Indianapolis Bakery refuses service to gay student group

[Soapy Sam]

Yes they must. At least, they must if we as a society wish to prevent minorities from being legally marginalised by the majority. Of course everyone should have the right to their beliefs. But if a single bigoted business owner can decide he doesn't want to serve blacks or gays or Christians or red-heads or left-handers, then every single business owner can do the same. Then blacks, gays, Christians, red-heads and left-handers can only obtain these services from vendors of their own 'kind', and segregation has been instituted legally. In the society I wish to live in, laws exist to protect minorities. Market forces are not reliable enough to enforce fairness.

But if enough people are bigoted, then it's clear they do not share your opinion of the ideal society. Who then is right? You or them?

In the society I wish to live in, it's also recognised that not all the phrases which might grace the top of a cake are equal. The judicial system can deal with that.

Indeed, if it's that clear cut. "Blacks out of Britain" would fall fairly clearly into the judicial sphere. "Keep black out of icing" could squeak through as a joke. The point is that in either case (the OP or my hypothetical one)- it would be easier for the baker to go along with the request (and of course more profitable) but in the first case we see him as causing offense by refusing a customer's request and in the second case of causing offense by agreeing to one. If he has the right to refuse one group- (given they are carefully not asking him to break the law) then how can we deny him the same right in the other case?

 

[Soapy Sam]

And I'm not saying it's not allowed or anything. I'm saying I'm also allowed to think he's freaking stupid.

No argument from me on that, Hans.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

But if enough people are bigoted, then it's clear they do not share your opinion of the ideal society. Who then is right? You or them?

That's true, and it's a good point. But doesn't that excuse any and all atrocities committed in countries in which the crimes had popular support? (In which case they would be defined as crimes only from our point of view.)

Indeed, if it's that clear cut. "Blacks out of Britain" would fall fairly clearly into the judicial sphere. "Keep black out of icing" could squeak through as a joke. The point is that in either case (the OP or my hypothetical one)- it would be easier for the baker to go along with the request (and of course more profitable) but in the first case we see him as causing offense by refusing a customer's request and in the second case of causing offense by agreeing to one. If he has the right to refuse one group- (given they are carefully not asking him to break the law) then how can we deny him the same right in the other case?

And this is another good point. I acknowledge that blanket laws might not be effective in all cases; whoever drafts the law cannot be expected to anticipate every factor that might arise in the law's application. But that's why we have human judges who interpret the law in context rather than apply it blindly. (It goes without saying, I think, that in the society I want to live in, the judges interpret the laws strictly in the way I wish them to. )

 

[Emet]

Update:

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's spokesman says the bakery's actions are "unacceptable. They are in the City Market, it's an equal accommodations establishment." The mayor's deputy chief of staff Robert Vane says the city has begun an investigation into the discrimination.
In the meantime The Scotty Show, a local radio program, is hosting the 1st Annual Gay Cupcake Party this Friday in response. Says host DJ Rayne: "It was definitely one of those things that hit home, you know our position with the gay community is so strong, we definitely want to be a part of it as much as we can, this had to be brought to light."

http://www.queerty.com/indianapolis...-serve-gay-cupcakes-to-college-kids-20100928/

 

[Soapy Sam]

That's true, and it's a good point. But doesn't that excuse any and all atrocities committed in countries in which the crimes had popular support? (In which case they would be defined as crimes only from our point of view.)

Yes. It's the main downside of any "morality is relative" argument. The opposite- that morality is absolute- has equally scary consequences.
I have no easy answers.

ETA- I'd add this. I have a sneaking sympathy with people who refuse to bow to social pressure when it conflicts with their own views of what is right- even if I disagree with their particular POV. Had more people resisted the Nazis early enough, simply out of distaste for their views, they might never have attained sufficient power to dominate through fear. Once it reaches that point, the snowball will roll and grow and only stop at the bottom.

