New Protected Class Needed

[Virgil Showlion]

It is my sad duty to report the rise of bigotry in the US.

Courtesy of the Mises Institute (bold by me):

People magazine recently reported news that a number of prominent fashion designers have refused to work with Melania Trump because they do not approve of her, or more likely, her husband’s politics and language.

...

Does anyone think Sophie Theallet will be sued and driven out of business for refusing to endorse Trump’s inauguration? Maybe Trump should sue for discriminatory practices. After all, one could say that turnabout is fair play. The progressives have made life difficult for Christian and religious small businesses, so now it is time to make life difficult for fashion designers. That would certainly fit with Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat attitude towards almost everything in life, especially lawsuits.

But it is the wrong approach. The problem is not that some designers have refused to work with Melania. Let’s be honest, the world does not have a shortage of overpriced dress designers. Melania can find someone else. That is also true for homosexual couples that have sued and persecuted religious florists and bakers. The country does not have a shortage of either. Moreover, while Theallet is refusing to serve Trump at all, religious photographers and bakers are more than willing to serve homosexual customers — just not at their wedding.

No, the issue has never been a lack of service providers. It has been an unwillingness to accept that other people may not endorse your behavior.

YMAM says "Bah!", sir!

Bah, and we cry bigotry!

Have you not heard that moral discretion is dead? We live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody".

Truly I tell you, we are eager for Pres. Trump to sue these fashion designers. If he can't do so because wives of public figures aren't currently a protected (read: privileged) class, he can always grease a few palms, pat a few backs, and add the necessary laws to the books. After all, he's got strong precedents to work with.

Then, as true liberals stand aghast while he sues these designers into bankruptcy for taking a moral stand, it will be our duty to defend him by lobbing out insipid "They should serve the entire public." platitudes. We'll have no choice but to mock their concern with a new version of the "buttercream frosting" trope.

We'll rant about the PRINCIPLE (note all-caps) of denying service based on moral objections, and--yes, I'm sorry--we'll need to insult liberals' intelligence by arguing that the harm caused by these designers is in effect equal to the harm that would be caused if every single human being in America denied service to every single human being with political affiliations. It also goes without saying we'll have to ignore distinctions between fashion designers and emergency doctors, hence my sincerest apologies for this as well.

Altogether, it's a small price to pay to live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody", where Slavery is Freedom, and Privilege is Equality.

Sue away, Pres. Trump! YMAM supports you!

[Green Eyed Lady]

She's probably just pissed off that she knew she wouldn't be asked and made a pre-emptive strike.

[swamp]

Yes, trophy wives of billionaires are oft discriminated against.  

[mmhmm]

Did you resuscitate that poor, dead horse before you rode it back in here, Virgil Showlion?

[tallguy]

Nov 29, 2016 13:40:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It is my sad duty to report the rise of bigotry in the US.

Courtesy of the Mises Institute (bold by me):

People magazine recently reported news that a number of prominent fashion designers have refused to work with Melania Trump because they do not approve of her, or more likely, her husband’s politics and language.

...

Does anyone think Sophie Theallet will be sued and driven out of business for refusing to endorse Trump’s inauguration? Maybe Trump should sue for discriminatory practices. After all, one could say that turnabout is fair play. The progressives have made life difficult for Christian and religious small businesses, so now it is time to make life difficult for fashion designers. That would certainly fit with Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat attitude towards almost everything in life, especially lawsuits.

But it is the wrong approach. The problem is not that some designers have refused to work with Melania. Let’s be honest, the world does not have a shortage of overpriced dress designers. Melania can find someone else. That is also true for homosexual couples that have sued and persecuted religious florists and bakers. The country does not have a shortage of either. Moreover, while Theallet is refusing to serve Trump at all, religious photographers and bakers are more than willing to serve homosexual customers — just not at their wedding.

No, the issue has never been a lack of service providers. It has been an unwillingness to accept that other people may not endorse your behavior.

YMAM says "Bah!", sir!

