When does personal belief get to be practiced and when not?

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2016 14:12:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 1:10:30 GMT -5 dondub said:

Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

Excellent transition of your homophobia to include bestiality. Well done!

You really need to learn the definition of phobia.

I have no problem with gay people living their lives like everyone else- with the same civil rights, and legal protections afforded anyone else.  Everyone should be equal before the law.

They're just not entitled to a cake and a photographer, because no one is entitled to another person's labor.

And as before you are right AND wrong.

You are right... no one is entitled to come up to "Joe Average Person" and say "Bake me a cake, I have a right to it" or "come photograph my wedding, I have a right to it".

You are wrong... If a company bakes and sells cakes or does "on-site" photography of weddings or WHATEVER... then a person has every right to pay them for those services that they willingly offer to the "general public" and expect to get them.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 5, 2016 19:42:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 5, 2016 14:12:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

You really need to learn the definition of phobia.

I have no problem with gay people living their lives like everyone else- with the same civil rights, and legal protections afforded anyone else.  Everyone should be equal before the law.

They're just not entitled to a cake and a photographer, because no one is entitled to another person's labor.

And as before you are right AND wrong.

You are right... no one is entitled to come up to "Joe Average Person" and say "Bake me a cake, I have a right to it" or "come photograph my wedding, I have a right to it".

You are wrong... If a company bakes and sells cakes or does "on-site" photography of weddings or WHATEVER... then a person has every right to pay them for those services that they willingly offer to the "general public" and expect to get them.

No. You are wrong. A business owner has the absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all.  You have no expectation of being served just because the business serves others.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2016 14:17:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 10:35:48 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Paul...I'm with you on a lot of things...but not this one.  The government isn't forcing anybody to bake a cake.  If they visited you and told you that you must bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception - that would be the government forcing someone to bake a cake.

The government is saying that IF you bake cakes for the public, you must serve the public.  That's an entirely different thing.  I don't think you, as an avid protector of freedom want to go down this road.  What if tomorrow, a bakery decides not to serve Christians...Republicans...white males?  Sure.  You can say that they can go down the road to another bakery, but what if NO bakery wants to serve  them and they are allowed not to?  I just don't think you want to start a trip down a road where people decide who they can discriminate against. 

You're kidding, right?  The government has no authority derived from the Constitution to determine who the customers are for a private business.  The government has no legitimate authority to co opt your business and make it a "public accommodation"-- there's no such animal. 

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another. 

And as keeps being spelled out to you, they do have the right to refuse service to any ONE (individual person that has caused them some issue... like late or non payment of bills/invoices, making an unjustified scene, someone protesting them  in front of their shop, et cetera). They don't have the right to refuse service to any GROUP/CLASS.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2016 19:46:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 19:42:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

And as before you are right AND wrong.

You are right... no one is entitled to come up to "Joe Average Person" and say "Bake me a cake, I have a right to it" or "come photograph my wedding, I have a right to it".

You are wrong... If a company bakes and sells cakes or does "on-site" photography of weddings or WHATEVER... then a person has every right to pay them for those services that they willingly offer to the "general public" and expect to get them.

No. You are wrong. A business owner has the absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all.  You have no expectation of being served just because the business serves others.

"You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means" (famous quote)

My paraphrase of that quote to make it fit here: You keep saying that. It doesn't mean what you think it means. 

[Virgil Showlion]

It's Oregon Bakery Thread #16! We made it!

They said it couldn't be done!

[billisonboard]

Jan 5, 2016 19:01:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 16:28:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Generally agree. But a business has no right under the Constitution to have corporate status. That is why I support a quid pro quo arrangement. Society, through our government, should tell business owners that we are willing to grant them corporate status if they agree to certain things like no discrimination against classes of people we wish to not have them discriminate. This would leave them free to make the decision. And would actually be a return to conditions more similar to the way things were during the time of our founding as a nation. General laws of incorporation did not exist then. Legislatures granted specific charters to specific groups and those charters had conditions.

An individual should not lose the asset protection features of a corporate entity or agree to government strings attached. You don't hand in your Constitutional rights with your corporate filings.  I repeat: a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.

There is no Constitutional right to have the government use its power to protect your assets. Individuals are free to enter into a contractual agreement to voluntarily give up their rights. Those of us who enlisted in our military are fully aware of how that works. The government agreed to give us something we desired, we signed on the line, and away we went. No difference for those who choose to get the benefits incorporation provides.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 5, 2016 8:11:28 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Then Muslim servers should serve pork and alcohol and not be exempt if they choose to work in a place that does.

Absolutely!

