I guess to me that's part of the cost of a free society. I think forcing someone to do something they don't want is worse than not providing a specific service while offering an alternative.
To me, this is why a 100% free market (not free society, that's different than what we are discussing) comes with a myriad of problems and how you end up with sundown towns, discrimination, and fueled hatred between groups of people that are different from each other.
I am talking about a free society, namely where individuals are free to associate and act as they see fit.
I think a free society is an ideal we should strive for. A free market I view as a means to an end, though it is the best economic system we have found, but its not a societal "ideal" like I think a free society should be. I am fine with setting various rules in markets and individuals can choose to participate in those markets or not. If congress decides to make sexuality a protected class, cool, go for it. At that point people can decide whether or not they are good with potentially serving gay people, if they aren't they can choose to do something else.
We do live in a free society, but that doesn't mean we should have endure discrimination in the name freedom. Society is not the same thing as a market. We are talking about business transactions.
It saddens me to hear that you aren't behind protecting gay people from discrimination until congress or SCOTUS says so.
I don't see this case as protecting gay people. This isn't about being able to live in a neighborhood or get medical treatment. This is about buying a cake. The court itself said it was a narrow ruling. I mean this was a 7-2 ruling. It's rare for rulings to be that lopsided and totally off base. It happens, but I don't think this was one of those cases.
That ruling wasn't about the cake. As balrog said, "It was about the conduct of the commission in charge of enforcing discrimination law."
So, I'm not understanding your viewpoint here. And this is a discussion about the protecting gay people from discrimination from businesses open to the public.
understood the majority ruling was based on the commission, i think it was the Thomas writing on it as well hit the core I was looking at that included a first amendment argument. the ruling itself is narrow enough its not particularly interesting
I guess really my view point on this is you have 2 parties. It is impossible for both parties to get what they want. I'd rather someone not get what they want than someone be forced to do something they don't want to do when it is something that is a want, not need. ---