No Cake for You

[koshergrl]

"
Faulty Comparison
(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison)
Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.
Example #1:
Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!
Explanation: While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to the false comparison"

Faulty Comparison

 

[TemplarKormac]

So acting the clown is an argument now. Okay then. So why is there a law or laws protecting religious beliefs then? The RFRA for one, the First Amendment for two.

Let me try to explain this as simply as possible.

Religious beliefs and practices are protected, as long as they don't violate the law.

The law comes first.

But there are laws which protect religious belief, in that sense they along with themselves as laws make religious beliefs paramount, on the same level as the law itself.

No, that's simply not true.

Again, if I joined a cult that performed human sacrifices, would that be a "protected religious belief"?

My, my, aren't we full of loaded questions? I will add that this is pretty much a red herring. Cakes and human sacrifice are far from being relevant to one another. There are some things that are taboo, killing people as part of a belief is one of them.

But, if Indians can do peyote in part due to their religious and ritual practices, then yes. If you partake in an illegal (or even barbarous) religious activity as part of a legitimate faith based belief system, it only stands to reason that you can, if you interpret the First Amendment in its strictest form. Please keep in mind that I don't advocate ritual human sacrifice.

The whole point of me using such an extreme example is to demonstrate the illogic in your argument.

It's against the law to murder. There's no religious exemption to that law.

It's again the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation. There is no religious exemption to that law either.

You resorting to reductio ad absurdum arguments would seem illogical too.

"Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If I take that at face value, then any law passed or enforced pertaining to religion is a direct violation of the First Amendment, moreover such interpretation would lead me to think that government cannot stop people from freely exercising (emphasis on exercising) their religious beliefs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let's try another example.

There are still "Christian" sects in this country that believe miscegenation is a sin against God.

Should a baker of that one of those religions be allowed to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

It's sad when you can't make your point except to draw ridiculous comparisons.

From where I'm sitting, it's a completely legitimate comparison.

Why don't you explain how it's not?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me try to explain this as simply as possible.

Religious beliefs and practices are protected, as long as they don't violate the law.

The law comes first.

But there are laws which protect religious belief, in that sense they along with themselves as laws make religious beliefs paramount, on the same level as the law itself.

Exactly.

No Christian is proposing child sacrifice. This is a matter of refusing to bake cakes for a ceremony that we are bound by our religion to fail to acknowledge.

Again, they are not a church nor did they advertise themselves as a Christian bakery. They are free to limit what product they sell but not who they sell it to.

They don't need to be a church to have religious freedom. Hey, go read the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case if you need some pointers.

Ravi doesn't read.

Oh, well then.

 

[koshergrl]

Let's try another example.

There are still "Christian" sects in this country that believe miscegenation is a sin against God.

Should a baker of that one of those religions be allowed to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

It's sad when you can't make your point except to draw ridiculous comparisons.

From where I'm sitting, it's a completely legitimate comparison.

Why don't you explain how it's not?

No, that's a waste of time, and just derails the convo. You've already had it pointed out to you that baking cake for take out is in no way the same as *refusing* service to mixed couples, nor is it anything like human sacrifice. That's enough.

You should take a debate class. You'd fare better.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's try another example.

There are still "Christian" sects in this country that believe miscegenation is a sin against God.

Should a baker of that one of those religions be allowed to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

It's sad when you can't make your point except to draw ridiculous comparisons.

From where I'm sitting, it's a completely legitimate comparison.

Why don't you explain how it's not?

From where you're sitting. Anyone presenting an argument will believe their argument/comparisons are legitimate, even in the face of other more compelling arguments or comparisons.

And no, as far as sects go, they are sects, they do not represent the majority view of the Christian faith. By the way, Democrats were responsible for passing anti-miscegenation laws in the 1910s and 20's.

At any rate, mixed race couples in this context is a non sequitur. I know for a fact that in my church at least, we had an interracial couple attend services there for a good number of years, I traded baseball cards with their son. So, as you can see, we as a faith are not intolerant to them. So there is no need to discriminate, you see.

