If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Pop23]

And the sex he is demonstrating a bias toward is?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

It's not the cake that he refused to make. It was the artwork/message on the cake that he does not do, because doing so would go against his conscience. Artists of any kind shouldn't be forced to create art that is contrary to their worldview. I'm truly amazed that anyone would think otherwise. Perhaps a country like North Korea would be better for those of you who like forcing sincere people of faith. Here in the US we are supposed to be about liberty, not forcing people at the barrel of a gun.

If a song writer refused to write a song for a same sex wedding, simply because he could not relate, I would think that would be a free speech issue. This is no different.

 

[Pop23]

And the sex he is demonstrating a bias toward is?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

What a paradox. First time I know of that not serving all classes is discrimination to a single class.

Or do we need to redefine that as well?

He didn't provide full and equal access to goods and services as the law requires based on the listed classes.

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


.>>>>

Ok, which sex?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's not the cake that he refused to make. It was the artwork/message on the cake that he does not do, because doing so would go against his conscience. Artists of any kind shouldn't be forced to create art that is contrary to their worldview.

Psst - you are talking about why, internal feelings. Which is different then discussion behavior (i.e. actions). Yes he refused to make a wedding cake - part of the normal goods and services his business provides - based on the sex composition of the couple.

I'm truly amazed that anyone would think otherwise. Perhaps a country like North Korea would be better for those of you who like forcing sincere people of faith. Here in the US we are supposed to be about liberty, not forcing people at the barrel of a gun.

Maybe you would be less amazed if you tried to understand two things. (1) Someone can discuss facts about the case - i.e. discuss what is vice what should be. (2) You should ask a person their opinion about "what should be" or attempt to learn what their opinion is before making an incorrect assumption and making yourself look uninformed.

My opinion of what "should be" is that the class of laws we refer to as "Public Accommodation" law should be repealed as they provide government (federal, state, and local) over reach into the private conduct of businesses in violation of their rights of property and free association. If such were to happen, then the religion of the shop owner becomes irrelevant. That in this information age market forces should determine if a business model will succeed or fail.

Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and the performance of duties by government employees and limit the ability of government entities to purchase goods and services and to enter into contracts with private business entities that practice a discriminatory business model since they are funded by taxpayers.

That means the religious shop owner can refuse any service to gays.

The Muslim shop owner can refuse any service to those with service dogs.

The racist shop owner can refuse any service to blacks.

The redneck shop owner can refuse any service to Mexicans.

The sexist shop owner can any refuse service to women and have a male only for profit business.


*****************

There, I hope that helps you understand what I believe "what should be", as a result you are free to print out your previous statement, fold it neatly and shove it up you ass.



.>>>>

 

[buttercup]

If a song writer refused to write a song for a same sex wedding, simply because he could not relate, I would think that would be a free speech issue. This is no different.

I make websites. If someone wanted me to make a porno website, or a website that promotes violence or other things that I do not want to participate in, I would politely decline, explaining that I simply don't do those types of websites. IMO it's the same principle with the baker, he simply did not want to take that job, and that is his right. Again I am amazed that anyone would argue this.

It's Nazi-like to force someone at the barrel of a gun to provide a service that they simply do not provide...That's why I have thought from the start that there is a much bigger agenda at work here.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok, which sex?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.

(How many times are you going to ask the same question or derivative thereof receiving the same answer?)



.>>>>

 

[buttercup]

It's not the cake that he refused to make. It was the artwork/message on the cake that he does not do, because doing so would go against his conscience. Artists of any kind shouldn't be forced to create art that is contrary to their worldview.

Psst - you are talking about why, internal feelings. Which is different then discussion behavior (i.e. actions). Yes he refused to make a wedding cake - part of the normal goods and services his business provides - based on the sex composition of the couple.

I'm truly amazed that anyone would think otherwise. Perhaps a country like North Korea would be better for those of you who like forcing sincere people of faith. Here in the US we are supposed to be about liberty, not forcing people at the barrel of a gun.

Maybe you would be less amazed if you tried to understand two things. (1) Someone can discuss facts about the case - i.e. discuss what is vice what should be. (2) You should ask a person their opinion about "what should be" or attempt to learn what their opinion is before making an incorrect assumption and making yourself look uninformed.

My opinion of what "should be" is that the class of laws we refer to as "Public Accommodation" law should be repealed as they provide government (federal, state, and local) over reach into the private conduct of businesses in violation of their rights of property and free association. If such were to happen, then the religion of the shop owner becomes irrelevant. That in this information age market forces should determine if a business model will succeed or fail.

Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and the performance of duties by government employees and limit the ability of government entities to purchase goods and services and to enter into contracts with private business entities that practice a discriminatory business model since they are funded by taxpayers.

That means the religious shop owner can refuse any service to gays.