Bah, and we cry bigotry!

Have you not heard that moral discretion is dead? We live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody".

Truly I tell you, we are eager for Pres. Trump to sue these fashion designers. If he can't do so because wives of public figures aren't currently a protected (read: privileged) class, he can always grease a few palms, pat a few backs, and add the necessary laws to the books. After all, he's got strong precedents to work with.

Then, as true liberals stand aghast while he sues these designers into bankruptcy for taking a moral stand, it will be our duty to defend him by lobbing out insipid "They should serve the entire public." platitudes. We'll have no choice but to mock their concern with a new version of the "buttercream frosting" trope.

We'll rant about the PRINCIPLE (note all-caps) of denying service based on moral objections, and--yes, I'm sorry--we'll need to insult liberals' intelligence by arguing that the harm caused by these designers is in effect equal to the harm that would be caused if every single human being in America denied service to every single human being with political affiliations. It also goes without saying we'll have to ignore distinctions between fashion designers and emergency doctors, hence my sincerest apologies for this as well.

Altogether, it's a small price to pay to live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody", where Slavery is Freedom, and Privilege is Equality.

Sue away, Pres. Trump! YMAM supports you!

Do you ever actually think these things through before you post them?  Or are you convinced that people will see long posts of nice, big words and just accept that you're right?

The situations are not the same.  Even if every designer chose not to work with Melania Trump, she could still go into any upscale boutique and buy a perfectly acceptable dress off the rack.  Every one of those designers probably has a place (or many places) where their dresses are sold, so Mrs. Trump could even get something from the designers who refused her.  (And even that completely disregards the fact that the designer does not sew each individual dress.)  Where, on the other hand, could someone walk in and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake "off-the-shelf?"  Perishability alone requires them to be made individually for each customer.  

Looks like a fail to me, sir.       

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Nobody answered the most important question!  Is Melania still allowed to buy a cake?

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 29, 2016 14:39:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 29, 2016 13:40:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It is my sad duty to report the rise of bigotry in the US.

Courtesy of the Mises Institute (bold by me):

People magazine recently reported news that a number of prominent fashion designers have refused to work with Melania Trump because they do not approve of her, or more likely, her husband’s politics and language.

...

Does anyone think Sophie Theallet will be sued and driven out of business for refusing to endorse Trump’s inauguration? Maybe Trump should sue for discriminatory practices. After all, one could say that turnabout is fair play. The progressives have made life difficult for Christian and religious small businesses, so now it is time to make life difficult for fashion designers. That would certainly fit with Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat attitude towards almost everything in life, especially lawsuits.

But it is the wrong approach. The problem is not that some designers have refused to work with Melania. Let’s be honest, the world does not have a shortage of overpriced dress designers. Melania can find someone else. That is also true for homosexual couples that have sued and persecuted religious florists and bakers. The country does not have a shortage of either. Moreover, while Theallet is refusing to serve Trump at all, religious photographers and bakers are more than willing to serve homosexual customers — just not at their wedding.

No, the issue has never been a lack of service providers. It has been an unwillingness to accept that other people may not endorse your behavior.

YMAM says "Bah!", sir!

Bah, and we cry bigotry!

Have you not heard that moral discretion is dead? We live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody".

Truly I tell you, we are eager for Pres. Trump to sue these fashion designers. If he can't do so because wives of public figures aren't currently a protected (read: privileged) class, he can always grease a few palms, pat a few backs, and add the necessary laws to the books. After all, he's got strong precedents to work with.

Then, as true liberals stand aghast while he sues these designers into bankruptcy for taking a moral stand, it will be our duty to defend him by lobbing out insipid "They should serve the entire public." platitudes. We'll have no choice but to mock their concern with a new version of the "buttercream frosting" trope.

