Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
What kind of ****** goes into a Muslim bakery and asks for a Muhammad cake or a Jewish deli and asks for a ham sandwich? Now ask how many people go into a bakery that specializes in wedding cakes and asks for a wedding cake. I get that you're preprogrammed to respond a certain way, which is specifically why I made a comment about *** wedding cakes, but the least you could do is not lick windows.
Even if people did do those things, the cakes themselves are not against their religion. It's a cake. They are not asking for cakes picturing homosexual activities.
If they're asking for a cake with two little groom figures on top, they are.
Quote:
Furthermore, the ham scenario fails because they don't sell ham at all.
Deli's do. A deli owned by a Jewish family doesn't. It's generally what defines a deli as a "Jewish deli". You get that, right? And most Jewish deli's don't actually say "Jewish deli" out front. You walk in and order a ham sandwich and they tell you that they don't serve ham because it's against their religious beliefs. Similarly, one might walk into a bakery owned by a devout Christian and not figure out that the don't want to make wedding cakes for same sex weddings until you ask them to and they say no.
Again, if you just walked into the store and asked for a cake. Or even a wedding cake, they owners have no reason to know or care about your sexual orientation. It's only when the wedding cake has two grooms or two brides on it that the maker of the cake may take offense and choose not to make it. And again, it's not "making a cake" that is the issue. It's "participating in a gay wedding" that is.
I guess my issue with this is where you think the dividing line should be then. Because the exact same legal argument you have to make to force a baker to make a cake with a design clearly intended for a same sex wedding would also require a baker to make a cake with an image of Muhammad on it. We could argue that the ham sandwich thing is a step removed, but just a step. How about a pharmacy that doesn't carry birth control? Would you accept the argument that "we don't carry that product, but carry other health related products". Or would you argue that because they carry any health related products, they must carry birth control? I'm guessing the latter, right? So how is that different than requiring a deli that makes sandwiches to carry ham so that customers can order ham sandwiches?
It's not. Legally you are arguing that if you can define something as "discrimination" at all, that you can force a business owner to do that thing they don't want to do. The problem is that all choices are a form of discrimination. If I choose to sell only flavors x, y, and z in my icecream parlor, it's technically discrimination against all other flavors. So if you present some statistics that show that one legged midgets prefer one of the missing flavors disproportionately to the rest of the population and thus not carrying that flavor represents discrimination against one legged midgets, does that mean I must sell that flavor? That's pretty ridiculous.
I just think we're chasing down a rabbit hole with that type of logic. It makes much more sense to just allow business owners to choose what products they want to sell and what activities they are willing to engage in and leave it at that. Barring some kind of monopoly situation which may prevent some products or activities from being supported in an area at all, there's no problem that needs to be solved here. If someone chooses to lose business because of their religious (or any) beliefs, that's their choice.
Edited, Mar 31st 2015 6:35pm by gbaji