Should it be illegal to refuse to provide a service to gay customers...

[America Needs R'hllor]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

1. Why? Really, what's the reason small businesses should be far less regulated? I agree with the economic reasons but in this case there's just no logic to it.
2. It's probably a misunderstanding, but I didn't have any point about the baker being economically harmed. I wouldn't mind, and even strongly encourage, homophobes running out of business. In fact, I'd say homosexuals (and anyone else) should definitely not pay him any dime, but still, he shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them and I'm not willing to trust the free market, which won't work to prevent it because there are enough bigots in, say, Alabama to buy from a homophobic baker.

1. Cause Small Buisnesses unlike Corporations can be regulated by the free market and can easily go out of business. Big Buisnesses and Corporations need to be more regulated because its much harder for the free market to negatively affect them even if they did something unethical .

2 .If there is other competitions in the area say a Safeway(Its a Corporation and it also bakes wedding cakes along with a lot of other things) I would say the Government should not get involved as people can buy their wedding cake from Safeway. If there is no competition in the area I agree the Government should get in and say no you have to bake the cake

3. For example, if a Religious Fundamentalist or an Atheist refused to bake a wedding cake for my family due to our wedding being Hindu we would not sue them but instead just go to Safeway or another bakery shop and order are cakes from them. We also then would tell our friends not to shop at that bakery and spread the word to their friends(and for a mom and pop store this could have terrible consequences).

I understand all that, but I just don't think I that these liberal fantasties work in real life. The word is chaotic, not utopic, and there are enough bigots or just people who don't care enough to keep homophobic bakers well in business. The free market is very unlikely to help here, despite the utopic view liberals hold.
And I still don't see why small businesses should be less regulated on issues of discrimination. There's just no logical reasoning for that.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Exactly this.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

I 100% disagree, I think Small Business should be far less regulated in every area than big business and corporations. Also while the small business is not a human being the small business owner is and forcing him to bake a cake you can argue violates his rights. Lastly, your point on them losing economically if they refuse service, I don't see why then the government should get involved then because that's the free market doing what it does best.

Also I believe an Athiest Baker should have the right to reject to bake a wedding cake for a religious wedding and that baker shouldnt be punished for it.

1. Why? Really, what's the reason small businesses should be far less regulated? I agree with the economic reasons but in this case there's just no logic to it.
2. It's probably a misunderstanding, but I didn't have any point about the baker being economically harmed. I wouldn't mind, and even strongly encourage, homophobes running out of business. In fact, I'd say homosexuals (and anyone else) should definitely not pay him any dime, but still, he shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against them and I'm not willing to trust the free market, which won't work to prevent it because there are enough bigots in, say, Alabama to buy from a homophobic baker.

1. Cause Small Buisnesses unlike Corporations can be regulated by the free market and can easily go out of business. Big Buisnesses and Corporations need to be more regulated because its much harder for the free market to negatively affect them even if they did something unethical .

2 .If there is other competitions in the area say a Safeway(Its a Corporation and it also bakes wedding cakes along with a lot of other things) I would say the Government should not get involved as people can buy their wedding cake from Safeway. If there is no competition in the area I agree the Government should get in and say no you have to bake the cake

3. For example, if a Religious Fundamentalist or an Atheist refused to bake a wedding cake for my family due to our wedding being Hindu we would not sue them but instead just go to Safeway or another bakery shop and order are cakes from them. We also then would tell our friends not to shop at that bakery and spread the word to their friends(and for a mom and pop store this could have terrible consequences).

I understand all that, but I just don't think I that these liberal fantasties work in real life. The word is chaotic, not utopic, and there are enough bigots or just people who don't care enough to keep homophobic bakers well in business. The free market is very unlikely to help here, despite the utopic view liberals hold.
And I still don't see why small businesses should be less regulated on issues of discrimination. There's just no logical reasoning for that.

Well the government should not decide who should go out of business other than these cases(Like Fraud, making unsafe products, unsafe working environment). People being terrible people in general isn't a valid case to use the government to shut down the business .

In my opinion, as long as there is reasonable competition in the area, meaning that if one baker refuses to bake the cake but there is another bakery shop nearby who is willing to then the government should not intervene because the consumer still has the ability to get the cake.

On the other hand, if a Big Business or Corporation refuses to bake the wedding cake that is significantly more problematic because they have the power to cause that customer to not receive the cake at all thus being discrimanted by society as a whole. In this case the government needs to step in to stop people from being discriminated by soviecty as a whole .This case here is what used to happen in the Jim Crow south while the upper one is not even comparable to the Colorado baker at all .

[Storebought]

I don't know if I even should participate in this thread, but here goes ...

There are several assumptions about "small business" that just aren't valid, or aren't taken into account:

1. Most businesses in the US are small businesses.
2. Most people employed in the US are employed in small businesses.
3. Large corporations contract out operations to small businesses. Corporate suppliers and distributors are often small businesses.
4. Small businesses include far more economic activity than just mom-and-pop baking cakes.

Taking the limited view of "small businesses should be able to discriminate against gay customers" means not just acceptable irritations like

(1) gay people can't get their houses sprayed for bugs because the pest control owners don't want inspectors walking in queer houses
(2) gay people who need their cars retouched can't go to any local auto repair shops because car jocks can't stand poofs
(3) sleeping in your car in trips (and possibly getting arrested for it) because motels won't lodge gays, singles, couples or otherwise.

to business crippling bigotry like

(4) banks and credit unions can refuse loan applications for gay home and business owners
(5) distributors won't let gay businesses store gay goods in their warehouses ...
(6) ... and truck drivers won't deliver them to customers anyhow

to inhumanities like

(7) retail insurance companies refusing -- for religious conscience -- to underwrite gay homes, businesses, property, or persons. Whatever damages gay people face they, or their survivors, have to pay from cash saved up in the couch cushions, because they weren't able to open savings accounts because of (4) anyway.
8 medical parts suppliers stating in their contracts to GE that the end-of-use devices can't be used on gay patients
(9) ambulance services making inquiries on the sexual orientation of the victim, and if the answer is not to the paramedics' satisfaction, refuse to deliver the victim to any hospital.

etc.

All of these aren't just parades of horrible hypothetical outcomes -- simple google searches will turn up lots of stuff like this happening in real life to gays or other minorities in the near recent past.

[Sir Mohamed]

Haven't read four pages of discussion, but no, because it is discriminating. If that was legal, why not allowing to refuse services to women? Or Muslims? Or Jews? It would be the same nonsense.

[Mercenary]

I think the cake baker should be able to refuse to do specific messages on a cake but not refuse geenral selling to customers. A psychiatrist should be able to refuse treatments they deem wrong but again not refuse customers. So in that case I would say the two are related. You can refuse an action that itselt you find wrong but you cannot refuse providing a servixe you already provide to others.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

How's this for a scenario? Business cites adherence to "biblical scripture" condemning the dark skinned Sons of Hamm in Genesis, and other verses stating God created lands and homes for all of the different races to dwell in for their time, and accordingly refuses to bake a cake for an African-American, or mixed race marriage.

And before anyone says there's no comparison, those scriptures were (mis-)used a LOT by southern whites in support not just for slavery, but even Jim Crow barely half a century ago. Nor is the supposed biblical condemnation of homosexuality notably more prevalent in the Bible that the above-referenced verses.

Because separate but equal is okay for sex but not race.  We're allowed to have men's and women's restrooms but not black and white restrooms.  Thus, refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of the same sex is different than refusing to provide services for a wedding between people of different races (race is a social construct anyway).

Awesome! I'm glad it didn't take much for you to admit that discrimination based on sexual orientation is ok but race is not You should inform the courts since this is a landmark verdict.

I actually said gender discrimination is sometimes okay.

[Progressive Pessimist]

If discriminating against the LGBTQ community is the biggest lesson that you take from your holy book, your cakes aren't worth it and you deserve to be boycotted.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think the cake baker should be able to refuse to do specific messages on a cake but not refuse geenral selling to customers. A psychiatrist should be able to refuse treatments they deem wrong but again not refuse customers. So in that case I would say the two are related. You can refuse an action that itselt you find wrong but you cannot refuse providing a servixe you already provide to others.

^I think this is the only real way to establish peace with this sort of thing (and the riight thing to do regardless of what the law says), which is allegedly what is desired. There is a difference, though it is lost on some here, between objecting to a specific service and objecting to serving a particular person. In the case of wedding cakes, I think that line comes at decoration that must be manually applied that requires the baker to write a message they do not believe in.

[7,052,770]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

In that case the government should step in


but in areas with alternatives they shouldnt

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

NFL

[junior chįmp]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

In that case the government should step in


but in areas with alternatives they shouldnt

Ronald Reagan would bake a cake for his gay son

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

NFL

By social conservative I mean against the sexual revolution, that's how I've always distinguished social liberalism and social conservatism at least.

[Lachi]

1. I don't care, I wouldn't use services of people who are known homophobes anyway.
2. Doesn't apply to me, as conversion therapy is illegal in my jurisdiction

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

1. No, anyone should be able to refuse to provide a service directly related to an LGBT wedding.
2. Conversion Therapy is an ineffective, harmful practice that should be illegal in all its forms. And even if it has worked in some rare cases, restraint from acting on one's homosexuality should come from devotion to God and not from being shocked 200 times or whatever.

[TJ in Oregon]

I still haven't heard anyone on the Right address what gays are supposed to do if there are lots of bakeries in the area, but none of them will serve gays?

There probably aren't that many bakers who care enough to make a stand, but in some places there will be, and in some places Evangelical boycotts will start forcing the on-the-fence bakers to throw out the gays.

The idea that "oh no worries the free market will take care of those awful bigots" is true in some areas, but in other areas the opposite is true and the "free market" will shut down the pro-gay bakers.

Has any social conservative boycott campaign worked?

We're not going to boycott pro-gay bakeries.  Notice how business is overwhelmingly on one side when it comes to social issues?  If Evangelicals boycotted businesses that disagreed with them they'd have to only eat Chick Fil-A (which doesn't actually sound that bad, now that I think about it).  Religious conservatives decided, before I was born, to invest almost everything into politics and almost nothing into the media, business, education, or culture.  And we only have leverage with one political party anyway.  We're way less powerful than we appear.

NFL

By social conservative I mean against the sexual revolution, that's how I've always distinguished social liberalism and social conservatism at least.

That's because, despite claiming to be, only a small fraction of Americans (~maybe 10%) are truly against the sexual revolution in total. Conservative opposition relies on piecemeal partial rejections that can together build a coalition approaching a majority of voters. That's also part of why conservative social positions are almost never implemented.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. No, anyone should be able to refuse to provide a service directly related to an LGBT wedding.
2. Conversion Therapy is an ineffective, harmful practice that should be illegal in all its forms. And even if it has worked in some rare cases, restraint from acting on one's homosexuality should come from devotion to God and not from being shocked 200 times or whatever.

Any type Wedding

[TJ in Oregon]

1. No, anyone should be able to refuse to provide a service directly related to an LGBT wedding.
2. Conversion Therapy is an ineffective, harmful practice that should be illegal in all its forms. And even if it has worked in some rare cases, restraint from acting on one's homosexuality should come from devotion to God and not from being shocked 200 times or whatever.

Any type Wedding

Perfect in case the baker is a Shaker.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

How are people involved in a small business not human beings with rights?

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that you don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.  Why should they not have freedom to see their vision through and be instead forced to turn it to some other purpose they do not believe in?

[America Needs R'hllor]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

[OSR stands with Israel]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

Because large corporations being discretionary can make certain types of consumers discriminated by society in general(Since they are large enough to basically control the marker in a particular town or city) while a small business do not have that power. The reason why the government has to step in when it comes to large corporations is for that reason, not because they are corporations.


Also, in this case, I am not sure he is doing it for bigotry reasons(he could be but I am not sure) because according to a story he doesn't sell cakes with alcohol as that goes against his religious beliefs. So it may be possible he may not bake a wedding cake for any type of wedding(including say Atheist ones or ones from other religions)  other than then say ones that follow his religious beliefs.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

I refined my post a bit as you were posting your reply.  The key here is the people involved, it's not really about the size of the business, it's about a person's labor and  the personal commitments (if you despise them and have no interest in understanding them, okay whatever. People with convictions don't have them to be popular or understood by the majority for them to be real convictions.). 

here's some scenarios:
1) Jack Phillips did not want to personally invest his resources and talents and personal labor into making a cake specifically for something he believes would support am immoral ceremony. This seems to me worthy of conscience protections.  To adapt a phrase from Marx, to do otherwise would be to cause an alientation from one's labor.

2) Sally Hoosiermuffin, meanwhile, works at a supermarket bakery and is called to make something she opposes - it's a trickier scenario, as her personal capital and ownership is not involved, she's an employee, but her labor is involved, and so the question has to be asked whether she can be fired legally.

3) Bobby McBobface CEO of McBob Bakeries Inc, doesn't support making gay wedding cakes, but he's not personally making them himself, so his claim I think is weaker than the other two. At the very least, if an employee of his believed it's wrong to deny the gay couple their wedding cake, that employee should be able to make them one!

[America Needs R'hllor]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

Because large corporations being discretionary can make certain types of consumers discriminated by society in general(Since they are large enough to basically control the marker in a particular town or city) while a small business do not have that power. The reason why the government has to step in when it comes to large corporations is for that reason, not because they are corporations.


Also, in this case, I am not sure he is doing it for bigotry reasons(he could be but I am not sure) because according to a story he doesn't sell cakes with alcohol as that goes against his religious beliefs. So it may be possible he may not bake a wedding cake for any type of wedding(including say Atheist ones or ones from other religions)  other than then say ones that follow his religious beliefs.

