Do you agree with the result from this bakery lawsuit?

If it’s a privately owned company, they have the right to refuse or give service as they please. Is it always right, probably not. But if they own it they can make their own rules.

Yes

@KNOWITALL: “Do you believe the owners had the right to refuse service?”

No

@KNOWITALL: “Do you believe that being bankrupted and closing the doors is a fair result?”

Yes

@KNOWITALL: “Should all businesses no longer be able to refuse service, and if so, how would that affect you or your shopping/ dining experiences? ”

Yes. Should have no effect on my shopping/dining experience.

@KNOWITALL: “Do you feel we are becoming a society in which you are forced to agree with someone’s life choices regardless of your own beliefs?”

No. This has nothing to do with agreeing with “life choices”. This is discriminating against people. If you don’t want to provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples, don’t provide wedding cakes at all. Why? Because weddings legally occur between same-sex couples, “inter-racial” couples, marriage between ugly people, marriage between old men and young women, etc. Either you provide the service to all, or don’t provide it to anyone.

@KNOWITALL: ”(ie No shirt, no shoes, no service- would you dine somewhere where people could sit next to you without shoes or a shirt on?)”

I don’t think this has any relevance to the court case you have asked about. But if you want to expand it to shirts or dress codes, we can do this. Just be clear that this is completely unrelated and will won’t help.

@SergeantQueen: “If it’s a privately owned company, they have the right to refuse or give service as they please. Is it always right, probably not. But if they own it they can make their own rules.”

So, they should be able to refuse service to African Americans? Christians? Women?

A privately-owned company does not exist in a vacuum. It must meet all kinds of regulations (OSHA, health, labor, etc). And it takes advantage of many public-funded services (clean water, public sewer/plumbing/gas, public maintenance of roads, fire department service, police, etc). Should we be able to decide that companies that discriminate should be exempt from these public services? Should the fire department be able to sit there and watch the bakery burn? It’s a privately-owned company.

Sure, why not? If they decide that they only wanna serve white people then that is their doing. If it isn’t against the law we can’t force them. I’m not saying it’s in any way the right thing to do, but what are you going to do?

When you’re in business, you’re in business to make money, not tell others how to live their lives. Stick to business!
If you want to tell people how to live their lives, start your own church.

Do you agree with the result from this bakery lawsuit?
I agree with the verdict, that they were illegally discriminating against a particular group.

“Do you believe the owners had the right to refuse service?”
No, I do not. To my way of thinking this is no different than refusing someone because of the color of their skin or because they were Jewish.

“Do you believe that being bankrupted and closing the doors is a fair result?”
No, I do not think it is a fair result, nor do I see that this was the punishment administered by the court or even the intent of the court.

“Should all businesses no longer be able to refuse service, and if so, how would that affect you or your shopping/ dining experiences? ”
This is way too vague and all encompassing to be answered with a single syllable answer but basically businesses should be able to refuse service so long as they are applied over the entire populace. For instance, if a food establishment requires that shoes and shirts be worn in order to be served and anyone and everyone who walks in without shoes and shirts is refused service then no problem. If the rule is only applied against specific races, colors, creeds, religions, sexes, sexual preferences or nationalities then yes there is a problem. And, if it is applied fairly and equitably it should not (and thus far has not) affected my shopping experience.

“Do you feel we are becoming a society in which you are forced to agree with someone’s life choices regardless of your own beliefs?”
No I do not. No one is asking someone to agree with someone elses life choices, only to be allowed to live their life without prejudice. As was pointed out in the article: “While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers”.... “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

”(ie No shirt, no shoes, no service- would you dine somewhere where people could sit next to you without shoes or a shirt on?)”
I grew up in Corpus Christi, have both been on both sides of this situation. Would I want to sit down in a nice, formal restaurant next to someone wearing slaps and boxers? No, and I have the option to go elsewhere and would do so. If the restaurant had a dress code and did not enforce it then I have a gripe, if they don’t, then I have no other recourse than to take my business elsewhere. I don’t want to shop at Walmart with people in their pajamas either and do not.

