Do you think independent owners should be allowed to choose who they can sell, service? Or should the government step in and force them to sell to everyone?

No, if you are in business selling to the public, then you cannot discriminate. If religion can be invoked as a reason not to sell to same sex couples, then why not blacks, hispanics, whites, or whatever? For some groups of people, christians are offensive. When does it stop?

That said, the business as mentioned in the OP does not have to carry cake toppers with two men or two women. A business cannot be forced to carry specific products, but they must serve everyone equally.

If you have a business license and you are open to the public, you should not get to pick and hoose who you will serve!

The government says that if a retail business sells to the public, then public equals everyone. There’s no right to pick and choose. Businesses do have the right to establish restrictions for conducting their business, for example: “No backpacks in store; check them at the front counter”. But that applies to everyone; there’s no picking or choosing who can wear a backpack into the store.

As for business owners who claim that discrimination is protected by Freedom of Speech or Religion amendments, the courts have decided that they are trumped by Equal Rights.

After the civil rights desegregation efforts in the fifties and sixties, would the owners of Woolworths have been allowed to deny lunch counter service to Blacks based on religious principles? Hardly. It was a different culture then, and folks weren’t trying to force their religious principles on the whole country.

But doesn’t the core of this debate boil down to “Who has freedom of religion” and “Who has freedom from religion”?

As to the efforts of the OR Commissioner mentioned in the OP link, I don’t have enough info to form an opinion.

If you want to discriminate open a private club. If you want to be part of a business community open your doors to the public (and that means everyone. You can’t tell black people not to sit at your lunch counter anymore folks.) And join the Lions or Rotary and learn what secularism is.

Another slippery slope with possible future unintended consequences…..

Where does it say that a public business MUST serve every customer and where does that end?
I am an electrical contractor. I DO NOT serve every customer that asks for my service, not because of discrimination, but because I focus on commercial work, rather than residential work(which I’m sure someone can turn into a discrimination argument).
Based on the above responses, it appears that I am negatively discriminating and should open a private club.
Rules against discrimination do not always work. If anything, we should allow it. It will be easier to weed out bigots.
If a business is acting in a bigoted fashion, wouldn’t it be better to be obvious so people can boycott, rather than forcing the business to serve all customers with a smile on their face?
If a business was discriminatory towards myself or whatever label I would use, I would rather know so I can avoid it.

Basically, a governments laws against will not lessen discrimination. We have more rules against discrimination than ever before, yet it seems racism and bigotry is more alive and well in this country now than in a long time. If anything, laws against discrimination will only make bigots more money.
I am by no means a bigot. I am all for freedom and the responsibilities and consequences that come with it, which it seems many in this country do not understand.

It has to be shown to be discrimination based on the law, obviously. I can discriminate and prioritise based on my convenience as a contractor and how much money I’m going to clear from the job, but I can’t do it for, you know, they are black or gay or Jewish, or Irish.

@cazzie

If you were black, Jewish, or Irish, and you were buying a product or service, wouldn’t you rather know that the owner doesn’t want to serve you because they are a bigot, and take your business elsewhere rather than unknowingly enrichen a bigot who would not serve you if they were not being forced?

I’m with @SquirrelEStuff on this one.

I also don’t think anyone should have to fork over $135,000 for a cake problem. That’s preposterous.

I am a Christian and I would have just made the cake.

@SquirrelEStuff Your analogy doesn’t work. You’ve defined the scope of your business as ‘commercial’. Declining residential customers isn’t discriminatory. A photographer has every right to limit their services to weddings performed indoors, and refuse the work of any wedding that is outdoors. Declining to do outdoor weddings isn’t discriminatory.

What if the options for a particular service are very limited? What if there were only two surgeons in a region who could perfom a new life-saving surgery, and they declined to operate on gays or minorities? What are the sick patients to do if they can’t afford to leave town, and their insurance won’t pay for them to travel out of state to get the procedure?

I agree that equal protection laws aren’t going to change many minds. But over the course of generations, the concept of equal rights becomes more mainstream. The current generation of young adults are more open-minded and indifferent to people’s uniqueness than ever before.

I don’t think that it is a slippery slope but a fine line. The challenge for independent business owners is that they have to be well versed in law, HR, finances, sales, etc. in order to cover all bases unless they can afford outside resources.

Here is an article that addresses this issue. This clears you, @SquirrelEStuff, from accepting commerical and residentual requests for service. It is consistent.

