Quote: (06-05-2018 02:52 PM)Wutang Wrote:
Quote: (06-05-2018 05:02 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:
Quote: (06-05-2018 01:56 AM)The Catalyst Wrote:
Quote: (06-04-2018 11:43 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:
Why? "Because that's against company policy." So why is it any different for this baker? Why can't he also have a company policy that says customers can't get cakes that say certain things?
When I debated this with "smart" progressives/left leaning folk online, their biggest argument was that the cake was just a generic wedding cake that didn't say anything. I didn't care enough to look into it futher.
Of course as a libertarian/conservative I still believe in right of refusal, etc etc.
I explained that they likely didn't sell them the cake because it's a wedding cake and they don't believe in gay marriage, but alas progressives just don't(refuse to?) understand.
As I said earlier, I could go to the baker across the street and they'd likely turn down hundreds of my requests, like cakes that said "Murder is fab!" or "I hope you get AIDS! LOL!" or "Muslims and Jews: Blow Me!" It's their business, they can refuse and I can't compel" them to go against their policy or personal beliefs -- and my guess is their policies include bakers not being offended by what they write.
My thoughts are similar to your but from reading debates online, the objection that a lot of the anti-religious freedom people are making in response to that line of reasoning is that sexual orientation is a protected class while people who want to have Neo-Nazi messages or who simply want to be offensive aren't part of a protected class so therefore a gay couple would have protection under the law against being discriminated against while the guy who wanted "Rape is great - goes well with cake" on his cake wouldn't.
Reading these sort of arguments directed my thinking towards another question - what exactly are the standards for determining if someone has the privilege of being part of a protected class? Why does someone who practices homosexuality get the ability to override other people's personal convictions while someone who has an unpopular opinion about something doesn't? The easy, low hanging fruit answer is that sexuality is something that someone can't change while political/social/cultural opinions are freely adopted but religious identity is also something that is protected and is something that someone chooses to take on and change at their leisure.
There's also the deeper question of why what gender a person is attracted to is considered to be such a core part of someone's identity and seen as vital to one's identity as ethnicity would be. I remember talking to a former co-worker about homosexuality and a lot of his arguments revolved around the idea of "that's a big part of who someone is". How come people who are into scatology don't get to be treated as a protected sexual minority class? I'm assuming their sexual preferences are just as ingrained as a homosexual's sexual preferences are.
Glad you brought this up. I heard similar arguments.
What this doesn't consider is that there are women who slip in and out of their so-called "homosexuality." Beyond the obvious (porn actresses and old women who "discover" their lesbianism like Meredith Baxter), there are the college LUGs. That stands for "Lesbian Until Graduation."
Then there are the men in prison who engage in homosexual acts, but go back to being straight when they get out. There are also men who go "gay for pay." The nickname for this is "trade," and filmmaker John Waters has put this concept in several of his movies.
So who is gay and who is straight there? Hate to sound like a SJW, but sexuality is more "fluid" that the "protected class" concept can contend with. I think eventually this will be realized by the courts.
But if gays and lesbians are a protected class, a court ruling against the baker would give these people carte blanche to do whatever they want. People will rue the day this happened.
There are several high-profile gay conservative writers and vloggers, and I'm sure they'll just love going to Orthodox Jewish bakeries and taking them to court. Imagine how many YouTube hits Milo will get for this kind of a stunt alone.
One final thing: Minorities are a protected class. Does this mean blacks can demand cakes (or engravings or auto paintings) that say "Crippled Children Suck!" and then sue if they're refused? If so, I'd like to see black conservatives do this to all those big, annoying SJW companies, just to wreak havoc.