This is what happens when you apply corporate logic to government, and why “running the government like a business” doesn’t make sense. 

There are more than you realize, they just aren’t very popular outside of Comedy Central reruns. Hell, there’s a whole genre called the “stoner comedy”.

Yeah, title should be edited to include Netflix somewhere

If you’ve never been to MXDC, it might not make sense, but its a very upscale restaurant (with, I should add, amazing food). Its exactly the sort of place the DC elite dine (and me once having been invited to lunch by someone in the DC elite)

There are a handful of downtown DC restaurants that cater to this exact…

That “partner” could also be of the opposite gender. Its common, especially outside of the US, to refer to a boyfriend/girlfriend as your partner

Did the couple refute that claim? If not, I don’t see why that’s relevant.

Do you think he investigates heterosexual weddings to make sure he “agrees” with them?

I don’t know if that matters. I could be wrong (though the Supreme Court ruling seems to be in favor of this), but as long as the owner has a good reason to object (ie a religious one) he can and that isn’t necessarily discrimination against the individuals.

That’s not what happened, though. The baker didn’t deny service because they were a same sex couple, but because he didn’t want his cake to be used in their wedding. He still offered to provide them service for other things.

Again, not what happened. He didn’t say he wouldn’t serve them because they were gay, but because he didn’t agree with what the product would be used for. Note that he offered to provide other cakes for other purposes.

That’s not what happened here. The argument being put forward is that he denied service because he didn’t agree with what the product was being used for. Note that he offered to provide them other cakes for other purposes.

Right, its a choice. Just like getting married is a choice, regardless of orientation. He didn’t refuse them service because they were gay, in fact he made them other cakes... He refused to provide a wedding cake because he didn’t agree with the wedding.

Except that he wasn’t denying it based on their sexual orientation. He provided them other cakes. He just didn’t want to give them one for the wedding because he didn’t support the wedding.

I don’t. I believe providing service is a choice. Let me be clear, I don’t think the baker is a good person. But I think its insane for the government to force a private citizen to work on behalf of another private citizen for something as inconsequential as a wedding cake. We’re not talking about a doctor refusing to…

Exactly! I don’t get why its only ok to deny service when the person you’re denying service to is the shitty one.

Lets take a step back here. Regardless of the reasoning, this is about whether the baker has a right to deny service to a customer. As a private citizen who own a private company, I think that they can, and it seems the Supreme Court majority concurs. It doesn’t really matter what that reason is, does it?

Lets look at it from the other side: What if the person getting married was a neo-nazi? Would the baker be allowed to deny service based on their beliefs? No one HAS to provide a service to you just because you can pay for it (except the government)

That’s not even remotely the same thing.

This wasn’t an employee. This was the owner. Therefore it was the business itself that took this stance. Big difference.

This case never bothered me that much. I don’t see why the couple couldn’t have found another less shitty baker. This a private citizen deciding not to provide a good or service to another person. I believe that’s fully within his rights to deny service, just like its fully within other people’s rights to boycott the…