Mrs K wrote:1) Was Jack unfair to them because of their sexual orientation?
Yes absolutely
He declined to make a celebratory wedding cake for a same-sex wedding as it goes against his religious beliefs.
True
The sexual orientation of the customers was irrelevant.
Also true
He would not sell a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding to a homosexual customer, a heterosexual customer, a bisexual customer, an asexual customer
Also true but irrelevant, as it is still discriminating against the person who is getting married orientation
So he is applying the same rule (not making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding) to all customers no matter their sexual orientation. This is treating all customers the same, thus fairly, no matter their sexual orientation.
True he is applying his discrimination against gay people across the board, it is not fair or just, and it is absolutely discriminating against sexual orientation. It matters not who is buying the cake!
Was Jack cruel to them because of their sexual orientation?
Yes absolutely, here is the definition.
adjective, crueler, cruelest.
1.
willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
2.
enjoying the pain or distress of others:
the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.
3.
causing or marked by great pain or distress:
a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.
4.
rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.
respectfully declined to make the cake.
Discriminating against someones sexual orientation is not respectful.
What Jack did doesn't sound very cruel to me at all.
Very subjective opinion, if it was me being denied based on my sexual orientation I would say yes it is cruel.
In this case, immediately after Jack declined, the couple left the store.
Their discussion lasted a few minutes.
Ok.
About 2 months later the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for sexual-orientation discrimination.
I don't see the relevance, is 2 months significant somehow?
To me it is clear that this is not "persecution". Using that word to describe what is happening in these cases is insulting to people facing real persecution.
To me it is clear that it is persecution. I think not using the word is an insult to persecuted people, just ask Neo and I am sure as a persecuted person he would agree.