3 ms·

> If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer

> If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? If many businesses were doing that, that would be pretty bad, yeah. But the activist demands go far beyond that. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to serve gay clients—they were perfectly willing to serve gay clients! What they were sued for was refusing to provide services that would express support for a specific event—a gay wedding. It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... > simply isn't something that exists. Quick internet search: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06-04/parents-enflamed-by-mature-graphic-novel-in-k-6-library-nmusd-mulls-book-policy https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06... Excerpts from the book in question: https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-flamer-by https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-...

cogman10 2y ago
> sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. Good job comparing a gay wedding to nazis. > Quick internet search: And here's the followup story https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2022-06-29/apodaca-controversy-over-misplaced-graphic-novel-detracts-from-larger-issues https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2022... The novel was not pushed by the liberals or whatever. It was a rouge and fired staff member that decided to place the novel which ended up in the library doing an inventory. Nobody is advocating for that book to be in an elementary school library (including the author). But this is the issue with this hot button conservative issue. 5 more seconds of googling to find the followup and response and you would have seen that the library board did exactly what you'd want them to do. But now, it's a national issue because one library had a rouge (now fired) employee.
- Tao3300 2y ago
  Rouge in a library is a bad idea anyway. It could stain the books.
- ahazred8ta 2y ago
  We refer you to the Rouge Angles Of Satin https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RougeAnglesOfSatin https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RougeAnglesOfSat... ...
- wtfwhateven 2y ago
  OP knows all of this, he's being dishonest to push an agenda sadly. Look at his submission history and you'll see similar attempts to do that. In his comments he also comes to the defence of an ex moderator of 8chan that had answers other than "no, absolutely not" to whether CSAM should be allowed on it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40385450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40385450
TulliusCicero 2y ago
> Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to serve gay clients—they were perfectly willing to serve gay clients! What they were sued for was refusing to provide services that would express support for a specific event—a gay wedding. It's a gay wedding because they're gay. It's like refusing to service black people because hey, they're having a "black wedding"! The gayness here is a property of the clients, the people requesting the service, it's not that the wedding itself was super gay.
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  > It's a gay wedding because they're gay. No, it's a same-sex wedding because the two people involved are of the same sex. There nothing inherently impossible about a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex, or a heterosexual marrying someone of the same sex. They are unlikely to want to do those things, of course, but they could if they did want to. (And, of course, many people are not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual!) Millions (billions, if you consider the entire world population) of people believe that the institution of marriage is inherently something that happens between a man and a woman. Just like many people believe that marriage is inherently exclusive/monogamous, or inherently not permitted between close biological relatives, or inherently reserved to people above a certain age, or 1000 other restrictions that you or I may or may not agree with. Is it illegally discriminatory against people with siblings to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between brother and sister? What about a polygamous Mormon marriage where the husband is taking his 17th wife, would refusing to service that event be illegal religious discrimination?
TulliusCicero 2y ago
> It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. This comparison is beyond ridiculous. Being gay isn't an ideological choice, it's an inherent property of the people involved. If someone's a dwarf, you gonna say "well it's not that they were unwilling to bake cakes for little people, they just refused to provide a service for something they're religiously opposed to -- small weddings"?
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  > Being gay isn't an ideological choice But marrying someone of the same sex is. It's perfectly possible for someone who is homosexual to marry a partner of the opposite sex, and vice-versa. (And of course, many people are bisexual!)
  - TulliusCicero 2y ago
    Gentleman, the reasoning of the social conservatives: > Marrying someone of the same sex is an ideological choice, you see, completely divorced from being, y'know, gay This is how stupid they think everyone listening to them is.
wtfwhateven 2y ago
This cake shop refuses to make a cake that is pink and blue because trans people. You knew that as it's in the article you keep linking. If this person could legally refuse to serve LGBT people entirely he absolutely would.
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wtfwhateven 2y ago
    What flag? They weren't asked to make a flag. They bake cakes. Nobody asked for any ideology to be represented. Nobody asked them to endorse anything.

cogman10 2y ago

> sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. Good job comparing a gay wedding to nazis. > Quick internet search: And here's the followup story https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2022-06-29/apodaca-controversy-over-misplaced-graphic-novel-detracts-from-larger-issues https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2022... The novel was not pushed by the liberals or whatever. It was a rouge and fired staff member that decided to place the novel which ended up in the library doing an inventory. Nobody is advocating for that book to be in an elementary school library (including the author). But this is the issue with this hot button conservative issue. 5 more seconds of googling to find the followup and response and you would have seen that the library board did exactly what you'd want them to do. But now, it's a national issue because one library had a rouge (now fired) employee.

Tao3300 2y ago
Rouge in a library is a bad idea anyway. It could stain the books.
ahazred8ta 2y ago
We refer you to the Rouge Angles Of Satin https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RougeAnglesOfSatin https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RougeAnglesOfSat... ...
wtfwhateven 2y ago
OP knows all of this, he's being dishonest to push an agenda sadly. Look at his submission history and you'll see similar attempts to do that. In his comments he also comes to the defence of an ex moderator of 8chan that had answers other than "no, absolutely not" to whether CSAM should be allowed on it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40385450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40385450

TulliusCicero 2y ago

> Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to serve gay clients—they were perfectly willing to serve gay clients! What they were sued for was refusing to provide services that would express support for a specific event—a gay wedding. It's a gay wedding because they're gay. It's like refusing to service black people because hey, they're having a "black wedding"! The gayness here is a property of the clients, the people requesting the service, it's not that the wedding itself was super gay.

Georgelemental 2y ago
> It's a gay wedding because they're gay. No, it's a same-sex wedding because the two people involved are of the same sex. There nothing inherently impossible about a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex, or a heterosexual marrying someone of the same sex. They are unlikely to want to do those things, of course, but they could if they did want to. (And, of course, many people are not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual!) Millions (billions, if you consider the entire world population) of people believe that the institution of marriage is inherently something that happens between a man and a woman. Just like many people believe that marriage is inherently exclusive/monogamous, or inherently not permitted between close biological relatives, or inherently reserved to people above a certain age, or 1000 other restrictions that you or I may or may not agree with. Is it illegally discriminatory against people with siblings to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between brother and sister? What about a polygamous Mormon marriage where the husband is taking his 17th wife, would refusing to service that event be illegal religious discrimination?

TulliusCicero 2y ago

> It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. This comparison is beyond ridiculous. Being gay isn't an ideological choice, it's an inherent property of the people involved. If someone's a dwarf, you gonna say "well it's not that they were unwilling to bake cakes for little people, they just refused to provide a service for something they're religiously opposed to -- small weddings"?

Georgelemental 2y ago
> Being gay isn't an ideological choice But marrying someone of the same sex is. It's perfectly possible for someone who is homosexual to marry a partner of the opposite sex, and vice-versa. (And of course, many people are bisexual!)
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  Gentleman, the reasoning of the social conservatives: > Marrying someone of the same sex is an ideological choice, you see, completely divorced from being, y'know, gay This is how stupid they think everyone listening to them is.

wtfwhateven 2y ago

This cake shop refuses to make a cake that is pink and blue because trans people. You knew that as it's in the article you keep linking. If this person could legally refuse to serve LGBT people entirely he absolutely would.

Georgelemental 2y ago
[flagged]
- wtfwhateven 2y ago
  What flag? They weren't asked to make a flag. They bake cakes. Nobody asked for any ideology to be represented. Nobody asked them to endorse anything.