The Cake Case Revisited

[Ravenshire]

In answer to C_L, I'd bake the fucking cake. I understand that if I open a business to the public, to remain viable I must cater to the whims of the public. Would I enjoy baking a cake with a swastika on it? No. Would I serve my clientele without bias? Bet your ass, just like these bigoted shit-stains should.

Equal rights for all means exactly that. If you wish to continue to be treated equally, you must treat others the same.

How would you feel, C_L, if an atheist baker refused to bake your wedding cake because you were a cathy-lick? These people are not discriminating against a cake. They're discriminating against other people.

As I've explained, refusing to bake a cake for a particular person because you don't like who they are, shouldn't be allowed. Refusing to bake a cake for an event or purpose you disagree with, should. So if I walked into a bakery and asked for a birthday cake for myself that said "happy birthday debora" and the baker happened to know I was catholic, he can't turn me away simply bc of who I am. But if I wanted a cake that said "Pro Life!" on it for a pro life fundraiser I was hosting, you can absolutely say no if you are against the pro life movement.

Unless you're defining gay marriage as something other than marriage, your point is pure bullshit. If these bigoted bozos don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, they can always opt-out of baking wedding cakes. No (open, repulsive) bigotry in refusing the gay wedding then. This seems to be the point you're missing. They are refusing to bake a wedding cake because the couple is gay. They're not refusing to bake wedding cakes. They're refusing to bake gay wedding cakes. It's the very definition of bigotry.

So, I'll ask again, how would you feel if you were refused a service granted to everyone else, based solely on your religion? If you walked into a restaurant wearing a crucifix and the waiter told you "We don't serve cathy-licks," are you going to tell me that's somehow different?!?