But what if a corporation has strong competition? This is just so arbitrary and seems to me like a political dogma about protecting "small businesses", one both Democrats and Republicans seem to indulge in. Businesses are great for stimulating the economy and increasing life quality. But that doesn't give them any right to discriminate against homosexuals, women, minorities or anyone else if they're offering their services to the general public.

Oh, please, that POS refused to serve a gay couple and purposefully made himself a homophobic icon. He's definitely doing it for bigoted reasons.

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

I refined my post a bit as you were posting your reply.  The key here is the people involved, it's not really about the size of the business, it's about a person's labor and  the personal commitments (if you despise them and have no interest in understanding them, okay whatever. People with convictions don't have them to be popular or understood by the majority for them to be real convictions.). 

here's some scenarios:
1) Jack Phillips did not want to personally invest his resources and talents and personal labor into making a cake specifically for something he believes would support am immoral ceremony. This seems to me worthy of conscience protections.  To adapt a phrase from Marx, to do otherwise would be to cause an alientation from one's labor.

2) Sally Hoosiermuffin, meanwhile, works at a supermarket bakery and is called to make something she opposes - it's a trickier scenario, as her personal capital and ownership is not involved, she's an employee, but her labor is involved, and so the question has to be asked whether she can be fired legally.

3) Bobby McBobface CEO of McBob Bakeries Inc, doesn't support making gay wedding cakes, but he's not personally making them himself, so his claim I think is weaker than the other two. At the very least, if an employee of his believed it's wrong to deny the gay couple their wedding cake, that employee should be able to make them one!

When people say that the lgbt community has accomplished everything, they should refer to posts like this- I assume you believe racism is universally bad, while homophobia is a "conviction". Once we start treating homophobia as a view as illegitimate as racism, maybe then we can be an actually advanced society.

1. I'm not a fan of Marx so I don't really care. Making a cake is not participating in a wedding, and if he thinks the ceremony is immoral... well, too bad, this is as repugnant as thinking that interracial marriage is immoral. Let him change his business to "cakes for Christian weddings only" rather than "cakes for weddings".

2. Of course. If she's employed by a business to make cakes, she should do her job. Refusing to do her job for discriminatory reasons is definitely grounds for firing.

3. Bobby McBobface should face heavy fines.

[OSR stands with Israel]

As for the small business argument- lol Republicans. Protecting small businesses is done because they're an important backbone of the economy, not because they're actual human beings with rights. So yes, they should get economic protections, but discriminating against homosexuals doesn't help them economically so I couldn't care less about their non-existant "rights" on this issue.

The most fundamental reason for protecting small business is that people don't lose their basic freedoms when they enter the workplace or start a business. You don't lose your identity as a human being with your own values just because you are selling something or providing some service.  People often do work they are passionate about and it isn't just about the ca$h.

Who says that's the reason? And why would corporation leaders lose these freedoms while "small businesses" (which, as mentioned, is a very vague term) wouldn't? When you're offering something to the general public, you're offering it to the general public, not to the parts of the general public you like. And excuse me if I'm not going to care too much about "values" like homophobia or, in the case of the Jim Crow laws, racism.

Because large corporations being discretionary can make certain types of consumers discriminated by society in general(Since they are large enough to basically control the marker in a particular town or city) while a small business do not have that power. The reason why the government has to step in when it comes to large corporations is for that reason, not because they are corporations.


Also, in this case, I am not sure he is doing it for bigotry reasons(he could be but I am not sure) because according to a story he doesn't sell cakes with alcohol as that goes against his religious beliefs. So it may be possible he may not bake a wedding cake for any type of wedding(including say Atheist ones or ones from other religions)  other than then say ones that follow his religious beliefs.

But what if a corporation has strong competition? This is just so arbitrary and seems to me like a political dogma about protecting "small businesses", one both Democrats and Republicans seem to indulge in. Businesses are great for stimulating the economy and increasing life quality. But that doesn't give them any right to discriminate against homosexuals, women, minorities or anyone else if they're offering their services to the general public.

Oh, please, that POS refused to serve a gay couple and purposefully made himself a homophobic icon. He's definitely doing it for bigoted reasons.

Sole Proprietorship, for one, are subject to significantly more litigation than LLC's and unlike LLC 's they aren't legal entities either. Sole Proprietorships unlike LLC's have no separate existence from the owner and are taxes at the individual rate.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/sole-proprietorship



So by definition of these, they deserve to be far less regulated than Corporations. You could argue services provided by Sole Prioperterships in many cases are not there to provide services to general public.



BTW: I agree that Baker is a terrible person and I think no one should go to his shop.