What scares the f*ck out of you?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by glatt

The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people. But don't get hung up on Apple. Pretend the lucrative client is ChickFilA.

To me it comes down to a question of "type of business" vs. "type of customer."

In my ideal world, you can say "we don't do that type of business," as long as you are consistent in that. You can't say "we don't want business from you personally" if you have performed that exact business with a different customer.

Or in the case of wedding cakes, you can say, "I don't put two brides or two grooms on top of my cakes," but you can't say "I won't bake you a cake identical to other cakes I have baked for other customers."

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

To me it comes down to a question of "type of business" vs. "type of customer."
<snip>
Or in the case of wedding cakes, you can say, "I don't put two brides or two grooms on top of my cakes,"
but you can't say "I won't bake you a cake identical to other cakes I have baked for other customers."

Clod, I do agree with your arguments , but then came your last example...

Had you said "We are a cake business. We don't do pies" = OK

But for wedding cake businesses, traditionally, their customers
want and have had a say in how their cakes are decorated.

So now it's back on shaky ground.
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ?
What is the argument ?

The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?

It seems (to me) the "wedding cake", "photographer", etc. situations are
only contrivances to divert attention away from "what" the business does....
It engages in commerce to serve the public.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.

Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ? What is the argument ?

Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha

Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?

"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?

That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.

If your religious beliefs keep you from treating your customers equally,
don't get a business license to do commerce with the public.

( Some people don't believe in paying taxes ... Ask the IRS how that's working for them. )

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?.

Of course the business owner objects, for Christ's sake, why the fuck would the customer object to their own request? You do realize it's the customer that makes the request for a cake, right?

That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.

OK, so you draw the line according to the customer's request? Or you can't refuse any request? If they can refuse, and don't give a reason, how do you claim it was because of religion or because the customer belongs to a group?

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, but if you did it, you're still guilty as a motherfucker.

[Lamplighter]

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, ...

Look closer... we're saying the same thing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No we are not. No matter how many Shapiros, Cochrans, Baileys, Dershowitzs, Kardashians, or Archies you can afford, if you did it you're fucking guilty.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

<snip>

The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?

...It engages in commerce to serve the public.

Oregon law seems to agree...

Same-sex couple in Sweet Cakes controversy should receive $135,000, hearings officer says
George Rede - The Oregonian/OregonLive - 4/24/15

The lesbian couple turned away by a Gresham bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake
for religious reasons should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering,
a state hearings officer says.

Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman -- $150,000 total -- during a hearing on damages in March.
...
The amounts recommended by law judge Alan McCullough, coming after four days of testimony, are not final.
State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has the final authority to raise, lower or leave the proposed damages as is.

In a statement Friday, BOLI* said: "The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that
the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the Complainants.

Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation,
just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.
Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007."

[BOLI - Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries]