The Gay-Wedding Cake Fight Isn’t About Religious Freedom—It’s About Sex

First topic message reminder :

The slippery-slope argument goes something like this: If Masterpiece Cakeshop, and its owner, Jack Phillips, can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, what’s to stop him from refusing to bake a wedding cake for two Jews, or an interracial couple, or anyone else for that matter?

There are good reasons to make that argument—I’ve made it myself on many occasions, and it may carry the day when the Supreme Court hears the case next week.

But ultimately, it misses the point: that it’s not Jews or people of color or anyone else who are the targets of these “religious freedom” claims. It’s women and LGBT people. Because at the end of the day, these “religious freedom” claims aren’t about religious freedom. They’re about the Culture War. They’re about sex.

First, if Phillips and his ilk were consistent, they would have plenty of sinful people to turn away from their businesses. In Matthew 5:32, for example, Jesus forbids divorce and says that remarriage is the same as adultery. So why isn’t Phillips turning away the remarried?

Here’s another example. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, one of the seven so-called clobber verses (out of 31,102 in the Bible) that talk about homosexuality, Paul states that “neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Whoever Paul is talking about here—it’s almost certainly not all gay men, and definitely not lesbians, but even if it were—they are placed on the same level as thieves, slanderers, and swindlers. No better and no worse.

And yet, I’m unaware of a single case in which a service provider sought the right to refuse service to a slanderer on the basis of a religious belief. Why?


Nor has Phillips asserted a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Hindu wedding, even though most evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a form of idolatry—which is forbidden over 100 times in the Bible, on penalty of death.

In other words, these “religious freedom” claimants are being highly selective about when their conscience compels them to discriminate. Of all of the sins in Scripture, it seems that only those involving sex and gender—contraception, abortion, LGBT people—are the only ones which trigger such claims.

Quite a coincidence, is it not?

Obviously, it is not. These “religious freedom” claims are extensions of the five-decade old Culture War. They are front-line issues in politicized Christianity, not Christianity itself, and are stand-ins for a cultural clash that runs deeper than any individual claim.

The Culture War is a battle about sex, but it is really a battle about what country we are living in: either a Christian nation, with right-wing Christianity as its moral bedrock, or a diverse, secular nation, in which religious claims are respected, but not used as a trump card over the civil rights of others.

After all, the reason I’ve scare-quoted “religious freedom” here is that these kinds of claims are really quite novel. For two centuries, the First Amendment was primarily a shield held up by persecuted religious minorities—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Native Americans—against governmental interference in their religious practice. No third parties were involved; these minorities wanted to practice their religion and be left alone.

To be sure, this history is still marred by Christian domination. The First Amendment didn’t stop Mormon polygamy from being banned, and it didn’t stop the government from seizing lands held to be sacred by Native Americans. It was often used against Catholics as well.

But in principle, the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment was a shield protecting minority religions from government interference.

Only in the last 20 years has it been used as a sword, allowing a religious individual to discriminate against someone else. In cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop or 2014’s Hobby Lobby, it’s not just the government and the practitioner. It’s the government, the practitioner, and the person the practitioner is harming. That is a crucial, and unprecedented, difference: Today’s “religious freedom” claimants want to abridge the rights of others.

And it’s not a coincidence. Poll data shows that when you scratch a “religious freedom” claimant, what you find underneath is someone who really wants to ban abortion, overturn same-sex marriage, and bring back anti-sodomy laws. These organizations—the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Becket Fund, Liberty Counsel—are fundamentally insincere. They’re not defending our “First Freedom.” They’re fighting the Culture War.

Now, having followed this issue for many years, I know that millions of conservative Christians sincerely believe their religion to be under attack. But the data doesn’t lie. Ultimately, Christian conservatives don’t just want to be left alone to practice their religion in peace. Ultimately, they want to impose their religious beliefs on others. They want to win the Culture War and ban the stuff they don’t like.

