This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
It is both religious freedom and it is discriminatory.
This is about intersecting freedoms - two freedoms contradict each other, and thus one has to win. Usually this is decided by which freedom causes the greatest harm if denied.
Is it a greater harm to force a cake shop to sell a cake to gay people, or is it a greater harm for gay people to be unable to buy a cake from that shop?
We typically say it's a greater harm for gay people to be unable to shop because of the prevalence of homophobia and if allowed in practice, a gay person could theoretically be unable to shop anywhere. Forcing someone to sell them a cake may be uncomfortable, but is nowhere near the same sort of harm.
This is about intersecting freedoms - two freedoms contradict each other, and thus one has to win. Usually this is decided by which freedom causes the greatest harm if denied.
Is it a greater harm to force a cake shop to sell a cake to gay people, or is it a greater harm for gay people to be unable to buy a cake from that shop?
We typically say it's a greater harm for gay people to be unable to shop because of the prevalence of homophobia and if allowed in practice, a gay person could theoretically be unable to shop anywhere. Forcing someone to sell them a cake may be uncomfortable, but is nowhere near the same sort of harm.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
@CountScrofula Rubbish !
The baker can refuse the job by saying he's too busy ! Or that he can't fulfill the order !
But the second he CLAIMS it contradicts his 'religious freedom' he breaks the law !!!!!
The baker can refuse the job by saying he's too busy ! Or that he can't fulfill the order !
But the second he CLAIMS it contradicts his 'religious freedom' he breaks the law !!!!!
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@Picklebobble2 If you discriminate without making it obvious nobody can prove it or catch you. That's always been the case.
All I'm saying is that the law sides with the gay couple in this case for a reason.
All I'm saying is that the law sides with the gay couple in this case for a reason.