And this is another good point. I acknowledge that blanket laws might not be effective in all cases; whoever drafts the law cannot be expected to anticipate every factor that might arise in the law's application. But that's why we have human judges who interpret the law in context rather than apply it blindly. (It goes without saying, I think, that in the society I want to live in, the judges interpret the laws strictly in the way I wish them to. )

You describe the human norm. The problem is all those OTHER people...

 

[Lothian]

A businessman should have the right (in my opinion, if not in law) to sell to whom he pleases. If he decides he dislikes me , he should not be required by anyone to deal with me. If he decides he doesn't want to deal with Scotsmen as a group, it seems to me it's his call. He can admit he is racist on this issue, or he can lie about it and hope nobody notices. Of course, if he does this in Glasgow, he goes broke. His decision.

I have a lot a sympathy with that opinion.

The law, here, however does not always allow the supplier to make that choice. Adoption agencies can’t chose to only help straight couples. B&B owners can’t turn away gay couples. However, families with children can be ‘banned’ from certain B&B’s.

While I don’t want discrimination I am not in favour of legally banning discrimination when we are talking about someone selling their own goods or supplying their own services.

We need to educate these people. Unless a business is inclusive it should not receive any community benefits such as grants, local council promotion etc. but I am against banning discrimination. It turns the discriminator into the victim and hardens their views against the 'system'

I would prefer a system where businesses had to prominently display the groups they discriminate against. I could then make my choice about who received my custom. Customer pressure should not be underestimated.

 

[Soapy Sam]

A return to the old "No Blacks or Campbells" days?
It's just shocking enough that it might work.

ETA- For the foreign types- "Black" is a common surname in Scotland. "No Hawkers (salesmen) or Campbells" is a (sort of) joke sign often displayed in bars patronised by MacDonalds. It's an old story. Some variants- like "No English or Campbells" are not quite so funny.


Lothian- I agree education is preferable to legislation. I think we have to face the fact though that some folks attitudes take time to change, especially if they feel they are honestly maintaining moral standards in a time of decline.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I guess I'm old-fashioned. I hate lots of people for lots of reasons, but that would never stand in my way of taking money from them. I guess that makes me morally enlightened, nay, a paragon of diversity and tolerance! Or just good business sense. Whatever.

 

[Cavemonster]

A businessman should have the right (in my opinion, if not in law) to sell to whom he pleases. If he decides he dislikes me , he should not be required by anyone to deal with me. If he decides he doesn't want to deal with Scotsmen as a group, it seems to me it's his call. He can admit he is racist on this issue, or he can lie about it and hope nobody notices. Of course, if he does this in Glasgow, he goes broke. His decision.

I'm going to disagree with this. A lot of business services are near monopolies just by virtue of geography, especially if you live at all in a rural area. There are places where there is one decent supermarket, one... whatever. Other companies serve very unique niches in business environments.

It's all well and good to say that if a company has a bigoted service policy, customers can take their custom elsewhere, and capitalism will reward the creation of an alternative. But there are places where exclusion from one or a few businesses can create a great personal hardship and make it difficult for excluded parties to pursue their own careers.

Remember that we're not that long past the decades of real segregation, where businesses making exactly these kinds of decisions had a real and brutal impact on the opportunities available to black people in the US.

Now you may say "Oh, we're past that now though, any company that tried that would be committing suicide" But only last year, an entire town conspired to keep one girl out of the prom because she was gay. They went to the trouble of organizing a decoy prom. This is a whole freaking town. The only reason they have any repercussions, and the only reason this is national news is because there is a legal structure in place to prevent such actions when schools are involved.

 

[Soapy Sam]

There's always an extreme case (or a reductio ad absurdum) to any argument. I'd think if the sole store in town refused to serve me, I'd move, but that's hardly an acceptable answer in every case. (I do know of one lady who fell out with the owner of a shop in a small Scottish community and for the next three decades had supplies delivered by boat from a store twenty miles away. A bit extreme, but that's humans for you.)

