anon(4698833)
Banned
No, you did not, but you did say, "There are consequences of what comes out of your mouth, especially in public."I never said that the consequences are justified or equal.
This is about the aforementioned consequences reply you made. I was conveying that some 'consequences' aren't justified or even equal and thus, we should be tolerant beyond our personal tastes. In other words, there shouldn't always be consequences to what someone states in public.Is this about the fairness of public discourse or free speech being restricted by a government entity?
Refusal of Services = Speech?
I guess I am confused.
C'mon man. Stop playing' around. You know darn well that it was their spoken reason for refusal that got them in trouble and not the refusal itself.
In 'this particular situation', no. Activists and the media would have totally disregarded the owner's personal beliefs, no matter how polite they were in their refusal as evidenced by the picketing, the threats, etcetera. The owners of the bakery didn't prevent them from getting married or even spoke ill of them. They simply refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it. Those guys would have sought a cake elsewhere, in my opinion.So... if they kept their mouth shut and just said no, or ignored the couple, none of this would happen?
C'mon on man.....
In 'this particular situation', no. Activists and the media would have totally disregarded the owner's personal beliefs, no matter how polite they were in their refusal as evidenced by the picketing, the threats, etcetera. The owners of the bakery didn't prevent them from getting married or even spoke ill of them. They simply refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it. Those guys would have sought a cake elsewhere, in my opinion.
No. They were free to exercise their religious beliefs up until the time they verbally declined to make a cake for a same-sex couple. In my opinion, they could have said, "I'm not making a cake for you simply because I don't want to", and they still would be in the position that they're in due to the fact that the couple is gay.Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
Refusal of Services = Speech?
I guess I am confused.
Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
It is directly related.
Part of the order of the state commission is the bakers are not allowed to discuss their religious beliefs and this case.Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
You're intentionally being oblivious.
C'mon man. Stop playing' around. You know darn well that it was their spoken reason for refusal that got them in trouble and not the refusal itself.
No I am not. Read the 1st Amendment.
There are over 300 hundred religions or denominations in the US.
Is this a place we should go?
And?
If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it.