Quoting Mylittleone's (B.B.M):" I agree that you have to be tactful about it but I still think it is ridicules that a customer can ... [snip!] ... morals, beliefs or religious practices so that he may not possibly insult a customer when a customer can sue them over thiers."

No one is saying the business owner can't flaunt his religious beliefs. If he wants to hang a huge effigy of Christ in his business, he can flaunt away. He doesn't have to HIDE his beliefs. He has to abide by fair business practices though as a BUSINESS owner & if he doesn't want to follow anti-discrimination laws then perhaps he shouldn't open a business open to the public. There is a huge difference between saying he can't express his religious beliefs & he can't use them as an excuse to discriminate. She can't sue him because he believes gay marriage is wrong, she can sue him for not selling her a cake because he is discriminating against her in his BUSINESS practices. This really is NO different than a racist saying he'll sell cakes to black people out the back door. He's still selling them cakes right? What's the big deal if they can't walk in his front door?   You can't compare the rights of the customer with the rights of the business owner nor the obligations. If a business (assuming the business is Inc) is guilty of water contamination, no one is going to jail. They may be fined, but there is no criminal prosecution. If YOU do it, you WILL be criminally prosecuted & will more than likely go to jail for the same identical offense. BUSINESS law operates differently& I am not sure how much more clear I can make it if you have no firsthand knowledge of business law. The rights &obligations of the business are NOT identical, nor can they be, as the rights & obligations of the consumer.

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" No one is saying the business owner can't flaunt his religious beliefs. If he wants to hang a huge effigy ... [snip!] ... rights &obligations of the business are NOT identical, nor can they be, as the rights & obligations of the consumer."</blockquote>



Thank you.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Mylittleone's (B.B.M):</b>" I agree that you have to be tactful about it but I still think it is ridicules that a customer can ... [snip!] ... morals, beliefs or religious practices so that he may not possibly insult a customer when a customer can sue them over thiers."</blockquote>


Honestly, it's not about tact. A business owner could say they don't agree with gay marriage as long as they don't deny a customer service based on that. There are plenty of religious businesses out there that make it very clear how they believe. But the law is such that those beliefs cannot be the reason they deny service to someone. Now, they can choose not to sell certain products or provide entire services, but they cannot deny someone a service based on conflicting beliefs that they would otherwise provide if their beliefs did not conflict.

We have a business here in Katy that was on the news because of a picture that said, lets play cowboys and Iranians. Everyone said it was discrimination, but because the company had never denied someone services based on race, it fell under freedom of speech. See the difference?

It's his business. He can serve whomever he chooses. People can also choose to never visit his business.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Kaleighshaleigh:</b>" It's his business. He can serve whomever he chooses. People can also choose to never visit his business."</blockquote>




Fortunately and unfortunately, that's not true.

He has the right to refuse business to anyone. I don't think it is right, but certainly his choice if he wants to turn down paying customers.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Bangtail:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Kaleighshaleigh:</b>" It's his business. He can serve whomever ... [snip!] ... People can also choose to never visit his business."</blockquote> Fortunately and unfortunately, that's not true."</blockquote>




What is not true?

<blockquote><b>Quoting Kaleighshaleigh:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Bangtail:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Kaleighshaleigh:</b>" ... [snip!] ... his business."</blockquote> Fortunately and unfortunately, that's not true."</blockquote> What is not true?"</blockquote>



That he can deny service to whoever he wants.

Quoting Taryn - Anya's mommy:" Has anyone read about this? Please read this before voting, and no matter how you vote, explain why ... [snip!] ... video at this link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/aaron-klein-oregon-bakery-owner-lesbian-wedding-cake_n_2615563.html"

Regardless of whether or not he is right or wrong, he has the right to determine whether or not he will provide a specific service.
making a wedding cake is diiferent from selling them a cookie. If he refused selling them a cookie b/c they are gay, THAT would be at least questionable and perhaps illegal. If he chooses to not participate in supporting their wedding ceremony, that is different.

