Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[BULLDOG]

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

More likely, it's just your crucifixion complex. Keep your religion, believe what you want, but if you normally bake cakes and deliver them to weddings, bake the damn cake and deliver it.

My complexes, my religion, or my beliefs are not the subject of this thread and any further comments like that directed at me or anybody else participating here will be reported as they are against the rules for this thread.

And tell me why I should provide a product and participate in an event if I believe it is wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

Unless I misunderstood - the baker refused to provide a cake to a wedding because it was a same sex wedding yet he provided cakes to other weddings. That is discrimminating against who they are if the same service is provided to heterosexual couples.

No. It is not discriminating against who they are. It is choosing not to participate in an event that they disapprove of.

I might go to movies with you or shopping with you or attend a sporting event with you. But the day you ask me to go to a dog fight with you, I will decline. That is not discriminating against you. it is discriminating against an event which I cannot condone.

They aren't participating. They aren't part of the wedding party. They aren't guests. They are providing a product - just like stationers do, or caterers, or the restaraunt that hosts the meal, the company that provides a wedding dress, etc. You have every right to go to a dog fight (except unlike a gay wedding, it's illegal) - but assuming it was legal - I'd have every right to refuse. However, if you wanted a picnic lunch and my business provided it - do I have the right to refuse to make you a lunch?

That is not really a good example though because going to a dog fight is an activity. A wedding is an event - if you provide services to a wedding as your business then the wedding is the event. If you decide you will not provide a cake for an interracial wedding because of what the couple is - not the fact that it is a wedding but because of the participants - then that is discrimminating against who they are.

Their name is associated with the event. Their delivery truck is parked outside the event. The product or service they provide is part of that event. That is participating. And none of us should be forced to participate in something we have moral, ethical, or religious convictions against.

 

[Foxfyre]

Damn my girls out if town so I'm
some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

Unless I misunderstood - the baker refused to provide a cake to a wedding because it was a same sex wedding yet he provided cakes to other weddings. That is discrimminating against who they are if the same service is provided to heterosexual couples.

No. It is not discriminating against who they are. It is choosing not to participate in an event that they disapprove of.

I might go to movies with you or shopping with you or attend a sporting event with you. But the day you ask me to go to a dog fight with you, I will decline. That is not discriminating against you. it is discriminating against an event which I cannot condone.

They aren't participating. They aren't part of the wedding party. They aren't guests. They are providing a product - just like stationers do, or caterers, or the restaraunt that hosts the meal, the company that provides a wedding dress, etc. You have every right to go to a dog fight (except unlike a gay wedding, it's illegal) - but assuming it was legal - I'd have every right to refuse. However, if you wanted a picnic lunch and my business provided it - do I have the right to refuse to make you a lunch?

That is not really a good example though because going to a dog fight is an activity. A wedding is an event - if you provide services to a wedding as your business then the wedding is the event. If you decide you will not provide a cake for an interracial wedding because of what the couple is - not the fact that it is a wedding but because of the participants - then that is discrimminating against who they are.

A dog fight is also an event.

 

[Ravi]

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

Boycotts should be illegal?

I didn't say that. But definitely I believe deliberate attempts to hurt people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like should be illegal because it violates the rights of the person expressing the opinion.

You say you didn't say that but you actually did. Or boycotts that you don't approve of should be illegal. That's actually worse.

I will ask you to cite the precise statement in which I said boycotts should be illegal. Or that boycotts I don't approve of should be illegal. Otherwise I suggest you find something else to do because you are off topic for this thread.

"But definitely I believe deliberate attempts to hurt people for no other reason than they expressed an opinion you don't like should be illegal because it violates the rights of the person expressing the opinion."

Your post. I am not off topic, you simply don't like my views.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

More likely, it's just your crucifixion complex. Keep your religion, believe what you want, but if you normally bake cakes and deliver them to weddings, bake the damn cake and deliver it.

My complexes, my religion, or my beliefs are not the subject of this thread and any further comments like that directed at me or anybody else participating here will be reported as they are against the rules for this thread.

