Quote:When I flew banner planes, we flew all kinds of banners for all kinds of customers. But I recall getting a call from a pro-life organization that wanted to fly an anti-abortion banner. They sent over the art work that wanted to fly. It was a picture of an aborted fetus. We refused to fly it. Why? Because we disagreed with the content and didn't want our business to be associated with it.

So the obvious argument here is well that's a different situation because you wouldn't fly that particular banner for anyone no matter who was paying the bill. 

Now lets go back to our baker. He will happily create a wedding cake that says 'Congratulations Bill and Hilary' on it. But he won't create a cake that says 'Congratulations Bill and Jim'. Same as with the banner company, he does this because he disagrees with the content and does not want his business associated with it. And same as with the banner company he would refuse to create this cake even if Bill and Hilary were the ones ordering it. How is that discrimination?

Businesses should be free to refuse to serve anyone they choose. Likewise the public should be free to refuse to patronize those businesses.

Not even close to the same

---

Quote:Oh but they are consistent. You can refuse to serve anyone depending on the reason for your refusal. You cannot refuse to serve a woman because she's a woman. But you can refuse to serve a woman who shits on your floor. A sign painter can refuse to paint a sign for a hate group that says god hates fags. Doesn't mean the painter won't paint another sign for that group, just means he won't paint that sign. And there currently is not any law against that nor should there ever be.

Again not the same

---

Quote:I never expected you to advocate for forced labor.

Expect it's not forced labour dumb ass .

(June 5, 2018 at 3:29 pm)Wololo Wrote: Big difference between the scenario your company found itself in and the one you describe of the hypothetical cake maker. First of all the picture of the "aborted foetus" is likely to be gross and indecent, designed specifically to horrify and offend.  
You cannot claim that the cake does either of these things.

What if we weren't concerned with the banner offending the public? What if we refused to fly it simply because it offended us? What if we refused to fly it or any other pro life banner because we personally happened to be pro choice?

Now lets cloud up the waters even more. A few years back, not far from where I live, the owner of a shop that specializes in customizing diesel powered 4X4 off road trucks got himself in the news because of a post he put on the companies facebook page saying (in so many words) that homosexuals weren't welcome at his shop. As you might expect, he took quite a bit of flack for that. Protesters, death threats, the whole bit. Now lets suppose that while he was dealing with all negative fallout from that facebook post, he decided the best thing for him to do would be hire a banner company to fly a banner advertising for his business. Are you saying the company I used to work for should be obligated by law to fly that banner?

Still not the same thing

(June 5, 2018 at 7:28 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: If a business is selling standard goods to the general public then it should be required to accept all customers.  

All customers? Even those who refuse to pay? Even those who steal from them? Even those who are lewd and drive away other paying customers? 

Quote:Would you be OK if every single food establishment and grocery store in your county refused to sell you food?  Suppose it then extended to the entire State?  Are you still OK with it?  And then to entire nation.  Are you still OK with that?

Well obviously I wouldn't be happy about it but is that what we're really discussing here? Is the issue really every business that exists refusing to serve someone? Is that what you're honestly arguing is the reason why we need a law? So that doesn't happen?

---

(June 5, 2018 at 8:55 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Still not the same thing

A guy paints signs. I want to hire him to paint a sign that say his wife is a dirty whore. He refuses. Discrimination?

(June 5, 2018 at 8:33 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(June 5, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You've become a parody of yourself, Neo.  Apparently not everyone agrees with you.

I never expected you to advocate for forced labor.

Still you, Neo.

Quote:A guy paints signs. I want to hire him to paint a sign that say his wife is a dirty whore. He refuses. Discrimination?

Again not the same .Your bad at this .

Its exactly the same. Explain why it isn't.

Because it is not .What more needs to be said ?

(June 5, 2018 at 9:40 pm)johan Wrote: Its exactly the same. Explain why it isn't.

Because you're asking the sign maker to provide a service that he doesn't offer to anyone. In the case of the Baker who makes wedding cakes, they simply asked for a service that he provides and they were denied specifically for the sexual preference, which as far as I know has nothing to do with baking. It would be like a gay couple going to a mechanic for an oil change and the mechanic saying, " sorry we don't do same sex oil changes, but it's not discrimination because nobody can buy a same sex oil change."

(June 5, 2018 at 9:53 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Because it is not .What more needs to be said ?

Ok so its not the same because you say so. Got it. If you can't explain it, then you haven't got a valid argument.