Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
6311 messages in 415 discussions
Latest Jul-2 by BWArtist
Latest Oct-11 by BWArtist
12163 messages in 708 discussions
Latest Oct-4 by BWArtist
Latest Oct-4 by Cstar1
Latest Sep-28 by ANNMTM
1384 messages in 105 discussions
Latest Sep-19 by BWArtist
1755 messages in 180 discussions
2797 messages in 209 discussions
2560 messages in 207 discussions
508 messages in 43 discussions
920 messages in 93 discussions
3137 messages in 197 discussions
2224 messages in 97 discussions
4738 messages in 472 discussions
1088 messages in 80 discussions
4589 messages in 345 discussions
6732 messages in 448 discussions
It is NOT about doing business, it is about the right to decline to endorse a religious view contrary to one's own. The gay couple could have had any of a number of cakes made but WITHOUT an endorsement of gay marriage. To me, this is a targeted case of little real merit.
Bike (URALTOURIST1) said:
it is about the right to decline to endorse a religious view contrary to one's own.
I disagree. It's refusing to do business with someone because of who they are.
me (DENNIS4927) said:
But he didn't refuse to serve them he said he would make a traditional wedding cake
So, he would make their cake with a bride and groom on top, but not one that depicted a groom and groom? How is that not discrimination? Why should they accept that?
<they could have bought two men figurines and put them on top their selfs>
As an average consumer though, I find the baker's position as anal retentive.
The same can be said for the customer. We are way to fast to sue people now days for everrhing