On the other hand...skin-head neo-Nazi couple asking a Jewish baker to design a beautiful wedding cake with swastikas, SS logos, & little gas chambers would surely be in his rights to refuse their business, if not outright kick them out of the store. Dang. This is a hard one.
The non-aggression principle, and anti-slavery principle, seem relevant. You shouldn't be able to call on the power of the state to force someone to do work that they have strong ethical objections against doing.
-
-
Then don't open your business to the public. I recall something about a Woolworth's lunch counter...
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But the reason for refusing to offer services isn't always a "strong ethical objection." Sometimes it's simply irrational hatred of a certain group. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to benefit from public utilities (roads) if they won't serve the whole public.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Remove “strong” and “ethical” from this and you are completely correct.
-
You shouldn't be able to call on the power of the state to force someone to do work that they have objections against doing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The baker was already a baker, already in the business of "public accomodation", and he clearly had no objection to this point. He was not being asked to write any specific message or design, the cake had not even been discussed before he refused.../1
-
..the couple any service at all, solely based on their sexuality. /2 end.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.