And I also disagree with you @SergeantQueen AND in the example you gave it is against the law.

Businesses can refuse service based on behavior without a problem. If you’re causing a disturbance, are rude to staff, or are unsafe, you can still be asked to leave.

You can’t be refused service just based on who you are. Shirts and shoes are not who you are. An AR-15 on your back is not who you are. A disability is part of who you are. Your ancestry is part of who you are.

A rule of thumb might be that if something can’t be removed from the person, you can’t discriminate based on it, regardless of your own beliefs. This is true throughout our system of laws.

So while I understand the “slippery slope” argument that all of a sudden you have to act on someone else’s beliefs, that’s just not true. You just can’t treat people as inferior for being who they are and have public support.

Yes, I realize my example is against the law. Bad example. I don’t care if you guys don’t agree with me, I was just answering the damn question.

I’m going to react to just one of your questions: Do you believe that being bankrupted and closing the doors is a fair result?

The owners of the bakery take risks every day. How many cakes will they sell? Will quality be good? Will a different bakery open up on the next block? Risk is part of business. Just ask Macys.

The owners of the bakery decided to make their religious stand and discriminate. That was a business decision and a business risk. They should have weighed the ramifications of winning and losing the lawsuit, and on that basis made the choice to server or not server the gay couple.

They lost the case, which is the correct outcome.

Going bankrupt really has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with making totally stupid business decisions and risking the business on something they should have known to be illegal.

Wrapping this up as a “religious guys go out of business because of disdain for christianity” is total bullshit. They went of business because they were poor businessmen and didn’t manage risk well.

They could have gone to a different bakery. Not everyone is going to agree with your life choices. Get over it.

They cannot be forced to decorate the cake with penises, or satanic symbols, or burning crosses, or whatever they object to, but they cannot simply refuse selling to a couple because they object to the couple’s lifestyle.

personally, I don’t know why someone would want to support a business that objects to some aspect of my lifestyle.

Yeah, so trying to force them to make you a cake is stupid. If they had an issue with my sexuality and refused to make a cake, I’d tell them to screw off and I’d leave. I really don’t care enough about others’ to blast them and make a big scene. It sucks and it’s bad that they want to do that, but life sucks and get over it.

@SergeantQueen – perhaps the answers aren’t directed at you, but at the question, just as yours is.

@SergeantQueen – “Life sucks and get over it” is not an outcome that is supported by the Court system

@funkdaddy Yeah, I know. Just responding as I’m allowed.

@SergeantQueen – So, you have stated that you believe it should be legal to discriminate. If every business was allowed to discriminate, do you think that would have a negative effect on society? Let’s say you live are a Christian and live in a largely Muslim area. You go to buy your groceries and you’re told that you are not welcome there. You say “screw off” and go to find another market. The next market you find also tells you that they don’t serve Christians. So, you tell them to “screw off” and you go look for another market, etc.

Honestly, is this the type of society you want to live in?

Keep in mind that while these markets are able to turn you away, you are supporting their business through your tax dollars. (As mentioned earlier: fire, police, utilities, roads, etc).

I don’t believe I ever said I want it to be legal to discriminate. I just said if there isn’t a law about it already, and they are doing it, they aren’t technically in the wrong legally. The example I used was a bad one, obviously, it’s illegal to discriminate against race so companies can’t do that. But if it isn’t a law, they can do it if they want (even if it isn’t morally right)

So not saying it should be legal.

@SergeantQueen “They could have gone to a different bakery. Not everyone is going to agree with your life choices. Get over it.” And on this you and I are 100% in agreement. so not all bad?

But if they own it they can make their own rules.

If it isn’t against the law we can’t force them.

I just said if there isn’t a law about it already, and they are doing it, they aren’t technically in the wrong legally.

Maybe this is where we’re getting crossed up.

There is a law against it. It was an illegal act. That’s why a court found it to be illegal.

From the big wiki

filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state’s public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that have anti-discrimination laws against sexual orientation.

—-

The case was actually still going on because the bakery owners argued their first amendment rights were being violated.

