Bombadil wrote:Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
The issue is not the cake but the message conveyed in it and which the baker opposes. That of "celebrating the 7th anniversary of coming out as transgender". Just like red hair and a black swastika aren't the issue really but the message of "celebrating Nazis killing Jews" is.
Well if a guy came in and said he wanted a cake for his son's birthday and the baker said I don't agree with blacks growing older.. I don't make birthday cakes for black kids..
I mean if the courts rule that's ok then you're allowing for discrimination across the board. Again, one has to move off the case a little and think of the implications of what the ruling would entail.. that anyone could deny services that symbolise any message they disagree with. Maybe that's jew hating.. but maybe that's black people, gay people, Mexicans, transgenders.. hence I speak of protected classes against discrimination over just someone's belief.
There's different aspects clashing here.
What constitutes a message - two colours, a written message, a figurine?
Where does free speech bump up against discrimination - I mean here we're actually talking about the freedom not to speak but is a freedom not to speak more important than the ability of someone of any race, colour, gender or sexuality to walk into a shop and expect the same rights to service as any other?
Now that's where I agree that the is issue of what is free speech, compelled speech and where we draw lines needs to be a bit more black and white. When things overlap and all that jazz.
