The baker will lose. Her business is a public accomodation, and in Iowa she cannot discriminate based on gender preference.
What’s the difference between a business and a “public accomodation”? And how do you balance with a person’s right to refuse to engage in any kind of transaction.
Last time I checked no one can force another against their will to do business with them. If that right is gone then we have a tyranny.
Don’t think so.
“Public accommodation” means each and every place, establishment, or facility of whatever kind, nature, or class that caters or offers services, facilities, or goods for a fee or charge to nonmembers of any organization or association utilizing the place, establishment, or facility, provided that any place, establishment, or facility that caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to the nonmembers gratuitously shall be deemed a public accommodation
“if the accommodation receives governmental support or subsidy.”
Iowa Code section 216.2(12).
Your argument assumes that she discriminated against them because they are women. All she has to say is that she discriminated against them because they are gay and adulterers. Last time I checked neither of those two are protected classes and as such are outside the laws re discrimination. Not that “they” are not trying everything legal and illegal to make them protected classes to extend the tyranny.
Pretty sure this eliminates the argument of public accommodation since she is simply providing a commodity, not accommodation.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Even if you are correct legally (but baking cakes in her home doesn't sound like "providing accomodation" to me), this reminds me of Rosa Parks. It was illegal for her to sit in the front of the bus but she did it anyway. What's right can be much more important that what's deemed illegal.
What if a couple of leather S&M types came in and asked her to do cakes in the exact semblance of male and female genitalia, or with whips and torture depicted on top? Are you saying she'd have to do these as well?
Wow, I stand corrected, and am surprised to hear that.
I believe you are right. I remember a similar case in New Mexico, and the New Mexico law made it very clear that “We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone” is another way of saying, “I want to go to jail”.
Now, is that right? Absolutely not, and I think any of the Founders would be shocked and disgusted by our nation. That was why, even as a young child, I was confused when the civil rights movement said people had to do business with other people regardless of the desire to do so. Although my parents were strong supporters of full rights for blacks, they also could not imagine a world where a business owner HAD to do business with anyone.
I’ve got a part of my house that could easily be converted into a 2 room apartment, providing inexpensive housing. I will NEVER do so. Why? Because I cannot tell someone, “I don’t want a couple of faggots having sex under my roof.” The moment I said that, I might as well hand over the keys to my house, because when the law was done with me, they would own my house.
See my tagline? That is exactly how I feel.