And tell me why I should provide a product and participate in an event if I believe it is wrong.

I assume you will report yourself as well for your previous remark

most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

Your accusation of wanting some sort of punishment for being Christian is offensive because I am a Christian.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This thread is not about...

Tolerance without limits is anarchy.

Whether racists or bigots are able to express their views, without expectations that some will attempt to punish or harm them because they hold such views is not the issue. The issue is whether people offended by racists should be forced to shut up. Imagine a band of American Neo Nazi's rising up and marching through a city or town with a sizable Jewish population. A liberal view would be that they have that right to march. That same liberal view would say others have the right to counter march or shout offensive things back at the Nazis as their mere presence would be viewed as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.

A liberal view would also be that these Neo Nazis should be able to hold their views and express them on their own turf. Turf being private property or private spaces.

If speech has limits, then of course tolerance has limits. It's a pretty simple concept


"Non discrimination should never be interpreted that everything must be tolerated by the business owner."???

Under no law I know of does any business owner have to prepare a porkless product just because some customers demand it, nor does any business owner have to provide pork in a product just because some want that.

No business owner has to decorate or provide a product that is offensive to the business owner just because a customer wants that. No business owner is required to participate in activities the business owner chooses not to participate in.

Americans who do not believe homosexuality to be a natural human condition and who chose not to be party to what they define as the 'gay lifestyle' do indeed have the right to be left alone and live their lives as they choose.

Americans who embrace creationism and intelligent design as being science do so because of religious faith. People are free to believe what they want. People do not have the right to teach their religious beliefs as science in public schools. They can and do have the right to do so in private schools that accept no public monies.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

Abortion is legal. The supreme court determined that women have a right to have one. You are advocating removal of constitutional rights. If anything should be restricted, it would be that.

What is legal or the existing law has been excluded from this discussion and is specifically stated in the OP. I believe I am defending intended constitutional rights that are stripped away when we are forced to provide products and services for an event or activity that we believe to be wrong.

OK if you want to frame it that way, Abortion is constitutional. I don't just believe I am defending constitutional rights. I know it.

I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting abortion or the ability of the federal government at any level to order that or any other social issue of the day. The fact that courts state their opinion about it does not make it constitutional. If that was the case the courts could not legally overturn their own decisions.

If you believe I have violated the rules for this forum or thread it is certainly your prerogative to report me. And I don't care if you are a Christian or druid or little green man from mars. It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

 

[Coyote]

What I think it comes down to is:
Free Speech
Religious Freedom
The Right to Discrimminate

"Tolerance" of different opinions is desired but not always possible and fortunately free speech allows us to say what we believe. We can't start to legally restrict it based on one group's or another's sensitivities.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

People who are gay are in no way similar to people who are Nazis.

People who would be offended by being associated with any weddings of a gay couple would not be arguing on religious grounds. They would be arguing on social grounds. No rational person would think just because a neighborhood bakery delivers a cake (no such thing as a 'gay cake') to the wedding of a gay couple, that the bakery in question is either supporting or participating in the gay wedding.

Saying bakers should not have to make, decorate or sell goods to gay couples is a classic case of discrimination against a class of people. What religion demands discrimination against a class of people and what are the religious arguments if any? To argue a religious right, these and other questions WOULD HAVE TO BE answered, because one would be arguing that the state step in codify the discrimination.

What about the servers and the function hall?

 

[Foxfyre]

It comes to a matter of participation and contribution. It requires no participation or contribution in an activity or event to provide a product or service to a customer who comes in for a product or service that any customer can buy. So refusing your normal service to a person of color or different ethnicity or a gay person or anybody else is something very different than refusing to provide a special ordered product or participate in an event.

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong. Even though people can quite legally use swastikas, the Westboro people are as legally entitled to have a reunion as anybody else, and gay people can legally marry and should be able to do so without any harrassment or interference of any kind.

The person refusing to participate in the other's activity or event is not violating that person's rights in any way. The person is just as free to have his/her event or activity as he ever was and the business owner won't interfere with that in any way. It is just wrong to demand that the business owner be a party to it just to make a political statement.

