>
Or a Jewish print shop being required to produce flyers for Nazi’s.
This MUST be framed in terms of free speech and coerced speech. This IS discrimination - but against an EVENT not the PERSON. Between forced servitude and coerced speech this is requiring you to put your labor toward an EVENT with which you have a conscientious objection to. It is part of being able to live according to your beliefs.
If a baker won’t sell a ready-made cake on the shelf to somebody because they’re gay that is one thing, it is entirely another when you’re requiring somebody to enter into a contract to create something for an event they don’t agree with. This is NOT discrimination against a person but an event.
Unless this perspective is argued, that it is more of a free speech issue than religious freedom, the point is lost. The argument will otherwise be that religious beliefs don’t trump discriminating against a person. That is not the point.
>
Sorry FRiend, but THAT’s some fuzzy logic right there (no pun intended).
In no way is discrimination ‘bad’, be that vs. any noun. That is called freedom of CHOICE; to associate, or not.
Operating a biz, owning some parcel, etc. does not take that Right away; does speaking on a soap-box on the street corner (public accommodation) negate your 1st A. Rights?
One is free to, or not, do anything they wish. The market/word of mouth will show how those choices are perceived.
It is not a matter only dealing w/ the 1st, but Freedom in general.
I understand your point - I’m taking the position that we’re so far from winning that argument, we need to frame this specific case in a context we can win while living under “discrimination” laws as they’re defined today.
Everyone is pre-programmed to think “discrimination = bad”. Unless we can show that we’re not violating the law we’ll lose. Which means we must differentiate the different types of discrimination, an event vs. a person. We will lose if the context is just “not serving a person”.