3 ms·

> Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Evidence? > >What he refused to do was b

> Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Evidence? > >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event > *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple The important distinction here is that Masterpiece did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex. Sexual orientation is a spectrum, and does not inherently force you to marry someone of a particular sex; the latter is a choice. Masterpiece's owner disapproved of the choice his clients made and didn't want to express support for it; that is his right. > and refused to bake a cake featuring two colors because he doesn't like trans people The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. The baker didn't want to support the specific ideology those colors represent. Just like a baker might refuse to bake a cake with a red color scheme and an elephant decoration, because they don't want to support the Republican Party. It has nothing to do with who the client is!

wtfwhateven 2y ago
>Evidence? Their behavior spanning decades and their belief in Leviticus 20:13 as morally correct. If they were allowed to they would do much worse. >The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. There's no ideology involved. >It has nothing to do with who the client is! It irrefutably does. >The important distinction There is none. >did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex There's no distinction, it's the same thing. Mental gymnastics to justify his behaviour. It's simply making excuses for someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13 to exclude gay people in any way they legally can. Would a white nationalist bakery owner that refuses to bake a cake for a black couple celebrating their wedding also be justified and morally righteous to you?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

wtfwhateven 2y ago

>Evidence? Their behavior spanning decades and their belief in Leviticus 20:13 as morally correct. If they were allowed to they would do much worse. >The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. There's no ideology involved. >It has nothing to do with who the client is! It irrefutably does. >The important distinction There is none. >did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex There's no distinction, it's the same thing. Mental gymnastics to justify his behaviour. It's simply making excuses for someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13 to exclude gay people in any way they legally can. Would a white nationalist bakery owner that refuses to bake a cake for a black couple celebrating their wedding also be justified and morally righteous to you?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]