Do People Think Cake Bakers Should Be Forced to Work Gay Weddings? Maybe, Maybe Not

|

Wedding cake with red roses
Matthias Rhomberg

According to the Pew Research Center, half of Americans think business owners should be required to provide their services for same-sex weddings even if doing so violates their religious beliefs. In a September poll from the group, respondents split down the middle on the following question:

If a business provides wedding services, such as catering or flowers, should it be allowed to refuse those services to a same-sex couple for religious reasons, or required to provide those services as it would to all other customers?

The number saying businesses should be required to provide such services included a majority of Catholics, noteworthy given Rome's stance on "traditional" marriage. This all seems to suggest a large segment of the population is fine with the idea that people can be compelled to do a job even if they feel it goes against their beliefs.

Not so fast—issues like this are tricky to poll on. Even small, seemingly inconsequential tweaks to wording can completely upend the results of a question. Take for example the contraception mandate issue decided earlier this year by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. In February 2012, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked the following question:

And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university—do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that their health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees?

The response was overwhelming—by a 2–1 margin, respondents supported the requirement. But when the same two outlets tweaked the question a month later, they got the opposite result. Worded as follows, a full majority—57 percent—said the employer should not have to cover contraception:

What about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university? Do you think their health insurance plans should have to cover the full costs of birth control for their female employees, or should they be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?

By explicitly noting that the employers have religious or moral grounds for objecting to the mandate, the question elicits a radically different response.

The Pew question already mentions "religious reasons," but framing can still make a difference. It's one thing for a respondent to be against letting businesses "refuse to serve same-sex couples." It's another thing to say people shouldn't be allowed to "decline to participate in a same-sex wedding." The former evokes the image of a restauranteur or shopkeeper throwing gay people out of his business, while the latter sounds more like he's politely reserving the right not to take someone on as a new client. The end result might be the same, but the connotations are worlds apart.

The most likely explanation is that a lot of people see this as an issue marked by shades of gray. They don't believe it's OK to discriminate against gay couples and would hate for anyone to mistake them for a homophobe. But they're also inclined to want others' religious beliefs respected, and heavy-handed government rubs them the wrong way too. So they sit somewhere in the middle, unsure how these considerations ought to be balanced against each other—and ultimately answer poll questions mostly based on how the wording makes them feel.

The truth is, a person doesn't have to be opposed to same-sex marriage to think government would be overstepping its authority if it tried to force someone to provide services for a gay or lesbian wedding. After all, lots of activities that most people consider morally objectionable—like cheating on your spouse, say—nonetheless remain legal. Even if we assume bigotry is the only reason a person might balk about working a same-sex wedding, it's not against the law to be a crappy person.

NEXT: Marijuana Offenders Could Have Records Sealed After D.C. Council Vote

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s all such bullshit. I should be able to turn away people at will. And people, in turn, should be able to refuse to do business with me.

    I mean, the Soup Nazi can refuse you soup for one year for talking back to you but cannot refuse to cater your gay wedding? It doesn’t make any sense.

    Identity politics is going to swallow all of our fucking freedoms.

    1. For talking back to him.

      1. Oh, I’ll make you a cake all right. . .with a swastika!

        1. That’s the solution. Force me to do something? I’m going to do a really shitty job!

            1. Sure, or a penis cake at a lesbian wedding.

          1. I keep hearing this argument, but seriously, if a baker sabotages a job he promised to do, (s)he could get sued for “civil rights” violations *and* breach of contract.

            With liberal discovery, the plaintiffs would probably be able to uncover the fact that only the gay customers had these bad customer experiences, the defendant made perfectly good cakes for the straight people.

            Result: Large damage awards, with the defendant’s egregious behavior made worse by his/her dishonesty.

            And people on H&R would be like, “well, I could respect them if they’d given an outright refusal, but if they promised to perform a service and deliberately did a shitty job, screw them, they deserve to be punished!”

            1. And people on H&R would be like, “well, I could respect them if they’d given an outright refusal, but if they promised to perform a service and deliberately did a shitty job, screw them, they deserve to be punished!”

              I feel like I don’t need to point this out to you of all people, but there are different posters here.

            2. Well, perhaps more subtle sabotage options are available, though the civil rights violation is a crock of shit, since the bigger violation is against the person compelled to violate his beliefs and who has his freedom of speech and thought violated.

              It’s all part and parcel with the idea that I don’t own my stuff–the state does.

        2. The cake is a lie, bitches. Aperture Science taught ya’ll better than that.

    2. No you cannot turn away people who order your product. What was the 1964 Civil Rights Act all about? Equal Access??

      You can’t turn people away simply because they want a cake addressed to Bill and Bob.

      It’s just a fucking cake! Take the money, back the fucking thing, and ship it.

      Done!

      Also, and with all due respect,

      Grow the FUCK up!!!!!!

  2. The responses seem to be similar to responses to polls about govt-recognized SSM:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..ls_in_2014

  3. Public policy polling is notoriously inaccurate. Political insophisticates subconsciously condition their response to the wording of the question. Anybody who relies on polling numbers to support their policy goals are either ignorant or evil.

    1. “99% of respondents admitted to being caring and tolerant, and only 1% would describe themselves as fascist baby-eaters. This shows overwhelming support for gay rights!”

    2. I couldn’t give a flying fuck about popular opinion when it comes to civil liberties and restraining government. A lot of the rights we have historically protected have been minority rights. For instance, the trenches of free speech warfare are occupied almost exclusively by whackjob assholes and Illinois Nazis. The First Amendment was intentionally aimed at restricted the right of the majority to suppress the speech of minorities.

      1. “the trenches of free speech warfare are occupied almost exclusively by whackjob assholes and Illinois Nazis”

        And people who want to produce documentaries of candidates during election season.

      2. The trenches now are religous people who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings. Somehow the usual free speech defenders aren’t around to man the trenches. Apparently telling holocaust survivors it is their civic duty to watch Nazis march through their town and celebrate the murder of their families is not as distasteful and hard as telling some leftist gay couple to go to a different bakery.

        1. Well, this has been going on for a while. A lot of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment law impinges right smack in the middle of free speech rights, which is clearly illegal. Yet it’s not only allowed, but the courts just wave off any protests about freedom of speech.

          Is freedom of expression one of the core rights of a civil society or is it the right not to be even slightly offended?

          1. I think it is that groups like the ACLU don’t really give a fuck about free speech and really don’t want it. The will defend really unpopular speech like the Illinois Nazis because they know that those people are just clowns and side shows. People like the bakery up in Oregon however are not clowns and side shows. They represent the views of a significant number of people. Their speech is thus a real threat to leftists and thus the ACLU is fine with it being suppressed.

          2. Is freedom of expression one of the core rights of a civil society

            Not anymore

          3. I’ve had this discussion ad nauseum with some friends and as best I can determine their position is this “Once you operate a business (for profit) that is open to serve the general public, you cannot discriminate against anyone for an inherent characteristic.”

            1. Why not? I can refuse to serve an asshole, refuse to serve someone arbitrarily, but God help me if I do it for some reason remotely linked to identity politics.

              And, let’s just get this out in the open right now. While the rank and file don’t fully realize this, a huge motive behind all of this isn’t gay rights or any other rights. It’s about making more lawyers more absurdly wealthy. Heck, in Florida, the Crist campaign is almost entirely about further enrichenfying the plaintiffs’ bar, which I am beginning to suspect is the great power now in Democratic politics in general.

  4. Half of Americans either don’t know what’s in the First Amendment or think it should be ignored? Great. I only hope the poll sample was skewed.

    1. I think people know it is wrong. That is the good news. The bad news is that the Progs are such successful cultural bullies, they are terrified to admit that it is wrong.

    2. That 1A stuff isn’t a RIGHT-right like, say, WiFi.

    1. Drat, I was gonna post that too.

  5. I DEMAND YOU ALL TO MAKE A CAKE AND GIVE IT TO ME.

    1. You’ll be compensated for it. Therefore, any breach to your freedoms is cricket.

    2. It all starts with free cake and is all fun and games until shreek shows up.

      Giving out cake is like feeding the bums. It ruins any public space.

    3. I THOUGHT YOU LIKED SUGAR COOKIES.

      1. Are there two little icing grooms on them? If not, don’t even come in here peddling that shit.

        1. There are in Fist’s house.

      2. I do. I do like sugar cookies.

        1. Sugar cookies are for people that lack the talent to make oatmeal raisin cookies.

          1. oatmeal raisin cookies

            Worst. Cookie. Ever.

