She has a good point about the government forcing the baker to bake a gay wedding cake. #1 its rewarding the bigoted businessman because that gay couple is going to make him a profit on what WILL likely be the shittiest wedding cake EVER! (Seriously, I don’t even send an unsatisfactory meal back to the kitchen in a restaurant because I’m concerned the cook will spit in it…what does this gay couple think this asshole is going to do?)
#2. It gives bigots a reason to hide their bigotry. In a world where I have a lot of different places to spend my money, I’d appreciate a nice red flag on where NOT to do business.
#3. It sets a precedent that we must serve all. That means gay bars need to serve Westboro Baptist members. Black businesses must serve Klansmen and Skinheads. Gun shops and makers must serve anti-rights activists, and government officials in anti-gun states.
Now the core of this story is that gays are being claimed by the “Progressives”, and this bakery went against the “Progressive” engine. I can also see these same people saying that Barret cannot abide by their “Barrett will not sell to or service any California or New York government agencies.” policy. Same goes with Starbucks’ new policy to ask people legally open carrying to leave the store.
But what about people openly wearing Neo-Nazi or Clan garb? Yeah I don’t see them standing up to that. Is that right? Is that selective enforcement?
On the topic of Barrett’s “We won’t sell to CA or NY,” did you know that people actually got sued because of the S&W boycott? The reason the major gun manufacturers didn’t get involved in my NY Boycott is because the last time the boycott happened, they ended up getting sued. They won, but they lost all that money defending themselves.