Comments

Now That I Think About It 34 comments
guest · 9 years ago
corner, it is that person's constitutionally guaranteed right to voice their own opinion. Even though it may lead to being socially ostracised or the abrupt end of their carreer, they enjoy that right as Americans.
Legislating based on moral views is a quagmire that to this day we are still digging out from. To outlaw words and opinions is the door to facism. Freedom is a fine line between liberty and chaos. The preservation of personal choice is what allows us to evolve as a society.
3
Now That I Think About It 34 comments
guest · 9 years ago
cake for a gay, but there are certain people I've met whose character  is not deserving of my confections, no matter how burnt they may be. It is my right as a private business owner to choose my customers. 
If the person providing a product or service did so as an agent of the government, of course any discrimination based on personal beliefs would be grounds for termination. The same goes for companies that have anti-discrimination policies in place.
If a white hooded racial hate group member came into a cake store owned and operated by black homosexuals, would they serve him? Would they charge him double? I don't care because literally, that's their business. I support their right to associate and do business with whomever they choose.
Harassment is covered by criminal law. It is indeed your right to put someone down with verbal insults if you see fit, no matter who they are or what they're doing. Just as we might flame a blatantly racist post on a discussion board or street
3
Now That I Think About It 34 comments
guest · 9 years ago
Allow me a few examples, to illustrate just where the boundaries lie, in my view.
Let's say some mouth-breathing knuckle dragger comes in here and rants off some racist stereotypes. Likely, a good many people would have some choice words for that individual and that person may be downvoted, banned, etc.  That's all well and good. 
What if that person had their own website dedicated to the same message? I'm okay with that, because freedom of speech is not fact-dependant.
I don't have to visit the website or subscribe to someone else's personal views. 
In the scenario put forth on the original post, a business owner chose not to supply a homosexual with their service.
I heard the two parties knew each other and were friendly with each other prior to this encounter. Even though this was an underganded and hugely unpopular decision, when a person has their own business, I support their freedom to choose who they want as customers. Cake is not a human right. Personally, I would bake a
4