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

The First Amendment would protect a baker from being forced to speak in a manner against their conscience by using her artistic talents to create the cake bearing the recognized gay motifs and symbols. Examples would be a two groom topper, the rainbow motif in the icing, two penis shaped cakes joined at the balls, these types of things. The baker has the right to refuse to create objectionable art.So, two gays walk into a christian baker and ask to buy a cake for their wedding.1. Baker refuses service because they are gay. This is against the anti-discrimination laws.2. They sit down with the reluctant baker to plan the cake.-- A specific gay motif is requested. The baker has a right to refuse to create the artwork. If no agreement can be reached the baker has the right to refuse service.-- A generic design suitable to any wedding with the customary and usual decorations, sans bride/groom topper, is chosen. The baker has no right to refuse service. This is where the courts come in. I believe the photographer could refuse such a contract for service based upon the fact that the person is asked to work in an environment, in a surrounding, they fine offensive. I think the courts would find that you cannot force a person to perform a service in what the provider could reasonably consider an offensive atmosphere, provided that "offense" is not based upon bigotry against any class of people. No, nudists do not count as a class of people. A business has the right to refuse service where the refusal is based on just about anything else other than obvious discrimination against a class of people."No shirt, No shoes, No service" is a health, as well as a business decorum issue."We reserve the right to refuse service ..." applies to abusive, dangerous, openly offensive clientele. Think Dram Shop laws or a bar refusing to serve a gang sporting their colors which might lead to fights with rivals. So long as the reasons for refusal are not based upon the willful discrimination against an entire class of people then the business has a right to maintain a safe, lawful, non-abusive atmosphere for its customers.[abe] See Faith's quote above. [/abe]Edited by AZPaul3, : cuzEdited by AZPaul3, : more cuzEdited by AZPaul3, : Faith beat me to it.

You cannot be required to give a type of service your business does not provide. To hold that in this case, I think the courts would find the subterfuge obvious. The last time in, the bum gave you what any reasonable man would consider deliberate personal offense. As long as you didn't go after him with the shears this second time around I think you're safe.You might want to consider, however, having a few jack-booted rednecks take him, on the QT of course, around back to the alley and beat the ever living crap out of him.

I can see the reasons you might want to place this limit on your OP but I'm not so sure it can be avoided. If there was not a gay marriage issue there wouldn't be a gay wedding cake sales issue or the other issues you raised in your OP.The limiting question of "can private business refuse and on what grounds" certainly must include in the "on what grounds" the gay marriage issue itself. The "grounds" brings up religious reasoning and that brings up gay wedding. I do not see where they could be separated.

No, because the con did not give deliberate offence to you personally inside your business. In NoNukes case the sob did just that. It is a personal thing, he, you. No class, no group, not even a specific attribute. Given the established history of offence by this one shithead, NoNukes has every right to deny that worm access to the property let alone service from his business.Though the fucker may try, I doubt that any court in the realm would even consider allowing a discrimination suit to proceed on these facts.Trying to justify this jerk's right to service by saying you cannot discriminate against a person based on what you think he might do, is a fallacious claim. The opposite is the very reason your ex-con friend is required to stay more than 500 feet away from any schoolyard. Edited by AZPaul3, : I really wanted to.

The courts have always acknowledged the special emotional relationship between husband and wife. This is one reason a spouse cannot be compelled to testify. I think, based on this special relationship (the same, btw between parent/child), the courts would recognize that such an offense against the one is an offense against the other. That was me being a bit tongue in cheek. Your safe cracker (reformed or not) as well as your molester (reformed or not) can expect to receive their haircut. But not the lascivious lech who hit on your wife, whether she is presently there or not.Even in the rule of law the bench has latitude in assessing the realities of the human condition in their decisions.This is a one-off situation as animus between two individuals having no bearing on society's compelling interest to fight broad discrimination. I've been wrong before but I would be willing to wager that no court in either of our systems would touch this case.BTW, It has been a while, but you are beautiful again! Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Really? What is the reason for the offense?Because I don't like who "those people" are? Because I don't like what they stand for? Because I don't like their accents, their smell, their funny dress?Or is it because this one specific person, regardless of race, creed, color or sexual orientation, deliberately abused the honor of my wife, violated the decorum of my business, gave, not just any offense, but direct personal, pointed and deliberate offense to me, my family, my business all without cause or justification?It was not some general offense I feel because of my bigotry. It is the offense one experiences when a person is deliberately personally, individually and wrongfully violated by the callus actions of another. I was the innocent unwilling victim of a personal attack.There is no law that says I must suffer such offense in quite or to unwillingly invite its repetition. As the proprietor I am allowed to maintain the decorum of my business free from the acrimonious actions of any abusive person.As long as there is reasonable evidence that my barring a person from my custom is based upon their history of such individual abuse rather than some bias towards some group the anti-discrimination laws do not apply.I am free to order and keep the bum out of my store even to the point of having the cops drag his butt off my property. Yes, they will do that to calm a situation at the request of a business manager and then assess the reasons outside.From there, let the courts decide. The "reasonable man" doctrine will prevail.[abe]Arizona Civil Code, Civil Rights - Article 3 Public Accommodations, Section 41-1442 Discrimination in places of public accommodation

quote:

---

C. Any person who is under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, who is guilty of boisterous conduct, who is of lewd or immoral character, who is physically violent or who violates any regulation of any place of public accommodation that applies to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry may be excluded from any place of public accommodation and nothing in this article shall be considered to limit the right of such exclusion.