The Muslim shop owner can refuse any service to those with service dogs.

The racist shop owner can refuse any service to blacks.

The redneck shop owner can refuse any service to Mexicans.

The sexist shop owner can any refuse service to women and have a male only for profit business.


*****************

There, I hope that helps you understand what I believe "what should be", as a result you are free to print out your previous statement, fold it neatly and shove it up you ass.



.>>>>

You are an authoritarian and know nothing about liberty. Again, North Korea is waiting for you, they too are hostile to religion and enjoy using force.

 

[MaryL]

Well, contrarian I am, I don't think you should force a black business to bake a KKK cake with a lemon yellow burning cross on top, a head hunting cannibal death cult wants a cake with real sugar coated skulls on top. Where do we draw the line? Common sense should be the arbitrator here. If somebody wants to dismiss a client and loose a client, and forfeit profit, that is THEIR business. Isn't that ultimately what freedom and capitalism is about?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I just realized, the right will never win this argument. Political correctness has become so ingrained into our culture, it has made people afraid to stand for their values, and beliefs.

The left will never understand that, because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you hate them, or even want to oppress them.

People just want to be left alone, to do what it is they do, and to have government stay out of their lives.

People just need to get over themselves, and suck it up. If someone offends you, get over it, move along. So, you got your feelings hurt, does that give you the right to ruin someone's life over it? No, it doesn't, and the fact that the law sides with you is wrong, and if you think you have the right to ruin someone's life, and business just because you got your feelings hurt, then you seriously need a reality check.

So what, someone doesn't like you, or won't do business with you because you are gay, if that upsets you, then it shows what a weak willed and emotionally bankrupt person you are. Anyone with self esteem would probably not want to do business with that company anyway, but no, gay man gets his feathers ruffled, so he's going to make a fuss over it, business possibly has to close its doors, and that family is now in dire straits, because of your feelings??

This is akin to what a child would do, "you said a bad word, so I'm going to tell on you!!"

But alas, the law is in the side of "feelings", so rational decision making is out the window...

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are an authoritarian and know nothing about liberty. Again, North Korea is waiting for you, they too are hostile to religion and enjoy using force.

Instead of just throwing empty accusations out, how about you explain how supporting the repeal of Public Accommodation laws and recognizing the rights of property of property and association of the shop owner so they can refuse service to anyone for any reason is "authoritarian"?


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Ok, which sex?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.

(How many times are you going to ask the same question or derivative thereof receiving the same answer?)



.>>>>

(Until the paradox is resolved)

What class of person(s) is he discriminating

I can’t think of a single discrimination case where this is so difficult to define.

If it’s males, then he would serve females, he doesn’t. If it were homosexuals, he would serve heterosexuals, he doesn’t.

So, what class does he discriminate?

 

[MaryL]

I don't care what gays do in private. But now we HAVE to "accept" gays mandatorily because it's "freedom". When did Rod Serling add the liberal "twilight zone" amendment to the constitution? I missed that. And if we don't agree, because we are free humans that might have difference of opinion? We can't have THAT much freedom, can WE?

 

[WorldWatcher]

(Until the paradox is resolved)

What class of person(s) is he discriminating

I can’t think of a single discrimination case where this is so difficult to define.

If it’s males, then he would serve females, he doesn’t. If it were homosexuals, he would serve heterosexuals, he doesn’t.

So, what class does he discriminate?

No unresolved paradox.

The court proceedings were based on sexual orientation (because we all know that was the real characteristic of the customers that mattered). Lower courts found him in violation of the law - no paradox. In a narrow ruling the SCOTUS reversed the ruling not because he did't break the law, but because of hostile actions of the Commission.

They did not rule against the law, so today if Mr. Phillips takes the same action he will again be in violation of the law and the case will start all over again. They specifically noted in their punt opinion that addressing the core issue of freedom of speech and religion providing exceptions to generally applicable laws would have to be addressed in a later (i.e. untainted case).

You tied to make an argument that he didn't violate the law because he wouldn't sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple that were heterosexual. I pointed out that he still violated the law because sex is also included. Since that was pointed out you have tried to make it appear he didn't discriminate based on sex either, clearly a failure of logic because he specifically said he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman customers but not man/man or woman/woman. Clearly a decision based on the sex of the customer.


.>>>>

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly fucking shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

Sigh… you're not getting the point. Let me try again. There are different types of truths. Some things are objectively true, and other truths are subjective (in other words, based on opinion, and changeable.)

A timeless or objective truth does not change. Even if you change a law, that doesn't mean the actual truth has changed… Because as we established earlier, man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

When it comes to marriage, you guys claim that the definition can be changed. Again, if it truly can be changed, then it is not an objective truth, it is merely a matter of opinion… and no particular opinion can be more true or right than any other.

