[gregw134]

On the other hand, there's a significant number of religious people in the US that believe they can't ethically support an LGBT wedding by offering services as a photographer, baker, etc. There's a very real tension between the rights of LGBT people to not be discriminated against and the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience. It's a snaggly issue, but hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election.

[danielsju6]

On the other hand... it's illegal.

They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.

[LordKano]

Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Swastika cake?

Should a black florist be forced to make arrangements for a KKK wedding?

Should a Muslim butcher be forced to prepare pork for his customers?

I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to eat something that someone didn't really want to make for me. Can you trust food that was only made under threat of government action? I can't.

[danielsju6]

1) No, that's silly 2) No, the florist would not be in violation of anti-discrimination 3) No, if he didn't already sell pork he wouldn't be forced to

The last point, fair. No one said the cake had to be good :P It's just their professional reputation on the line.

The protected populations are rather limited "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation", there may be additional protections in your jurisdiction + it has to be a product/service you already provide.

If you bake cakes, you can't refuse a cake to a gay couple; you could refuse on any number of other grounds though. If you don't sell pork, you can't be forced to. But breaking our laws because you like a book (legally speaking) is not allowed.

* FYI I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you're refusing service to anyone for anything other than business reasons you should double check with your counsel. You could be violating feduciary duty, etc.

[LordKano]

I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want make a wedding cake with two grooms on it.

I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want to photograph a wedding ceremony with two brides.

The law has no regard for silly.

Moreover, you're missing the point. I picked people for my example because we all understand how repugnant those people would find it to be forced to take part in certain actions.

I get it, religious people are a convenient target of scorn and ridicule but the government shouldn't be in the business of coercing people to provide non-essential services to others.

So, a black ER doctor should have to provide assistance to the KKK member who was just shot and a Jewish pharmacist should have to fill the prescription for the neo-nazi's cancer medication.

Those are life and death issues, so they're not the same as someone getting their feelings hurt because someone else didn't want to associate with them.

[danielsju6]

None of the examples you listed in the GP were illegal.

The first two you listed here are, if it is proven in court that they were discriminating based on sexual-orientation. If the baker doesn't do bespoke decorations, fine. If the photographer doesn't shoot weddings, fine.

If you don't obey the law A) you're not a good Christian B) you don't get to engage in commerce in the United States of America.

Also please show me in your holy book where it says "thou shall not participate in commerce with homosexuals"

[LordKano]

None of the examples you listed in the GP were illegal.

Yes, that was the point. I'm talking about the weaponization of the law.

Also please show me in your holy book where it says "thou shall not participate in commerce with homosexuals"

Please show me where I ever said that it was my book.

[danielsju6]

Also, if they were sued into bankruptcy they clearly didn't set up their corporation correctly.

If they are bankrupt it's more likely they spent all their money on their crusade in the courts + lost IMO.

[danielsju6]

You can't discriminate based on "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation" that's the law. It's not a matter of repugnance, it's not a matter of silly. It's about protecting rights that the free market was unwilling to correct for on it's own.

Just cause you like a book doesn't mean you can ignore the law.

Those devout Christians had no business exchanging services for currency if they can't respect the law. Commerce is regulated per our Constitution.

[LordKano]

You can't discriminate based on "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation" that's the law.

I have noticed that every time you say this, you conveniently leave out "religion". It's against the law to discriminate against someone because of their religion too.

Commerce is regulated per our Constitution.

Interstate commerce is regulated per our Constitution. Intrastate commerce falls under other laws.

[Shivetya]

I am of the opinion that since these services are not limited in number that society can be more corrective by simply not patronizing providers who don't uphold its values.

[danielsju6]

In many places they are limited in number.

Further in those places, the populations that non-discrimination laws protect need protecting. If it weren't for the law their livelyhoods and lives would be in greater danger.

I'm from the middle of nowhere and so are my gay brothers, one of whom recently got married. I've experienced this. I've fought this. Don't try to feed me this invisble hand solving discrimination and hate crimes horseshit.

Libertarians...

[bradleyjg]

hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election.

Do you have any evidence for that?

[gregw134]

I grew up in the Midwest and still visit sometimes. Many people I know think Democrats have lost their minds with this issue (and the bathroom debate).

[bobwaycott]

The bathroom debate that, like so many issues of the last several years, was borne from GOP legislative and executive action, but blamed on the Democrats for standing against it?

Who exactly has lost their minds here?

[judahmeek]

That's not evidence of a political swing though.

[wernercd]

Multiple states going Red would beg to differ... As would a 1030+ seat swing from Blue to Red...

[pshposh]

You made sweeping statements that went well beyond just 'people I know'.

[crazypyro]

>the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience

There is no such thing.

[efdee]

> the rights of religious business owners to act according to their conscience

Honest question: which right would that be? I've never heard about that before.