The baker was trying, in a small way, to impose his beliefs on the couple. A hypothetical symmetrical case could be imagined in which 'people being allowed to believe in God and attend religious services' does not affect atheists' lives, even if Mr Euphoric-Fedora, who owns a hotel and sees no difference between religion and psychosis, is expected to provide rooms to religious people on the same terms as he provides to non-believers.
From what I recall of reading the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the proprietor was willing to sell them one of the generic cakes. The issue came up when he was asked to provide one with personalized, theme-appropriate decoration.
Which is to say, to produce an expression of the beliefs the couple had regarding their wedding. And so in that way the couple, too, was attempting to impose their beliefs on him.
Now, it's a very mild sort of imposition I am talking about, of course. That kind of economic incentive to get someone else's expressive faculties dedicated to your cause for a moment is quite common, and in fact it is a good thing that the modern world lets those of us with less training or talent harness the voices of others that way. But it is nonetheless their voice, and many people are leery of forcing someone to say something they disagree with.
For comparison's sake: imagine Mr. Euphoric-Fedora advertises a service where he will leave one of a selection of texts in the hotel drawer if the person renting the room requests it. The local newspaper, or a copy of Godel Escher Bach, or one of several others from his collection. At his discretion he may even purchase a new one if you contact him ahead of time. But he won't put a Bible in it. Is that a failure to "provide rooms to religious people on the same terms as he provides to non-believers"?
p
From what I recall of reading the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the proprietor was willing to sell them one of the generic cakes. The issue came up when he was asked to provide one with personalized, theme-appropriate decoration.
Which is to say, to produce an expression of the beliefs the couple had regarding their wedding. And so in that way the couple, too, was attempting to impose their beliefs on him.
Now, it's a very mild sort of imposition I am talking about, of course. That kind of economic incentive to get someone else's expressive faculties dedicated to your cause for a moment is quite common, and in fact it is a good thing that the modern world lets those of us with less training or talent harness the voices of others that way. But it is nonetheless their voice, and many people are leery of forcing someone to say something they disagree with.
For comparison's sake: imagine Mr. Euphoric-Fedora advertises a service where he will leave one of a selection of texts in the hotel drawer if the person renting the room requests it. The local newspaper, or a copy of Godel Escher Bach, or one of several others from his collection. At his discretion he may even purchase a new one if you contact him ahead of time. But he won't put a Bible in it. Is that a failure to "provide rooms to religious people on the same terms as he provides to non-believers"?
More options
Context Copy link