[genon]

If you get what I'm saying - comparing two well-known instances from different parts of the political spectrum where businesses try and refuse custom for ideological reasons - why are you pretending I'm comparing gay people to neo-Nazis?

[vaishaksuresh]

Because you choose to be a neo nazi, you don’t choose to be gay. I’m not talking about denying service. I’m saying one of them did not choose to be what they are.

[Stratoscope]

No one is comparing gay people with neo-nazis or saying there is some equivalence, they were just two very different examples to illustrate a point. In fact, what makes it such a good illustration is how different they are from each other.

Let me change it to an example more dear to my own heart:

> Don't wanna hire old programmers or host pro-Nazi sites? Don't start a business serving the public then.

I certainly didn't choose to be an old programmer! It seems to have just happened, maybe by some law of nature. But I'm not offended by being mentioned in the same sentence with pro-Nazi sites. It's pretty obvious that no comparison is being made between the two.

[invisible]

No comparison is being made but they are being equated as two of the same types of "discrimination." They are very different in that one group, Nazis, are most notably known for their discrimination against others (e.g., a choice).

[everheardofc]

What if neo nazis get rebranded under some other name? They'd still be discriminating against others but hey at least they are no longer neo nazis, right?

[invisible]

I don't know how that has to do with anything. A name is just a label we apply to concepts. A discriminatory group is still in the wrong in my opinion.

[edraferi]

> Because you choose to be a neo nazi, you don’t choose to be gay.

I agree with you, but many people do not, making it a political statement. Things get very complicated as soon as you abandon the bright line test of "you must serve the whole public."

[sandaru1]

But the religious groups are a protected class. Religion is something you choose. By that logic, it would be possible to discriminate against "Christians", "Muslims", etc.

[fusiongyro]

I feel like you can see the problem with this line of reasoning if you finish that list you started there.

[leereeves]

It's not clear that people choose their beliefs - or anything else. That's essentially the free will debate, which is still unsettled.

[baddox]

Suppose one could choose who they have romantic/sexual relationships with. Would that really change the argument here?

[peteretep]

Your bakery is free to discriminate against swingers.

[snakeanus]

You don't choose to have a certain ideology.

[peteretep]

    > comparing two well-known instances
    > from different parts of the political
    > spectrum

Being gay isn't a position on a political spectrum. Neither is being black. Neither is being female. Being a neo-Nazi is.

[baddox]

I believe the commenter is referring to the political controversies of private businesses refusing service to members of those two groups.

[woofyman]

The difference is the people of Colorado through their elected representatives included gays in an anti-discrimination law. Here in Georgia, the bakers would get an medal from the legislature.

[urbanj]

Because you are