3 ms·
Yes, 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 th
by fzeroracer 3y ago
Yes, 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.