That principle was conceded when society accepted forcing white people to do business with black people. You either have freedom of association, or you don't. Once limits are accepted, the state decides for you what is "officially" right or wrong and how you are required to deal with it.
That principle was conceded when society accepted forcing white people to do business with black people.
Good point and I thought about it as soon as I wrote it.
I remember the bad old days and the practices of those times disgusted me then and do to this day. I remember cafes who would do take-out orders for black people but they weren't allowed to come in and sit down, for example.
I obviously don't see this in the same light because I don't see homosexuality and race as in any way equivalent.
You are not allowed to refuse service to someone because of their race but you can refuse if someone is a jerk, for example.
So I don't see a legal equivalence. But good luck I suppose finding a court that will agree with me.
I suppose an important distinction is that serving a restaurant meal to someone I don’t like, I’m not morally complicit in whatever it is I don’t like about them.
But baking a wedding cake for what I consider morally repugnant makes me complicit and forces me to join in something I consider immoral.
I could bake cakes for homosexuals all day long, and let them add the trim to turn it into a wedding cake. I don’t have to know. But don’t ask me to bake it explicitly as a wedding cake because now you’re making me a party to it. I could take picture of a gathering that includes homosexuals and as long as everyone behaves I’m not party to whatever they do behind closed doors. But don’t ask me to photograph something I consider morally repugnant which makes me party to it.
Someone else might feel differently and if they do, feel free to hire them. They could even advertise for that business and put me at a competitive disadvantage and thats their right.
I think thats how I draw the distinction.
“No Soup for You!”