We'll rant about the PRINCIPLE (note all-caps) of denying service based on moral objections, and--yes, I'm sorry--we'll need to insult liberals' intelligence by arguing that the harm caused by these designers is in effect equal to the harm that would be caused if every single human being in America denied service to every single human being with political affiliations. It also goes without saying we'll have to ignore distinctions between fashion designers and emergency doctors, hence my sincerest apologies for this as well.

Altogether, it's a small price to pay to live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody", where Slavery is Freedom, and Privilege is Equality.

Sue away, Pres. Trump! YMAM supports you!

Do you ever actually think these things through before you post them?  Or are you convinced that people will see long posts of nice, big words and just accept that you're right?

The situations are not the same.  Even if every designer chose not to work with Melania Trump, she could still go into any upscale boutique and buy a perfectly acceptable dress off the rack.  Every one of those designers probably has a place (or many places) where their dresses are sold, so Mrs. Trump could even get something from the designers who refused her.  (And even that completely disregards the fact that the designer does not sew each individual dress.)  Where, on the other hand, could someone walk in and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake "off-the-shelf?"  Perishability alone requires them to be made individually for each customer.  

Looks like a fail to me, sir.       

Oh, mercy.

"Even if every designer chose not to work with Melania Trump, she could still go into any upscale boutique and buy a perfectly acceptable dress off the rack. ... Where, on the other hand, could someone walk in and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake 'off-the-shelf?'"

I knew you guys would try to pick out something to rationalize this all away, but I thought it would be "Mrs. Trump can control her husband's behaviour, but homosexuals can't control theirs" or "fashion designers don't always have a place of business open to the public". Something irrelevant, but at least indicating some effort went into contriving the excuse.

Instead you come out swinging with "off-the-shelf". Which leaves us to imagine what excuse you'll dream up when somebody asks you about Joe Shopkeeper refusing to sell off-the-shelf shampoo to a black woman.

"Well... it... uh... Yes. It is off the shelf. Yes. But... the bottle. The bottle! It's in a bottle. Obviously you can't refuse to sell something available off-the-shelf if it's in a bottle. And no, I am not just inventing rationalizations to justify a double standard."

We need an "Excellence in Rationalization" merit badge.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 29, 2016 14:15:08 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Did you resuscitate that poor, dead horse before you rode it back in here, Virgil Showlion ?

It's technically a new dead horse.

This one is the offspring of the old dead horse. It deserves its own beating.

[Green Eyed Lady]

lol...the horse isn't the only thing that deserves a beating

[billisonboard]

Nov 29, 2016 15:11:32 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Nobody answered the most important question!  Is Melania still allowed to buy a cake?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Why in the world did that woman stick marshmallows in her hair?  That's going to be hard to wash out.

[imawino]

Nov 29, 2016 13:40:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It is my sad duty to report the rise of bigotry in the US.

Courtesy of the Mises Institute (bold by me):

People magazine recently reported news that a number of prominent fashion designers have refused to work with Melania Trump because they do not approve of her, or more likely, her husband’s politics and language.

...

Does anyone think Sophie Theallet will be sued and driven out of business for refusing to endorse Trump’s inauguration? Maybe Trump should sue for discriminatory practices. After all, one could say that turnabout is fair play. The progressives have made life difficult for Christian and religious small businesses, so now it is time to make life difficult for fashion designers. That would certainly fit with Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat attitude towards almost everything in life, especially lawsuits.

But it is the wrong approach. The problem is not that some designers have refused to work with Melania. Let’s be honest, the world does not have a shortage of overpriced dress designers. Melania can find someone else. That is also true for homosexual couples that have sued and persecuted religious florists and bakers. The country does not have a shortage of either. Moreover, while Theallet is refusing to serve Trump at all, religious photographers and bakers are more than willing to serve homosexual customers — just not at their wedding.

No, the issue has never been a lack of service providers. It has been an unwillingness to accept that other people may not endorse your behavior.

YMAM says "Bah!", sir!

Bah, and we cry bigotry!

Have you not heard that moral discretion is dead? We live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody".

