While I don't think anyone should be obliged to provide a service to anyone unless it is life critical, it is obvious that this has blown up to be what it has become because of the innate dislike for gays amongst religious conservatives. To them, this is just a part of a larger battle where they don't want to concede an inch to their opposition.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well, aside from being obligated to provide a service, I'm sure you would agree that in states where sexual orientation is a protect class, refusing to provide service to someone on that basis would be illegal, no?
Yes. From how I've understood the laws that you have (I am not American) that is illegal.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, being and acting homophobic is no different than being racist. Both judges an individual based on their innate nature that they had no hand in choosing. The question is just whether or not it is the best response to write laws where in the attempt to protect people from discrimination, it also forces people to violate their core beliefs (irrational and hateful as they might be). I think Dave Rubin said it well when he stated that he was not in favour of such laws "because a state that can force others to violate their conscience can also force me to violate mine".
It just seems to open up space for issues like the ones that surrounded Jordan Peterson in Canada, where suddenly one can be forced to address people in ways that oneself do not agree with due to vague laws.
To me, it just seems that the best response is rather for people in society to have the moral courage to stand with the gay community and against those that discriminate, and instead "punish" them through not buying their services as well as giving them the bad reputation they deserve.
Anyways, I have zero sympathy for the baker.
People "Believe" many things in error certainly when a large body like Vatican tells them to. Those things often need to be reversed by law.
And old religion is often about hygiene, belief with no medical fact or proof to support it. You are dealing with people who lived 2,000 years ago. Trial, error, failure, etc and many times wrong aggregation of cause vs effect...
Same sex sex may have medical and community concerns that others won't know. Racial bias likely has no foundation medically to prohibit or to censure that class. There may be medical reasons not to have sex with men if you are a man...
One caveat I see.
Yes and biz owner broke the law. He can't burn state's straw man this way using his religion, and Church and State must remain apart. The law wins. State must act.
He is obligated since he agreed to do this. He has a contract with State and agrees by living in the State, much of this is implied or de facto, not to break the law.