5 ms·
> Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. Exc
by flutas 3y ago
> Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression.
Except it wasn't.
If you know the cake case, they ruled that there was nothing wrong because they offered to sell them an off the shelf cake, they just refused to write a message they didn't support.
> Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Facts_of_the_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- fzeroracer 3y agoYes, I know. The crux of the case is that the cakeshop wanted to discriminate on basis of religious belief and attempted to argue this via a line of bullshit that the Supreme Court bought. The argument was that writing on said cake was a violation of their right to free expression.
- flutas 3y ago> Yes, I know. Then why are you making up facts of the case to try and pretend it's going to lead to restaurants banning gay people?
- brodouevencode 3y agoThere's a level of nuance that some just aren't able to comprehend.
- fzeroracer 3y agoBecause I was making the argument that cooking involves free expression, ergo they can kick you out if they don't want to serve you food. This isn't hard to understand and should be obvious given that the rhetoric over this line of argument has been increasingly common. See: the literal case we're discussing here which is based around made up standing.