Christians Kicked Out of Coffee Shop By Gay Owner

[DBTrek]

I think you have to serve black people, yeah.
Even if you find them repugnant.
Muslims too.

I don't think anyone can force you to provide a service you don't provide though.

But . . . that leaves the door open for people to say things like "I bake cakes, but not for blacks" - which violates my belief that you can't use demographics to cut an entire sectors of people out of the market.

So as much as you think you have some tidy, moral, correct answer, you don't. You heavily side with "free association" which opens the door to not serving blacks/jews/hispanics/gays/whoever. The other side of the coin sees the state using coercive force to make devout Christians doodle butt sex on top of cakes.

There is no easy, right answer - otherwise we would've solved it by now.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is nothing about being black that makes a moral distinction, though. Even in the case of politics and religion, most of the time, just serving somebody you don't like makes no moral distinction at all. We are talking here about participating in something that does in fact make such a distinction: in this case, the owner does not want to facilitate the propagation of these abolition flyers.

[DBTrek]

Sure, but the kids weren't handing flyers out in his shop. They were handing fliers out in the street, but ceased that activity within the shop. The guy found a flier outside. He took the flier from outside into his shop and booted a bunch of kids that were drinking coffee. They weren't asking him to help hand out fliers. They weren't giving him or his customers fliers. They were just paying customers, chilling with some coffee. If they had lied, and said "Nah, we're not the group handing those fliers out" what would he have done?

Their offense was admitting that they had participated in an activity he did not agree with outside of his shop.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sure, but the kids weren't handing flyers out in his shop. They were handing fliers out in the street, but ceased that activity within the shop. The guy found a flier outside. He took the flier from outside into his shop and booted a bunch of kids that were drinking coffee. They weren't asking him to help hand out fliers. They weren't giving him or his customers fliers. They were just paying customers, chilling with some coffee. If they had lied, and said "Nah, we're not the group handing those fliers out" what would he have done?

Their offense was admitting that they had participated in an activity he did not agree with outside of his shop.

They were using his coffee shop to host a meeting about distributing those flyers. His property was being used to carry out a campaign he found morally repugnant. He had every right to refuse service for that.

[Dand]

Sure, but the kids weren't handing flyers out in his shop. They were handing fliers out in the street, but ceased that activity within the shop. The guy found a flier outside. He took the flier from outside into his shop and booted a bunch of kids that were drinking coffee. They weren't asking him to help hand out fliers. They weren't giving him or his customers fliers. They were just paying customers, chilling with some coffee. If they had lied, and said "Nah, we're not the group handing those fliers out" what would he have done?

Their offense was admitting that they had participated in an activity he did not agree with outside of his shop.

They were using his coffee shop to host a meeting about distributing those flyers. His property was being used to carry out a campaign he found morally repugnant. He had every right to refuse service for that.

Where is that in the evidence? The owner even says that the flier came from outside and he says nothing about the pro-life people handing out fliers or soliciting people in the coffee house.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sure, but the kids weren't handing flyers out in his shop. They were handing fliers out in the street, but ceased that activity within the shop. The guy found a flier outside. He took the flier from outside into his shop and booted a bunch of kids that were drinking coffee. They weren't asking him to help hand out fliers. They weren't giving him or his customers fliers. They were just paying customers, chilling with some coffee. If they had lied, and said "Nah, we're not the group handing those fliers out" what would he have done?

Their offense was admitting that they had participated in an activity he did not agree with outside of his shop.

They were using his coffee shop to host a meeting about distributing those flyers. His property was being used to carry out a campaign he found morally repugnant. He had every right to refuse service for that.

Where is that in the evidence? The owner even says that the flier came from outside.

It's on the video. They were using his shop to discuss the campaign. The shop is apparently an old home or something, and there was a room they were occupying.

[Fife]

Sure, but the kids weren't handing flyers out in his shop. They were handing fliers out in the street, but ceased that activity within the shop. The guy found a flier outside. He took the flier from outside into his shop and booted a bunch of kids that were drinking coffee. They weren't asking him to help hand out fliers. They weren't giving him or his customers fliers. They were just paying customers, chilling with some coffee. If they had lied, and said "Nah, we're not the group handing those fliers out" what would he have done?

Their offense was admitting that they had participated in an activity he did not agree with outside of his shop.

Would the analysis change if one or more of the kids was wearing a shirt with the same message as the flyer inside the store? Nothing more than that; just wearing a particular shirt.

[DBTrek]

They were using his coffee shop to host a meeting about distributing those flyers. His property was being used to carry out a campaign he found morally repugnant. He had every right to refuse service for that.

Eh . . . maybe. If they were holding a meeting I could see that. I don't know that they were, but I don't think it's a stretch to say you shouldn't force black owned cafes to host meetings of the KKK, or patriotic shop owners to hots meetings of La Raza.

[K@th]

HI Kath, how's it going?

It's going great! I see not much has changed around here. You guys are stuck in a rut.

[K@th]

I believe in the case before the supreme court the baker said he'd sell a cake to homosexual couples, he simply wouldn't decorate it with homosexual themed decorations.

In which case the bakes isn't even saying he won't serve them, he's simply saying they can't force him to write stuff he doesn't agree with.

No, that's not the case. They were already customers and he had no issue selling them baked goods. He just refused to make a wedding cake. They didn't want the cake to say, "Go Gays!"