undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdamon_c6y ago0 comments

Hedge trimming can be done by anyone with a hedge trimming machine. This baker made beautiful unique artistic cakes that were a product of his own life and experiences and sensibilities. Also, a wedding cake specifically celebrates a matrimony whose existence the baker would deny. Any hedge trimming service that satisfied those qualifications would indeed possibly be subject to the same controversy.

Regardless of the context of this case, it's odd that the state can now seemingly force someone to engage their creativity and artistic sensibility for any reason. It is now federal judicial precedence that he must lawfully create a satisfyingly beautiful cake for anyone who= asks. What if it's not beautiful enough? Is that punishable by law? Who judges the beauty?

Probably the baker should have just made a half assed cake...

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

mullingitover6y ago· 2 in thread

> Regardless of the context of this case, it's odd that the state can now seemingly force someone to engage their creativity and artistic sensibility for any reason.

No, the state (because the citizens wanted it that way) can merely require you to treat people the same regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation if you are offering services to the public. If you offer services to the public you can't pick and choose based on that criteria. You're free to create whatever you like, for whomever you like, if you're not a public business. Plus you can still refuse services to lawyers, people without shirts or shoes, or people who indent with spaces if you're a public business.

I fail to see how the state not enabling bigotry in services offered to the public constitutes oppression.

centimeter6y ago

> I fail to see how the state not enabling bigotry in services offered to the public constitutes oppression.

If you really can't see it, there has to be some kind of observational defect in your model of the world. Forcing people to do work they don't want to do is bad because compulsory labor is bad. It blows my mind that this is not immediately obvious to people who live in a society that (reasonably) vocally opposes slavery.

Also, "not enabling bigotry" is an insanely stilted way of saying "forcing people to perform labor they don't want to".

mullingitover6y ago

> Forcing people to do work they don't want to do is bad because compulsory labor is bad

This is the same tired argument that every bigoted person whines about when they're 'forced' to treat human beings like human beings.

You'll be extremely relieved to know that nobody forced them to open a business that sells products and services to the general public. They made that choice. The only thing they are 'forced' to do is follow the extremely reasonable "don't discriminate" requirement.

If you really can't see it, there has to be some kind of observational defect in your model of the world.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse