Bakers are fined for not baking cakes for gay weddings, but the NY Times can refuse to run any ad it doesn't like
Same deal for photographers: If you refuse to do photos for a same-sex wedding you get sued. (This is only to law of certain states.)
All good libs support this. (If you're liberal and you don't think it's right or fair, speak up.)
The reasoning behind this is that according to liberals anyone engaging in any business is obligated to serve the entire public, regardless of whether the would-be customer is doing something that grossly violates the conscience of the owner.
But I noticed something odd with this "philosophy:" The NY Times seems to have retained the absolute right to decline to run any ad it doesn't like. Similarly, all public transit systems carry ads on the sides of buses or in subway and trolley cars, and...judges have granted them the right to refuse to carry any ad they don't like.
Wow, how's that for inconsistency, eh?
Almost like there are two sets of laws or something.