Should businesses be forced to serve customers?

[Econ4every1]

that chocolate icing on the cake would be made of X-Lax

but how difficult is it to come up with a reason not to serve a customer other than because of their age, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability

in your example, sorry mr stormfront but we are back ordered and cannot have your cake available by thus and so date that you need it

the prospective customer is in no position to document the actual reason his request is denied, so he has to get back in his mom's car and return to the basement empty handed

Thanks for answering, but I think the point of the question is, how society would deal with the question. Let's say the shop owner is capable of creating a cake with some writing on it prising the holocaust and the shop owner says he wont make the cake on the basis that it offends him.

My question is, should he be forced to make it or suffer some consequence?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Most ... answer.

We are already allowed the right to refuse service to anyone.
We are just not allowed to refuse service based on that someone's membership in a protected class.

You can choose not to do business with someone because you do not like the way that they part their hair, the music they like, or because they think Greedo shot first.
You just cannot refuse to do business with someone because their race, creed, religion, or what-have-you.

People have been using vague rules of the establishment to discriminate against people for years now.

If you really do not wish to do business with someone, There're about a million a quick and easy ways out of it.

 

[cecilrush44]

http://youtu.be/QoY152LCbZY
http://youtu.be/xJ8azMKI3m0

 

[Henrin]

How about a party celebrating an adoption? A gay couple asking for a baby shower cake to celebrate their child?

Do people really have parties to celebrate an adoption or have cake at baby showers?

 

[Econ4every1]

We are already allowed the right to refuse service to anyone.
We are just not allowed to refuse service based on that someone's membership in a protected class.

You can choose not to do business with someone because you do not like the way that they part their hair, the music they like, or because they think Greedo shot first.
You just cannot refuse to do business with someone because their race, creed, religion, or what-have-you.

People have been using vague rules of the establishment to discriminate against people for years now.

If you really do not wish to do business with someone, There're about a million a quick and easy ways out of it.

I understand that, the point of the question was, if someone decided not to use vague rules, but instead decided to stand on principle and decided proclaim publicly that anyone that would celebrate the holocaust was offensive to them and base on that they would refuse to serve them.

 

[Grim17]

How about a party celebrating an adoption? A gay couple asking for a baby shower cake to celebrate their child?

If they refused, then in my opinion they are violating discrimination laws and are subject to legal action.

 

[Ikari]

The clear and unsubtle difference between your example and the wedding cake example is that one involves discrimination, the other one doesn't. It is not discrimination if the shop owners offer their assortment of cakes to all customers regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. If the shop doesn't offer a "Holocaust celebration cake" then that's that, end of story. There is nothing in the law that compels the shop to offer a particular product that it doesn't sell, or want to sell, to begin with. But the products that it does offer should be available to all unless the customer is being violent or disruptive.

And other places don't make Same Sex Wedding Cakes, yes? It's not like these bakeries were not serving same sex couples. They were free to purchase anything that was made, anything that was in the display case. Wedding cakes are special order and specially made. Some bakeries choose to make specialty cakes for certain events. So it's really the same thing as you're stating, yes? They simply didn't make Same Sex Marriage cakes. Right?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I understand that, the point of the question was, if someone decided not to use vague rules, but instead decided to stand on principle and decided proclaim publicly that anyone that would celebrate the holocaust was offensive to them and base on that they would refuse to serve them.

I do not think that people who would like to celebrate the Holocaust are a protected class.
I do not see a reason for me or the state to care about that interaction.

On the other hand, you may be asking us about someone who finds gay marriage and the Holocaust to be morally comparable.

What if the hypothetical Christian bakers' sincerely held beliefs about gay marriage is the same as or equivalent to some hypothetical Jewish bakers' sincerely held beliefs about the Holocaust?
Would it then be acceptable for the hypothetical Christian bakers to refuse service based on their sincerely held beliefs about the heinous and atrocious nature of gay marriage?

Legally the question may be simpler than the moral question as if there is not a law prohibiting that sort of discrimination, then we're good to go.

"Should there be a law which could force someone to act against their sincerely held beliefs?" is a different question.
The answer is, "Sometimes."
Sometimes there is a compelling interest that the government should require all who conduct certain sorts of business to conduct that business in certain sorts of ways.
Those who are unwilling to do so are forced to operate illegally or change their business.
There may have been and may still be some places of public accommodation whose owners chose to close because of the civil rights legislation or who chose to continue discriminating against potential customer based on race despite the legislation.
The law changed after many of them had opened their businesses.

