The Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously upheld its previous ruling that Baronelle Stutzman violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to provide flowers (under the guise of "mUh ReLiGiOnZ") for a gay couple’s wedding in 2013.

Very immature response. But anyway, I don't think that would be the same thing. I know sexual orientation is not a choice just like skin color, but you're comparing two different things here. You're talking about denying someone service based on sexual orientation, but I'm talking about compelling people to provide a product or service that they don't want to do. Two different things. If some single gay guy walks into a bakery and wants to buy a birthday cake and gets refused because he's gay, that's not the same thing as a bakery exclusively making straight wedding cakes. You can't compel them to provide that product any more than a vegan can walk into McDonalds and demand more vegan options. That's not the same things as being denied service for being vegan. Do you see the difference? And what if there was a bakery that specialized in making gay wedding cakes. What if that was their little niche market that they wanted to specialize in. Should I be able to walk in and demand a straight wedding cake, a product they don't offer, and cry discrimination if they don't?

/r/atheism Thread Parent Link - keprtv.com