What does this have to do with pedophilia? First of all, you misunderstood and you seemed to think that I was saying same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That wasn't my point. My point was that if marriage doesn't have an objectively true definition… if it instead is changeable, subjective… then on what basis are you denying pedophiles the “right” to marry? Your definition of marriage can't be more right than anyone else's, if it is subjective, changeable.

Do you get it now?

The objective truth is that thinking that the definition of marriage can be changed to give pedophiles the right to marry children- because it was changed to include gays- is fucking idiotic. The law is the objective truth at any point in time- right or wrong, agree or disagree- it reigns supreme. Your objective truth comes from some cosmic horseshit that the voices in your head are telling you is real. We here in the real world understand that changing the law-changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples is a far cry from changing it to include pedophiles .

I’m agreeing with you on this. Children legally have diminished capabilities, so arguing they can enter in to this kind of agreement is baseless

Except that wasn't my argument. It completely woooshed over his head, and apparently yours as well.

I made a statement that was absolutely true, but he didn't even begin to understand it, so I'm not even going to bother.

You made a statement that was absolutely ridiculous which I most certainly understood.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Please list all of the cases of Muslim business owners refusing services to gays


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would there be "cases" of it, since gays aren't making a point of targeting Muslims? Just Christians.

Mind you, I don't blame them. I wouldn't pick a fight with someone who might decide to blow up my house, either.

Or maybe Muslims value and understand the true meaning of religious freedom

You've never lived in a Muslim country, have you?

No I have not. But I am talking about Muslims in this country, many of whom came here to enjoy religious freedom in an open society, and like our founders, understand the insidiousness of allowing religion to infect sectarian society.

 

[buttercup]

You made a statement that was absolutely ridiculous which I most certainly understood.

No, I really don't think you understood what I was talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think my point was that same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That's not what I was saying. So tell me, what statement did you think was ridiculous? Do you disagree that there are objective and subjective truths?

 

[Syriusly]

[
You seem to not want to accept or concede that, because maybe you don't like the idea that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.

Arguably- homosexual sex between two men is a sin according to the Bible.

But homosexual sex between two women?

Never proscribed. Closest is a vague reference in the NT.

Now divorce- that is clearly a sin according to the Bible.

 

[Syriusly]

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?

Why do you believe that bullhookey? Because you are gullible.

A right wing whacko posted a video making that claim- but anyone watching it cans see that it was butchered all to hell to make it look like the bakeries were saying no.

Turns out one of the bakeries bakes pita. Another of the persons spoke almost no English. The bakeries that bake wedding cakes said they had no problem baking cakes for anyone.

Maybe Muslim bakers in the United States are just more open minded and accepting that Christian bakers.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
No one ever bashes Muslims for refusing to service all infidels. .

You show me any American Muslims for refusing to serve 'infidels' and I will gladly 'bash' them.

The closest example I know of did not involve 'infidels' but Muslim cabbies who refused to give rides to the blind with seeing eye dogs- citing their religious objections. The cabbies were wrong- just like the Christian bakers were wrong- or do you think that the cabbies were right?

Oh and the cabbies got slapped down for it too
Minnesota's Muslim cab drivers face crackdown

 

[Syriusly]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. The Court would need to do some major tap dancing to carve out exceptions for extending rights to polygamists or sister-bangers.

But, it happens all the time, because the Court has lost its integrity. Consistent reason has flown the coupe and political agendas have replaced it. I am in no way as smart as the guys in black, so I know they had to have considered my line of reasoning on how to deal with marriage. They simply chose to ignore that reasoning because see above.

And in the end, it was fruitless to try and skirt polygamy and sister-banging marriage just to avoid the childish criticisms of the anti-gay-marriage horde. You can bet your ass that the Court is going to eventually be forced to expand marriage rights to polygamists or sister-bangers, as it should have done in the first place, and could have done simply by saying these few words:

Marriage is a contract.

It's shit like this that makes me want to put actual, practicing lawyers from schools OTHER THAN Yale and Harvard on the SCOTUS.

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

Being the first makes people famous. For that reason alone it will happen

Almost 3 years since Obergefell.

When you going to get busy on those lawsuits so you can be the first legally able to marry your sister wife?

Why the need to sue?

I thought you were for marriage equality?

I am all for your legal rights- which is why I support your right to either sue or go to the legislature to pursue what you consider to be the best marriage law.

If you want to abolish legal marriage- I support your right to pursue that.
If you want to be able to legally marry your mother- I support your right to pursue that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You made a statement that was absolutely ridiculous which I most certainly understood.

No, I really don't think you understood what I was talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think my point was that same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That's not what I was saying. So tell me, what statement did you think was ridiculous? Do you disagree that there are objective and subjective truths?

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.