I tend to Lothian's view that education is the better long term answer than legislation, but probably both are needed. Maybe a business should have the right to refuse service, but should be required to show cause.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Yes. It's the main downside of any "morality is relative" argument. The opposite- that morality is absolute- has equally scary consequences.
I have no easy answers.

Yes, quite! I don't think there are any easy answers.

ETA- I'd add this. I have a sneaking sympathy with people who refuse to bow to social pressure when it conflicts with their own views of what is right- even if I disagree with their particular POV. Had more people resisted the Nazis early enough, simply out of distaste for their views, they might never have attained sufficient power to dominate through fear. Once it reaches that point, the snowball will roll and grow and only stop at the bottom.

I suppose I'm with you there. I was reluctant to bring up Nazi Germany as a specific example of majority-endorsed discrimination because I didn't want to lose the thread by Godwin.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Ein Volk, Ein thread , ein Godwin.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

I'm going to disagree with this. A lot of business services are near monopolies just by virtue of geography, especially if you live at all in a rural area. There are places where there is one decent supermarket, one... whatever. Other companies serve very unique niches in business environments.

It's all well and good to say that if a company has a bigoted service policy, customers can take their custom elsewhere, and capitalism will reward the creation of an alternative. But there are places where exclusion from one or a few businesses can create a great personal hardship and make it difficult for excluded parties to pursue their own careers.

Remember that we're not that long past the decades of real segregation, where businesses making exactly these kinds of decisions had a real and brutal impact on the opportunities available to black people in the US.

Now you may say "Oh, we're past that now though, any company that tried that would be committing suicide" But only last year, an entire town conspired to keep one girl out of the prom because she was gay. They went to the trouble of organizing a decoy prom. This is a whole freaking town. The only reason they have any repercussions, and the only reason this is national news is because there is a legal structure in place to prevent such actions when schools are involved.

This is just what I wish I had said. Market forces can't be trusted to produce just outcomes.

 

[Lothian]

I tend to Lothian's view.....

Don't you blame me. I was agreeing with you. You started it.

 

[varwoche]

He has every right to refuse service to anyone he chooses.

I don't know what his legal rights are in this instance, but he most certainly does not have this right.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't know what his legal rights are in this instance, but he most certainly does not have this right.

Is there a specific law or statute that you can cite that shows an independent, small baker not engaging in interstate commerce cannot refuse service to anyone he chooses?

There are laws preventing bakers from discriminating when hiring people and laws preventing hotels from discriminating and laws preventing rental properties from discriminating and laws preventing loan-granting banks from discriminating, but I am not aware of laws preventing businesses from discriminating. I could be wrong.

 

[cwalner]

I don't know what his legal rights are in this instance, but he most certainly does not have this right.

look at the quote from Emet's update

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's spokesman says the bakery's actions are "unacceptable. They are in the City Market, it's an equal accommodations establishment." The mayor's deputy chief of staff Robert Vane says the city has begun an investigation into the discrimination.

Apparantly the city is thier landlord and their lease agreement requires 'equal accomodations' so they may lose thier lease over this depending upon what the investigation finds out.

 

[quadraginta]

Woolworth's, Greensboro, NC. February 1, 1960.





You know, people, this wasn't all that long ago.

I am unpersuaded that there is a fundamental difference between refusing someone a little bit of service based on nothing but irrational prejudice, and refusing them any service. It is only a matter of degree.

Soapy Sam called a reference to the McMillen case a "reductio ad absurdum". How can it be absurd? It happened. Just last year.

We're not as far away from 1960 as we'd like to think we are. I don't think complacency is all that warranted. The arguments I'm hearing here in defense of this cookie store owner are remarkably like the ones used fifty years ago against four college students who wanted a cup of coffee.

 

[CORed]

I'm trying to think of how a cookie could be made to express an anti-gay message at all. Unless it was one of those big ones, and you just wrote something anti-gay in icing. Which would be cheating.

Maybe a rainbow cookie with a red circle around the circumference a red slash across it.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Maybe a rainbow cookie with a red circle around the circumference a red slash across it.

Red? What are you, CORed, some kind of commie?