|
|
|
|
|
by tanepiper
1027 days ago
|
|
Well, as he himself points out - while the account was in her name, it was the children (who are not criminals as far as I know) who were using it. His argument is very weak in comparing them - he even had a goal lines up with the recent NatWest/Farage stuff - but instead he picked on a woman who probably hasn't been in the public consciousness for several year. Also why should institutions not be allowed to express values? By your logic if you believe a baker should not be allowed to bake a gay cake, then a bank should be able to debank customers. |
|
The gay cake scenario is a bit different to this, isn't it? In that case, the baker was being asked to create an object emblazoned with a message he disagreed with, and his refusal to do so was arguably in line with his freedom of expression. I think the parallel scenario to this one would be if he'd refused to make any cake at all for a customer due to their political views.