Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...
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.
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.
The gay couple did not sue the Christian baker? But Foxfyre says they did. Who is correct here? Both of you cannot be.They didn't sue the baker.
.
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?
They didn't sue. They reported it to the city because it was a violation of PA law.The gay couple did not sue the Christian baker? But Foxfyre says they did. Who is correct here? Both of you cannot be.They didn't sue the baker.
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
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.
"Party to the event?" You equate a gay baker being offended by Westboro Church with Christians offended by gays getting married? The Christian Westboro people hate and condemn the gay baker. They would assault the baker's very being and personhood. What equivalent offense would the other Christian have with the gay couple?
"Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale." - your words.
No one should "be forced to provide a special product or service" - again, your words
A baker decorates a cake. A baker puts specialized decorations on every single wedding cake, unless one wants one without the decoration. Wedding cakes are special products.
Delivering a cake to the wedding of a gay couple could never be construed as being a 'special' service.
You keep defending the so-called right of any person of faith to deny products or services to the wedding of a gay coupe just because they claim to believe weddings of gay couples to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. Without a legal justification of this type of discrimination in the public square you'd be supporting anarchy.
Any claim of supporting 'liberty' is always a hard sell. Your arguments so far have failed to provide a defense of any 'liberty', and just using the term liberty without defining the specific liberty in question is an exercise in futility.
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.
.
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?
The event is a WEDDING. The only difference is the participants. So...either he provides for all weddings, regardless of participants or none. Once he is starting to discrimminate against certain weddings based on the participants then how is it any different from any other kind of discrimmination and how far should tolerance extend?
Ravi is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...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.
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.
They didn't sue the baker.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.
.
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?
The event is a WEDDING. The only difference is the participants. So...either he provides for all weddings, regardless of participants or none. Once he is starting to discrimminate against certain weddings based on the participants then how is it any different from any other kind of discrimmination and how far should tolerance extend?
Why? Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays? Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight? I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.
THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.
You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.
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
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.
"Party to the event?" You equate a gay baker being offended by Westboro Church with Christians offended by gays getting married? The Christian Westboro people hate and condemn the gay baker. They would assault the baker's very being and personhood. What equivalent offense would the other Christian have with the gay couple?
"Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale." - your words.
No one should "be forced to provide a special product or service" - again, your words
A baker decorates a cake. A baker puts specialized decorations on every single wedding cake, unless one wants one without the decoration. Wedding cakes are special products.
Delivering a cake to the wedding of a gay couple could never be construed as being a 'special' service.
You keep defending the so-called right of any person of faith to deny products or services to the wedding of a gay coupe just because they claim to believe weddings of gay couples to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. Without a legal justification of this type of discrimination in the public square you'd be supporting anarchy.
Any claim of supporting 'liberty' is always a hard sell. Your arguments so far have failed to provide a defense of any 'liberty', and just using the term liberty without defining the specific liberty in question is an exercise in futility.
I'm not equating anything with anything. I am stating a principle that should apply in all circumstances that everybody should be able to decline with impunity participation in ANY EVENT OR ACTIVITY OF ANY KIND that he/she chooses not to participate in.
Damn my girls out if town so I'mLOL, 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.
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 firstOk - 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.
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.
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.
Ravi is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...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.
An argument analogous to yours would be saying: Christians who beat slaves they owned were not cruel to their slaves, because unlike other slave holders who beat their slaves indiscriminately, the Christian slave holders were kind on days the slaves behaved.
I think the Christian baker was discriminating by refusing to provide a product and service to the gay couple. The baker was not being asked to 'participate' in the wedding, yet you keep claiming the opposite. Can you explain HOW they would have been participating in the actual wedding?
Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays?
Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight?
I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.
THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.
You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.
Ravi is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...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.
An argument analogous to yours would be saying: Christians who beat slaves they owned were not cruel to their slaves, because unlike other slave holders who beat their slaves indiscriminately, the Christian slave holders were kind on days the slaves behaved.
I think the Christian baker was discriminating by refusing to provide a product and service to the gay couple. The baker was not being asked to 'participate' in the wedding, yet you keep claiming the opposite. Can you explain HOW they would have been participating in the actual wedding?
Beating slaves forces somebody else, namely the slaves, to unwillingly participate in an activity. What I am advocating is what should be seen as an unalienable right to choose what activities or events we wish to attend, participate in, or contribute to. That asks absolutely nothing--no participation or contribution from anybody else--and affects nobody else in any material or physical way.
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.
It does something to people? It's really between a woman and her doctor.
Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays?
Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight?
I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.
THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.
You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.
The Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church buy goods and services every day. They buy goods to use in their hate-filled events.
Suppose the family of a dead war veteran who's funeral was being disrupted by the Christians had a store, and in that store on the day of the funeral in question, an employee denied a product or service to the Westboro Church Christians. Do you think any rational person would call that a case of discrimination against Christians or a sect of Christianity?