If a Muslim chooses to work in a place like McDonald's then they can't eschew handling bacon cheeseburgers.

If a Muslim chooses to work in a bar-restaurant, he must serve alcoholic drinks to the patrons.

If a Muslim chooses to work at Hooters, she can't wear a burqa.

People have to do their jobs, and if your job is making wedding cakes, then make the damn cakes without turning your nose up at the homosexuals.

[tallguy]

Jan 5, 2016 14:17:40 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 10:35:48 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Paul...I'm with you on a lot of things...but not this one.  The government isn't forcing anybody to bake a cake.  If they visited you and told you that you must bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception - that would be the government forcing someone to bake a cake.

The government is saying that IF you bake cakes for the public, you must serve the public.  That's an entirely different thing.  I don't think you, as an avid protector of freedom want to go down this road.  What if tomorrow, a bakery decides not to serve Christians...Republicans...white males?  Sure.  You can say that they can go down the road to another bakery, but what if NO bakery wants to serve  them and they are allowed not to?  I just don't think you want to start a trip down a road where people decide who they can discriminate against. 

You're kidding, right?  The government has no authority derived from the Constitution to determine who the customers are for a private business.  The government has no legitimate authority to co opt your business and make it a "public accommodation"-- there's no such animal. 

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another. 

The Equal Protection Clause would disagree with you.  Your major misunderstanding here is that you confuse "privately-owned" with "private business."  For a business that is truly private I will agree with you.  That is why the bakery is now perfectly within their rights (as I understand their current structure) to accept or decline any particular customer they choose.  They run their business out of their home and are not "open to the public."  Given that, they are not subject to public accommodation or anti-discrimination laws.   

A public business, however, IS subject to those laws, regardless of its ownership structure.  As I've said, and will keep saying until YOU get it, a public business can be privately owned.  If you open a business serving the public, you must serve the public.  You may, as has been said many times, deny an individual customer if that customer has caused a problem for the business.  You cannot deny an entire class of customers.  State anti-discrimination laws forbid it, and the state has the authority and the duty to enforce those laws.  General governmental authority for this can be found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which DOES define businesses as "public accommodations."  It also by the way expressly exempts private entities not open to the public.  You can rant all you like about governmental force trampling fundamental rights, but it is you who are wrong on this.  Legally and morally.  A business agrees to follow the laws when it opens to the public.  If it does not agree with those laws, it is perfectly free not to open.  It is NOT free to disregard the laws.  (More precisely, it is, but only as long as it is willing to live with the consequences for doing so.) 

[weltschmerz]

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another

...and we'll keep telling you until YOU get it.

You can toss someone out for disruptive behaviour, not wearing a shirt or shoes, etc., but YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PEOPLE!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Equal protection clause guarantees your right to be treated the same under the law as other people are treated. That would not entitle you to a cake at a bakery.

A business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.

[billisonboard]

Jan 6, 2016 12:43:06 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

As I've said, and will keep saying until everyone gets it: a business owner has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. The government has no right to say "IF" you do one thing, you MUST do another

...and we'll keep telling you until YOU get it.

You can toss someone out for disruptive behaviour, not wearing a shirt or shoes, etc., but YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PEOPLE!

And I will keep offering the idea that allows for individuals to retain their freedom of choice and gives society the means to encourage businesses to meet the desire of the larger society.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Then...why did they have to pay a big fine/damages if what they did was perfectly legal?

ETA:  I'm not arguing here, but there are a couple of people who adamantly state the bakers had the right to refuse service.  I guess I don't know what's true and what isn't - not for sure.  If they did have this right, why were they fined?  Last I knew, you didn't have damages assessed if you did nothing wrong. 

[wvugurl26]

Jan 6, 2016 12:51:17 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Then...why did they have to pay a big fine/damages if what they did was perfectly legal?

ETA:  I'm not arguing here, but there are a couple of people who adamantly state the bakers had the right to refuse service.  I guess I don't know what's true and what isn't - not for sure.  If they did have this right, why were they fined?  Last I knew, you didn't have damages assessed if you did nothing wrong. 

It seems to me that the big fine is resulting from sharing their address online. Which resulted in them nearly losing their foster children. That action on the part of the bakery caused them harm.

That I have an issue with, it was reckless on the part of the bakery to post that. I get the law protects against this kind of discrimination but personally I'd rather spend my money at a place that welcomes it.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Thanks, wvugurl26. What was the little fine for? I believe it was initially $7000, wasn't it?

[billisonboard]

Jan 6, 2016 12:51:17 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Then...why did they have to pay a big fine/damages if what they did was perfectly legal?

