Planet Rugby Forum

c69 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:I think this is a terrific, if rambling piece by the brilliant Tara Isabella-Burton. She's the first I've seen to cover the hilarious alt-right figure known as Bronze Age Pervert:

In one tweet, Bronze Age Pervert posts a painting of a naked wood nymph with a thoroughly Nietzschean caption: “return of the maenads ...... imagine being torn limb from limb by crazed bacchant-gril as irregular drums beat and very thin, circular demented melody plays on two flutes handled by goat-men ... I want such death.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17396182/j ... atholicism

It's not at all a bad article tbh, however prepare yourself to be roundly condemned by the conservatives and Peterson fan bois on here. He has noa ssociation at all with the alt right and any suggestions that he does are smears.
I posted a few posts earlier that suggested he has alt right followers and was pounced upon with the ferocity of Geoffrey Howe or an obese sleeping moggy.

They won't be happy with someone suggesting exactly what I have asserted;

the Canadian clinical pop philosopher whose atavistic advocacy of masculinist revivalism has made him the de facto guru of the right

That's probably because Peterson's "rise" has meant those that attack him on ideology grounds, say the vocal hard left, have mostly done it by claiming he is alt-right, a term that is often used as a way to have the masses dismiss the person out of fear of their true intentions or politics by making their brand toxic. Given the frequent lack of debate about his arguments from this direction it's an obvious tactic done out of fear because he actually presents a fairly scientific basis for his positions. So smears to try to make him toxic, which has worked by the hard left against a variety of opponents from feminists to right leaning conservatives.

So I suspect, given you've posted in opposition to a Peterson a fair bit while rarely acknowledging his points that make total sense that his "fans" on this topic assume you are coming from the position of those hard leftists who have attempted to consistently smear him. The reality of course is Peterson does get many things right and some things wrong, like any scientist and some of his philosophies are a tad suspect or don't have universal application to everybody and should be critiqued. This is why anyone who attacks him gets a bit of a backlash, because people are weary of why he's being attacked.

I personally find his is pretty accurate in his dissection of "cultural marxism" of the hard left, most of which he articulates a lot of obvious points, some universities and political groups have gone barmy with identity politics that veer on basically one sided racism of bigotry, that this use of attacking via identity politics means this hard left is refusing to engage in any debate and is attacking and even destroying what should be allies such as classic liberals and "normal" lefty types with nazi smears and the like. Even those many in these areas are actually people who have used their lives to fight for feminist causes. But just because who have less extreme views and that many on the left/liberal spectrum are still slow to condemn or challenge this modern hard left who seem to dominate social media and certain areas of politics.

eldanielfire wrote: That's probably because Peterson's "rise" has meant those that attack him on ideology grounds, say the vocal hard left, have mostly done it by claiming he is alt-right, a term that is often used as a way to have the masses dismiss the person out of fear of their true intentions or politics by making their brand toxic.

Similar to calling someone a virtue signaler then? Grand. Or perhaps "hack", "hard left" or "hit piece author".

eldanielfire wrote:Given the frequent lack of debate about his arguments from this direction it's an obvious tactic done out of fear because he actually presents a fairly scientific basis for his positions.

There's been arguments about his work, and they've been challenged, however those challengers have been dismissed as hacks and their work as hit pieces, no really it works both ways.

eldanielfire wrote:

c69 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:I think this is a terrific, if rambling piece by the brilliant Tara Isabella-Burton. She's the first I've seen to cover the hilarious alt-right figure known as Bronze Age Pervert:

In one tweet, Bronze Age Pervert posts a painting of a naked wood nymph with a thoroughly Nietzschean caption: “return of the maenads ...... imagine being torn limb from limb by crazed bacchant-gril as irregular drums beat and very thin, circular demented melody plays on two flutes handled by goat-men ... I want such death.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17396182/j ... atholicism

It's not at all a bad article tbh, however prepare yourself to be roundly condemned by the conservatives and Peterson fan bois on here. He has noa ssociation at all with the alt right and any suggestions that he does are smears.
I posted a few posts earlier that suggested he has alt right followers and was pounced upon with the ferocity of Geoffrey Howe or an obese sleeping moggy.

They won't be happy with someone suggesting exactly what I have asserted;

the Canadian clinical pop philosopher whose atavistic advocacy of masculinist revivalism has made him the de facto guru of the right

That's probably because Peterson's "rise" has meant those that attack him on ideology grounds, say the vocal hard left, have mostly done it by claiming he is alt-right, a term that is often used as a way to have the masses dismiss the person out of fear of their true intentions or politics by making their brand toxic. Given the frequent lack of debate about his arguments from this direction it's an obvious tactic done out of fear because he actually presents a fairly scientific basis for his positions. So smears to try to make him toxic, which has worked by the hard left against a variety of opponents from feminists to right leaning conservatives.