The article, which was recently updated, includes two examples of a bakery being sued for discrimination. One case was dismissed and the other one wasn’t. Both occurred in the US state of Indiana. It wasn’t based upon current federal law.

In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.

In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays.

The real question is would someone (a customer) want to eat a cake that the Baker was forced to make against his will?

The debate will always be there regarding discrimination, and I can’t count the number of businesses I frequent which display the big sign reading ” we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. Merchants and service businesses discriminate routinely. No one is going to accept a credit card from a 5 year old, and bartenders turn away drunks and teenagers. Ideally a man should be allowed to choose with whom he will do business. But if the door to your business is routinely unlocked to admit the public, then you should have a damned good reason for refusing service to ANY member of that public who comes through that door, and be prepared to defend your decision in a court of law. There are those who will argue that you can’t eliminate bigotry through legislation, and they are correct. But there’s no getting around the fact that overt displays and incidents of bigotry plummet when the consequences are expensive. Once more, it’s the glories of the marketplace at work.

There is a clear argument that there is something repugnant in forcing a man to cater to those he detests, but on the other hand, the routine and endemic injustice prior to the laws in question was too damaging to the society at large to be allowed to continue. The remedy is undeniably imperfect, but there was no other solution to deeply ingrained, legally mandated out and out racism.

@Inara27 If religion can be invoked as a reason not to sell to same sex couples, then why not blacks, hispanics, whites, or whatever?
Because one’s race, height, skin color, hair color, etc. is not an act of sin in most faiths that take on the Christian moniker. There would be little faith/religious grounds to not want to serve Hispanics just because they are Hispanic, unless it can be found in the Bible where they are specifically named to be sinful. You want to take away someone’s freedom of religion, and usurp their rights as business owners to conduct business in the fashion they choose within their faith, might as well crap the Constitution and go communist, then the state would own all the business and can dictate how they like to to run.

@Apparently_Im_The_Grumpy_One I am a Christian and I would have just made the cake.
If I were the baker I would tell them what cakes were available, if they did not want a cake that fits the selection they are free to try another baker. If they wanted something offensive on the cake I would do it in a way it cannot be read, if they don’t like it I would gladly toss the cake and eat the cost and send them elsewhere, I made them a cake, they just did not like it; done deal.

@Hypocrisy_Central, explain how serving a gay couple violates religious freedom? You or your church are not forced to sanctify or even recognize their marriage. You have made a choice to own a public business.

So although being hispanic, black or white is not a sin, if they do not come from your “nation” you can enslave them:

Leviticus 25:44–45: “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.”

Are anti-slavery laws violating your religious freedom as spelled out in the Bible? There are all sorts of Old Testament laws that Christians (along with everyone else) violate on a daily basis or ignore because it is not relevant in today’s world.

@Pied_Pfeffer Thanks for the link; in plain English, no less.

Honestly, I don’t know why merchants of products just don’t take the money from the people they don’t like, and get the people out the door.

On the other hand, businesses who offer services will occasionally and discretely refuse service as a means to maintain good business relationships. A service manager in a particular service business learns which customers are going to be a PIA, which customers will never be satisfied with the service, and recognizes certain personality types that will just make the relationship miserable from the get go. Those managers have excuses to deny service: we’re booked that day; it will be a month until we can get to you; we don’t travel that far; our truck’s broken; that’s a niche we don’t get into; the equipment we need to do the job for you is in the shop; my only employee that can do that work for you is on vacation; and on and on.

With a little common sense, the manager of a service business could very easily discriminate against those protected by the ERA using the same excuses, without repercussions. I don’t see that changing.

@Inara27 Leviticus 25:44–45: “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.”
Before I even consider your Old Testament verse slinging with any seriousness do you believe and adhere to 2 Tim 3:16 then keep your verses because they have no right usage connected to them. I would not take real estate law advice from who only knows about traffic laws and only because they got ticketed.

If you are using the Bible to justify your position, then what about the other verses also contained in the Bible? I am not interested in giving you Biblical advice. I am however, asking the question of which parts of the Bible should we as either believers or as a culture take seriously and which parts are not to be followed? We seem to skip over many parts of the Bible because we are no longer in the Iron Age.

As far as 2 Tim 3:16, in this case yes, it is a meaningful verse: the scripture is useful in teaching and training in righteousness since it was Jesus’s example in word and deed not to shun or to judge in self-righteousness those that have sinned (Matthew 9:10–13).

