Leave us alone

[Youkilledkenny]

Big proponent here of 'live and let live'. So long as your actions don't directly impact me & my family in a negative way, I don't much care how you live your life.
If you want to talk to burning bushes, have at it.
If you want to shop only on Sunday, go for it.
Mary and Beth that lives on the other side of the country wants to get married? Better you than me so enjoy.
Want to smoke 172 packs of cigs a day? Gross but ok - just don't blow the smoke on me.
If you wasn't to stand on your roof on one leg in a purple dress waiting for the cashmul equinox knock yourself out.
Why is it that Christians find the need to make society that we all share (muslim, jew, agnostic, atheists, satanists, scientologists, worshippers of the blood diamond - whatever) try to fit their paradigm?
Is it arrogance in thinking your way is the only right way?
Are you trying to make the world a 'better place'?
Do you just like forcing your beliefs on others thinking it will but you into God's good graces and eventually heaven?
Or are you hiding behind a belief in order to be a jerk?

Why can't you, the Christian, live and answer for your life while allowing everyone else to do the same?
What makes your life and belief so special that it supersedes everyone else's?

[Clownboat]

Even if they want you to decorate the cake in a way that you find personally repugnant? What if it was to be decorated with a penis or breasts, or better yet, a penis and breasts?

If they make cakes in the shape of a penis or a breast for straight people, they need to make cakes in the shape of a penis or breast for all humans. What is preventing you from understanding this?

I talk about equality, and you bring up crucifixes for sex acts and attempt to justify the unjust treatment of gay humans by comparing it to treating all minors the same when we equally don't allow all minors to purchase cigarettes. You are missing the forest for the trees.

Just listen you yourself. Myself, someone that no longer is a believer in Jesus is arguing for treating humans with equality. Something most people would agree is a loving thing to do. You, a follower of Jesus is arguing for allowing businesses to not treat humans the same. Which opens the door for treating them unjustly and with prejudice.

Let your light so shine! Praise Jesus.

We are not talking about what Jesus would do.

Obviously you would prefer to keep it that way, but I'm going to bring it up anyway. Again, let your light so shine.
Readers, I think it is very important to point out hypocrisy in many believers of Christianity. Obviously, pointing out this hypocrisy is uncomfortable.

We are talking about being compelled to do something by law.

By law, you are not allowed to murder.
By law, businesses are not allowed to discriminate.
Why is being able to discrinate against gays so important for you? Where do you draw the line? Are you OK with people of darker skin using your drinking fountains? How far are you willing to go and will you stop at gays is something I'm wondering.

Just so we are clear, are you saying that he can use his fire truck to put out the fire in my house and not my neighbors house, as long as he owns the fire truck?

A man can do what he wants with his firetruck. However, if this fire department gets any money from the public, they would not be allowed to choose a group of humans to then not offer their services to.

Please understand this. If your Carl's Jr. were to sell Kosher meat, it would need to sell Kosher meat justly and without prejudice to all humans. No one would be forcing them to sell Kosher meat. They can sell it or not sell it. But if they do sell it, they need to do it in a non discriminatory manner.

Hold it. We are talking about requiring people to modify the product they sell for a specific ceremony and/or take part in that ceremony.

You hold it. I'm talking about discrimination which has been very obvious by the amount of times I have supplied a definition. I really wish you would stop this rabbit trail about requiring businesses to modify the products they sell. I'm against discrimination... I am not for governments mandating what a business must sell. If they sell it, they must do so on individual merit, not due to group, class or category a person belongs to. (Notice how I did not need to use the words unjust or with prejudice even though they are still applicable words IMO).

If they can be compelled to do that, why can't Carl's Jr. be compelled to modify their product for Pesach and/or take part in the Seder?

Gah!!!!!! If Carl's Jr decides to modify their products, they must allow all groups of humans access to this modification. You, nor I can mandate that any company must modify their products. If this were happening, I would be against it. Either way, I'm discussing discrimination, not some topic about making businesses bend to my will.

No one is arguing for fairness nor government micromanaging. Please stay on task.

No one? Well, if you're are not talking about fairness, you're use of the word unjust is new to me.

It is painfully obvious to all that have been reading here, that I am talking about injustice and prejudice. If you want to equate fairness with justice here, have at it and I have then talked about fairness when I spoke about justice. Not sure what you hoped to accomplish with this particular war on language though.

Also, requiring a business to modify what they sell for a specific ceremony and/or take part in that ceremony sound a lot like micromanaging to me.

I ask you to cut and paste this example you have imagined where I have argued that businesses must modify what they sell or that they must take part in a ceremony.

My point has been clear. If a business offers a service, they cannot discriminate against a specific group of humans due to race, religion or sex by excluding them from the service they offer to everyone else. What you are arguing for is no different then not allowing blacks to drink from the white mans fountain. Aren't we past those days?

Then you are discriminating. It may be legal and/or moral discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less.

More war with the English language?
Please show, that because I don't flip a coin to decide where to eat, that I am then treating a specific group of humans within Mcdonald's in this case with discrimination. Feel free to use any of the definitions for discrimination that I have provided so far, or provide one of your own.
If you can't, will you please retract this statement?

You did not just link two definitions, you chose a broad definition for boycott and a narrow one for discrimination.

False. What I actually did was to Google both terms and literally took the first thing that popped up. It is dishonest of you to accuse me of picking and/or choosing which definition were used.

You have also sought to establish a definition for discrimination by context, i.e. interchanging the term with another phrase.

False. I have provided a definition for discrimination. The words unjust and with prejudice are included. Do you deny this? I have even made a point to refer to Dictionary.com more in this post because you are uncomfortable with the other definition. Which definition that is used does not change my argument about treating people like equals.

In a discussion about whether discrimination is always bad, using "unjust and prejudiced" interchangeably with the term "discrimination" is including the conclusion in the premise.

Stop whining. If you don't like the definition that I provided, supply another. But if I then use words that are included in your provided definition, please don't accuse me of including a conclusion in with the premise.

That is a fallacious argument. When referring to discrimination one should use the term discrimination and provide support for the argument that all discrimination is "unjust and prejudiced"

Hold your horses. Not all discrimination is unjust IMO, therefore this, accusation does not hold.
Many find it just, to not allow criminals to purchase guns. Violent criminals are a group of humans that are IMO justly not allowed to by guns. This determination is being decided by the 'criminal status', not their gender, religion or race. So we could quibble over whether or not this is discrimination, but I trust you get my point.

I noticed that you again gave a definition without attribution.

Like I said above. Open Google and type discrimination. That is where I got the definition that I am using. What part of that definition do you have complaints with?
Would you prefer this one:
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/discrimination

If this one is OK with you, do you find it just to make a distinction in favor of or against a person based on their class, category, or thing that the person belongs to rather than on individual merit?

Show me that I'm wrong. Show me a group of humans that are being discriminated against due to race, age, or sex. You are claiming that there is a group of humans that fall under some maturity classification. Show that you speak the truth.

No

Let it me noted that he could not provide a group of humans that were being discriminated against due to race, age or sex. (In regards to not allowing people under the age of 18 to buy cigarettes).

I am not saying that maturity is a classification.

Noted

And there is one of the issues. There would be many gays, especially in small towns that would not have access to a cake market.

So, are you now saying that "gays" don't know how to bake, or can't start a bakery? For someone who does not like prejudice, you don't seem to think very highly of blacks and "gays".

Shame on you! I have said nothing of the sort and quite frankly I hope someone reports this nonsense.
Clearly, what I'm alluding to is that a black surgeon in a small town shouldn't have to open a bakery if they want a cake.
He should be able to go to the same bakery that a white person goes to. Why do you think a black surgeon in this instance shouldn't be able to buy a cake from a white mans bakery? Can this guy ride the same bus as you? Would you be OK if this person used the same drinking fountain as you? What if this black surgeon actually identified as 'gay'? Would that change your feelings?

Yes, look back at the definition that I provide with attribution and double check my source.

Great! Use your definition, it matters not.
Now show that I'm discriminating against McDonald's if I decide to not go there for lunch. This would be hard since I'm not making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
(Bold coming from Dictionary.com)

[bluethread]

Minimum wage is not getting paid for nothing. "Welfare", SSI and EBT are getting paid for doing nothing. That is what the government does in addition to the minimum wage that undermines the private economy.

Given the private economy cares about the employer more than the employee, that's a bad thing, how?

The economy cares? When did social constructs develop emotions. The economy is the cumulative effect of all exchanges of goods and services. How does that favor the purchaser of labor over the seller?

So, those who are not qualified for a job, get paid anyway, by state mandated insurance, paid for by the employer who the person is unqualified to work for. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, it do not merely make sense, it's a good thing too.

Well, I am waiting for verification of the insurance you are paying for me, because am not qualified for anything you might want done.

Oh, sorry, I didn't put it that way, because we are repeatedly told that people are not illegal. Ok, yes, I am referring to illegal workers. How are they sustaining themselves?

They are not, it's just a better situation than their prior predicament.

So, are you saying that they are just dying in a better way?

So, the gag order is designed to protect them from self incrimination? I thought that's what lawyers are for? Why should they be kept from confessing to a crime, if it indeed is one?

Saying they want to discriminate isn't exactly an offence. It just encourages others to break the law.

Well, if the nature of the law is in question, how does stating their case to the public encourage breaking it? Can you show where that is the stated purpose of the gag order. Generally, the purpose of a gag order is to avoid tainting the jury pool.

But, I am being told on this thread that there are no good kinds of discrimination...

That depends on what definitions you use. Ideally you would stick to one so we don't end up debating semantics. Tell me which version you prefer: a) limited only to the wrong kind; or b) merely distinguishing between different entities? I prefer the former one, so I don't have to keep typing unjust discrimination.

Well, since we are discussing whether it is right or wrong, using the first definition would be using the premise in the definition. That would lead to circular reasoning. Anything one calls discrimination is unjust, because all discrimination is, by definition, unjust. That is a fallacious argument.

It was maintained by legislation. After the revoking of Jim Crow laws, competition and innovation have pushed the behaviors out of the market. The legislation on private business in the "Civil Rights Act" did remove the signs. However, rather than remove the factors listed from transactions, it just created a grievance industry with a vested interest in stopping all discrimination. This of course is impossible and to the extent that it is possible, it undermines the private property basis of the economy.

Which is why government is required to step in. The market is only interested in making more money, even if it means screwing minorities over.

No, money is a medium of exchange. Humans, who make up the market, seek to trade things of lesser personal value for things of greater personal value. Currency is just a gauge of that value. That said, yours is a circular argument. Government steps in and removes the indicators of a problem, but the problem persists due to an industry built on removal of those indicators. So, the solution is more government intervention leading to yet another industry designed to maintain that intervention. No wonder we are plagued with a bloated bureaucracy and civil unrest. Bureaucracy and civil unrest have become valued commodities.

Well, bakers are not required to make wedding cakes either.

Sure, but that's moot since the bakers in question do make wedding cakes.

However, they do not make that kind of wedding cake, just as other bakers don't make that kind of cake.

If a preacher does officiate weddings, can he be forced to officiate "gay" weddings?

Is he doing that as a business? If so then yes, he should be forced to.

Also, there are many threads on this site that argue that preaching is a business. Personally, I think they are in business, they are just in nonprofit businesses.

Okay, I will grant you there is wiggle room there for what counts and does not count as running a business.

Why? He is providing a service. Are only nonprofit bakeries exempt from making a cake specially designed for a "gay" wedding and/or taking part in said wedding?

A wedding is a religious ceremony. If it is not, what's with the special cake?

1) It can be a religious occasion, but it can also be a secular one. 2) Not all religion discriminate against same sex couples. 3) Businesses provide for religious ceremony too. You have presented a red herring.

Ok, since you see a difference, why is one allowed to specialized in "religious" Catholic weddings, or Hindu weddings?

That is a distinction without a difference. If one is required to do something that is not their specialty, they are not being allowed to specialize.

What made you say they required to do something that is not their specialty? I said they are required to provide the SAME services to everyone. More to the point, there is no difference between a gay wedding and a straight one wedding from the business point of view, if you can source a suit plus a dress, you can source two suits or two dresses. If you can source a car to carry a couple of different gender, the same car can carry a couple of the same gender.

The facts of the case, as stated by the defendants and their lawyer are that they were willing to sell them the same wedding cake that they sell to anyone else. To be precise, they are a cupcake bakery, but I gather that is not going to change your objection. Also, they state that they were required to take part in the wedding. You keep going back to the refusal to sell argument. The case I am referring to is not a refusal to sell case. It is a refusal to modify and provide additional services case.

Who said that they provide pork sandwiches to straight couples?

I made that assumption, I assumed you paid attention to my point that it was about equal treatment and not special treatment. I assumed you wanted to compare like with like, instead of apples to oranges - where the same product is to be sold to some customer but not to others, based on an aspect of the customer instead of the product being sold.

No, I was not making that point, with regard the specific case I was referring to. My point, in that case, is that the customer is requiring the vendor to modify the product or provide additional services. The market issue is that as long as there is a free market, no vendor should be required to provide any good or service to anybody they do not want to. If we are talking about the market issue, current law is in question and illegal prejudice is not relevant. For my part, if we are talking about the specific case, "The law is an ass.", is not relevant. The scope of the two arguments is different. Are we determining the legality of the wedding cake case, or determining what kinds of discrimination are acceptable and unacceptable. If I get these two mixed up, please point it out. I am currently arguing both on this same thread, with people who get them mixed up themselves.

They provide sandwiches, they just don't provide pork sandwiches.

If that was the case, why did you ask if they are forced to serve pulled pork sandwiches in the first place, why would they be forced to do such a thing? Did I or did I not made it very explicit that I was talking about equal treatment, did I or did I not call you out for twisting one service into two based on the sexuality (or religion in this case) of the customer?

If they don't provide pork sandwiches for anyone then they are not required to provide pork sandwiches for voodoo believers. They are required to provide sandwiches for voodoo believers because it is already on their menu, they cannot discriminate against customers for their voodoo religion. What is so complicated about that?

I am glad we agree on that. Then if a bakery does not make wedding cakes specifically designed for "gay" weddings are they required to design one specifically for a "gay" wedding? According to current federal civil rights law, I say no, but we will see what the courts say. According to economics, not as long as no one else is prohibited from doing that.

You are ignoring the fact that your example is not a monopoly. You have yet to provide an example of a monopoly that was not the result of government action.

I don't know of any, that's why I asked you what you had in mind.

What I had in mind is that there is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market. One can not rightly argue a monopoly grievance as long as people are free to enter the market and innovate.

No, if that were the case, the couple could have bought the cake, as they had many times before and modify it to suit their purposes or take it to whatever ceremony they wish

No, they couldn't have bought the cake as they had many times before, because the baker wouldn't sell and that's the entire point of the law suit. It is absolutely about not selling cakes.

No, if what you said was the case, the couple wouldn't have sued, let alone win the case in a court of law.

Ok, I think what is causing the confusion is not just to problem of legality and economics, but also the fact that this is a matter of state civil rights law and not federal law. So, there are several cases in various jurisdictions. In the Colorado case, you are correct. However, in Oregon, which is the pending case I am talking about, that is not the case.

If legislation is the solution, why didn't the legislation work? Why didn't the government transit systems stop the practice?

Enforcement wasn't strong enough, there black people felt unsafe.

"In November 1955, just three weeks before Parks' defiance..."

Isn't this a better solution?

It's a great solution to be implemented along side government mandates. The fact that some have to go as far as boycotts should have told you that the market (and indeed the general population) is slow to react on social issues.

No, boycotts are a market based solution, and it worked in short order In Montgomery. You do realize that the hammer of government that you tout as the best solution, was the tool used to enforce segregation?

A company caters to a market opportunity, customers seek out competition and innovate, and the problem gets solved.

That won't work when the customers in question are a minority.

So, minorities are not able to compete and innovate?

The reason the problem persisted was because of Jim Crow and government run bus lines, closing the market to competition and innovation. That's what government programs always do. They remove market opportunities, and stifle competition and innovation.

That's a good thing when the innovation in question are related to how to screw over the workers and customers. I never understood why people would trust businesses whose mandate is profit, over government whose mandate is serving the people.

What innovation was designed to "screw over the workers and customers"? Also, The government in question was mandated to serve the people by enforcing segregation. An open market allows for nonprofit and charitable institutions to compete and innovate. There is not assurance of benevolent behavior from either business or government. That is why I trust neither, which is the essence of an free market. I only trust who I choose to trust.

[tam]

Well, anyone can read about the Oregon case here:


https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/ ... s%20FO.pdf


I am not through it all the way yet, but the testimony appears to be fairly simple. Sweetcakes makes wedding cakes. When Sweetcakes asked for the name of the bride and groom, and the client said there were two brides and gave those names, Sweetcakes said that they do not make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.



As I said, I am just starting to read it... but thought I would post that for anyone else who wants the details that are available. Rather than guessing.


Peace!

[Bust Nak]

The economy cares? When did social constructs develop emotions. The economy is the cumulative effect of all exchanges of goods and services. How does that favor the purchaser of labor over the seller?

Because the purchaser is the guy with the money.

Well, I am waiting for verification of the insurance you are paying for me, because am not qualified for anything you might want done.

You don't need to see that. You will get all you are entitled to, without seeing any of my documents.

So, are you saying that they are just dying in a better way?

Sure, that's a good way to put it.

Well, if the nature of the law is in question, how does stating their case to the public encourage breaking it?

Monkey see monkey do? That applies whether the nature of the law is in question or not.

Can you show where that is the stated purpose of the gag order. Generally, the purpose of a gag order is to avoid tainting the jury pool.

See the link kindly presented by tam above. The judge has already made the ruling, it has nothing to do with tainting the jury. Here is the order in question: "NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.850(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violations of ORS 659.A409 by Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation."

Well, since we are discussing whether it is right or wrong, using the first definition would be using the premise in the definition. That would lead to circular reasoning. Anything one calls discrimination is unjust, because all discrimination is, by definition, unjust. That is a fallacious argument.

Not fallacious, it would just be an argument over semantics like I pointed out earlier. There is nothing fallacious with appealing to dictionary definition. Anything that is discrimination is by definition unjust, because all discrimination is, by definition unjust, is about as straightforward as arguments goes. So the debate becomes whether something is discrimination or not discrimination.

No, money is a medium of exchange. Humans, who make up the market, seek to trade things of lesser personal value for things of greater personal value. Currency is just a gauge of that value. That said, yours is a circular argument. Government steps in and removes the indicators of a problem, but the problem persists due to an industry built on removal of those indicators. So, the solution is more government intervention leading to yet another industry designed to maintain that intervention. No wonder we are plagued with a bloated bureaucracy and civil unrest. Bureaucracy and civil unrest have become valued commoditie.

If it comes to that then so be it. Some people need to be dragged screaming and kicking into the modern era. The sooner it happens the better.

However, they do not make that kind of wedding cake, just as other bakers don't make that kind of cake.

Incorrect. The do make that kind of wedding cake, they just refused to make it because of the sexuality of the customers. Which is why they were sued.

Why? He is providing a service. Are only nonprofit bakeries exempt from making a cake specially designed for a "gay" wedding and/or taking part in said wedding?

If you bake cakes as personal favors then you are allowed to discriminate all you like.

Ok, since you see a difference, why is one allowed to specialized in "religious" Catholic weddings, or Hindu weddings?

Because presumedly specialists does a better job at their specialisation then generalist. What answer were you fishing for here exactly? I am guessing you were trying to make a point I am not seeing.

The facts of the case, as stated by the defendants and their lawyer are that they were willing to sell them the same wedding cake that they sell to anyone else. To be precise, they are a cupcake bakery, but I gather that is not going to change your objection. Also, they state that they were required to take part in the wedding. You keep going back to the refusal to sell argument. The case I am referring to is not a refusal to sell case. It is a refusal to modify and provide additional services case.

I don't know where you are getting that impression from, but I have to inform you that that was not what happened.

No, I was not making that point, with regard the specific case I was referring to. My point, in that case, is that the customer is requiring the vendor to modify the product or provide additional services.

It seems you were misinformed.

The market issue is that as long as there is a free market, no vendor should be required to provide any good or service to anybody they do not want to.

Well I am just glad the market is not completely free. I prefer a market where vendor are required to provide good or service even to those they do not want to. You seemed to have accepted it is wrong to not sell to people just because they are gay, but you want to allow them to carry on doing it anyway. I don't understand that.

If we are talking about the market issue, current law is in question and illegal prejudice is not relevant. For my part, if we are talking about the specific case, "The law is an ass.", is not relevant. The scope of the two arguments is different. Are we determining the legality of the wedding cake case, or determining what kinds of discrimination are acceptable and unacceptable. If I get these two mixed up, please point it out. I am currently arguing both on this same thread, with people who get them mixed up themselves.

Not entirely sure what you are getting at here. You accept that not selling to gay people is illegal but thinks the law ought to be change so it will no longer be illegal?

I am glad we agree on that. Then if a bakery does not make wedding cakes specifically designed for "gay" weddings are they required to design one specifically for a "gay" wedding?

The answers are going to be the same no matter how many times you ask it. If a business A offer X to straight customers then the are required to offer X to gay customers; If A does not offer X to straight customers then they are not required to offer X to gay customers. For all A and X. It's simple.

What I had in mind is that there is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market. One can not rightly argue a monopoly grievance as long as people are free to enter the market and innovate.

Don't complain if you can't complete? Sound like the monetary version of might makes right to me.

Ok, I think what is causing the confusion is not just to problem of legality and economics, but also the fact that this is a matter of state civil rights law and not federal law. So, there are several cases in various jurisdictions. In the Colorado case, you are correct. However, in Oregon, which is the pending case I am talking about, that is not the case.

I really want to know where you are getting that from, the bakers in question stated so themselves, they will not bake a cake to be used at a gay wedding. There is no question about it, it is about the occasion and not the cake itself. It's an open and shut case.

No, boycotts are a market based solution, and it worked in short order In Montgomery. You do realize that the hammer of government that you tout as the best solution, was the tool used to enforce segregation?

Yes and it took the law to fix it.

So, minorities are not able to compete and innovate?

Generally no, they are exploited the large company at best, and put out of business or swallowed at worse.

What innovation was designed to "screw over the workers and customers"?

I am referring to general things like getting more from worker and paying them less. Selling worse goods for higher prices to customers.

Also, The government in question was mandated to serve the people by enforcing segregation. An open market allows for nonprofit and charitable institutions to compete and innovate. There is not assurance of benevolent behavior from either business or government. That is why I trust neither, which is the essence of an free market. I only trust who I choose to trust.

That's were the constitution comes in, there are things that even a majority mandate from the people, cannot be acted upon by the government.

[bluethread]

The economy cares? When did social constructs develop emotions. The economy is the cumulative effect of all exchanges of goods and services. How does that favor the purchaser of labor over the seller?

Because the purchaser is the guy with the money.

And the seller is the guy with skills. It is being argued on this thread that favors the seller.

Well, I am waiting for verification of the insurance you are paying for me, because am not qualified for anything you might want done.

You don't need to see that. You will get all you are entitled to, without seeing any of my documents.

How do I apply for this payment from your insurance?

Can you show where that is the stated purpose of the gag order. Generally, the purpose of a gag order is to avoid tainting the jury pool.

See the link kindly presented by tam above. The judge has already made the ruling, it has nothing to do with tainting the jury. Here is the order in question: "NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.850(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violations of ORS 659.A409 by Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation."

This probably presumes a general injunctive based on stare decisis. Thank you for pointing that out.

Well, since we are discussing whether it is right or wrong, using the first definition would be using the premise in the definition. That would lead to circular reasoning. Anything one calls discrimination is unjust, because all discrimination is, by definition, unjust. That is a fallacious argument.

Not fallacious, it would just be an argument over semantics like I pointed out earlier. There is nothing fallacious with appealing to dictionary definition. Anything that is discrimination is by definition unjust, because all discrimination is, by definition unjust, is about as straightforward as arguments goes. So the debate becomes whether something is discrimination or not discrimination.

No, that is not a straight forward argument for why discrimination is unjust. It precludes any discussion in that regard. As I have noted in a previous post, that is not THE dictionary definition. It is A definition based on particular legislation. If we are discussing the concept of discrimination and not the application of a particular law, appealing to the a legal definition is superfluous.

No, money is a medium of exchange. Humans, who make up the market, seek to trade things of lesser personal value for things of greater personal value. Currency is just a gauge of that value. That said, yours is a circular argument. Government steps in and removes the indicators of a problem, but the problem persists due to an industry built on removal of those indicators. So, the solution is more government intervention leading to yet another industry designed to maintain that intervention. No wonder we are plagued with a bloated bureaucracy and civil unrest. Bureaucracy and civil unrest have become valued commoditie.

If it comes to that then so be it. Some people need to be dragged screaming and kicking into the modern era. The sooner it happens the better.

All hail the socialist state, comrade. That is why the founders established the bill of rights, to provide the citizenry protection against the tyranny of an aristocratic bureaucracy. "Congress shall make no law . . . "

Why? He is providing a service. Are only nonprofit bakeries exempt from making a cake specially designed for a "gay" wedding and/or taking part in said wedding?

If you bake cakes as personal favors then you are allowed to discriminate all you like.

Are you saying that a favor has no value?

Ok, since you see a difference, why is one allowed to specialized in "religious" Catholic weddings, or Hindu weddings?

Because presumedly specialists does a better job at their specialisation then generalist. What answer were you fishing for here exactly? I am guessing you were trying to make a point I am not seeing.

What is the difference between "religious" Catholic weddings and "secular" Catholic weddings?

The market issue is that as long as there is a free market, no vendor should be required to provide any good or service to anybody they do not want to.

Well I am just glad the market is not completely free. I prefer a market where vendor are required to provide good or service even to those they do not want to. You seemed to have accepted it is wrong to not sell to people just because they are gay, but you want to allow them to carry on doing it anyway. I don't understand that.

I accept it as legal restriction, not an economic imperative. I personally have no problem, in general, with selling to people without regard to their personal relationships. However, I do not think one should be required to conduct business in a way that condones any particular personal habit.

Not entirely sure what you are getting at here. You accept that not selling to gay people is illegal but thinks the law ought to be change so it will no longer be illegal?

Yes, not just not selling to gay people, but not selling to anybody for any reason, as long as there are other market alternatives.

I am glad we agree on that. Then if a bakery does not make wedding cakes specifically designed for "gay" weddings are they required to design one specifically for a "gay" wedding?

The answers are going to be the same no matter how many times you ask it. If a business A offer X to straight customers then the are required to offer X to gay customers; If A does not offer X to straight customers then they are not required to offer X to gay customers. For all A and X. It's simple.

That is not the question. The question is if someone sells X to one set of customers are they obligated to sell X' to another set of customers? So, we can stay on the market discussion, because that is my primary interest, let's not concern ourselves with whether that has or has not occurred in a particular case.

What I had in mind is that there is no such thing as a monopoly in a free market. One can not rightly argue a monopoly grievance as long as people are free to enter the market and innovate.

Don't complain if you can't complete? Sound like the monetary version of might makes right to me.

But, you can compete. You are free to enter the market and innovate.

No, boycotts are a market based solution, and it worked in short order In Montgomery. You do realize that the hammer of government that you tout as the best solution, was the tool used to enforce segregation?

Yes and it took the law to fix it.

No, it took a boycott and competition. Had the government not interfered in the first place it might have continued, but only as one consumer preference among many.

So, minorities are not able to compete and innovate?

Generally no, they are exploited the large company at best, and put out of business or swallowed at worse.

That is socialist propaganda. There are industries that lend themselves to economies of scale, but, even there, innovation counters that. The news industry is a prime example. It was believed, just 40 years ago, that networks had to be regulated for content to assure "fair" coverage. However, alternative media, i.e. am radio and the internet, have put the lie to that.

What innovation was designed to "screw over the workers and customers"?

I am referring to general things like getting more from worker and paying them less. Selling worse goods for higher prices to customers.

That is entirely subjective. In the first case, you say the seller is "screwed over" and in the second case you say the buyer is "screwed over". Is the employer being "screwed over", if the employee is doing less and demanding more? Is the the vendor being "screwed over", if buyers are demanding better goods at lower prices? Before, you said the one with the currency has an unfair advantage, but, in the latter case, it is the customer that has the money. This is entirely inconsistent.

Also, The government in question was mandated to serve the people by enforcing segregation. An open market allows for nonprofit and charitable institutions to compete and innovate. There is not assurance of benevolent behavior from either business or government. That is why I trust neither, which is the essence of an free market. I only trust who I choose to trust.

That's were the constitution comes in, there are things that even a majority mandate from the people, cannot be acted upon by the government.

Bingo, we have the Bill of Rights, because without it there is no natural check on government, "Congress shall make no law ...". A free market is a natural check on the economy.

[Joe1950]

First, there is no such thing as a completely "free market" economy. And never was. And never will be.
As part of the function of government is to "provide for the general welfare" it has a real interest in the safety of the citizenry. That means making reasonable laws regarding marketplace transactions.
When the grocery store sells you a can of beans you have the legal right to expect those beans are safe to eat.

So, the famous case of the "gay" cake. really comes down to this.
If you want to participate in the marketplace by selling cakes, you must follow whatever laws are on the books for selling cakes. You cannot sell cakes and decide, for instance , to have a rat infested kitchen. You cannot sell cakes with tainted flour. You cannot choose to sell cakes to people who have blue eyes but not people who have brown eyes. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

No one is forcing you to sell cakes. No one is forcing you to enter the regulated marketplace. You are given the benefits and protections of society, paid for and enforced by tax dollars. You are allowed to profit by being in the marketplace. You cannot decide to change the law because you do not like a customer (unless the customer is overtly disruptive of your business).

The "cake" issue is an abuse of the idea of "freedom of religion". Some people seem to think that freedom of religion means freedom to shove a particular religion down everyone else's throat. Not so. If you want to do business, follow the law. Simple.

[bluethread]

First, there is no such thing as a completely "free market" economy. And never was. And never will be.
As part of the function of government is to "provide for the general welfare" it has a real interest in the safety of the citizenry. That means making reasonable laws regarding marketplace transactions.
When the grocery store sells you a can of beans you have the legal right to expect those beans are safe to eat.

So, the famous case of the "gay" cake. really comes down to this.
If you want to participate in the marketplace by selling cakes, you must follow whatever laws are on the books for selling cakes. You cannot sell cakes and decide, for instance , to have a rat infested kitchen. You cannot sell cakes with tainted flour. You cannot choose to sell cakes to people who have blue eyes but not people who have brown eyes. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

No one is forcing you to sell cakes. No one is forcing you to enter the regulated marketplace. You are given the benefits and protections of society, paid for and enforced by tax dollars. You are allowed to profit by being in the marketplace. You cannot decide to change the law because you do not like a customer (unless the customer is overtly disruptive of your business).

The "cake" issue is an abuse of the idea of "freedom of religion". Some people seem to think that freedom of religion means freedom to shove a particular religion down everyone else's throat. Not so. If you want to do business, follow the law. Simple.

There are so many fallacies and misrepresentations here, it hard to know where to begin. So, I guess I'll address them in the order that they were presented.

1 . I have not argued for a "completely free market economy". That is not a valid argument for regulation, any more than the fact that there is not a completely regulated economy is not a valid argument against regulation. Each regulation must be analyzed on it's merits.

2. The idea of the general welfare of the citizenry being a constitutional obligation of the federal governement is a modern misrepresentation. "The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."" Wiki

Without getting to the weeds regarding the limitations on taxation prior to 1936, the 'General Welfare" clause never referred the welfare of the citizenry, but the welfare of the Union. The opinion of Justice Joseph Story expanded the taxation powers of the federal government, but still did not change that, What changed was the federal governments use of it's expanded taxation powers to bribe the states using funds collected from the citizens of those states, under the guise of "General Welfare" spending. So the "General Welfare" mandate is for the preservation of the Union, not the creation of a welfare state. Also, that speaks to the legality of legislation, not the economic reasonableness of it.

3. The Commerce Clause grants the federal government the right to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The ICC portion initially referred to resolving conflicts between the states, resulting from the common use of navigable waters. Then without changing that principle of resolving conflict, "in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,� beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) It was also use to permit federal regulation of new modalities of interstate commerce, i.e. railroads. Again it was not until the "New Deal" and subsequently the "Great Society" that it was expanded to regulate all businesses using the daisy chain argument that there not only need not be any imminent conflict, but that anyone who did business a company in a regulated industry was doing interstate business and therefore subject to federal regulation. This in effect makes all commerce subject to federal regulation, which makes the limitations of the "Commerce Clause" superfluous and of no effect. Therefore, IMO there is no way that the modern argument for federal regulation of all business is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. That said, this speaks to the legalities and not the economic effect.

4. It is true that when a store sells you a can of beans, as food, you have the legal right to expect those beans are safe to eat. This is to say, you have a tort, and you can sue for damages. You can also publicize the fact that those beans are not safe. Truth is an absolute defense against slander and liable. They can also be arrested under state endangerment laws. That said, this to does not speak to the issue either, because it is not about discrimination, but public safety and false advertising.

5. Food safety and false advertising legislation does not justify outlawing discrimination based on eye color or sexual orientation. What stops the government from outlawing discrimination based on ability to pay? Admittedly, if that were legislated against, it would not be legal, but the economic effect would be terrible. In fact, that kind of legislation was passed under Jimmy Carter and was a contributing factor in the real estate collapse.

6. Private property is not a government granted privilege, but an inalienable right. That was the original term that was replaced with "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. It was replace because, the right was not limited to holding property, but the use of it in the marketplace in one's pursuit of happiness. The obligation of the government to ensure the security of my person and property is not a Faustian bargain, where I am obligated to then turn over to them all control over my person and property. As the Declaration sates, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Therefore, it is the other way around and the authority to govern is a privilege granted to the government by the people. Also, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Therefore, oversight of my safety and happiness is not the right of the government, but my obligation, that I am free to grant or withhold from the government as I see fit.

Now, to your hyperbolic conclusion, yes, my first amendment rights do not permit me to shovel my views down someone else's throat. However, my fifth amendment rights preclude anyone else from invade my person or property, without due process of law, and precludes the government from taking it from me without a clear public use and just compensation. So, how is my refusing to do something, shoving something down someone's throat. I would think that requiring me to give up my assets in support of someone else's speech, would not only be shoving something down my throat, but also pulling it out again, with part of me attached.

[Bust Nak]

And the seller is the guy with skills. It is being argued on this thread that favors the seller.

We are still talking about minimum wages paying jobs here, aren't we?

How do I apply for this payment from your insurance?

Check with your local job centre.

This probably presumes a general injunctive based on stare decisis. Thank you for pointing that out.

Right, like having a sign that says "whites only" is still banned, even if the business actually serves non-whites once you go inside.

No, that is not a straight forward argument for why discrimination is unjust.

Seriously? Modus ponens is the most straight forward rule of inference there is outside of tautologies.

As I have noted in a previous post, that is not THE dictionary definition. It is A definition based on particular legislation.

Google says otherwise "discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." Not interested in arguing semantics with you.

All hail the socialist state, comrade. That is why the founders established the bill of rights, to provide the citizenry protection against the tyranny of an aristocratic bureaucracy. "Congress shall make no law . . . "

You do know the bill of rights is on our side, right?

Are you saying that a favor has no value?

No, I am saying doing someone a favor is different to running a business.

What is the difference between "religious" Catholic weddings and "secular" Catholic weddings?

Nothing, as far as a business is concern.

I accept it as legal restriction, not an economic imperative. I personally have no problem, in general, with selling to people without regard to their personal relationships. However, I do not think one should be required to conduct business in a way that condones any particular personal habit.

