Should a homosexual owned bakery should be legally compelled to cater any WBC protests even when those protests are against homosexuals? As refusing to do so would be discriminating against the WBC based on their religion?
Yes, provided they offer catering services to any other protests. You can draw the line at having a "God hates f*gs" message written on the cake, since the baker could reasonably claim they don't decorate cakes with profanity or whatever, but they shouldn't be allowed to refuse the WBC order just because they disagree with their religious views.
Just for clarification, you believe that the government should both criminally and civilly require a homosexual owned bakery which offers catering to attend a protest by the WBC disparaging of the homosexual lifestyle/marriage/ect?
That seems pretty fucked up.
Would you say the same thing if the KKK got religious 501c3 recognition and they requested a african-american owned bakery to cater a clan rally?
Just for clarification, you believe that the government should both criminally and civilly require a homosexual owned bakery which offers catering to attend a protest by the WBC disparaging of the homosexual lifestyle/marriage/ect?
That seems pretty fucked up.
Would you say the same thing if the KKK got religious 501c3 recognition and they requested a african-american owned bakery to cater a clan rally?
Just for clarification, you believe that the government should both criminally and civilly require a homosexual owned bakery which offers catering to attend a protest by the WBC disparaging of the homosexual lifestyle/marriage/ect?
That seems pretty fucked up.
Would you say the same thing if the KKK got religious 501c3 recognition and they requested a african-american owned bakery to cater a clan rally?
I think reasonable accommodations can be made; very few bakers attend the events they provide baked goods for. So the baker could provide baked goods while also not being present for the actual rally/protest event. In my mind, that's perfectly reasonable, and a perfect counterpoint to the Christian bakers refusing to make gay marriage cakes; you don't need to attend the wedding in order to provide the cake for it. How many people actually have the baker attend their wedding? That's just weird. Have the WBC pick up the cakes from the storefront and take them to their rally; if the baker refuses that reasonable request, I think they should be sanctioned for it.
The KKK isn't eligible for religious 501(c)(3) recognition, but let's say they manage to get it and KKK membership is now seen as a religion; a black-owned bakery would have to provide accommodation to the KKK rally as long as providing services to large events is something they have done or would do for other groups. You can come up with any scenario of "these people and the people who hate them" you want, my answer is not going to change. If you provide a service to the public, you provide it to everyone, regardless of how big an asshole you may privately think that person is. That's basic professionalism, and, hell, just basic human decency; you treat people with respect even if you think they deserve none.
You have to provide your services without respect to religion. That doesn't mean that if someone is yelling homophobic slurs at you that you have to go cater their protest anyway.
So why would someone be forced to say photograph a homosexual wedding when the speech at that wedding (the ceremony) is equally offensive to that person?
Because that's the service they sell? Pretty hard to take pictures of an event when you aren't at it. So their attendance would be part of the product they are selling in a way the baker's doesn't have to be. If working at certain weddings is so offensive to them, they should probably go into a different line of work.
So why would someone be forced to say photograph a homosexual wedding when the speech at that wedding (the ceremony) is equally offensive to that person?
Because people existing and getting married isn't the same as someone yelling slurs at you.
How is that even a question? This is common sense.
So your position is that a homosexual wouldn't be required to cater/service/photograph an event containing what they view as hate speech but a heterosexual would be required to cater/service/photograph an event containing what they view as hate speech.
Got it.
That's not even remotely my opinion, as I've already outlined multiple times in this thread. A homosexual would be required to do an event, regardless of their views on it, provided it's a service they otherwise offer to other groups, exactly the same as a heterosexual, or a Christian, or a black person, or a woman, or any other protected class. No one gets to discriminate when serving the public. You're trying to pull some "GOTCHA" where I give special rights to leftist groups because you're not bothering to read what I'm writing, you're just inventing me as a caricature of your delusional right-wing fantasyland. After all, if YOU don't want to serve the gays, surely your opponent must not want to serve the Christians. The difference between us seems to be that I'm willing to set aside my differences with people when engaging them in commerce and you can't seem to fathom how anyone could possibly do that.
And who on Earth is going to classify a wedding as "hate speech" in the same vein as the Westboro Baptist Church? I mean, unless the vows include "kill all the straight people," I don't really think anyone is going to confuse the two. Acting like a photographer having to take pictures of a gay couple on their wedding day is anything remotely similar to being asked to photograph a KKK rally isn't just wildly disingenuous, it offers some keen insight into the mental contortions necessary to say "yeah, refusing to sell cakes to a gay person is something we should absolutely be able to do." You can't justify it without comparing it to hate groups. "Gay marriage? That's basically just a liberal WBC rally, right?" That's mind-boggling.
Mind-boggling that you believe that rights/laws only protect/compel certain groups if they fit within your narrow view of the world.
Who are you to judge what is/is not hate speech? The simple fact that you are trying to discredit certain forms of speech because you and you alone may not agree with it undermines the core foundation of what the United States was founded on.
To that person, the words during the ceremony are equally offensive as it is a perversion of their religion as any slur.
If you think "Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" qualifies as hate speech, you truly have absolutely no concept of what the term means.
I think someone clearly doesn't know what hate a speech is
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times including Snyder v. Phelps that government cannot be the arbiter of speech thus making the term 'hate speech' complete subjective and without meaning.
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times including Snyder v. Phelps that government cannot be the arbiter of speech thus making the term 'hate speech' complete subjective and without meaning.
Who are you to judge what is/is not hate speech? The simple fact that you are trying to discredit certain forms of speech because you and you alone may not agree with it undermines the core foundation of what the United States was founded on.
The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times including Snyder v. Phelps that government cannot be the arbiter of speech thus making the term 'hate speech' complete subjective and without meaning.