Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Carla_Danger]

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.

A Planned Parenthood abortion usually doesn't include or involve a woman's doctor. And there is a third person involved in the process--the baby. But we will not adopt the merits or lack thereof of abortion in this thread. There are hundreds of threads out there to debate the merits of abortion. Planned Parenthood is strictly an example of the difference between boycotting something that people DO as opposed to what people think, say, express, believe.

The decision is up to the woman and her doctor, whatever doctor that may be.

 

[Valerie]

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”


Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”


“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple - ACLU - Colorado





The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are. (The list below includes only recent examples.)

ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression American Civil Liberties Union

 

[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.

It does something to people? It's really between a woman and her doctor.

A Planned Parenthood abortion usually doesn't include or involve a woman's doctor. And there is a third person involved in the process--the baby. But we will not adopt the merits or lack thereof of abortion in this thread. There are hundreds of threads out there to debate the merits of abortion. Planned Parenthood is strictly an example of the difference between boycotting something that people DO as opposed to what people think, say, express, believe.

The decision is up to the woman and her doctor, whatever doctor that may be.

Off topic. Please debate abortion elsewhere. This thread is not about abortion.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

A Planned Parenthood abortion usually doesn't include or involve a woman's doctor. And there is a third person involved in the process--the baby. But we will not adopt the merits or lack thereof of abortion in this thread. There are hundreds of threads out there to debate the merits of abortion. Planned Parenthood is strictly an example of the difference between boycotting something that people DO as opposed to what people think, say, express, believe.

The decision is up to the woman and her doctor, whatever doctor that may be.

Off topic. Please debate abortion elsewhere. This thread is not about abortion.

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[Foxfyre]

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 is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

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.

As an individual - yes, I totally agree. But as a business? No.

Why? Why should a businessman relinquish his right to exercise his personal beliefs so long as those do not interfere with anybody else's rights?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

A Planned Parenthood abortion usually doesn't include or involve a woman's doctor. And there is a third person involved in the process--the baby. But we will not adopt the merits or lack thereof of abortion in this thread. There are hundreds of threads out there to debate the merits of abortion. Planned Parenthood is strictly an example of the difference between boycotting something that people DO as opposed to what people think, say, express, believe.

The decision is up to the woman and her doctor, whatever doctor that may be.

Off topic. Please debate abortion elsewhere. This thread is not about abortion.

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

I haven't brought it up as a matter to be debated. Now please debate it elsewhere or you will be guilty of intentionally derailing this thread.

 

[Valerie]

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic.

For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Foxfyre]

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic.

For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

My argument is that refusal to participate in an activity or event discriminates against no person. It discriminates against an activity or event. And all people, straight, gay, black, white, or whatever should have that right as it violates nobody's rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

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.

This analogy is not about force. The analogy was one of the reasoning behind the arguments used. You have misrepresented and misconstrued my words. But...

When one opens up a public place that sells goods or services to be used in activities or events that sometimes entails the seller to attend or participate. Selling can be viewed as contributing.

The Christian baker previously contributed goods to the gay couple in question. When the gay couple wanted to get married the baker refused to contribute goods because of opposition to gay marriages. There was nothing personal in that refusal as the baker would have refused any gay couple that goods. So what was the baker doing? Not discriminating against the individual couple, but against the couple as representing a class of persons.

Are you aware you are defending discriminating against people as a class? Put aside the religious argument address this question. I'll repeat it: "Are you aware you are defending discriminating against people as a class?"

 

[Coyote]

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?

I don't think a business should deny Westboro Baptists who came into the store to buy a product or service normally offered by the business. But certainly if the businessman did not wish to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist anti-gay event, he should be able to exercise his choice with impunity. And no, that would not be discriminating against Christians or any Westboro Baptist member. It would be choosing not to participate in an event or activity.

No one should be forced to provide a "special product" they do not ordinarily provide. For example - a baker that specializes in cakes can not be forced to bake pies.

But that is not the case in these examples - the baker is being asked to provide a product or service he normally provides - it's not special or different - only the customers are.

 

[Ravi]

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.

A Planned Parenthood abortion usually doesn't include or involve a woman's doctor. And there is a third person involved in the process--the baby. But we will not adopt the merits or lack thereof of abortion in this thread. There are hundreds of threads out there to debate the merits of abortion. Planned Parenthood is strictly an example of the difference between boycotting something that people DO as opposed to what people think, say, express, believe.

The decision is up to the woman and her doctor, whatever doctor that may be.

Off topic. Please debate abortion elsewhere. This thread is not about abortion.

Not off topic. It is in your poll and you've been talking about it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My argument is that refusal to participate in an activity or event discriminates against no person. It discriminates against an activity or event. And all people, straight, gay, black, white, or whatever should have that right as it violates nobody's rights.

How was the Christian baker being asked to participate in the wedding of a gay couple, in what capacity? As an attendee?

 

[Nosmo King]

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic.

For 150 years, states have had public accommodation laws requiring businesses that choose to offer goods and services in the commercial marketplace to serve customers equally. Once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve – even when that commercial service involves some form of speech or expression.

Businesses Do Not Have a License to Discriminate American Civil Liberties Union

My argument is that refusal to participate in an activity or event discriminates against no person. It discriminates against an activity or event. And all people, straight, gay, black, white, or whatever should have that right as it violates nobody's rights.

I have to take exception on two points.

1) Wedding vendors do not 'participate' in the weddings they serve. Instead, they provide services to those weddings. Vendors do not appear during the ceremony. They do not dance the first dance with the bride or groom. They do not throw nor catch a bouquet.

2) And those vendors seeking to impress their morality on the services they normally provide by denying service are, indeed impacting the rights of those whom they deny. Same sex couples must endure a level of humiliation they do not deserve. No American citizen deserves to be humiliated in such fashion. Same sex couples come into a shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer receives In fact, that level of service is what brought that couple to that vendor in the first place. To have to settle for something else because some vendors think their magic, their particular brand of 'morality' is superior is not merely unfair, but unwarranted.

 

[Coyote]

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 is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

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.

As an individual - yes, I totally agree. But as a business? No.

Why? Why should a businessman relinquish his right to exercise his personal beliefs so long as those do not interfere with anybody else's rights?

Only individuals have religious rights. Not business'. When a business opens it's door to serve the public it does exactly that. Refusing to serve certain classes of people does interfere with their rights - they have a right to be treated the same as any other customer.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I don't think a business should deny Westboro Baptists who came into the store to buy a product or service normally offered by the business. But certainly if the businessman did not wish to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist anti-gay event, he should be able to exercise his choice with impunity. And no, that would not be discriminating against Christians or any Westboro Baptist member. It would be choosing not to participate in an event or activity.

No one should be forced to provide a "special product" they do not ordinarily provide. For example - a baker that specializes in cakes can not be forced to bake pies.

But that is not the case in these examples - the baker is being asked to provide a product or service he normally provides - it's not special or different - only the customers are.

The baker does not normally provide cakes for gay weddings that the baker had religious convictions about. The baker does not normally provide cakes for KKK meetings or dog fights or accordian player conventions either and if he has reason to oppose or not want to be a participant or contributor to such events, he should not be required to do so.

Nor should a gay person in business be required to participate or contribute to something he finds offensive or unethical or for whatever reason he chooses not to participate.

Why is that so threatening to people? What is it that prompts people to think it necessary to force people to participate or contribute to something they find offensive or else somebody is discriminated against? Why is the difference between discriminating against a person because of who or what she is and discriminating against the activity or event the person engages in so difficult to understand?

 

[Coyote]

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?

I don't think a business should deny Westboro Baptists who came into the store to buy a product or service normally offered by the business. But certainly if the businessman did not wish to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist anti-gay event, he should be able to exercise his choice with impunity. And no, that would not be discriminating against Christians or any Westboro Baptist member. It would be choosing not to participate in an event or activity.

No one should be forced to provide a "special product" they do not ordinarily provide. For example - a baker that specializes in cakes can not be forced to bake pies.

But that is not the case in these examples - the baker is being asked to provide a product or service he normally provides - it's not special or different - only the customers are.

The baker does not normally provide cakes for gay weddings that the baker had religious convictions about. The baker does not normally provide cakes for KKK meetings or dog fights or accordian player conventions either and if he has reason to oppose or not want to be a participant or contributor to such events, he should not be required to do so.

Nor should a gay person in business be required to participate or contribute to something he finds offensive or unethical or for whatever reason he chooses not to participate.

Why is that so threatening to people? What is it that prompts people to think it necessary to force people to participate or contribute to something they find offensive or else somebody is discriminated against? Why is the difference between discriminating against a person because of who or what she is and discriminating against the activity or event the person engages in so difficult to understand?

The baker normally provides cakes for weddings. Yes? No?

Does that change if the wedding participants are racially different?
Does that change if the wedding participants are a Muslim and a Jew?
Does that change if the wedding participants are two women?

 

[Foxfyre]

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 is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

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.

As an individual - yes, I totally agree. But as a business? No.

Why? Why should a businessman relinquish his right to exercise his personal beliefs so long as those do not interfere with anybody else's rights?

Only individuals have religious rights. Not business'. When a business opens it's door to serve the public it does exactly that. Refusing to serve certain classes of people does interfere with their rights - they have a right to be treated the same as any other customer.

I am my business. If my business is forced to participate in something or contribute to an event or activity I find wrong or offensive, then I am forced to do that and my right to be who and what I am is being denied me. It requires nothing out of the ordinary of me when I sell a cupcake to the organizer of that dog fight. But if he wants me to deliver cupcakes to or otherwise contribute to and/or participate in that dog fight, I want the right to decline.