I recently posted a video (in another thread) of a guy who pretended to be a gay man and went around to a number of Muslim bakeries to order a wedding cake. Some did accommodate him but most did not. Not a murmur in the press, no picketing, no organized protests, no lawsuits resulted. If we are smart we will see all this for what it is--sociopolitical bullying and power--and come down on the side of individual liberty. Otherwise, we are a society who can force the unprotected and unfavored to serve everybody else whatever they demand. And that is just wrong.

Providing a product or service is not the same as "participating in". For example, with the wedding cake. If they are a public business they are obliged to serve the public regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. They are not obliged to attend the event but nor are they obliged to provide something they don't ordinarily make. If the Westboro Baptists want cupcakes, they should make cupcakes. If they want cupcakes with swastika's - that is not something they ordinarily make - then they have the option of saying no just like they might with pornographic cakes etc. If they serve the public, they should serve the public.

Once you start down the road of discrimmination, where do you stop? You are opening the door to the below in the name of "tolerance" and it's a "tolerance" that is really based on "intolerance".

Is it "bullying" to say this is wrong? Now I agree - deliberately going and inciting reactions from business owners is wrong. On the other hand, you have this pizza guy who publically - loudly - proclaimed he wasn't going to provide pizza's to any gay weddings. Why is it ok for him to do that and not ok for others to protest it?

Prior to civil rights, and the advent of many laws protecting groups from discrimmination signs like these were common. Establishments had the right to refuse service to anyone based on what they were. What is seems like some want is for this to be tolerated AND for there to be no consequences to their business as a result. In affect "tolerance" hides this from the public perception. Some states attempted legislation that would allow a business to refuse service based on religious convicton. Legislators attempted to add an amendment requiring them to post a sign. The amendment was struck off. Basically then, a homosexual couple might go to a restaurant and face a humiliating denial of service. If the emotion was wide spread then - like Condaleeza Rice's family, they might have to map out a checkerboard of hotels across the country that might serve them, eat their meals outside, sleep in the car. Who's rights are being impinged on - all without scrutiny because "tolerance" prevents a public outcry?

Should business' be allowed to refuse admittence to Jews without consequence?
Should business' refuse to provide a hotel room for blacks with out consequence?
This is where we used to be - why do we want to go back to it?

I refuse to accept that not wanting to provide an 'offensive' product just because it seems no different than any other product, or attending an 'offensive' event in order to provide the product is the same thing as refusing to sell products or services one normally sells.

We will just have to disagree on that.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

I mean that if my business does not normally provide 'gay' wedding cakes or pornographic brownies or swastikas on cupcakes, I should be able to decline such orders with impunity. I cannot demand that others see it as I see it. But it should be my unalienable right to exercise my moral and religious convictions as I choose.

I have no personal problem with attending gay weddings and have done so, so that would not be an issue with my business. But if I did have religious convictions against that and did not want my name associated with such an event, did not want my truck parked at such an event, that should be my prerogative and nobody should have the right to punish me because I exercise my religious convictions.

At the same time the same gay people who come into my store to buy the products and services I normally have for sale should be provided those products and services cheerfully and pleasantly. And I would defend their right to not provide specially decorated products or attend an event they saw as unethical or offensive or whatever too.

People who are gay are in no way similar to people who are Nazis.

People who would be offended by being associated with any weddings of a gay couple would not be arguing on religious grounds. They would be arguing on social grounds. No rational person would think just because a neighborhood bakery delivers a cake (no such thing as a 'gay cake') to the wedding of a gay couple, that the bakery in question is either supporting or participating in the gay wedding.

Saying bakers should not have to make, decorate or sell goods to gay couples is a classic case of discrimination against a class of people. What religion demands discrimination against a class of people and what are the religious arguments if any? To argue a religious right, these and other questions WOULD HAVE TO BE answered, because one would be arguing that the state step in codify the discrimination.

What about the servers and the function hall?

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

The most notorious baker (what a turn of phrase ) was never asked to participate in the wedding in question. They were no asked to cater the event, to cut the cake, or even to wear the appropriate attire of guests or workers of the caterer.

So the question really is, how would they have been attending and in what role?

 

[Coyote]

.

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

But there is no difference. Does his business provide cakes for weddings?

If so, then it shouldn't matter who the participants are.

Do we go back to the old days of refusing service to certain classes of people in the name of "tolerence"? That's the elephant in the room.... As of now, the "right" to discriminate against gays for religious reasons is still seeing as largely "acceptable" where as few would condone the same right of discrimmination against a race or a religion or an ethnic group. Allowing a person to discrimminate (in practice, not by giving opinions) you have to allow all the rest. In the name of tolerence.

 

[Foxfyre]

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

The most notorious baker (what a turn of phrase ) was never asked to participate in the wedding in question. They were no asked to cater the event, to cut the cake, or even to wear the appropriate attire of guests or workers of the caterer.

So the question really is, how would they have been attending and in what role?

They would have had to deliver the cake to the event and almost certainly would have had to do some assembly and final finishing touches at the event. And their truck would be parked outside the event advertising that they were party to the event. Nobody should be forced to do that for an event they believe to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. The Christian bakers should not be forced to do that. The gay baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist event. The black baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a KKK event. Etc. Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People who are gay are in no way similar to people who are Nazis.

People who would be offended by being associated with any weddings of a gay couple would not be arguing on religious grounds. They would be arguing on social grounds. No rational person would think just because a neighborhood bakery delivers a cake (no such thing as a 'gay cake') to the wedding of a gay couple, that the bakery in question is either supporting or participating in the gay wedding.

Saying bakers should not have to make, decorate or sell goods to gay couples is a classic case of discrimination against a class of people. What religion demands discrimination against a class of people and what are the religious arguments if any? To argue a religious right, these and other questions WOULD HAVE TO BE answered, because one would be arguing that the state step in codify the discrimination.

What about the servers and the function hall?

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

The baker was being asked to participate in a wedding of a gay couple and was later sued because they would not participate in the wedding?

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

But there is no difference. Does his business provide cakes for weddings?

If so, then it shouldn't matter who the participants are.

Do we go back to the old days of refusing service to certain classes of people in the name of "tolerence"? That's the elephant in the room.... As of now, the "right" to discriminate against gays for religious reasons is still seeing as largely "acceptable" where as few would condone the same right of discrimmination against a race or a religion or an ethnic group. Allowing a person to discrimminate (in practice, not by giving opinions) you have to allow all the rest. In the name of tolerence.

It did not and does not matter who the participants are.
It does matter what the event or activity is.

Why is it so hard for some to separate those two things as the different things that they are?

 

[Foxfyre]

People who are gay are in no way similar to people who are Nazis.

People who would be offended by being associated with any weddings of a gay couple would not be arguing on religious grounds. They would be arguing on social grounds. No rational person would think just because a neighborhood bakery delivers a cake (no such thing as a 'gay cake') to the wedding of a gay couple, that the bakery in question is either supporting or participating in the gay wedding.

Saying bakers should not have to make, decorate or sell goods to gay couples is a classic case of discrimination against a class of people. What religion demands discrimination against a class of people and what are the religious arguments if any? To argue a religious right, these and other questions WOULD HAVE TO BE answered, because one would be arguing that the state step in codify the discrimination.

What about the servers and the function hall?

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

The baker was being asked to participate in a wedding of a gay couple and was later sued because they would not participate in the wedding?

They were sued for discrimination of gay people because they would not participate in the gay people's wedding.

Coyote and others say that is discriminating against gays despite the fact that the gay people had been regular and appreciated customers of the bakery for a long time.

I say that refusal to participate in an activity or event is NOT discriminating against people for what or who they are. It is discriminating against an event or activity that the person cannot condone or does not wish to attend. And THAT choice all people should be able to make with impunity whether they are straight/gay/black/white/polka dot or whatever.

 

[Ravi]

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

They didn't sue the baker.