            1. I think you misspelled best

            2. Worst. Cookie. Ever.

              Seconded.

            3. Chocolate chip oatmeal cookies FTW!

              1. +100 (dozen, warm)

          2. What are those? Some kind of breakfast food?

  6. If I thought that gay marriages might be unserved, I could be sympathetic. But that seems unlikely.

  7. As a member of the LGBT community, trying to explain this to my liberal friends is like banging my head against the wall. I don’t understand why they prefer to make us into bullies instead of taking their dollars down the road.

    1. Because the gay rights movement was tragically taken over by progs. When that happens to a movement it is immediately coopted into a tool for advancing prog politics. Gay rights are no longer the point. The point is to use gay rights as a weapon to oppress the Progs’ political enemies.

      1. Bingo!

      2. I think this is an excellent point, and it’s something that should be stressed to gays at every turn: Don’t let the left co-opt and, frankly, own your vote like they’ve done to blacks. Used, abused, and taken for granted with nothing to show for it is a bad idea.

        1. Used, abused, and taken for granted with nothing to show for it is a bad idea.

          That’s what momma always told me!

        2. There are many on the left who would like to see the Muslim community rise in importance and replace the Jewish community’s influence and money allowing the Democrats to be free to no longer support Israel.

          If that ever happens, and I think there is a decent chance it could, the left will turn on the gays in a heartbeat. Where will the gay turn then? Back to the right after they have spent the last 30 years calling them bigots and making it illegal to act on their religious beliefs?

      3. Especially sad that so many libertarians don’t see that they have been co-opted into carrying water for what should be their worst enemies, the progs.

        1. I cannot tell you how aghast I was back when even people hereabouts were talking about a liberaltarian alliance, like that was anything other than a total impossibility. Today’s left wants, nay, craves, a total state. That’s absolutely anathema to any concept of libertarianism. Might as well hitch up to the American Nazi Party.

          1. Might as well hitch up to the American Nazi Party.

            Or ISIS.

            1. The Egyptian goddess or the violent guys in Iraq?

              1. Violent guys. And libertarians can hitch up with Al-quida and the Taliban too because they all oppose US Foreign Policy.

      4. The gay progs always say, “but can you imagine if a baker refused to bake a cake for blacks or Jews?” That always ends the discussion.

        1. I hear “But those homophobic cake bakers rely on roads paid for by taxes, bla bla bla.” Nice job arguing against all freedom, including your own.

        2. Two wrongs…

          1. Only a racist would say that.

      5. And when anything that you’d recognize as a gay right and the progs’ desire for ever bigger government conflict, guess which one wins.

    2. SHUT UP AND BAKE FoE HIS CAKE

    3. I clicked on your name and it requires a password. What gives?

  8. OT: One of the guards of the ebola apartment rushed to hospital with ebola like symptoms

    I’m thinking he probably doesn’t have it, but this could also be the start of something.

    1. Everybody with weak constitutions within 20 miles of that guy are going to experience panic-induced, psychosomatic symptoms. The media is going to love it.

      1. Yeah, my wife has been told from “above” that all patients at her clinic (pediatric therapy) have to fill out a 2 page ebola questionnaire every time they visit.

        Yeah, like a family in one of the richest suburbs of Dallas jetted off to Liberia for the weekend with their crippled child between therapy visits.

    2. ERMAGERD ERBOLAMOLA HERPIE DERPIE MYLAR MY HOUSIE

    3. Boils, exciting and new
      Come Join In. We’re expecting you.
      And Boils, life’s sweetest reward.
      Let it flow, it floats back to you.

      Ebola will be making another run
      Ebola promises something for everyone
      Set a course for adventure,
      Your mind on bleeding out.

      And boils won’t hurt anymore
      It’s an open wound on an immigrant.
      Yes booooooooooils!

      Welcome Aboard. It’s BOOOOOOIIIIILLLLSS!

    4. Ebolapocalypse Now!

      1. I’ll wait for the Redux…

  9. On a lighter note, the cake baker controversy reminds me of this Dilbert comic strip

    http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_str……strip.gif

  10. *lights Tony signal*

  11. If a business provides wedding services, such as catering or flowers a priest officiating the ceremony or a Baptist church providing the venue, should it be allowed to refuse those services to a same-sex couple for religious reasons, or required to provide those services as it would to all other customers?

