- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,434
- 32,424
- 2,300
and requiring him to provide the services he promised isn't, either. So let's agree that this IS a petty issue. The baker should have baked the cake, and the gay couple should have just let it go and found another baker. So everyone escalated this beyond a sensible level.
But that is... kind of their right under the law.
Tell that to the next person that axe-murderer kills.
Nope, it's avoiding anarchy.
The problem is, your side wants to protect the privileges of white, male, Cis-gendered heterosexuals' Christians. You have rights, everyone else should just enjoy the privileges you let us have.
I think everyone's rights should be protected.
The gays should be able to get the services promised, and the baker shouldn't be burned out of his shop for being a homophobic twat.
Having to find another baker isn't the same magnitude of bake this one cake or never bake cakes for a living again. Free exercise demands the government figure this out using the least intrusive means with regards to the baker. Bake or else isn't least intrusive.
There is no right to have a specific cake baked for you. There is a right to free exercise, as well as to make a living.
Those baker's rights aren't being protected, so you are lying.
Yet the baker has to go against their morals or give up their preferred livelihood. That isn't a choice.
And you pick your side solely because of your hatred of religion and religious people. That makes you far worse of a bigot than any of the people you despise.