“Because one’s race, height, skin color, hair color, etc. is not an act of sin in most faiths that take on the Christian moniker.”

Well, since animals are incapable of sin and non-whites used to be considered animals, I suppose you’re technically correct. It took a while for those of darker complexion to be seen as humans, and even then, that was restricted to those who abandoned whatever religion they had and converted to Christianity. Gender seems to still be a sticking point for some sects as well.

One other thing worth noting. Since Big Business has so much influence in our government, is isn’t too much of a stretch to say that our nation is run (at least in part) by business anyways. If an entity promotes and passes legislation that becomes law, it’s safe to say that they run things; that they are the state. So by your logic, there is no practical difference between Laissez-Faire capitalism and Communism. If you wish to dispute that then you have a lot of history to revise, and you might want to speak out against granting corporations personhood and try getting Citizens United overturned. Otherwise, we already have what you don’t want; you just don’t recognize it because it came from the other side.

There are two VERY separate issues that people conflate.

1) People
You don’t tell people “we don’t serve your kind.” If you serve the public, you serve all the public.

2) Product or service
Nobody can make the Christian baker produce a cake that says “I approve of gay marriage.”. The black baker doesn’t have to make a burning cross cake for the Klan customer.

You get in trouble for kicking out PEOPLE who want the same PRODUCT OR SERVICE that you server to others.

@Inara27 If you are using the Bible to justify your position, then what about the other verses also contained in the Bible?
If I am using the Bible, I, unlike others, actually believe the book is real and authentic. If you do not believe 2 Tim 3:16 then you have no foundation, because you can’t even believe or be sure what you are trying to use is of God or made up. If you are studied up in your Bible you will know what is said is always conformed in another book, another chapter, and often several times over.

I am however, asking the question of which parts of the Bible should we as either believers or as a culture take seriously and which parts are not to be followed?
As a Believer, you take every syllable seriously because as a true Believer, you know every word was inspired by God to have man write. You don’t get caught up that God did not actually write it as He did the 10 Commandments, but He dictated it spiritually through His people, prophets, etc. If you cannot believe that, the Bible is basically useless to you. To the ungodly they are not in the family so they are judge by their works, how well they kept the Commandments, and as we know, no one lived a perfect live but Christ; if you broke one even once, you broke them all basically. They are at this time living under the mercy of Christ that He has not come down and blotted them all out, for He is long-suffering. Just as Noah told those people for nearly 100 years, you want to be in the boat, but they did not see fit until it was too late, then they were trying to beat on the sides to get in. Christ is saying, His patience is holding but it will not forever, and if you die without getting under the blood, you might as well have drowned in the flood.

As far as 2 Tim 3:16, in this case yes, it is a meaningful verse
What exactly does that verse tell you?

Religion could be an issue here, as the courts will decide. Otherwise, why is this person in business anyway? To make money! Isn’t that more important than dictating morals??

@SquirrelEStuff , No, I don’t think it makes it ok, if they put a sign in the window saying ‘No blacks, gays, Jews etc…’ and puts that in the public area of my town. That sort of behaviour just doesn’t fly for me. I have a kid and I don’t want him picking up on that sort of hate and discrimination and I wouldn’t want his friends to either.

and @Hypocrisy_Central when your god comes again, and we live in a Theocracy, what you are saying, I will accept, but in the meantime, we live in SECULAR countries where all religions or lack there of are accepted. Take your excuses from your bible to your bible classes. They don’t belong in common law or community standards.

^ [... when your god [_edit God comes again, and we live in a Theocracy, what you are saying, I will accept,...]_
He may come after you expire, you will then not have any chance of accepting salvation, just so you know….

*ooooow! and she heroically takes that arrow to the heart

And when you’re dead and there is no after life or life ever-after, you’ll be dead and unable to realise how much time you wasted.

My time WAS WASTED before I came to Christ, now it has a purpose. If I die and there is no life after death, i won’t know it, and neither will you. If you die and you realize you are dead who ended up in a better situation? That is a simple enough question.

