If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Syriusly]

We as a society decide what morals are correct- which means that they are subjective- not objective.

Human life? Many societies- perhaps most societies- in human history- put less value on human life than we do now.

If any morals were 'objective' then there would be some way to 'prove' that that specific moral was correct. So how do you prove that a moral is objectively correct?

So, when it comes to things like this, I think one needs to look at all the arguments, weigh the evidence… and decide which one makes more sense and is more logical. I’ve put a lot of thought into this, and the view that morality is subjective results in lots of contradictions and absurdities. I firmly believe that morality is objective..

Well that is your subjective opinion.

An objective truth is something that can be measured and can be proven- at least that is what I understand an objective truth to be.

2+2 = 4.
The sunrise on Earth will be to the east.

A subjective truth is what cannot be measured- and cannot be agreed upon by everyone.

Certainly you and I think that slavery is wrong. But for much of human history- many societies did not.

Our societies morals- changed- improved- so that we came to see slavery as morally wrong.

And then our laws changed to reflect that.

Just as some societies found some kinds of homosexuality morally wrong- and even killed homosexuals because of it.

I can see that you have some desire for a discussion of moral absolutes- but I am not much of an absolutist.

I know what I consider to be wrong- and I know why we have laws preventing much of what I consider to be wrong- while we also have laws I don't agree with- and also allow things I consider to be morally wrong.

But that is all subjective- which is why we as Americans disagree with many of these things/

 

[Syriusly]

(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.


.>>>>

It is also quite clear that he would make wedding cakes for any sex and any sexuality in the traditional style, he simply does not, nor has he ever carried or created the new product.

As in my example of the song writer, the artist cannot create the art that he does not relate too.

Forcing an artist to create art is absurd.

While there is part of me that agrees- the historian in me will point out that history is full of examples of great artists being forced to create art.

Michealangelo being the greatest example I can think of.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry I don't accept that when Muslims do bad things they are still Muslims, but when Christians do bad things they are not really Christians.

And up in the top ten probably as a bad thing a Christian

You know- a good Christian would probably actually know something like the 10 Commandments.

Which doesn't mention homosexuality- or baking cakes for gay couples.

Which just shows once again you just pull this crap out of your ass and fling it onto the boards at USMB

 

[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...

People just want to be left alone......

Louisiana Lawmakers Refuse To Repeal State Law Banning Oral Sex

Louisiana Lawmakers Refuse To Repeal State Law Banning Oral Sex

I dont see the point. They admit the law is unconstitutional, and unenforceable. The sheriff office apologized for their tactics. However, if they are still enforcing the law, then they are in the wrong.

When I say people want to be left alone, I mean all people. That article is a perfect example of the stupidity of our legal system. As long as people are not breaking any decency laws, or not soliciting sex for money, they need to leave people alone.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So now, this case that was thrown out is based on sexuality?

Time after time it was Sex, now it’s sexuality?

Strange, he won’t make same sex wedding cakes for heterosexuals either.

So, what protected class is being treated differently then the non protected class?

No the case was about discrimination based on sexual orientation.


You attempted to make it about sex with statements that because he wouldn't sell wedding cakes to two straight males that means the law didn't apply.

I simply pointed our that he still was in violation of the law since it also included sex.


.>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is also quite clear that he would make wedding cakes for any sex and any sexuality in the traditional style, he simply does not, nor has he ever carried or created the new product.

False

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.

Wedding cakes are not a "new product" - he freely admits that he makes/made wedding cakes. The only difference between is a wedding cake for a different-sex wedding and a same-sex wedding is the "different" and "same" part.

As in my example of the song writer, the artist cannot create the art that he does not relate too.

Forcing an artist to create art is absurd.

Except that Mr. Phillips never refused any design elements of the wedding cake, he immediately refused service upon finding out that the customers were both male. He would not have sold them a wedding cake form his online portfolio, cakes already designed and with not "speech" or "religious" component.

But in general we agree, Public Accommodation laws are government overreach and should be repealed. But that is a discussion about what "should be" not "what is".


.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You know- a good Christian would probably actually know something like the 10 Commandments.

