• two_wheel2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Alright I’m sorry, I don’t either. Which is actually why I pointed out specifically that I hate that anyone would use this in a hateful way. I’m surprised you think that I do think that it’s the same. Is there something in my comment which indicates that I believe that?

      • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You reached for a completely non sequitur analogy.

        compelling a black-owned bakery to write an awful racist message on a cake

        It’s not at all like that. If you’re in the business of making cakes, and if you make cakes that have people’s names on them for their weddings, and then you refuse a cake that looks like all the other cakes to a couple because you don’t approve of which two consenting adults want their names on the goddamn cake because you just think exactly only one peen should be named in their relationship, that is just bigoted bullshit, and yes, this free country should stamp that shit out and not apologize for it, and we should all burn sparklers and celebrate that this free country offers us all the same freedom to buy a cake from the already-putting-peoples-names-on-wedding-cakes baker. There is no analog there for hateful messages on cakes whatsoever.

        Edit: And if I missed your point entirely, I apologize. I’m not trying to be combative with anyone, but I am trying to stop what seems like people rationalizing this situation as having anything to do with free speech. I emphatically believe that it is a shitty excuse to apologize for a clearly biased agenda from the people who wormed their way into the US Supreme Court.

        • two_wheel2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah sorry, a couple of people sound like they think I meant that, I must not have articulated myself well.

          If this decision protects that cake maker from doing so, then I would worry about it. Imagining EVERY cake were the same, obviously that would be wrong. I’m just trying to say that it seems like the law has more to do with the content of the message. If a couple wanted a cake saying “only gay sex” or something similarly funny, or a straight couple wanted a cake saying “all gays are bad”, I would feel that while we don’t need to be tolerant of the former business person, or the latter client, neither business person should be compelled to write the message on the cake. In the former case, they should be compelled to make a blank or similar cake with no message, simply not compelled to write the message.

          Again, I’m not a legal expert so if I’m misreading the decision, that’s a different story.