Are you required to provide a quality service to everyone?

[The Annoyed Man]

If someone comes in and you make a cake for them and put on it Congratulations Bob and Mary, then you must also be willing to the same for Bob and Larry.

What about Bob, Larry and Mary? We wont even discuss Mary, Lisa, Rover and Spot.

Sorry. Having too much fun going down this rabbit hole...

OK, let's be serious on the discussion and NOT take it where it shouldn't go. There is a good explanation here https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the- ... appearance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and it sums up the basis on refusal of service

For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

Bottom line, just because you don't believe in what they believe does not mean you can discriminate against them. This case where the KKK won a suit against a bakery is a prime example of how the courts will general rule on these types of issues http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk ... imination/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keith, I'm not disputing the legal issues you outline, but I am saying that this law is selectively enforced:
http://buzzpo.com/christian-man-denied- ... iage-cake/

[RoyGBiv]

Let me take a swipe at this from a different direction... 2A.

When I think of someone putting up a sign on their public business (Sprouts, Fresh Market, etc.) making it illegal for me to enter with my concealed weapon, my argument goes something like this..... While Sprouts is a private business, they are in the business of inviting in "the public" to purchase their wares. When a business is "open to the public" they are required to confirm to certain "public standards".... Handicap parking and accessible toilets, fire codes, food storage and safety codes, occupancy licensing and limits, etc, ad-infinitum. The act of engaging in a "public" business obligates the owner to many things. They cannot just decide "you know, this is a privately held business, and I don't want to have so many handicap parking spots".

In my opinion, the same is true for 2A. I'd make the argument that, despite "private property rights", when you open a business and solicit the public to come in to your store, the Second Amendment is pretty clear. ".... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." When a business invites the public inside, they should be obligated to the Second Amendment, just as they are obligated to follow building codes. In fact, the Second is enumerated in the founding documents of our country, building codes are not. I'd say that trumps whatever logic (legal or otherwise) is used to justify building codes.

So..... IMO..... It would be rather hypocritical of me to feel this way about 2A, but differently about the topic of this thread. If my business is open to the public, I should provide equal accommodation to all who solicit service from me.

[oohrah]

my 2c

If you operate a business, you receive certain protections from the govt, such as someone else cannot use your business name. If you choose to do business with the public, I believe you must abide by govt anti-discrimination laws.

However, I like what Keith proposed - if you have a set menu or set list of options (pick this or that, that's it), then you sell that to whoever wants it, they don't get a choice, you do.

Added: Would you really sell a crappy cake and put your whole business on the line?

[LDB415]

I'm sure it would be challenged but if the menu listed "man/woman wedding cake in your choice of 2-5 layers" a gay/lesbian cake request could be refused as not a menu item.

Bottom line, why would anyone want a cake from someone hostile towards them? Why would other bakeries not advertise for and solicit gay wedding cakes and why wouldn't the gay/lesbian customers actively search them out rather than someone who doesn't want their business?

Somewhat rhetorical questions of course because the answer is to force their agenda and force compliance by others.

[The Annoyed Man]

If I'm a baker or a florist or whatever who has religious convictions which might conflict with gay politics, my solution could be to offer generic products, but not occasion-specific products....or only limited occasion-specific products. I.E., I could sell regular cakes and birthday cakes, but not wedding cakes. No wedding cakes for anybody. I could sell regular floral bouquets and funereal floral arrangements, but not wedding floral arrangements.

"Sure, I'll sell you a cake, but I won't put any special decorations on it to celebrate a wedding.......anybody's wedding."

I could offer "DIY" decorating kits and components for sale, and then anybody could buy those and decorate their own cakes to their heart's content. Those kits and components would be available to anybody, regardless of personal "preferences". What they do with their own decorating ideas is up to them, but I don't have to participate in celebrating it. And if I price it right, I might not only get rid of the legal headache, but I might still get to make a little money on it while saving the customer some money.

But in the end, my religious conscience is simply more important to me than any fascist threats from LGBT nazis. If I have to make less money by not selling wedding cakes at all, or if I have to find another business endeavor, then that's what I'll do. I have rights too.

Bottom line, why would anyone want a cake from someone hostile towards them? Why would other bakeries not advertise for and solicit gay wedding cakes and why wouldn't the gay/lesbian customers actively search them out rather than someone who doesn't want their business?

Somewhat rhetorical questions of course because the answer is to force their agenda and force compliance by others.

I don't think that "legal" is what they want, as much as "celebration" is. "Celebration" is what they want, because celebration is two things:

1. It is a tangible/visible sign of acceptance in a society. Lots of things are legal, and still not socially acceptable. I believe that LDBT activists want social acceptance perhaps more than mere legality. If they can force people to violate their own consciences to put on a sham acceptance, then they'll take that as a victory.
2. Celebration is a sign of affirmation. It is not enough for their particular sexual tastes to be legal, nor is it enough that it be accepted; they also required that it be affirmed. The Constitution affirms rights that people might otherwise take for granted - free speech, gun rights, voting rights, etc., etc. - as good and worthy and necessary, and worth protecting. The LGBT movement wants society to affirm the same things about marriage equality. It would be society's substitute for permission.

It doesn't really matter what I think about gay marriage. I do have an opinion, but it is mine. I have found that it appears to be outdated and derided, so I keep it to myself. I think that we are doomed as a society anyway, so if coming to terms with gay marriage hastens the end, then I'm for it. The sooner it's all over, the sooner humanity can begin to rebuild from the ashes. In the meantime, it becomes more and more challenging for those who are interested in preserving their own liberty to figure out how to live in this world without getting bullied by others.

[WildBill]

No, one is not required to provide a quality service to everyone, but my pride of workmanship would not allow to me lower my standards.

[WildBill]

No, one is not required to provide a quality service to everyone, but my pride of workmanship would not allow to me lower my standards.
I would do the work to the best of my ability or I wouldn't do it at all.

[carlson1]

When dealing with protected classes of people there are lines you do not legally have to cross. Basically you must treat them just as you would any other customer and not discriminate in your methods.

In the example above, if you own a restaurant and the Westboro Church jerks walk in, you cannot refuse to serve them based on their religious beliefs. HOWEVER, if they are disruptive, start demanding special things that are not on the menu, etc, you do not have to comply.

The same goes for the bakery. If someone comes in and you make a cake for them and put on it Congratulations Bob and Mary, then you must also be willing to the same for Bob and Larry.

As long as the customer is not requiring something that you would not make for anyone else, then you can refuse and be legally within your rights. They may fuss and try to sue you, but you have a legal stance that they were requesting services outside of the normal things you provide.

So I can't refuse anyone anything because of THEIR religious beliefs, but THEY can force ME to do something against MY religious beliefs.

This is what is wrong with our legal and moral beliefs in this country and world.

It appears I am going to end up in jail one of these days.

[K.Mooneyham]

No, one is not required to provide a quality service to everyone, but my pride of workmanship would not allow to me lower my standards.

During WWII, the Nazis used slave labor across their industries to support their war machine. Not all of those slaves did that work as well as they might have. I'll leave it at that.

[mojo84]

Will this cause the same outrage?

[video]https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4[/video]


Would those of you in the IT business perform your normal services for a company wanting to set up and operate a gay porn site? Are you willing to perform the same services for them that you do for non gay sites?

How about chl instructors? Will you hold classes for a gay/lesbian group?

I'm not making this a gay/lesbian issue argument. The same applies to the occult, satanic worship, KKK, racism, religion preference, handicap etc.


What if Brady Campaign or Mothers against guns, or Bloomie's towns against gun rights groups asked you to perform services for them? Would you do it at all? Would you do a substandard job since it's them?

[Oldgringo]

If one is providing a service, any service, that service should be a quality service unless 'the sign out front' indicates a less than quality service is provided.

Now then, to whom one provides that service is a 'horse of another color'.

[WildBill]

No, one is not required to provide a quality service to everyone, but my pride of workmanship would not allow to me lower my standards.

During WWII, the Nazis used slave labor across their industries to support their war machine. Not all of those slaves did that work as well as they might have. I'll leave it at that.

Good point!

[RoyGBiv]

Making a cake for a homosexual wedding is not anywhere close to indicating my approval of gay marriage. It's a business transaction. I am in business to serve the public. I won't knowingly support illegal activity (I won't sell a gun to a known felon or mentally unstable person for example) but my selling a cake to a homosexual couple in no way impugns my faith. I can continue to speak out (as a private person) against __________________(insert cause of choice here), if I so choose. I suspect that might cause _______________ (affected people) to stop asking me to make them cakes, but if they do ask, I will make them a cake that reflects positively on my ability as a cake maker.

For the record.... If the State grants marriage licenses to anyone, the State must grant licenses to everyone.

No State shall ....... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Cedar Park Dad]

No, one is not required to provide a quality service to everyone, but my pride of workmanship would not allow to me lower my standards.

This is a good view. if you are going to be ethical about your business practices one should do the best job one can for what has been contracted.

As this is a hypothetical, do you really want to release substandard product/service? How exactly is that a good business practice? Business reputations take a long time to create, but can be blown easily.

[WildBill]

No, one is not required to provide a quality service to everyone, but my pride of workmanship would not allow to me lower my standards.

This is a good view. if you are going to be ethical about your business practices one should do the best job one can for what has been contracted.

As this is a hypothetical, do you really want to release substandard product/service? How exactly is that a good business practice? Business reputations take a long time to create, but can be blown easily.

I do not have my own business so, for me, it's not a matter of baking a cake or providing a product to the public.
My company provides products and services for many customers around the world.
I would not do anything to compromise the quality or safety of our product.