It wasn't about denying someone a cake. The shop had many premade cakes available for purchase. It was about being forced to create a custom LGBT themed cake that the gay couple wanted baked.
If you believe they should have been forced to do that you are an authoritarian.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111...
"LGBT-themed" I suppose is too strong a description so I will grant you that given that they never got into design discussions.
> If you believe they should have been forced to do that you are an authoritarian.
It's about as authoritarian as saying that businesses had to integrate and serve interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing, which is exactly what they claimed several decades ago.
From the court filing: "In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding."
They requested that the bakers design the cake for their gay wedding yes. You can't make people design things for you if they don't want to. If you believe that people should be able to compel this sort of work then you are an authoritarian.
The first claim elicits images of rainbows and positive affirmations of gay marriage, and the second is just a cake that's for two people getting married who happen to be gay.
> If you believe that people should be able to compel this sort of work then you are an authoritarian.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how authoritarian was it when the government forced wedding planners, wedding reception venues, photographers, dessert shops etc to plan and serve custom wedding plans and events for interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing?
> On a scale of 1 to 10, how authoritarian was it when the government forced wedding planners, wedding reception venues, photographers, dessert shops etc to plan and serve custom wedding plans and events for interracial couples despite business owners claiming that their religions forbid race mixing?
Do you have an actual example of this happening?
> Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.
This is a good write up about religion and Loving v. Virginia[2].
[1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion...
[2] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=55...
For example, someone forced to be a wedding photographer of an interracial wedding when they didn't want to.
This entire thread concerns Mailchimp specifically. Not sure there is a clearer definition of advertising than "unproven allegations".
You can choose whether to be a QAnon'er. You can't choose to be straight.