If I were to order a cake celebrating interracial marriage as a white man, I would be declined.

Just substitute "gay" with "interracial" and ask the same question. Hopefully you will be able to get past your own defense mechanisms and answer your own question.

Refusing to make a cake celebrating interracial marriage is discriminating against a viewpoint, not a person.

The commission seems to agree; they protected the right of bakers to not print "offensive" religious quotes, despite religion obviously being a protected class. They couldn't overcome their bias enough to apply that in this instance, which Gorsuch in particular focused on.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Aug 9 2019 08:16am

"Wax my balls, bigot"
"Bake my three tiered pentagram white cake depicting Satan licking a functional nine inch black dildo, bigot"

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/10/supreme-court-acts-christians-will-punished-thought-crimes/

This post was edited by Goomshill on Aug 9 2019 08:18am

how is a straight man buying a "gay cake" when he isn't gay equivalent to a white man ordering an "interracial cake" when he could marry a woman from any other race?

it’s not - just another false equivalence from the petri-dish licker. concepts like sexual orientation and race are way beyond the little fella thor’s depth

This post was edited by excellence on Aug 9 2019 09:24am

The argument against gay marriage is about as quality as the argument against miscegenation.

The difference between these issues is about 30-40 years and not much else.

If you get in a time machine, same conversation with same people about same social forces. People defending the status quo vs people who want to push it.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 9 2019 12:14pm

i agree entirely, but that wasn't really my point.

Bogie asked (at least i think it what he meant) if he ordered a cake supporting gay marriage but is straight, would this be discrimination against gays? i think it's valid that in that case no gay person is being discriminated against. Thor countered with interracial marriage, which imo was not a good comparison as ANY person can be in an interracial marriage whereas only some are gay.

i dont agree with Bogies general point tho, as i believe any person should be allowed to deny services to any person without having to give any reason at all. if they make the mistake of saying "we dont serve blacks" or "fuck handicap people" then they should be sued. if the public responds to someone denying service without telling why negatively that's fine too. in short, freedom.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/transgender-activist-jessica-yaniv-loses-wax-her-balls-complaint-against-salon-workers

Sanity triumphed at the human rights tribunal, apparently Yaniv's pedophilia and racism made him impossible to circle the wagons around and once the local LGBT community washed their hands of him, the tribunal's decision was always going to follow the political winds. So in the end, Jonathan Yaniv was ordered to pay $2000 to each of the three immigrant salon owners he tried to shake down in his ball waxing extortion racket, though its said numerous other women paid up, so its not clear how much he made or lost off it

was expected

This post was edited by KrWWW on Oct 22 2019 01:47pm

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7752769/Transgender-activist-sued-salon-refusing-wax-complains-gynecologist-wont-her.html?ito=social-facebook


He's at it again