Search results

Like I said - you haven't been following or understanding this at all. As for your meaningless 'whataboutery' - you've offered up a totally irrelevant example. I agree. What you have said before, and will say again, is indeed bullshit with sparklers on top.

And be forced, by law, to undertake work which are against his social, political or religious principles? Good one.

You haven't been following this at all. The baker challenged the ruling which made him make/create/fabricate a slogan he didn't agree with. It's nothing to do with a cake, and everything to do with the law imposing social and political ideologies on someone against their will.

Yes and no. If the baker hadn't taken the case to the Supreme Court, the legal precedent would have been set, as the High Court had originally ruled in favour of the customer.

Usually because the doctrine of same-sex marriage is forbidden from a time when rules were written and laid down thousands of years ago, and many societies - mostly for evidence-free reasons - adhered to them. When the evidence came back of how immaterial marrying someone of your own sex was...

Hardly. The people who sued the baker and took this to court lost.

Not by everyone. The uneducated and the gullible, maybe... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.67d6b7869095

What is does - to an extent - is clarify the law. For instance, the law is still clear - as it doesn't apply here - on banning people from an establishment or refusing them service on grounds of sexuality, race, gender etc.

My take is that while I strongly disagree with the social considerations of the bakery, one shouldn't have to be forced to write or create something which goes against those principles. For me, the Supreme Court has got it right.