This is all about selfishness.

If you inform the bigot that his PC or Mac was made by a company that supports homosexuals at their company, they will pretend that they didn't hear you so they can continue using those products.

Even if their hero died demonstrating that the greatest calling you can answer is to the sacrifice for a stranger...

Reading the article a couple of times, it seems the rings were not yet delivered, is that correct? The terms of the contract were not spelled out, but in my experience until the item is delivered, either party can back out. The deposit is intended to show good faith on the purchaser and a hook for the supplier to get the rest of their money. Unless the deposit agreement stated "non refundible deposit", I'm ok with them asking for and getting their deposit back. What I am not ok with is the bullying and intimidation that went along with it. If the rings were delivered and accepted, that's a different thing.

The jeweler should have just treated them as an heterosexual couple would have been.

"You want equality? You can't handle the equality" (forgive me Jack for paraphrasing).

The Goddess Writes:

Esau Jardon, a Christian jeweler in Canada who made rings for a lesbian couple who subsequently demanded their money back after learning that he, personally, believes marriage should be limited to heterosexuals.

Ironically enough, Jardon's position could be seen as commendable. He personally does not believe in gay marriage, but for whatever reason (perhaps he believes that since he offers his service in the general public's area, he should serve the general public), he has decided that he will provide equal service to all.

Essentially this is punishing thought.

Regarding the whole "just take your business elsewhere" attitude, the problem with that is that once upon a time, Americans refused service to black people for religious reasons. So essentially, you're saying that we'll enact laws to protect black people but gays are on their own. That's not equal protection under the law.

But Patrick, we "owe" the blacks for 400 years of slavery and oppression. When we've enslaved and oppressed gays for 400 years, then we'll treat them the same.

;)

Just kidding folks.

No, this is about gaining unearned power over others.

I guess no one expected the Gay Inquisition.

it seems the rings were not yet delivered,

When you are a person who custom makes jewelry, do you want this to be the case?

There was great time and care put into these customers.

Again, the fair thing to do is to decide that a businessman's beliefs matter to you BEFORE you do business with him, not after.

And yes, I find the businessman's behavior commendable. He opposes gay marriage but treats two lesbians with great care and gives them great service.

Again, I think I made it clear that I am not at all in tune with his view, but he sure is entitled to have it and post signs in his business stating it. The fact that the sign wasn't up when the women ordered their ring isn't his problem; it's their fault for not realizing they cared about whether a business supports gay marriage and asking about it.

If you're not willing to grant clemency to a defeated enemy, his compatriots will be motivated to oppose you all the more strenuously. So far, the behavior of the gay "marriage" movement in victory after victory has done nothing but vindicate the opposition.

So let me get this straight. If I am a sufficiently politically correct person, I can (1) demand that someone make for me an artwork that expresses a viewpoint that they are opposed to, and (2) when they deliver it, I can refuse to pay. Sweet.

By the way, before anyone decides for me that I believe that businesses should be forced to provide services to gays, I don't. I only raise the "equal protection under the law" argument because I'm trying to see all sides of the issue.

I don't know if this could work, but I were a judge deciding this as a court case, I would allow the lesbian couple to refuse to pay the balance on the rings, and not take them, but Esau gets to keep the deposit, since he's done the work and is now burdened with selling the rings. The deposit was paid in good faith the rings would be paid in full and accepted. The lesbian couple reneged on the deal; so pay the price.

And if we're all so determined to not patronize businesses that have shown values that are abhorrent to us, you may have to get rid of your car; virtually all manufacturers were Nazi sympathizers.

When you are a person who custom makes jewelry, do you want this to be the case?

I think that his point is that this is the case, like it or not. It's a lousy thing to do, I agree, but the point is, they can do that. Not because lesbians are a protected class or whatever, but because it's the law. And going into business means accepting that risk.

Patrick,

Your 6:29AM comment is morally correct. If the product had not already been delivered then it is acceptable for them to back out of the arrangement (for any reason), forfeiting their deposit and the product. The business owner should make their deposits high enough to cover materials consumed if not labor and profit.