 

[koshergrl]

Refusing to bake a cake to be used as a part of a ceremony that you have a religious objection to is NOT the same as taking action against a person based on their color, or killing a person at an altar.

They're just ridiculous analogies made by a progressive who can't find any other way to justify the fact that he wants to walk all over the freedom of Americans, and he wants our laws to be changed to allow that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let's try another example.

There are still "Christian" sects in this country that believe miscegenation is a sin against God.

Should a baker of that one of those religions be allowed to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

It's sad when you can't make your point except to draw ridiculous comparisons.

From where I'm sitting, it's a completely legitimate comparison.

Why don't you explain how it's not?

From where you're sitting. Anyone presenting an argument will believe their argument/comparisons are legitimate, even in the face of other more compelling arguments or comparisons.

Hence why I asked for clarification.

And no, as far as sects go, they are sects, they do not represent the majority view of the Christian faith. By the way, Democrats were responsible for passing anti-miscegenation laws in the 1910s and 20's.

At any rate, mixed race couples in this context is a non sequitur. I know for a fact that in my church at least, we had an interracial couple attend services there for a good number of years, I traded baseball cards with their son. So, as you can see, we as a faith are not intolerant to them. So there is no need to discriminate, you see.

No, blaming Democrats for anti-miscegenation laws is a non sequitur.

Religious freedom is not defined by popularity of the religion, or what "the majority view of the faith" is. That's the whole point of religious freedom. There are plenty of "Christian" churches that have no problem with same-sex marriage, just as there are plenty who don't - and at least a few that believe miscegenation is a sin.

I will ask again. Does the "religious freedom" of a member of those sects allow them to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed-race wedding?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Refusing to bake a cake to be used as a part of a ceremony that you have a religious objection to is NOT the same as taking action against a person based on their color, or killing a person at an altar.

They're just ridiculous analogies made by a progressive who can't find any other way to justify the fact that he wants to walk all over the freedom of Americans, and he wants our laws to be changed to allow that.

How about refusing to bake a cake to be used as a part of a mixed-race ceremony?

Would that be ok?

 

[HenryBHough]

How about refusing to bake a cake to be used as a part of a mixed-race ceremony?

Would that be ok?

Strikes me that "refusing to make a cake", regardless of how it's to be used might well be illegal.

Now refusing decorate the cake with something offensive? That's a pig of a different odor.

So this guy walks into a union print shop and orders a ream of letterheads. Then he says he wants the header to be "Union Thugs are Communist Perverts:" The shop refuses......and the court battle begins! Now whose side are you on? Remember, nobody has refused to sell a ream of blank paper.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, blaming Democrats for anti-miscegenation laws is a non sequitur.

Nope. Notice how I responded with relevant material elsewhere in the post. If you don't believe me, go look it up.

I will ask again. Does the "religious freedom" of a member of those sects allow them to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed-race wedding?

Uh, yeah? Even if I don't agree with it, that is their faith and their beliefs.

There are plenty of "Christian" churches that have no problem with same-sex marriage, just as there are plenty who don't - and at least a few that believe miscegenation is a sin.

But somehow you think this is representative of the entire faith. Hate to break it to you, but it isn't.

Religious freedom is not defined by popularity of the religion

Where did I say that? I'm talking about all religion, not just mine.

 

[haissem123]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

can some one please tell me what those with billions stored are planning to do with all those worth less then life are going to do with the losers? sounds like big or small bizzness are gonna try and let the workers die or suffer because they are not worthy of a good life or life at all. what do you suppose the millions of these losers is gonna do to survive and whom will survive the wars they will fight to survive.? the strongest misguided killers shall win as always

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

can some one please tell me what those with billions stored are planning to do with all those worth less then life are going to do with the losers? sounds like big or small bizzness are gonna try and let the workers die or suffer because they are not worthy of a good life or life at all. what do you suppose the millions of these losers is gonna do to survive and whom will survive the wars they will fight to survive.? the strongest misguided killers shall win as always

Huh?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, blaming Democrats for anti-miscegenation laws is a non sequitur.

