Lakewood (Colorado) Cake Shop Refuses Wedding Cake To Gay Couple.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Explanation: Uhmmm?

From the article ... in the bakers own words ...

“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips said. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”

So he has no prejudice [aka hate] until it comes to the issue of wedding cakes and gays!

Personal Disclosure: Please show me how that can be interpreted another way that sounds both logical and reasonable and doesn't invoke cognitive dissonance.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Still not discrimination or a basis for a lawsuit though. He can refuse all service to gays, or partial service to gays, or make gays use the back window... still not a basis for a lawsuit, because "gay" is not a protected class.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Personal Disclosure: Please show me how that can be interpreted another way that sounds both logical and reasonable and doesn't invoke cognitive dissonance.

There's nothing logical or reasonable about bigotry so given that I can believe that he's nutty enough to just really hate gay wedding cakes and nothing more.

Insanity has no logic.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Explanation: Please provide me a link to the list of protected classes.

Personal Disclosure: I was unaware that one had to be of a protected class and was only aware that a case for hate had to be made. Looking forward to reading up on these protected classes if and when you provide a link .

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Recent Discrimination Lawsuits.

You'll find sex/gender, but you won't find sexuality in any of those lawsuits.

Because sexuality is not protected under These Guidelines, which are mainly for employers, not for consumers, but the consumer guidelines are even less strict!

Have you ever heard of "ladie's night" at a bar? Even price discrimination for a protected class like gender is completely acceptable. A business can charge a man a higher price than a woman for the same item.... legally.

Consumer Discrimination
By its nature, marketing depends on being able to discriminate between different groups of people. Indeed, the underlying philosophy is that all consumers are not the same and the they can be profitably segmented into markets based on demographic and behavioral dimensions. Studies have shown, for example, that gender, age and ethnicity and important segmentation variables. Indeed, there has been a rise in ethnic, generational or cohort (age), and gender marketing. Because such strategies actually benefit these groups, discrimination (in this sense) is perfectly acceptable.

While discrimination in employment has been the focus of attention for many years, however, little can be found in the marketing literature about negative stereotyping and discrimination. Some marketing research has uncovered erroneous stereotyping. For example, recent research has shown that women now account for 40% of all cars buyers and men for 40% of food shopping dollars. By stereotyping consumers, marketers can miss out on increased sales. Stereotyping in this sense would have bottom-line implications.

Increasingly, marketers are being accused of perpetuating negative stereotypes especially in advertising and corporate visual identity (corporate logos). The use of negative stereotypes often results in negative publicity for the firm. Negative publicity often has bottom-line implications as well.

One particular area of concern to marketers is the problematic areas of "public accommodation" and "price discrimination". Price discrimination occurs often and is generally part of pricing or promotion strategies. Women, for example, pay more for dry cleaning, shoes and apparel, and haircuts than men. Several years ago Victoria's Secret even sent catalogs to both men and women, but the catalogs targeting men had lower prices. Furthermore, in a 1990 study, the author showed that white males were systematically offered new cars at lower prices than were blacks and females. Movie theaters and restaurants also often offer discounts and/or lower prices to children, students, and retirees. Bars frequently have "ladies night" with reduced or free cover charges for women. The rationale for such practice is that certain groups are willing to pay more.

When consumers have sued businesses they have done so under State and Federal civil-rights laws. The laws apply where a member of a protected class, otherwise fit and able to pay, has been refused admission or service in a place of public accommodation. The refusal to receive or serve the victim, and the victim's subsequent humiliation and mental distress, are the wrongs that the law intends to address. When Denny's employees failed to serve African-Americans, it was sued under Civil Rights.

In other cases, it is not so clear. In a 1985 California case, for example, beverage discounts during ladies nights in bars and taverns was held to violate state laws concerning public accommodation (only Washington State approves of this practice). To date, no cases of age-based price discrimination has been challenged

Source

The Protected Classes currently are: race, color, religion, national origin, age (40 and over), sex/gender, familial status, disability, veteran, or genetic information. BUT, some of those like age, and disability, are further restricted. You obviously can't work on scaffolding if you are in a wheel chair, and it is perfectly acceptable to give preference to a 50 year old over an equally qualified 18 year old, you just can't do the opposite of that.

Gay people cannot win a discrimination lawsuit....... yet. It is probably on the horizon though.

As a small independent business, I think that they should be able to provide service or not to whoever they choose.

I also think that they people who preach tolerance are in fact the least tolerant when they perceive any type of insult.

