>Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech.
Fair point. Riddle me this:
Should we force a baptist cake company to bake a cake for a gay wedding, force a Jewish bakery to bake a swastika cake, and force a Nazi bakery to bake a Jewish cake?
If not one. Why should we force one and not the others?
If you think the government should force nothing on any baker I agree with you.
>Those people both exercised their freedom of speech (via donations).
Which people? As far as I know there wasn't any actual fallout beyond saber rattling.
Reich and the guy from oculus who supported the trump group.
> Riddle me this
What is a "cake for a gay wedding" compared to any other kind of wedding cake? Is there same-sex marzipan I'm not aware of?
A baker refusing to bake a cake for someone because they're gay/Jewish is discrimination, and bigotry/racism (religious discrimination if you consider Judaism purely a religion and not an ethnicity/race)
Refusing to bake a cake for neonazis would also be discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake of a swastika isn't exactly the same thing - a swastika is imagery associated with one of the greatest war crimes of recorded history.
Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business.
>Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business.
I'm trying to establish an objective rule for what kinds of discrimination you believe should be legal. You described each situation but you didn't actually make a value judgement (which was the whole point of the question).
A company refusing/rescinding service/employment to a person because of who they are/what they believe is discrimination.
A company refusing to produce a specific item for a person because they feel it is inappropriate is not discrimination unless they're providing the same thing to other people.
A person refusing to support a company because of the actions of its staff/owners/etc is not discrimination.
Being gay/black/female/disabled/etc isn't a choice, therefore I don't believe businesses should be able to discriminate on that basis. Being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, therefore it doesn't make sense for the government to make laws protecting such groups imo.
>being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices,
I'm not so sure. Maybe they were brought up that way. You can't choose your parents or your religion in that respect. Muslims have a choice to be Muslim or not, should it be OK to discriminate against them too?
I personally think we live in a deterministic universe and free will is a farce. A serial killer is, ultimately, the product of biological and environmental forces that were out of his control.
That said, we still need to draw the line somewhere if we want our laws to be effective. And the universally intuitive place to draw it is between biology and environment. The result is that environmentally unlucky individuals will get screwed so the rest of society can flourish. So yeah, if you had racist parents who brainwashed you with neo-nazi doctrine, I'm fully okay with the government not requiring that you be accepted by society.
Religions are a touchy subject for many, but I don't personally believe they should enjoy any special protections. And I say that as an atheist who'd be highly discriminated against by many, many people.
This is an attempt to reframe the argument and is relevant to Eich how? Was he brought up in an anti-gay cult? He's an adult, stop trying to claim he has no responsibility.
Those people both exercised their freedom of speech (via donations).
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech.