Anonymous wrote:This thread is so dumb.

The gay wedding cake case was specifically decided on the merits of freedom of speech, under a conservative supreme court. It is the current law of the land. You cannot discriminate against gay persons because they are a protected class, unless you can point to a compelling reason. For instance, age is a (lower) protected class, and there are compelling reasons to discriminate against minors (minimum ages for voting, alcohol, guns). The cake case was decided on different grounds altogether, and the baker's freedom of expression constitutional rights outweighed the customers' (limited) rights as a protected class.

Race, however, is a 'higher' protected class than gender/orientation. You can't discriminate on race/ethnicity unless you have a crazy important reason to do so. Having a safe crafting space is not one such reason.

That's why the cases are different.

So what does it mean in practice? A crafting space cannot offer a class that excludes a race. Here, the advert language suggests the class is closed to persons not of that race. (class is "for" races xyz). Of course, in practice i'm sure if you called and said i'm not race xyz and would like to attend, they wouldn't stop you, even though it's not what they contemplated when they designed the class. The question is whether the actual advert language has a chilling effect such that no one other than those races feels like they'd be welcome. Like, if the country club with "no blacks" sign had a black person apply and the club let them in, does that mean the country club is not being unconstitutional? I'd say no, that the sign alone is not acceptable because it's stating their policy, even if they back off in practice.

The advert would be better phrased to say "Who would benefit from this class? Persons of xyz race". That's why people use that language all the time.

Ultimately, i think the class advert is unconstitutional and not okay, that the class really doesn't have much interest in persons not of that class attending, and the actual language of the advert will prevent any persons not of those races from attending. So the company gets what they intended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a crafting class. They offer several courses, but one of the classes specifically says it is “for black, indigenous, and people of color.”

Are they covered because they are offering the same class that is open to all races?

I bet it doesn't say "only" for those groups. Just that it's geared to them. That's fine, and anyone can attend. That's what religious schools do, HBCUs, etc. Feel free to attend.

Anonymous wrote:It’s a crafting class. They offer several courses, but one of the classes specifically says it is “for black, indigenous, and people of color.”

Are they covered because they are offering the same class that is open to all races?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this part of a school or just some rando offering classes in her business? Because a business is allowed to offer products to whomever they want.

It is a brick and mortar business, it’s been around for a long long time.

Then yes, they are totally allowed to do that.

I’m honestly surprised.

Remember the case when the bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? The Supreme Court said that was ok.

Homosexuality isn't a race.

It’s a sexual orientation, which is also a protected class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so dumb.

The gay wedding cake case was specifically decided on the merits of freedom of speech, under a conservative supreme court. It is the current law of the land. You cannot discriminate against gay persons because they are a protected class, unless you can point to a compelling reason. For instance, age is a (lower) protected class, and there are compelling reasons to discriminate against minors (minimum ages for voting, alcohol, guns). The cake case was decided on different grounds altogether, and the baker's freedom of expression constitutional rights outweighed the customers' (limited) rights as a protected class.

Race, however, is a 'higher' protected class than gender/orientation. You can't discriminate on race/ethnicity unless you have a crazy important reason to do so. Having a safe crafting space is not one such reason.

That's why the cases are different.

So what does it mean in practice? A crafting space cannot offer a class that excludes a race. Here, the advert language suggests the class is closed to persons not of that race. (class is "for" races xyz). Of course, in practice i'm sure if you called and said i'm not race xyz and would like to attend, they wouldn't stop you, even though it's not what they contemplated when they designed the class. The question is whether the actual advert language has a chilling effect such that no one other than those races feels like they'd be welcome. Like, if the country club with "no blacks" sign had a black person apply and the club let them in, does that mean the country club is not being unconstitutional? I'd say no, that the sign alone is not acceptable because it's stating their policy, even if they back off in practice.

The advert would be better phrased to say "Who would benefit from this class? Persons of xyz race". That's why people use that language all the time.

Ultimately, i think the class advert is unconstitutional and not okay, that the class really doesn't have much interest in persons not of that class attending, and the actual language of the advert will prevent any persons not of those races from attending. So the company gets what they intended.

This is a very good analysis.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so dumb.

The gay wedding cake case was specifically decided on the merits of freedom of speech, under a conservative supreme court. It is the current law of the land. You cannot discriminate against gay persons because they are a protected class, unless you can point to a compelling reason. For instance, age is a (lower) protected class, and there are compelling reasons to discriminate against minors (minimum ages for voting, alcohol, guns). The cake case was decided on different grounds altogether, and the baker's freedom of expression constitutional rights outweighed the customers' (limited) rights as a protected class.

Race, however, is a 'higher' protected class than gender/orientation. You can't discriminate on race/ethnicity unless you have a crazy important reason to do so. Having a safe crafting space is not one such reason.

That's why the cases are different.

So what does it mean in practice? A crafting space cannot offer a class that excludes a race. Here, the advert language suggests the class is closed to persons not of that race. (class is "for" races xyz). Of course, in practice i'm sure if you called and said i'm not race xyz and would like to attend, they wouldn't stop you, even though it's not what they contemplated when they designed the class. The question is whether the actual advert language has a chilling effect such that no one other than those races feels like they'd be welcome. Like, if the country club with "no blacks" sign had a black person apply and the club let them in, does that mean the country club is not being unconstitutional? I'd say no, that the sign alone is not acceptable because it's stating their policy, even if they back off in practice.

The advert would be better phrased to say "Who would benefit from this class? Persons of xyz race". That's why people use that language all the time.

Ultimately, i think the class advert is unconstitutional and not okay, that the class really doesn't have much interest in persons not of that class attending, and the actual language of the advert will prevent any persons not of those races from attending. So the company gets what they intended.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so dumb.

