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

Being racist, though, is not a protected class. And that may indeed allow for a legal justification.Also, I think there is a realistic difference between baking a random cake for people you dislike and writing something on the cake with which you disagree.Should a bakery open to the public be allowed to deny baking a cake for a gay couple? Probably not. Should they be allowed to refuse to write on the cake "Congratulations Nathan and Mark"? That's part of the grey area. I have to admit I am not fully decided on that. And part of it has to do with the comparison between people who might refuse to do it on grounds that we would find culturally acceptable and whether this indicates that perhaps the matter boils down to forcing morality onto others by outlawing things we find morally offensive.Again, we are legally allowed to do such a thing, but should we? Is there a difference between shoving anti-gay morality down someone's throat and shoving anti-racism morality down someone's throat? I can't say "yes" for sure, and so I am very hesitant to start telling people what kind of speech they can and cannot refuse to participate in.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I highly doubt that their would be any legal repercussions from such a refusal to bake a cake inciting racial hatred. Such refusal would not be a discrimination issue; there is no law against personal viewpoint discrimination, and the refusal is not from the government so it is not even a free speech issue. Perhaps The KKK will likely have to bake their own cake.It seems to me that what you are insisting on are rights that don't actually exist.A personal refusal to serve a gentleman based on his political persuasion, for example, is not actionable discrimination, and it is not even censorship that is prohibited by the first amendment. Accordingly such a refusal would not violate any law. What does "support" mean here? I would support not arresting the speaker and I would not call on the government to intervene, but I would not provide the speaker any assistance in delivering his message. Are you saying that you would do more than that?

As I said, were I a baker I would write that on a cake I sold them, were I a printer I would print a banner for them to display, were I the owner of a meeting hall I would rent the space to hold a rally.I really believe that it is the speech I very most disagree with that I must allow.

By printing the banner, you are not just allowing it, you're enabling it.

I am thinking more like a guy comes in and says "Hey, we need a cake for our KKK meeting to celebrate 50 years of keeping this country pure of undesirables." I would be inclined to not want to provide that service. It would not be a cause that I would want to endorse in any way. Now of course, if the guy just came in and wanted a cake, what grounds would there be to refuse? I am just not sure how baking a cake for a gay wedding is significantly different given that a person does not want to endorse such an activity.What if they asked to have "God endorses this wedding" imprinted on the cake? Would that go to far?Personally, I am not really in favor of gay marriage, but I don't think I would refuse to bake a wedding cake or in any way treat them as undesirables. But, I would also not want to give the impression that I endorse (nor condemn) such a wedding . So I don't know... ???Thank God I don't bake cakes!!!!HBD

And what is wrong with enabling speech I disagree with? What do you think "Protect Free Speech" means? You do not protect something by doing nothing.

You're kidding, right?You feel the need to actually *help* the people that want to say these disgusting things?Their right is to say it, your right is to ignore it. There is no requirement to aid and abet them in order for their rights to exist.

"I don't want to", "I don't feel up to it", "I don't have the time", "I just ran out of flour".There's countless ways to refuse service to people.The problem come into play when you clarify your refusal by basing it against a protected class."I don't want to, because you're black."These Christians who don't want to provide a service to gays can easily not do it and get away with it, but instead the are loudly proclaiming that its the gayness that's the reason they don't want to.It can't just be the performing of the service that they object to, because they could easily get a way with that. That they're making this out to be some sort of stand against something shows that there's a lot more to it than the performing of the service.

Nope, certainly not kidding.If my business is printing then yes, it is my duty to print stuff I disagree with.If I am a baker then it is my duty to bake cakes for events I disagree with.If I own a meeting hall then it is my duty to rent to folk holding a rally I disagree with.It is the speech I most disagree with that I must protect.The limit, as I said back in Message 374 is with speech that incites illegal activity or violence.

quote:

---

I would support someones right to incite racial hatred but admit that there are very fuzzy limits. For example I would support someone saying "All gays should die" but if it said "Go out and kill gays" then I would be less sure of my position. In the latter case I imagine that consideration would have to be given to just how effective the likelihood of actual action based on the speech would be. The default position for me would be to protect the speech unless there was clear and present danger of action based on the speech.

---

So, putting aside any issue of legality, if asked to print a banner that says 'Kill all the [insert whatever minority they hate]" you'd do it - in order to protect their rights to say it? You'd actually help them to promulgate their hate message? Even though you don't have to?That's just bizarre. And also morally wrong.

What's morally wrong is being in a position of power or advantage and using it to facilitate the silencing of people/groups with whom you disagree.

Nothing. You need to reread what I said.

Did you actually read what I have written?from the very message to which you are replying: If they said "All [insert a group] should die" then I would definitely protect and support their right to say that under the conditions I have presented; if a printer it would be my duty to print the banner, if a baker to bake and decorate the cake, if an owner of a meeting hall to rent them the space for a rally.Yes, hate speech is near the top of the list of speech I must work to protect. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I wasn't asking a question.

Allowing simply means letting people alone. You are claiming an obligation to do more than just allow but to actually assist in propagating an odious message.Absent coercion, I would never make a 'kill all homos' cake, and I would very likely express displeasure regarding a bakery that did such work. I assume you would support my right express that position by printing up my banner in your print shop so that I can picket your bakery.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.