I did. Feel free to post something that says otherwise. The exchange was very quick and he said he wouldn’t bake them a specialized cake. Nothing was said about not serving them at all. You choose to not believe the baker in later saying he would sell a cake to them, just wouldn’t make them a specialized one.
Guessing you didn’t read it. Was overturned because county commissioner made a statement biased against religion. SCOTUS didn’t really rule on the initial issue, just overturned the initial ruling based upon that commissioners statement.
This is correct.
After consulting with legal counsel on how to pick his words and craft a public statement, no I tend to believe the initial interaction.
Especially when the guy is flirting with illegal discrimination vs legal religous bigotry.
These are very separate questions. I have absolutely zero interest in getting into this discussion on the cake baker, but comparing a personal action to the federal government actively condoning ANYTHING has a large gap.
“Condoning” and “Allowing under law” are also two vastly, vastly different things. I am of the opinion that the government should not “condone” anything, in almost any way.
The government’s job is not to condone behaviors or beliefs. It is to govern a highly mixed and numerous populace.
Ya, agree to disagree. Like I said, I’m over the “bake the cake, you bigot,” talks. I also choose freedom to do with your business as you please over government telling us how to live our lives by force.
Then you end up with Jim crow South… Because unfortunately there group think is a real thing, and racist/bigoted group think is a real threat to a better society.
Was meant to be two separate questions, not meant to be complimenting questions. Should put a spacing line in.
1 Like
So you have a problem of my hypothetical as not being real?
I guess that’s a way to miss the point.
You end up with businesses who make money and business who don’t. This isn’t the early 1900’s.
And I agree, group think is bad. Both sides have it.
If a hypothetical fundamentally cannot exist due to the definition of something, it’s not a hypothetical
I’d hope so. But there are still many parts of this country with deeply held predjudices that they would love to put into action.
From my phone, so excuse the brevity. Where is the claim that the couple was refused any all service for any and all occasions? Every single article–be it title, body, or both–says wedding cake. I am not talking Fox News either. This is simple. Were they getting married? If yes, then the simplest explanation is that they were asking for a wedding cake…
Isn’t a human part of nature? It stands to reason that nations are natural. It’s a giant version of a tribe. Lots of non-human animals have tribes, some pretty large, with a pecking order and everything.
If the couple had selected the baker BECAUSE of his religious beliefs, would that have been wrongly discriminatory?
1 Like
No, it would have been justice. Make that cake Hitler pay!
1 Like
So you don’t know of any militant atheists?
No. Consumer is not offering or denying service to the public.
Yup. Selecting based on favored traits is bigotry.
If you are a racist and you choose to go to a restaurant because your chances of seeing other races is really small, it is a bigoted act.