The gay wedding cake case was specifically decided on the merits of freedom of speech, under a conservative supreme court. It is the current law of the land. You cannot discriminate against gay persons because they are a protected class, unless you can point to a compelling reason. For instance, age is a (lower) protected class, and there are compelling reasons to discriminate against minors (minimum ages for voting, alcohol, guns). The cake case was decided on different grounds altogether, and the baker's freedom of expression constitutional rights outweighed the customers' (limited) rights as a protected class.

Race, however, is a 'higher' protected class than gender/orientation. You can't discriminate on race/ethnicity unless you have a crazy important reason to do so. Having a safe crafting space is not one such reason.

That's why the cases are different.

So what does it mean in practice? A crafting space cannot offer a class that excludes a race. Here, the advert language suggests the class is closed to persons not of that race. (class is "for" races xyz). Of course, in practice i'm sure if you called and said i'm not race xyz and would like to attend, they wouldn't stop you, even though it's not what they contemplated when they designed the class. The question is whether the actual advert language has a chilling effect such that no one other than those races feels like they'd be welcome. Like, if the country club with "no blacks" sign had a black person apply and the club let them in, does that mean the country club is not being unconstitutional? I'd say no, that the sign alone is not acceptable because it's stating their policy, even if they back off in practice.

The advert would be better phrased to say "Who would benefit from this class? Persons of xyz race". That's why people use that language all the time.

Ultimately, i think the class advert is unconstitutional and not okay, that the class really doesn't have much interest in persons not of that class attending, and the actual language of the advert will prevent any persons not of those races from attending. So the company gets what they intended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this part of a school or just some rando offering classes in her business? Because a business is allowed to offer products to whomever they want.

It is a brick and mortar business, it’s been around for a long long time.

Then yes, they are totally allowed to do that.

I’m honestly surprised.

Remember the case when the bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? The Supreme Court said that was ok.

Homosexuality isn't a race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this part of a school or just some rando offering classes in her business? Because a business is allowed to offer products to whomever they want.

It is a brick and mortar business, it’s been around for a long long time.

Then yes, they are totally allowed to do that.

I’m honestly surprised.

Remember the case when the bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? The Supreme Court said that was ok.

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so dumb.

The gay wedding cake case was specifically decided on the merits of freedom of speech, under a conservative supreme court. It is the current law of the land. You cannot discriminate against gay persons because they are a protected class, unless you can point to a compelling reason. For instance, age is a (lower) protected class, and there are compelling reasons to discriminate against minors (minimum ages for voting, alcohol, guns). The cake case was decided on different grounds altogether, and the baker's freedom of expression constitutional rights outweighed the customers' (limited) rights as a protected class.

Race, however, is a 'higher' protected class than gender/orientation. You can't discriminate on race/ethnicity unless you have a crazy important reason to do so. Having a safe crafting space is not one such reason.

That's why the cases are different.

So what does it mean in practice? A crafting space cannot offer a class that excludes a race. Here, the advert language suggests the class is closed to persons not of that race. (class is "for" races xyz). Of course, in practice i'm sure if you called and said i'm not race xyz and would like to attend, they wouldn't stop you, even though it's not what they contemplated when they designed the class. The question is whether the actual advert language has a chilling effect such that no one other than those races feels like they'd be welcome. Like, if the country club with "no blacks" sign had a black person apply and the club let them in, does that mean the country club is not being unconstitutional? I'd say no, that the sign alone is not acceptable because it's stating their policy, even if they back off in practice.

The advert would be better phrased to say "Who would benefit from this class? Persons of xyz race". That's why people use that language all the time.

Ultimately, i think the class advert is unconstitutional and not okay, that the class really doesn't have much interest in persons not of that class attending, and the actual language of the advert will prevent any persons not of those races from attending. So the company gets what they intended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not legal, I'm surprised by the number of people who think it is. Businesses that offer services to the general public cannot deny services to a customer based on his or her race. The bakery/gay customer case is a different issue, I won't bore anyone with specifics.

No, please do bore us with the specifics. I want to know how it is different,

The baker claimed it violated her free speech and freedom of religion rights because the baking of a cake was “expression”. It’s bonkers.

And the gay couple did not want a message written on their cake. They wanted a wedding cake. The baker said making a cake for a same-sex wedding violated her religion.

But they also didn't just want a basic cake that was readily available to any and all marrying couples.

All wedding cakes are custom/made to order. The couple never even discussed the details of the design they wanted; the owner simply refused to make a wedding cake for gay people.

The couple wasn't even real, they were agitators who specifically targeted this baker. I wouldn't bake for them either.

After the wedding cake ruling didn't they try to harass the baker for a trans cake?

A different person ordered a pink cake with blue frosting. The baker agreed to make it, but then refused upon being told it was for a gender-transition party. So again, nothing about the cake itself bothered him, he just didn't think transgender people should exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not legal, I'm surprised by the number of people who think it is. Businesses that offer services to the general public cannot deny services to a customer based on his or her race. The bakery/gay customer case is a different issue, I won't bore anyone with specifics.

No, please do bore us with the specifics. I want to know how it is different,

The baker claimed it violated her free speech and freedom of religion rights because the baking of a cake was “expression”. It’s bonkers.

And the gay couple did not want a message written on their cake. They wanted a wedding cake. The baker said making a cake for a same-sex wedding violated her religion.

But they also didn't just want a basic cake that was readily available to any and all marrying couples.

All wedding cakes are custom/made to order. The couple never even discussed the details of the design they wanted; the owner simply refused to make a wedding cake for gay people.

The couple wasn't even real, they were agitators who specifically targeted this baker. I wouldn't bake for them either.

After the wedding cake ruling didn't they try to harass the baker for a trans cake?