

$800,000 donated to help Memories Pizza recover from gamergate like harassment - godandmyright
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

======
paulhauggis
"When asked by local press the hypothetical question of whether or not they'd
prefer to have their family owned business, Memories Pizza, cater a gay
wedding, the owner said no citing their own religious beliefs as the reason"

I also don't feel an African-american owned pizza shop should have to cater to
a KKK event.

A Muslim store owner shouldn't be forced to sell pork.

This isn't discrimination against people that are gay. If you are gay, they
will still cater your event (A birthday for example). They just won't cater a
gay wedding (which is against their religious beliefs). They shouldn't be
forced to cater such events by law.

The hate for this law was blown completely out of proportion. It does not
allow anyone to just deny service to anyone they choose. They would still be
sued for discrimination in court..and would lose if there wasn't a compelling
reason for it.

It reminds me of the ex-Mozilla CEO. He donated a small amount of money to a
cause he believed in and was deemed a monster, gay-hater, and bullied online
until he was forced to 'resign' when there was really no evidence for it
beyond the donation. An online hate campaign was launched against him and the
online mob that formed didn't want anything but punishment.

I remember all of the hate here on HN. If any of those comments were used
against someone that supported gay marriage, they would be called a bigot and
a bully. I'm just tired all of this selective discrimination.

If you are against bullying and discrimination, you shouldn't turn around and
do the exact same thing to people you don't like.

~~~
vishaldpatel
I respectfully disagree. Your definition of discrimination is backwards.

Black people have the right to refuse service to anyone who is a member of an
organization with the explicit goals of oppressing blacks.

Muslims restaurant owners are happy to serve the community what they eat for
themselves.

The people that are refusing service to gays are doing so because of their
beliefs that tell them to oppress others. For example, the KKK believed that
blacks were inferior. Indiana just legalized such discrimination. This is the
opposite of freedom - it can be used to systematically push people out.

~~~
dalke
I agree, and I'll state it in a different and longer way.

In general, everyone has the right to discriminate. A store is not required to
accept the trade of drunks, vandals, etc. The exception, and it's a major one,
is that discrimination is not permitted on the basis of race, national origin,
etc. This extends to proxies, so a rule which requires customers to take off
their hats may not include religious headgear, unless there is a bona fide
reason.

vishaldpatel? In most parts of the US, desire to discriminate is not a
protected class, so it would be fine for anyone to decline trade towards a
member of the KKK. California, however, has a very broad civil rights
protection law. In 1988, four men were refused services and ejected from
Alpine Village, a German restaurant, for wearing a Nazi pin. The California
Supreme Court held that was a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

In California it likely illegal to decline trade to a KKK-affiliated
organization on the basis of their political beliefs. I am no lawyer, but my
guess is that if there's a reasonable belief that employees will be subject to
a harassing environment, such as being present to cater at an event which
promotes racial violence, then that's an acceptable reason for a business to
not provide services, even in California.

The last situation - a Muslim forced to serve pork despite religious
preferences - is ridiculous. There's nothing in anti-discrimination law which
makes that requirement. Any law which required a Muslim-owning restaurant to
sell pork products which didn't require vegetarian restaurants from doing the
same would be discrimination on the basis of religion. Any law which did not
have a bona fide justification for the law to prevent religious exceptions
would also be discrimination on the basis of religion. And I'm hard-pressed to
think of any bona fide reason.

(As an aside, my own great-grandfather refused to sell cigarettes in his store
due to religious beliefs that they were an inappropriate vice for a Christian
to support. What anti-discrimination law would force him to sell tobacco?)

A better example would have been if a restaurant owner decided to start
selling pork products and anti-pork waitstaff objected, on religious grounds.
The US accepts bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) for
discrimination. For example, a Playboy Club has a dominate service of
providing sex appeal to is customers, so is allowed to discriminate on the
basis of sex and beauty. Similarly, an employee at an adult store may not sue
for sexual harassment due to the workplace presence of pornographic material,
even though that the same materials at another workplace may judged
discriminatory.

The owner of a pork BBQ restaurant may fire employees who decline to handle
pork product, even if there are religious reasons for doing so. Note that the
bar for a BFOQ is pretty high. Hooters is not able to use the Playboy Club
exception because it is in the primary business of serving of food and
beverages to customers, not serving sex appeal.

BTW, vishaldpatel? The fact that a Muslim restaurant owners would eat the food
they themselves serve is irrelevant. A lactose intolerant cheese shop owner
can still sell cheese even if unable to eat the cheese. The owner of a pet
store can sell meat-based dog food even if the owner is a vegetarian for
religious reasons.

