It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips said. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”
Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Personal Disclosure: Please show me how that can be interpreted another way that sounds both logical and reasonable and doesn't invoke cognitive dissonance.
By its nature, marketing depends on being able to discriminate between different groups of people. Indeed, the underlying philosophy is that all consumers are not the same and the they can be profitably segmented into markets based on demographic and behavioral dimensions. Studies have shown, for example, that gender, age and ethnicity and important segmentation variables. Indeed, there has been a rise in ethnic, generational or cohort (age), and gender marketing. Because such strategies actually benefit these groups, discrimination (in this sense) is perfectly acceptable.
While discrimination in employment has been the focus of attention for many years, however, little can be found in the marketing literature about negative stereotyping and discrimination. Some marketing research has uncovered erroneous stereotyping. For example, recent research has shown that women now account for 40% of all cars buyers and men for 40% of food shopping dollars. By stereotyping consumers, marketers can miss out on increased sales. Stereotyping in this sense would have bottom-line implications.
Increasingly, marketers are being accused of perpetuating negative stereotypes especially in advertising and corporate visual identity (corporate logos). The use of negative stereotypes often results in negative publicity for the firm. Negative publicity often has bottom-line implications as well.
One particular area of concern to marketers is the problematic areas of "public accommodation" and "price discrimination". Price discrimination occurs often and is generally part of pricing or promotion strategies. Women, for example, pay more for dry cleaning, shoes and apparel, and haircuts than men. Several years ago Victoria's Secret even sent catalogs to both men and women, but the catalogs targeting men had lower prices. Furthermore, in a 1990 study, the author showed that white males were systematically offered new cars at lower prices than were blacks and females. Movie theaters and restaurants also often offer discounts and/or lower prices to children, students, and retirees. Bars frequently have "ladies night" with reduced or free cover charges for women. The rationale for such practice is that certain groups are willing to pay more.
When consumers have sued businesses they have done so under State and Federal civil-rights laws. The laws apply where a member of a protected class, otherwise fit and able to pay, has been refused admission or service in a place of public accommodation. The refusal to receive or serve the victim, and the victim's subsequent humiliation and mental distress, are the wrongs that the law intends to address. When Denny's employees failed to serve African-Americans, it was sued under Civil Rights.
In other cases, it is not so clear. In a 1985 California case, for example, beverage discounts during ladies nights in bars and taverns was held to violate state laws concerning public accommodation (only Washington State approves of this practice). To date, no cases of age-based price discrimination has been challenged
Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by Wildbob77
So then why does every thread standing up for the shop owner start with what basically boils down to "omg how DARE THEY tell a private shop owner that they won't go there anymore because of their views and opinions!"
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by OmegaLogos
Now, if this were a "hate-crime," then sexual orientation is a protected class, but not when it comes to business.
Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by cetaphobic
The patrons of the shop of course have the choice to continue doing business with that shop or not.
That's what freedom means.
Mullin and Craig took to Facebook to write a post about Phillips' refusal, prompting more than a 1,000 people to send angry messages to the bakery owner. Read more: www.nydailynews.com...
Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by getreadyalready
Its easy to see why they are making a fuss out of this. Gays want equal rights and protections from the law so discrimination like this doesn't happen.
I think they(Gays) will win this fight.