Masterpiece Cakeshop petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (review), under the case name Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, of the following question:

Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

—-

The bakery was pushing the case to a resolution. This is that resolution.

Alright, well if it was illegal to begin with then duh it’s good that the court was in favor of the couple. My thoughts were that if it was legal, and they were being attacked and sued for a legal act then that isn’t good. Even though I disagree with the bakery refusing service.

The bakery is in business to bake and sell cakes not to control other people’s lifestyles.
If the owners don’t want to be gay, black, fat, short, Asian, whatever…. They don’t have to. Their job is to bake and decorate the cake for customer. If they refuse a customer they should not be surprised if the refused customer takes to social media and advertises their practice.
I’d be surprised if they could stay in business with that press. (I wouldn’t go there.)
I looked at the settlement and did not see any mention of money, only that they had to serve everyone, educate their employees and give regular updates. That seems fair.
I would not go to a place that tried to push a political or religious agenda on me. I’m guessing they will not be in business for long.

Yes I agree with the decision. I disagree with the idea that selling the couple a cake condones either their marriage or lifestyle. The couple ordered a cake, not an endorsement. It is unclear from the information given exactly why the bakery went bankrupt. It would bother me somewhat if the place was driven out of business by the legal expense of defending itself against the state. But if the shop was boycotted out of business, so be it. The shoes and shirts issue does not fall into the same category as the dispute with the bakery. There’s plenty of shirt and shoeless dining at the beach.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. The reason I asked is because in my area, many businesses post “We refuse the right to serve anyone, anytime for any reason”, and it’s never questioned.

Also being in a red state, a lot of LGBTQ’s leave for the coasts rather than stay here, so I can see this happening here at some point.

To be clear, I have no problem with anyone’s sexual orientation, but for these folks to be out of business over a cake seems like a little much, although I realize both parties pushed this one for resolution rather than give in.

A sign would not have saved the bakery, and signs won’t spare the homophobes where you live either. Meanwhile the redlands grow ever more dismal and backwards as the nation’s talent and intellect is FORCED to concentrate on the coasts.

@KNOWITALL – again, they didn’t go out of business because of a cake.

They went out of business because they made stupid business decisions. The cake is really secondary.

Being gay is not a lifestyle nor a lifestyle choice.

This is discrimination.

Again, different parts of the country, different ways of thinking @aethelwine. I don’t believe it’s a choice but many people in my area of the country do.

Here’s a good article about this subject. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

That opinion does not negate the fact that being gay is not a lifestyle choice. They are refusing to believe facts.

I live in a very rural religious area of Illinois and am surrounded by people who refuse these facts.

@Aethelwine Same here.

Think about it. Those who believe queer folk not born but made should ask themselves: who would deliberately choose a lifetime of persecution?

@stanleybmanly Oh trust me, I’ve debated this so many times and always end in a stand off, usually with the ultra-conservatives. They also don’t seem to believe suicide rates or depression, the loss of familial relationships, etc…

From the referenced article: “Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.”

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.”

A policy I can and do agree with.

The signs @KNOWITALL mentioned _ “We refuse the right to serve anyone, anytime for any reason”_ are just lawsuits waiting to happen. Unless, of course, they refused to serve everyone, allthetime, for no reason.

@rojo Which isn’t a great business plan…lol

First of all, it is worth noting that the linked article is from December 2013. Since then, a number of things have happened:

(1) in May 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirmed that the baker violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act;
(2) in August 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected the baker’s argument that his religious beliefs were sufficient in this case to justify a refusal of service;
(3) in April 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court declined to consider the case;
(4) in June 2017, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case; and
(5) in December 2017, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the case.

So it is worth noting that this case is not yet completely over, and that its resolution likely rests in the hands of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (unless the court decides to rule on a narrower issue, in which case we might see something like a 6-3 or even 7-2 decision). On to the actual question, then.

If you are just asking whether or not Judge Robert N. Spencer made the legally correct decision, then the answer is clearly yes. There have been laws protecting certain classes of people at both the state and federal level for quite some time, and the owners of this bakery unambiguously ran afoul of them. Spencer really had no choice but to rule against the baker. Honestly, people should be happy with how the process has gone no matter where they stand on the underlying issue. At each step of the way, those involved have stayed well within their Constitutionally mandated roles, rendering decisions only on what they are empowered to adjudicate and then sending it along if and when questions remained. That’s how the system is supposed to work.

But if you’re asking a larger question about what an ideal society would look like, then I think it gets more complicated. In an ideal society, we wouldn’t have laws that carve out certain protected classes. But in an ideal society, we also wouldn’t have an unresolved history of oppression that makes such laws necessary. The existence of protected classes is a sign that we are still in the process of forming a more perfect union. Yet they are also a sign of our commitment to that goal. So the fact that they would not exist in an ideal society does not entail that they ought not exist in our as yet imperfect society. Nor does it entail that eliminating them would automatically get us closer to being an ideal society. After all, a society is more than its laws. And the difference between the times before and after the existence of protected classes will be found not in our laws, but in the hearts and minds of our people. But even if it’s hearts and minds that must ultimately change if we are to end oppression, laws are ways of reducing some of its most serious harms in the meantime.

To answer your specific questions, though:

(1) No, the owners clearly did not have the right to refuse service in this case under the relevant laws.
(2) I’m not sure where the talk of bankruptcy or shutting down is coming from. Masterpiece Cakeshop is still open and receives enormous financial support from supporters all across the country. But if the shop closes down after the case is decided by the US Supreme Court, it will be for no other reason than because the owner took a gamble and lost—no different than the risks taken by every other business owner every single day.
(3) All businesses already operate under the same rules about whom they can and cannot refuse service to and under what conditions. Regardless, it’s unlikely to affect me—straight, white, male—in any way.
(4) Laws cannot change minds, so laws prohibiting discrimination cannot force anyone to agree with or approve of anything.
(5) I dine close to people wearing neither shirts nor shoes every time I visit my mother in Florida. She prefers the outdoor restaurants down there, and none of them enforce such rules.

@KNOWITALL I remember years ago when you could walk into any establishment and see the sign which read: WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE. IMHO that is the way it SHOULD be. Yes I gree with the decision!

@si3tech You can still see those signs. But it doesn’t change the fact that they are not—and never have been—legally enforceable. Also, the decision we are being asked about is one in which it was decided that the business could not refuse service. If you think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, then how can you agree with that decision?

This: The justice seemed offended by a comment made during the deliberations of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when one commissioner said: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

At one point, Kennedy and some conservative justices raised the possibility that the proceedings against baker Jack C. Phillips had been infected by bias.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-wedding-cake-bakers-case-protects-religious-freedom-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/05/c73e6efa-d969-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.ebdf6d40bc05

The purpose of “right to refuse service” signs is to allow shop-owners to throw out troublesome customers and people who would drive away their business. It is not a blank check to discriminate. Discrimination is still illegal, sign or not. I worked in a restaurant during high school and my first two years of undergrad. We had one of those signs and we occasionally had to throw people out who were causing trouble (yelling at staff, fighting with other customers). It did not mean we could throw someone out because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

So the question then becomes whether or not this is discrimination. In regard to the wedding cake issue, people are not actually being barred from the shop on the basis of their sexual orientation, a specific service is being denied. A straight person would not be allowed to order a SSM wedding cake either. It’s the service being denied to any person, not a specific person being denied from any service. My solution would be to purchase a neutral wedding cake and add the SSM touches yourself. It seems like an unnecessary conflict to me otherwise, especially when it goes after small businesses that can lose their livelihood over litigations like this.

@SavoirFaire The decision states that Christians are exempt from services which promote homosexuality. I AGREE.

@si3tech – how does baking a cake promote homosexuality? It’s a frickin cake, after all.

Or are you saying that any action done one behalf of any gay person promotes homosexuality and is therefore OK?

It’s one thing to be ‘promoting’ something, and quite another to be selling goods. BY your definition if a gay person wants to buy cough syrup, a Christian druggist could say “no” because the gay person might be going to meet her girlfriend.