If the product was already delivered then the only leg that have to stand on is mob violence. Similarly if they are demanding their deposit back. And if they keep relying on mob violence to get their way it is only a matter of time till the mob turns on them and those like them.

If the product is delivered, then they should pay for it in full. Or give it back (undamaged) and give up the deposit.

You don't get free rings because someone huwt youw widdow feewings. And anyone do much as threatening violence should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Ben,
Yep that was my point. I thought I had responded but probably was "pirated" and didn't actually submit it.

Pretty much all custom order stuff I've dealt with (bamboo flyrods, custom gunsmithing, etc) have terms clearly spelled out in the receipt/contract. I can back out, but deposits are nonrefundable, to cover the supplier for cost of materials and initial work.

When I first heard of this case over the weekend the implication was that the rings had been delivered, accepted but now they wanted money back. That was why I asked "it sounds like the rings were not delivered" to verify that fact. Two drastically different different scenarios, one a bit more clear cut than the other.

"I have no issues with them believing in what they believe in. I think everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But I don't think they should put their personal beliefs inside their business." ~ Nicole White in a CBC News interview

But outsiders should be able to bring their own personal beliefs into the business and demand the business owners conform to them, eh?

==============================

Reading the article a couple of times, it seems the rings were not yet delivered, is that correct? ~ Posted by: mer at May 26, 2015 3:24 AM

He said the finished rings are ready to be picked up; White and Renouf just have to pay the balance.

Thanks Conan, I must have missed that. That bit does change the dynamic a bit because there is a finished product. Typically if it's not right, the supplier would correct it, the customer would then accept it, transaction finished.

Your first point is the crux of the matter. Walk ito a kosher deli and BBQ pork.

Not commenting on the legal aspects. Or even the moral aspects. But the Christian aspect is what's interesting. The jeweler acted as a Christian should act. The second commandment (after the first, Love the Lord your God...), is to love your neighbor as yourself. Not the next Christian over. Your neighbor - every person in your life. It doesn't say to pass judgement before you decide to love. Just love.

I am proud to read that a Christian businessperson got this one right, and that it made the news.

Sad that the emphasis was on the hating in the story, but that's apparently what sells.

I hope this controversy is a warning to wedding dress sellers, cake makers, photographers and anyone else who might be asked to provide services for this lesbian couple or any other customer who thinks the way they do.

Based on some of the comments I've read here I suppose it would be legitimate to engage, say, three photographers; and when the finished products are ready for delivery, choose the work you like the best and stiff the others, based on some supposed moral pretext.

When dealing with haters there's no way for the jeweler to win, or even break even (and yes there are some LGBTQ people just as driven by hatred as some Christians, Muslims, atheists, black/white/Hispanic racists, and vegans are) If the jeweler had declined to make the rings, do you think the lesbian couple would have said, "Oh, thank you so much for sharing your point of view with us", and then gone happily seeking a jeweler whose point of view is more in line with theirs? Or would they be complaining about discrimination and demanding that the jeweler be forced to serve them and pay them a penalty for their emotional devastation?

If I read this aright what the couple want is their deposit back, which? Sorry kids, he's already done the work, it doesn't matter why you don't like the rings, as long as they are to spec

Generally in these situations, the couple walks, the jeweler is left with a couple of custom rings that no-one else will want, and the couple is out the deposit.

Regardless of who they are.

That this couple doesn't like his religion, is NOT his problem, and that's what this is, they don't like his religion... he DIDN'T discriminate against them, but they are trying to force him to give them a non-refundable deposit back...
because, bad-thought, I guess.
This is a clear case of them discriminating against HIM. And after the fact.

The couple says they feel the rings will be tainted because the jeweler's beliefs do not align with theirs. Oh, really?

Basically, somebody didn't cheer for their big day in the way they wanted and their feelings got hurt.

Why don't they just walk away with the rings, happy that they put one over on a "hater?" ala "Hey, look at these rings we used the law to force a fundamentalist Christian to make for us against his beliefs. Aren't they pretty? We got him to do some of his best work despite his narrow-minded viewpoint. Aren't we courageous crusaders for the cause?"

