Restaurant denies Christian group service over its anti-abortion and LGBTQ stances

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the biggest discrimination I have ever seen.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/metzger-restaurant-cancels-reservation-for-christian-family-foundation/

Can you imagine being denied service like this? Who else has ever been treated this badly?

LET ME MAKE MY SELF CLEAR

DON'T CARE

and we see you as a racist, anti semite sub human.

Fixed it for you.

The "christian family foundation" is full of Pedos and groomers.

And just like the cake baker or website maker what goes around comes around. You support that right???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You mean only Christian fundamentalists are allowed to discriminate when a gay couple wants a cake made for their wedding?

thank you well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well either it's always wrong, or it's always OK. Which is it?

Can restaurants refuse service to conservative Christians AND graphic designers refuse to make websites for gay couples?

I say no. Neither should be allowed. I think both examples set awful precedents.

I don't want to live in a country where when I enter. store or a restaurant people can refuse me service b/c my child is trans or I am Jewish.

That means I have to be willing to serve/accommodate people with whom I disagree.

It's being part of a multicultural pluralistic society.

I'm fine with people who have Nazi or Nazi adjacent views being refused service

+1

[Anonymous]

The restaurant is appropriately named.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Political views aren't protected.

So are we now at the point where Republicans can discriminate against Democrats and Democrats discriminate against Republicans? This is insanity.

Just say you don't understand discrimination laws.

Right? We were always at the point where that could happen. Because political party isn't a protected class.

But religion is. And whether the religious beliefs are right or wrong, it’s protected. There are other religious groups besides Christians who hold anti-LGBTQ and anti abortion views. I see this as an incredibly scary slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Political views aren't protected.

So are we now at the point where Republicans can discriminate against Democrats and Democrats discriminate against Republicans? This is insanity.

Just say you don't understand discrimination laws.

Right? We were always at the point where that could happen. Because political party isn't a protected class.

But religion is. And whether the religious beliefs are right or wrong, it’s protected. There are other religious groups besides Christians who hold anti-LGBTQ and anti abortion views. I see this as an incredibly scary slippery slope.

Eh, my religious beliefs require me to oppose bigotry and injustice and to stand up for the vulnerable. Serving or forcing my employees to serve an organization who works to deny them rights violates my religion. How can you expect me to violate my religious beliefs? It's not just "conservatives" who have religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean only Christian fundamentalists are allowed to discriminate when a gay couple wants a cake made for their wedding?

Identical situations. I'm a Christian (who support gay marriage) and think both are wrong. Not baking that cake was like not serving black people back in the day.

Agreed. And I know it's not pleasant to create art/products for groups you don't agree with. But we really need to learn to get along.

[Anonymous]

There’s a difference between WHO and WHAT.

A baker should not refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple.
A restaurant should not refuse standard restaurant service to a religious group.

A baker should be able to refuse a specific commission for a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
A restaurant should be able to refuse a specific commission for catering an event thrown by a Christian group to support anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ stances.

In general, no one should be refused general services based on who they are (although there be cases where restrictions are necessary - ex. minimum age requirement for signing contracts, drinking, etc). However, no one has the right to command another to provide a specific, customized, service that the provider finds repugnant.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court ruled that the bakery didn’t have to serve gay customers. So that means a restaurant doesn’t have to serve anti-gay customers either.

[Anonymous]

in MD Not your Average Joe's in Bethesda denied a planned parenthood meeting, a naral meeting..

No different than this.

And I as a consumer get to choose whether I would buy anything from these establishments.

Works both ways OP you are clearly a racist anti semite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Political views aren't protected.

So are we now at the point where Republicans can discriminate against Democrats and Democrats discriminate against Republicans? This is insanity.

That’s not “discrimination”.

Political views were never protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well either it's always wrong, or it's always OK. Which is it?

Can restaurants refuse service to conservative Christians AND graphic designers refuse to make websites for gay couples?

I say no. Neither should be allowed. I think both examples set awful precedents.

I don't want to live in a country where when I enter. store or a restaurant people can refuse me service b/c my child is trans or I am Jewish.

That means I have to be willing to serve/accommodate people with whom I disagree.

It's being part of a multicultural pluralistic society.

Ah, the paradox of tolerance. We have to tolerate bigots and white supremacists and misogynists because otherwise they won't tolerate Jews and transpeople.

Yes, it is the paradox of tolerance. As a Jew, I prefer to err on the side of serving the occasional Nazi. I really don't believe there are that many Nazis in the U.S. to begin with, and it is a very slippery slope when business owners get to decide who they want to serve or not.

Yes it can be uncomfortable at times, but I will take that over the country devolving on tribal lines like Lebanon or other countries where interaction between different political and religious groups is not done at all.

I guess I am still an old fashioned liberal in that I believe bigots will be better served (no pun intended) by exposure to a multicultural society than they will by siloing themselves away. My goal is to change hearts and minds, and if not, then at least create a culture of respect and tolerance.

Ok. So go open your Nazi-welcoming restaurant.

The rest of us will decline to serve Nazis because they aren’t a protected class.

[Anonymous]

This is my favorite part of the article:

She compared the experience — and today's cultural climate — to "the 1950s and early 60s, when people were denied food service due to their race."

Um, no. Not quite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Political views aren't protected.

They are but in just a few states and DC. They are not protected in the state where this incident took place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well either it's always wrong, or it's always OK. Which is it?

Can restaurants refuse service to conservative Christians AND graphic designers refuse to make websites for gay couples?

I say no. Neither should be allowed. I think both examples set awful precedents.

I don't want to live in a country where when I enter. store or a restaurant people can refuse me service b/c my child is trans or I am Jewish.

That means I have to be willing to serve/accommodate people with whom I disagree.

It's being part of a multicultural pluralistic society.

I'm fine with people who have Nazi or Nazi adjacent views being refused service

I agree with the original PP of this thread. I'm black and would rather a society where I am forced to serve a racist vs the other option of people choosing who they want to serve. I think I'd rather a society of inclusiveness vs intolerance.