ETA:  I'm not arguing here, but there are a couple of people who adamantly state the bakers had the right to refuse service.  I guess I don't know what's true and what isn't - not for sure.  If they did have this right, why were they fined?  Last I knew, you didn't have damages assessed if you did nothing wrong. 

My sense of the confusion that you say you have is that some people are arguing what "should" be the law of the land and some are describing what "is" the law of the land. They did break what "is" the law of the land and thus were fined.

[wvugurl26]

The fine might have been for breaking the law and the bigger amount is punitive damages I think.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 6, 2016 13:06:41 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 6, 2016 12:51:17 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Then...why did they have to pay a big fine/damages if what they did was perfectly legal?

ETA:  I'm not arguing here, but there are a couple of people who adamantly state the bakers had the right to refuse service.  I guess I don't know what's true and what isn't - not for sure.  If they did have this right, why were they fined?  Last I knew, you didn't have damages assessed if you did nothing wrong. 

My sense of the confusion that you say you have is that some people are arguing what "should" be the law of the land and some are describing what "is" the law of the land. They did break what "is" the law of the land and thus were fined.

Ah. Yes. Thank you.

[kittensaver]

Jan 6, 2016 12:49:08 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Equal protection clause guarantees your right to be treated the same under the law as other people are treated. Yes, and UNDER THE LAW IN OREGON you may not discriminate in your services because of a person's sexual orientation. You must treat that person the same under the law as anyone else, and that means baking them a wedding cake if you bake wedding cakes for other people. That would not entitle you to a cake at a bakery. In this case, it would. Whatever that baker offers as services to the public must be offered in a non-discriminatory manner. Why is this soooooo friggin' hard for you to understand? A business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. EXCEPT for a discriminatory reason. I think you just don't WANT to understand. You just want to use your own myopic world view to tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they are wrong.

[Opti]

Jan 5, 2016 19:01:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 5, 2016 16:28:51 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Generally agree. But a business has no right under the Constitution to have corporate status. That is why I support a quid pro quo arrangement. Society, through our government, should tell business owners that we are willing to grant them corporate status if they agree to certain things like no discrimination against classes of people we wish to not have them discriminate. This would leave them free to make the decision. And would actually be a return to conditions more similar to the way things were during the time of our founding as a nation. General laws of incorporation did not exist then. Legislatures granted specific charters to specific groups and those charters had conditions.

An individual should not lose the asset protection features of a corporate entity or agree to government strings attached. You don't hand in your Constitutional rights with your corporate filings.  I repeat: a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.

You can repeat this until the end of time. Won't make it true.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 6, 2016 4:43:58 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 5, 2016 8:11:28 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Then Muslim servers should serve pork and alcohol and not be exempt if they choose to work in a place that does.

Absolutely!

If a Muslim chooses to work in a place like McDonald's then they can't eschew handling bacon cheeseburgers.

If a Muslim chooses to work in a bar-restaurant, he must serve alcoholic drinks to the patrons.

If a Muslim chooses to work at Hooters, she can't wear a burqa.

People have to do their jobs, and if your job is making wedding cakes, then make the damn cakes without turning your nose up at the homosexuals.

I said so a long time ago that refusing to serve gays would not be the hill I'd die on as a business owner.  This is in part because if I felt strongly enough about the sacrament of marriage, I would also have to refuse second marriages unelss the first marriage ended because of unfaithfulness, and those who were getting married but living together, and others who would otherwise be denied communion or any other sacrament. Right?

But the obvious problems with being a strictly Christian bakery notwithstanding- there's no legitimate government power to declare your business public property, or to micromanage your business.  You don't check your private property rights, or any other Constitutional right at the door when you file for your selected entity type.  The 'public accommodation' notion is grossly flawed- and this issue highlights that fact.

If a business owner may not refuse anyone service for any reason, or no reason at all- that person effectively does not own their business.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Also for the record- I am for civil disobedience on this point- but if you break the law, you take your lumps.  However, it is very important to point out that this ruling by an "administrative law judge" is not a 'verdict' of any kind. They were not charged with breaking any state or federal laws. Now, before you spout off and make a fool of yourself- this bakery DID NOT REFUSE SERVICE TO HOMOSEXUALS.  They refused to participate in the perversion of one of the sacraments of their religion as they view it.  They could order a cake for any other purpose, they were specifically refused a wedding cake for a ceremony that wasn't even legal at the time the cake was ordered. 