Patrick, not sure about where you live, but here if you order a custom piece of ____, and pay deposit/sign contract, and then you back out, you've forfeit your deposit. As it should be. Otherwise, why would ANYONE ever make custom ANYTHING? What if those rings are intertwined vaginas, for example, or have names on them. You can't just go sell that to someone else to recoup your costs and time. That's the freackin' point of a deposit-to assure the artist their time and materials aren't going to waste.
If I put earnest money down on a house, and back out of buying it, I don't get that money back. Should be same for rings, cutting boards with names on them, custom tshirts.....

Rememer, Esau Jardon didn't build that business. His talent has nothing to do with its success. He is a successful jeweler only because the Canadian government built a road leading past his door and provided utilities (for which he pays).

"Based on some of the comments I've read here I suppose it would be legitimate to engage, say, three photographers; and when the finished products are ready for delivery, choose the work you like the best and stiff the others, based on some supposed moral pretext. "

I will tell you where that will go: the vendors will shift the risk to the customer. It will be pay in full at time of order. I ran into this recently with a rather expensive craft item I ordered for the house. It's a bite because they have your money before you get your product (and you have little recourse if you are unsatisfied), but in this case there was only one source, so I did it their way.

virtually all manufacturers were Nazi sympathizers. ~ Posted by: Patrick at May 26, 2015 6:29 AM

Sympathizers? It's more complicated than that.

In Nazi Germany, American automakers became embroiled in the kind of situation you get into when you open a plant in another country and that country moblizes for war.

Henry Ford was virulently anti-semitic and his writings on the subject were read and admired by Hitler, who kept a picture of Ford on his desk.

Ford published an antisemitic newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. It was shut down under the immense weight of several lawsuits for slander filed against it.

Ford was a pacifist who had opposed American entry into World War I and believed Jews started wars to profit from them. Ford believed that as society's financiers, Jews contributed nothing material to society and only cared about the price of goods; and were pushing acquired companies to sell inferior goods at lower prices. Said Ford, "What I oppose most is the international Jewish money power that is met in every war. That is what I oppose - a power that has no country and that can order the young men of all countries out to death." Ford had argued in his newspaper that Jewish bankers controlled the money supply and blamed them for the Great Depression.

Germany was (and remains) an important European market. US companies were anxious to enter the market and dominate it, if possible. To do so required remaining on good terms with the government there (the Nazis).

Nazi Germany admired US production techniques - especially Ford's moving assembly line and how the low-priced Model T mechanized the country. The prototype of the Volkswagen was envisioned as Germany's Model T, cheap enough for the proletariat to afford and operate. Hitler hoped to use it to mechanize Germany the way Ford mechanized the US with the Model T.

Several other countries were taken with Ford's Model T and the resulting mechanization of America. France's Citroën built the 2CV as a cheap vehicle for the masses, with the Model T as its inspiration.

Germany's autobahn was designed and built for the mechanized country Hitler hoped to mold Germany into.

The antisemitic Henry Ford was initially sympathetic to National Socialism and Nazi Germany - so much so that he resisted a plan to have Ford build Rolls Royce engines for British fighter planes.

Despite disclaiming ownership during the war, Both GM and Ford applied to the US government for compensation for the German factories damaged in Allied bombing raids and eagerly reasserted ownership of their German subsidiaries after the war.

Chrysler had a much smaller footprint in Germany and its role in Nazi rearmament is less direct.

The Nazis were anxious that US companies retain ownership of their German subsidiaries. The Nazis resisted imposing an overt takover of Ford and Opel plants, hoping the American ties would smooth over the growing hostilities between the two countries.

Good article on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

Thanks Conan, I must have missed that.

No problem. It was hard to find - it's a quote from the article linked in the article that was linked by Amy - the link within the link.

Conan, your capacity to recall exactly what I said in the past has not improved.

