Should they be sued?

[mjr]

Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...y-cake-9-year/

So should the bakers be sued? If so, why? If not, why not?

[TheHuckster]

Seriously, you've been on this forum for years, and you still make the same damn fallacies and poor comparisons.

Bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the customers are gay is considered illegal discrimination because sexual orientation is a protected class. Do you remember that being mentioned some dozen times over the course? Political affiliation, on the other hand, is not a protected class.

So, sure, they can be sued. Anyone can be sued. Can they win the lawsuit? No.

[Daskinor]

Did not break the law, so no grounds to sue.

Two things are going on here. First that denial did not affect a protected status of any kind. (race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex or sexual orientation)

Second President Trump is legally now a public figure, and you can say no to something that supports a public figure. Because the government cant make a law saying you have to. (First Amendment)

But that's just the appetizer. The real reason this is not getting any traction is the fact that, they were refused a trump cake. Not service in general. Refusing to make a wedding cake, for a gay couple is inherently different. They were willing to make a birthday cake, but just would not shape it like Trump's MAGA hat.

[Greenday]

Bakers refused to make pro-Trump birthday cake for 9-year-old boy: Report

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...y-cake-9-year/

So should the bakers be sued? If so, why? If not, why not?

No, because there's no damages and they did nothing illegal.

[Pixelated]

I think TheHuckster said it best: Of course they can be sued. Somewhere out there, I'm sure, is a lawyer who'd be more than willing to take this on for the publicity and exposure.

But could they win? No. Trump is not a member of a legally protected group. 'Personal dislike' is not covered by law.

[mjr]

Seriously, you've been on this forum for years, and you still make the same damn fallacies and poor comparisons.

Huckster, I'm a little disappointed. I had a certain level of respect for you on this forum. I thought you were above things like this.

Bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the customers are gay is considered illegal discrimination because sexual orientation is a protected class. Do you remember that being mentioned some dozen times over the course? Political affiliation, on the other hand, is not a protected class.

What other "protected classes" are there? Isn't there usually something about "race, creed, sex, religion, national origin"? What about people who use BS pronouns like zhe? Are they "protected"? And doesn't "protected class" kinda violate "equal protection" anyway, since one (or in this case many) group is "protected" and others aren't?

So where do creed and religion fit in?

Definitions of "creed":

1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.

[TheHuckster]

Huckster, I'm a little disappointed. I had a certain level of respect for you on this forum. I thought you were above things like this.

Above what? Pointing out that you make poor comparisons repeatedly? I've been observing your posts. Some I sympathize with, others I roll my eyes at. We've had the discussion on what constitutes illegal discrimination and what does not multiple times here. It just seems like you're repeating the same tired flawed arguments over and over, and it's tiring.

What other "protected classes" are there? Isn't there usually something about "race, creed, sex, religion, national origin"? What about people who use BS pronouns like zhe? Are they "protected"? And doesn't "protected class" kinda violate "equal protection" anyway, since one (or in this case many) group is "protected" and others aren't?

Again, since you apparently completely forgot past discussions, it's not about group, but class. The difference being, while people may be of distinct groups that others are not a part of (e.g. I'm in the male group, but not in the female group), everyone belongs to class (e.g. sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, etc.)

Ergo, a bakery who refuses to bake a cake for someone because they are straight are just as guilty of discrimination as one who refused because they are gay. So, yes, as a straight person, you are protected by the same laws that protect gay people.

Political affiliation is simply not a protected class. It's that simple. That's the topic you brought up, and it's an open-and-shut case here.

[Daskinor]

Creed is legally defined as religion;

"The word creed imports a formal declaration of religious belief. The word has no reference to benevolent, philanthropic or fraternal organizations, secret or otherwise, even though of a moral character. [Hammer v. State, 173 Ind. 199 (Ind. 1909)]."

And other then that there are no other protected classes to speak of from a legal standpoint, well there is disability but that is an all full of asterisks situation. I can still refuse to hire smokers or people with tattoos. Or only people who drive Volvos. The best cars ever btw.

As for your other points I will try and be nice but, seriously man.

First language changes over time. We don't speak the same way now as people did 50 years ago. Also meanings of words change and take on new meanings. It happens, its part of the human condition. Some changes stick others do not. Calling it BS is like calling entropy BS. Fight it all you want, its going to happen anyway.

Also why is having a gender neutral pronoun such a bad thing. While we do have one 'it' it has evolved to mean an object. Yet if it is a proper noun object (ie. a named ship) we refer to it with a sex pronoun.

As for your "equal protection" argument is just plain wrong. EVERYONE has a class. EVERYONE. Anti-discrimination law says you can not base a decision to render service on someone by;

race- does not matter if your black, white or asain....
nationality- Irish can apply, also Mexicans. Not the same as citizenship.
creed- whatever religion they believe in or dont believe in
color- Same as race. Some places list this out a seprate, because you can be black but not midnight
age- 18 to oldest person, long as they are physically able
sex- Male, Female, both, neither matters not
sexual orientation- I still cant believe people care what set of genitals other people prefer playing with (and its the only one where you can still discriminate legally in some places)

So anyhow, everyone has these classes even if they have a non-standard identification. Now it would be an equal protection issue if I wrote a law saying Christians get first dibs on something, and all other religions need to wait. Or if boys can go topless in a public location but not girls. There is no equal protection issue if your told to simply don't base your decision to issue a loan on these criteria.