"If your job is to bake cakes for weddings, bake that cake and be happy for the couple."
Is this alluding to the case of Christian bakery owners who didn't want to bake for a same-sex couple in the US?
"If your job is to bake cakes for weddings, bake that cake and be happy for the couple."
Is this alluding to the case of Christian bakery owners who didn't want to bake for a same-sex couple in the US?
Yes, in part. I get inspiration from everywhere.
It* would mean you are for forced association and forced labor, that's why I'm asking about it.
*It=Taking the stance the christian couple running their bakery had to bake the cake (or otherwise would be prosecuted, fined, penalized in whatever way).
The couple refused to bake the cake because the couple were gay. That's discrimination against the couple and is illegal in the US.
That's not what this is about, eh? It's not about what is and what isn't law.
Rather it is about what should be law and should be enforced as such by members of the state - or isn't it? That's what you are advocating for (or isn't it?).
You've gone off on a tangent. I asked the person that downvoted me 100% why. You've now brought a discussion to my wall about a policy that was decided in a country that I've visited once.
I neither have the means to change the law of that country, nor the means to elect the law-makers of that country. The only thing I can do is make observations, which I did. That sentence wasn't the main part of my post and if you'd like to discuss it further, make a post about it on your own wall. I'm done.
Fair. I don't know panzermampfmagen and I especially don't know what he thinks.
I was just interested if this stance I mentioned in my second comment is part of or essential to your attitude with which you wrote the article.
Not essential. If I didn't have this example, there are hundreds more I could have used.
:)