Patrick,

Since, in the past, you've accused many people of misquoting you or putting words in your mouth, I'm gonna say the problem lies in your communication skills rather than my perception skills.

And what, pray tell, did I recall incorrectly this time? ::rolls eyes::

Ah, no, Conan, I think my communication skills are just fine. As I said before, it's a pathology with you. Let's prove it, shall we?

I concede that I did say that a business owner has a business on a tax-payer funded street, but I defy you to show me where I ever said that any business owner "didn't build that business." Or that their "talent has nothing to do with its success." And while you're at it, show me where I said that anyone's success happens "only because the Canadian [or any other] government built a road leading past his door and provided utilities (for which he pays)."

You can't because I didn't. My only point was that it's pretty hard to have a successful business without using taxpayer funded streets so people can get to it. Yes, some businesses can rely entirely on the internet. Others can't. Yet some would claim the right to use those same streets but pick and choose which taxpayers they get to serve and which ones they can tell to go fuck off.

And speaking of fucking off, why don't you do just that? You're a liar, plain and simple.

I'll say one thing for Radwaste. Despite the fact that I've used some of my harshest words to vilify him, when he was caught misquoting me, he apologized. No "but" was included. He got it wrong; he accepted responsibility. I have to admit that took class! More, I'll wager, than you're capable of mustering.

I suppose if I was an Evangelical Christian custom wedding cake maker who sold one man/one woman wedding cakes, and a gay or lesbian couple wanted to buy one of those, I should be obliged to sell them one. And I would too. And I would do my best to make it a beautiful one, in hopes that if anyone they know also wants a beautiful one man/one woman wedding cake they would recommend me.

Similarly, if I was a Fundamentalist Christian photographer whose services included photographing Christian and Jewish one man/one woman weddings, and no other type, and a gay couple wanted to engage me to photograph a Jewish one man/one woman wedding, I should be obliged provide my services. And I would do my best work so that they would recommend me to their friends who want the best Christian or Jewish one man/one woman wedding pictures.

But I don't see why laws that forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, religion, age or whatever, should be construed to require a business to provide some variation of its service or product it doesn't currently provide.

I think a halal caterer in a jurisdiction that prohibits discrimination based on religion should be expected to sell it's products to whoever civilly asks to buy them. But should it be forced to provide a ham for a Thanks Giving banquet, or lobster for a New Age channeling seminar?

I think the Christian owners of a pizzeria that serves pizza on its premises, but doesn't cater weddings, should be expected to serve pizza to any civil person who comes in. But should they be condemned because they said they wouldn't cater a same-sex wedding?

If there's one thing the gay people I know and work with appreciate, it's high quality goods and services. I don't think any gay people that I know would claim to suffer any serious emotional damage from the above cake and photography scenarios; and I don't think they would let their annoyance with it stand in the way of their friends' enjoyment. Most gay people, straight people and Christian people I've ever known just aren't intolerant assholes, and those who are aren't all that numerous or typical. At least in my experience.

This state in which I live prohibits discrimination based on age, and requires businesses to make certain accommodations for people with physical impairments. Old guys like me are a protected group. All the other students in my Krav Maga class are in their 20's - way younger and more vigorous than I, so I work my ass off to keep up, and accept that sometimes I can't. It never occurred to me to demand that the instructor provide a class adapted for creaky old people like me. I don't expect to burden others with accommodating my needs.

IRA Darth Aggie, nobody ever expects the Gay Inquisition!

I concede that I did say that a business owner has a business on a tax-payer funded street, but I defy you to show me where I ever said that any business owner "didn't build that business."

How was that comment even directed at you, Patrick? It was a general comment based on Obama's recent derision of small business owners who "didn't build that."

Thin-skinned?

Seriously, Patrick, I didn't even remember your earlier comments on taxpayer funded streets and small businesses when I wrote it.

==============================

IRA Darth Aggie, nobody ever expects the Gay Inquisition! ~ Posted by: Patrick at May 26, 2015 4:22 PM

Mel Brooks did.

The Inquisition, what a show
The Inquisition, here we go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMkcBctE7c

My apologies, Conan. When I saw the reference to taxpayer funded streets (something I mentioned in the past), I assumed it and the rest of it was directed at me.

Now that you mention it, I do recall Obama saying that. I should have realized. Consequently, I attacked you without cause and used some very nasty words in the process. Again, I do apologize.

No worries, Patrick.

And thank you, Conan, for picking up on my Mel Brooks reference. I was wondering if anyone would get that.

Now that we're speaking civilly, I only wish to add that I'm having a hard time pinning down a position on this whole "businesses should/should not be compelled to serve gay clients" debate. On the one hand, Amy's position makes sense. It seems quite reasonable to not try to compel a baker or photographer to provide their services at a gay wedding if they're against it. (And do you really want to force someone to provide you a non-essential service when they really, really don't want to? I wouldn't.) I could content myself with their refusal, then publicize the fact that they discriminated against me, then let the free market do the rest, for good or ill.

On the other hand, as a lawyer pointed out to me, it would be illegal for bakers or photographers to refuse their services on the basis of race. Say this professional is being asked to provide his services for an interracial couple and he objects to mixed marriages for religious reasons. The law would indeed force him. For homosexuals to have equality, then they need to be included in these protections. Otherwise gays do not have equal protection under the law. This also makes sense.

The only solution I see is to do away with all protected classes, and let business owners discriminate as they will and let our right to freedom of association do the rest.

The only other point I wish to make in this discussion is that the lesbian couple and their supporters are behaving despicably.

Patrick,

As you got to in the end, the correct answer is to do away with protected classes. All citizens should be equal before the government. It shouldn't matter who your parents are, who your friends are, what you look like, what job you do, or anything else. All should be citizens treated equally by the bureaucracy. As individuals we should be free to associate or not as we wish. Some people won't want to do business with you. Too bad. Find someone else or do it yourself.

All protected classes do is legalize governmental discrimination. And once we agree the government can discriminate between citizens all you have is raw power to advance your faction over others. For gay people this is an especially poor tactic. Unlike many other factions gays can't expand their numbers through breeding. So you will always be a minority. Eventually things will turn against you and gays could be forced back into the closed at gun point.

As for the non-discrimination on essential services, if we deem a service truly essential (i.e. necessary for the public good) then that service should be provided communally by the government. This doesn't mean private organizations don't provide that service or a similar one. But once a group accepts payment from the government they should also be unable to discriminate since they are acting on the governments behalf. If they wish to discriminate they should be barred from governmental financing. Police and fire departments are the government so no discrimination. Emergency rooms and doctors accepting medicare payments accept government funding, so no discrimination either. But an individual doctor not part of a government funded network should be free to see who he wants and who he doesn't. Just like customers are free to use his services or not as they wish.

At least that is how I see things.

"On the other hand, as a lawyer pointed out to me, it would be illegal for bakers or photographers to refuse their services on the basis of race. Say this professional is being asked to provide his services for an interracial couple and he objects to mixed marriages for religious reasons. The law would indeed force him. For homosexuals to have equality, then they need to be included in these protections. Otherwise gays do not have equal protection under the law. This also makes sense."

There is a problem here with you logic.

To qualify for a racial discrimination claim, you have to look like a minority. And that minority status has to be visually apparent. It can't be because you checked a box on some form saying your great great great grandmother was Sacajawea

And it is a very high legal hurdle to clear, as usually for a discrimination claim to stick there has to be a pervasive pattern, not a single incident.
Last I checked Gay men and lesbians look just like everyone else.

You can't qualify for for a discrimination claim based on your lifestyle, which is essentially what the SJW's want now.

It could have been a Monty Python reference:

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again..."

I'm pretty much against ALL marriage.

The Goddess writes: The reality is, because people have religious beliefs that gay people should not marry -- beliefs that I, as a strong supporter of gay marriage, am entirely opposed to -- does not mean they're anti-gay. Sure, they might be, but it is just bullshit that every person who believes that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry is a hater.

