Bakery Faces Boycott for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

[Jer]

I didn't notice, is this a government funded agency that is prohibited from discriminating against protected classes or is it a private business owner who has the right to do business with or not do business with anyone who he feels like for ANY reason or no reason at all?

You're personal beliefs don't matter.

/thread

[Rucker61]

I didn't notice, is this a government funded agency that is prohibited from discriminating against protected classes or is it a private business owner who has the right to do business with or not do business with anyone who he feels like for ANY reason or no reason at all?

Your personal beliefs don't matter.

/thread

The law does, however, and in this case, neither of your examples fit. As posted earlier:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

[mevshooter]

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
.

That big part I highlighted is where I think the argument that it is "illegal" may not be accurate.

Isn't a private business a PRIVATE business? Its not a park, or a court house, or a state owned university, etc.

Similar to a business being able to "ban" firearms on their property, even though it is a right in this state with the proper permits, or OC'ing if allowed.

[Great-Kazoo]

That big part I highlighted is where I think the argument that it is "illegal" may not be accurate.

Isn't a private business a PRIVATE business? Its not a park, or a court house, or a state owned university, etc.

Similar to a business being able to "ban" firearms on their property, even though it is a right in this state with the proper permits, or OC'ing if allowed.

Public Accommodation. Unless he is a diner, restaurant or a place where patrons sit sip coffee, cake and wi-fi he does not fall under that guideline. Probably doesn't offer a public rest room either.
FWIW: i read a story how NY is now going to lock up baby formula in hospitals. Reason being they want every mother to nurse vs formula feed the kid. Not that i am opposed to BF, we did it until she had aged a few months.
It's the constant intrusion the .gov [state & federal] trying to nanny us how best to live. The Chic fil A, and cake place trying to force them to bow to 1 special interest group. Something the left constantly complains the NRA / BIG MONEY lobby is doing.

[Scanker19]

That big part I highlighted is where I think the argument that it is "illegal" may not be accurate.

Isn't a private business a PRIVATE business? Its not a park, or a court house, or a state owned university, etc.

Similar to a business being able to "ban" firearms on their property, even though it is a right in this state with the proper permits, or OC'ing if allowed.

I think the problem he may run into is the part at the beginning where it says A PERSON cannot do this, GOV is not a person. The Government however does issue Business licenses. I still fall to see how this is any different than not serving a different race or religion. Everyone here would be insane with anger if the shoe was on the other foot, but some how the other side is the crybaby when they don't get their way. I'm sure the anti-gun people say the same thing about us when we complain about not being able to CC in certain places.

Just to be clear if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd still be on the side of those that were refused service, be they Christian, Gay, Black, Manbearpig, or Infantry (luckily I can refuse service to Infanty).

[Sharpienads]

I'd support ANY business that refused service to the infantry. The rest of the military is ok, just not the infantry

[tonantius]

I'd support ANY business that refused service to the infantry. The rest of the military is ok, just not the infantry

Hey! I like the infantry.

[Rucker61]

Hey! I like the infantry.

The self described "Queen of Battle". DADT.

[tonantius]

The only thing I see if you are forced to serve someone against your will, then that is slavery.

[mevshooter]

I think the problem he may run into is the part at the beginning where it says A PERSON cannot do this, GOV is not a person. The Government however does issue Business licenses. I still fall to see how this is any different than not serving a different race or religion. Everyone here would be insane with anger if the shoe was on the other foot, but some how the other side is the crybaby when they don't get their way. I'm sure the anti-gun people say the same thing about us when we complain about not being able to CC in certain places.

Just to be clear if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd still be on the side of those that were refused service, be they Christian, Gay, Black, Manbearpig, or Infantry (luckily I can refuse service to Infanty).

So this guy needs to violate his religious rights to serve their consumer rights?

It's not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.