---

Emphasis mine.So long as the rules are equally applied to all persons and are not designed to exclude any protected group a business proprietor has every right to exclude persons who's conduct the proprietor considers disruptive or inappropriate to his place of business.You can probably find similar language in the civil statutes of every state and province in this hemisphere.[/abe]Edited by AZPaul3, : Added AZ Civil Statute

First, I know you have heard of Rebecca Watson and the elevator. Second, if your police are not doing their job of defusing a situation before assessing blame your community has a problem.We can argue the trivialities and nuances of any situation till the cows come home.Regardless, the point remains. Society has a right to expect service from a business in the open marketplace. The business cannot discriminate by class of people. But, the proprietor also has rights to refuse service to any individual that violates any norms the proprietor sets for the conduct of his business. And this right is enforceable so long as the norms set are individually based, apply to all persons and are not used to discriminate against any specific class.Those norms can be pretty broadly structured and it doesn't matter if anyone finds them immature or silly or the result of a personal hissy-fit. So long as the result is not class discrimination, whether it should or shouldn't, the court will indeed back your hissy-fit because there is no law against it.

Pay attention to the discussion, ringo. It is not the verbal assult by the asshole that is a matter for the police. It can be a police matter if the SOB doesn't leave the shop when ordered out.Happens all the time. Ask any barkeep. Drunk patron hits on the waitstaff or gets rowdy, out he goes, if he doesn't leave, call the cops. Maybe you don't get this fine class of people the way we do. This happens a couple times a month in nearly every bar in Phoenix. Phoenix PD even has a 2 per month call limit before they start charging $75 per. You do know we are talking about barring one specific individual and not some class, right? You do know that some people just do not play well with others, yes?Let's take what appears to be an extreme example ('cept it actually happen). Some rude customer keeps berating, loudly, his waitress (and for the most minor crap). She finally has enough and tells the creep she is going to get the manager. As she storms off Mr. Attitude picks up his water glass and throws it at her. What is a proprietor to do, ringo? In your world you don't want him able to do anything?Edited by AZPaul3, : spln

Just some clarification.The Indiana law does not overtly allow any discrimination but bars a city/municipality/town from creating ordinances that would "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" without showing a compelling government interest to do so.So the scenario goes like this:City passes anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays.Baker refuses cake for gay wedding. Gay sues baker based upon City ordinance.Indiana law allows baker a religious defense against the suit.Court must determine if the ordinance substantially burdened the baker's exercise of religion.Court must determine if the City had a compelling interest to bar this discrimination.The Indiana law also gives the City unconditional right to insert itself into the suit to present/defend what it may consider its compelling interest in the ordinance.Even with the involvement of the court in making the determinations of fact, and we are talking municipal courts here, the effect of the Indiana law can be clearly extrapolated as being open season on gays, as an unprotected class in Indiana, by businesses owned/operated by bigoted religious zealots. Which was its intent, regardless of legislators' protests to the contrary.The problem gets deeper on appeals through the state court system, and eventually the Federal system, in that without a clear binding law, like the Civil Rights laws, that bars discrimination against gays in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest these cases come down to classic First Amendment cases of religious freedom in the same vein as the use of peyote in tribal ceremonies.For the court watchers, this is going to get interesting.

"No, it doesn't," says the state. "It protects the rights of religious people to act in accordance with their religious conscience. It stems the erosion of religious freedoms by the government." All of them, unfortunately. That's why we try to keep specific laws and independent courts that would modify that discretion. Now, you're getting there. What did this society have to do to finally resolve that "ought"? For gays, we likewise need a clear, unambiguous, undeniable statement of law. People, states, governments, yes, even courts, often will not do what they ought to do, what they should do, until you hit them in the head with a clear, unambiguous, undeniable 2x4.Idealism aside, this is the only way the system, all of it, has ever been known to work. Indeed, my friend, that is the sad part. Hopefully, if we keep pushing this boulder up-hill we can accomplish at least some good until the next generation can take over to push even further against what's coming.You don't have to look very hard to see through the tea leaves, NoNukes. Loving Christianity's next victims of scorn, oppression and discrimination, already started, will be, not just Muslims, but any brown-skinned people who look like Muslims. Especially those who wear rags on their heads or black sheets over their faces. We can not be forced to serve and suffer devil-worshipers. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Potentially amusing? I see that tongue in your cheek. It's got to be a real pisser to the Christian Taliban.What I find most telling, and gratifying, is the way the business community has stepped up and shouted, "Stop it!" Not with a red wine, thank you. Some Gouda would be nice, please?

You weren't supposed to actually read the statute, NoNukes. We say it's a freedom of religion issue. The other stuff in the law is complicated detail you really don't need to know about. I used to know a couple old Japanese-Americans that would disagree. But, given the vigilance these days you may be right. Just to be safe, though, I'll store the idealism on the back shelf and keep an eye out.The push back RAZD cited in his message upstream is quite satisfying. He finds them potentially amusing. He's hosting a party so we can all watch the proceedings together. I hear he is providing popcorn and Gouda. Can you make it? Love to have you there.

So true. But now, as I understand the news this morning, the Indiana legislature has passed the amendment to their RFRA making sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes from business discrimination.I am pleasantly surprised at how hard and fast this society, led by the business community no less, slapped down the states on this issue. I hadn't expected Enlightenment v2.0 to be this far advanced.[abe]Well, isn't this a kick in the pants. Has the Christian Taliban totally lost control of this country? LGBT Pride NightEdited by AZPaul3, : Kudos to The Oakland A'sEdited by AZPaul3, : link

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.

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.