Do Public Accommodations Laws Violate Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights?

[Revoltingest]

There is obviously a degree of disapproval and dislike in recommending that someone "convert" his/her sexual orientation.

That would be to impose a personal inference.
A Xian could have a message of love....like curing cancer.

I doubt a civil rights commission or judge would consider refusal to put a message on such a cake to be discrimination on the basis of . . . . what? On what basis would the baker be discriminating?

Religious discrimination could be an issue in a more fundy section of the country.

I'm just speculating about what could happen.
Whooda thunk Menards would be sued over the names of lumber?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As noted, CADA also prohibts a business to display such a notice of refusal of service. Water fountains with "Whites only" signs really don't accomoplish what public accommodations laws are intended to accomplish. And, in fact, in plenty of small towns all bakeries and other businesses would have "No gays" signs.

I expect, in such places, the attitudes are there, even if the signs aren't. And, the reality is that most openly gay people tend to move to places which are more progressive. Personally, I wouldn't expect that many people would feel comfortable having to advertise their bigotry, even if they express it in safe company.

 

[Nous]

I suspect you're missing the humor behind government
sanctioned hunting of the USA's largest criminal class.

It isn't criminal to not provide one's professional services for free.

 

[Revoltingest]

It isn't criminal to not provide one's professional services for free.

The criminal element lies in using the courts for extortion.
They exact payment or performance with the threat of expensive suit, eg, SLAPP suits.

 

[Nous]

You wouldn't remember it because it was local...just my town (Ann Arbor MI).

It was apparently a very unusual or possibly unique ordinance. I take it "gays" do not continue to be so privileged.

There are equally committed straight couples who don't marry for various good reasons.
So I don't buy the argument that they should be denied a benefit conferred upon gays.

But the different-sex couples could have gotten married if they desired those benefits.

But my town is run by hypocrities....the infamous "illiberal liberal" types.
Our human rights ordinance prohibits discrimination on the basis of family status,
but zoning laws & housing codes require discriminatioon on the basis of family status.
Educational afilliation, age, & gender are also protected, but they don't enforce the
law when discounts are granted to students, seniors & women.
Go figure.

Public accommodations laws do not pertain to zoning laws that legislatures enact.

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[Nous]

The criminal element lies in using the courts for extortion.
They exact payment or performance with the threat of expensive suit, eg, SLAPP suits.

We've already been over the SLAPP doctrine. You didn't argue claims. Your animus toward lawyers is irrational. Just because you lose your case doesn't mean that the lawyer is criminal.

 

[Nous]

I expect, in such places, the attitudes are there, even if the signs aren't. And, the reality is that most openly gay people tend to move to places which are more progressive. Personally, I wouldn't expect that many people would feel comfortable having to advertise their bigotry, even if they express it in safe company.

Are signs saying "We Don't Serve Muslims" good enough also?

 

[Revoltingest]

It was apparently a very unusual or possibly unique ordinance. I take it "gays" do not continue to be so privileged.

One would think so.
But laws are sometimes simply ignored instead of repealed.

But the different-sex couples could have gotten married if they desired those benefits.

Compelling circumstances could make compell living in sin (common law).
I see no valid reason to treat gay v straight committed couples differently.

Public accommodations laws do not pertain to zoning laws that legislatures enact.

Oh, but they do.
Example.....
R4C zoning here limits single family rental dwellings to no more than 6 unrelated people.
We are prohibited by state law from discriminating on the basis of family status, which
means that if 7 people wanted to rent a house, this would depend upon family status of
at least 2 of the tenants. Add to this, no formal definition of "family relationship".

 

[Revoltingest]

We've already been over the SLAPP doctrine. You didn't argue claims. Your animus toward lawyers is irrational.

You're just guessing.
But it's a swing & a miss.
It's rational because it's based upon extensive experience as both plaintiff & defendant.

Just because you lose your case doesn't mean that the lawyer is criminal.

I've no problem with losing....that doesn't happen.
Winning is far more expensive.

 

[Nous]

A Xian could have a message of love....like curing cancer.

I'm sure there have been plenty of cakes made with messages advocating curing a disease. That's hardly the same as expressing that someone needs to "convert" to a different sexual orientation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are signs saying "We Don't Serve Muslims" good enough also?

