View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 08:31 PM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,578
Thanks: 10,094
Thanked 15,258 Times in 9,250 Posts
Post Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Originally Posted by loboloco View Post
Actually, if the dry cleaners would clean any costume, then he could be prosecuted under your interpretation of the law.

"Just as a black dry cleaner owner should be allowed to refuse to dry clean a KKK costume."
As I pointed out, protected characteristics include stuff like religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ...

KKK membership is not any of those.
As such, no protection.

Originally Posted by loboloco View Post
If the owner of the sign shop would make any protest signs, he could be prosecuted.
If the owner refuses to make an Adolph Hitler birthday cake but makes other birthday cakes, and that's within the law, then the same owner should be able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Even if he would make one for a straight wedding.
Prosecuted for what?
Making an Adolph Hitler is not an issue of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ...
As such, it's not protected by law.

If they refused to make a star of David cake, that would be a violation of the law. Because religion is on that list.

Adolph Hitler is not on that list.

Originally Posted by FrancSevin
According to the ruling of this judge, it is not a question of baking a cake. it is a question of "decorating" it in a special way. One that is offensive to the Decorating artist. Which, in most cases is the baker.
Yet again, what the business person considers as "offensive" is not a defense.
As I pointed out earlier, by this level of analysis, all the KKK members had to do to refuse service to black people is say that the burger had not been created yet and it would be "offensive" to them to create that burger.

Originally Posted by FrancSevin
Could a baker refuse to bake a cake in the shape of a penis? After all, a cake is a cake? No, a common cake is a common commodity cake. It's no different for a car tire. It's a commodity.
A penis shaped one is custom art.
If they refused to bake a cake in the shape of a penis for anybody, then there is no legal violation.
You guys keep looking for ways to get around the law while refusing to try to comprehend:
a) the history of these laws, and
b) how these laws are actually applied.

Calling it "art" is not a defense.

Originally Posted by FrancSevin
If one were to ask, could Michelin refuse to produce a "custom" set of tires with a swastika design in the tread? Again it's not about the tire.
A swastika or nazi status is not a race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

It's about what is on the actual list for that state / area.

You guys keep creating b.s. examples of what you think might be magically protected and concocting a strawman out of a non-existent protection.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote