[theseatoms]

> There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments.

Could you imagine the immediate public backlash against this type of behavior by a private establishment? I don't think the law is doing the heavy lifting here.

[Thriptic]

The supreme court heard a court case in 2014 in which a business refused to serve people because they were gay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

A large number of people are still alive back from when Jim Crow laws were still actively in effect. In 1957 the president had to send the 101st airborne to Arkansas to escort black children to school and seized control of the state's national guard because they were being used to block desegregation of schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

A non-trivial percentage of Americans would love to have these signs up and are kept from doing so by the law. The women's movement, LGBT rights, and minority rights are actually a fairly new thing, and are still not without controversy in the US.

[Fins]

The cakeshop very much did not "refuse to serve gays", and really there is absolutely no self-consistent way one could agree with FB deciding that certain content is "racist" and banning it while insisting that Masterpiece Cakeshop is in any way obligated to make wedding cakes for someone whose wedding plans they do not agree with.

[Thriptic]

I'm not speaking about Facebook at all, never mentioned Facebook anywhere in my comment or in this thread, and have not made any statements about the validity of speech restriction in any context so I'm not sure why you're mentioning that. I'm speaking to a general issue brought up by the parent.

As for your comment, the cake shop has a product they are letting people buy (in effect, serving them). They are willing to produce that product for a certain group of people for a certain activity (celebration of a state recognized marriage) based on their identity. They are not willing to produce that product for another group of people for the same activity (celebration of a state recognized marriage) based on that second group's identity. Now you can argue that the shop is within their rights to do that for religious reasons and the Supreme Court would agree with you, but it's still refusing service based on identity and you know it. If you want to split hairs and say they "refused to provide COMPARABLE service because they were gay" as the buyers may have been able to buy other products then so be it.

[Fins]

This is a thread about Facebook, isn't it? And the parent,m or GP by now, very much alludes to it, or platforms in general.

In the bakeshop case though, I do not think it has ever been alleged, that they ever refused to serve anyone cakes just for being gay. I think the whole case hinged on the question whether making a wedding cake is significantly more than just selling a cake off the shelf to anyone who comes in (I am really not sure if, as a matter of principle, private entities in a free society should be compelled to do business with anyone they do not want to, be that marrying gays or cynical coders who go by "Fins" though). So no,I don't think saying that they "refuse to serve gays" is a proper characterization.

[anigbrowl]

May I suggest reviewing the history of the civil rights movement? That sort of discrimination used to be normal in large parts of the US and was overcome through a combination of civil disobedience and legal challenges.

[stronglikedan]

There's plenty of places where there would be zero public backlash for those types of signs, if they were permitted by law.

[UncleMeat]

Lots of country clubs are still white exclusive. Private christian schools still exclude gay teachers.

[prawn]

Saw a plumber's vehicle driving around recently with a blatant anti-Chinese sticker on it.