[Tennesseer]

Jan 6, 2016 17:29:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Also for the record- I am for civil disobedience on this point- but if you break the law, you take your lumps.  However, it is very important to point out that this ruling by an "administrative law judge" is not a 'verdict' of any kind. They were not charged with breaking any state or federal laws. Now, before you spout off and make a fool of yourself- this bakery DID NOT REFUSE SERVICE TO HOMOSEXUALS.  They refused to participate in the perversion of one of the sacraments of their religion as they view it.  They could order a cake for any other purpose, they were specifically refused a wedding cake for a ceremony that wasn't even legal at the time the cake was ordered. 

All the more reason then to supply the cake as the bakery would not have been participating "in the perversion of one of the sacraments of their religion as they view it" if same-sex marriage was not legal in Oregon.

[kittensaver]

Jan 6, 2016 17:50:28 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jan 6, 2016 17:29:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Also for the record- I am for civil disobedience on this point- but if you break the law, you take your lumps.  However, it is very important to point out that this ruling by an "administrative law judge" is not a 'verdict' of any kind. They were not charged with breaking any state or federal laws. Now, before you spout off and make a fool of yourself- this bakery DID NOT REFUSE SERVICE TO HOMOSEXUALS.  They refused to participate in the perversion of one of the sacraments of their religion as they view it.  They could order a cake for any other purpose, they were specifically refused a wedding cake for a ceremony that wasn't even legal at the time the cake was ordered. 

All the more reason then to supply the cake as the bakery would not have been participating "in the perversion of one of the sacraments of their religion as they view it" if same-sex marriage was not legal in Oregon.

 How on earth can this be a "perversion of one of the sacraments of their religion" when the supposed "sacrament" was not even open to them? Frankly, this couple could have care less about someone else's "sacrament" or sacred rites. They were after a civil ceremony and a celebration of that civil union.

A church or a religion does NOT get to decide if someone else's civil marriage is valid or not (or if it's a "perversion" or not, either). They only get to decide what is right for their followers. That's why in this country there is a separation of Church and State. Church does NOT get to tell the rest of the country (who does not think or believe like they do) how to behave. Period.

[Opti]

If a business owner may not refuse anyone service for any reason, or no reason at all- that person effectively does not own their business.

Think how silly this statement is if you made it about home ownership. It would be saying you could kick your kids out of your home no matter their age or condition or refuse to feed them ... otherwise Mom & Dad don't own their home.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 6, 2016 18:03:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

If a business owner may not refuse anyone service for any reason, or no reason at all- that person effectively does not own their business.

Think how silly this statement is if you made it about home ownership. It would be saying you could kick your kids out of your home no matter their age or condition or refuse to feed them ... otherwise Mom & Dad don't own their home.

But you can kick your kids out of your home (specifically, give them up for adoption, no matter their age) if you want to. You can also refuse to feed them unless they comply with the rules of your home.

The reason you're permitted to do all this is because it's your home. You own it. You choose who stays and who goes. You set the rules.

Public accommodation laws are a very recent, very unnatural abridgement of owners' rights. I don't know how fair it is to say that having to comply with PA laws means the owner is no longer effectively the owner, but it's certainly fair to say that the authors of the US Constitution and the writers that inspired them considered sacrosanct the right of the homeowner/business owner to choose whom to serve. It was so entrenched in western law since the Magna Carta that it didn't even bear mentioning. It was understood to be a universal principle of a free society.

The logical contrapositive of "ownership implies choosing whom to serve" is "inability to choose whom to serve implies lack of ownership". Thus on that basis, Paul's statement is true.

[Opti]

Jan 6, 2016 18:33:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 6, 2016 18:03:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Think how silly this statement is if you made it about home ownership. It would be saying you could kick your kids out of your home no matter their age or condition or refuse to feed them ... otherwise Mom & Dad don't own their home.

But you can kick your kids out of your home (specifically, give them up for adoption, no matter their age) if you want to. You can also refuse to feed them unless they comply with the rules of your home.

The reason you're permitted to do all this is because it's your home. You own it. You choose who stays and who goes. You set the rules.

Public accommodation laws are a very recent, very unnatural abridgement of owners' rights. I don't know how fair it is to say that having to comply with PA laws means the owner is no longer effectively the owner, but it's certainly fair to say that the authors of the US Constitution and the writers that inspired them considered sacrosanct the right of the homeowner/business owner to choose whom to serve. It was so entrenched in western law since the Magna Carta that it didn't even bear mentioning. It was understood to be a universal principle of a free society.

The logical contrapositive of "ownership implies choosing whom to serve" is "inability to choose whom to serve implies lack of ownership". Thus on that basis, Paul's statement is true.

Virgil, as you know, you can't kick your kids out of your home at any time for any reason. We as a society aren't OK with putting a two year old outside of the family home overnight just because Dad is pissed at him. Its not OK for Mom to not feed her children for weeks. As a society we are OK with the missing of an occasional meal here and there, but starving your children is illegal. Single people don't own their homes more than married people because of this. But then, most of us do not define ownership by who we can refuse to serve or be nice to.

I wonder if this means in Paul's world he cannot own a mailbox, since he can't prevent certain mail persons or random people from dropping things into it.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 6, 2016 17:23:24 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 6, 2016 4:43:58 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Absolutely!

If a Muslim chooses to work in a place like McDonald's then they can't eschew handling bacon cheeseburgers.

If a Muslim chooses to work in a bar-restaurant, he must serve alcoholic drinks to the patrons.

If a Muslim chooses to work at Hooters, she can't wear a burqa.

People have to do their jobs, and if your job is making wedding cakes, then make the damn cakes without turning your nose up at the homosexuals.

I said so a long time ago that refusing to serve gays would not be the hill I'd die on as a business owner.  This is in part because if I felt strongly enough about the sacrament of marriage, I would also have to refuse second marriages unelss the first marriage ended because of unfaithfulness, and those who were getting married but living together, and others who would otherwise be denied communion or any other sacrament. Right?

But the obvious problems with being a strictly Christian bakery notwithstanding- there's no legitimate government power to declare your business public property, or to micromanage your business.  You don't check your private property rights, or any other Constitutional right at the door when you file for your selected entity type.  The 'public accommodation' notion is grossly flawed- and this issue highlights that fact.

If a business owner may not refuse anyone service for any reason, or no reason at all- that person effectively does not own their business.

Well, if you refused to make cakes for gays, second marriages, divorce parties, liars, cheaters, tattooed people, tax cheats, women in pants, people living together, gossips, women with short hair, alcoholics, gluttons, etc., who, exactly, would be your customers? Oh, lets not forget "worshipping other Gods", so you couldn't sell to Jews, Muslims or Hindus, either.

You'd go out of business in a week.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 6, 2016 18:51:15 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 6, 2016 18:33:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

But you can kick your kids out of your home (specifically, give them up for adoption, no matter their age) if you want to. You can also refuse to feed them unless they comply with the rules of your home.

The reason you're permitted to do all this is because it's your home. You own it. You choose who stays and who goes. You set the rules.

Public accommodation laws are a very recent, very unnatural abridgement of owners' rights. I don't know how fair it is to say that having to comply with PA laws means the owner is no longer effectively the owner, but it's certainly fair to say that the authors of the US Constitution and the writers that inspired them considered sacrosanct the right of the homeowner/business owner to choose whom to serve. It was so entrenched in western law since the Magna Carta that it didn't even bear mentioning. It was understood to be a universal principle of a free society.

The logical contrapositive of "ownership implies choosing whom to serve" is "inability to choose whom to serve implies lack of ownership". Thus on that basis, Paul's statement is true.

Virgil, as you know, you can't kick your kids out of your home at any time for any reason. We as a society aren't OK with putting a two year old outside of the family home overnight just because Dad is pissed at him. Its not OK for Mom to not feed her children for weeks. As a society we are OK with the missing of an occasional meal here and there, but starving your children is illegal. Single people don't own their homes more than married people because of this. But then, most of us do not define ownership by who we can refuse to serve or be nice to.

I wonder if this means in Paul's world he cannot own a mailbox, since he can't prevent certain mail persons or random people from dropping things into it.

You can't abandon your kids, true. They're minors. If you kick them out of your home or refuse to feed them, you have to make sure somebody else is taking care of them.

If they're not minors, you absolutely can kick them out of your house for any reason you feel like, or refuse to feed them, or refuse to serve them in any way.

We're talking about adults here. An adult who comes into your store is not a minor under your care and supervision. There are no issues of abandonment or neglect in the picture.

In short, as far as "you can't legally abandon children": apples and oranges.

The rest of my counterargument stands as is.

[Opti]

Virgil, do you really think kids don't buy things ever at businesses?

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2016 12:49:08 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Equal protection clause guarantees your right to be treated the same under the law as other people are treated. That would not entitle you to a cake at a bakery.

A business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.

Bolded: It would if that bakery sells cakes.

Unbolded: AnyONE. Individual. Singular person. Not a group/class of people.

If there's a gay troublemaker shouting at your other customers... fine... Feel free to remove him. If there's a lesbian throwing things at you... fine... feel free to remove her. If the gay or lesbian person is acting polite and just like every other customer... sell them the damn cake.