That has already been addressed in this thread, multiple times.
The symbolic (a work DMK used and that you quoted) meaning of the cake was clearly defined by the customer in the original request. (Now ask again what the original request was.)
It’s not religion in question. Gay marriage and transgenderism don’t exist in the bible. It’s about someone being uncomfortable with the design of the cake. That’s the only legitimate grounds. The religious logic creates a dangerous slippery slope, we don’t want to partake.
It’s extremely important to understand that both the artist and customer have rights, and those rights need to be viewed equally. The artist has first amendment protections, the customer has 14th amendment protections and civil rights protections.
The happy medium is, you have to bake the cake, but the design up to the discretion of the artist.
And so you disregard that the baker believes the eternity of his soul is on the line? Therefore, it is more important that a transgender lawyer harass a man who poses no threat to anyone but for their insecurities?
Mr. Strawman, bring me a team (bung, bung, bung, bung)
Of low information libs that need to be reamed (bung, bung, bung, bung)
Make them arrogant and dumber than Grover (bung, bung, bung, bung)
Then we can knock their stupid strawman over
The cake is symbolic of someone who has XY parts, but a female brain. Phillips does not agree with the artistic express being presented. Right or wrong, he has a right the freedom to say no to the design.
There’s no harassment. She asked him to make him a cake with a specific design. He said no to the design. That’s not harassment. It was Phillips who filed a complaint against the governor.
The link about the gun maker getting sued was in response to a request for examples wherein lawyers get involved. The spirit of the statement was that people sue.
I satisfied the request for an example. It showed a direct example of what DMK was referring to.
Now you have changed it to “participation”. This is another example of why I consider your posts disingenuous.
You do not get to determine whether someone’s religious tenets considers a contribution (at any level) to be participation in something immoral. Nor does the government. What Smith&Wesson is doing to defend against the example lawsuit has no bearing on that.
Agreed. He absolutely does. And he has shown time and time again there are symbols or symbolism he won’t be bullied into participating in. I admire him and his stance against being bullied.
I’ve never encountered a situation where my marijuana use was tolerated, when it otherwise would be, when I argued that cannabis consumption was part of my religious beliefs.
Yes, there is. He is being specifically targeted by the transgender lawyer. She/he/it is trying to ride his coattails to fame. If she/he/it destroys a good man in the process … well he is just the equivalent of road kill.
the same person made other such requests (for satanic cakes). This person harassed. The “commission” finally took up one of the attempts. And yes, he’s being pulled back into court by the commission. (That was also linked several times in this thread.)
Damned straight, the guy has now sued the commission, the head of the commission and the governor because the commission is under his auspices. The guy is looking to put an end to the harassment.