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

The thread is abould what should be, not what you can get away with. You're talking about the letter of the law. Homosexuals are only just becoming a protected class. Black people have only been a protected class for a generation or so. Women have only ben a protected class for a few generations."Human rights" suggests to me that humans should be a protected class. Can you refuse them medical treatment? Can you refuse to sell them food? Can you refuse to educate their children?I hope not.

You should be able to not work when you don't want to. The barber is a human too. If he doesn't fell like cutting hair at the moment, then we shouldn't force him to.

You can't just decide to not show up for work. That's grounds for dismissal. Firing an employee who doesn't meet the standard is equivalent to revoking the license of a business that doesn't meet the standard. We're not forcing him to be a barber at all but if he wants to be a licensed barber he has to meet the licensing standards.

Not when you own the company. We don't force bakers to make cakes and we don't force barbers to cut hair.They can not-make cakes and not-cut hair all they want. What they cannot do is discriminate against a protected class of people. What standards?There's a barber shop down the street from my house that I cannot go to. They close before I get off work and they aren't open on the weekends.There's no standard that forces them to operate their business at more convenient hours. There's nothing we can do to make them available to cut my hair. They don't have to if they don't want to.

Health codes. Human rights codes.

Are you talking about the letter of the law now?You can always refuse to do your services. Nobody can make you run your business.The problem isn't that you're 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.

quote:

---

Ontario's Human Rights Code, the first in Canada, was enacted in 1962.

​

The Code prohibits actions that discriminate against people based on a protected ground in a protected social area.

---

So because it would of course be gays who would be having a gay wedding I'm therefore discriminating against gays by refusing to make them a wedding cake although I would not deny them any other baked goods in the shop and would happily make them a special-order birthday cake if they wanted it.OK. Here's another test case. I don't know if there are still militant black groups around that advocate doing away with white people as there were in the sixties, but say there are and a couple of black men come into my bakery wanting to order a special cake that says "Off Whitey" on it. Now, it is most likely only blacks who would order such a cake so if I refuse to fill that order I am discriminating against blacks, who are a protected class, even though, again, I'd sell them anything else in the bakery and happily make a special-order cake that I didn't consider offensive?ABE: Let's say they want a chocolate cake shaped like a clenched fist./ABEWhat if they went into a bakery owned by black people and they refused to make such a cake because they disapprove of the message?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No. While standards are enforced according to the letter of th law, good citizens should do what's right without being forced - and most of them do. Most businesses will serve people they don't like. Refusal of serice should be for good reason, not just because somebody isn't an official member of the "protected".

That is correct. Consider the following:A mixed-race couple enters your bakery. As the proprietor, you are against mixed-race marriages. You refuse to bake them a cake for their mixed-race marriage but indicate to them they are welcome to buy other baked goods.Discrimination or not? I think most would agree that this would be classified as discrimination. You are refusing a service to individuals that you would otherwise provide in another context. This was discussed earlier. You are actually free to refuse in this case because the cake contains a phrase you consider to be derogatory, and you can make the refusal on those grounds. This is not discrimination against any class of individual in that context, but a refusal of service based on the symbolism or imagery being asked for. It is the functional equivalent of refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. In this circumstance, you are refusing in totality; i.e. if a bunch of crazy white frat boys wanted a cake that said 'Off Whitey' on it, as some kind of sick joke, you could ALSO refuse that service.The crux of the argument is the manner in which the service is distributed. Unless there are already laws in place to dictate otherwise, you cannot and should not refuse service to one set of individuals that you would otherwise provide to another set of individuals.Make sense now?

So in other words although I would refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding this is NOT a mere refusal of a service although it is the event itself I'm objecting to and not the persons.In other words there is no way any of you here are going to let me refuse service on the basis of what God says. I hope the courts aren't consistently with such a tyrannical intolerance of my religious beliefs, but if they are then Christians are going to refuse to obey such laws and be denied our religious freedoms by a tyrannical fascist state that you all support.

Actually, that is BS. It IS the persons you are objecting to and their lifestyle because your frame of reference is their sexual orientation. That is discrimination, pure and simple. And here comes the martyr syndrome again.No Faith, you cannot leverage religious beliefs as a grounds for refusing to cater to and function in our secular society. Pure and simple. You are beholden to the same laws that prevent Muslims from not hiring women or from southern white land owners who say they can keep slaves because god says it's fine in copious places in your Bible. Or for that matter, from stoning gays for laying together. You know, doing what your 'God's Law' says you should do.Incidentally, your best frame of reference for a 'Tyrannical Fascist State' would be Christian Germany of the 1930s and 1940s. Food for thought....

Righto, that's what the fascist state says. Out with religious freedoms.No, Germany was not Christian, the churches had been compromised by the liberalism of the 19th century, Hitler was a Catholic and the Pope was behind him and engineered the escape of thousands of Nazi war criminals after the war. There were very few true Christians, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who stood against Hitler, and Bonhoeffer was executed for his part in the attempt to assassinate Hitler.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is what the SECULAR state says. The ultra-theocratic religious state that you want to live in would adhere to god's law in totality and have the homosexuals killed. Now wouldn't it?Leviticus 20:13

quote:

---

If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

---

Ahhhh, what a panacea that world would be.On the upside, if we were strict adherents to 'god's law' we could also invoke the following:Timothy 2:12

quote:

---

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

---

At least, in that case, we would not have to deal with your infernal babble on a daily basis. There is no Scotsman like a TRUE Scotsman!Alex, I would like Logical Fallacies for $400 please.

Fascism is contrary to Christianity, though quite in keeping with Catholicism, which was behind the Holocaust as a version of the Inquisition, which was still being covertly practiced in the 19th century (Garibaldi exposed it in the dungeons of Rome) and may still be covertly practiced in Catholic countries, or who knows, maybe even in the dungeons beneath Jesuit colleges. It's not impossibleWe are not a theocracy so we don't execute sinners, Christ came to save the lost, not condemn them. Not making a wedding cake is hardly executing anyone, and it could serve as a needed reminder that they are in sin which could lead them to salvation from eternal punishment.And Paul was talking about women in the church assembly, not out here in pagan neverland.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think it is worth mentioning that a heterosexual couple can have quite a gay wedding while a gay couple can have a very somber wedding. Just sayin'. Exactly.