I won’t realise I’m dead because I’ll be dead. And I’m not a Pascal’s Wager sort of person. But this made me laugh.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BssFvtWCMAA1WQ8.jpg:large

and @Hypocrisy_Central I didn’t mean you trying to practice your religion was a waste of time, I meant all this arguing. I think you should practice your religion because you should really try to get better at it, and you’ve mentioned several times that it is the only way you will understand right from wrong.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/97/ec/36/97ec367811c856d37557a627f228021d.jpg

@Hypocracy_Central:

Whether or not I am a true believer is irrelevant here. You proclaim to be, and I have no reason not to think that to be true. I also have no desire to change your beliefs. What I am trying to discover is how you and others use Biblical texts to justify discriminate against those you think sin against God.

Yes, the Old Testament says that sex outside of marriage is an abomination, and that only a man and a woman may enter into marriage. But it also allows for slavery, various punishments for children and wives who do not “behave” themselves, calls for sacrifices, etc. I do not see many of these things practiced by Christians today.

My previous point, which you ignored, was that Jesus himself said not to shun or to judge those who seem to sin in the eyes of God. So if as you say, all parts of the Bible are important, then it seems that those who wish to shun gays are ignoring the words of Christ.

It appears that most Christians cherry pick their Bible verses to suit what fits them as well.

To me, the better path for all of us, Christian or not, is to treat everyone with respect and not to judge them. If there is a God, he will sort it out, and if not, then it does not matter.

A nice variant on Pascal’s Wager, perhaps?

@SquirrelEStuff It’s my understanding that businesses can deny service for nearly any reason, except discriminating against someone’s race, gender, orientation, etc. etc.

I manage a liquor store and we have a lot of leeway to deny service to people. Like, if someone appears to be 30 or under, they tell us they’re 30, but they don’t have ID, we don’t make the sale. Same if they have a vertical ID, if we suspect someone is buying for an underage person, if they seem drunk/ tipsy, or if anything about their behavior makes us feel unsafe. My boss kicked out some young college bros the other day because they were horsing around and being loud.

But if we denied a sale because someone was gay, or because of their race, we’d be inviting a lawsuit. And also, it would be wrong.

Businesses are private property, even ones that are open to the public. Business owners can exercise discretion in making sales. But thanks to the civil rights battles of the 20th century, discrimination can’t be one of those reasons.

@cazzie I meant all this arguing
If it seems like an argument it is at the actions of others. Someone asks a stupid question, I give them the answer they never wanted in the first place, then they ask another stupid question trying to give the 1st one more teeth. Or they ask why this or that is, I give them an answer they don’t like and they come back with some silly retort. They must benefit from it somehow because they keep doing it.

@Inara27 What I am trying to discover is how you and others use Biblical texts to justify discriminate against those you think sin against God.
There is no discrimination going oin, so you started on the wrong path.

But it also allows for slavery, various punishments for children and wives who do not “behave” themselves, calls for sacrifices, etc. I do not see many of these things practiced by Christians today.
Because as much as I tried to explain, because man could not fulfill the Law, Christ came and redeemed man (those that accept) from the wages of sin, those who accept are under the dispensation of grace, that is why a lot of those rituals that were done before are not required of saints today. But if you have no foundation of the difference between being under the Law and being under Grace, it would be like trying to explain how a rudder steers a jet when you have no concept of air.

My previous point, which you ignored, was that Jesus himself said not to shun or to judge those who seem to sin in the eyes of God. So if as you say, all parts of the Bible are important, then it seems that those who wish to shun gays are ignoring the words of Christ.
I gave you and answer, you, as others, don’t want anything less than welcome gays living openly in sin with arms wide. 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Psalm 1:1 speaks differently. If they claim to be of the faith I have the authority to judge their fruits (works) as to if they are following the Word or not. If they are living openly in sin and saying it is right, and making God out to be what He is not, I am under no obligation to buy in and support their sinning.

It appears that most Christians cherry pick their Bible verses to suit what fits them as well.
People choosing to live in iniquity want Believer to ignore scripture that points out their iniquity. It is they who want to cherry pick those verses they believe will legitimize their sin.

To me, the better path for all of us, Christian or not, is to treat everyone with respect and not to judge them.
I don’t as I have said, I did not judge a gay man with pedophilia the way I am sure many here have said in many other threads. I can judge the works or actions of someone, everyone else here does as well, just for different reasons.

@Hypocrisy_Central “You want to take away someone’s freedom of religion, and usurp their rights as business owners to conduct business in the fashion they choose within their faith, might as well crap the Constitution and go communist, then the state would own all the business and can dictate how they like to to run.”

Are you or are you not in the above quote promoting discrimination based on someone’s freedom of religion?

Nobody here has said that you personally or your church must accept gays or anyone else for that matter, only that if you have a public business you must serve everyone equally. If you choose to personally shun certain groups, then that is between you and God and as the Bible says, not for anyone here on Earth to judge.

Most interpretations (not mine) are that Jesus’s sacrifice eliminated the need for further animal and ritual sacrifices, since his was the ultimate. However the moral and ethical portions of the Law must be followed (Matthew 5:21–44).

Your best argument is that if I don’t have faith, then the Bible cannot be understood by me. It is clear to me that Christians can use whatever portion of the Bible best suits them to justify their actions, even if the Bible says nothing or is ambiguous. Non-Christians can be just as guilty.

@Inara27 Are you or are you not in the above quote promoting discrimination based on someone’s freedom of religion?
Not at all, if they want to order a cake that said ”Happy Graduation”, “Get well soon”, etc.. that in no way infringed upon a person of faith’s ethics, then make the cake. If they want a cake going against the ethics of God, they have the right to pass on doing the cake; no discrimination.

However the moral and ethical portions of the Law must be followed (Matthew 5:21–44).
This point of time you speak of is before the Lord was crucified, so they were still under the Law, the Holy of Holies was also still in effect. The Covenant of Grace did not start until after the Lord of Host defeated death and hades by rising on the 3rd day.

It is clear to me that Christians can use whatever portion of the Bible best suits them to justify their actions, even if the Bible says nothing or is ambiguous. Non-Christians can be just as guilty.
Yes, that I can agree, I have seen it in bunches here. Unless you take it all as a whole, fitting together and being confirmed, even if in another book or chapter, you can make it say anything; and so many have chosen select verses to try to paint a picture that is not there.

If you open a store, you don’t get to quote the bible to defend your discrimination. You only get to quote Federal or State laws, or Local city ordinances. And let me see…. Nope, you STILL can’t discriminate against people for race, religion or sexual orientation.

^ If you open a store, you don’t get to quote the bible to defend your discrimination
Federal Law will not dictate what service I offer. If I had a bakery there will be no discrimination, there would be certain cakes off limits, if the issue was forced, they may get a cake that is unattractive and turpentine would not wash the taste off their tongue…..but they will get served as they want to control how I do my business.

@Hypocrisy_Central If you have a bakery, you can’t be forced to supply cakes with items in your store you don’t usually stock. You also have the right to simply say, ‘We can’t take any new orders, we have a full calendar.’ Honestly, I think even I could do this if people I really disliked on a personal level asked me to make them soap, especially if they want a discount. But I would never, ever, EVER make someone a crap soap if I was forced, by law to make something. I would just make sure the person paid full price and I wouldn’t go out of my way to deliver and make specialised packaging like I usually do.

^ I will let them know I was never interested in the assignment, if they push the issue, they will taste why…..they should have gone somewhere else when I warned them.

edit And the deposit will be non-refundable….

@Hypocrisy_Central It is that kind of attitude that makes people hate Christians.

@chyna Entirely so. And it really isn’t fair to the less pushy Christians of the world.

^^ Maybe that pushiness is attitude that gets people annoyed with gays….now i said annoyed with their actions, we can still go for lunch if they are not PDA in front of me.

Gays generally don’t proselytize though. And I have yet to have a homosexual demean me for my heterosexuality. I’ve broken a few hearts, but every gay guy who has hit on me has respected my orientation. So, @Hypocrisy_Central, when was the last time you were asked to be gay? When was the last time a homosexual tried to (figuratively) force things down your throat?

The only way I can see them being even remotely pushy is when they try to get the same rights heterosexuals have had for years, but even then I don’t really consider it pushy to just want to be treated the same as everyone else. It’s not like they are demanding special treatment.

@jerv Gays generally don’t proselytize though.
They just want to push into textbooks, clubs, BSOA, etc. and not only that, expect everyone to be cool with it, or whine discrimination and bigotry

So, @Hypocrisy_Central, when was the last time you were asked to be gay?
About the last time I asked a gay person to be straight, can’t remember it ever happening. Now being told I was gay and not really accepting it….that is another story.

When was the last time a homosexual tried to (figuratively) force things down your throat?
Tried? They did in 2010.

@Hypocrisy_Central No; they just want to not be excluded any more. It’s people like YOU that want to treat them special!

By chance would any of that have been instigated by you coming across as attacking them? Nobody likes feeling threatened, and you are outspoken enough that I can easily see you starting a fight and having enough ego to play the victim when you reap what you sow.