That’s why the slippery-slope argument is off point. We shouldn’t be asking “what’s to stop this person from turning away Jews?” We should be asking “why is it that the only people this person wants to turn away are women and gays?” Because that’s what reveals this campaign for what it is.

Now, two important caveats.

First—and this is a historical point I wish we could all keep in mind—this kind of religious freedom claim was, in fact, used against African Americans during the 1960s and 1970s. Bob Jones University, for example, argued that it had a First Amendment right to refuse admission to black students (and, later, to segregate them in special housing).

And on a local level, “religious freedom” was offered as a pretext by restauranteurs and hoteliers to deny service to blacks. God separated the races on different continents, evangelicals said in the 1950s, and we must not interfere with His plan.

The Bob Jones case went all the way to the Supreme Court—the university lost, and lost their tax-exempt status—and historian Randall Balmer has shown that it, not Roe v. Wade, was the chief motivation behind the formation of the “New Christian Right,” the term political scientists use to describe the Christian political movement that was born in the 1970s. (Prior to the Sexual Revolution, most evangelicals thought that Christians should stay out of the dirty business of politics. Times have changed.)

So it’s not as though the slippery slope isn’t true. It was true quite recently, in fact. The modern “religious freedom” movement was born in segregation.

It’s also true that, when pressed, “religious freedom” activists admit that the slippery slope is accurate in principle. In one memorable exchange from 2014, Congressman Jerrold Nadler asked the Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver why, under the laws Staver favored—which have now become law in 22 states—a wedding photographer couldn’t refuse service to Jews.

After trying to weasel out of the question—“I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to,” he stammered—Staver admitted that, yes, “She would have an issue there—a violation potential in that case.”

So, in principle, the slippery-slope argument is spot-on, and, as mentioned earlier, it may well be decisive at the Supreme Court. For the rule of law to mean something, people can’t pick which laws they wish to obey.

Yet I want to conclude with Staver’s initial response: “I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to.” That may well be true. Anti-Semitism has surged during the Trump administration, but probably Staver’s clients—including the Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, now a hero of the New Christian Right—wouldn’t turn Jews away. That’s not what they’re worried about.

No—what they’re worried about are women and gays; sex and gender; the Culture War and the Christian Nation. And they want to win. Don’t let claims of “religious freedom” fool you.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gay-wedding-cake-fight-isnt-about-religious-freedomits-about-sex

Cake maker didn't make gay themed cakes for anyone... that is being 'consistent'...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Cake maker didn't make gay themed cakes for anyone... that is being 'consistent'...!!!

No, its discrimination. As the point is on making wedding cakes.

They either make wedding cakes, or they do not make wedding cakes.

Thus it has to be consistant.

Gays like hetrosexuals can marry.

Thus claiming something as themed, is absurd, and a poor excuse to try and allow discrimination.

Its not consistant, as the consistancy is on making wedding cakes.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Cake maker didn't make gay themed cakes for anyone... that is being 'consistent'...!!!

There's really no way round this.    You can dress it up any way you like but the truth is crystal clear.

Eilzel wrote:Still not answering the question, Maddog.

Your question has been answered. You don't like my answer. I'm cool with that. I don't want the government to force you to agree with me either.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Still not answering the question, Maddog.

Your question has been answered. You don't like my answer. I'm cool with that.  I don't want the government to force you to agree with me either.  

The question was would you accept a business refusing to decorate a cake for the wedding of a mixed race couple.

You haven't answered that at all.

If you can't no worries, I understand.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Still not answering the question, Maddog.

Your question has been answered. You don't like my answer. I'm cool with that.  I don't want the government to force you to agree with me either.  

There's actually a prohibition on forcing beliefs. It's called the First Amendment. Ironic, eh?

Remember all the stories about the Muslim shop workers refusing to sell alcohol or pork? Why was that OK?

Miffs2 wrote:Remember all the stories about the Muslim shop workers refusing to sell alcohol or pork? Why was that OK?