If I went to a business and they decided they didn't like my Hawaiian shirt and as a result didn't choose to serve me, I'd most likely laugh at them and walk out. I wouldn't call for all Hawaiian shirt owners to protest the business.

reply to post by hp1229


A private shop owner of course can refuse whoever they want. But they don't get to do it without backlash. They don't get to do it without patrons refusing to go there again. If they don't want drama, they shouldn't cause it.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Explanation: St*rred!

I am reading and digesting it as I post!

Personal Disclosure: Much appreciated! THANK YOU!

reply to post by cetaphobic


The patrons of the shop of course have the choice to continue doing business with that shop or not.

That's what freedom means.

reply to post by Wildbob77


So then why does every thread standing up for the shop owner start with what basically boils down to "omg how DARE THEY tell a private shop owner that they won't go there anymore because of their views and opinions!"

maybe we should just give alabama and colorado over to the white christian conservatives...that way they can live with all of their other bible-thumpers. they can discriminate against anybody they want to, pass bible and jesus laws, have all the guns they want, pay no taxes, and restrict and/or allow as much personal freedom as they see fit. the rest of the 46 contigious states can move on to improving their future.

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

So then why does every thread standing up for the shop owner start with what basically boils down to "omg how DARE THEY tell a private shop owner that they won't go there anymore because of their views and opinions!"

yeah...how dare they tell a shop owner who they can serve...how about a business that will not allow right-wing christians to be served? sounds fair to me, because it would just be their views and opinions, and not anything to do with discrimination.

reply to post by jimmyx


Wow it's actually funny how much you're derailing. Of course you'd be allowed to speak up against a private shop owner refusing conservatives or Christians service, just like we're allowed to speak up against this shop owner.

Did you expect me to say anything different?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

Now, if this were a "hate-crime," then sexual orientation is a protected class, but not when it comes to business.

This is what gets my goat when "news" like this comes up.

The business owner has every right to refuse service in this case. The problem is, this couple is gay, so automatically, this guy is labelled a hate-monger regardless of his reasoning.... which in this case seems to simply be his belief in traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

He doesn't "hate" gay people. It's stated very clearly that he has no problem baking cakes for any other occasion - gay or not - birthdays, celebrations etc.
Just not cakes for marriage based on his own personal beliefs.

But of course now he's going to be labelled a KKK member and have (ADMITTEDLY!) a large group of people INTENTIONALLY try to harm his livelihood by boycotting his business.
Why?
What crime has he committed?
What rights has he violated?

None.

Yet HE'S the bad guy here.... people need to give their $#@ head a shake

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by cetaphobic

 

The patrons of the shop of course have the choice to continue doing business with that shop or not.

That's what freedom means.

RIGHT!

And they also have the right to go somewhere else and buy a cake.

But no. It's more fun to be drama queens and try to harm someone's livelihood just because they happen to disagree with your opinion on what marriage should be.

losers IMO

Funny how the gays weren't protesting Obama. First time around he wasn't for it this time around now he's for it. If there was ever a bigger sign that the agenda has kicked into high gear, it's the flip floppers joining the team.

Sorry everyone, but IT IS an AGENDA.

Here's a photo for anyone curious: www.nydailynews.com...

Mullin and Craig took to Facebook to write a post about Phillips' refusal, prompting more than a 1,000 people to send angry messages to the bakery owner. Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

They deliberately incited a hate-on against this guy and are intentionally trying to harm his business.

Yet THEY'RE the victims???

I'm not anti-gay, however that is the kind of circular reasoning you see quite often when you piss off a woman. Pathetic.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Its easy to see why they are making a fuss out of this. Gays want equal rights and protections from the law so discrimination like this doesn't happen.

I think they(Gays) will win this fight.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Its easy to see why they are making a fuss out of this. Gays want equal rights and protections from the law so discrimination like this doesn't happen.

I think they(Gays) will win this fight.

I mentioned earlier that I'm actually pro-gay marriage. Really I'm pro-legal unions, gay or not, and I think the term "marriage" belongs elsewhere, but that is just semantics.

Anyhow, I don't think they will win this fight. Per the links I posted earlier. Bars can let women in free, or give them discounts on drinks, anybody can give a military discount, or a senior citizen discount, or a law enforcement discount. We have discrimination in every aspect of business already. Companies can negotiate bulk discounts, or special pricing for their marketing partners. In my opinion price discrimination is far worse than just refusing service.

I don't think they'll win the fight when it comes to discriminating against them as customers, but I do think they will eventually become a protected class for employment and housing consideration.