"Baker refuses to make wedding cake for lesbian couple and 'calls them...

[regularguy]

I don't see why not, if the denial of service was based on sexual orientation.

That would be my interpretation as well, but I have no idea what the courts would say about it.

[RavnFreek]

Its simple folks. I'm sure this guy is not the only show in town. Just go someplace else. If I go into a bar and I find out the owner is a Steelers fan and hates the Ravens, I go to a different bar.

[Cameron]

sigmalady

I don't see why not, if the denial of service was based on sexual orientation.

Not the best link:

(6) 'Sexual orientation' means an individual's actual or
perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender
identity, regardless of whether the individual's gender identity,
appearance, expression or behavior differs from that
traditionally associated with the individual's sex at birth.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/mea...sb0002.en.html

[Baltimatt]

RevnFreek--

I don't think sports affiliation is covered under civil rights laws. (Don't give them any ideas!)

[RavnFreek]

RevnFreek--

I don't think sports affiliation is covered under civil rights laws. (Don't give them any ideas!)

LOL.. yeah, you're probably right.

[kudzu]

Since for the most part people find themselves in these "protected classes," how are they special rights? A white person should have just as much protection against racial discrimination as a black person, a Christian as much protection against religious discrimination as a Muslim, etc.

What about heterosexual white Christian males ?

Any protection there ?

[Bmoreteacher]

Why? You already know this guy's beliefs. There is no way you or another homosexual would give him your business anyhow. He's not hiding the fact that he doesn't like you.

He's an ignorant jackazz but he has the right to be, Just take your business elsewhere. Why do you want to force YOUR beliefs on HIM?

I'm not

[Baltimatt]

What about heterosexual white Christian males ?

Any protection there ?

Of course.

An English professor at the University of North Carolina illegally subjected a student to “intentional discrimination and harassment” because he was “a white, heterosexual Christian male” who expressed disapproval of homosexuality, the U.S. Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights has ruled. Professor Elyse Crystall violated student Timothy R. Mertes’ civil rights, the agency said, by improperly accusing him of “hate speech” in an e-mail sent to students after a class discussion in which Mr. Mertes said he was a Christian and felt “disgusted, not threatened” by homosexual behavior.

“The e-mail message not only subjected the student to intentional discrimination and harassment, but also discouraged the robust exchange of ideas that is intrinsic to higher education and is at the very heart of the Constitution’s protection of free speech,” Alice B. Wender, the Education Department’s southern regional director of civil rights concluded in a letter to UNC Chancellor James Moeser on Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2Kv0aoXhC
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[kudzu]

Of course.




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2Kv0aoXhC
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Token, until proven otherwise.

[regularguy]

Its simple folks. I'm sure this guy is not the only show in town. Just go someplace else. If I go into a bar and I find out the owner is a Steelers fan and hates the Ravens, I go to a different bar.

Same with a landlord refusing to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple? How about a black or mixed-race heterosexual couple?

Same with employers who refuse to hire otherwise-qualified homosexual employees? How about otherwise-qualified Jewish employees?

[sigmalady]

I don't see this as solely an issue of refusing service based on sexual orientation. This same bakery would likely also refuse to make a cake shaped and decorated like a penis for a bachelorette party/bridal shower.

[Fang]

Its simple folks. I'm sure this guy is not the only show in town. Just go someplace else. If I go into a bar and I find out the owner is a Steelers fan and hates the Ravens, I go to a different bar.

Your example of a Steelers bar isn't the same thing. The owner of the Steelers bar is still welcoming you in and allowing you to buy his beer. You choose not to go on because you don't like the atmoshpere. I would equate your Steelers example to the eHarmony thread. Neither is discrimination.

However, the baker isn't allowing gays to buy his product because they are gay. There's a huge difference. This is no different than not wanting to sell to blacks. It's discrimination.

[Cameron]

Your example of a Steelers bar isn't the same thing. The owner of the Steelers bar is still welcoming you in and allowing you to buy his beer. You choose not to go on because you don't like the atmoshpere. I would equate your Steelers example to the eHarmony thread. Neither is discrimination.

I'm not sure I get the eHarmony distinction from this case about the wedding cake.

However, the baker isn't allowing gays to buy his product because they are gay. There's a huge difference. This is no different than not wanting to sell to blacks. It's discrimination.

How is that different from eHarmony refusing to sell its product to gay people?

[BiggSeth]

Same with a landlord refusing to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple? How about a black or mixed-race heterosexual couple?

Same with employers who refuse to hire otherwise-qualified homosexual employees? How about otherwise-qualified Jewish employees?

this is a private businessman who refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple. your attempts to broaden the scope with red herrings and hypotheticals is a sad attempt to bolster your weak arguments.

take your business elsewhere, complain on the appropriate review/ratings sites about the business, spread word of mouth.....but most importantly

GET OVER YOURSELVES!

[BiggSeth]

Your example of a Steelers bar isn't the same thing. The owner of the Steelers bar is still welcoming you in and allowing you to buy his beer. You choose not to go on because you don't like the atmoshpere. I would equate your Steelers example to the eHarmony thread. Neither is discrimination.

However, the baker isn't allowing gays to buy his product because they are gay. There's a huge difference. This is no different than not wanting to sell to blacks. It's discrimination.

actually, there is a HUGE difference.....

"blacks" as you call them are a race.

"gays" as you call them are NOT a race, but a teeny tiny minority of the population who seek special treatment due to their sexual preferences.

"gay" < "black"

[Fang]

I'm not sure I get the eHarmony distinction from this case about the wedding cake.



How is that different from eHarmony refusing to sell its product to gay people?

They are not refusing to sell their product to gay people. Any gay person can login into eHarmony and use it. They just don't offer services a gat person would be interested in. The same goes for a Steelers bar. I can go in and buy a drink,but as a Ravens fan I have no interest in that bar.

The baker however does offer a product that everyone who likes cake would want to buy. But he is telling gay people they cannot purchase.

[Baltimatt]

actually, there is a HUGE difference.....

"blacks" as you call them are a race.

"gays" as you call them are NOT a race, but a teeny tiny minority of the population who seek special treatment due to their sexual preferences.

"gay" < "black"

Oregon's law covers both race and sexual orientation.

[Cameron]

They are not refusing to sell their product to gay people. Any gay person can login into eHarmony and use it. They just don't offer services a gat person would be interested in. The same goes for a Steelers bar. I can go in and buy a drink,but as a Ravens fan I have no interest in that bar.

I just went to eHarmony and if I click the blue man, I can only pick a pink woman.

If I click a pink woman, I can only pick a blue man.

The baker however does offer a product that everyone who likes cake would want to buy. But he is telling gay people they cannot purchase.

[RavnFreek]

Same with a landlord refusing to rent an apartment to a homosexual couple? How about a black or mixed-race heterosexual couple?

Same with employers who refuse to hire otherwise-qualified homosexual employees? How about otherwise-qualified Jewish employees?

You make it know that they are the way they are and take your business elsewhere. Why would you want to work for, live in, or give your business to someone who doesn't like you anyhow? I don't get it. If a racist KKK member said, "ok ill follow the rules and let black people drink at my bar" Probably wouldn't have any black people drinking at his bar anyhow because he's an ignorant racist and they wouldn't want to give their money to his establishment anyhow.
I'd rather just know where people stand so I know not to give my money to people who don't like me.

[RavnFreek]

I guess my point is that why would anyone even want to give their business to someone who hates them?