Truly I tell you, we are eager for Pres. Trump to sue these fashion designers. If he can't do so because wives of public figures aren't currently a protected (read: privileged) class, he can always grease a few palms, pat a few backs, and add the necessary laws to the books. After all, he's got strong precedents to work with.

Then, as true liberals stand aghast while he sues these designers into bankruptcy for taking a moral stand, it will be our duty to defend him by lobbing out insipid "They should serve the entire public." platitudes. We'll have no choice but to mock their concern with a new version of the "buttercream frosting" trope.

We'll rant about the PRINCIPLE (note all-caps) of denying service based on moral objections, and--yes, I'm sorry--we'll need to insult liberals' intelligence by arguing that the harm caused by these designers is in effect equal to the harm that would be caused if every single human being in America denied service to every single human being with political affiliations. It also goes without saying we'll have to ignore distinctions between fashion designers and emergency doctors, hence my sincerest apologies for this as well.

Altogether, it's a small price to pay to live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody", where Slavery is Freedom, and Privilege is Equality.

Sue away, Pres. Trump! YMAM supports you!

A protected class is NOT equal to a privileged class.  But it is ironic that you want to call homosexuals/black people/etc privileged while whining about a completely made up plight of actual privileged people. 

[billisonboard]

Incorporation

[tallguy]

Nov 29, 2016 15:13:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 29, 2016 14:39:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Do you ever actually think these things through before you post them?  Or are you convinced that people will see long posts of nice, big words and just accept that you're right?

The situations are not the same.  Even if every designer chose not to work with Melania Trump, she could still go into any upscale boutique and buy a perfectly acceptable dress off the rack.  Every one of those designers probably has a place (or many places) where their dresses are sold, so Mrs. Trump could even get something from the designers who refused her.  (And even that completely disregards the fact that the designer does not sew each individual dress.)  Where, on the other hand, could someone walk in and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake "off-the-shelf?"  Perishability alone requires them to be made individually for each customer.  

Looks like a fail to me, sir.       

Oh, mercy.

"Even if every designer chose not to work with Melania Trump, she could still go into any upscale boutique and buy a perfectly acceptable dress off the rack. ... Where, on the other hand, could someone walk in and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake 'off-the-shelf?'"

I knew you guys would try to pick out something to rationalize this all away, but I thought it would be "Mrs. Trump can control her husband's behaviour, but homosexuals can't control theirs" or "fashion designers don't always have a place of business open to the public". Something irrelevant, but at least indicating some effort went into contriving the excuse.

Instead you come out swinging with "off-the-shelf". Which leaves us to imagine what excuse you'll dream up when somebody asks you about Joe Shopkeeper refusing to sell off-the-shelf shampoo to a black woman.

"Well... it... uh... Yes. It is off the shelf. Yes. But... the bottle. The bottle! It's in a bottle. Obviously you can't refuse to sell something available off-the-shelf if it's in a bottle. And no, I am not just inventing rationalizations to justify a double standard."

We need an "Excellence in Rationalization" merit badge.

Considering the other defense of the bakers to get around anti-discrimination laws was that they were devoting their creative efforts and were thus personally involved in baking the cake, a simplistic "access" argument doesn't fit.  The creativity argument is analogous to the other situation. 
And I was beginning to think it not possible for you to get more ridiculous in your responses, but you do keep surprising me.  Kudos.    

[tallguy]

Nov 29, 2016 15:11:32 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Nobody answered the most important question!  Is Melania still allowed to buy a cake?

As long as she's not jumping out of one....    

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Nov 29, 2016 15:31:03 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 29, 2016 15:11:32 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Nobody answered the most important question!  Is Melania still allowed to buy a cake?

As long as she's not jumping out of one....    

You spoiled the inauguration ball surprise.

[tallguy]

Seems fair.  Her husband is spoiling a lot of things for the rest of us.    

[andi9899]

I must say that I find it rather amusing that this is being compared to bigotry given who her husband is.

[dondub]

 What comes around goes around.

