• Kittengineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again I draw the line on discrimination based on how a person was born vs their decisions.

    Bakers can say no to nazis, democrats, republicans, tattoos, whatever.

    But bakers being able to say no just because how you are born: white, black, male, female, gay, straight… that’s horse shit.

    Why would argue that’s ok or morally correct or fair?

    • emperorbenguin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that while it is obvious to you that sexual orientation is a matter of birth and not choice, it isn’t to, to be honest, the vast majority of people on this planet.

      And also, just to put things in perspective, even the science isn’t fully convinced. Most evidence tells us it’s something from birth, and my personal life anecdote tells me I’m bisexual since the day I was born, but truthfully we don’t have any hard evidence to prove it, since it is nearly impossible to prove.

      This is why it has to be included with the rest.

      • venia_sil@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This, and not to mention the science changes.

        The color of the skin might be something you are “born as”, but as Michael Jackson proved you can certainly change it. Does it mean it is a choice, and not “something that you are”? What happens once CRISPR becomes commonplace?

    • obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a fine line, but it comes down to this: it’s not OK for the baker to refuse to bake a cake for someone in a protected class.

      However, it’s also not OK for someone in a protected class to compel speech from the baker.

      Ask the baker to bake a plain cake with no messaging on it: the baker can’t refuse on the basis of any protected attributes, like the customer’s race, etc.

      Ask the baker to decorate the cake with a “happy pride day” message? Only if the baker agrees to that expression. You can’t compel speech.

      It works the other way too: you can’t compel the baker to write something they disagree with if they don’t want to. It’s clear why a baker would be within their rights to refuse a “I’m glad all the Jews died” message on the cake. The baker is within their rights to decline any expression they don’t like. And that’s the way it should be.