You know this is exactly the viewpoint I'm arguing from? I'm 95% libertarian. I only support the need of government to support major undertaking for society that individuals, groups or businesses are unwilling to do. Hence, I am okay with the military, the socialized health system we have, but I am not okay with the government limiting personal freedoms so a gay couple can get the cake they want.
A cake maker is told by a couple they want a gay cake. They are given one choice at gun point, to say yes.
I really could get behind the libertarian agenda of the past. But so many idiot objectivist douchebags came in and ruined the message.
Welcome to the fucking service industry! Where you actually have to serve people! So if a bunch of rabbi's and muslims walk into the bakery that doesn't support gay people and sells them cupcakes, are they now saying they share their beliefs as well? Because I haven't read any news articles of jewish/muslim people being denied baked goods en masse.
Been asking myself that and saying that for most of the past decade.
You don't have a legal right to discriminate.
Glenn Beck raped and murdered them in 1990No fucking shit, where did they go?
And therefore you wouldn't have been for the government telling businesses to stop forcing blacks to the backs of busses, and to drink at separate water fountains.
Yes, we know you aren't "okay" with it. Like all doctrinaire libertarians, you see almost all exercises of government power as equal and also pretty much all bad, even though they clearly are not. That isn't a view that is ever going to hold sway. It is by its very nature an extreme point of view. It forces you to try and compare slavery to telling someone to actually serve the product they made their business around. How you can't see the absurdity of that is beyond me.
But I'm not for these things? Lol. Like I said earlier, I am only for SOME of the parts of the civil rights act. Essentially, I support the parts that ended governmental discrimination.
Yes that's right they weren't however used to force people to make certain kinds of cakes until recently.
The cake fixation you have is nothing but a giant non sequitor not even worth addressing at this point. Its so much larger than wedding cakes and we all know it. Please.
Like I said before, I really think the key issue here is our educational system has failed you.
I gotta say, this spells it out quite nicely.
All fine and good up to the point where you say people of Indiana don't have right to change there laws.
The people of Indiana have a right to alter their laws so long as they are consistent with the existing federal statutes.
What's the federal statute for artists must make whatever art a gay compels them to.
So long as the fed doesn't choose to resist, I would say.
There are none. However, they cannot offer services or products to the public-at-large but exclude random classes of people. That's what we call 'discrimination'.
Did you miss the link about the wedding photographer and supreme court refusing the case because it was a state law issue?