[verrip1]

Moral equivalence never works at YMAM.  From any perspective.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 29, 2016 14:39:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 29, 2016 13:40:56 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It is my sad duty to report the rise of bigotry in the US.

Courtesy of the Mises Institute (bold by me):

People magazine recently reported news that a number of prominent fashion designers have refused to work with Melania Trump because they do not approve of her, or more likely, her husband’s politics and language.

...

Does anyone think Sophie Theallet will be sued and driven out of business for refusing to endorse Trump’s inauguration? Maybe Trump should sue for discriminatory practices. After all, one could say that turnabout is fair play. The progressives have made life difficult for Christian and religious small businesses, so now it is time to make life difficult for fashion designers. That would certainly fit with Donald Trump’s tit-for-tat attitude towards almost everything in life, especially lawsuits.

But it is the wrong approach. The problem is not that some designers have refused to work with Melania. Let’s be honest, the world does not have a shortage of overpriced dress designers. Melania can find someone else. That is also true for homosexual couples that have sued and persecuted religious florists and bakers. The country does not have a shortage of either. Moreover, while Theallet is refusing to serve Trump at all, religious photographers and bakers are more than willing to serve homosexual customers — just not at their wedding.

No, the issue has never been a lack of service providers. It has been an unwillingness to accept that other people may not endorse your behavior.

YMAM says "Bah!", sir!

Bah, and we cry bigotry!

Have you not heard that moral discretion is dead? We live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody".

Truly I tell you, we are eager for Pres. Trump to sue these fashion designers. If he can't do so because wives of public figures aren't currently a protected (read: privileged) class, he can always grease a few palms, pat a few backs, and add the necessary laws to the books. After all, he's got strong precedents to work with.

Then, as true liberals stand aghast while he sues these designers into bankruptcy for taking a moral stand, it will be our duty to defend him by lobbing out insipid "They should serve the entire public." platitudes. We'll have no choice but to mock their concern with a new version of the "buttercream frosting" trope.

We'll rant about the PRINCIPLE (note all-caps) of denying service based on moral objections, and--yes, I'm sorry--we'll need to insult liberals' intelligence by arguing that the harm caused by these designers is in effect equal to the harm that would be caused if every single human being in America denied service to every single human being with political affiliations. It also goes without saying we'll have to ignore distinctions between fashion designers and emergency doctors, hence my sincerest apologies for this as well.

Altogether, it's a small price to pay to live in the glorious era of "You Have to Serve Everybody", where Slavery is Freedom, and Privilege is Equality.

Sue away, Pres. Trump! YMAM supports you!

Do you ever actually think these things through before you post them?  Or are you convinced that people will see long posts of nice, big words and just accept that you're right?

The situations are not the same.  Even if every designer chose not to work with Melania Trump, she could still go into any upscale boutique and buy a perfectly acceptable dress off the rack.  Every one of those designers probably has a place (or many places) where their dresses are sold, so Mrs. Trump could even get something from the designers who refused her.  (And even that completely disregards the fact that the designer does not sew each individual dress.)  Where, on the other hand, could someone walk in and buy a multi-tiered wedding cake "off-the-shelf?"  Perishability alone requires them to be made individually for each customer.  

Looks like a fail to me, sir.       

That is because you willingly choose to ignore the point made....the bakers didn't have an issue with serving gay men and women, just had an issue with doing it for a wedding.  However, it seems that they don't have the right to deny service in that instance...and let's just say for arguments sake that they did offer and "off the shelf" cake, I seriously doubt you (and many posters on here) would be arguing that is was ok.

[billisonboard]

Nov 29, 2016 17:12:29 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

... ....the bakers ...

Actually, the bakery. No individual baker was told they had to make a cake. A bakery open to the public was told it had to make a cake.

[mmhmm]

Nov 29, 2016 15:15:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 29, 2016 14:15:08 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Did you resuscitate that poor, dead horse before you rode it back in here, Virgil Showlion ?

It's technically a new dead horse.