I am not sure about the degree of the necessity of anti-discrimination laws for the LGBT community.
It seems that public opinion is strong enough [except maybe among the older generations] and growing stronger that the issue will largely fade of its own inertia.
I have no real objections to the theory of some anti-discrimination laws either.

imho the sentence, "I would tell a potential customer not to give me his money because..." has very few rational endings

 

[justabubba]

If they refused, then in my opinion they are violating discrimination laws and are subject to legal action.

please share with us which protected class was unserved

 

[Grim17]

please share with us which protected class was unserved

It's not difficult to understand my position. We all know that homosexual marriage is considered sacrilege in many faiths, but to my knowledge there is nothing written in any religious scriptures about who can and can not raise a child that has no family. Therefore to not serve such an event would be a case of discrimination, not a violation of someone's religious tenets.

 

[StillBallin75]

And other places don't make Same Sex Wedding Cakes, yes? It's not like these bakeries were not serving same sex couples. They were free to purchase anything that was made, anything that was in the display case. Wedding cakes are special order and specially made. Some bakeries choose to make specialty cakes for certain events. So it's really the same thing as you're stating, yes? They simply didn't make Same Sex Marriage cakes. Right?

Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but a wedding cake is a wedding cake. Are there special ingredients or designs that go into a "same-sex" wedding cake that don't go into a "traditional marriage" wedding cake? When I think of a "Holocaust celebration cake" I'm thinking of a cake that says "HAPPY 70TH ANNIVERSARY TO THE HOLOCAUST" or some other bull****. On top of that, as others have pointed out, people who celebrate the Holocaust are not a protected class (nor should they be) in the same manner that race, gender, or sexual orientation is.

 

[beerftw]

Most of you are aware of the case about the Christian shop owners that didn't want to server the gay couple on religious grounds, but for those that support the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on gender preference, is there any justification in your mind for turning away a paying customer?

What if the shop owners were Jewish cake makers and they were asked to bake a cake celebrating the anniversary of the holocaust? I mean certainly, while a vile thing to do, is still protected under law. Should the shop owners, in this case, be forced to bake the cake?

The reason I ask the question isn't meant to support what I believe, but to provoke thought.

Honestly I'm most interested in those that think the answer to the religious example is yes, but of course everyone is welcome to answer.

i dont understand the issue with the gay wedding cake,if a gay couple walked in and wanted on,i would say its gonna be x amount,if they say yeah i take an already premade cake rip the bride off it and add another groom figurine,easy money.

 

[NonConformer]

Tolerance and acceptance needs to flow both ways. If gays want us all to accept them as they are, then they must also respect businesses who would rather stay out of it. If a caterer, wedding photographer, wedding planner, etc, says they don't do a gay weddings, but instead offer a business card of a colleague down the street who will be happy to take your money, well, there shouldn't be a problem.

After all, what we're talking about here is an offended gay couple sicking armed policemen on the businessman, ready and willing to haul them off to prison. Now THAT is an example of "hate" and "intolerance".

 

[cecilrush44]

If everyone of you eats at McDonald's which you probly do and they say we don't serve gays anymore well about half of you wouldn't eat there anymore McDonald's would lose half its customers. Thus it's just bad business to ban certain people there's no need for the government to be involved.

 

[Ikari]

Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but a wedding cake is a wedding cake. Are there special ingredients or designs that go into a "same-sex" wedding cake that don't go into a "traditional marriage" wedding cake? When I think of a "Holocaust celebration cake" I'm thinking of a cake that says "HAPPY 70TH ANNIVERSARY TO THE HOLOCAUST" or some other bull****. On top of that, as others have pointed out, people who celebrate the Holocaust are not a protected class (nor should they be) in the same manner that race, gender, or sexual orientation is.

A cake is a cake. Why does one group have a right to cake and another doesn't? Just because you don't agree with what one of those groups says?

 

[Econ4every1]

Tolerance and acceptance needs to flow both ways. If gays want us all to accept them as they are, then they must also respect businesses who would rather stay out of it. If a caterer, wedding photographer, wedding planner, etc, says they don't do a gay weddings, but instead offer a business card of a colleague down the street who will be happy to take your money, well, there shouldn't be a problem.

After all, what we're talking about here is an offended gay couple sicking armed policemen on the businessman, ready and willing to haul them off to prison. Now THAT is an example of "hate" and "intolerance".