Nope. Notice how I responded with relevant material elsewhere in the post. If you don't believe me, go look it up.

It's a non sequitur because it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about, and a weak attempt to score a partisan point. I'm aware that the Southern Democrats were behind the anti-miscegenation laws, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

I will ask again. Does the "religious freedom" of a member of those sects allow them to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed-race wedding?

Uh, yeah? Even if I don't agree with it, that is their faith and their beliefs.

So you think that people should be able to claim a religious exemption to discriminate based on race?

There are plenty of "Christian" churches that have no problem with same-sex marriage, just as there are plenty who don't - and at least a few that believe miscegenation is a sin.

But somehow you think this is representative of the entire faith. Hate to break it to you, but it isn't.

This is your persecution complex talking, not anything I've said.

Where do you get the idea that I think those sects are representative of the entire faith?

Religious freedom is not defined by popularity of the religion

Where did I say that? I'm talking about all religion, not just mine.

You attempted to wash my comparison away by stating that those sects aren't representative of mainstream Christianity. I'm asking if you think that negates their religious freedom.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's a non sequitur because it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about, and a weak attempt to score a partisan point.

Rejecting it as 'partisan' means you have no counterpoint. Believe me, I know when someone doesn't have a rebuttal.

I'm aware that the Southern Democrats were behind the anti-miscegenation laws, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

You did mention sects of Christianity believing miscegenation was a sin, so, I expounded.

So you think that people should be able to claim a religious exemption to discriminate based on race?

That's what Burwell allows them to do. Me personally, I wouldn't, slander my faith in such a manner. It's one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments.

This is your persecution complex talking, not anything I've said.

I have no persecution complex, but I do sense a hint of self projection on your part. All minutiae.

Where do you get the idea that I think those sects are representative of the entire faith?

Because there are people dumb enough to attribute their behavior as the general overall practice of the religion itself.

You attempted to wash my comparison away by stating that those sects aren't representative of mainstream Christianity. I'm asking if you think that negates their religious freedom.

It does not.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's a non sequitur because it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about, and a weak attempt to score a partisan point.

Rejecting it as 'partisan' means you have no counterpoint. Believe me, I know when someone doesn't have a rebuttal.

Don't be a dumbass. Why should I have a rebuttal to a non sequitur?

I'm aware that the Southern Democrats were behind the anti-miscegenation laws, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

You did mention sects of Christianity believing miscegenation was a sin, so, I expounded.

No, you didn't "expound". You brought up something entirely irrelevant to the conversation to attack "Democrats" because you didn't have an actual response to my post.

So you think that people should be able to claim a religious exemption to discriminate based on race?

That's what Burwell allows them to do. Me personally, I wouldn't, slander my faith in such a manner. It's one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments.

Well, no. It doesn't. That's actually the point of this entire thread - the courts have repeatedly ruled that "religious expression" does not trump discrimination laws.

This is your persecution complex talking, not anything I've said.

I have no persecution complex, but I do sense a hint of self projection on your part. All minutiae.

Where do you get the idea that I think those sects are representative of the entire faith?

Because there are people dumb enough to attribute their behavior as the general overall practice of the religion itself.

See previous answer. You decided to ignore what I actually said, and translate it in your head as an attack on Christianity itself - and you claim that I'm "projecting" a persecution complex?

Not to mention, I'm a little hurt that you think I'm one of those "dumb people".

You attempted to wash my comparison away by stating that those sects aren't representative of mainstream Christianity. I'm asking if you think that negates their religious freedom.

It does not.

So you agree that people should be able to refuse service to black people by claiming that it's their religion.

Well, at least that's cleared up. Nothing I can really say to that. At least you're consistent.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually a business should have the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason, it's called freedom of association. Of course a business is the most democratic thing in our society, if they mess with enough people they won't stay in business. That's the way it should be done, let the customers decide if they remain in business.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

This thread isn't about racism, it's about discrimination.