So a baker could refuse to make a cake for homosexuals then ?
However, that was not the argument that was made. The original argument is unconditional: "to anyone", period.
The grandparent pointed out this flaw. You are on the same side of the argument.
Therefore comparing cloudflare and the bakery is dishonest, there you go.
Well, that explains why you still haven't realized that the comment you took offense with was actually concordant with your own position.
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.
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.
In other words: it's not that simple.
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.
It helps that I live in a country with more than 2 dominant political parties; it lets me think in shades of gray (rather than in black-and-white).
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.
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.
Who says it's so for everybody?
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.
If that's not "a choice" I don't know what is. Just because it's not often a choice doesn't mean it can't be.
In both cases the discrimination would just force me to pretend to be something other than I am.
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.
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.
Nazis are not.