Comment by whateveracct | Hacker News Reader

Comment by whateveracct | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Other than my agreeing with the moral position in this case, how is this different than a baker not making a cake for some particular customer?

> We can’t reasonably be making “this type of refusal to do business is okay, but that one is not” based on moral agreements of individuals

We actually can. And the difference between this and the baker is in the details you omitted.

The actual baker situation was denying a customer based on their sexual orientation. That type of refusal is not okay and the reason why is pretty well-established in the law. Sexual orientation (like religion, race, sex, etc) is protected from such discrimination.

And the baker was allowed to not serve the gay wedding anyways! Despite that!

Being pro-life is not a protected attribute. You could argue these pro-life beliefs are due to religion..but this isn't about Jesus Christ Himself. This is a political opinion derived from the church that plenty of Christians don't have.

>The actual baker situation was denying a customer based on their sexual orientation. That type of refusal is not okay and the reason why is pretty well-established in the law. Sexual orientation (like religion, race, sex, etc) is protected from such discrimination.

This is not true. They were perfectly happy to bake a cake for gay people; they objected to baking the cake specifically for a gay wedding. The cake was to have wording which the bakers disagreed with for religious reasons.

Your clarification is important and I've seen all too often these past few days a critical misunderstanding of the case. The baker offered the couple any other cake in the shop and offered to bake any cake they wanted - other than one specifically for a gay wedding.

This is a misunderstanding.

Being gay is protected, as is being Christian, both.

Demanding a cake that expresses certain beliefs such as celebrating gay marriage or trangenderism or any other thing may not be protected by law.

Just as demanding to be sold hosting services for your anti-abortion hotline based on your Christian beliefs probably isn’t protected by law.

Right - my point was the baker case was closer to being protected than this GoDaddy stuff. And despite that, it was still within the law.

It's a little more nuanced because abortion is less linked to religion than gay marriage is to being gay. You can in theory link a variety of nonsense to your Christian faith (if you can prove false you can prove anything blah blah blah)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com