Why is that likely? Large swathes of the population support gay marriage, and this cake was specifically ordered for a function - International Day Against Homophobia. Irony aside, I doubt every single organiser involved was gay. It's actually presumptuous to assume that. I absolutely agree that they should be able to order such services, but that doesn't empower them to compel others.
I´m not here to win a court case. You have to admit there is no substanial difference. One would be forced labor (and one forced sexual labor).
I don't know what they should do - perhaps they should start a bakery, it sounds like an untapped target demographic if *everyone* is refusing them service. Perhaps they should blow the issue up in the media - many businesses have changed their ways under the pressure of public scrutiny. Most times just giving your money to somebody else works, and it takes business away from the bakery that disagrees with your views. The problem here is that if you reversed the situation and had a homophobic customer ordering an anti-gay marriage cake for a function that opposes legalising gay marriage at a gay-owned bakery, chances are that you would side with the bakery refusing service because your moral compass is telling you that this is the more inclusive, compassionate option. In doing so you deprive the other side of their rights and violate their beliefs, which is the exact opposite sentiment. The government should not have the power to coerce one side or the other. In all factuality, you *don't* have a right to any service - you don't, I don't, nobody does. Any form of transaction must necessarily be based on mutual and voluntary exchange, and in these scenarios one side is not volunteering anything - they are refusing to participate. If you were to coerce them under penalty of law, that is indistinguishable from indentured servitude in my eyes. The courts already have the power to adjudicate these matters if the dispute is based on prejudice against the actual customer, but if it is a matter of one's beliefs, however stupid they may be, you are treading the waters of thought crime.
No, there isn´t if having sex is your (voluntary) occupation.
That´s quite harsh. You just said it is a human trait. You just called a large part of humanity scum. Most people have sexual preferences and preferences with regards to friends based on race, for example. I.e. most [insert race] people date within said race and have friends of said race (even if they live in societies in which this race is rare).
Supporting or opposing gay marriage is a specific political position, especially in the context of legalisation. If the baker opposes such legislation and you compel said baker to produce materials in support of it, you have compelled the baker to "speak" in support of a cause they oppose. This has nothing to do with gays having or not having the right to buy cakes - they were not refused a cake, or even the service, they were refused on the basis of the messaging. That de facto means that they were not barred from commerce in the establishment on the basis of their orientation - they could've bought anything they wanted. The baker simply refused to write *a specific message*, not any random message. The entire debacle was not over the goods, not over the service of writing on the cake, but over the message that was supposed to be written. It doesn't matter if the baker is a homophobe or not - you yourself have stated that it's legal for them to think whatever they want. This is not a trial of the baker's moral character, it's a trial on whether or not the customer was refused service based on innate characteristics, and the determination was that they weren't.
It's not about endorsement, it's about the act of an utterance - that's what's protected. In the same fashion you cannot force an actor to play a character in your movie production if they don't like the character. If they don't want to sign a contract with you, they just don't, and no amount of money can change that. They offer acting services to anyone - white directors, black directors, women, men, gay or straight - they just don't want to play a gay guy in your film, for instance, to draw a little parallel. That doesn't have any bearing on what they endorse or don't endorse, it doesn't mean that they're homophobes, it means they don't want to participate in whatever it is you're filming. They have freedom of association and they choose not to be associated with the production in any capacity.
Ok then it just means "to keep it alive". What´s wrong with keeping hatred alive? Ever read the Bible? It´s full of hate towards all kinds of people and it helped mine survive. If you think I am obligated to love everyone, you can go back to smoking weed and singing kumbaya. Hate is not a crime, neither is ignoring.
Not really. In this instance the customer is the director and the service provider is the actor. The director wants to film a movie that celebrates gay marriage, with the actor playing one of the roles. The actor opposes *the idea* of gay marriage and refuses the role. Playing the role would make him "speak" words someone else wrote down for him that he does not agree with. He has to voluntarily agree to that in order for the contract to be valid. In the same way, a baker has to agree to put somebody else's words on a cake, as the final message, cake or film, is the result of the craftsman's expression, actor or baker. This is a perfect analogy. Who knows, maybe the director is gay - it's a possibility based on the subject matter of the film, right? You don't *know* that he's not, since that was your argument earlier? Is the actor depriving the gay audience of a film that celebrates them? You keep bringing that up, even though it has nothing to do with the case at hand. The reason why it doesn't is because it's irrelevant - anybody else offering that script would also be refused - it's a problem with the script, or the message on the cake.
@
x65943:
@
x65943:
@
JuanMena:
