Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[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?

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.

* The second part of your statement: You are in opposition to public accommodation laws. Why? Do you think public places are like private clubs? This is awful confusing to make sense of, so I ask for clarification. As a matter of fact I've asked for clarification in other posts. Would you like me to go back and put them all together in one clarification post?

and fyi: You did equate things. Whether you are aware of that or not, you did do so.

e·quate
/əˈkwāt/
verb
verb: equate; 3rd person present: equates; past tense: equated; past participle: equated; gerund or present participle: equating

consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another.
"customers equate their name with quality"
synonyms: identify, compare, liken, associate, connect, link, relate, class, bracket
"he equates criticism with treachery"


(of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another).
"that sum equates to half a million pounds today"
synonyms: correspond, be equivalent, amount; equal
"the rent equates to $24 per square foot"


cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value.
"the level of prices will move to equate supply and demand"​

 

[Correll]

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.

Sounds like all black colleges or all girls or all boys schools are out.

Is that a good thing? Is denying choices to those parents who might want their children to have such an environment celebrating diversity and tolerance, or demanding conformity?

 

[Nosmo King]

It seems that wedding vendors who require a certain level of moral comportment from their clients are doing two things that exploit good thing to serve a bad purpose.

First, they claim their religion prohibits commerce with homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and never in my faith has the minister ever admonished the congregants to avoid commercial dealings with homosexuals. Rather, in my faith, we are taught to love one another as we would love ourselves. We are taught to judge not, lest we be judged. And we are taught to not cast the first stone unless we ourselves are free of sin. Those are the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

But some sects have found an obscure bit of scripture written by Paul to admonish people from sin..Suddenly, this scrap of scripture has been elevated to serve as an aegis to perpetuate hate, fear and hurtful stereotypes. This is using a beautiful and loving and forgiving faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if that is not warped enough, these same self-styled Christians are claiming that the constitution protects them as they discriminate. This is using an amendment designed to protect citizens from religious repression in order to repress on religious grounds. Again, using a grand idea to serve a bad purpose.

 

[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.

"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.

* The second part of your statement: You are in opposition to public accommodation laws. Why? Do you think public places are like private clubs? This is awful confusing to make sense of, so I ask for clarification. As a matter of fact I've asked for clarification in other posts. Would you like me to go back and put them all together in one clarification post?

and fyi: You did equate things. Whether you are aware of that or not, you did do so.

e·quate
/əˈkwāt/
verb
verb: equate; 3rd person present: equates; past tense: equated; past participle: equated; gerund or present participle: equating

consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another.
"customers equate their name with quality"
synonyms: identify, compare, liken, associate, connect, link, relate, class, bracket
"he equates criticism with treachery"


(of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another).
"that sum equates to half a million pounds today"
synonyms: correspond, be equivalent, amount; equal
"the rent equates to $24 per square foot"


cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value.
"the level of prices will move to equate supply and demand"​

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with public accommodation laws. Or it shouldn't. Public accommodations laws, in my opinion, are wrong and evil IF they can force a business owner to participate in an activity or event that he chooses not to participate in. Sell a cupcake to ANY customer who comes in to buy one, provided that customer is decently dressed and behaves appropriately, yes. Force me to bake a special cupcake and/or deliver that cupcake to the customer's event I choose not attend, no.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

The baker delivers that cake to the wedding venue hours before the newly weds even show up. How is that baker "participating" in anything?

Is a mercantile imperator, an approval from a baker necessary for a wedding to take place?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

According to the OP a doctor should be allowed to refuse to treat a gay person having a heart attack because the doctor "believes" that the victim's lifestyle is "immoral".

Doctors should have the right to "choose with impunity not to participate" in any life saving "event" if they "believe" that the victim is somehow "immoral".

And the OP want's a "new law" to protect the doctor's right to let a gay person die for lack of medical treatment because it would violate the doctors "beliefs" and he should have the the "right" to choose to not "participate" in saving the victim's life.

Yes, that is exactly what the OP is saying she wants because anything less is "forcing" the Doctor to do his job and that is "intolerance" on the part of the victim and "political correctness" on the part of everyone else.

 

[Ravi]

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.

No one has to do so. They can not cater weddings, they can run a different business, they can say they are booked, they can not have an abortion. The list goes on and on and on.

But they cannot decide what other people are allowed to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Sounds like all black colleges or all girls or all boys schools are out.

Is that a good thing? Is denying choices to those parents who might want their children to have such an environment celebrating diversity and tolerance, or demanding conformity?

Non sequitur to this discussion, and please do not divert the discussion in that direction. Nobody is arguing that anybody should not be able to live their lives as they choose and do whatever they want and be whoever they are so long as they do not force others to contribute to or participate in that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Did you just insert "anti-gay event" in place of "a dead war veteran's funeral" because if you did, this is cause for concern here.

