What makes you think the discussion is limited to what the law is, versus what it should be, or more broadly, what the 'right' thing to do is, regardless of the law?
Your link does not necessarily refute the post you're replying to. Gay people are not a protected group under Federal law; nor, AIUI, are they in most states.
What's with everyone bending over backwards to equate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?
Given the chance, gay people will try to live their lives in peace.
Given the chance, Nazis will try to exterminate billions of people.
Nazis haven't been systematically persecuted and killed for millennia. Ironically, gay people have been systematically persecuted and murdered by Nazis. Such persecution is why there are protected classes, which some governments recognize gay people as belonging to.
> What's with everyone bending over backwards to equivocate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?
That's not what is happening, as I understood it. The grandparent simply refuted the general argument that "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone" by providing a counterexample whereby unconditionally following this argument can lead to an unwanted outcome.
Actually, it is that simple. The grandparent made a false equivalence. Sexual orientation, color of skin, race etc. is not a choice that someone makes. Your political orientation is a choice you make. One of them is not the same as the other.
The equivalence the gp is making is between businesses, not clients. Businesses obviously are accountable to someone if they must serve gay people. It has already been pointed out that gays are a protected class, but deliberately(?) missing people's points has never helped a cause.
Do you have insight on what small groups of Nazis say or do? Even the groups at the Unite the Right rally called for ethnic cleansing of the USA. Which could be seen on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I
So have you tried actually believing something politically completely different from what you believe right now?
Because it's not really a choice. You can pretend play to advocate for whatever political ideology. The same way you can have sex with women even if you're gay or vice versa. You can choose your sexual behavior.
But political orientation is not really a choice. It is perhaps a result of your choices, early influences, social group, etc.
But did you consciously set out to have a different political mindset than the one you had at the time? Because that's the only thing that matters (in this comparison at least).
Mine too, but it took years and a fairly complete change of people I interacted with and longterm exposure to various ideas and life experiences. It was not a decision/choice. This kind of change is a long process of learning new ways of thinking and abandoning the old ways.
This is independent of anyone's political beliefs, there should be limits to radical jihadists, radical anti-democratic communists, radical anti-democratic fascists of all sort, etc. You can choose to pursue your political aims with non-violent means and practice tolerance.
The idea is that you can believe whatever you want, but as soon as you start to propagate violence and pose an active threat against democracy - like e.g. making detailed plans to overthrow the government, advertising that only certain people should be allowed to vote, etc - there should be reasonable limits.
I agree. The point is that one's political orientation is not a simple choice no matter how radical. It may not be as fixed as sexual one, though, but still difficult to change.
It's kind of a water a person swims in. It's the way he thinks. It's too meta for most people to even think about it as something chooseable.
I don't think I agree with the grandparent, but usually swing voters don't change their political views, but rather political parties adapt their programs (or rather, propaganda) to appeal to them. So I don't think that's a good example.
There are millions who insist that their sex orientation is their choice. They can try X, experiment with Z, and whatever. That was part of the idea of "fluid genders" and sexual liberation in the sixties and especially seventies.
Your sexual orientation might not be a choice, but if and how you express it definitely is. "Oh, yes, Jews are subhuman. One bread please." is on the same level as "I love me some pussy, obviously, because i'm a man. One bread please".
How is forcing people to take up a different political view to buy bread better than forcing them to change their sexual preferences to buy bread? That whole protected group thing is completely nuts.
So you voluntarily choose to see the world completely differently, just so that you can buy bread? How is that a choice? It's force.
And some people choose different sexual orientations in their life, so how is it not a choice?
In both cases the discrimination would just force me to pretend to be something other than I am.
I understand that this is your dogma, yes. And I understand that you want to legitimize the things you want to force on people.
I don't disagree about color, but the way how you can or cannot force people to avoid visibly and openly living their political identity OR their sexual identity is exactly the same, as it is for religion. It's always outside force, forcing you to pretend to be other than you really are.
That will be very sad place when business is forced to service someone even being against it for their personal believe, just because that something is not their choice but rather a set in stone fact.
My brother in law is mentally ill.m and his local diving center won't take him for a dive. I have to ask him to sue them for refusal of service based on his sicknes and because his sickness is not his choice.
If the cake is denied because the baker doesn't want to create content they disagree with (as opposed to being denied merely because the requestor is homosexual), then why not?
Actually nobody knows why homosexuals are homosexual nor why Nazis are Nazis. There is very little scientific evidence to support any cause for either outlook.
