Choice is not discrimination. The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing.
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.
Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.
At least don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers. Make pies. I like a good fruit tart. My Pepere liked creme puffs. There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.
Or, you could just find a new baker. What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?
Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.
Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.
nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business. He made his choice.
If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage, it's how much discrimination is okay.
Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.
I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.
Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.
Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Businesses are open to the public. They sell to the public. They invite the public in to make money off of them. A consumer is none of those things. I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.
On a philosophical level, all non-random choice (and perhaps even random choice) is discrimination. But that is not exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about certain types (albeit not always well-defined) discrimination, which can be set apart, at least vaguely, from choice overall.
I do have to point out that the distinction between individuals as businesses and as consumers does seem to be dependent upon establishment perspectives, though. For instance, it is assumed that a consumer is a protected type of person rather than a business entity. However, a consumer engages in public and regulated trade just like businesses; trading currency, commodity or service in exchange for some agreed upon value in return.
It is acknowledged that business and consumers are treated differently. The question is whether the extent is truly appropriate as described with broad strokes. We generalize that they are different, but there is more commonality to many businesses and consumers than there is to some other businesses with other businesses. Maybe blanket expectations for businesses should change. Maybe some businesses should be seen more like very close representations of the people who own/run them. I think this is a valid consideration.
You are wrong. Not all choice is discrimination. Making a choice based on merit is not discrimination. Making a choice on price, location, etc. is not discrimination. Look at it this way, if I go to the McDonald's on Main Street rather than the McDonald's on Vine Street, am I discriminating against McDonald's. No. I just went to the one of Main Street because it was on my way home, or the closest to where I'm at, or on the way somewhere else I'm going, or has a more consistent product or service, etc. Now if I went to the McDonald's on Main Street because the McDonald's on Vine Street employs homosexuals, while the one on Main Street does not, that would be discrimination (though it doesn't work quite as well when it is the same business). That example isn't perfect, but I believe it illustrates the difference between choice and discrimination.
Of course a consumer should absolutely be able to discriminate if the consumer wants, because the consumer is not putting him/herself out there to attract business and be open to the public. If you want to privately be a bigot, you absolutely can be, but you can't be a bigot as a business. Baking a cake is a gray area because there is some expression involved in making a specialized cake, which makes this particular case more difficult and why there can be so many differences of opinion on the subject.