Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,800
- 15,720
You're directly comparing these bakers......to Martin Luther King?I believe most (and probably all) state legislatures have used their powers to regulate economic activity and enact laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.
Public accommodation laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests. All persons, regardless of who they are, should be allowed to enter a business open to the public and be treated with equal dignity.
It is wrong to discriminate.
It's more wrong to ruin a person over not wanting to bake a cake, and even more wrong to use government to enact said ruination.
Bakers, butchers, and candle-stick makers are not "ruined".
They have freedom of speech. They can post big signs in their places of business or post messages in huge font on their business websites stating something like this: "We don't agree with equal rights under the law for some people, but we will comply with state law." They may even use language dripping with anti-black, anti-gay, or anti-whatever animus.
People who are offended will probably boycott the business; but perhaps bigoted people will patronize the store. You win some, you lose some. Whatever. But, if you choose to violate the law, then there are consequences.
Yes, they are ruined. It's comical that you separate the mechanism from the desired out come. It's like saying the bullet didn't kill him, the hole in his body did. and he shouldn't have been standing there anyway.
If the lawbreakers are "ruined", then the "mechanism" responsible for that alleged ruination is their own unlawful conduct. If you didn't know this before, you know it now: If you violate the law, that's your choice and there are probably consequences. The alleged "bullets" are the consequences, but you're being overly dramatic.
So i guess MLK deserved to be thrown into that jail cell in Birmingham, right?
Really?