So I suspect, given you've posted in opposition to a Peterson a fair bit while rarely acknowledging his points that make total sense that his "fans" on this topic assume you are coming from the position of those hard leftists who have attempted to consistently smear him. The reality of course is Peterson does get many things right and some things wrong, like any scientist and some of his philosophies are a tad suspect or don't have universal application to everybody and should be critiqued. This is why anyone who attacks him gets a bit of a backlash, because people are weary of why he's being attacked.

I personally find his is pretty accurate in his dissection of "cultural marxism" of the hard left, most of which he articulates a lot of obvious points, some universities and political groups have gone barmy with identity politics that veer on basically one sided racism of bigotry, that this use of attacking via identity politics means this hard left is refusing to engage in any debate and is attacking and even destroying what should be allies such as classic liberals and "normal" lefty types with nazi smears and the like. Even those many in these areas are actually people who have used their lives to fight for feminist causes. But just because who have less extreme views and that many on the left/liberal spectrum are still slow to condemn or challenge this modern hard left who seem to dominate social media and certain areas of politics.

You can't even pick a Corbyn parody account so I don't know if any of that Peterson-fluffing shite is admissible.

Bullettyme wrote:

eldanielfire wrote: That's probably because Peterson's "rise" has meant those that attack him on ideology grounds, say the vocal hard left, have mostly done it by claiming he is alt-right, a term that is often used as a way to have the masses dismiss the person out of fear of their true intentions or politics by making their brand toxic.

Similar to calling someone a virtue signaler then? Grand. Or perhaps "hack", "hard left" or "hit piece author".

It depends. Someone crying out Nazi or misogyny because someone says the case for gender inequality is complex and possibly mostly not due to sexism is virtual signalling. What's more it's likely to come from a place like the hard left based upon this sort of behaviour has become common. Likewise calling someone hard left when they prevent someone of a differing political position lecturing or engaging in debate via a no platforming action is hard left. Just like a "rights for whites" sort in a violent group deserves to be called a nazi but people who might feel it's best to reduce immigration levels are clearly not.

But the vast majority of left leaning and liberals aren't hard left just like most centralist types or right leaning people aren't nazi's. The issue at the moment is on the left, the 'Hard Left" seem to have become quite dominate and vocal in pushing the narrative over the vast majority of left leaning voices.

eldanielfire wrote:Given the frequent lack of debate about his arguments from this direction it's an obvious tactic done out of fear because he actually presents a fairly scientific basis for his positions.

There's been arguments about his work, and they've been challenged, however those challengers have been dismissed as hacks and their work as hit pieces, no really it works both ways.

A lot of the challenges revert to ad hominem attacks. You can't deny the bulk of piece son him in the MSM were attack pieces initally. You can see most of the links in here from say the Guardian do not engage at all with his debates to attack him as some Alt Right voice piece. Likewise the recent debate he did with Stephen Fry. Likewise some of the recent piece have evolved to use some of his opinions which, as I said myself there are aspect of his arguments which I criticise him, as grounds to dismiss him entirely rather than that individual argument.

Thai guy wrote:]You can't even pick a Corbyn parody account so I don't know if any of that Peterson-fluffing shite is admissible.

When have I ever taken a parody account seriously? Post one time I claimed a parody account was true you idiot.

Seneca of the Night wrote:I read eo Wilson's book when it came out. He is an ant specialist and has similarly been excoriated by the left as one of the founders of evo psych, which appears to drive liberals insane.

I can't remember very much at all about the book, but that it was very well written and persuasive but I did wonder about its truthiness as I just didn't have the scientific background to confirm that.

I think when the right or Peterson defends say "Liberals" are driven insane or in ruins, I genuinely don't think it's liberals, more a small but vocal hard left, who them selves attack genuine liberals when it suits.

Classical liberals allies of the left?

eldanielfire wrote:

Thai guy wrote:]You can't even pick a Corbyn parody account so I don't know if any of that Peterson-fluffing shite is admissible.

When have I ever taken a parody account seriously? Post one time I claimed a parody account was true you idiot.

You started a thread based on one not a week ago.

Bullettyme wrote:

eldanielfire wrote: That's probably because Peterson's "rise" has meant those that attack him on ideology grounds, say the vocal hard left, have mostly done it by claiming he is alt-right, a term that is often used as a way to have the masses dismiss the person out of fear of their true intentions or politics by making their brand toxic.

Similar to calling someone a virtue signaler then? Grand. Or perhaps "hack", "hard left" or "hit piece author".

eldanielfire wrote:Given the frequent lack of debate about his arguments from this direction it's an obvious tactic done out of fear because he actually presents a fairly scientific basis for his positions.

There's been arguments about his work, and they've been challenged, however those challengers have been dismissed as hacks and their work as hit pieces, no really it works both ways.

Many people have spent a few hours in Peterson's company, and managed to reach "conclusions" about him. There are people such as Dr Norman Doige, who have known him for years who can offer greater insight.

Mick Mannock wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

eldanielfire wrote: That's probably because Peterson's "rise" has meant those that attack him on ideology grounds, say the vocal hard left, have mostly done it by claiming he is alt-right, a term that is often used as a way to have the masses dismiss the person out of fear of their true intentions or politics by making their brand toxic.

Similar to calling someone a virtue signaler then? Grand. Or perhaps "hack", "hard left" or "hit piece author".

eldanielfire wrote:Given the frequent lack of debate about his arguments from this direction it's an obvious tactic done out of fear because he actually presents a fairly scientific basis for his positions.

There's been arguments about his work, and they've been challenged, however those challengers have been dismissed as hacks and their work as hit pieces, no really it works both ways.

Many people have spent a few hours in Peterson's company, and managed to reach "conclusions" about him. There are people such as Dr Norman Doige, who have known him for years who can offer greater insight.

Let us all throw ourselves at his feet.

Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

There was that colleague of his who thought he was dangerous but then because the lad has a trans kid he was quickly dismissed.

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

So we should discard everything else anyone else says. Sounds good.

EDIT: We are also talking about his work, but of course you want to take the personal route of JP when it suits and resort to snide insults, pretty typical.

Thai guy wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Thai guy wrote:]You can't even pick a Corbyn parody account so I don't know if any of that Peterson-fluffing shite is admissible.

When have I ever taken a parody account seriously? Post one time I claimed a parody account was true you idiot.

You started a thread based on one not a week ago.

Shouldn't be hard to find then should it? Once again when did I ever claim a parody account was true?

eldanielfire wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Thai guy wrote:]You can't even pick a Corbyn parody account so I don't know if any of that Peterson-fluffing shite is admissible.

When have I ever taken a parody account seriously? Post one time I claimed a parody account was true you idiot.

You started a thread based on one not a week ago.

Shouldn't be hard to find then should it? Once again when did I ever claim a parody account was true?

Boop! http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... &p=5546855&

Though, you do say later in that thread they you knew from the get go that it was parody, which makes total sense really.

unseenwork wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Thai guy wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

Thai guy wrote:]You can't even pick a Corbyn parody account so I don't know if any of that Peterson-fluffing shite is admissible.

When have I ever taken a parody account seriously? Post one time I claimed a parody account was true you idiot.

You started a thread based on one not a week ago.

Shouldn't be hard to find then should it? Once again when did I ever claim a parody account was true?

Boop! http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... n#p5546855

So I didn't claim a parody account was real in that thread.

unseenwork wrote: Boop! http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... &p=5546855&

Though, you do say later in that thread they you knew from the get go that it was parody, which makes total sense really.

It doesn't appear Thai Guy got that memo.

eldanielfire wrote:

unseenwork wrote: Boop! http://forum.planetrugby.com/viewtopic. ... &p=5546855&

Though, you do say later in that thread they you knew from the get go that it was parody, which makes total sense really.

It doesn't appear Thai Guy got that memo.

Total sense.

Bullettyme wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

So we should discard everything else anyone else says. Sounds good.

EDIT: We are also talking about his work, but of course you want to take the personal route of JP when it suits and resort to snide insults, pretty typical.

You are about the most snidey, sneering individual on the bored. Or that is the impression you project. Excluding TG

Mick Mannock wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

So we should discard everything else anyone else says. Sounds good.

EDIT: We are also talking about his work, but of course you want to take the personal route of JP when it suits and resort to snide insults, pretty typical.

You are about the most snidey, sneering individual on the bored. Or that is the impression you project. Excluding TG

But nothing on JP then, just some vague stuff about people liking him? Thought so.

Mick Mannock wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

So we should discard everything else anyone else says. Sounds good.

EDIT: We are also talking about his work, but of course you want to take the personal route of JP when it suits and resort to snide insults, pretty typical.

You are about the most snidey, sneering individual on the bored. Or that is the impression you project. Excluding TG

Excuse me, that's what I've been going for.

unseenwork wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

So we should discard everything else anyone else says. Sounds good.

EDIT: We are also talking about his work, but of course you want to take the personal route of JP when it suits and resort to snide insults, pretty typical.

You are about the most snidey, sneering individual on the bored. Or that is the impression you project. Excluding TG

Excuse me, that's what I've been going for.

You have a way to go.

Bullettyme wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

So we should discard everything else anyone else says. Sounds good.

EDIT: We are also talking about his work, but of course you want to take the personal route of JP when it suits and resort to snide insults, pretty typical.

You are about the most snidey, sneering individual on the bored. Or that is the impression you project. Excluding TG

But nothing on JP then, just some vague stuff about people liking him? Thought so.

WTF are you on about? What vague stuff about people liking him?

Mick Mannock wrote:

unseenwork wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:Do what you fvcking like.

I suspect people who have known (or tolerated) you for years would have greater insight into your "virtues" and "character" that those who upon you are inflicted for a day or two.

So we should discard everything else anyone else says. Sounds good.

EDIT: We are also talking about his work, but of course you want to take the personal route of JP when it suits and resort to snide insults, pretty typical.

You are about the most snidey, sneering individual on the bored. Or that is the impression you project. Excluding TG

Excuse me, that's what I've been going for.

You have a way to go.

I'll take that as constructive criticism.

https://www.thenation.com/article/think ... n-fan-can/
idiocy at work

c69 wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:https://www.thenation.com/article/think ... n-fan-can/
idiocy at work

So JP fan bois are depressed girly men.
Wow

I thought they were supposed to be Neo-Nazis.

Rubbish article from someone who has no idea about Peterson, and is just desperate to smear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T47opnLyFw

This guy?
What a whacko.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFio_8aUS4I

Sam Harris on Dave Rubin's show. He talks a lot about what he wants to discuss with Jordan Peterson in their upcoming talks.

News this week that both Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Petersen are separately suing Wilfred Laurier University and have also named the two faculty members in the claim.

She has a reasonable case I think. Her claim is $3.6 million which will certainly leave her with the last laugh if she's successful.

JP is suing for defamation, he seems to be suing because he can and he wants to teach them a lesson. His claim seems weaker than Shepherd's.

deadduck wrote:News this week that both Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Petersen are separately suing Wilfred Laurier University and have also named the two faculty members in the claim.

She has a reasonable case I think. Her claim is $3.6 million which will certainly leave her with the last laugh if she's successful.

JP is suing for defamation, he seems to be suing because he can and he wants to teach them a lesson. His claim seems weaker than Shepherd's.

If anything it will hopefully give the university officials a platform to push a more reasonable status quo through in how people are treated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

wait until 5:30 mark.....Gold.

deadduck wrote:News this week that both Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Petersen are separately suing Wilfred Laurier University and have also named the two faculty members in the claim.

She has a reasonable case I think. Her claim is $3.6 million which will certainly leave her with the last laugh if she's successful.

JP is suing for defamation, he seems to be suing because he can and he wants to teach them a lesson. His claim seems weaker than Shepherd's.

I saw that. I don't see how he has a case. Anyway, it appears the success of any such case is beside the point. He wants to "shut them up". An interesting approach from one who claims to care about academic freedom and freedom of expression - a libel chill.

Of course he doesn't really care about either of those principles as aptly demonstrated by his prior behaviour.

Thread on it here.

https://twitter.com/JesseBrown/status/1 ... 5065562113

The replies to this are funny.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/stat ... 1385101313

Conservative Eddie wrote:

deadduck wrote:News this week that both Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Petersen are separately suing Wilfred Laurier University and have also named the two faculty members in the claim.

She has a reasonable case I think. Her claim is $3.6 million which will certainly leave her with the last laugh if she's successful.

JP is suing for defamation, he seems to be suing because he can and he wants to teach them a lesson. His claim seems weaker than Shepherd's.

I saw that. I don't see how he has a case. Anyway, it appears the success of any such case is beside the point. He wants to "shut them up". An interesting approach from one who claims to care about academic freedom and freedom of expression - a libel chill.

Of course he doesn't really care about either of those principles as aptly demonstrated by his prior behaviour.

That post makes literally no sense. None.

kiwidutchie wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

wait until 5:30 mark.....Gold.

Yeah Peterson got his arguments mixed up, the cake case was not about refusing to sell a cake, it was about creating a cake that that the maker believed was immoral and should he be forced to do so

He should have asked Jefferies whether he should have the right to refuse to do a gig for a cause he disagreed with

_fatprop wrote:

kiwidutchie wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

wait until 5:30 mark.....Gold.

Yeah Peterson got his arguments mixed up, the cake case was not about refusing to sell a cake, it was about creating a cake that that the maker believed was immoral and should he be forced to do so

He should have asked Jefferies whether he should have the right to refuse to do a gig for a cause he disagreed with

That must mean everything else he says is wrong too.

_fatprop wrote:

kiwidutchie wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

wait until 5:30 mark.....Gold.

Yeah Peterson got his arguments mixed up, the cake case was not about refusing to sell a cake, it was about creating a cake that that the maker believed was immoral and should he be forced to do so

He should have asked Jefferies whether he should have the right to refuse to do a gig for a cause he disagreed with

What about a cake that depicts the wedding of a mixed-race couple?

Plenty of people consider miscegenation to be immoral. There were laws against it in the US up until quite recently.

As for Peterson - he doesn't get his arguments mixed up. He appears genuinely stumped by the most obvious of counter-arguments. Almost like he never considered the possibility. Or maybe he's not genuinely stumped and it's an act.

It's this incongruity - what with him being a "famous intellectual" - that's deserving of an explanation.

c69 wrote:

Santa wrote:

Conservative Eddie wrote:

deadduck wrote:News this week that both Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Petersen are separately suing Wilfred Laurier University and have also named the two faculty members in the claim.

She has a reasonable case I think. Her claim is $3.6 million which will certainly leave her with the last laugh if she's successful.

JP is suing for defamation, he seems to be suing because he can and he wants to teach them a lesson. His claim seems weaker than Shepherd's.

I saw that. I don't see how he has a case. Anyway, it appears the success of any such case is beside the point. He wants to "shut them up". An interesting approach from one who claims to care about academic freedom and freedom of expression - a libel chill.

Of course he doesn't really care about either of those principles as aptly demonstrated by his prior behaviour.

That post makes literally no sense. None.

It has a lot of clarity, you may not agree with it but it makes complete sense tbh.

No it doesn't. Academic freedom is about freedom of inquiry. It is not about the freedom to say any old bollocks about anyone you like. Likewise libel is a balance to freedom of speech. It does not stop it per se. They are free to say what they want to to take the consequences of their speech.

Also the notion that he wants to shut them up is rubbish. They have already had their say. Libel in this case is a reaction not a preventative. It is not shutting them up. It is a consequence of some ill advised behaviour, which they have acknowledged.

CE's post was utter nonsense. It is no surprise therefore that you understood it.

Conservative Eddie wrote:

_fatprop wrote:

kiwidutchie wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

wait until 5:30 mark.....Gold.

Yeah Peterson got his arguments mixed up, the cake case was not about refusing to sell a cake, it was about creating a cake that that the maker believed was immoral and should he be forced to do so

He should have asked Jefferies whether he should have the right to refuse to do a gig for a cause he disagreed with

What about a cake that depicts the wedding of a mixed-race couple?

Plenty of people consider miscegenation to be immoral. There were laws against it in the US up until quite recently.

As for Peterson - he doesn't get his arguments mixed up. He appears genuinely stumped by the most obvious of counter-arguments. Almost like he never considered the possibility. Or maybe he's not genuinely stumped and it's an act.

It's this incongruity - what with him being a "famous intellectual" - that's deserving of an explanation.

I think it is complicated, but I wouldn't want someone to be forced to do it, I would prefer to see their competitors succeed and them fail in the market

When someone drives past 10 different competitors to find the one maker who won't, they are hunting for an argument, not for a cake

_fatprop wrote:

Conservative Eddie wrote:

_fatprop wrote:

kiwidutchie wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO9j1SLxEd0

wait until 5:30 mark.....Gold.

Yeah Peterson got his arguments mixed up, the cake case was not about refusing to sell a cake, it was about creating a cake that that the maker believed was immoral and should he be forced to do so

He should have asked Jefferies whether he should have the right to refuse to do a gig for a cause he disagreed with

What about a cake that depicts the wedding of a mixed-race couple?

Plenty of people consider miscegenation to be immoral. There were laws against it in the US up until quite recently.

As for Peterson - he doesn't get his arguments mixed up. He appears genuinely stumped by the most obvious of counter-arguments. Almost like he never considered the possibility. Or maybe he's not genuinely stumped and it's an act.

It's this incongruity - what with him being a "famous intellectual" - that's deserving of an explanation.

I think it is complicated, but I wouldn't want someone to be forced to do it, I would prefer to see their competitors succeed and them fail in the market

When someone drives past 10 different competitors to find the one maker who won't, they are hunting for an argument, not for a cake

I don't think it is that complicated. Anyone who refuses to serve a customer for whatever reasons will lose business to someone who will serve that customer and will have to take the commercial consequences of their actions. This is not like the olden days when people were denied service everywhere.

Is it moral to force someone to do something that they consider to be immoral? I'm not so sure.