What makes you think the discussion is limited to what the law is, versus what it should be, or more broadly, what the 'right' thing to do is, regardless of the law?
Your link does not necessarily refute the post you're replying to. Gay people are not a protected group under Federal law; nor, AIUI, are they in most states.
Then the argument should be "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, except with regards to protected groups".
However, that was not the argument that was made. The original argument is unconditional: "to anyone", period.
The grandparent pointed out this flaw. You are on the same side of the argument.
I don't care about the original argument, it wasn't made by me. Obviously the business has to respect the law.
Therefore comparing cloudflare and the bakery is dishonest, there you go.
> I don't care about the original argument
Well, that explains why you still haven't realized that the comment you took offense with was actually concordant with your own position.
1 reply →
What makes you think the discussion is limited to what the law is, versus what it should be, or more broadly, what the 'right' thing to do is, regardless of the law?
Good luck getting agreement on the "right" thing to do
Your link does not necessarily refute the post you're replying to. Gay people are not a protected group under Federal law; nor, AIUI, are they in most states.
The "gay bakery" case I'm aware of was in Northern Ireland