You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

0
1

[–] FriedFood100 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The bakers refused service for the wedding because of the sexual orientation of the people involved, which is discrimination against people.

The bakers refused to make a 'gay wedding' cake, they did not refuse to make them a cake because they identified as gay. The bakers obviously don't see a straight marriage as violating their beliefs, so of course they wouldn't have a problem making a traditional wedding cake. I don't think refusing to contribute non-essential (especially one with alternatives) services in acts or ceremonies against one's beliefs should ever be considered discrimination under the law. If you consider this a form of discrimination against the couple, you also necessarily have to believe the bakers were discriminated against.

The couple had alternatives and options, they could have gone to another bakery. What was the bakers alternatives? It's clear who was really discriminated against when you objectively look at the circumstances.

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.

Correct, they contend one is aligned with their religious beliefs, and the other violates them.

3
-3

[–] Avnomke 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

The bakers refused to make a 'gay wedding' cake, they did not refuse to make them a cake because they identified as gay.

They're the same thing, though. Gay weddings only happen because people are gay, so refusing to service them is discrimination against gay people. I don't think the bakers were discriminated against, I think that they were fined without reason.

I feel like there's a fundamental disagreement here. You contend that the ceremony to celebrate two people choosing to live their life together is unrelated to the people involved. I disagree, and evidently so did the courts.

0
1

[–] MagicalCentaurBeans 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

you do know it's not illegal to be a bigot right? dont get me wrong, i think discriminating who they bake a cake for based on someone's sexuality is pretty lame but that act in and of itself does not constitute a crime. The problem I (and many others) have with this situation is because they were punished for no crime committed.

2
-2

[–] Avnomke 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

I think that there should have been no fine in either case. I'm just stating that the two cases are not equal.