You almost have it.

You don't have to accept homosexuality, but you do have tolerate it. As a shop owner you don't have to accept the lifestyles of your customers, but you still have to show reasonable levels of toleration, which means that if they aren't harming you or impinging on your freedom (a few examples) then you have to serve them.

 

[Econ4every1]

i dont understand the issue with the gay wedding cake,if a gay couple walked in and wanted on,i would say its gonna be x amount,if they say yeah i take an already premade cake rip the bride off it and add another groom figurine,easy money.

I don't think it was the cake the shop owners had a problem with, but the people and the lifestyles of the people that asked for the cake that was the issue.

 

[gdgyva]

my wife owns a catering shop

wedding cakes is just one of the many special things they do

they are made by pastry chef's and they are works of art

her normal front time is 6-8 weeks before the wedding, the customers come in to do the tastings

they spend 2-3 hours figuring out what cake, what design, how large, etc

her average wedding cake price is 1800-2200 dollars....and has done 4-5k dollar cakes

she doesnt care who the cake is for, or whether it is for a ssm or not

but i can imagine someone that does.....that because of their faith they dont want to be any part of a ssm ceremony/wedding/reception

the hours of labor to design, make, and transport the cake for an event that you abhor

to me the answer is easy....find one like my wife who doesnt care.....we can always use more business

but that is only my opinion....not what the law says

 

[cpwill]

to me the answer is easy....find one like my wife who doesnt care.....we can always use more business

That's because you're missing the point. It's not about the cake, it's about forcing people to accept you.

 

[justabubba]

If everyone of you eats at McDonald's which you probly do and they say we don't serve gays anymore well about half of you wouldn't eat there anymore McDonald's would lose half its customers. Thus it's just bad business to ban certain people there's no need for the government to be involved.

while i applaud your optimism, history tells us that wrongdoing can and will be perpetuated without the backing of the government to change things
to wit

 

[NonConformer]

you have to serve them.

I disagree. A business should not "have to" serve anybody. (By "have to", we mean that armed government agents can come in and arrest you, prosecute you, and imprison you. )

But fortunately there is a better way: The free market is a far harsher taskmaster than the most draconian bureaucrat. Businesses that accept ANYBODY'S money make more profit!

 

[justabubba]

I disagree. A business should not "have to" serve anybody. (By "have to", we mean that armed government agents can come in and arrest you, prosecute you, and imprison you. )

But fortunately there is a better way: The free market is a far harsher taskmaster than the most draconian bureaucrat. Businesses that accept ANYBODY'S money make more profit!

but that's not how it worked before the civil rights movement

those white owned businesses that allowed blacks to shop in their stores were shunned by the majority white shoppers
that enlightened business owner effectively gifted much of his buying public, those with the most buying power, to his competition

in this instance, the actual history trumps the economic theory

 

[Deuce]

Tolerance and acceptance needs to flow both ways. If gays want us all to accept them as they are, then they must also respect businesses who would rather stay out of it. If a caterer, wedding photographer, wedding planner, etc, says they don't do a gay weddings, but instead offer a business card of a colleague down the street who will be happy to take your money, well, there shouldn't be a problem.

After all, what we're talking about here is an offended gay couple sicking armed policemen on the businessman, ready and willing to haul them off to prison. Now THAT is an example of "hate" and "intolerance".

How many times have "armed policemen" shown up to a bakery?

 

[justabubba]

How many times have "armed policemen" shown up to a bakery?

duh, every time he wants a free donut


what do i win?!

 

[NonConformer]

those white owned businesses that allowed blacks to shop in their stores were shunned by the majority white shoppers

Interesting concept: That it's not just the business OWNER perpetuating unwarranted racial discrimination, but rather, he's just reflecting the societal attitude at the time. "I'm not shopping there because those OTHER people shop there!" A pretty crummy take on life, no doubt.

But I stand by my earlier statement that GOVERNMENT is not the solution to this problem. All government can do is threaten people with forceful prosecution and punishment. Regardless of how crummy and stupid some people act (some still do), you cannot "fix" that with further violence and threats theretofore. Societal attitudes must change, and that has to come from within.

It's like when the U.S. military invaded Iraq, with the goal of ending thousands of years of tribal conflicts and instilling a love of democracy and rule of law. It didn't work. You can't force an entire society to change its attitude.