Is anyone claiming that serving Muslims goes against their religious beliefs?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure there have been plenty of cakes made with messages advocating curing a disease. That's hardly the same as expressing that someone needs to "convert" to a different sexual orientation.

You & I see a difference, but a large percentage of the country would disagree.
The right to refuse to convey a message shouldn't be decided based upon the cromulence of it, but rather upon the something more categorical. Otherwise, a bakery could refuse to make a cake with a prayer because it's bogus.

 

[Nous]

I see no valid reason to treat gay v straight committed couples differently.

But the state law treated same-sex couples differently than it treated different-sex couples, and the city ordinance was an attempt to provide same-sex couples the same benefits as diffierent-sex couples were allowed.

Oh, but they do.
Example.....
R4C zoning here limits single family rental dwellings to no more than 6 unrelated people.
We are prohibited by state law from discriminating on the basis of family status, which
means that if 7 people wanted to rent a house, this would depend upon family status of
at least 2 of the tenants. Add to this, no formal definition of "family relationship".

Public accommodations laws do not pertain to legislatures or the acts the legislatures pass.

 

[esmith]

Everyone has 'rights' but rights come with responsibilities. I have a dog, I don't expect everyone to share my love of it; hence he is not allowed in some pubs, some hotels, some public buildings, etc. I accept that.
Also some rights are more important than others. I like a beer, BUT that does not give me the right to drive when drunk.

Oh I see you only want rights for people that you agree with. As far as beer and drive drunk is a totally different matter. First were you stopped from purchasing the beer. What you do with that beer is a different matter.

Of course not.
Animals, weapons, and nudity can seriously impact the business and it's other clients. Race, gender, orientation and such do not.

Depends on the business doesn't it?

Personally, I would do away with most of the antidiscrimination statutes. I would only keep them for emergency services or government services and stuff like that. But you can't seriously compare bringing a gun into a professional office and ordering a cake saying "Congratulations Steve and Bill".
Tom

Sure I can compare bringing a firearm into a business and ordering a cake. You are basically saying that the gay couple have rights, but I have the Constitutional right and legal right to carry a concealed firearm so wouldn't my rights be violated by not allowing me to carry a concealed firearm into a "public" establishment. . Where is the difference other than your prejudice.

 

[Nous]

Is anyone claiming that serving Muslims goes against their religious beliefs?

Probably someone will if such were to be allowed. Piggie Park Enterprises claimed that serving African Americans violated their sacred rights of religious exercise.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the state law treated same-sex couples differently than it treated different-sex couples, and the city ordinance was an attempt to provide same-sex couples the same benefits as diffierent-sex couples were allowed.

You're essentially arguing that there's a good reason to discriminate based upon sexual orientation.
It does indeed address a problem.
But there's still no reason to deny committed straight unmarried couples employee
benefits reserved for married straight couples & gay unmarried couples.

Public accommodations laws do not pertain to legislatures or the acts the legislatures pass.

They do typically exempt themselves from laws.
Why bring it up?

 

[Nous]

You & I see a difference, but a large percentage of the country would disagree.

I doubt that a large percentage of the country considers gay and bisexual people diseased.

The right to refuse to convey a message shouldn't be decided based upon the cromulence of it, but rather upon the something more categorical.

What do you recommend the right to refuse to sell a cake with a certain message should be based on?

 

[Revoltingest]

I doubt that a large percentage of the country considers gay and bisexual people diseased.

Here is a poll showing that less than half of Americastanians think people are born gay.
This suggests that conversion is possible.
Less Than Half of Americans Think People Are Born Gay, Poll Shows
With a majority Xian population, I'll wager that gay conversion therapy is viewed as legit by many.

What do you recommend the right to refuse to sell a cake with a certain message should be based on?

It's complicated.
I'm not prepared to set limits.
But undoubtedly limits will be addressed by courts & legislators.
It will be messy.

 

[esmith]

No problem at all. None of those signs indicate discrimination on the basis of one of the protected criteria of any public accommodation law that I know of.

Public Accommodation Law Civil Rights Law of 1964 is based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
My right to carry a concealed weapon is based on my Constitutional right to own a firearm and the legal right given to me by my state to do so. However I do realize that most states have laws that say a business can ban weapons. What I'm saying is why can they? Are they not violating my "rights"?