I've been anticipating this case as well. I'm curious about the agreements presented from both sides.
What will really make it interesting is that both sides of this dispute have valid arguments. People shouldn't discriminate, but they should also not be forced to interact with people they don't want to. Someone has to have either their freedom, or feelings violated.
In a situation like this you can't convince someone they are wrong, because nobody is. It is two correct ideas in conflict, so we each choose the one that we feel is more important.
End result is two sides, both arguing that they are correct. And since they are, the argument is difficult to resolve.
So, like I said above, I will settle for some consistency. One way or the other I will accept, as long as everyone is held to the same standard.
I tend to value freedoms over feelings, but I value consistency in law, most of all.
I tend to value freedoms over feelings, but I value consistency in law, most of all
Well said, I concur
Good, I've been looking forward to this. I am very interested in the outcome. I think the system is currently fucked up in the US. At the moment there is a double standard where you can discriminate in one direction, but not another.
It needs to be an evenly enforced law.
Either both sides wrong, or both sides right. Hopefully the court will clear this up for people. Personally I would like to see both sides free to associate with who they choose, and not forced to interact with people they don't want to. What ever happened to 'the right to refuse service'?
On the flip-side, if they made all discrimination of this type illegal, then that would also be fair, though a bit violating.