I wonder who the court would side with if the bakery had been owned by a Muslim?
I’m sorry - but, when you decide to operate a “fee-for-service” business in the public arena, you must serve everyone.
However, you do have a choice - provide the service, or close the business. It is black letter law.
In the example in the article - it would work both ways for both the heterosexual and the homosexual.
Otherwise, it would be akin to refusing to serve blacks at the lunch counter ...
“I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings” - Seeing as Same sex weddings are not legal in this state his statement is true. Even if he wanted to make cake for same sex weddings he could not as there is legally no such thing in this state. Who is this guys’ lawyer? How is he denying them anything or discriminating - he did not say I don’t sell cakes to gay people.
RuPaul herself??
That is a man!
And our spineless Republican leaders remain silent ...
I certainly wouldn’t EAT something prepared by someone who was FORCED to prepare it, and who could prepare it in a back room without observation.
This has nothing to do with religion. If an atheist refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony, that should be their choice and the government should leave them alone.
Does this mean that I can carry my gun into a store that posts a sign prohibiting doing so? After all, they would be discriminating against those that do carry.
I question the wisdom in general, of forcing anybody to bake anything for me against their will. A wedding cake is intended to be eaten.
Militant homosexuals need to think twice about their strategy in this. Baptists might pray over it. Catholics might put holy water in it. Less moral, less charitable people might adulterate it in any number of unpleasant ways.
It might just be that none of the above would put the level of skill and care into a cake baked under forced servitude, that one produced freely would receive as a matter of course.
It seems to me that if the courts would just stay out of much of this stuff,the problem just might go away on it’s own. Ruling in discrimination situations can be a bottomless pit. Supposing Safeway decided to find me discriminatory when they find out I drove clear across town to buy my groceries elsewhere? Let’s just suppose I refuse to do business with a store/chain who has publicly expressed their support for certain groups of people & I don’t agree with their expressed opinions. This would or could get into a never-ending mess & I think court systems have more pressing problems.