[Georgelemental]

> If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students?

If many businesses were doing that, that would be pretty bad, yeah. But the activist demands go far beyond that. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to serve gay clients—they were perfectly willing to serve gay clients! What they were sued for was refusing to provide services that would express support for a specific event—a gay wedding. It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event.

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

> simply isn't something that exists.

Quick internet search:

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2022-06...

Excerpts from the book in question: https://thedaughter.substack.com/p/34th-filthybooks-example-...

[TulliusCicero]

> Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to serve gay clients—they were perfectly willing to serve gay clients! What they were sued for was refusing to provide services that would express support for a specific event—a gay wedding.

It's a gay wedding because they're gay. It's like refusing to service black people because hey, they're having a "black wedding"!

The gayness here is a property of the clients, the people requesting the service, it's not that the wedding itself was super gay.

[Georgelemental]

> It's a gay wedding because they're gay.

No, it's a same-sex wedding because the two people involved are of the same sex. There nothing inherently impossible about a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex, or a heterosexual marrying someone of the same sex. They are unlikely to want to do those things, of course, but they could if they did want to. (And, of course, many people are not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual!)

Millions (billions, if you consider the entire world population) of people believe that the institution of marriage is inherently something that happens between a man and a woman. Just like many people believe that marriage is inherently exclusive/monogamous, or inherently not permitted between close biological relatives, or inherently reserved to people above a certain age, or 1000 other restrictions that you or I may or may not agree with. Is it illegally discriminatory against people with siblings to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between brother and sister? What about a polygamous Mormon marriage where the husband is taking his 17th wife, would refusing to service that event be illegal religious discrimination?

[TulliusCicero]

> It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event.

This comparison is beyond ridiculous. Being gay isn't an ideological choice, it's an inherent property of the people involved.

If someone's a dwarf, you gonna say "well it's not that they were unwilling to bake cakes for little people, they just refused to provide a service for something they're religiously opposed to -- small weddings"?

[Georgelemental]

> Being gay isn't an ideological choice

But marrying someone of the same sex is. It's perfectly possible for someone who is homosexual to marry a partner of the opposite sex, and vice-versa. (And of course, many people are bisexual!)

[TulliusCicero]

Gentleman, the reasoning of the social conservatives:

> Marrying someone of the same sex is an ideological choice, you see, completely divorced from being, y'know, gay

This is how stupid they think everyone listening to them is.

[wtfwhateven]

This cake shop refuses to make a cake that is pink and blue because trans people. You knew that as it's in the article you keep linking. If this person could legally refuse to serve LGBT people entirely he absolutely would.

[cogman10]

> sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event.

Good job comparing a gay wedding to nazis.

> Quick internet search:

And here's the followup story

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2022...

The novel was not pushed by the liberals or whatever. It was a rouge and fired staff member that decided to place the novel which ended up in the library doing an inventory. Nobody is advocating for that book to be in an elementary school library (including the author).

But this is the issue with this hot button conservative issue. 5 more seconds of googling to find the followup and response and you would have seen that the library board did exactly what you'd want them to do. But now, it's a national issue because one library had a rouge (now fired) employee.

[ahazred8ta]

We refer you to the Rouge Angles Of Satin https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RougeAnglesOfSat... ...

[Tao3300]

Rouge in a library is a bad idea anyway. It could stain the books.

[wtfwhateven]

OP knows all of this, he's being dishonest to push an agenda sadly.

Look at his submission history and you'll see similar attempts to do that. In his comments he also comes to the defence of an ex moderator of 8chan that had answers other than "no, absolutely not" to whether CSAM should be allowed on it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40385450