ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Let me me be crystal clear - I don't agree with the baker's stance ---- however, I don't see any fundamental rights to have a cake baked for the "victim."

I would have expected the ACLU to be on the other side of this case - and so I think they're being politically correct, rather than fundamental-focused (no - not "fundamentalist" ).

If I understand the facts correctly - this is a downright silly case. It doesn't belong in the courts.

http://durangoherald.com/article/201312 ... -couples--

Let me also be clear -
a) I support the right of same-sex couples to ensure they enjoy the same legal benefits that a heterosexual couple would enjoy (estate transference, and the ability to oversee medical treatment being among the key benefits)

b) I would not want a government ("public good") service to "discriminate" against same-sex couples.

c) I do not see a cake chef as being something that anyone is fundamentally entitled to.

(I know a cake chef that refused to bake a cake with a wild game theme on the grounds s/he thought hunting was cruel --- and I think that's their right).

When I was young I was a fan of the ACLU. Then they got stupid, or I did. Hmmm, which is it?

Does it really have to be an either/or Bob?

The baker has a right to refuse service to anyone they please.

I believe if you advertise a service or product to the general public, then anyone in the general public should be able to buy It. Would you feel different if this baker refused a black couple?

While I understand the right of a business owner to refuse service.....I ALSO understand the
PR ramifications of the decision.....It is well within the rights of the individual (being discriminated
against)to find ANOTHER bakery who does NOT discriminate and to ALLOW others information on
a business who practices discrimination....so that a consumer can make an EDUCATED choice
about who they will do business with....it is the same issue with medical providers who will NOT
provide BC/abortions/female reproductive solutions. JMO

So if you are refused service, based on age, race, religion, lifestyle, You must go find a place that will serve you?

If that is the case then the business that chooses to discriminate should be required to post that on ads and on the door to the business. Here we go again, restaurants with a sign.... No Coloreds, No Gays, how about No Women, the possibilities are endless. It's just wrong.

homeagain wrote: While I understand the right of a business owner to refuse service.....I ALSO understand the
PR ramifications of the decision.....It is well within the rights of the individual (being discriminated
against)to find ANOTHER bakery who does NOT discriminate and to ALLOW others information on
a business who practices discrimination....so that a consumer can make an EDUCATED choice
about who they will do business with....it is the same issue with medical providers who will NOT
provide BC/abortions/female reproductive solutions. JMO

It's not really the same, if a medical practitioner chooses not to provide those services to anyone, there is no discrimination.

archer wrote: So if you are refused service, based on age, race, religion, lifestyle, You must go find a place that will serve you?

If that is the case then the business that chooses to discriminate should be required to post that on ads and on the door to the business. Here we go again, restaurants with a sign.... No Coloreds, No Gays, how about No Women, the possibilities are endless. It's just wrong.

This issue is nebulous at best and VERY murky at the least.....I BOLDED LIFESTYLE because of
websites that PROMOTE dating services for MARRIED individuals wanting to "go outside" their
marriage,OR dating services that provide "threesomes,alternative sex arrangements"....IF your
"religion" dictates a STRICT adherence to the bible.....AND you own a business????.....I do NOT
subscribe to "religion"....I am metaphysical/spiritual/esoteric in my beliefs.....IF you, as businessperson, do not WANT my business/money/ alliance/loyalty.....THEN I find OTHER business that do.....pretty simple.....JMO....the issue is "grey/murky" and I am NOT saying I have the solution......RELIGION tends to "muck everything up" in general....JMO

I don't think the customer should have to shop around for a business that will agree to serve them or sell to them. Anyone with a business that sells to the general public should not have the right to decide what the general public consists of...... I don't know if stating up front who they will do business with changes that.

Like anything else if you take it too far it just gets stupid. There ought to be a law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 24533.html

"Weiner, who represents the area, has introduced legislation to amend the city's health code to ban nudity for customers in restaurants (its already prohibited for employees) and require anyone sitting on an outdoor bench or pubic transportation to put down a towel between the seat and their rear ends."