Or did you just address two separate things: one being the specific example I posted, and the other being a different example?

please clarify and maybe rewrite your answer/post.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

According to the OP a doctor should be allowed to refuse to treat a gay person having a heart attack because the doctor "believes" that the victim's lifestyle is "immoral".

Doctors should have the right to "choose with impunity not to participate" in any life saving "event" if they "believe" that the victim is somehow "immoral".

And the OP want's a "new law" to protect the doctor's right to let a gay person die for lack of medical treatment because it would violate the doctors "beliefs" and he should have the the "right" to choose to not "participate" in saving the victim's life.

Yes, that is exactly what the OP is saying she wants because anything less is "forcing" the Doctor to do his job and that is "intolerance" on the part of the victim and "political correctness" on the part of everyone else.

I don't know of any doctor who believes heart attacks are immoral. I am becoming quite frustrated with people who refuse to acknowledge the difference between participation in an activity or event and providing ordinary products and services that are provide to everybody and anybody.

 

[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.

Did you just insert "anti-gay event" in place of "a dead war veteran's funeral" because if you did, this is cause for concern here.

Or did you just address two separate things: one being the specific example I posted, and the other being a different example?

please clarify and maybe rewrite your answer/post.

I was perfectly clear in my remarks and I choose not to rewrite them to suit you. Thanks anyway.

 

[Correll]

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.

Sounds like all black colleges or all girls or all boys schools are out.

Is that a good thing? Is denying choices to those parents who might want their children to have such an environment celebrating diversity and tolerance, or demanding conformity?

Non sequitur to this discussion, and please do not divert the discussion in that direction. Nobody is arguing that anybody should not be able to live their lives as they choose and do whatever they want and be whoever they are so long as they do not force others to contribute to or participate in that.

Coyote said that a business does not have the right to discriminate in who is serves.

All black, or or single sex schools/colleges do exactly that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

No one has to do so. They can not cater weddings, they can run a different business, they can say they are booked, they can not have an abortion. The list goes on and on and on.

But they cannot decide what other people are allowed to do.

I agree. They cannot decide what other people are allowed to do. I certainly have not argued that. And others should have no power to dictate to them what they are required to do re participation in or contribution to somebody else's event.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Sounds like all black colleges or all girls or all boys schools are out.

Is that a good thing? Is denying choices to those parents who might want their children to have such an environment celebrating diversity and tolerance, or demanding conformity?

Non sequitur to this discussion, and please do not divert the discussion in that direction. Nobody is arguing that anybody should not be able to live their lives as they choose and do whatever they want and be whoever they are so long as they do not force others to contribute to or participate in that.

Coyote said that a business does not have the right to discriminate in who is serves.

All black, or or single sex schools/colleges do exactly that.

Okay I see where you are coming from, but again that is a separate debate--I don't want to get into the pros and cons of all black or single sex schools etc. but acknowledge that could be a legitimate illustration.

I am not arguing that anybody should discriminate against somebody because of who or what they are. But nobody should be forced to participate in an activity or event he/she does not wish to attend or participate in regardless of who somebody else is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

"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.

* The second part of your statement: You are in opposition to public accommodation laws. Why? Do you think public places are like private clubs? This is awful confusing to make sense of, so I ask for clarification. As a matter of fact I've asked for clarification in other posts. Would you like me to go back and put them all together in one clarification post?

and fyi: You did equate things. Whether you are aware of that or not, you did do so.

e·quate
/əˈkwāt/
verb
verb: equate; 3rd person present: equates; past tense: equated; past participle: equated; gerund or present participle: equating

consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another.
"customers equate their name with quality"
synonyms: identify, compare, liken, associate, connect, link, relate, class, bracket
"he equates criticism with treachery"


(of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another).
"that sum equates to half a million pounds today"
synonyms: correspond, be equivalent, amount; equal
"the rent equates to $24 per square foot"


cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value.
"the level of prices will move to equate supply and demand"​

My argument has absolutely nothing to do with public accommodation laws. Or it shouldn't. Public accommodations laws, in my opinion, are wrong and evil IF they can force a business owner to participate in an activity or event that he chooses not to participate in. Sell a cupcake to ANY customer who comes in to buy one, provided that customer is decently dressed and behaves appropriately, yes. Force me to bake a special cupcake and/or deliver that cupcake to the customer's event I choose not attend, no.

So you are in opposition to public accommodation laws. thank you


You have now conflated delivering something with attending an event. If a Pizza delivery girl delivers a few pizzas to a stag party is she attending the event? If a pizza delivery boy delivers pizza to a group of people partying while watching the Super Bowl, has the delivery person attended the party?

 

[Coyote]

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?

Now you are sort of moving the goalposts Foxie - to what "he/she believes are weddings". People who used to oppose interracial marriage used religion as a basis for their view. They did not consider interracial marriage to be valid.

Does a baker have the right to refuse to provide a product to an interracial wedding based on the race of it's participants because he believes it to be wrong?

