Free to choose.. and pick your guests

[Parodite]

That the state should not force a free baker to bake a cake he doesn't want to bake is totally reasonable. But there are restaurants, privately owned who might want to pick, choose or refuse certain guests:

(non-) blacks/
(non-) whites/
(non-) Jews/
males/
females/
age group a-to-b/
dress codes/
political affiliation/
[...]
only those able to pay their bill and who are not a nuisance to other guests (my preferred group).

[Nonc Hilaire]

In the US discrimination of business is not allowed. The baker's argument was he was an artist and could not be made to create a work of art, like he was a portrait painter.

Dumb argument imo. Bake the cake and take the money. Christianity is not related to cakes, and cakes are not art.

And don't tell me this couple could not find a gay friendly baker. They are sheiss stirrers, and a good penalty will do them well.

[Doc]

In the US discrimination of business is not allowed. The baker's argument was he was an artist and could not be made to create a work of art, like he was a portrait painter.

Dumb argument imo. Bake the cake and take the money. Christianity is not related to cakes, and cakes are not art.

And don't tell me this couple could not find a gay friendly baker. They are sheiss stirrers, and a good penalty will do them well.

The couple intentionally picked this Baker with the idea he would refuse. The SCOTUS voted them down partly because of their comments after the fact.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

In the US discrimination of business is not allowed. The baker's argument was he was an artist and could not be made to create a work of art, like he was a portrait painter.

Dumb argument imo. Bake the cake and take the money. Christianity is not related to cakes, and cakes are not art.

And don't tell me this couple could not find a gay friendly baker. They are sheiss stirrers, and a good penalty will do them well.

The couple intentionally picked this Baker with the idea he would refuse. The SCOTUS voted them down partly because of their comments after the fact.

I thought I read that SCOTUS also had issue with how the State of Colorado acted in the matter. There was a clear hostility of the baker's religious beliefs, well beyond the incident, shown by Colorado's so-called civil rights commission.

Here it is:

Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer
Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious
basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.
(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case
violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws
or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The
government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise,
cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs
of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes
judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs
and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508
U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality
include “the historical background of the decision under challenge,
the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official
policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including
contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking
body.”

Here's the court pdf

[Parodite]

In the US discrimination of business is not allowed.

A pity though. Seems to me a human right being an a**hole and as such on display in the free market.

The baker's argument was he was an artist and could not be made to create a work of art, like he was a portrait painter.

Dumb argument imo. Bake the cake and take the money. Christianity is not related to cakes, and cakes are not art.

And don't tell me this couple could not find a gay friendly baker. They are sheiss stirrers, and a good penalty will do them well.

Indeed.

[Mr. Perfect]

That the state should not force a free baker to bake a cake he doesn't want to bake is totally reasonable. But there are restaurants, privately owned who might want to pick, choose or refuse certain guests:

(non-) blacks/
(non-) whites/
(non-) Jews/
males/
females/
age group a-to-b/
dress codes/
political affiliation/
[...]
only those able to pay their bill and who are not a nuisance to other guests (my preferred group).

All of this discrimination problem comes from the old Democrat South of segregation. The SCOTUS determined ultimately you can't discriminate on race. Then the questions becomes, what can you discriminate on?

Because we discriminate all the time. The kids working at the skater shop in the mall don't look like kids at Victoria Secret. Hooters waitresses don't look like Applebees waitresses. Female pornstars make way more money than their male counterparts (so I'm told). Despite discrimination laws, blacks tend to all live in one apartment complex, whites in another.

Discrimination is a part of life.

So the earlier court decisions were mistakes. A common sense approach that everyone took was, hey no discrimination based on race, gender, creed. Which is being expanded to sexual orientation, height, weight, age, and now with lowering standards you won't be able to discriminate on grades or accomplishments. We are at least midway down the slipper slope.

The bottom of the slope is an Ayn Rand novel. No one can employ anyone because there is no way to discriminate out the best for the job. See the millenial "workforce".

So the answer is legal discrimination. You should be able to discriminate on any thing you want to. You do already. In fact it is Constitutionally protected.

As horrifying as that sounds to many, think of it this way. All the discrimination did was drive racism underground. I heard an argument recently that hotels who want to deny black should be allowed to exist so that at least we can finally figure out who the racists are and drive them out of business if we want. Or not want.

[Parodite]

I agree Mr. P. Best would be to allow for discrimination in the private sector and let the free market settle things. In the public sector it may be more complicated, which includes local government. Majorities in a democracy can always decide to discriminate both in the private and in the public sector. It is happening now in South Africa where white farmers are being robbed, terrorized off of their land. If not murdered by gangs. Hiring policies not based on competence but on racial quota.