Can you refuse to bake a cake or perform if you don't support others' viewpoints?

[AlwaysWrite]

Because it's apparently illegal for a baker to refuse to bake a particular cake because he doesn't support the views of the would-be buyer, why isn't it illegal for a musician or entertainer to refuse to play or entertain at an Inauguration because they don't support his views of that person?

Shouldn't everyone be equal under the law? It may sound ridiculous on the surface, but if the government prosecutes one; shouldn't they prosecute evenly and prosecute them all?

We needn't support others' points of view or their way of living, but we should respect their right to do so. The problem here is that the government has decided that you must not only respect their right, but you must support it. Therefore, if a baker is forced to bake a cake, the musician should be forced to play or the entertainer forced to perform if, indeed, everyone is equal under the law.

The "logical" conclusion should be that entertainers refusing to perform (in this case, at an Inauguration) should be prosecuted equally, because apparently, a person can't refuse to perform a function because of differing viewpoints.

 

[Greg T.]

Because it's apparently illegal for a baker to refuse to bake a particular cake because he doesn't support the views of the would-be buyer, why isn't it illegal for a musician or entertainer to refuse to play or entertain at an Inauguration because they don't support his views of that person?

Shouldn't everyone be equal under the law? It may sound ridiculous on the surface, but if the government prosecutes one; shouldn't they prosecute evenly and prosecute them all?

We needn't support others' points of view or their way of living, but we should respect their right to do so. The problem here is that the government has decided that you must not only respect their right, but you must support it. Therefore, if a baker is forced to bake a cake, the musician should be forced to play or the entertainer forced to perform if, indeed, everyone is equal under the law.

The "logical" conclusion should be that entertainers refusing to perform (in this case, at an Inauguration) should be prosecuted equally, because apparently, a person can't refuse to perform a function because of differing viewpoints.

I agree!

 

[livespive]

It's so so, a baker is advertising a service. Now if they advertise that such a service might be refused if they don't agree with your views that fine.

A performer is not advertising. Someone is asking them to perform a service which they have the right to refuse.

 

[Djarum300]

It's so so, a baker is advertising a service. Now if they advertise that such a service might be refused if they don't agree with your views that fine.

A performer is not advertising. Someone is asking them to perform a service which they have the right to refuse.

Who says the Baker is advertising? Even establishments who even plainly state on their door right to refuse business were coming under fire.

 

[livespive]

If there is a sign there is advertising.......

I agree that if they have posted that service can be refused that those cases should be thrown out.
If they have not put that on the establishment then it is on them.

Who says the Baker is advertising? Even establishments who even plainly state on their door right to refuse business were coming under fire.

 

[Djarum300]

Federal law only protects sex, race, or religion. In Colorado, they expanded it to include sexual preference, and thus the bakery was violating state laws.

Some states have actually passed lawd to allow refusal of service based on sexual preference.

In the case of Trump's inoguration, service can be refused for political ideology.

 

[Greg T.]

It's so so, a baker is advertising a service. Now if they advertise that such a service might be refused if they don't agree with your views that fine.

A performer is not advertising. Someone is asking them to perform a service which they have the right to refuse.

A performer IS advertising every time they do an album tour, put their tunes on iTunes, pedal their records on TV or announce the release on their website, twitter or FB. Their agents also send out signed pics and other merch. A performer turning down a gig based on political views is no different than a baker not wanting to make a queer cake.

 

[WAMO]

AND AGAIN...WHY CANT THE FOLKS THAT REFUSE, STAND UP TO THEIR PEERS AND SAY, I WANT TO DO WHATS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY AND SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT. IF THEY ARE GOING TO ALLOW OTHER FOLKS TO RUN THIER LIVES FOR THEM, I SAY FUCK EM. WHO NEEDS THEM ANYWAY. AND YES, IT IS THE SAME AS THE BAKER. ITS JUST THAT SOME PEOPLE WANT TO BEND CERTAIN THINGS TO FIT THEIR BELIEF.

 

[REVerse °]

Excellent thread and points of view, everyone.

 

[livespive]

Can't understand why new folks don't want to join us

Excellent thread and points of view, everyone.

 

[livespive]

Ding Ding

Federal law only protects sex, race, or religion. In Colorado, they expanded it to include sexual preference, and thus the bakery was violating state laws.

Some states have actually passed lawd to allow refusal of service based on sexual preference.

In the case of Trump's inoguration, service can be refused for political ideology.

 

[WAMO]

THREADS LIKE THIS SHOULD LET THEM KNOW WE ARE OPEN TO MOST ANY CONVERSATION. COME ON IN NEW FOLKS! PLEASE HELP MAKE US MORE INTELLEGENT!!!!

 

[Djarum300]

I'm just here for boobs. I don't see any boobs. Well, aside from the ones behind the keyboard

 

[WAMO]

YEAH! THATS RIGHT DJ...HEY!...WAIT A MINUTE.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

I'm just here for boobs. I don't see any boobs. Well, aside from the ones behind the keyboard

... but if you want to interact with a lot more "boobs behind the keyboard", you could try BR (or a number of other varied Internet sites).