It went to the product, not to the person.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:Remember all the stories about the Muslim shop workers refusing to sell alcohol or pork? Why was that OK?

It went to the product, not to the person.

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It went to the product, not to the person.

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

Actually the supermarket backtracked on this and the Muslim council off Britain condemned any Muslims doing this.

Policies should be consistant and no Muslims should be allowed to discriminate either

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It went to the product, not to the person.

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

That's a false equivalency. The religious prohibition involving pork and alcohol is to nature of the food, not to the orientation of the customer. There are lots of prohibitions that go to certain kinds of foods. Jews, for example, also shy away from pork. Catholics used to prohibit meat on Fridays. These prohibitions indict the product, they do not indict the person.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

That's a false equivalency.  The religious prohibition involving pork and alcohol is to nature of the food, not to the orientation of the customer.  There are lots of prohibitions that go to certain kinds of foods.  Jews, for example, also shy away from pork. Catholics used to prohibit meat on Fridays.  These prohibitions indict the product, they do not indict the person.

The prohibition is on eating, not serving.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

That's a false equivalency.  The religious prohibition involving pork and alcohol is to nature of the food, not to the orientation of the customer.  There are lots of prohibitions that go to certain kinds of foods.  Jews, for example, also shy away from pork. Catholics used to prohibit meat on Fridays.  These prohibitions indict the product, they do not indict the person.

That is, of course, factually correct. It is also correct to say that the religious prohibition involves the actual touching of, say pork or alcoholic products...which begs the question: "Why would a devout Muslim or Jew apply for employment in an establishment where, bacon, pork sausages and Olde Griuntfuttock's XXXX ale are permanently on legal sale?

Is it not a question of "whose rights are supreme" - a devout Muslim or Jew whose religious beliefs would be compromised by handling or selling pork or booze, or an Anglican, Catholic, Baptist or Methodist whose religious beliefs entitled him to buy and enjoy them?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Cake maker didn't make gay themed cakes for anyone... that is being 'consistent'...!!!

No, its discrimination. As the point is on making wedding cakes.

They either make wedding cakes, or they do not make wedding cakes.

Thus it has to be consistant.

Gays like hetrosexuals can marry.

Thus claiming something as themed, is absurd, and a poor excuse to try and allow discrimination.

Its not consistant, as the consistancy is on making wedding cakes.

He only make wedding cakes in the theme of traditional weddings... that is his choice...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


No, its discrimination. As the point is on making wedding cakes.

They either make wedding cakes, or they do not make wedding cakes.

Thus it has to be consistant.

Gays like hetrosexuals can marry.

Thus claiming something as themed, is absurd, and a poor excuse to try and allow discrimination.

Its not consistant, as the consistancy is on making wedding cakes.

He only make wedding cakes in the theme of traditional weddings... that is his choice...!

Still not understanding what a consistant policy is, are you.

That is a consistent policy...

Tommy Monk wrote:That is a consistent policy...

Wrong again, its not a consistant policy

Tommy Monk wrote:That is a consistent policy...

It's a consistent policy, but going to who, not what, is at issue. Even if one points to the cake and what's written on it, the underlying hostility goes to the person behind the idea and not the idea itself.

Jews and Muslims frown on pork because they feel it is not a proper food. Carry that over: is anyone saying that a wedding cake is not a proper food? No...the hostility is to the person buying the cake.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:That is a consistent policy...

It's a consistent policy, but going to who, not what, is at issue.  Even if one points to the cake and what's written on it, the underlying hostility goes to the person behind the idea and not the idea itself.

Jews and Muslims frown on pork because they feel it is not a proper food.  Carry that over: is anyone saying that a wedding cake is not a proper food?  No...the hostility is to the person buying the cake.

How is a traditional  cake a consistant policy?

First you have to define what is traditional?

