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

We can agree on that at least. Morality is central to the issue. Helping propogate a dangerous and disgusting message is obviously immoral. That's silly. If the message conveyed by the speech was a moral one, there would be no debate. It's only because it is an immoral message that this discussion is happening. Firstly, and legalities aside, refusing to print a sign that you find immoral is not imposing your morality on others - you do not have a moral responsibility to help others say disgusting things. Your moral duty is quite the opposite.Secondly, their freedom of speech is their right to impose their morality on you. Your freedom of speech is to tell them that they are dangerous bigots and while you respect their right to say the nasty stuff they say, they can buy their own printing press to say it. I can. freedom of speech is a qualified right - not an absolute. But that is beside the point. You are not suppressing freedom of speech by refusing to print messages of hate - you're excercising your moral perogative. The speech is theirs to make, not yours. There is no obligation to support others' immoral acts, in fact your moral duty is to do quite the opposite and fight the bigots wherever you find them. That's not suppressing free speech, it's defending our democracy.

There is nothing that prevents you from adding a disclaimer to the cake\banner\rental agreement\etcSo the baker can add writing on the cake that the views expressed on the cake are not the views of the baker.Enjoy.

Bullshit.Really, read what I write. I said I might not print them not because I find them odious but because they encourage violence or illegal activities. Even if I fully approved of such speech I would have questions about printing it.

God, I hope not.Immoral speech may be speech you need to make sure government does not censor.If for your own political reasons you feel bound to help further the spread of the immoral speech as a social responsibility toward free speech, even though you disagree with the political sentiment expressed, you most certainly are welcome to do so. But the only thing needed of you is to oppose any censorship by any level of government.Further, I submit, your social responsibility should be to oppose any support or spread of immoral speech as long as the government is not involved in this opposition.

I may (and very likely do) have a different idea about who is responsible. I happen to believe the right of free speech requires all of us as well as our governments to protect speech just as I believe we each have a duty towards all others.

Again, businesses are not individuals.A printers job is to print, a bakers job is to bake, the rental agency's job is to rent.

Yes, I might agree with that although as I have said, it will depend on individual circumstances of that particular incident.

I sincerely think we need to go far beyond simply preventing the government from censorship. Today more than ever control of media and what passes for news means that it falls on us, the individual, to act to protect speech.But again, we re not talking about individuals but businesses and I very strongly oppose the idea that business are individuals and so have individual rights.

It's in the fine print between the layers.But, no fine print necessary, really. Government, even as a condition of my business license, cannot compel me to political speech I do not support any more than it can compel me to silence on political speech I do support.If the customer is offended that I will not express his political sentiments in my work then too damn bad. If the customer is not asking for me to express a political sentiment in my work then I have no reason to refuse service.

...is free speech.Free speech is a bitch, ain't it.

Yes, free speech can be a bitch.At issue is whether or not businesses have any right of free speech.

Businesses are not animate and cannot speak. What you wish to censor is people using the business to say what they want to say.Somehow you've decided that a gang of KKK members should be able to speak freely yet another group of people who have gathered for a financial purpose should not have that right.I understand why you and lots of other people might feel that way. But then I look at the great win the business community helped achieve last week in Indiana, and I wonder just what kind of speech god you serve.

Again, where the hell did I ever say or suggest such stuff? Too funny. Where did I say what you claim is my position?

I quoted the relevant statement, Jar. It is no great mystery where I got the idea from. And you've expressed similar statements elsewhere about the rights of corporations and the treatment of corporations as people being undesirable. It turns out that corporations are controlled by moneyed groups of people.Instead of continually accusing people of not being able to read, you might instead defend the silly positions that you express .Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, the courts say they do and until the courts or the people change this they have that right the same as any individual or political party or girl's club or ...