[_carbyau_]

"So activists have moved the goalposts once again. It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings."

The article lost me here. I mean, I'd love to say I took the above quote out of a surrounding context that explains it more fully and sheds more light but I can't. Instead I find more exasperation that treating some humans like other humans is somehow going beyond the pale.

To address this point in particular, conservative christians are not "legally required" to support same-sex. They are "legally required" to treat some people like all the other people their business supports in public - to do otherwise is the definition of segregation.

The article posits that people and organisations go from one cause to another cause after success. Uh, yeah. That's what people trying to make life better do. Do they always get it right? Hell no. But I'm glad someone is trying.

[Georgelemental]

> conservative christians are not "legally required" to support same-sex.

Yes, they are, at least according to the people who keep suing Masterpiece Cakeshop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

Jack Phillips was not accused of refusing to bake a cake for clients because of their sexual orientation (immutable charateristic of the client). He was accused of refusing to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding event. Phillips was perfectly willing to bake cakes for clients of any sexual orientation, he just didn't want to send a message in support of a specific event. According to the activists who have made it their mission to ruin his life, this is illegal.

[_carbyau_]

Again, they are "legally required" to treat some people like all the other people their business supports in public.

[wtfwhateven]

>He was accused of refusing to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding event.

No. He was accused of refusing to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple. And that is what he did.

He repeatedly admitted to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. He would bake cakes for straight couples without a problem. Gay couples? Nope.

>Phillips was perfectly willing to bake cakes for clients of any sexual orientation,

No he wasn't, this is a lie.

>he just didn't want to send a message in support of a specific event

There was no "message sending". He's perfectly willing to bake cakes for weddings of straight couples. He isn't for weddings of gay couples.

Dishonestly portraying it as "oh he just doesn't want to send a message" would only make sense if he refused to bake cakes for all weddings.

The only difference he cared about is that the couple is gay, that's why he refused them. This is behaviour that should be condemned, the proponents of such behaviour are not victims, they're evil.

[Georgelemental]

> He repeatedly admitted to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. He would bake cakes for straight couples without a problem. Gay couples? Nope.

No. What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex. There is no inherent law of nature forcing someone of a particular sexual orientation to marry someone of a particular sex. Who you marry is a choice; Phillips's religious beliefs tell him that he should not approve of some of those possible choices, and he has a right to hold those beliefs (and you or I have a right to disagree with them).

[wtfwhateven]

> No.

Yes.

>What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex.

There is no difference. It's just grasping for a viable legal defense by someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13.

Phillips's religious beliefs also tell him murdering gay people is righteous.

[Georgelemental]

> Phillips's religious beliefs also tell him murdering gay people is righteous.

Even if he did believe what you claim (without a shred of evidence) he does, beliefs—even heinous ones—are not a crime.

[wtfwhateven]

>Even if he did believe what you claim (without a shred of evidence)

He repeatedly refers to the bible to justify his actions. He's used it as a moral compass for many years. What evidence is there that he doesn't believe in Leviticus 20:13? Does he just exclude the things that "inconvenience" him? I don't understand. Claiming there's not a shred of evidence of this is grossly dishonest IMO.

He's allowed to believe what he wants to believe. However his beliefs lead to his actions discriminating against people and he repeatedly refers to a book that includes things such as Leviticus 20:13 as justification of those actions.

[aprilthird2021]

> They are "legally required" to treat some people like all the other people their business supports in public - to do otherwise is the definition of segregation.

But of course, segregation is allowed in some circumstances. Like a women only gym is common sense even if it's segregation, so too is tackle football being only for men.

Racial segregation is more universally decried in almost all forms (except acting a part!).

Is same-sex relationships like gender or like race or like something else entirely? We're still figuring it out. It was very recently that we all thought there was a strong genetic basis for same-sex attraction, but now, after sequencing the entire human genome, we know there isn't. So these things are in flux, I don't think the cake thing is as black and white as most people make it out to be.

[_carbyau_]

> We're still figuring it out.

Not really. Some people are just still catching up.