Question of the day:
Two lesbian pigs walk into a Christian bakery and demand that the baker bake a cake saying 2+2=5.
If Winston, the baker, refuses, should he be fined thousands of dollars for not submitting to the demand of the two lesbian pigs? Should the two lesbian women hold up four fingers of their hand and ask repeatedly how many fingers they are holding up? Should Winston be forced to close down his bakery is he refuses to answer 5? Should he be tortured until he replies 5?
In what kind of a society can two lesbian pigs use the power of the state to coerce a decent human being to state that 2+2=5, because no one can refuse their demands, no matter how deformed, dysfunctional, or unethical?
Update: 1 March 2014
Another great hypothetical – a comment at FT where I have been banned:
Under the logic used to lampoon this bill and others like it, if I am a baker and a member of the KKK walks in to my bakery asking me to bake a cake for his white supremacist rally, I cannot refuse to bake the cake on religious grounds. Regardless of my religious beliefs or personal preferences I, a private baker, am compelled to bake this man a cake. That’s an absurd result in any universe.
If Baker A will not bake you cake, that’s Baker A’s prerogative. There is no legitimate basis to compel Baker A to bake you a cake, regardless of the circumstances.
Yes, that is the point I have been making. I do not understand how anyone in their right mind can not see the refusal is based on objection to a perverted ideology – whether we are talking about racists, homosexuals, pedophiles, pornographers, etc. These are all ideologies and have nothing to do with color of skin, sex, or other immutable physical traits.
Second, if you can not reject to serve the individual based on religious grounds, you can not reject the service on any other grounds as well. I mean, where is the rationale to say that you can only reject service based on non-religious grounds? Freedom of conscience is thus effectively outlawed.
Freedom and democracy or normalization of homosexuality – choose one. Because the objective of sexuality pigs is to destroy your rights; there is no co-existence possible.
Update March 3, 2014 – I don’t remember if I had written about this hypothetical before, but here it is. I think it underscores my point about the fact that these cases are about freedom of conscience, in broader terms, and specifically about freedom of religion, as a subset of what’s included under “conscience.”
Two liberal heterosexual idiots walk into a Christian bakery and order a cake for the farcical wedding of two people with a homosexual problem (a homosexual wedding). Does the baker have the right to refuse? If the baker refuses, what kind of discrimination is this? Discrimination against heterosexuals? Discrimination against liberal heterosexual pigs? Discrimination against homosexuals?
In case you didn’t notice, those were rhetorical questions. Isn’t it obvious that what is being objected to is the deformed liberal ideology on sexuality (namely, homosexuality)?
See also: The Elane Photography case: “Homosexuality down your throats” dressed up as anti-discrimination