Eh? So you agree that her being denied testing should be widely denounced as being racist?
2 Likes
I think you went a bit off-track here. She was not denied service because of her protected class, but because of other reasons that do not fall under the protected class category. If one could demonstrate that the lab denies other black people or women services for inconsistent reasons, then I think the law would rule against the lab. But if they deny everyone who spreads misinformation regardless of race or gender, then they’re fine, because they’re consistent and do not discriminate against a protected class.
1 Like
I think you didnt read my entire comment…
1 Like
Considering he can’t currently bake any wedding cakes because if he accepts one, he has to accept them all, then this would be a boon for his business. I don’t think he’ll end up with a lot of conservative republican voters asking for gay wedding cakes. All he’ll end up losing out on in this scenario is HRC supporter weddings. And I don’t see many of them patronizing his business either.
Side note, sexual orientation isn’t a federally protected class. Masterpiece Cakeshop was taken to court because of a state civil rights law.
Asking your opinion here and not your legal analysis. Do you have a problem with a baker refusing to bake for a gay wedding, but don’t have a problem with a baker refusing to bake for weddings of all progressives? Is the blue state definition of “protected class” your benchmark for what bothers you about public accommodation discrimination?
1 Like
Isn’t that a sexist, and thus illegal (due to VC status), argument?
Yes.
Why?
This. The law protects against discrimination based on what you are (and only to the extent that it doesn’t unreasonably impose on others), it does not protect against discrimination for what you say. The former is not under your control, the latter is.
1 Like
It also doesnt protect against what you do. Yet, if you do something more than others (such as fail testing or commit crimes), the consequences for having done it have been unconditionally declared to be indisputably racist.
I’m not the one who co-opted discrimination as a defense, I’m just following the lead.
2 Likes
Why only answer my first question and ignore my second?
1 Like
Because
I don’t know what “blue state definition” means and did not want to entertain you. I thought the protections are federal. My definition / benchmark is as mentioned just above – what you are as opposed to what you do or say.
It does bother me a little bit, because it’s a slippery slope – get denied for being an asshole today, get denied for writing a risque novel in 10 years. I just don’t think it’ll get too ridiculous on a large enough scale and it’ll self-correct – the crazier it gets, the more businesses will get sued, lose customers, go out of business as an example to others.
Isnt that like saying a tsunami “self-corrects” when it hits the shoreline?
What happens is once it gets too ridiculous, it’ll just continue to steam roll any hint of common sense or practicality and be virtually impossible to stop.
1 Like
I don’t think it is or will be a tsunami (I said “I don’t think it’ll get too ridiculous on a large enough scale”).
I have more faith in humanity. Or at least in the average human (there will always be fringes, but that’s all they’ll be).
I suppose you now understand that it means what the federal law means, plus “sexuality and gender identity.” It’s not meant as derogatory. Blue states generally include those two extra categories and red states don’t. This isn’t news to you, is it? I’m sure you’re old enough to remember when there were no laws supporting the notion that males could enter private female spaces and it was a completely foreign concept.
Since no one that is attracted to the same sex is required to marry someone of the same sex, isn’t a same sex wedding something people “do” and not something people “are?” So according to your definition/ benchmark you must support the notion that refusing service for a gay wedding is not equivalent to refusing service to someone that is gay, correct?
Since a biological male can only “say” he is a woman, but he cannot actually “be” a woman, isn’t transgenderism also inconsistent with your definition/benchmark of a protected class as well?
But you just said being a republican isn’t a protected class. So on what grounds can a republican sue a business that refuses to serve republicans?
3 Likes
This isn’t something to which I pay very close attention. I guess those two categories are federal only when it comes to employment.
No. Discrimination against a gay wedding = discrimination against gays.
No. My understanding and belief is that a woman born in a man’s body (for example) is still a woman, and the gender change aligns the body with the mind.
You can sue anyone for anything. Defense costs money, even if the defense wins. So a business that consistently refuses to serve republicans of all colors, genders, ages, etc is probably OK legally, but they may still have to spend money to defend themselves from a bunch of lawsuits.
Except that the entire concept of male/female man/women is physical.
It’s no different than buying a red car, being really upset you didnt buy a blue car instead, then deciding to claim your car is blue just so you can be happy with the color. Then insist that everyone else recognize it as blue as well, despite the longstanding and previously undisputed fact that it was and remains red. That is transgender rights in a nutshell.
I am a professional baseball player who was born into a weekend beer leaguer’s body. I should be able to demand a multi-million dollar professional ball contract to “align the body with the mind” as well, right? Of course not, my mind has to just accept the body it’s stuck with regardless of what I think. That is the entire basis of the opposition to this ongoing insanity.
3 Likes
You’re excused from not paying that much attention to it, but for someone with such strongly held opinions and willing to argue about it, I would have figured you knew. You are correct that those two extra categories are only federal when it comes to employment. That is because it came about via a somewhat narrow supreme court decision. They have never been codified into Federal law.
That is inconsistent with your definition/benchmark.
That’s all well and good as an abstract concept… until you start applying it to real world questions. Where do you draw the line? I have a male body. I am a man. If tomorrow, I say that I am a woman, does my self declaration make me a woman born in a male body?
Your logic doesn’t make sense. Yes a defense costs money, but so does the offense. And since the lawsuit is frivolous, who is going to spend the money to sue? Do you really think the eventual solution to this issue is a several rich republican vexatious litigants? Aren’t the victims of the vexatious litigation more likely to find pro-bono defense via the ACLU than the victims of the discrimination?
2 Likes
Body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria are recognized medical conditions. These conditions are debilitating. If tomorrow you say that you’re a woman because that makes you feel better and makes you a more productive member of society, more power to you. If you’re a professional baseball player born into a weekend beer leaguer’s body and there’s a medical treatment that would help you feel better, that should be between you and your doctor.
My logic makes sense, you just demonstrated that in your questions. Yes to several rich vexatious litigants (or several rich donors to fund the suits). Death by a thousand cuts.
Didn’t think this would fall in their purview. But sure, this could be an undesirable escalation.
I dont know if you are intentionally ignoring the point or not? Some guy wanting to be a female and forcing society to recognize them as such, is no different than me wanting to be a professional athlete and forcing society to recognize me as such. I cant be a pro athlete because my body doesnt work that way, just like you cant be a woman because your body doesnt work that way. It doesnt matter what either of our minds thinks is “right”.
2 Likes
It’s really not. I didn’t think I had to spell out the complete definition of “is” vs “do/say”. Let’s just say the “is” is aligned with the blue state definition of protected class. So the business owner who discriminates against a gay wedding is actually discriminating against a gay customer, because why else would he.