Re:Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be finger...
by pwgentleman on Tuesday September 14, 2021 @10:49AM
(#28525695)
The problem is the definition of "discrimination". Everyone _is_ able to discriminate all the time. I'm free to discriminate between cookie flavors I buy, or discriminate between genders of people I date. What the law forbids is not _serving_ people because of the color of their skin or their sexual preferences.
And that is also not the case of Jack Phillips. He didn't refuse to serve gay people, and IIRC the accusers on the case were regular clients.
He refused to _design_ a custom cake for a gay wedding, which is akin to a Jewish t-shirt designer refusing to design a logo involving a Swastika, or a black transgender baker refusing to bake a cake that says "white lives matter" or "sex is immutable".
This seems much more related to compelled speech than sexual discrimination.
Re:Man wins $65K after being fired for refusing to be finger...
by fennecfoxy on Wednesday September 15, 2021 @05:55AM
(#28537183)
>which is akin to a Jewish t-shirt designer refusing to design a logo involving a Swastika, or a black transgender baker refusing to bake a cake that says "white lives matter" or "sex is immutable"
These are really not equivalent at all. Not even remotely.
I don't think this changes anything really. If religious people can use their religion as a valid reason for discrimination, why shouldn't everyone be able to discriminate?
To me, I think everyone should have exactly the same legal rights. Either everyone has to bake the cake or no one does.