Except everyone thinks this applies to them. Baking gay wedding cakes is a good example because is forcing religious people to do it not tolerating their intolerance or is it being intolerant of their religion.
That’s a terrible example. No one, individual or government, is forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.
It is entirely within the right of the business owner to decline a request to bake a cake they don’t want to bake.
Can there be social repercussions for said action? Of course. Do people have the autonomy to decide not to give a business their money for whatever reason? Absolutely.
I wouldn’t give them my money because, I’m sorry, if your “religion” is based on oppression and denial of other humans their basic rights, then no, I won’t support you. Fuck off.
(Ironic as I know this incident and it’s based on Christian religiosity, which following the actual teachings of Jesus would welcome the stranger, the wanderer, the sick, and the hungry. Regardless of whether they believe or not, they are all God’s children. Given that Lucifer has no power of creation, only trickery, and God created all of his children, would that not imply Chrisitians should be accepting of Gods children in all their myriad forms, and to hate another is to fall for the trickery of Satan? That’s not religion, that’s just rationalizing bigotry. So double fuck off.)
It’s actually illegal in the US to discriminate against certain customers at a place of public accommodation. The famous gay cake case that went to the Supreme Court ultimately went in favor of the baker, but on very narrow procedural grounds that his religion had been targeted in the case. In the opinion, the court affirmed states rights to make anti-discrimination laws generally.
I still don’t think anti-discrimination laws are the government forcing anyone to bake a cake. They’re saying if you want to bake cakes, you need to be prepared to serve everybody. No one is forcing them to open a bakery.
Except everyone thinks this applies to them. Baking gay wedding cakes is a good example because is forcing religious people to do it not tolerating their intolerance or is it being intolerant of their religion.
That’s a terrible example. No one, individual or government, is forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.
It is entirely within the right of the business owner to decline a request to bake a cake they don’t want to bake.
Can there be social repercussions for said action? Of course. Do people have the autonomy to decide not to give a business their money for whatever reason? Absolutely.
I wouldn’t give them my money because, I’m sorry, if your “religion” is based on oppression and denial of other humans their basic rights, then no, I won’t support you. Fuck off.
(Ironic as I know this incident and it’s based on Christian religiosity, which following the actual teachings of Jesus would welcome the stranger, the wanderer, the sick, and the hungry. Regardless of whether they believe or not, they are all God’s children. Given that Lucifer has no power of creation, only trickery, and God created all of his children, would that not imply Chrisitians should be accepting of Gods children in all their myriad forms, and to hate another is to fall for the trickery of Satan? That’s not religion, that’s just rationalizing bigotry. So double fuck off.)
It’s actually illegal in the US to discriminate against certain customers at a place of public accommodation. The famous gay cake case that went to the Supreme Court ultimately went in favor of the baker, but on very narrow procedural grounds that his religion had been targeted in the case. In the opinion, the court affirmed states rights to make anti-discrimination laws generally.
I still don’t think anti-discrimination laws are the government forcing anyone to bake a cake. They’re saying if you want to bake cakes, you need to be prepared to serve everybody. No one is forcing them to open a bakery.