Sunday, October 08, 2017

Christian activists kicked out of a Seattle coffee shop

Here. 

33 comments:

Joe Hinman said...

wasimgton times is right wing paper owned by the moonies, they really are fake news,

Legion of Logic said...

I just watched the video. Which part was fake?

Joe Hinman said...

couldn't get it to play but I'm betting we not getting full context

Legion of Logic said...

I suspect the Christians were baiting him but the things he was quoted as saying, he did say. Neither party came out looking good.

Victor Reppert said...

I think the right wing source of this story doesn't invalidate it. But further investigation is needed to explain what happened. Still, isn't religion a protected class? Can you imagine what would have happened if the owners of the coffee shop had refused a Muslim. As you know, the Qur'an prescribes the executions of homosexuals. (Actually, it's in Leviticus as well, but Christians do not teach that the OT law should be imposed on the Church, much less the state).

Stardusty Psyche said...

Public accommodations means if you get a license to operate a public service business you have to serve the whole public.

You can establish a dress code, you can bar solicitations, you can remove people for disruptive behavior, but you cannot refuse to serve people just because you don't like their race, sex, religion, outside political speech, or sexual orientation. The fact that it is your business is irrelevant. You operate that business under license and public regulatory laws apply.

Hal said...

Victor,
Still, isn't religion a protected class?

The one's kicked out were involved in anti-abortion activities. That was offensive to the cafe owner. Being Christian does not grant one a license to do anything they want without consequences.


Actually, it's in Leviticus as well, but Christians do not teach that the OT law should be imposed on the Church, much less the state

Wish that were true. Some of them certainly want to impose those OT laws that are also found in the NT on non-believers. Am thinking of Roy Moore and his followers.

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Hal said.. October 08, 2017 1:24 PM.

Victor,
" Still, isn't religion a protected class?"
--Yes, in terms of being protected from discrimination simply for holding certain beliefs or for expressing them outside a public accommodation.


" The one's kicked out were involved in anti-abortion activities. That was offensive to the cafe owner."
--Too bad for the cafe owner. If the anti-abortion activities took place outside the cafe and the individuals simply came in to buy whatever was on the menu they must be served under the law.

The owner's feelings about their views or outside activities are irrelevant.

" Being Christian does not grant one a license to do anything they want without consequences."
--The public accommodations law codifies the right to be served in a public accommodation even when the owner has negative feelings about what you say outside of that business.

Hal said...

SP,
They were displaying leaflets from their anti-abortion activites in the cafe. If you watch the video you can see the owner holding one of those leaflets.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said..
October 08, 2017 1:53 PM.

" SP,
They were displaying leaflets from their anti-abortion activites in the cafe. If you watch the video you can see the owner holding one of those leaflets."
--The leaflet "came from outside the store".
0:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtAvYTfLmAg


There is no indication it was being displayed by the Christians inside the cafe.

Hal said...

SP,
Thanks for the updated info. I had missed the remark about the leaflet comming from outside the cafe. Doesn't really help your case though:

The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The people thrown out admitted to using the leaflets. As long as the owner is consistent in only barring those he knows to be supporting anti-abortion activities he is in his right to do so.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said...

SP,
Thanks for the updated info. I had missed the remark about the leaflet comming from outside the cafe. Doesn't really help your case though:

The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

" The people thrown out admitted to using the leaflets. As long as the owner is consistent in only barring those he knows to be supporting anti-abortion activities he is in his right to do so."
--Huh? You are confused. You just cited the summary of the law, yet you think somehow discrimination is legal.

A cafe is a sort of restaurant. It's right there on the list.

This is the USA. We have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religions, and the right to be served in a public accommodation.

Business owners often think they can do anything they want. They are wrong. They must operate under the law.

Hal said...

SP,
Yes a cafe is a place of public accommodation. A place of public accommodation cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. .

You seem to think we have a basic right of access to places of public accommodation. We don't. We have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of our religion, race, color or national origin.

Legion of Logic said...

What Hal is saying is that I can't toss you out because you're an atheist, but I can toss you out for being a Democrat.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 08, 2017 4:17 PM.

SP,
Yes a cafe is a place of public accommodation. A place of public accommodation cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. .

" You seem to think we have a basic right of access to places of public accommodation. We don't."
--Wrong, try again.

" We have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of our religion, race, color or national origin."
--How absurd. I don't like brown hair people, and hair color is not on the list, so I can discriminate all I want against brown hair people.

Get a clue. Start by reading the 14th amendment and then learn what the term "civil rights" means.

Victor Reppert said...

Actually you can discriminate because of sexual orientation if sexual orientation is not a protected class. It is not in Arizona. Strangely enough our state tried to pass a religious freedom law to keep cases like the New Mexico photographer case from arising, not realizing that they couldn't possibly arise in Arizona because sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Joe Hinman said...

Victor Reppert said...
I think the right wing source of this story doesn't invalidate it. But further investigation is needed to explain what happened. Still, isn't religion a protected class? Can you imagine what would have happened if the owners of the coffee shop had refused a Muslim. As you know, the Qur'an prescribes the executions of homosexuals. (Actually, it's in Leviticus as well, but Christians do not teach that the OT law should be imposed on the Church, much less the state).

I think Muslims have similar "outs" or 'king's x' for their stuff in their sacred book that tey can;t bear, like we do. Most Christians don't; go into a panaic if you wear a blend of two fabrics,

Joe Hinman said...

Hal said...
Victor,
Still, isn't religion a protected class?

The one's kicked out were involved in anti-abortion activities. That was offensive to the cafe owner. Being Christian does not grant one a license to do anything they want without consequences.

actually what Dusty said applies here that's not the kind of thing you can turn people away for, you can't say I don't like you politics I wont serve you,

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Public accommodations means if you get a license to operate a public service business you have to serve the whole public.

You can establish a dress code, you can bar solicitations, you can remove people for disruptive behavior, but you cannot refuse to serve people just because you don't like their race, sex, religion, outside political speech, or sexual orientation. The fact that it is your business is irrelevant. You operate that business under license and public regulatory laws apply.

well said Dusty, and all the analysis you give on 64 act. excellent

Hal said...

Joe,
actually what Dusty said applies here that's not the kind of thing you can turn people away for, you can't say I don't like you politics I wont serve you,

The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

Do you see anything in that Act that protects one from discrimination for their political beliefs? I don't.

Victor mentioned that some states have extended the federal protection to sexual orientation.

I'm not aware of any federal or state laws protecting one from discrimination for their political beliefs. Can you provide some info in that regard?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Victor Reppert said.. October 08, 2017 9:31 PM.

" Actually you can discriminate because of sexual orientation if sexual orientation is not a protected class. It is not in Arizona. Strangely enough our state tried to pass a religious freedom law to keep cases like the New Mexico photographer case from arising, not realizing that they couldn't possibly arise in Arizona because sexual orientation is not a protected class."
--The 14th amendment applies to everybody.

Equal protection under the law is a civil right. One does not need to be a part of an enumerated list to be covered by the 14th amendment.

Suppose I don't like left handed people, they just bother me.
I own a lunch counter. Whenever a left handed person comes in I say "get out, I don't serve your kind here".
One such person doesn't like that and sues me for violation of his civil rights.
He wins, I lose.






Hal said...

SP,
He will lose unless he can link that discrimination with his race, color, religion or national origin.
It would be financially foolish for you to turn away left handed people but not a violation of the US law.


Why do you think that the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 had to be passed?

Victor Reppert said...

This is an interesting issue. What if I set up a catering service to provide catering to Bar Mitzvahs. Would I be discriminating against non-Jews if I did that? After all, I would be willing to cater anyone's Bar Mitzvah, whether or not they were Jewish.

Are Christian bookstores discriminating against nonbelievers because their stores carry only Christian-oriented books? Could an atheist sue Lifeway Christian Stores because they refused to special-order The God Delusion?

If one were to open up a Christian bake shop, or a Christian flower shop, could one then refuse to serve a gay wedding? If you define your product sufficiently, could you avoid the discrimination charge? What we sell, you might state, are Christian-compatible flower arrangements or wedding cakes. Anyone, gay or not, can get a Christian-compatible flower arrangement or wedding cake. How is this different from having a Christian bookstore or a Bar Mitzvah catering service.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 09, 2017 7:12 AM.

" Why do you think that the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 had to be passed?"
--Because a half a century ago the 14th amendment was not being correctly applied.

A great deal has happened since then. Equal protection under the law is very broadly interpreted now. It wasn't then.

That was 1964. You are in serious need of an update to the 21st century.

Hal said...

SP,
Until you show me a law or court ruling that substantiates your claim that an owner of a cafe can’t discriminate based only on a person’s political beliefs, I see no reason for accepting your claim. It can’t be a case in which that discrimination was shown to be based on race, color, religion or national origin.

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Victor Reppert said.. October 09, 2017 6:14 PM.

" This is an interesting issue. What if I set up a catering service to provide catering to Bar Mitzvahs. Would I be discriminating against non-Jews if I did that?"
--Businesses are allowed to specialize, but not discriminate. At some point some judge has to decide the dividing line between the two. That judgement shifts over time in a somewhat analogous way that the judgement of what is and is not pornographic has shifted over time absent a foolproof definition of what, precisely, is and is not pornography.

We need not be paralyzed into inaction regarding black and white just because gray is hard to classify.

" After all, I would be willing to cater anyone's Bar Mitzvah, whether or not they were Jewish."
--Indeed. If you specialize in Jewish ceremonies you cannot be forced to perform Japanese ceremonies.

" If you define your product sufficiently, could you avoid the discrimination charge? What we sell, you might state, are Christian-compatible flower arrangements or wedding cakes."
--We shall see if the court can fashion some language to guide the line between legitimate specialization and illegitimate discrimination.

Joe Hinman said...

tober 09, 2017 12:52 AM Delete
Blogger Hal said...
Joe,
actually what Dusty said applies here that's not the kind of thing you can turn people away for, you can't say I don't like you politics I wont serve you,

The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

Do you see anything in that Act that protects one from discrimination for their political beliefs? I don't.

yes I think you could extend it to politics as part of freeom of speech, but you have a poimnt here;s an aritlce about it


here

Hal said...

Joe,

Thanks for tha article. Interestingly, Seattle is one of the two cities listed as prohibiting political discrimination. So I will have to retract my claims regarding the situation under discussion: the ant-abortion activists would have a legal basis for taking the cafe owner to court.

Hal said...

Joe,
yes I think you could extend it to politics as part of freedom of speech

I agree that another civil rights law could be passed to prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs. I was not taking a position on that issue. My concern was with current law.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 10, 2017 5:33 AM.

Joe,
yes I think you could extend it to politics as part of freedom of speech

" I agree that another civil rights law could be passed to prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs. I was not taking a position on that issue. My concern was with current law."

This is our current law:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is part of our supreme law. Not all countries have a constitution. Here in the USA we do.

Our supreme law takes precedence over any legislation, policy, executive order, or lower court ruling.

Our supreme law is fully in force in the absence of any legislation, policy, executive order, or lower court ruling.

Here is a bit of language from a recent discrimination ruling:
Obergefell v. Hodges, “[u]nder the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause . . . extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”

The world has moved on since 1964. We do not need an itemized list of certain protected classes such that anybody not on the list can be deprived of "The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause"

We have moved into an era where the supreme court of the USA has written "The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause . . . extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”

In our personal sensibilities we all feel this is right and just. Very fortunately for we Americans we live in a nation that has a supreme law that codifies these sensibilities.

We shall see how the court rules in Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop. So far Masterpiece Cakeshop has lost at every turn. I suppose there is some chance they will be able to successfully argue artistic specialization, but that would not undermine my contention that discrimination purely because of personal beliefs is in fact illegal. Let's hope the language the court chooses makes the distinction abundantly clear.





If you own a public accommodation
and you refuse service to people purely because they hold a particular political belief be prepared to be sued for violation of civil rights and lose.

Victor Reppert said...

A lot of people don't see this as right and just, they see it as judicial activism.

oozzielionel said...

It seems that there is an attempt at a distinction between refusing service to a person and declining to perform a specific service. Masterpiece will sell any cake to any person. However, he will not create certain cakes (Halloween, erotic, same sex weddings). Refusing to sell specific products is different than refusing to serve specific people. On the face it is defensible. However, it may be possible to orient your product offerings in such a way that effectively and purposely eliminates a specific clientele. In most cases this is simple market segmentation. It may break across protected class lines. A clothing store may select product lines specific to ethnic or religious preferences. A book store can select titles favorable to one religion and refuse to care those contrary. Masterpiece Bakery has a viable argument.

Victor Reppert said...

That is just the point I was trying to make when I presented the Bar Mitzvah argument. Does Lifeway stores discriminate against atheists by not selling The God Delusion? Of course they will sell a copy of Mere Christianity to any atheist who walks in the door. If a Masterpiece were to tell the gay couple "Sure, we'll bake you a cake. We just refuse to put anything on the cake that indicates that you are a same-sex couple." are they discriminating?

In some cases I think wedding service providers can begin not with refusal but by unrecommending themselves, such as in the case of wedding photography. "It's not that we won't do it, it's just that we need to let you know we're against gay marriage, and think that someone who believes in gay marriage would do a better job." Is THAT discrimination, or just honesty?