re: Christian group lambasts Virginia restaurant for 'stunning' service denial

Metzger's is going to FA and FO. I give em 12 months

This is the basis of the Lester Maddox case in Georgia in the 60s.

Commerce clause said he couldn’t have a “no blacks” policy at his restaurant per federal law, so he shut down his restaurant instead of serve blacks.

Religion is a protected class in this country so, on the face of it, it is illegal to deny service to Christians. But we all know that the law is not applies equally.

quote:

---

Services that require "artistic expression" are often exempt. For example, one shouldn't be able to force a christian painter (assuming the painter qualifies as offering a "public accommodation") to paint imagery that conflicts with their personal beliefs. The baker who refused the gay couple might qualify under this exemption.

---

My view is that anyone creating something unique and one of a kind (as you suggested: "artistic expression") is no different than a commissioned artist paid to create a sculpture. That artist is not required to create art for someone or some government. For those who want that artist's interpretation it is their privilege, not their right, to have that artist create something for a fee. The artist should be free to pick and choose which projects they wish to accept a commission to perform.

Can you imagine a world where a government can force a Christian stone sculptor to create a statue of Christ fricking a goat? I know that's an extremely harsh example, but that, in essence, would be the same effect, no less, of a government forcing a specialty cake baker to create a cake that honors two men abominating the sacred vows of a Biblical marriage.

Am artist just cannot be compelled, in a free and just society, to create an artistic rendition of their work, even if that art is a consumable.

quote:

---

guess everyone here thinks the Christian baker should be forced to serve the gay people too

quote:

---

Do you even comprehend how unbelievably stupid you sound with that? Just wow

---

---

why? It is a good analogy.

Both the civil rights act and Virginia law make religion a “protected class.”

By the same token, Colorado made sexual preference a “protected class.”

Is it your opinion that there should be no protected classes? If so, that is an opinion that I share. Unfortunately, that is not the world in which we live.

We can have the usual “artistic expression” discussion, but then you have to argue about whether there is anything inherently “artistic” about a generic wedding cake. But a debate over that esoteric point does not make his original observation “unbelievably stupid.“

quote:

---

However I certainly would be just fine with this restaurant refusing service to them if y'all agree that baker should be able to refuse service also.

quote:

---

The situation is 100% different

---

---

How?

quote:

---

How?

---

The restarant rejected them based on identity. The baker was based on the product requested. Aren't you a lawyer? Legal nuance is your bread and butter, isn't it?

Meh. Any two situations will have some distinction. Question is whether it is a distinction of any substance.

quote:

---

How?

The restarant rejected them based on identity. The baker was based on the product requested. Aren't you a lawyer? Legal nuance is your bread and butter, isn't it?

---

PedoHank got his law license from a Cracker Jack box. Here, let me make the distinction for his groomer arse (sorry, no law degree just common sense)

Baker- He was being asked to make a specific cake that was against his beliefs. The baker had premade general cakes available to the public that the gay couple could buy. He wasn’t denying them service, he denied them a specific request.

Christian group- Was denied service based on their religion. They didn’t ask the restaurant to create a specific Christian menu. The menu they would have been offered was the same menu available to the general public

2 totally different situations: 1 involved a specific request that involved the artist’s expression the other asked to be served the same meals that were already being prepared for general consumption.

BTW: I believe that there should be NO protected classes and a business should be free to operate how they see fit

And right on cue, here comes Aggie with another ignorant response.

The analogy is not even close. In terms a 5 yr old can understand: the baker served everyone who came into the store and bought their products. They did not serve a SPECiAL UNIQUE ORDER against their religion.

Metzgeers completely refused service to someone merely ordering a menu item and kicked them out of the store. Hmmm comprehend the difference? Sheesh

Focus.

quote:

---

There is no way to interpret this stuff as a right of government to force you to violate your beliefs.

---

I have already said, for years and in this thread, that I do not support protected classes or “public accommodation” statutes. That is a “what we wish the law would be” question. You and I are on the same page, I suspect. End of discussion.

quote:

---

You have a 3d printer and your job is to make plastic models. Make me a goat screwing a woman with a panicked look on her face. I don't do that. It's not appropriate and violates my religious beliefs.

---

NOW we are looking at “what the law actuslly IS,” I think.

Assuming that this odd statue which you wish to own is part of a “religion“ (some icon for the temple of satanic bestiality, maybe) or some other protected class, it would fall within the statute. If we examine the issue through an “artistic expression” lens, there are two possibilities.

One, you are expecting this businessperson to actually do the artwork and DESIGN the goat fricking statue for your den. The businessperson has a good argument to not design that statue.

Two, the customer brings the CAD design for the statute to the businessperson on a thumb drive. One need only plug it in and print it. The business person’s argument becomes significantly more difficult that he cannot be required to press “print.”