Are you sure about that, Amy? Suppose it were straight marriage that we were fighting for and you and your boyfriend wanted to get married. And I said something like this, "Of course I don't hate you, Amy. But I don't think your relationship with your boyfriend is as valid as mine, and your needs for love, intimacy, and closeness just don't count like mine do and don't deserve legal recognition like mine does."

Are you quite certain that's not hate? Maybe hate is not the right word, but it is certainly a profound level of contempt. How you claim you don't hate someone yet want to hold them as second-class citizens and keep from them the legal protections and validation that comes with marriage?

Doesn't have to be hate Patrick.

To take things to an extreme, farmers don't hate their animals. But they do slaughter them in the millions. It is a cold and unemotional action.

And this extends beyond the animal kingdom. Texas has a sometimes successful murder defense of 'He just needed killing.' Once again, often not emotional. There was a problem. This person's death resolved the problem. No hate. Just cold logic.

Yes, it is hate. Your comparisons are simply detachment from the object. You can't tell someone that their needs for intimacy and validation just don't amount to jack shit, while of course your own are so much more worthy and deserving of legal protection and validation, then tell them that you don't hate them. You're lying to yourself if you believe that, which is the worst person to lie to.

I don't support gay marriage.

I support equality under the law, which at this moment happens to encompass gay w, and my position has nothing to do with validating your relationship. I don t give a fuck about validating anyone's emotions

personally if I had my way the government would never recognize anyone's relationships

Say what you like Patrick. You are still wrong.

Well, thus far, you haven't been able to argue your position, so nanny-nanny boo-boo to you, too.

Isab: To qualify for a racial discrimination claim, you have to look like a minority. And that minority status has to be visually apparent.

I suspect you're spouting horseshit. Jews are a minority, and that is not visually apparent. Furthermore, in pre-Civil War America, quadroons and octoroons were considered black, even though they looked white.

Isab: You can't qualify for for a discrimination claim based on your lifestyle, which is e ressentially what the SJW's want now.

If you're ever asked to represent a gay client, do them and you and favor and send them to someone else. Practically anyone else. Even Amy's dog Aida is an acceptable alternative.

Unless you wish to wear your raging homophobia on your sleeve, you will never, as long as you live, call homosexuality a "lifestyle" again.

Gay people are not formed by individual personal choices, habits, income, neighborhood, social contacts, etc. That is what makes a lifestyle.

Gay people are formed by sexual preferences which are innate and inflexible, not a lifestyle but an orientation.

And if your religion is telling you that you can't support homosexuals in their quest to have their unions granted the protection and recognition of heterosexual unions, you need to change your religion?

How dare I suggest such a thing? Because your religious choices are more malleable than my sexual orientation.

Look at what you wrote Patrick. You haven't argued your point, you merely asserted it and namecalled anyone who disagreed with you. Look at your response to Conan. If anyone is motivated by hate it would be you.

"Your religious choices are more malleable than my sexual orientation.

Agreed. My mom is a Bible-thumper who raised us to believe that homosexuality is an "immoral lifestyle choice." When I grew up I realized what a load of horseshit that was. I don't think being gay is immoral, or a lifestyle, or a choice. Might as well pick on left-handed people.

But take heart, some of us do learn. When my mom learned of my new-fangled opinions, she declared that college had "ruined" me.

My libertarian brain says the government should have to defend its position to FORBID something, but never its position to allow something. The default should always be that something be permitted, unless you can demonstrate how it causes harm. So I say allow gays to marry, because there's no reason not to.

Yes, I have argued my point. You cannot reasonably tell someone that their unions do not deserve legal protection, while yours do, then tell them that you don't hate them.

"My marriage certainly deserves all the legal protections afforded by our government. Yours doesn't. But I don't hate you."

"My need for love, intimacy and closeness is valid. Yours isn't. But I don't hate you."

"I am entitled to legal recognition of my union. You're not. Your union doesn't count. My union is more valid than yours. My marriage matters. Yours doesn't. But I don't hate you."

Sound believable to you?

By the way, what the hell is the gay "lifestyle" supposed to be?

Is it when Teh Gays get off work and stop at the grocery store on the way home, same as me? Do their laundry on the weekend and vacuum the living room floor, same as me? Get together with their friends to watch Game of Thrones, same as me? Wooooo, scary! Next thing you know, they'll let anyone do it!

I hear that phrase "the gay lifestyle" being bandied about, and I just draw a blank because I have no idea what people are talking about.

Agreed Fuhrer Patrick. All who disagree with you must do so out of anger and hatred. And such disagreement must not be tolerated. We are tolerant people and we certainly cannot tolerate those who are not so tolerant. They must all be sent to the reeducation camps or be exterminated.

Sadly I am too stupid to be reeducated so it is off to the gas chambers for me.

Patrick needs to read the cases on racial,discrimination. ( and understand them, which for him, will be the tough part...)

Read up on "suspect class"

Proof is very hard to come by.

Give me one Jew that claims that he has been discriminated against. I will say tough case, hard to win. Where is your proof?

Give me a hundred who have been denied admission to an Ivy Leage school when others with lower test scores have been admitted, I will find them a great constitutional lawyer.

That wouldn't be me by the way. I am a contracts and tax lawyer, who knows enough about Constitutional law to tell someone when they are wasting their time and money.

Isab, it just so happens that a Facebook friend of mine, a JD, just passed his bar exam for the state of Ohio. And I copied and pasted your entire post about how a minority must be recognized visually on his Wall.

Would you like to know what he said? I don't think you would, but for the sake of Amy's blog commenters who might be wondering about the accuracy of your statements, I share our conversation in its entirety. The lawyer's name is Rob. It starts with me responding to a mutual friend of ours, a barrister in England named Michael. I warn you, his response contains strong language. I very seldom see him talk this way.

Patrick: I'm not the authority on American law that Rob is, but no you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. If you're a Christian baker who has religious objections to interracial marriage (which some do), and an interracial couple wants you to bake a cake for their wedding, tough shit. You bake it.

Someone else who purports to be a lawyer says that a minority has to look like a minority. Gays cannot complain that they don't have equal protection because they look like everyone else. I have no idea what she's talking about, but I was hoping Rob could explain it.

Michael: That's just crazy. "Looking" like a minority isn't what being a minority means. Ethically we look at protected classes based on the metric of things that're choice. Race isn't a choice. Sexuality, is sketchy I'll admit, but likely isn't a choice. (I don't really think we should entertain discourse that claims it's a choice, but I don't make the rules). If we're saying that you can't discriminate on racial grounds then there's no reason to allow people to on the grounds of sexuality, short of the value judgement that race is a bigger aspect of people's identity than gender/sexuality. Suggestion: they're not.

Patrick: Well this what the purported lawyer said. The portion in quotes is her quoting me. The rest is her comments, nothing follows:

"On the other hand, as a lawyer pointed out to me, it would be illegal for bakers or photographers to refuse their services on the basis of race. Say this professional is being asked to provide his services for an interracial couple and he objects to mixed marriages for religious reasons. The law would indeed force him. For homosexuals to have equality, then they need to be included in these protections. Otherwise gays do not have equal protection under the law. This also makes sense."

There is a problem here with you logic.

To qualify for a racial discrimination claim, you have to look like a minority. And that minority status has to be visually apparent. It can't be because you checked a box on some form saying your great great great grandmother was Sacajawea

And it is a very high legal hurdle to clear, as usually for a discrimination claim to stick there has to be a pervasive pattern, not a single incident.
Last I checked Gay men and lesbians look just like everyone else.

You can't qualify for for a discrimination claim based on your lifestyle, which is essentially what the SJW's want now.

