I understand the justification for anti-discrimination laws. I do not, however, understand why anyone would try to use them, as Scardina has, in order to repeatedly torture an individual such as Jack Phillips.
Under English common law, “public accommodation” standards typically applied where consumers had little or no choice. The only inn along a 60-mile stretch of road might be deemed a “public accommodation” on the grounds that its refusal to take a given customer could plausibly lead to that customer’s death. A ferry business that had sole control over a particular point in a river might be deemed a “public accommodation” in order to ensure that nobody was prevented from traveling along an important route. Common carriers, such as railroads, were included under the same rule. This approach obtained in the United States, too, until 1964, in which year the Civil Rights Act expanded the concept beyond all recognition — though not, given the scale of persistent racial segregation in the United States, beyond all comprehension. Prior to 1964, “just go somewhere else” was simply not an option for many black Americans, who, as a result of both longstanding government policy and widespread social pressure (including violence), were effectively locked out of entire realms of commercial activity. An African-American citizen who chose to sue a recalcitrant store in 1965 was doing so not out of individual pique, but out of public service, in that in most cases he was not so much suing one store as suing all of them.
This is not even close to being the case with Masterpiece Cakeshop. Masterpiece Cakeshop is not a monopoly. Masterpiece Cakeshop is not caught up in a web of legal or corporate choices that, taken together, serve to restrict the ability of a given group to fully access the market. And Masterpiece Cakeshop is not unique. It is a good business, I am told, but it is merely one business among many, and its owner has views that differ considerably from those of others within his field. All of this being so, it is simply inexplicable to me that Autumn Scardina is so determined to bend Masterpiece Cakeshop — and its owner — to her will. Again: Forget the legal dispute. My quarrel here is more elementary than that. Clearly, there is something deeply, deeply wrong with this person, and something deeply, deeply wrong, too, with anyone who has helped stage her relentless, psychotic persecution.
www.nationalreview.com
Under English common law, “public accommodation” standards typically applied where consumers had little or no choice. The only inn along a 60-mile stretch of road might be deemed a “public accommodation” on the grounds that its refusal to take a given customer could plausibly lead to that customer’s death. A ferry business that had sole control over a particular point in a river might be deemed a “public accommodation” in order to ensure that nobody was prevented from traveling along an important route. Common carriers, such as railroads, were included under the same rule. This approach obtained in the United States, too, until 1964, in which year the Civil Rights Act expanded the concept beyond all recognition — though not, given the scale of persistent racial segregation in the United States, beyond all comprehension. Prior to 1964, “just go somewhere else” was simply not an option for many black Americans, who, as a result of both longstanding government policy and widespread social pressure (including violence), were effectively locked out of entire realms of commercial activity. An African-American citizen who chose to sue a recalcitrant store in 1965 was doing so not out of individual pique, but out of public service, in that in most cases he was not so much suing one store as suing all of them.
This is not even close to being the case with Masterpiece Cakeshop. Masterpiece Cakeshop is not a monopoly. Masterpiece Cakeshop is not caught up in a web of legal or corporate choices that, taken together, serve to restrict the ability of a given group to fully access the market. And Masterpiece Cakeshop is not unique. It is a good business, I am told, but it is merely one business among many, and its owner has views that differ considerably from those of others within his field. All of this being so, it is simply inexplicable to me that Autumn Scardina is so determined to bend Masterpiece Cakeshop — and its owner — to her will. Again: Forget the legal dispute. My quarrel here is more elementary than that. Clearly, there is something deeply, deeply wrong with this person, and something deeply, deeply wrong, too, with anyone who has helped stage her relentless, psychotic persecution.
What Is Wrong with the Lawyer Persecuting Jack Phillips? | National Review
Autumn Scardina keeps trying to force the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner to bake a cake with a message that offends his religious beliefs. Why?
www.nationalreview.com
