Why do you feel that the person cited in the article below does not have the right to have their deeply held religious freedoms protected, while the rights of the cake baker involving the gay couple does?

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/3/20847943/mississippi...

See the final sentence of the comment to which you have replied:

> You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.

I responded to a comment painting this case as an example of conservatives refusing business to LGBT individuals, which it isn't. It is a case of refusing to be compelled to create content that expresses your views.

Of note, the baker in the referenced case offered to sell existing products. They simply refused the bespoke cake.

Yours is an example of discrimination of a rote service based not on content, but of immutable attribute. These are unrelated situations.

Good dodge!

Why is "creating a cake to be used by gay people" different from "hosting an event for gay people" in your mind? Why shouldn't you be able to skip out on doing either if you don't believe that they're morally correct?

If the cake is not inherently gay (ie, literally stating "I am a gay wedding cake" or some such similar wording) how is the creation itself any different because of the consumer? If 2 men ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting and a straight couple ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting, there's no inherent difference in the product, and thus in the production.

If it's "I will need to interact with and consult with gay people endeavoring to undertake what I believe is an amoral act (marriage)" then how is it different from hosting the wedding?

This whole area is arbitrary and nonsensical lines. We'll be better off when the same protective rights extended to visible minorities are extend to invisible minorities. You claim they're unrelated, I disagree. For now, the law agrees with you and I can concede that.

It's not just "creating a cake to be used by gay people", it's more of a "creating a bespoke piece of art communicating a certain message with your name signed on it".

Again, seems like the baker was totally okay to sell the couple any of the pre-baked cakes, which would qualify as "creating a cake to be used by gay people".

>>If 2 men ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting and a straight couple ask for a pink cake with chocolate frosting, there's no inherent difference in the product, and thus in the production.

The only difference is who the consumer is. Also, the hollow difference between "I created this just for you" vs. "I created this, and you will be using it" of your pre-baked vs bespoke cake example seems extremely weak to me. Legally, this doesn't matter, but hey legally at one point black people couldn't vote because "reasons".

The point I'm getting at: Why was OP comfortable with half measures? Why is "black" a protected class, even against "deeply held religious beliefs" but "gay" isn't? Why is "use a product you created just for me" different from "use a product you created"? This difference feel arbitrary to me, and grounded more in homophobia than any sort of sound logic.

Put bluntly: If you think gay people shouldn't be allowed to request cakes, I don't see how you can logically hold the belief that black people should be allowed to request cakes.

Let's be clear, that was not the request. The baker refused to bake the cake because it was for a gay wedding, and such a cake would "promote gay marriage".

There are still many people out there who do not "believe" in interracial marriage. Do you support a baker refusing to make a cake for an interracial couple? Do they have the right to refuse business solely based on the race of their customers?

> Let's be clear, that is not the request.

Yes, it was the request. They wanted a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding, which was precluded by the baker's sincere religious belief.

If you read TFA I linked to, you would have read this as well as all the other insane requests refused, and that the baker was willing to sell otherwise made cakes.

This is a well litigated, well reported case and you have twice now insisted material elements of the case did not happen.

This is not about refusing someone based on their immutable attributes, but their requested content. Stop asking rhetorical questions regarding racism.

Sincere religious belief isn't a bulletproof defense on these matters though.

It is as relates to compelling someone to create custom content on your behalf, to express your views.

I can't use a religious belief to refuse a rote service, but I can to refuse bespoke work that expresses your views.

This case was never about refusing service to LGBT couples, it was about refusing bespoke work. To paint it as anything else, and in defense of your argument that "Conservatives are anti-LGBT" because of this case is wrong and nothing short of propaganda.

By your logic, business should be able to deny business involving bespoke imagery of interracial couples based on religious views. For instance, a cake depicting the couple.

Just like a baker can refuse to create a White Power cake covered in swastikas based on their sincerely held views!

This is another false equivalency.

White supremacy is on a lower tier of protection in America than things like race and sexual orientation.

"Bespoke work" that is colored by the nature of the customer requesting the work. Does the baker do wedding cakes? Yes. Now what if the customer requested a wedding cake, but the wedding is a gay wedding? Suddenly no.

Your argument that the baker was merely refusing to serve the customer because of the "content" does not hold up.