can always refuse to do your services. Nobody can make you run your business.You can easily get away with it: "Oh, I have a headache and don't feel like cutting hair right now." - "You know what? My scissors just went dull, I'm sorry but I can't cut your hair." - even: "I don't like the way you treated my wife, I'm not cutting your hair."The problem isn't that your not performing the service that you offer. The problem arises when you refuse to perform your service based on discrimination against a protected class of people.The baker could have easily gotten away with it, "Shit, we just ran out of flour, sorry but we can't make you a cake", but no, they didn't want to do that. They had to tell the customer that they refuse to make cakes for gay people. That is when it becomes a problem.ABE: "Racists" is not a protected class of people. You can refuse service to them.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : ABE