Well the status quo has been established, one is currently required to conduct business regardless of any particular personal habit, what argument, do you have other than "free market is always better," to change that?

Yes, not just not selling to gay people, but not selling to anybody for any reason, as long as there are other market alternatives.

May I ask why the exception? If every bakery refuses to sell to gay, then it's okay to force them?

That is not the question. The question is if someone sells X to one set of customers are they obligated to sell X' to another set of customers?

How is that not the same question? The answer is still the same: if someone sells X to one set of customers they ARE obligated to sell X to another set of customers. I thought I was being extremely clear.

But, you can compete. You are free to enter the market and innovate.

You can try. Does trying then going out of business count as being able to complete to you? Seems like a stretch to me.

No, it took a boycott and competition. Had the government not interfered in the first place it might have continued, but only as one consumer preference among many.

EN-OH NO. Consumer who preference is blacks sits at the back is not a preference to be catered to.

That is socialist propaganda. There are industries that lend themselves to economies of scale, but, even there, innovation counters that. The news industry is a prime example. It was believed, just 40 years ago, that networks had to be regulated for content to assure "fair" coverage. However, alternative media, i.e. am radio and the internet, have put the lie to that.

You think the smaller stations would not be snapped up the moment anti-trust laws allows them? There are alternative media exactly because there are laws to regulate big businesses.

That is entirely subjective. In the first case, you say the seller is "screwed over" and in the second case you say the buyer is "screwed over". Is the employer being "screwed over", if the employee is doing less and demanding more?

They can demand all they like.

Is the the vendor being "screwed over", if buyers are demanding better goods at lower prices?

They can demand all they like.

Before, you said the one with the currency has an unfair advantage, but, in the latter case, it is the customer that has the money. This is entirely inconsistent.

It's who has the biggest pool.

Bingo, we have the Bill of Rights, because without it there is no natural check on government, "Congress shall make no law ...". A free market is a natural check on the economy.

The rich gets richer is not a natural check.

[bluethread]

Just listen you yourself. Myself, someone that no longer is a believer in Jesus is arguing for treating humans with equality. Something most people would agree is a loving thing to do. You, a follower of Jesus is arguing for allowing businesses to not treat humans the same. Which opens the door for treating them unjustly and with prejudice.

I am arguing for tolerance. Modern psychology argues for non aggressive forms of discipline, yet the proposed solutions for unwanted discrimination are fine, imprisonment, and forced labor. What happened to simply not rewarding bad behavior and positive reinforcement of good behavior?

We are not talking about what Jesus would do.

Obviously you would prefer to keep it that way, but I'm going to bring it up anyway. Again, let your light so shine.
Readers, I think it is very important to point out hypocrisy in many believers of Christianity. Obviously, pointing out this hypocrisy is uncomfortable.

Well, as I stated before these views are also held by prominent theists. If you consider Christianity to be a reasonable moral standard, I can discuss the issue in that light. However, if you are merely going to judge the issue based a caricature of Christianity, or what you think I personally believe, your accusations are disingenuous.

We are talking about being compelled to do something by law.

By law, you are not allowed to murder.
By law, businesses are not allowed to discriminate.
Why is being able to discrinate against gays so important for you? Where do you draw the line? Are you OK with people of darker skin using your drinking fountains? How far are you willing to go and will you stop at gays is something I'm wondering.

We are also not talking about my personal behaviors, though I am not generally opposed to discussing them. However, this is just a distraction from the issue of whether outlawing discrimination is a net positive for an economy.

Just so we are clear, are you saying that he can use his fire truck to put out the fire in my house and not my neighbors house, as long as he owns the fire truck?

A man can do what he wants with his firetruck. However, if this fire department gets any money from the public, they would not be allowed to choose a group of humans to then not offer their services to.

So, if I were to do bookkeeping for the farmer, then the farmer could choose to only bring his truck into town when my house is on fire?

If Carl's Jr decides to modify their products, they must allow all groups of humans access to this modification. You, nor I can mandate that any company must modify their products. If this were happening, I would be against it. Either way, I'm discussing discrimination, not some topic about making businesses bend to my will.

I will make a note of that for future reference.

No one is arguing for fairness nor government micromanaging. Please stay on task.

No one? Well, if you're are not talking about fairness, you're use of the word unjust is new to me.

It is painfully obvious to all that have been reading here, that I am talking about injustice and prejudice. If you want to equate fairness with justice here, have at it and I have then talked about fairness when I spoke about justice. Not sure what you hoped to accomplish with this particular war on language though.

Well, you are the one making the distinction between fairness and justice. Be that as it may, I am trying to determine why discrimination must be defined based on national civil rights legislation and not the general definition. After all those areas regulated by civil rights legislation that you listed does not include sexual orientation and there are many other forms of discrimination that are not only not included in that definition, but are legally enforced, i.e. some forms of age discrimination, as I stated earlier.

My point has been clear. If a business offers a service, they cannot discriminate against a specific group of humans due to race, religion or sex by excluding them from the service they offer to everyone else. What you are arguing for is no different then not allowing blacks to drink from the white mans fountain. Aren't we past those days?

So, not allowing someone a day short of 21 years old to drink at a bar for people 21 and over is the same as not allowing blacks to drink from a white man's fountain? That is an example of how the government mandates that businesses discriminate based on age. Though it is not included in your list, do you approve of age discrimination?

Then you are discriminating. It may be legal and/or moral discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less.

More war with the English language?
Please show, that because I don't flip a coin to decide where to eat, that I am then treating a specific group of humans within Mcdonald's in this case with discrimination. Feel free to use any of the definitions for discrimination that I have provided so far, or provide one of your own.
If you can't, will you please retract this statement?

Let me repeat the primary definition provided by Wiktionary. "Discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things, with intent to understand rightly and make correct decisions."
That is what one is doing when one chooses to go to Wendy's instead to McDonald's. As you stated, allowing people to do this does permit the possibility of prejudice and injustice. However, to not allow people to do this is rather draconian, and really ineffective, IMO.

You did not just link two definitions, you chose a broad definition for boycott and a narrow one for discrimination.

False. What I actually did was to Google both terms and literally took the first thing that popped up. It is dishonest of you to accuse me of picking and/or choosing which definition were used.

Ah, so you chose the narrow definition because google put it first and ignored the second definition, or rejected the second definition provided by google, i.e. "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". When I initially presented the Wiktionary definitions, I provided all of them. I the explained why I chosen the first definition, i.e. because we were determining if discrimination should be legal. Your choice only refers to that which is unjust or prejudicial as discrimination and gives only three such cases. If we are to examine this properly, shouldn't we choose the broader term and determine for ourselves what is and is not just?

You have also sought to establish a definition for discrimination by context, i.e. interchanging the term with another phrase.

False. I have provided a definition for discrimination. The words unjust and with prejudice are included. Do you deny this? I have even made a point to refer to Dictionary.com more in this post because you are uncomfortable with the other definition. Which definition that is used does not change my argument about treating people like equals.

Note the Dictionary.com definitions:

"1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment:
She chose the colors with great discrimination."

None of those refer to something being unjust or prejudiced. Now, you change your argument from unjust and prejudice to "treating people like equals". This is an egalitarian prejudice. It presumes the conclusion that people should be treated equally. As I have pointed out, you must then oppose governmental laws, because governments often treat people unequally. That said, my point is that trying to address discrimination, as defined by dictionary.com, by legislation is a fool's errand. Such laws may make one feel better, but do not stop discrimination, but rather extend it by breeding resentment and creating a grievance industry. Competition and innovation are much more useful in dealing with discrimination of all kinds, prejudicial and benign.

That is a fallacious argument. When referring to discrimination one should use the term discrimination and provide support for the argument that all discrimination is "unjust and prejudiced"

Hold your horses. Not all discrimination is unjust IMO, therefore this, accusation does not hold.
Many find it just, to not allow criminals to purchase guns. Violent criminals are a group of humans that are IMO justly not allowed to by guns. This determination is being decided by the 'criminal status', not their gender, religion or race. So we could quibble over whether or not this is discrimination, but I trust you get my point.

I am glad we agree. I am not quibbling over whether that is discrimination, it clearly is. I noticed that you are no longer including sex in your list, as you did earlier based on the google definition. You now use the term "gender", which is not mentioned in any of the definitions so far. That speaks to my point. One can expand or contract what one considers to be unjust based on e needs of one's argument. So, I think it best to see discrimination in it's broadest definition and then examine each case to determine if legislation is the best remedy, if a remedy is needed.

I noticed that you again gave a definition without attribution.

Like I said above. Open Google and type discrimination. That is where I got the definition that I am using. What part of that definition do you have complaints with?
Would you prefer this one:
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/discrimination

If this one is OK with you, do you find it just to make a distinction in favor of or against a person based on their class, category, or thing that the person belongs to rather than on individual merit?

Personally, I prefer merit, but what I consider to be meritorious may differ from what another person considers to be meritorious. Rather than getting government to enforce my view of meritorious decision making with fine, imprisonment, or forced compliance. I think that it is much more productive for me to support those things that I find to be meritorious and ignore those things that I do not find meritorious, unless such things actively endanger another's person or property.

Show me that I'm wrong. Show me a group of humans that are being discriminated against due to race, age, or sex. You are claiming that there is a group of humans that fall under some maturity classification. Show that you speak the truth.

No

Let it me noted that he could not provide a group of humans that were being discriminated against due to race, age or sex. (In regards to not allowing people under the age of 18 to buy cigarettes).

I am not saying that maturity is a classification.

Noted

Note that I was misquoted. I did not say, "No. I am not saying that maturity is a classification." Is said "No, I am not saying that maturity is a classification." I was referring to maturity being a classification, not age being a discriminating factor. The fact is that not allowing people under the age of 18 to buy cigarettes is age discrimination. It is just legal age discrimination. It is not based on the merit of the 17 year old, but is based entirely on a best guess generalization.

And there is one of the issues. There would be many gays, especially in small towns that would not have access to a cake market.

So, are you now saying that "gays" don't know how to bake, or can't start a bakery? For someone who does not like prejudice, you don't seem to think very highly of blacks and "gays".

Shame on you! I have said nothing of the sort and quite frankly I hope someone reports this nonsense.
Clearly, what I'm alluding to is that a black surgeon in a small town shouldn't have to open a bakery if they want a cake.
He should be able to go to the same bakery that a white person goes to. Why do you think a black surgeon in this instance shouldn't be able to buy a cake from a white mans bakery? Can this guy ride the same bus as you? Would you be OK if this person used the same drinking fountain as you? What if this black surgeon actually identified as 'gay'? Would that change your feelings?

What if there were no baker's in town, what would this surgeon do then? Would he not encourage one of his patients to open a bakery? If one is trusting this surgeon with his life, would he such a one also be willing to sell him a cake? I am sorry, if you were offended, but your implication that there is no market solution to this surgeon's problem begs the question. Where are all of the black or "gay" baker's?

Yes, look back at the definition that I provide with attribution and double check my source.

Great! Use your definition, it matters not.
Now show that I'm discriminating against McDonald's if I decide to not go there for lunch. This would be hard since I'm not making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:
(Bold coming from Dictionary.com)

That is the problem. It is a difficult thing to determine people's motivations. Even if you were to publicly say, "I won't eat at that McDonald's, because there are black people working there." Do you think that the government should fine you, or that you should be forced to pay damages to McDonald's or it's employees? That is why I think the best way to deal with these things is for people to be encouraged to seek out under served segments of the society and provide the desired product or service, rather than attempting to force people to do so based on threat of fine or imprisonment.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 111 by Clownboat]

"My point has been clear. If a business offers a service, they cannot discriminate against a specific group of humans due to race, religion or sex by excluding them from the service they offer to everyone else."

We might like to think that is how things work but if we are honest we see that is not how things are.
For an example, you go to a Jewish cakemaker and ask them to ice the cake with 'Jesus loves you', they will give you reasons why they are not going to.
You can object but they are going to win and not you.
If you object too much, you are anti-semite.