Its not a legally defensible opinion. Refusing to put a message on a cake that you disagree with is the point that the legal defence comes in. Its a subtle difference but it is a crucial one. If they had refused because they were gay the supreme court would have ruled against the bakery and they said as much in their ruling.
To you and anyone else arguing this, how is this not still 100% discrimination based on sexuality? They're denying a service, refuse to make a product, based on their homophobia. "They denied the message, not the customer" is some technically correct "all lives matter" bullshit.
Yes, and that's, in my opinion, fucked up. "the law is morally wrong, but it's the law" is a horrid stance, and if anything, this case has shown me that it should be changed.
Yeah, the court decided "correctly", I understand that. Which is exactly why I said that the law itself needs to be changed.
What implications?
You don't understand that a Catholic person's right to be catholic isn't infringed upon by other people getting abortions, just like a catholic person's right to be catholic isn't infringed upon by gay people getting married.
That's a really dumb point to bring up here because laws fucking change and it isn't the job of lawyers to determine that.
Yeah but medical professionals can refuse to perform abortions if they are catholic, which is where the comparison would be fair.
Where are you even getting this from? You have to specifically go to school and be trained in order to administer and abortion. In what situation could a medical professional possibly end up in a situation where they have to perform a surprise abortion?
Then you slightly misunderstood what I said.
If you agree that the law should change then pick your damn battles.
Right, kind of like how this bakery likely wouldn't make a cake with that message for anyone, not just for a select group of people.
Nah, because in the doctor analogy, the doctor likely performs procedures of a different nature on everyone. Or was the scenario about a doctor who only does abortions refusing to do abortions, aka an unemployed person?
I'm not sure why you're saying the bolded. It's clearly not true, the law changes all the time.
Right... but not necessarily by judges. Hence why he said it takes politics to drive those changes. I think you two are talking past each other.
No, I completely understand what he means, it's just a weirdly specific thing that's unrelated to what I said, which I keep pointing out. He's taking what I said and misinterpreting it, which bothers me.
In my opinion, that just shows how terrible religions are for a secular society
Okay, last message from me concerning this specific post chain:
Not forcing a muslim to print a picture of Muhammed doesn't seem like a terrible effect on society to me.
I meant it the other way around. Its a real issue, and it makes changing legislation to prevent cases like this cake harder, exactly because I agree that the Muhammed print thing would be unacceptable.
thankfully there are hate speech laws against that burn in hell cake
You probably didn't follow the whole exchange, but I have not mentioned the court, the judges, the lawyers. I have made the general statement that the law needs to be adapted in my opinion, and it is absolutely irrelevant that the people taking care of this case need to follow the law. What "they" have to do under current law just supports my statement that I think the law is not good enough.
I'm getting this from the fact my wife is a nurse and some of the Muslim/christian nurses and doctors are allowed to opt out of abortions unless its a dire emergency.
Religion and homophobia? There is no sense to be had here. Just perceived righteousness and hate.
I wouldn't say I don't see anything wrong with it, since there's something clearly wrong about someone not being comfortable with the existence of gay people, but I believe artisans should be protected from making compelled speech in the form of written slogans on their work, even as much as I think their objections are ridiculous. In this extremely marginal circumstance, I think they have a right not to be told what to say through their work, but that they don't have a right to deny service based on who is asking for it and what they are using it for. But this should only apply to artisanal products that directly reflect the creator's artistic craftsmanship, not mass produced products where the design is entirely up to the customer, such as the case of printable decoration. Those should only be allowed to be refused on the basis that they are potentially criminal and represent a liability to the person or company.
