I would have asked Cooper, “The government forced a bakery to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding when it clearly violated that baker’s principles. Would you have the government force a black bakery to bake a cake for a Klan rally?”
Nice one!
What troubles me is that everyone knows these questions are coming and SO OFTEN our side gets flummoxed.
That is exactly the point. If you can force someone to bake a cake for people or a group he or she feels violates their conscience, then they can make them do it for anybody or group that has legal status. Likewise, you could force a designer to make homosexual symbols, klan symbols, Nazi symbols, etc. Mustn’t discriminate you know. (smirk)
Bingo!
Excellent!
I think the issue is far more complicated than that. I had the same thought initially but changed my thinking.
The line is drawn, federally, at specific groups legally protected from discrimination. “Color, sex, national origin, disability, creed, family status” (maybe one more?) and, in some states, “sexual orientation or gender”. HOWEVER “Creed” is taken as “religion”, but it’s been long argued that it should cover sexual orientation and identity. Ie, it’s something looked down upon by the morals of particular religions, so if that’s not part of one’s religion, he shouldn’t be discriminated against for the values of his own.
If a business does something discriminatory against these groups (eg hiring, fair housing, associations, etc), they can be sued.
If there is an institutional or government-based discrimination of those groups, it is illegal.
A business CAN generally refuse non-essential services (eg, not medical, emergency, etc) on personal grounds. But if they violate those protected classes, they can be sued. The end result will usually depend on the precedence in that particular court circuit. And, if “sexual orientation” isn’t in that state’s laws, how the judge and precedence in that circuit reads “creed.”
Lately there’s obviously been a push for ‘private businesses don’t have to do business with anyone’. But the laws that de-segregated lunch counters (by statute or end result) made that not so much the case.
As for Klan rally cake hypothetical...
Hate speech IS illegal, and in some situations considered an ‘incitement to violence’ (in some states, every case). Use of a swastika or firey cross on a cake is generally considered hate speech except in a historical context. A business owner is usually encouraged by local associations to refuse to serve requests involving hate speech. But they are certainly entitled to refuse service in any case.
The problem is the same rules actually shouldn’t apply unilaterally here; a nazi’s/white supremacists rights are not being infringed upon by being refused service because it involved hate speech. A man’s rights are being violated if he is refused service, especially essential services, for his sexual orientation or gender identity.
Basically, those same people who, fairly illegally, don’t want to serve gays can (and should) very legally be refused (nonesesential) service for being prejudiced against gays. It’s a two way street.
Again, this was an issue in New Mexico where discrimination is against the law. In AZ, no such law exists. The AZ government didn’t force anyone to do anything. There’s no need for this law.