> 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.
> 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".
> 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.
It's a fact, not disputed by either party, that he offered to sell them a generic cake or one with a different message. So it's not true that he denied them service "because" they were gay.
Thought experiment: Imagine an individual woman went into the store and said to him "My son is marrying his boyfriend this weekend. Can you make a custom cake for them?" The baker says no. Should that be illegal?
Thought experiment #2: Imagine an alt-right troll goes into a Jewish bakery and asks for a cake that says "Jesus is Lord". The baker says no. Should that be illegal?
> You'll be extremely relieved to know that nobody forced them to open a business that sells products and services to the general public.
Same goes for Twitter. By your logic, Twitter has no grounds to complain when Trump screws them over for censoring conservatives, because no one forced them to go into business.
Are you really thinking about this? I feel like you're just responding with bad-faith platitudes.
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.