  12. Bakers should be forced to bake cakes for arranged and shotgun marriages as well. Just to be consistent.

  13. Someone left my cake out in the rain. 🙁

    1. Was it an acid rain?

    2. I didn’t need that in my head today

    3. Not a problem if it’s chocolate rain…

  14. Do People Think Cake Bakers Should Be Forced to Work Gay Weddings?

    Only if the cake baker is also a pot-smoking Mexican.

    1. At some point they need to turn Reason headquarters into a bath house and park a taco truck out front, call it even and hire a new staff and to work at a new headquarters. The old staff will be happy and the new staff can get back to publishing a serious magazine. Everyone wins.

      1. Bitter John needs some brew to settle down his righteous indignation. Gay couples are not coming for you, bro.

  15. One excuse that the pro-gay marriage folks who are opposed to mandatory association with gays can’t make is “this was an unintended consequence.”

    No, it wasn’t. You were warned, repeatedly, that making this a federal Equal Protection issue, rather than slugging it out state-by-state, would lead to protected class status, with all its privileges, including the privilege of forcing people to do business with you.

    You were warned, and so you don’t get say now that you didn’t mean for this to happen. You own the foreseeable consequences of your positions.

    1. They knew it but they didn’t care. They don’t like the people who object to gays and they do like the gays. It was pure moral cowardice.

      1. Pure moral cowardice perfectly explains the religious lobby and their desire to negate gay marriage into the shadows of abnormality.

        1. You hate religious people so you won’t stand up for their rights. Good luck with that attitude. I am sure no one will ever come for you.

          1. What? I support gays getting married and being seen as normal so I now hate John because he’ll cry at an altar call this Sunday? That’s crazy speech.

      2. Oh they cared. It isn’t that someone won’t bake a cake for them that pisses them off. It is that some bigot doesn’t approve of their lifestyle.

        Well guess what? I don’t approve of fuckers in skinny jeans. Are they going to complain about that too? I also don’t find asians attractive. Must I be compelled to marry one and watch their bus-groping-schoolgirl porn?

        This is the natural PROGression of statism. Pretty soon, people feel like their entire validation and self worth exists only if the State makes it so. If someone doesn’t like their choices, fuck them, get the IRS to accept them wholeheartedly.

    2. You are full of alarm bells without the batteries.

      Gay marriage is not a protected class and never will be.

      The fact is, like ANY law some cities and municipalities will twist the law into an unconstitutional mess and get by with it because some uptight goofballs (including the occasional spiteful gay couple) are pissed at something. This is no harbinger of anyone who is married gaining special status.

      1. It is possible that gays may be added to the protected class group like blacks, cripples, and women.

        1. They already are. As gays. But do you know any blacks, women, or cripples that have special marriage rights under federal law?

    3. You’re operating under the assumption that gay marriage causes anti-discrimination laws. Which is not true. If it was, why were there (up until very recent court rulings) far more states that made discrimination against gays illegal than had gay marriage? Why is public support for anti-discrimination laws higher than it is for gay marriage?

  16. Let me tell you something: They all want cake.

  17. If so many people are that confused by something as simple as freedom of association, there is no hope for humanity.

  18. Socon DERP: you stupid homos just had to ally with the people who didn’t advocate throwing you in jail! And now look at us. All because you weren’t willing to overlook sodomy laws and ally with the right, the rights of people who actually count may be in danger. And all because you couldn’t accept us dragging you out of your homes at gunpoint in the middle of the night!

    When I was in trouble, you didn’t want to fight for my rights (and indeed, a lot of people here still don’t). Why should I care about your right now?

    1. Normally you are just stupid. With this post you have managed to devolve into intelligible. What the hell are you even talking about?

      1. I suppose you could say it’s tu quoque; your tepid opposition to sodomy laws is matched by his tepid opposition to forced cake baking.

        It’s not unintelligible, but it’s not logical either.

        1. It’s not logical I agree. It just seems odd to go out of your way to deny group X any support and then act shocked when 20 years later group X has decided to ally with the other side.

          And I fully admit that spite is one of my worst vices.

      2. With this post you have managed to devolve into intelligible.

        Classic.

    2. Eh, I can see where you’re coming from, to some extent. GKC in another thread was pointing out that religious exceptions to gay marriage laws were being thrown out, but conveniently ignoring that whole “ban gay marriage (and occasionally similar arrangements)” movement that was going on at the same time in other states.

      Still, if you want to be better than your enemies, you have to actually, you know, be better than them.

  19. Even if we assume bigotry is the only reason a person might balk about working a same-sex wedding, it’s not against the law to be a crappy person.

    You’re getting yourself in a bind if you argue the merit of freedom of association on what is and what is not against the law, Stephanie. Even if YOU think a person who refuses to SELL HIS OWN PROPERTY to someone else because that person happens to be a bigot, the fact is that the seller has every right to refuse to enter into an agreement with another. He’s NOT a slave nor is he chattel. People are NOT entitled to his labor or his property – PERIOD.

    What government does when mandating that people enter into contracts is two things: stepping on the rights of either the two parties, and creating further animosity from one party towards the other and vice-versa. Who the hell wants to receive service from a guy that hates your guts?

    It is much better to let people freely establish the business arrangements they desire with people who voluntarily want to enter into those agreements, in other words: let the competition grab those gay dollars.

    1. What government does when mandating that people enter into contracts

      This isn’t going to happen in this case. If it does, it won’t occur at the federal level- it will occur locally. The same place where myriad laws are turned on their heads by any number of interests that run the gamut from progressive tyrants to right-wing dictators.

      1. Re: Agile Cyborg,

        This isn’t going to happen in this case.

        It already happens under Federal anti-discrimination statutes.

        1. Gays, yes. Not their marriages. It WILL happen occasionally on the local stage. Nothing more.

    2. I don’t like Mexicans and I don’t like old people. Not really, but for the sake of argument… What if I have a coffee shop with a store front on Main St. and I put up a sign the reads “No Old Mexicans”. In a mixed economy you would have already been taxed and bonded with the cost of the sidewalk and street that you came to my store upon.

      If I won’t sell you a cup of coffee you’d be within your rights for a tax refund.

  20. Bars work differently than bakeries. Evidently. If I walk into a bar for the first time I will pay the menu price for my drink. But the bar owner and the tender are trying to make a social situation that keeps the business flush. Too much diversity is bad for business. The third time I go back to a mostly white heterosexual bar the tender will charge me the menu price for the first two drinks and tap the tip on the table for the third drink. A month later I’ll pay for one out of two drinks.

    This is white male heterosexual privilege in action. This never ever happens to anyone else. It never happens to working class blacks going to predominately black working class bars. It never happens to gays going to gay bars.

    1. We should consider an affirmative action period in which we only hire white men only admit them to colleges and prioritize all raises and promotions to white men so that we can correct that awful wrong that has been committed to white hetro males all these years.

      1. My writing must have failed, or your reading, Mitch Conner.

    2. This never ever happens to anyone else. It never happens to working class blacks going to predominately black working class bars. It never happens to gays going to gay bars.

      I call shenanigans. I have a Korean friend. He regularly gets free meals or discounted additional sides when he is at Korean restaurants.

      Likewise, if you were a black regular at a black owned establishment, are you saying they would never comp you? Give me a break.

      1. Thank you for responding to my post.

        *kicks dirt*

  21. In this day and age, I think ones religious beliefs is a bunch of bullshit.
    We should not have to tolerate anyones’s religious beliefs.

    That said, yes, a businesss owner should be able to deny services and goods to Jews/Blacks/Fat people/poor smelly people/and yes, gays.

    1. We should not have to tolerate anyones’s religious beliefs.

      Goddammit you are just fueling John’s rage boner.

      1. Honestly, shouldn’t that fuel any libertarian’s rage boner? I mean, freedom of thought is a pretty core belief amongst us, isn’t it? If I want to believe and speak based on a religious philosophy, that’s my right, isn’t it?

        1. Absolutely, but John who can be reasonable tends to go full retard on any issue related to religion, conflating assholes like Mitch with people who have no issue with religion per se, only its application as the basis of law.

          Still, Mitch here seems to get the concept in action even if his thoughts on religion don’t align with it. Not sure I’d call him a staunch ally of freedom of association, though.

          1. Freedom is hard, and its exercise can hurt.

            1. Most people choose less pain for themselves, even if they could get roughly the same result with less injury to others.

  22. It’s one thing for a respondent to be against letting businesses “refuse to serve same-sex couples.” It’s another thing to say people shouldn’t be allowed to “decline to participate in a same-sex wedding.”

    Weddings, unlike meals, are very often officiated by priests. Its a rite that for many people has religious implications.

    I recall a recent story where some atheists were trying to create an “atheist church”, that is, trying to get the sense of community, without the whole god thing. Obviously if you compelled someone (commercially or otherwise) to sit in on, much less materially participate in, a church service, that would violate freedom of religion. Doesn’t that still hold true if it’s something deliberately modelled after church, but atheistic in nature? And wouldn’t that apply to secular wedding ceremonies?

    I also wonder if the legal outcome would be the same if the gay wedding featured a priest of any religion, or any sort of quasi-religious rites like prayer, recitations, lighting of candles, or anything else that sort of smacks of religious ceremonies. At that point, you aren’t forcing people to participate in a religion-free version of an often-religious rite, you’re just forcing people to participate in a religious rite.

  23. “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for my right to have you bake me a cake, because tolerance” – Voltaire

  24. THEY ALL WANT CAKE!

    But, seriously. I own the product of my labor. If anyone tried to sue me for some “civil rights” violation because I refused service, I’d sue sue them back twice (possibly three times) as hard on 13A grounds. That is all.

    1. I’d sue sue them back twice (possibly three times) as hard on 13A grounds

      You cannot sue citizens for 13A grounds. The Constitution is a limit on the Government, not on individuals since they do not have the monopoly on power.

      1. 13A outlawed slavery. I believe that applies to everyone just like 19A did. Also, 13A grounds applies because it would be, essentially, slavery if someone was to use the gov’t to coerce me to provide a service to them. Public and private entities are involved no matter the angle from which it is viewed.

      2. The wording of the 13th Amendment is extremely broad, as befits a law passed through moral outrage rather than careful consideration.

        1. I think it is fairly concise:

          Section 1.

          Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

          1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            The 18th Amendment:

            After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

            The breadth is in the target of the prohibition; other Amendments are limited to saying the government cannot do something. These amendments say the people cannot do something.

    2. And you’d lose. Not because the law isn’t on your side, but because FYTW.

      1. No, you’d lose because you have the option to go out of business, so not involuntary.

  25. It’s all about negative rights, of course.

    I have the right to refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason or none, and they have the right to do likewise. No one has the right to compel me to do otherwise. On the other hand, given that we have governments and they are statutorily tax-supported and have little, if any competition, they must serve all citizens equally. Any public official should understand and agree with that before taking the job.

    Businesses and governments can offer health care or any benefit, or none, to any or all of their employees; what those benefits are depends only on employment contracts.

  26. Slavery never goes out of style for some people.

  27. No. Unlike race, same-gender marriage is a choice. Choices have consequences. Choose a different flower shop or bakery.

  28. Unlike homosexuality, nobody has a religious conviction that requires them to refuse to serve black people.

    Not that this ought to make any difference. People should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

    But I still think most people have some reluctance to force people to violate religious beliefs.

    It’s sad that freedom of religion is the last refuge for freedom of conscience and freedom of association.
    Maybe some people will start to realize that the whole anti-discrimination law framework violates basic human rights. The only truely just system must allow BOTH sides to discriminate against each other equally.

    1. Unlike homosexuality, nobody has a religious conviction that requires them to refuse to serve black people.

      Uh…

  29. The only workable solution is to maintain individual liberty including full freedom of association. Any individual has the right to refuse to provide their services or the fruits of their labor to anyone for *any* reason (and that reason need not be stated, btw). Trade is a two-way process; if it’s allowed for a customer to refuse to do business with a business that is (fill in the blank), the reverse must also be true. Failing that, we follow a messy, muddled road to the point where the right to free association means nothing. Without governments clumsy mitts interfering, the free market will tend to punish unwise discrimination, anyway.

  30. There needs to be a distinction between a business and a government chartered corporation.

    If you want us to grant you charter protections and privileges through the government, you need to abide by all of the rules of government including the civil rights act

    1. You really don’t understand the proper role of Constitutional government.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.