“The right to refuse service to anyone” signs were mainly used for establishments that didn’t want to serve Blacks. My father made us walk out of a restaurant in Maryland years ago because it had such a sign. Now arguably, they are used to discriminate against gays. Rowdies are not going to be appeased because there was a sign up.

The Supreme Court will decide this.
By the way, the bakery did not refuse to sevice to the couple. The owner merely refused to participate in the design. He offered previously made cake in the store to the couple.

@si3tech And that’s where it gets tricky. Christians feel their rights to their religious practices are being threatened, as the SS couple feel discriminated against. That’s why I thought this would be an interesting discussion for a more liberal, non-theist site like fluther.

@janbb I wondered about the origins, I just assumed it was for rowdies, as usually it’s seen more in bars but getting more popular as meth heads abound.

@SergeantQueen – being gay is not a life choice. As an earlier poster commented, if you can’t remove whatever it is from a person, it’s not a choice and it is a source of discrimination.

Yeah I know

@si3tech ” The decision states that Christians are exempt from services which promote homosexuality.”

I don’t know what decision you’re looking at, but the one we are discussing here says the opposite.

@SavoirFaire You are right! I completely misunderstood the ruling! When “FRICKIN” CAKE” has homosexual writing on it it promotes. I am not against homosexuals. My son was GAY.

NOW NEWS FLASH! It was never the “cake” which was the issue, many offered to do that. It was let’s sue so we can get the publicity/notariety and satisfy the “chips” they carry.

Therefore, I disagree with the ruling!

@si3tech Then I have a great question for you, that has been much debated in my neck of the woods. Can you be christian and gay? We literally had articles written with the names of pastors who said their church would welcome LGBTQ’s after a prominent and popular church/ minister wrote an op ed piece in the local paper. We can save that for another time though- haha.

NOW NEWS FLASH! It was never the “cake” which was the issue, many offered to do that. It was let’s sue so we can get the publicity/notariety and satisfy the “chips” they carry.

I guess.

But it wasn’t about sitting toward the front of the bus, or eating at the lunch counter, or “civil unions”, or military service either.

It was about eliminating bigotry against yourself and people like you one piece at a time and taking incremental movement towards that goal when you can.

I’m sure they’ve gotten over the cake.

Interesting article concerning whether or not there are flaws in the First Amendment argument in this case. Prior warning, this takes the position that there are.

Another interesting article comparing and contrasting the Masterpiece Bakery case with the Azucar Bakery case, one where someone wanted a bible shaped cake with a message on it.

Note: @josie you may have these two cases confused (or I may need to do further research). According to the second article “The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all.”

Also, it seems to me that this case has morphed from Phillips (the baker) claiming the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs to one of a claim of violating his First Amendment, free speech rights. Is that what others are understanding?

Do you believe the owners had the right to refuse service?
They broke a Federal discrimination law, so no they legally did not have the right to refuse service.

Do you believe that being bankrupted and closing the doors is a fair result?
It’s the consequence for breaking the law. However, in your article it doesn’t mention bankruptcy or closing doors.

Should all businesses no longer be able to refuse service, and if so, how would that affect you or your shopping/ dining experiences?
Well, it won’t affect me because I’m a white, straight person.

Do you feel we are becoming a society in which you are forced to agree with someone’s life choices regardless of your own beliefs?
No. No one can force anyone to agree with them. They can only attempt to convince them to just accept it and mind their own buisiness.

@funkdaddy I don’t think it’s okay to say someone who disagrees with you is “people like you” in a passive aggressive way. The person has a gay child and is entitled to a voice in a forum like this.

Just wondering then if it is age discrimination for a website , like Fluther, to not alow under 13 year olds on the site?

I think you may have misread @funkdaddy‘s statement. It spoke against discrimination of entire groups of people. “People like you” just meant all gay people, or all handicapped people or whatever.

@Dutchess Okay good, seemed like an unfair personal attack. Hope you’re right.

I’m going to rewrite it a bit. See if it makes more sense @KNOWITALL.

It was about eliminating bigotry against yourself and people like yourself one piece at a time and taking incremental movement towards that goal when you can.

I think the whole case was a sham from the start. In fact I find the whole case to be trumped up. I liked @SavoirFaire ‘s answer. It was complete and well thought out. I think the case was probably settled correctly per the law, or will be if it ever gets all the way through the SCOTUS. But I firmly believe both parties in this case were doing the whole thing to make a point. That is NOT the way to act in an enlightened society.
On the part of the gays: If I were getting married and went into a bakery to get a cake and the baker refused to make the cake because of my same-sex marriage, I wouldn’t get all upset and sue these people. Rational people don’t do that. I would politely say “F*** you very much.” and move on to the next baker up the road. I might even spread the bigotry to all my friends, on social media, etc just to make sure no other people I care about are wasting time with this business. In the end, I would get married, have a cake and not have all the headache and cost of a lawsuit.
On the part of the baker: If someone walked into my business wanting me to make a cake for their same-sex wedding, I’d make it even if I had strong Christian beliefs. Especially if I had strong Christian beliefs. Jesus taught us that we are not to sit in judgment of others. Yes, I know…many of you that have faced off against me are scoffing at this. But I’m not perfect. However, even though I don’t agree with homosexuality and that God has stated several times that it is a sin, there isn’t a one of us without sin. So if you want a cake, you get a cake. If you ask me to cater the whole thing and be an active party to it, I might refuse that since that is too close to actively supporting sin. You want an object…ok. You want participation…no.
On the part of those sensationalizing all this: Shame on all of you. To hate people so much as to want to make this whole thing into a media circus that goes on and on…you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
People that want to refuse service based on discrimination are doomed to fail in their businesses in this day and age. Especially small businesses that rely much on feedback from their customers. People that want to turn their sexual orientation into a crusade are just as bad. They make it very difficult for others to accept their choices when they are forcing them upon you.

I believe that people should have an explicit right to refuse service on any basis at all (or none at all), including the currently against current prohibited “protected classes”. That is, an explicit right to be bigots, if you will.

This is not to say that I agree with them. I think, as others have said, that if you’re going to be in business then you find a way to take and do all legal business that doesn’t violate your own ethics “of business”. But I think that good business people leave their religion, bigotry, prejudices and other personal judgments at home or in the back of the store: it’s bad business to refuse paying customers!

Part of my feeling is that racial, ethnic, sexual / gender, age, religious and other biases (in others) don’t go away just because we want them to, or because “it’s the law”. On the contrary, when these things are legally mandated then the biases become more covert. If bias is evident, obvious and clear, then people can make more informed choices as to whom they choose to do business with; a more honest society, even if it’s not always more welcoming. I think honesty – even unpleasant honesty – is a good thing. The baker can always find a way to turn down business when his livelihood depends on him not saying “no” in “the wrong way”. Why not let him say “no” in an honest way – and lose business from people who now know his stand on things?

Obviously, we can’t permit violent refusal to do business, or violent reactions to proposed business, but a simple, “No, I don’t do business with your kind,” is an honest response that should be permitted.

@CWOTUS I swoon for your brutal honesty, we need more of that. #delighted

I was harassed 15 years ago from a local church for working at a store that sold cigarettes.

@CWOTUS But where do we draw the line? What happens to someone who lives in a small town and the only grocery store around for 40 miles tells him that they won’t do business with his kind? Is he supposed to drive 40 miles out of his way because of a bigoted store-owner? Whose rights are more important: that of the storeowner to be a bigot or that of the customer to utilize the businesses in their town? Because clearly we are saying that someone’s rights trump the other’s.

It’s a good question, @Demosthenes, and there probably isn’t a good answer. I think if the business is owned, managed, and staffed by people who will agree with an owner’s philosophy of “not your kind”, then that’s pretty valuable information for the potentially excluded customer to have, isn’t it? Pretty valuable information for the rest of the customers to have, as well, I would think. Those of us who are typically not excluded on these bases don’t often have to think of this stuff. That’s thrown in our faces as “our privilege” from time to time. And I accept that to the extent that we don’t have to consider those things that is a privilege, and a pretty great one. It would be well for us to be made more explicitly aware of that, when it’s an explicit policy.

If a racist shopkeeper posts a swastika on his store front, for example, to indicate his bias as clearly as you imagine he would feel it and enforce it, that would be good information for me to have: Maybe it’s an indication that there’s an underserved market here, of people who are explicitly excluded, but who I never thought of before because I was skating under an unknown privilege. It might be time to open another market, if the underserved community exists to support it.

Ultimately I think individual rights are paramount, aside from the inconvenience that sometimes causes others. It’s the basis of our entire form of government. The purpose of the Constitution is not to make life pleasant and perfect for the citizens, but to circumscribe the powers of the government over the governed. We have to make our own peaceful way among our fellow citizens. If a bigoted shop owner wants to enforce his bigotry openly, then… it should be his right. Personally, I myself would probably move 40 miles away to avoid that, even if I “fit” under his umbrella of acceptance.

Conversely, if I lived in a community that would accept and frequent a “not your kind” policy of exclusion – and the store was successfully staffed and operated under that policy – then I would rethink my own involvement in the whole community. I wouldn’t want to live there and support that myself… and I wonder how many times I already have, but unknowingly.

@CWOTUS – I don’t know where you live, and not sure it matters, but the southern US was exactly the environment you describe for a long time. Informed people knew who was bigoted and knew to avoid them if they disagreed.

That view seems to completely forget that not everyone will be from the area, information is always going to be imperfect, and it seems to assume that bigots will always be an avoidable minority.

Emmett Till would be a great historical example of why that thinking doesn’t work. People felt completely justified in killing a young boy because he didn’t know their rules. He didn’t know his place. A jury of his killer’s peers found them not guilty in about an hour.

I actually knew a shopkeeper who kept a swastika flag in his office as you suggest. I found out when I brought a black friend to get his car worked on and the owner threatened us all with a gun. He said we should have known better because he had his flag up and he should have known we were “nigger loving white boys” because we were dumb. The sheriff outside said he could do whatever he wanted in his shop, and we needed to leave. This was the 90’s.

It doesn’t work. It only works for those unaffected (yourself) and those it empowers (the bigots).

Actually, @funkdaddy, I disagree that the South was exactly like this in any recent history going back even 100 years or so. Yes, much bigotry was in the open and explicit; I’ll agree with that. But that open bigotry did not excuse the Till murder or any other. Nor does the imperfection of learning who is and is not bigoted excuse the violence of bigots. I have always specifically and categorically declaimed that.

In a way, you proved my point, though. If the shopkeeper in your example kept his Nazi flag in his office because of fears about showing it in a more public place, then you and your friend could have known in this more overt way, and avoided his place altogether, if the flag were more prominent.

It is also incorrect to assume that I have been unaffected, just because I’m… whatever: white, male, educated, American, you name the label you want to apply. I’ve been in other parts of the world where other forms of racism and bigotry are more overt than we allow them to be here. And while I will not claim “victim status” for myself in any case, even if such a case could be made, it’s helpful to know where I don’t want to go sometimes (such as businesses that exclude non-whites, non-male, non-American, etc.) because I do not want to avail myself of that unwanted “privilege.”

@CWOTUS – just to clarify a few things

- I respect your views as well thought out and understand we can disagree without killing thought or hurting discussion. I know I’ve expressed this in private, but just want to say the same here before something is taken the wrong way.

- I did not mean you are unaffected in all ways. I was referring back to your examples (below) and to the fact that you could comfortably live in the Jim Crow south.

but who I never thought of before because I was skating under an unknown privilege

even if I “fit” under his umbrella of acceptance

That said I have to completely disagree and point out that this is where a libertarian society falls apart. Emmett Till was preceded by hundreds or thousands of others. They were dead and their killers were excused in the name of preserving that society’s freedoms. The “market correction” that you’re saying will ultimately decide whether a thing is good or bad for society took generations to materialize.

Any suggestion that we return to policies that lead to sundown towns and local “freedoms” to include whoever the majority decides need to be met with reminders that we’ve been there before. It didn’t work.