@jerv: just because someone acts a certain way on a website doesn’t necessarily mean they’re like that in real life.

I can’t get over the fact that @Hypocrisy_Central is saying that he is happy to judge and punish someone he doesn’t agree with by supplying them a cake that would taste like ashes. That would not only put him in a position of being charged for a hate crime but also, if his consumed product harms a person, it would be a criminal offense of bodily harm, just as real as if he had punched them.

@cazzie I can’t get over the fact that @Hypocrisy_Central is saying that he is happy to judge and punish someone he doesn’t agree with by supplying them a cake that would taste like ashes.
Again, selective hearing, I never said at any time I wanted to punish someone. If a person claims to be a Believer, then I can judge their works, as to if they are living and behaving as the Word says. If it were anything else people would judge their work or actions. Those who are outside family don’t matter, they will be judged by their keeping of the Commandments. I never said their cake would taste like ash, but I can honestly say I would be wanting to get it over and done and away from me at breakneck speed, my disinterest in it will not do the taste any justice, but they could have gone somewhere else.

@jerv It’s people like YOU that want to treat them special!
I think that is the problem, they feel I don’t treat them special enough.

In life I am straight forward, never have a problem.

@Hypocrisy_Central Is it really special treatment though? You can get a job, so why can’t a homosexual? You can walk into a bakery and get a wedding cake, so why can’t a homosexual? You can have sex with the consenting adult of your choice, so why can’t a homosexual?

I don’t think think you realize how privileged you are, how many things you take for granted that others have to fight for. I don’t think it special to treat a person the same way I would treat another person. It’s when you single them out that they get treated special.

@jca True, but one can only act on what is seen.

@jerv Is it really special treatment though? You can get a job, so why can’t a homosexual? You can walk into a bakery and get a wedding cake, so why can’t a homosexual? You can have sex with the consenting adult of your choice, so why can’t a homosexual?
• I am not saying gays can work.
• I am not saying they can’t buy a cake. If a person like my past friend who was afflicted with pedophilia (him being gay also notwithstanding) and wanted to have a cake celebrating their membership to NAMBLA and wanted it decorated with a man buggering some preteen boy, if I were the baker would I have the right not to make it? What if it were a skin head that wanted it decorated with a noose and some phrase about hanging all Blacks or that this is the only necktie they should have, not those in the boardroom, should I just make it, or would I have the right to refuse? If they want to order a cake that doesn’t go against the morals and religion of the baker, I say make the dang cake for them. I am not saying they can’t get a cake; they just can’t get every cake they want no matter what.
• No, I can’t. However, if I was to live as a fornicator, I would say they sure, they can fornicate as many straight people do, but they do not care about calling it marriage, marriage is different from sex.

I don’t think think you realize how privileged you are, how many things you take for granted that others have to fight for
Every last person in this nation should be thinking that. Even though Jim Crow has never left the building I realize what I do have, and what I don’t have I hardly notice because it is so little but everyone has resistance against someone, even in small portions, they may find ways to justify it as going along with the herd, but it is still resistance, human nature at best. Back when I was a worldly fornicator I at least owned up to my hypocrisy, I would admit all day two hot lesbians going at it was quite exciting, homely, old, of fat lesbians, and gays men was barfable.

@Hypocrisy_Central If the policy is consistent, then yes. If one would refuse to make a sexually explicit cake of a guy banging an adult woman or write “Death to crackers!” just as readily, then all are treated equally and it’s fair.

The issue come when policies are biased; when one would refuse one the service they offer another for arbitrary reasons. THAT is what all the hubbub is about. If making an otherwise normal, innocent wedding cake with nothing special except for having two brides or two grooms is a bit much for somebody, then odds are that they’re not really ready to be a part of 21st century America where the majority of people support same-sex marriage by an almost 2-to-1 margin.

Society has changed, and those that refuse to keep up with the tide will be drowned out and/or washed away. Sure, you may deride that as “going with the herd”, but unless you’re a hermit, you’re going to have to deal with mainstream society. You don’t have to like it, but you have to get along with other people well enough to function. If you run a business, you’re going to be dealing with society a lot. If you can’t deal with society, then you shouldn’t put yourself in a situation where you deal with more of it than the average person. That’s actually part of why I don’t work retail, preferring jobs where I only deal with my coworkers and supervisors.