Which doesn't mention homosexuality- or baking cakes for gay couples.

Sounds like someone doesn't want folks referencing Romans 1 or Jude 1 in these discussions.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with "discrimination." This is about gays using legalized gay marriage to harass and persecute Christian vendors. These gay couples don't really care if this or that Christian vendor declined to bake a cake for them, or to photograph their "wedding," or to set up flowers at their "wedding." They don't care about that. They quickly and easily made other arrangements. They saw an opportunity, and in some cases sought an opportunity, to harass and persecute Christian vendors. That's what this is really all about, and deep down we all know it.

 

[Seawytch]

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

If they were hateful and racist, then yes, of course they were bigots. But their view is completely unbiblical, and demonstrably so. They were simply espousing their own personal opinion, and trying to use the Bible to do so, but that doesn't make it biblical.

The racist bigots have bible verses too and they feel just as strongly about them as the anti gay bigots do.

Racism is completely antithetical to Christianity. It doesn't matter if they try to use the Bible to justify their racism… It is very easy to disprove, and anyone who knows God knows that God does not care about skin color or a person's physical appearance…God cares about our heart.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is clearly unbiblical. So to try to equate racists with Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin shows a profound lack of understanding, or ignorance.

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

And, as always, you have to look at who's cherrypicking and taking things out of context, and who isn't. Usually a pretty good clue as to who's full of shit.

I agree, these so called Christian bakers are taking the bible out of context, cherrypicking and are full of shit...but do they have a right to "religious freedom" we did not give to segregationists?

 

[Pop23]

So now, this case that was thrown out is based on sexuality?

Time after time it was Sex, now it’s sexuality?

Strange, he won’t make same sex wedding cakes for heterosexuals either.

So, what protected class is being treated differently then the non protected class?

No the case was about discrimination based on sexual orientation.


You attempted to make it about sex with statements that because he wouldn't sell wedding cakes to two straight males that means the law didn't apply.

I simply pointed our that he still was in violation of the law since it also included sex.


.>>>>

So which sex?

 

[Pop23]

It is also quite clear that he would make wedding cakes for any sex and any sexuality in the traditional style, he simply does not, nor has he ever carried or created the new product.

False

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.

Wedding cakes are not a "new product" - he freely admits that he makes/made wedding cakes. The only difference between is a wedding cake for a different-sex wedding and a same-sex wedding is the "different" and "same" part.

As in my example of the song writer, the artist cannot create the art that he does not relate too.

Forcing an artist to create art is absurd.

Except that Mr. Phillips never refused any design elements of the wedding cake, he immediately refused service upon finding out that the customers were both male. He would not have sold them a wedding cake form his online portfolio, cakes already designed and with not "speech" or "religious" component.

But in general we agree, Public Accommodation laws are government overreach and should be repealed. But that is a discussion about what "should be" not "what is".


.>>>>

So a songwriter should be forced to create art he cannot relate too?

Elements? Art is a complete work. So if the songwriter goes against the clients wishes an excluded any reference to the specific nature of the relationship, he would be without liability?

Like a wedding cake. The baker could just hand them a cake in the same fashion?

What other constitutional freedom must we also take down to accommodate a non essential want?

 

[Pop23]

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with "discrimination." This is about gays using legalized gay marriage to harass and persecute Christian vendors. These gay couples don't really care if this or that Christian vendor declined to bake a cake for them, or to photograph their "wedding," or to set up flowers at their "wedding." They don't care about that. They quickly and easily made other arrangements. They saw an opportunity, and in some cases sought an opportunity, to harass and persecute Christian vendors. That's what this is really all about, and deep down we all know it.

The upcoming election should give us a pretty good idea if the public is buying this

 

[kaz]

So now, this case that was thrown out is based on sexuality?

Time after time it was Sex, now it’s sexuality?

Strange, he won’t make same sex wedding cakes for heterosexuals either.

So, what protected class is being treated differently then the non protected class?

No the case was about discrimination based on sexual orientation.


You attempted to make it about sex with statements that because he wouldn't sell wedding cakes to two straight males that means the law didn't apply.

I simply pointed our that he still was in violation of the law since it also included sex.


.>>>>

Equivocation. He's not discriminating against either sex, this is a silly statement phrased carefully to imply something that it's not.

It's truly a despotic government that would point guns at citizens and compel them to serve each other.

And you could apply that standard to any argument. Your argument is no different than my throwing out a male dressed like a hippy and smelling like one you could say it's sexism, he's male.

You have to discriminate against a sex for it to be sex discrimination. There are two. He clearly did not discriminate against either one

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Hold on a minute. You don't believe that all laws are rooted in objective truth, do you? You can't actually believe that, but the reason I ask is because the way you worded your last sentence almost makes it sound like you are equating those two. So to be clear, please answer this question… Do man-made laws constitute objective truth, yes or no?

And I see what the problem is here. You are looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. And I am looking at it from a more philosophical standpoint. When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

No I do not agree. The law is the objective truth to the extent to which it reflects a consensus about values and social norms. I maintain that your statement- that there is no basis for denying a pedophile to marry a child since we allow same sex marriage is ridiculous, and bizarre by ant measure.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So 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.


Keep asking the same question (or derivative thereof) and you get the same answer.


.>>>>

 

[kaz]

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.

Hold on a minute. You don't believe that all laws are rooted in objective truth, do you? You can't actually believe that, but the reason I ask is because the way you worded your last sentence almost makes it sound like you are equating those two. So to be clear, please answer this question… Do man-made laws constitute objective truth, yes or no?

And I see what the problem is here. You are looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. And I am looking at it from a more philosophical standpoint. When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

No I do not agree. The law is the objective truth to the extent to which it reflects a consensus about values and social norms. I maintain that your statement- that there is no basis for denying a pedophile to marry a child since we allow same sex marriage is ridiculous, and bizarre by ant measure.

Agreed. The presence of a victim is fundamentally different than anything that consenting adults chose to do only to themselves.

Gays don't have a "right" to government validation or perks. They do have a right to be left alone if they're not harming anyone

 

[WorldWatcher]

So a songwriter should be forced to create art he cannot relate too?

Elements? Art is a complete work. So if the songwriter goes against the clients wishes an excluded any reference to the specific nature of the relationship, he would be without liability?

Like a wedding cake. The baker could just hand them a cake in the same fashion?

What other constitutional freedom must we also take down to accommodate a non essential want?

Nope.

Any shop owner (i.e. private business) should be free to discriminate against any customer for any reason.

The law (whether I agree with them or not) already set limits on "constitutional freedom", see Employment Division v. Smith, Bob Jones University v. United States, Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota, Newman v. Piggie Park, Mormon's not being free to enter into polygamist civil marriages, Elane's Photography from New Mexico and the SCOTUS rejection of the Freedom of Speech argument letting the State Supreme Court decision stand.


But you ask "what should be", not the reality of "what is". Two different things.


.>>>>

 

[kaz]

So 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.


Keep asking the same question (or derivative thereof) and you get the same answer.


.>>>>

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

 

[WorldWatcher]

Equivocation. He's not discriminating against either sex, this is a silly statement phrased carefully to imply something that it's not.

Nope, the law say individual or group.

And you could apply that standard to any argument. Your argument is no different than my throwing out a male dressed like a hippy and smelling like one you could say it's sexism, he's male.

Nope.

If he rejects business because you smell and are dressed like a hippie - that is not covered under Public Accommodation laws.

If he says he rejects you because you are male - that is covered under Public Accommodation laws.

You have to discriminate against a sex for it to be sex discrimination. There are two. He clearly did not discriminate against either one

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.


.>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

I totally agree on two things. It's purely an academic discussion that Pops injected into the thread because Mr. Phillips case did not hinge on sex discrimination. You should be chastising him for injecting an unrelated issue. Secondly, the courts apply the law. The law in question specifically says "groups" in it's text. The ridiculous thing is that the law should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business entities. If so, then the whole treating religious views as special rights exempting business owners from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws goes away because any owner can refuse service for any reason.