The stereotype of small southern towns shouldn’t be taken as gospel by any means. Our town of 2500 has LGBTQ’s and several other races (not a great quantity) but no one has issues that I’ve heard of. Actually my gay friend got on Park Committee and no one batted an eye. It’s no longer acceptable, even in small towns, to show your bigoted side- maybe a rebel flag here or there, but unless you come to their home or something it wouldn’t affect anyone. I’ve seen a Muslim praying on his rug there in the open among other things. Just posting this so the coastal/ out of country friends here don’t believe all the stereotypes.

^Not quite true. We need to move from our bigoted rural town for the safety of our transgender son. Not all people here are bigoted, but there are enough (the majority) to make our lives miserable. We have teachers, religious leaders and school board members who are not accepting, and they pass their beliefs on to their children.

“I disagree that the South was exactly like this in any recent history going back even 100 years or so. ” Wait…what @CWOTUS? Hell, Black people weren’t even allowed the right to vote until 1965.
And what about James Chaney? It’s a bit of recent history that inspired the movie Mississippi Burning. I’m sure the movie took some creative license, but in most respects I think it was accurate.

But maybe I’m not following your train of thought correctly.

@Aethelwine What state, if you don’t mind? Just curious. I’m in Missouri, and I would fight like a tiger if ANYONE dared mess with my LGBTQ friends, which is why I ‘felt out’ the situation before he joined our Park Committee. One person made a snide comment, in a joking manner, and I shut that down immediately. That stinks, small towns are supposed to take care of our own, regardless, I’m sorry.

People can just be ass hats. They know they’re wrong, but they form all kinds of groups of like-minded people to convince themselves they are right and righteous and superior.

Intolerance and bigotry are not limited by race, gender, nationality or any other ideological breakdown. The occur in all societies and in all levels of society.

I like to try to consider myself as an open person but if I look down deep (or maybe not so deep) I find that I do have my prejudices and I find they fall more along socio-economic lines than racial lines. But, bigotry is bigotry. I try to keep it in check by being more tolerant.

@KNOWITALL I’m about 40 miles from the Mississippi on the IL side, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of families in the transgender community in the U.S. who move to get away from bigotry and harassment.

@Aethelwine Yes, sadly I know that’s true. A cousin lives up north and recently moved to San Diego & it has completely changed his life for the better. Thanks for sharing, we still have a lot of work to do. In my area the biggest issue is ‘straight’ camps, where they pray you straight, you get married, have children & live ‘straight’, as if being gay truly is a sinful choice. Even one of my old friends thought there was nothing wrong with that (his father is pastor at one of those churches.)

I’d like to share something @KNOWITALL that has to do with a business. Since it’s slightly related and this is in social I hope you don’t mind.

There is a business called TransKids that sells gender affirming supplies for trans children. They sell underwear that helps young trans girls hide their penis and packers for young trans boys, as well as books and other supplies. Their Facebook page was recently shut down thanks to complaints from a woman who runs a page called The Activist Mommy. Her and her bigoted followers repeatedly reported the TransKids page and it worked. She’s gloating on her Facebook page. She compares transgender people to pedophiles. She says that parents who support their transgender kids are abusive.

I am amazed how Facebook allows pages like hers to spread their bigotry. Her page is disgusting. Facebook does a terrible job at protecting transgender individuals. Many of us are reporting her page but Facebook tells us she doesn’t violate their rules. :(

I just looked at her page and now her target is Scholastic for selling books about transgender topics.

@aethel Mouth breathers.

^Yes, but I know of 3 families who have lost their teen trans children to suicide or murder this past year. I am reminded of one often because he lived 100 miles from my family and was the same age as my son. This is the outcome of living with mouth breathers.

Is it due to religion or just the teen obsession with bullying or ?

What does “mouth breathers” mean in the context you guys used it?

@Dutchess_III A stupid person, kind of like ‘neanderthals’ being used for macho men with no brains. It’s just difficult to believe people spend so much time trying to bring others down, blows my mind.

OIC. They aren’t good for much, but they happen to be breathing. (Neandethals were pretty dang smart, though. Smarter than mouth breathers.)