You erected a strawman. There’s a difference between product/ service selection and customer selection. People who bake wedding cakes bake wedding cakes, picking and choosing your customers based on whether or not you consider it a wedding is at best silly. What if I want a wedding cake from you because I like wedding cakes? Am I now not eligible because there’s not going to be any kind of wedding?
Not forcing anybody to provide a service you don’t want to provide. You’re in the wedding cake making business, that is a service you have agreed to provide, you are advertising that you provide it. Now you’re saying “well not that wedding”, that’s discrimination whether or not those customers are in a protected class.
Assuming the home placement didn’t violate any laws on the proximity of sex offenders to schools the bank did the right thing. A valid customer wanted a service they provide, so they provided it.
They shouldn’t be forced to make loans to people that can’t pay, or that can’t legally live there. But that should be the limit of their discrimination, anybody that can’t pay the loan back isn’t a valid customer, anybody that can’t legally live there also isn’t a valid customer, anybody else is valid, make the loan.
The can pick the goods and services they provide, customer discrimination needs to be based on validity of the customer. Thieves, people who can’t pay, people disrupting other customers are out. Everybody else is in. For one thing it’s just good business, they have money and you want it, that’s why you opened a business.
CNN doesn’t use public frequencies.
The NFL has set rules about what can and can’t be associated with their brand, generally revolving around avoiding controversy. They want to annoy as few people as possible. Which is a version of kicking out customers that disrupt other customers, annoy too many people ratings suffer and the other advertiser aren’t getting what they paid for.
Nobody is reinstating slavery, we’re pointing out common sense.
So the word ‘wedding’ doesn’t have any religious connotations to it that would merit the one making the cake to object to their participation?
You’re right about CNN, I should have said PBS, and they’d be out of business if I weren’t sending them my tax dollars.
A wedding cake baker bakes cakes for weddings. He can decide not to make cakes for black masses, the pledging of 65 year old muslim men to 11 year olds, to polygamists, sodomites, tribadists, or even Protestants, if the baker happens to be Catholic and thinks the Protestants rewrote the Bible to be hip about homos.
No straw man here. If I don’t like you, I shouldn’t have to serve you, and I shouldn’t have to give you a reason why I don’t want to. Anything else is indentured servitude, or at worst tortious terrorism.
You think its right to force a doctor to treat patients for $6.65 an hour? That’s the law of the land right now.
You think its legal to tell a business it has to pay $15 an hour minimum to its employees or face legal action?
It’s all fascism - the desire of the state to directly control all forms of commerce.
Telling insurers what the must and mustn’t cover is a form of it. If I have a crucifix on the outside of my hospital, and my CEO is a Catholic nun, why should that hospital be required to suck viable human beings from their mother’s wombs or face legal action?
Why as a taxpayer should I be required to fund it?