Hacker News Reader

Comment by macinjosh | Hacker News Reader

Cases like this have me baffled. They just seem unreasonable. Why would you want to pay someone to make something important to you like a wedding cake if they clearly do not want to? On the other hand what sort of business rejects paying customers that aren't doing any harm?

I realize it is a matter of principle for both sides but why do both political wings in the US feel compelled to force those with opposing belief systems to comply with their belief system? Post a negative review on Yelp and just find a better baker that's not a jerk!

The level of tolerance of those with differing opinions is extremely low in this country and I fear it may eventually be an Achille's heel. Tolerance goes both ways, if someone is being a jerk to you avoid them don't bully them into doing things your way. On the flipside if someone wants to be your customer: let them!

View on HN

If it genuinely was a minority, infrequently held view it wouldn't be a big problem. This is why "people with red hair" isn't a protected class despite occasionally getting abuse on that basis. But unless there's some legal pressure you'd get whole counties or even states where it would be extremely hard for some people to get any kind of service at all.

"Equal marriage in this state is legal, but none of the registrars or venues are willing to have you" would be a pretty poor implementation of equal marriage.

>If it genuinely was a minority, infrequently held view it wouldn't be a big problem.

It's weird because height is something that is strongly discriminated based upon, but rarely explicitly other than dating. There is research showing its impacts on personal interactions, its impact on pay, its impact on elections, and more. But it is in no way protected and in many interactions I've personally seen it is treated as something that one shouldn't complain about.

Once you can point to scientific evidence that a non-controllable factor is being used to discriminate for things like income, shouldn't it be given protection, even if historically there wasn't the same level of discrimination as with things like race? Should it be the modern day discrimination based on something that should be irrelevant that matters (and if it is relevant, such as when hiring basketball players, such discrimination would be allowed, which is already the rule).

Gosh golly, why would a black person want to eat in a restaurant run by an open white supremacist? To make a point, of course. Because this isn't just "opposing belief systems" in a Coke vs Pepsi way. We can't just all get along when the topic is effectively whether some group are really people or not.

Look at California's Proposition 8, for example. The text of it explicitly carved an exemption out of the state constitution's equal protection clause. The expressed notion was that everybody is equal before the law except gay people.

Tyranny of the majority is a common bug in democracies, which is why equal protection is important. As history shows, letting majorities oppress minorities leads to horrific results. Which is why equal protection is a vital principle of American government.

Your theory of tolerance is appealing but wrong. Minorities should not have to segregate themselves away from bigots. Separate but equal isn't equal.

I agree with your sentiments. But I do not see an epidemic of bakeries refusing to make cakes for minorities of any kind. It's just one baker here and there who acts poorly. It is nowhere near the same as the segregated south where discrimination was rampant.

Sure. But this is the thin end of the wedge. This suit wasn't funded by artists or bakers. It was funded by religious people who are upset they can't discriminate as much against gay people as they used to.

> Why would you want to pay someone to make something important to you like a wedding cake if they clearly do not want to?

You assume they wanted to get the cake. If you assume instead they wanted to get the baker - either in advance (knowing he'd refuse because of his beliefs that he didn't exactly hide), or after the refusal which offended them - then all of it makes perfect sense.

> I realize it is a matter of principle for both sides but why do both political wings in the US feel compelled to force those with opposing belief systems to comply with their belief system?

Because they can? Obviously it is pleasant (at least for some people) to have others to bow to your moral superiority, even more pleasant if you can do it using the vast powers of the government. I mean, a lot of people spend sleepless nights arguing with somebody wrong on the internet. Now if they have a chance to actually do something about it - like making being wrong punishable, make those outgroup bastards suffer, make them not have their wrong opinions anymore or at least be afraid to have them openly - why wouldn't many people take it? Experience proves they would.

> Tolerance goes both ways, if someone is being a jerk to you avoid them don't bully them into doing things your way.

That's the old way, unfortunately. The new way is if you think somebody is being a jerk, you are allowed to be as much jerk as you want to them, and then some, because you're Fighting For The Right Side. Yes, I don't like it either, but I don't see any significant cultural backlash against it. On the contrary, I see only more escalation of jerk-ness.

I'm not sure what it's like in this couple's town, but in my hometown in the South, as of when I was in high school, I genuinely don't know where I'd go to find any gay-affirming baker. I could probably find a few who would take the job for money, but most of the good bakeries in the town were owned by old Cajun families who generally had strong Catholic beliefs, and most of the people not of that demographic were conservative Protestants. (I can also tell you a little bit about being raised in that environment and whether I would have felt totally comfortable selling such a cake if I hadn't left the town.) I think my best bet would have been a supermarket chain, but a) do you really want a supermarket cake for your wedding b) I have no reason to expect that the person working the bakery counter that day would be comfortable with my order.

Is the answer for a gay couple in such a place to just leave their hometown?

I don't think people should have to leave their hometown because of bigotry. If I was in their position I would want to leave ASAP because I would want nothing to do with them. What I don't understand is the proclivity people have for conflict versus ignoring the minority of bigots and enjoying life despite them.

To add to the discussion, my brother is in Lakewood, right next door. The gay couple isn't leaving anytime soon, as the area is pretty 'live and let live', they aren't being chased out (except maybe by hispters due to rising rents). Denver is pretty gay friendly in general. Though there are a fair few crazies, it's rare enough that any incident of bigotry is newsworthy.

Google maps link:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Masterpiece+Cakeshop/@39.6...

Of note: the educational institution just below Marston Lake on S. Pierce St.

> minority of bigots

They weren't a minority until sustained campaigning. Even now I know a number of people who've been rejected by their families for queerness. In "modern, urban" parts of the UK.

Bigotry has a nasty habit of getting in your face and making itself impossible to ignore. Sometimes violently.

My brother lives in Lakewood, so I've spent a fair amount of time in the area. It's west Denver and a pretty nice place to live. My take is that there are a lot of 'liberal' folks there; you see a lot of pride flags on the signs of mega-churches. Denver is a bit of a mixed bag in general. It's the meeting point between hyper-liberal Boulder and conservative Colorado Springs (though even CS is going liberal now). It's more of a 'libertarian' vibe than a 'republican' vibe. As such, the folks there will side with the baker in terms of his right to be bigoted. But his business is really hurting at the same time because people think he's an ass. In general, CO politics are pretty quiet, as the legislature can't raise taxes (TABOR). But when it comes to water and drought, Denver makes DC look like kiddos. Water is the BIG deal in CO.

Because it is best for everyone if public businesses serve all customers regardless of race, sexual orientation, appearance, etc. No one wants to be rejected service because of their sexual orientation. Just like how it was terrible that businesses in the south would not provide service to African Americans back in the day.

Sure, this couple could have easily found another bakery to get their the cake. But, do we really want to allow business owners to reject service and make people from certain groups feel dejected and out of place?

There is a spectrum of goods and services suppliers, from luxury to essential. These gentlemen wanted a wedding cake. It's not essential and they may have had time to find an alternative supplier that, as you say, wasn't a jerk.

What happens when it's the pharmacy or grocery store? Or their kid's hockey coach or piano teacher? Or the only car mechanic in town?

I generally believe in a business' right to refuse service but I wrestle with situations like this.

I see it like this.

If cake is art, then, we shouldn't force an artist to do something he doesn't wanna. That's very clearly free speech, although the reason is f'ing awful. Is cake art? I dont know.

But I don't think there's a general right to refuse service based on arbitrary beliefs. DOUBLY so when you're a medical professional.

If enough businesses reject gay customers, it imposes a financial and emotional cost on being gay. Large numbers of people don't think that's acceptable behavior from commercial entities.

What is 'enough' businesses? AFAIK, sexual orientation is not a protected class under the civil rights (perhaps it should be). However, even without those protections there is not a rampant problem of discrimination. So it would seem to me these problematic businesses are being sought out and taken to court because of their religious beliefs. I think the burden on the customer to go to any other bakery is less than the burden of imposing on one's religious freedom.

Any comparisons to race on this topic is unfounded as race is already a protected class and I don't know of any mainstream religion that discriminates based on color.

> Any comparisons to race on this topic is unfounded as race is already a protected class and I don't know of any mainstream religion that discriminates based on color.

Religion was an integral part of opposition to interracial marriages in the United States. In the case Loving v. Virginia, the case then ended up striking down bans on interracial marriage, the trial judge stated "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." [1]

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

> I think the burden on the customer to go to any other bakery is less than the burden of imposing on one's religious freedom.

This isn't at all clear to me. Even if the burdens were mismatched, I think the fact that on the one side you have private individuals and on the other you have commercial entities is an important point that you are leaving out.

> This isn't at all clear to me. Even if the burdens were mismatched, I think the fact that on the one side you have private individuals and on the other you have commercial entities is an important point that you are leaving out.

That's a valid point. Organizations can't have religious beliefs, so it would seem to me that if you have an LLC or are incorporated, you can't discriminate based on things like that. But, if you're just using the DBA model or self-employed without even a DBA, you could be allowed to.

It'd make people really consider whether forming an LLC is worth it. There's a lot of benefits that come with it, but it also means you can no longer discriminate based on "religious freedom".

Much like other pushes for equality it’s probably less about the individual people and more about setting a legal and perhaps societal precedent. If you zoom in on individual cases during the civil rights era you could have expressed the same sentiment.

One of the problems with letting the market solve our moral quagmires is that hate is plain and quotidian enough to seep into every corner of our interactions. Would you feel the same if a small town grocery store refused to serve disabled people?

And to the bully comment, there is an expectation in the free world that someone who enters the service industry serves people based on their interest in the product and nothing else. You're free to be as shitty and intolerant as you want to be in your private residence.

Would you say the same to a black person who objects to a "Whites only" sign in a store window?

These Supreme Court cases are rarely “one guy wants this and is astonished to find that this other guy won’t sell to him.” Both parties are acting in full knowledge and desirous of a Supreme Court case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com