Compare and contrast:
1) A baker provides all manner of service for gay customers, except for baking a cake for a “gay wedding” due to religious objections.
2) A gay hairdresser refuses any service to a customer solely on the basis of political differences.
Clearly, setting aside “protected status” of the parties involved, the second case is far more morally objectionable than the first one - the first case discriminates not against the customers themselves, but for a specific service that the provider believes is against his/her religious beliefs, whereas the second case discriminates directly against the customer.
And yet, the baker is an evil bigot and the hairdresser is a courageous defender of the downtrodden. Welcome to modern day Gemh... er... America.
The double standard is what really annoys me here. Personally, I believe that in both cases, the service provider is within their rights to refuse service to any customer they don’t want to do business with, regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with their decisions.
The double standard is what really annoys me here. Personally, I believe that in both cases, the service provider is within their rights to refuse service to any customer they don’t want to do business with, regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with their decisions.
Of course, as a friend said, had the baker been smart enough to just say we already are booked solid that day or we have a previous commitment that day, there would have been no lawsuit.
I’ve got a cousin that has a gay son and she’s always up in arms over some example or another of a gay person being discriminated against, yet when the double standard is pointed out, they’re always stupid and should have to ‘experience it firsthand’ as she has. *sigh* I keep telling her that because her son is gay doesn’t mean SHE experienced being gay and discriminated against firsthand. *banging head against wall*