[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I am sure they would have whined about it but the problem is proving it. A simple no or yes. I keep telling people to say no or yes and then shut up. Never explain. It is none of their business. It does not seem to be sinking in because people are nice and they want other people to agree with them. When it comes to business I am not nice and do not care if you agree with me or not. My choice to work for you or not and my reasons. None of your never mind.

There is no difference between what he did and a commission. I have a friend who is also a baker. She was asked to do up a big order for a child beauty contest. She turned it down. Not for religious reasons but because she, like any normal person, finds the sexualization of children disgusting. She did not tell them what she thought of them. She just said no. They tried to argue and were told to go make noise somewhere else. And yeah, that is probably exactly how she put it.

You are not obliged to work for someone if you do not want to. Which he did not argue in court. And he should have.

This is where these cases have gone off the rails. They want to argue first amendment freedom of religion when they should be arguing a 13th amendment violation. I am not obliged to work for you. Not for free. Not if you pay me.

No wanna. No workee. Go 'way.

[daniel1212]

You are not obliged to work for someone if you do not want to. Which he did not argue in court. And he should have....They want to argue first amendment freedom of religion when they should be arguing a 13th amendment violation.

As I explained, that freedom of refusal of contracted work will not work if the reason for the refusal is due to the party being one of the protected classes (though that can depend upon what state you are in) . And a liberal civil rights commission will be the one to decide what your reason was.

It can be hard to tell when a business has the legal right to remove customers. We’ve all seen the sign, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” While that’s true, owners do not have the right to refuse service for any reason.

Thanks to federal laws like the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, no state that serves the public can discriminate based on:

Race or color
National origin or citizenship status
Religion or creed
Sex
Age
Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
Veteran status

On top of federal laws, state laws often cover more groups in their discrimination laws. For example, California also covers:
Marital status
Sexual orientation or gender identity
Medical condition, or AIDS/HIV status
Military or veteran status
Political affiliations or activities
Primary language
Immigration status
Status as a victim of assault, domestic violence, or stalking - https://huckleberry.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service/

And since ideology (esp.conservatives) does not qualify one to be a protected class (though, as with homosexuality, it is a mindset, and feeling), then in some states a restaurant can refuse to serve such. But not due to race, color, etc. - and sexual orientation.

A Virginia restaurant’s decision not to serve White House press secretary Sarah Sanders raises a major question: Can businesses serving the public legally do that? ... Brian Powell, a sociology professor at Indiana University Bloomington, says you cannot compare this case to Sanders’ incident because sexual orientation is a protected status in some states while political viewpoints are not. - https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/us/when-businesses-can-deny-you-service-trnd/index.html

I obviously support Masterpiece being able refuse to agree to commissioned work on moral grounds.