A church wedding?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's a consistent policy, but going to who, not what, is at issue.  Even if one points to the cake and what's written on it, the underlying hostility goes to the person behind the idea and not the idea itself.

Jews and Muslims frown on pork because they feel it is not a proper food.  Carry that over: is anyone saying that a wedding cake is not a proper food?  No...the hostility is to the person buying the cake.

How is a traditional  cake a consistant policy?

First you have to define what is traditional?

A church wedding?

The issue isn't the cake, but the refusal to sell the cake to homosexuals.

I think you and I have to grant that tommy is pursuing a consistent policy.  The problem is, it is a policy of homophobia.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is a traditional  cake a consistant policy?

First you have to define what is traditional?

A church wedding?

I think you and I have to grant that tommy is pursuing a consistent policy.  The problem is, it is a policy of homophobia.

Which would fall foul of the law singling out one group.

Again, I would love to understand what he considers a traditonal themed wedding

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you and I have to grant that tommy is pursuing a consistent policy.  The problem is, it is a policy of homophobia.

Which would fall foul of the law singling out one group.

Again, I would love to understand what he considers a traditonal themed wedding

That's another good approach. What would he be for, instead of against. Again, that would lead right to the doorstep of homophobia.

If a DJ/band offered a service to perform at weddings, but a Sikh couple tried to book them under instruction that they play only bangra/Punjabi drum music, and the DJ/band refused the gig because they didn't feel happy/comfortable/willing/able to play that type of wedding/music... would that be discrimination and 'Sikhaphobia' etc...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

If a DJ/band offered a service to perform at weddings, but a Sikh couple tried to book them under instruction that they play only bangra/Punjabi drum music, and the DJ/band refused the gig because they didn't feel happy/comfortable/willing/able to play that type of wedding/music... would that be discrimination and 'Sikhaphobia' etc...!?

Oh dear, someone still fails to grasp consistancy.

What types of music do the Dj band play for a start?

I know exactly where you trying to go with this and I am going to enjoy taking the piss along the way, when it falls completely flat.

What astounds me more than anything. Is the lenghs you go to, in order to make discrimination acceptable.

The DJ/band regularly do wedding events... but not the type of weddings that they were being asked to do, as it was music that they were not happy to provide...


So... is that ok?


Or do you think that is discrimination/'Sikhaphobic'...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

The DJ/band regularly do wedding events... but not the type of weddings that they were being asked to do, as it was music that they were not happy to provide...


So... is that ok?


Or do you think that is discrimination/'Sikhaphobic'...?

Nope, that is not what I asked.

What type of music does the DJ play

Try again

They advertise themselves as being able to do wedding events...


But refuse the booking request of Sikh couple wanting type of wedding event music that they were not happy to play...


Is that ok, or discrimination/'Sikhaphobic'...!?


Simple question...!


Why can't you give a simple answer...?

Tommy Monk wrote:They advertise themselves as being able to do wedding events...


But refuse the booking request of Sikh couple wanting type of wedding event music that they were not happy to play...


Is that ok, or discrimination/'Sikhaphobic'...!?


Simple question...!


Why can't you give a simple answer...?

Nope, that is not what I asked.

What type of music does the DJ play

Try again

DJ/band don't play bangra/Punjabi drum music at Sikh wedding events...


Are they being discriminatory/Sikhaphobic...?


Answer the question...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:DJ/band don't play bangra/Punjabi drum music at Sikh wedding events...


Are they being discriminatory/Sikhaphobic...?


Answer the question...!?

So you cannot answer a simple question

So lets help you.

Do they adversize as a House DJ?
A Hip Hop DJ
Or a DJ that can play all Music?

Take your time

They advertise as wedding event DJ/band...


They offer a wide selection of music that they do play... but refused the booking because they were asked to play music that they didn't want to play...


Is that ok, or discrimination and Sikhaphobia...?


Answer the question!

Tommy Monk wrote:They advertise as wedding event DJ/band...


