you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The cake one is homophobia because it's refusing service to people based on them being gay. If they refused service to people based on them being trans, then it'd be transphobic. Not using someone's preferred pronouns is not equivalent.

Notice how your standards for calling someone "transphobic" are ridiculously low, compared to any other type of accusation of bigotry? GC women often don't use someone's preferred pronouns & they aren't transphobic.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Masterpiece did not refuse all service, just the custom writing. The offered other products. The Supreme Court found in their favour.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, the baker would not sell them a wedding cake, period.

The couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But they had expressed a desire to purchase a custom cake. In other filings, if I recall correctly, Phillips told the couple that they could purchase a pre-made non-custom cake; his objection was to using his creative expression to celebrate their union, because of his religious convictions.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wedding cakes aren't premade.