I was reading about the Barronelle Stutzman case, where a woman was sued for not arranging flowers for a homosexual couples wedding, and the Washington Supreme Court just ruled against her case. I know what you're thinking. "How is that still a case in 2017? Didn't we already figure out this issue like last decade?" I tend to agree. However I did feel like this case was nearing the edge of my support for these types of cases so I wanted to see how you fine folks felt and maybe get some different opinions.
While I agree that her case was one of discrimination, it did feel like it was getting closer to a personal level. I skew towards the protection of minority rights, but at a certain level it feels like things should flip to the protection of those personal rights. Walmart definitely should not be allowed to keep Hispanics from their store. The local flower shop shouldn't refuse Muslim customers because they disagree with their beliefs. My friend James is a christian artist and people commission paintings from him. If a satanic group asks him to paint the centerpiece for their church does he not have the right to refuse? If I am a black man who likes to jail break phones and fix them for people around the neighborhood and the local grand wizard wants me to hook his phone up, is it right for the court to legally obligate me to do this for someone who I vehemently disagree with?
This isn't strictly a LGBT issue but it is an LGBT case. Basically this felt to me like it was getting close to the point where someone is being told to put their energy and effort into something they disagree with. Whether you agree or disagree with them, it feels wrong to force someone in that manner. A business and the business owner's beliefs 'should' be separate, but the smaller the business the less that seems plausible. I think at a certain level business and its owner's beliefs should be acknowledged as joined, though that feels dangerous… I'm not sure but I do know those last two situations I mentioned would leave a bad taste in my mouth, although maybe that's just the delicious flavor of justice haha. When Trump got the Rockette dancers to perform at his inauguration, their dance company bent to pressure and gave them an opt out. But if they hadn't and some of the dancers still refused to perform would we have felt so justified if the courts stuck it to them? I know its not a one to one comparison but the idea is similar. Any thoughts? And feel free to frame it around the LGBT part.
p.s. if this isn't the right thread for this topic I apologize
Remind me that case were a person didn't want to write a pro gay marriage on a cake. My opinion is that you can refuse to promote ideas against your belief but you can't refuse to serve people. Hooking up a phone has nothing to do with how racist the guy is so I would say the law should side with him. In this case the problem were who she was serving so yes the court did right siding with her. I would say the same if it was a black woman having to arrange flowers for David Duke(I think that's the name of the guy from the KKK,right?). The court is suppose to side against discrimination not just the one society has decided as bad.