This one is the offspring of the old dead horse. It deserves its own beating.

It's difficult, I'd say, to concentrate on the new dead horse when you drag the old dead horse, decaying and stinking, into the discussion in the very first post. Wouldn't you agree?

[tallguy]

Actually, the bakery. No individual baker was told they had to make a cake. A bakery open to the public was told it had to make a cake.

Correct.  It is the combination of "open to the public" and anti-discrimination law that got the bakery into trouble.
 

However, it seems that they don't have the right to deny service in that instance...and let's just say for arguments sake that they did offer and "off the shelf" cake, I seriously doubt you (and many posters on here) would be arguing that is was ok.

No, they don't have the right to deny service with that combination of factors.  And if there were an off-the-shelf cake, I'd say it was fine if that was the only cake they made.  Buy it if you like it, or don't.  A customer cannot force a company to do special orders if they don't do special orders.  But under the same laws, if you offer a service to anyone who comes in off the street (such as designing a cake to the customer's request) then the law requires you to offer the same service to all.  Again, though, it does not translate to the dress designer, since not everyone can walk in off the street and have a designer create something specifically for them.  They are not "open to the public", so to speak.  A dress SHOP, on the other hand, IS presumably* open to the public and would have to serve the customer if they could.    

* I'm not sure how it works with really high-end boutiques.  They may be by appointment only and for qualified customers only.    
  

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Nov 29, 2016 17:44:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Actually, the bakery. No individual baker was told they had to make a cake. A bakery open to the public was told it had to make a cake.

Correct.  It is the combination of "open to the public" and anti-discrimination law that got the bakery into trouble.
 

However, it seems that they don't have the right to deny service in that instance...and let's just say for arguments sake that they did offer and "off the shelf" cake, I seriously doubt you (and many posters on here) would be arguing that is was ok.

No, they don't have the right to deny service with that combination of factors.  And if there were an off-the-shelf cake, I'd say it was fine if that was the only cake they made.  Buy it if you like it, or don't.  A customer cannot force a company to do special orders if they don't do special orders.  But under the same laws, if you offer a service to anyone who comes in off the street (such as designing a cake to the customer's request) then the law requires you to offer the same service to all.  Again, though, it does not translate to the dress designer, since not everyone can walk in off the street and have a designer create something specifically for them.  They are not "open to the public", so to speak.  A dress SHOP, on the other hand, IS presumably* open to the public and would have to serve the customer if they could.    

* I'm not sure how it works with really high-end boutiques.  They may be by appointment only and for qualified customers only.    
  

So the short answer is no you wouldn't find that to be an acceptable answer in the bakery case.

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 29, 2016 17:34:18 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Nov 29, 2016 15:15:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's technically a new dead horse.

This one is the offspring of the old dead horse. It deserves its own beating.

It's difficult, I'd say, to concentrate on the new dead horse when you drag the old dead horse, decaying and stinking, into the discussion in the very first post. Wouldn't you agree?

The new dead horse is the old dead horse.

There's no difference between the two cases except in the minds of those who want to give the thumbs up to persecution of "bigoted" Christian business owners and the thumbs down to persecution of "bigoted" fashion designers.

You've got Tall grasping at "you can't buy cakes off the shelf" straws, imawino with "Mrs. Trump really is privileged" (I guess she deserves it?), andi9899 and Don out of the gate with a tu quoque, billis with "bakery ≠ bakers" (in fairness to billis, he did propose a reasonable compromise in the old dead horse thread), and then Tall again with a revised version of his original excuse.

Admittedly part of the reason I posted the article was curiosity over whether the usual suspects would stick to their "principles" argument or else dream up specious rationalizations to flip sides when they no longer objected to the business owners' moral stance. Now I have my answer. Curiosity sated. Hence this new dead horse needn't endure as thorough a beating as the previous one.

[dondub]

So now you believe in reincarnation?

[mmhmm]

Nov 29, 2016 18:27:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 29, 2016 17:34:18 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It's difficult, I'd say, to concentrate on the new dead horse when you drag the old dead horse, decaying and stinking, into the discussion in the very first post. Wouldn't you agree?

The new dead horse is the old dead horse.

There's no difference between the two cases except in the minds of those who want to give the thumbs up to persecution of "bigoted" Christian business owners and the thumbs down to persecution of "bigoted" fashion designers.

You've got Tall grasping at "you can't buy cakes off the shelf" straws, imawino with "Mrs. Trump really is privileged" (I guess she deserves it?), andi9899 and Don out of the gate with a tu quoque, billis with "bakery ≠ bakers" (in fairness to billis, he did propose a reasonable compromise in the old dead horse thread), and then Tall again with a revised version of his original excuse.

Admittedly part of the reason I posted the article was curiosity over whether the usual suspects would stick to their "principles" argument or else dream up specious rationalizations to flip sides when they no longer objected to the business owners' moral stance. Now I have my answer. Curiosity sated. Hence this new dead horse needn't endure as thorough a beating as the previous one.

Oh! Do forgive! I'd have sworn you said it was a new dead horse even though you, yourself, brought the old dead horse into the conversation in with the comments about religious small businesses and bakers rather than waiting to see if someone else (Should I say one of the "usual suspects"?) brought that old one back.
Definitely my bad. Yeah.

[tallguy]

Nov 29, 2016 18:24:38 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Nov 29, 2016 17:44:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Correct.  It is the combination of "open to the public" and anti-discrimination law that got the bakery into trouble.
 
No, they don't have the right to deny service with that combination of factors.  And if there were an off-the-shelf cake, I'd say it was fine if that was the only cake they made.  Buy it if you like it, or don't.  A customer cannot force a company to do special orders if they don't do special orders.  But under the same laws, if you offer a service to anyone who comes in off the street (such as designing a cake to the customer's request) then the law requires you to offer the same service to all.  Again, though, it does not translate to the dress designer, since not everyone can walk in off the street and have a designer create something specifically for them.  They are not "open to the public", so to speak.  A dress SHOP, on the other hand, IS presumably* open to the public and would have to serve the customer if they could.    

* I'm not sure how it works with really high-end boutiques.  They may be by appointment only and for qualified customers only.    
  

So the short answer is no you wouldn't find that to be an acceptable answer in the bakery case.

What service do they offer to anyone else walking in off the street?  If it is the same, then there is no problem.  If it is different, then there is.  Different standards for different classes of otherwise equal people is the focus of anti-discrimination law, as it should be.

[tallguy]

Nov 29, 2016 18:34:12 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Nov 29, 2016 17:44:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Correct.  It is the combination of "open to the public" and anti-discrimination law that got the bakery into trouble.
 
No, they don't have the right to deny service with that combination of factors.  And if there were an off-the-shelf cake, I'd say it was fine if that was the only cake they made.  Buy it if you like it, or don't.  A customer cannot force a company to do special orders if they don't do special orders.  But under the same laws, if you offer a service to anyone who comes in off the street (such as designing a cake to the customer's request) then the law requires you to offer the same service to all.  Again, though, it does not translate to the dress designer, since not everyone can walk in off the street and have a designer create something specifically for them.  They are not "open to the public", so to speak.  A dress SHOP, on the other hand, IS presumably* open to the public and would have to serve the customer if they could.    

* I'm not sure how it works with really high-end boutiques.  They may be by appointment only and for qualified customers only.    
  

wait, are you saying that you'd be OK if the bakery only offered certain services (say, off the shelf cakes vs their custom stuff) to protected classes?

would you be OK with the "black only" counter only serving baloney sandwiches instead of a full menu?

No, not at all.  I'd be okay if the bakery only offered off-the-shelf cakes, period.  I'd be okay with a deli counter offering only baloney sandwiches, period.  If they offer something else to certain customers then they need to offer the same to all customers.  Anything else is not only a violation of law, at least in those places where the law exists, but a violation of "right."