I think you are also contradicting yourself here: "The baker has no right to refuse his products and services offered to the general public and that would include his gay customers" and "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"

If a business provides cakes for weddings and routinely delivers them - then that is his product - the product he offers to the general public.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

According to the OP a doctor should be allowed to refuse to treat a gay person having a heart attack because the doctor "believes" that the victim's lifestyle is "immoral".

Doctors should have the right to "choose with impunity not to participate" in any life saving "event" if they "believe" that the victim is somehow "immoral".

And the OP want's a "new law" to protect the doctor's right to let a gay person die for lack of medical treatment because it would violate the doctors "beliefs" and he should have the the "right" to choose to not "participate" in saving the victim's life.

Yes, that is exactly what the OP is saying she wants because anything less is "forcing" the Doctor to do his job and that is "intolerance" on the part of the victim and "political correctness" on the part of everyone else.

I don't know of any doctor who believes heart attacks are immoral. I am becoming quite frustrated with people who refuse to acknowledge the difference between participation in an activity or event and providing ordinary products and services that are provide to everybody and anybody.

Doctors provide a service to heart attack victims in this example just like bakers provide a service delivering wedding cakes.

Your position is that the baker must have the right to refuse to deliver the wedding cake because the participants are gay.

My example is that your doctor must have the right to refuse a treatment to the heart attack victim because they are gay.

The denial of service and the reason for the denial of service are the key components of your position.

If you insist that a baker can refuse the service of delivering a cake to gay wedding purely on the basis of his individual beliefs then to be consistent a doctor can refuse the service of treating a gay heart attack victim purely on the basis of his individual beliefs too.

Or does this magical "new law" in the OP have some other "special exemptions" that only apply to bakers but not to doctors?

Where does the OP draw this imaginary line?

 

[Foxfyre]

It seems that wedding vendors who require a certain level of moral comportment from their clients are doing two things that exploit good thing to serve a bad purpose.

First, they claim their religion prohibits commerce with homosexuals. Now, I'm a Christian and never in my faith has the minister ever admonished the congregants to avoid commercial dealings with homosexuals. Rather, in my faith, we are taught to love one another as we would love ourselves. We are taught to judge not, lest we be judged. And we are taught to not cast the first stone unless we ourselves are free of sin. Those are the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

But some sects have found an obscure bit of scripture written by Paul to admonish people from sin..Suddenly, this scrap of scripture has been elevated to serve as an aegis to perpetuate hate, fear and hurtful stereotypes. This is using a beautiful and loving and forgiving faith to serve an ugly purpose.

And if that is not warped enough, these same self-styled Christians are claiming that the constitution protects them as they discriminate. This is using an amendment designed to protect citizens from religious repression in order to repress on religious grounds. Again, using a grand idea to serve a bad purpose.

No Nosmo. They never said their religion prohibits commerce with homosexuals. That would indeed be discrimination for which there is no justification.

They routinely accommodated the same gay people who routinely came into their store. There is no indication they discriminated against anybody due to sex, race, sexual orientation etc. at any time.

But just as I adore you and would cheerfully welcome you into my home or enjoy your company in most venues, if you asked me to provide decorations on a cake I had moral scruples against or wanted me to participate in an activity or event I did not want to participate in or attend, I would most likely decline just as you would if I asked you to participate in something you found offensive or otherwise not your cup of tea. That would in no way be disrespecting you or discriminating against you in any way or denying you your right to that activity or event.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Now you are sort of moving the goalposts Foxie - to what "he/she believes are weddings". People who used to oppose interracial marriage used religion as a basis for their view. They did not consider interracial marriage to be valid.

Does a baker have the right to refuse to provide a product to an interracial wedding based on the race of it's participants because he believes it to be wrong?

I think you are also contradicting yourself here: "The baker has no right to refuse his products and services offered to the general public and that would include his gay customers" and "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"

If a business provides cakes for weddings and routinely delivers them - then that is his product - the product he offers to the general public.

Not to mention, if someone doesn't believe it is a wedding why the heck do they care?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Sounds like all black colleges or all girls or all boys schools are out.

Is that a good thing? Is denying choices to those parents who might want their children to have such an environment celebrating diversity and tolerance, or demanding conformity?

Non sequitur to this discussion, and please do not divert the discussion in that direction. Nobody is arguing that anybody should not be able to live their lives as they choose and do whatever they want and be whoever they are so long as they do not force others to contribute to or participate in that.

Coyote said that a business does not have the right to discriminate in who is serves.

All black, or or single sex schools/colleges do exactly that.

I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that all black colleges might have historically discrimminated (like all white ones) but that is no longer legal.

I think schools are a bit more complicated. Any school that gets public funding can't discrimminate. Private schools (I think) have the right to be all one gender, or a certain religion, etc. They are also upfront about it - the potential customer knows ahead of time whether it will serve him or not.