You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

9
-7

[–] Avnomke 9 points -7 points (+2|-9) ago 

The bakers refused service for an event, because the wedding was between two men. This is still discrimination against the people requesting the service, rather than the item the service involves. I don't disagree that there should have been no fine (in both cases the fine/award should have been $0). I'm just pointing out that the two cases are not the same and should not be treated as if they are.

1
3

[–] FriedFood100 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The bakers refused service for an event, because the wedding was between two men.

Correct

This is still discrimination against the people requesting the service, rather than the item the service involves.

No, it was discrimination against a particular ceremony, act, or event those people were apart of.

I don't disagree that there should have been no fine (in both cases the fine/award should have been $0). I'm just pointing out that the two cases are not the same and should not be treated as if they are.

Yeah, it was crappy example. It would have been better to make the Muslim refusing to make a cake for a Jewish ceremony or homosexual ceremony, that would rustle the jimmies.

5
-5

[–] Avnomke 5 points -5 points (+0|-5) ago 

No, it was discrimination against a particular ceremony, act, or event those people were apart of.

No it wasn't. The bakers had made cakes for other weddings. The only difference is that normally, a wedding is between a man and a woman, and in this case, it was between a man and another man. The bakers refused service for the wedding because of the sexual orientation of the people involved, which is discrimination against people.

If the bakers just refused service because they don't serve weddings, it would be different. However, they serve weddings, and refused to serve a specific wedding because it was between two men.