Quoting TheNuge:" Regardless of whether or not he is right or wrong, he has the right to determine whether or not he ... [snip!] ... questionable and perhaps illegal. If he chooses to not participate in supporting their wedding ceremony, that is different."

See, at first that was what I thought. Then, I did a little research and though the laws are slightly ambiguous, it does lean towards him not being in the right from a legal perspective. The reason being is that he specifically denied them a service based on their "lifestyle." He would provide the same service to a straight couple with no issue. Thus, it does appear to fall under discrimination because gay couples fall under a protected class.

Quoting Bangtail:" See, at first that was what I thought. Then, I did a little research and though the laws are slightly ... [snip!] ... couple with no issue. Thus, it does appear to fall under discrimination because gay couples fall under a protected class."

From a legal standpoint, you may be right UNLESS the courts believe that moral or religious objection trumps the issue. I dont know who can and who cannot object and it certainly is thought-provoking.
I'm christian and i married a jew. lots of clergy wont provide the services but some do. They are allowed to deny services. IMO, businesses should be allowed to decline participation in any ceremony they dont wish to be part of but they should not be allowed to deny selling a cookie to a gay person because they are gay.
BTW, i cant stand our "protected classes" system any more. It has gone too far. In some areas it makes sense but not in others.

<blockquote><b>Quoting TheNuge:</b>" From a legal standpoint, you may be right UNLESS the courts believe that moral or religious objection ... [snip!] ... BTW, i cant stand our "protected classes" system any more. It has gone too far. In some areas it makes sense but not in others."</blockquote>


My husband and I had the same issue because he's catholic and I'm not, but he wanted to get married in a Catholic Church. We ended up going to the JP.

I agree that the protected class issue has gotten out of hand because it protects some while forcing others to go against certain beliefs. I also think a private business owner should have more rights. But then I think about cases where they are just being smurfs and wonder where the line should be drawn. Ideally, there would be less government involvement all around but we know that won't happen.

Quoting Taryn - Anya's mommy:" So the people who think he is right, why do you think he is right in what he is doing? It seems to me that he is possibly breaking a state law for discrimination."

it's fuzzy.

i think it's wrong, but if HE'S up the bible's butt so far that he can't see reason, for him to deny them a cake based on their "immorality", is his right as a private business owner.

i don't really agree w/ this - i don't think their lives are his to judge and it IS a form of open and obvious discrimination, but as private businesses go, they have the right to turn down whomever they want by whatever criterion they choose.

it's baloney that he can do it, but thus far he has the "right"... although if i had nothing else to do, i'd make a case for discrimination.

also, maybe i know nothing about these laws - i'm just spouting what i've heard in D&D on this issues before.

perhaps he IS discriminating and it's against the law?

Quoting justanothamotha:" No one is saying the business owner can't flaunt his religious beliefs. If he wants to hang a huge effigy ... [snip!] ... rights &obligations of the business are NOT identical, nor can they be, as the rights & obligations of the consumer."

I am familiar with them I also know she has no case for he would serve her a cake for any other event or situation just not this one. To be considered discrimination he would have had to not serve her at all because of her sexual preference one incident does not constitute in the laws eyes as discrimination. For he would have to have a pattern to prove this allegation and it was only a onetime thing. There are a lot of gray areas in the court of law and this does fall on one the most this is going to do is going to cost him some business and taint the name of his business.

P.S. I took a business law course last semester and passed with an A it was a fun class and full of good information :-) I am currently seeking a bachelor’s degree in leadership and organizational studies and it focuses on laws and practices for business owners to follow or adopt. Speaking from my standpoint and the standpoint of my teachers (we debated this article in class) the man cannot get in trouble for it although the woman can try to drag him through the mud as much as she wants would could work against her for he could counter sue for declamation of character :-)