“They’re not actually standing on religious principles.”
So, there’s absolutely no connection between forcing a doctor to provide abortions, or forcing pharmacists to provide RU-278, or forcing Halal and Kosher delis to sell pork, and forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for sodomites.
There is no relationship there at all, besides of course slavery. You are forcing me to provide a service I don’t want to provide. If I refuse, then I could be sued out of business.
Take God out of the equation here. If I don’t want to sell you something, anything, and I’m a private business, then I shouldn’t have to sell it to you, or show cause why I have a right not to.
From my work, a known pedophile was granted a home loan in a prominent neighborhood by a bank in the Atlanta area. It hit the paper and people went nuts and wondered what pack of morons would give a mortgage to a pedophile in an upscale neighborhood less than a mile from an elementary school.
Now, we figured out which bank it was.
Do you think the bank deserved that hell they got when we publicized the fact that they had been the ones who did it?
Are banks obligated to provide loans to every strictly qualified individual that applies for a loan?
Should a private bank be forced by the USG to make loans to people they know can’t pay them back?
What rights do private companies and private individuals have over the goods and services they market, in your mind?
A free-enterpriser would even be OK with businesses withholding their services and goods to blacks, women, white people, short people, etc.
This is because the market tends to sort this stuff out for itself. CNN discriminates against conservatives all the time with impunity from prosecution or civil suit. The even lie about them using public frequencies. They are circling the drain as we speak.
The NFL refused to run some advertisements during the Super Bowl. They get a pass?
So, again, should we reinstate slavery legally here in the USA? Make me a cake or I’ll sue you out of existence sounds pretty close to slavery to me.
And I shouldn’t have to lie, compromise my 1st amendment rights, design an arcane corporate structure, or quietly submit to the litigious terrorism of a couple of sodomites or tribadists.
And don’t bother lifting a finger to help defend these folks. By the time somebody is holding a gun to your head there will be plenty of caring folks left to come to your defense.
It could never happen here, after all.
You erected a strawman. There’s a difference between product/ service selection and customer selection. People who bake wedding cakes bake wedding cakes, picking and choosing your customers based on whether or not you consider it a wedding is at best silly. What if I want a wedding cake from you because I like wedding cakes? Am I now not eligible because there’s not going to be any kind of wedding?
Not forcing anybody to provide a service you don’t want to provide. You’re in the wedding cake making business, that is a service you have agreed to provide, you are advertising that you provide it. Now you’re saying “well not that wedding”, that’s discrimination whether or not those customers are in a protected class.
Assuming the home placement didn’t violate any laws on the proximity of sex offenders to schools the bank did the right thing. A valid customer wanted a service they provide, so they provided it.
They shouldn’t be forced to make loans to people that can’t pay, or that can’t legally live there. But that should be the limit of their discrimination, anybody that can’t pay the loan back isn’t a valid customer, anybody that can’t legally live there also isn’t a valid customer, anybody else is valid, make the loan.
The can pick the goods and services they provide, customer discrimination needs to be based on validity of the customer. Thieves, people who can’t pay, people disrupting other customers are out. Everybody else is in. For one thing it’s just good business, they have money and you want it, that’s why you opened a business.
CNN doesn’t use public frequencies.
The NFL has set rules about what can and can’t be associated with their brand, generally revolving around avoiding controversy. They want to annoy as few people as possible. Which is a version of kicking out customers that disrupt other customers, annoy too many people ratings suffer and the other advertiser aren’t getting what they paid for.
Nobody is reinstating slavery, we’re pointing out common sense.