It is no different with a gay wedding just because we are emotionally conditioned to champion the idea of a gay wedding.

 

[Coyote]

Ravi is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

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.

As an individual - yes, I totally agree. But as a business? No.

Why? Why should a businessman relinquish his right to exercise his personal beliefs so long as those do not interfere with anybody else's rights?

Only individuals have religious rights. Not business'. When a business opens it's door to serve the public it does exactly that. Refusing to serve certain classes of people does interfere with their rights - they have a right to be treated the same as any other customer.

I am my business. If my business is forced to participate in something or contribute to an event or activity I find wrong or offensive, then I am forced to do that and my right to be who and what I am are being denied me. It requires nothing out of the ordinary of me when I sell a cupcake to the organizer of that dog fight. But if he wants me to deliver cupcakes to or otherwise contribute to and/or participate in that dog fight, I want the right to decline.

It is no different with a gay wedding just because we are emotionally conditioned to champion the idea of a gay wedding.

You're really comparing apples and oranges here. A wedding is an event. A dog fight is an event.

You can, presumably refuse to provide products to a wedding becauase you find weddings religiously offensive.
You can, presumably refuse to provide products to dog fight for the same reason.

Can you refuse to provide products to a wedding because you disapprove of the participants as a class?
Can you refuse to provide products to a dog fight because you disapprove of the participants as a class?
Not the event - but the participants.

Edited to add - if delivery is part of your normal business operations then yes, I think you need to do that. Customers should be treated equally.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I don't think a business should deny Westboro Baptists who came into the store to buy a product or service normally offered by the business. But certainly if the businessman did not wish to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist anti-gay event, he should be able to exercise his choice with impunity. And no, that would not be discriminating against Christians or any Westboro Baptist member. It would be choosing not to participate in an event or activity.

No one should be forced to provide a "special product" they do not ordinarily provide. For example - a baker that specializes in cakes can not be forced to bake pies.

But that is not the case in these examples - the baker is being asked to provide a product or service he normally provides - it's not special or different - only the customers are.

The baker does not normally provide cakes for gay weddings that the baker had religious convictions about. The baker does not normally provide cakes for KKK meetings or dog fights or accordian player conventions either and if he has reason to oppose or not want to be a participant or contributor to such events, he should not be required to do so.

Nor should a gay person in business be required to participate or contribute to something he finds offensive or unethical or for whatever reason he chooses not to participate.

Why is that so threatening to people? What is it that prompts people to think it necessary to force people to participate or contribute to something they find offensive or else somebody is discriminated against? Why is the difference between discriminating against a person because of who or what she is and discriminating against the activity or event the person engages in so difficult to understand?

The baker normally provides cakes for weddings. Yes? No?

Does that change if the wedding participants are racially different?
Does that change if the wedding participants are a Muslim and a Jew?
Does that change if the wedding participants are two women?

The baker normally provides cakes for weddings that he/she believes are weddings. The race or religion of the participants has no bearing on that. But if the baker has religious convictions against two women marrying and believes that to be wrong, the baker should have the right to believe that and not participate in that event. The baker has no right to refuse his products and services offered to the general public and that would include his gay customers. But he should be able to decline serving anybody, straight or gay, that requires participation in an activity or event that he does not wish to participate.

Why is that so threatening to anybody?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

As an individual - yes, I totally agree. But as a business? No.

Why? Why should a businessman relinquish his right to exercise his personal beliefs so long as those do not interfere with anybody else's rights?

Only individuals have religious rights. Not business'. When a business opens it's door to serve the public it does exactly that. Refusing to serve certain classes of people does interfere with their rights - they have a right to be treated the same as any other customer.

I am my business. If my business is forced to participate in something or contribute to an event or activity I find wrong or offensive, then I am forced to do that and my right to be who and what I am are being denied me. It requires nothing out of the ordinary of me when I sell a cupcake to the organizer of that dog fight. But if he wants me to deliver cupcakes to or otherwise contribute to and/or participate in that dog fight, I want the right to decline.

It is no different with a gay wedding just because we are emotionally conditioned to champion the idea of a gay wedding.

You're really comparing apples and oranges here. A wedding is an event. A dog fight is an event.

You can, presumably refuse to provide products to a wedding becauase you find weddings religiously offensive.
You can, presumably refuse to provide products to dog fight for the same reason.

Can you refuse to provide products to a wedding because you disapprove of the participants as a class?
Can you refuse to provide products to a dog fight because you disapprove of the participants as a class?
Not the event - but the participants.

Edited to add - if delivery is part of your normal business operations then yes, I think you need to do that. Customers should be treated equally.

In my opinion a business owner should be able to choose with impunity not to participate in ANY event or activity he does not wish to participate. That does not change just because the activity and./or event is for gay people. And that is not at all saying that it is okay to discriminate against somebody because he/she is gay or anything else. It is saying that nobody should have to participate in an event or activity that he chooses not to participate in.