Judge Orders Colorado Cake Maker To Serve Gay Couples (now how about women's gyms?)

Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2013-12-10 04:51

Story here. So if a bakery has to make wedding cakes for gay couples (i.e., they can't discriminate even in a private transaction based on sexual orientation), then tell me, how is it gyms, bars, hotels, etc., can discriminate based on gender? If "being gay" isn't a choice but an indelible characteristic of a person, isn't also a person's sex? Would we today expect a gay person to deny their sexuality to avoid "offending" others' sensibilities? Obviously, based on this ruling, no. So why does the law still support gender discrimination in situations arguably more significant in an ongoing sense, like access to hotel rooms, gyms, etc.? I am sure the baker had the same argument today's feminists who support single-sex facilities and women-only goodies do: gay couples can always go to another bakery, while feminists say men can always go to a different gym. Excerpt:

'DENVER (AP/CBS4) – A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.
...
“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”
...
“But treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination, plain and simple,” she said.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

You are right, Matt. This ruling is inconsistent with so many other aspects of the law, which recognize that private businesses can determine who their clientele shall be. If your local gym can choose not to offer its services to men, why can't a baker decide not to create a wedding cake for a homosexual union?

As it happens, I think that both the baker, and the gym, are wrong to discriminate. But, if it's legal for one, it should be legal for the other.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by StayingFit on Tue, 2013-12-10 08:56

It's a question of heads feminism wins and tails everybody else loses.One part of feminism tells us that
being gay is biological,they will tell us that when it suits,another part,probably the largest part,will tell us it's sociological or how we were bought up.
They can therefore argue either way and still be right.
Nobody yet has been able to pin them down to one belief.
The question remains as to whether or not a gay person can share the gym with women or why it is that gays
want to muscle in on heterosexual events by arguing their case but are not quite so militant when it is the female who discriminates.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by saracen395 on Tue, 2013-12-10 17:36

I'd like to share an extension of Matt's argument.

I remember once reading about how the organizers of the Lilith fair once wanted to exclude men. The problematic issue they faced was how to handle male to female transgendered people. They discussed whether such men really understood women -- whether they could understand the female experience. In fact, as a faculty member, I would often read about whether male to female transgendered were fundamentally men and therefore could not understand the female experience.

Now, cut to Chaz Bono: you just try to raise the question whether "it" can understand being a man. You get cut off (almost literally). Men are expected to accept that Chaz Bono understands what it is like to be a man. This means Chaz (a.k.a.: "it") understands puberty, the growing of facial hair, the body's infusion of testosterone, the first night emission, the anxiety/excitement over jacking off.

In a nutshell -- so to speak -- the basic argument of the lesbian/feminist community is that men are simple and we should expect that Chaz Bono knows what it means to be a man, but women are complex and male to female transgendered have no idea what it is like to be a woman.

I have always rejected that Chaz Bono is a man. I do not want to deny them rights. They are people. But they are not men. They are something else; something neither good nor bad --- just something else.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Tue, 2013-12-10 17:55