Michael:(Note, if rob says he objects to that being illegal, and that it's just as much an illiberal infringement, then that's fine too, I only care about consistency, I don't care about whether or not people think that harm vs free speech arguments come down in favour of reducing harm - I'm not going to convince people that unfettered free speech is more harmful than it is virtuous any time soon).
But it's clearly ridiculous to claim racial grounds if you don't look like a race, so in that particular example it follows. I, a white as the driven snow man, have no real claim to discrimination on the basis of being black. But that's why I extend the question to religion. Obviously one can look overtly Jewish, but I do not. My brother, on the other hand, does. Does he qualify but I don't? I don't think antisemitism is just based on looks, somehow, so again, I find this claim ludicrous. (Thank you, Judaism, for tying up religion and race in such a complicated way that this example works)

I also hate SJWs for this. Sexuality isn't a lifestyle choice. Discrimination based on tattoos is discrimination for a lifestyle choice. Discrimination for sexuality is discrimination for something we have no control over. To suggest that race is a good thing to protect and sexuality isn't is to suggest that race is more ingrained than sexuality. This is patently nonsense, in the same way it would be a nonsense to call autism a lifestyle choice that we can discriminate based upon. Or depression. Or any other host of brain activity. I would find it difficult to find any rational case for saying brain chemistry is a worse marker for protection than race that doesn't come down to some kind of suggestion it's ethically okay to dick people as long as they look like you.

Patrick:It would help if I had some idea what law or court decision she were quoting. But at least I know this wasn't always the case. Quadroons and octoroons were considered black despite the fact they looked white.

Michael: Well.
I mean I guess if they were discriminated against for being a KNOWN descendent of a given race, then they are experiencing discrimination on racial grounds, whether they look it or not.

Rob:okay, so lots of stuff to respond to.

Michael 1 - I have no issue calling it hate speech if hate speech weren't currently being debated as non free speech. yes, it's hate speech, but so is telling george bush he sucked to his face. Yes and no, it's not legal because congress has acted, but they haven't here. that said, I think such laws are blatantly unconstitutional, and this court seems to be heading that direction too. Protected classes are not everything.

Patrick 1 - your friend is a fucking moron. can you tell bastardry by looking at a person? yet it's a higher protection than race. There are TWO different things, governmental discrimination under the 14th and private controlled by the interstate commerce clause. the 14th can't touch private people, so all that controls serving and the like is a congressional statute (or local ordinances) - I.e. a protected class is whatever they want to define it as (for now, scotus is not liking see lately)

Michael 2 - all that's answered above, however if based on the 14th governmental part, it's immutable + historical animus + targeted or disparate impact + no political gains possible = protected class.

patrick 2 - still moron, even bigger fucking moron than before, don't trust her in anything.

Michael 3 - I do object to such laws, but because they are statutory and not constitutional, there is no issue even with them as hypocrisy. if the state wanted to protect gingers but not blondes, they could, no issue (might not be rationaly based but that's usually passed automatically).

Michael 4 - remember is RACIAL, not minority. discriminating against the white person is just as illegal as against the black one. all that matters is they did it for that reason. but again, statute not the idiot.

Patrick 3 - there is no such thing as minority in discrimination laws or amendments, it's classes
minority and majority both can't be targeted due to that class

Patrick, your friend needs to read the cases too.

There is no Federal constitutional law protecting individual minorities and gays.

There are other ways to be targeted as a member or a suspect class such as the ethnicity of your last name.

You are correct, in that I should not have simplified the concept of a protected class so much.

(But gays can't be identified by that criteria either)

Colleges have built their Byzantine layers of wholistic admissions criteria is order to avoid being sued for racial discrimination. Right now, that isn't looking so good for them.
They are rightly being sued by a large group of Asians.

Laws only protect classes of people against governmental discrimination, and against discrimination in public accommodation.

The cake laws are state laws not Federal ones. State discrimination laws can be stricter than federal ones not looser.

And these state laws may prove to be unconstitutional.

P.S.you don't need much constitutional law to pass the bar.

What part of *individual discrimination is tough to prove* do you not understand?

Your lawyer friend should have more humility. The law is so specialized now, asking a new lawyer to opine on constitutional law is like asking a new general practice doctor about brain surgery.

I think that the gay community recognizes the straight community as a gravy train. All you have to do is make up or force a complaint and it rains money.