I say political beliefs aren't on the same level as race or sexual orientation. If you're well known for a toxic belief, or voting for obviously corrupt politicians, that's something people can judge you for. And publicly shaming people can sometimes get them to change their minds. A mind is easier to change than the race you were born in, or who you're attracted to.

(June 26, 2018 at 8:40 am)johan Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 8:18 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, in that case I don't think things should be that way. The cake guy can just say he doesn't like the gay couple, telling them to get out. This nullifies the whole idea of protected groups.

It does nothing of the sort. Protecting classes of people does just that, it protects the entire group from being discriminated against based on the class. But you can be a member of a protected class and also be an individual whom I think is an asshole. It is and should be illegal for me to refuse to serve all members of a protected class simply because I think one or more members of that class are assholes. But it is not and should not be illegal for me to refuse to serve any individual I find to be an asshole regardless of what protected class they may also be a member of.

Right but... how exactly can someone prove I refused to serve someone because they are gay, if all I did was tell them to get out? If questioned I just say I didn't like them. Do they have to actually do something to annoy me?

(June 26, 2018 at 8:54 am)robvalue Wrote: Right but... how exactly can someone prove I refused to serve someone because they are gay, if all I did was tell them to get out? If questioned I just say I didn't like them. Do they have to actually do something to annoy me?

Nope. Just them being in my business is annoyance enough if they're someone I don't like. How can you prove it otherwise? You can't. But before you go losing a bunch of sleep over it remember one thing. This situation has existed forever. And yet business owners as whole are not covertly refusing to serve all members of very many protected classes. Just because people can doesn't mean they will. And most don't. Which is why there is no law against it. Why create a law for a problem that could exist in theory but does not exist in reality?

(June 26, 2018 at 8:18 am)robvalue Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 8:06 am)johan Wrote: You can now, and always could, refuse to serve someone simply because you don't like them. I think you're a jerk, get out of my shop. Perfectly legal. So this changes nothing as far as slippery slopes go.

Sure, in that case I don't think things should be that way. The cake guy can just say he doesn't like the gay couple, telling them to get out. This nullifies the whole idea of protected groups.

Oh, it can be more devious than that. The cake guy see's what he believes are two gays (they are), knows most are democrats and says I don't serve democrats. From what I've seen in PEW research this could also be applied to blacks.

(June 26, 2018 at 9:43 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 8:18 am)robvalue Wrote: Sure, in that case I don't think things should be that way. The cake guy can just say he doesn't like the gay couple, telling them to get out. This nullifies the whole idea of protected groups.

Oh, it can be more devious than that. The cake guy see's what he believes are two gays (they are), knows most are democrats and says I don't serve democrats. From what I've seen in PEW research this could also be applied to blacks.

You're right, a business owner could do that. Now show me one that actually has.

(June 26, 2018 at 9:51 am)johan Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 9:43 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Oh, it can be more devious than that. The cake guy see's what he believes are two gays (they are), knows most are democrats and says I don't serve democrats. From what I've seen in PEW research this could also be applied to blacks.

You're right, a business owner could do that. Now show me one that actually has.

Wait for it.

I'm not losing sleep, just discussing things.

(June 25, 2018 at 3:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Apparently some see this as a perfectly reasonable action. I don't, not when you're out trying to live your own life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e5714148cb

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/393874...lic-spaces

What do the rest of you think and where would you draw the line?

I disagree with the notion itself. However, if we're living in a country where a person can be refused service because of their sexual orientation, then political party is fair game. It does make people more informed consumers, that's for sure.

(June 26, 2018 at 10:20 am)Shell B Wrote:

(June 25, 2018 at 3:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Apparently some see this as a perfectly reasonable action. I don't, not when you're out trying to live your own life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e5714148cb

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/393874...lic-spaces

What do the rest of you think and where would you draw the line?

I disagree with the notion itself. However, if we're living in a country where a person can be refused service because of their sexual orientation, then political party is fair game. It does make people more informed consumers, that's for sure.

I don't think you can refuse service based on sexual orientation.  Like if a gay person asked for a birthday cake, you couldn't refuse because they are gay.  But if a straight person asked for a gay wedding cake for a friend, you could refuse because it's for a gay wedding.  That's my understanding, anyways.  

The product has to be related to the religious belief.  

Which if we're apples to apples'ing it, you could refuse to cater an RNC event, as it opposes your political beliefs.  But you couldn't refuse someone service because they are a republican.

Not that it matters, since there are no protections for politics.  Just that the comparison isn't quite what people are saying it is, I don't think.

I don't personally see a difference between being a douche over religion and being a douche over politics.