They offer a wide selection of music that they do play... but refused the booking because they were asked to play music that they didn't want to play...


Is that ok, or discrimination and Sikhaphobia...?


Answer the question!

Its impossible to answer your question without more details

Hence

So you cannot answer a simple question

So lets help you.

Do they adversize as a House DJ?
A Hip Hop DJ
Or a DJ that can play all Music?

Take your time

They advertised as wedding event DJ/band...


Answer the question!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:They advertised as wedding event DJ/band...


Answer the question!!!

They may advertise as doing weddings, but if they are a house and pop DJ, how on earth could they play music, that they do not have a single track in their collection of?

Its why your point was so dumb, beyond belief, as no sikh couple would approach a DJ that did not play or even know any sikh music

You then try to compare this to a gay couple asking a baker who makes wedding cakes to make a wedding cake.

Its hilarious

No court would force a DJ to play at an event he had no idea in regards to the music and as stated no couple would even approach them. As they would approach a specialist DJ that plays their music


But thanks for playing Tommy

I do love it when you make an arse of yourself, when you enter the realms of ridiculous

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:Remember all the stories about the Muslim shop workers refusing to sell alcohol or pork? Why was that OK?

It went to the product, not to the person.

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

There is a difference.

No one is being discriminated against by not being sold pork. Refusing to decorate a cake for a gay wedding discriminates against the couple, however. Lord Foul pretty much made this point earlier.

Incidentally, I do think Muslim shopworkers should have to serve pork and as didge said, in event so did the Muslim Council of Britain.

Didge... cake man was happy to make them a cake in the styles he was happy to make... just wasn't happy to do the particular style they requested...


Just like DJ/band were happy to play the Sikh event with the music they were happy to play... just weren't happy to play the particular style of music requested...


Muslim butcher happy to sell meat to non Muslims, as long as it was the type of meat he was happy to sell... just not happy to sell pork/non halal type of meat if requested...


3 examples of the same logic...


Why do you think any example is different in terms of being right/wrong or discriminatory...?

Eilzel wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

There is a difference.

No one is being discriminated against by not being sold pork. Refusing to decorate a cake for a gay wedding discriminates against the couple, however. Lord Foul pretty much made this point earlier.

Incidentally, I do think Muslim shopworkers should have to serve pork and as didge said, in event so did the Muslim Council of Britain.

So if I go to a wedding caterer who happens to be moslem, and request a hog roast and bacon sandwiches be provided... they are discriminating against me if they refuse to provide this service...!?

Eilzel wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

No it didn't. It went to the Muslims in question being allowed to refuse to serve to serve something against their religion, so why can't this man refuse to decorate a cake that is against his?

There is a difference.

No one is being discriminated against by not being sold pork. Refusing to decorate a cake for a gay wedding discriminates against the couple, however. Lord Foul pretty much made this point earlier.

Incidentally, I do think Muslim shopworkers should have to serve pork and as didge said, in event so did the Muslim Council of Britain.

They can make a film about you

We can call it "snowflake elizel and the ever shifting goal posts"

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... cake man was happy to make them a cake in the styles he was happy to make... just wasn't happy to do the particular style they requested...


Just like DJ/band were happy to play the Sikh event with the music they were happy to play... just weren't happy to play the particular style of music requested...


Muslim butcher happy to sell meat to non Muslims, as long as it was the type of meat he was happy to sell... just not happy to sell pork/non halal type of meat if requested...


3 examples of the same logic...


Why do you think any example is different in terms of being right/wrong or discriminatory...?

1) Styles? What difference is there in a wedding cake that is made for homosexuals or hetrosexuals?

The message?

Two little wedding cake figures?

Behave, its a wedding cake, which comes in a varity of layers and sizes and ingredients, all of which a baker can make

The shop has a policy to make wedding cakes, thus cannot refuse

2) A DJ however, are generally specialized in one or two types of music

Hence your made up scenario was upon the realms of ridiculous and why no such court case has ever occured. 

Mainly due to the fact, you cannot expect a DJ to play music, they do not even have or know about

3) Hence it was illogical and embarressing that you could even contrive something that has never even been brought to court

The reailty is a baker makes wedding cakes, which are no different between homosexuals and hetrosexuals. Only what is written

Hence the baker cannot be selective on customers.
It breaks the laws in two aspects if he does.

The first being he is discriminating against a single group
The second, is that his policy is not consistant.

Now you can continue to fail to understand this and post the same silliness, but it wont change the facts on this

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

There is a difference.

No one is being discriminated against by not being sold pork. Refusing to decorate a cake for a gay wedding discriminates against the couple, however. Lord Foul pretty much made this point earlier.

Incidentally, I do think Muslim shopworkers should have to serve pork and as didge said, in event so did the Muslim Council of Britain.

So if I go to a wedding caterer who happens to be moslem, and request a hog roast and bacon sandwiches be provided... they are discriminating against me if they refuse to provide this service...!?

Not the same thing at all

It's "different" when they do it

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

There is a difference.

No one is being discriminated against by not being sold pork. Refusing to decorate a cake for a gay wedding discriminates against the couple, however. Lord Foul pretty much made this point earlier.

Incidentally, I do think Muslim shopworkers should have to serve pork and as didge said, in event so did the Muslim Council of Britain.

So if I go to a wedding caterer who happens to be moslem, and request a hog roast and bacon sandwiches be provided... they are discriminating against me if they refuse to provide this service...!?

Oh dear, I see Tommy is failing to grasp this.

I am sure such a caterer would either be happy to or have a policy that shows they do not cater alcohol or pork.

This is a consistant policy to all customers.

Do you understand this?

If I go to a supermarket, and want to buy meat that has not been slaughtered under any religious ritual... then this service must be provided... or I am being discriminated against...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:If I go to a supermarket, and want to buy meat that has not been slaughtered under any religious ritual... then this service must be provided... or I am being discriminated against...!?

Again what mistake have you made?

Think of policies

Tommy Monk wrote:If I go to a supermarket, and want to buy meat that has not been slaughtered under any religious ritual... then this service must be provided... or I am being discriminated against...!?

You mean if you were like a serious atheist or something??

Didge... the cake man was happy to provide a wedding cake (in the traditional style) for the gays... they were not refused service because they were gay... just the cake man didn't do the style that was requested...

What is a serious Athiest?



PMSL

What beliefs does an atheist have to follow?

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... the cake man was happy to provide a wedding cake (in the traditional style) for the gays... they were not refused service because they were gay... just the cake man didn't do the style that was requested...

No he refused to make a wedding cake for them.

And gays have the same type of traditional wedding cakes as everyone else.

Like everyone else they have variations on the message. That is, if they even have a message on theirs.

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... the cake man was happy to provide a wedding cake (in the traditional style) for the gays... they were not refused service because they were gay... just the cake man didn't do the style that was requested...

...because they were gay. It's homophobic discrimination...could anything be simpler?

Tommy Monk wrote:

If a DJ/band offered a service to perform at weddings, but a Sikh couple tried to book them under instruction that they play only bangra/Punjabi drum music, and the DJ/band refused the gig because they didn't feel happy/comfortable/willing/able to play that type of wedding/music... would that be discrimination and 'Sikhaphobia' etc...!?

A DJ would play whatever he's paid to play.  If he doesn't, he's in the wrong job.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Your question has been answered. You don't like my answer. I'm cool with that.  I don't want the government to force you to agree with me either.  

The question was would you accept a business refusing to decorate a cake for the wedding of a mixed race couple.

You haven't answered that at all.

If you can't no worries, I understand.

I accept a business refusing to serve someone for whatever reason they like. I think that has been very clear throughout this thread. Is there any more confusion about how I don't believe in using force to make one man serve another?