Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Procrustes Stretched]

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED: Agree or disagree: tolerance has to be a two way street allowing opposing points of view to exist side by side in peace, or else it is not tolerance but is one side dictating a politically correct point of view to the other and requiring the other to conform. Note: existing law is not a valid argument for the thread topic. What the law should be is fair game for this discussion.

The law should be exactly similar to existing law.

 

[sakinago]

Well I haven't allowed anybody else to use existing law as an argument so I have to apply that policy to you too. Sorry. (I am looking at the First Amendment as existing law of course.)

So the argument some want to make is presumably a business person must give up his rights to exercise his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner.

The argument I make, and your post seems to support my argument at least in part, is that tolerance must allow people the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated with even as the customer has every right to that activity or event. I see tolerance as going both ways and not in just one direction, even if I strongly approve of the event or activity involved.

No one has presumably or otherwise insisted or insinuated "a business person must give up his rights to exercise his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner."

this is again the OP misconstruing what 'some' people have argued.

The OP has also yet again conflated selling of goods and services with participation or support of an event or activity

No one I can see has indicated that people must be denied "the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated" No one. Try linking to a post where somebody has said these things

Is baking a wedding cake a work of art? Does that wedding cake symbolize a celebration of that marriage?

A work of art? Are you saying you think an artist or a dressmaker should not have to sell their goods if they will be used at a wedding of a gay couple?

The cake symbolizes nothing. The joined hands of the couple cutting the cake symbolizes something. It;s tradition and nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It's all part of a celebration, a party after the vows.

How about pizza delivery people? When they deliver pizzas to an event or celebration are they participating or being forced to recognize those events as worthy or valuable?

Yes I am saying they should have the right of consciousness. Just like a painter should not be forced (or suffer fine) to paint a picture of someone they do not like. Just like Jewish chef should not be forced to prepare a pig roast. Just like a writer should not be forced to write a book with a premise they fundamentally disagree with.

And yes, the gaudy cakes at weddings symbolize a celebration of that love. Just like wedding rings.

And yes those pizza caterers are participating in that event, they pour time, energy, and (hopefully) care to provide a product specifically for that event.

You mean the right of conscience. I see.

No painter has been forced to paint a painting. No baker has been forced to attend the wedding of a gay couple. The argument has been that the baker would be participating somehow in the wedding, which is an absurd argument. The baker is selling cakes. If your argument is you are against public accommodation laws as the OP admitted to being, just say so.

The cakes are not part of the ceremony. The ring is. When people buy a wedding ring are they asked what kind of a wedding it will be?

You admit to believing that delivering a pizza makes the delivery person part of an event they are delivering to. That idea is nonsense. By no definition can your statements be supported as accurate or true.

splitting hairs again, and making assertions that are not true. Yes baking that cake is participating in that wedding, and yea they were fined 150,000 dollars. Participating in the wedding does not mean just being a guest. Would you not say that the reverend is participating in that wedding, the wedding planner is participating in that wedding, the photographers are participating in that wedding, the dj is participating in that wedding?

And I haven't said that painter are being force to paint, example of an assertion that is not true. Good job beating on that straw man, "no ones being force to paint paintings!" I said those things to illustrate points that you probably agree with. And your logic is inconsistent. You say that no one is being forced to paint paintings, and then next line instead of saying no baker is being forced to bake cakes, you say no baker is being forced to ATTEND weddings. That baker maybe wasn't forced with a gun to the head (ridiculous that I have to clarify this, but you do love to split those hairs), but did have to pay 150,000 fine.

And yes, if a pizza maker takes that much pride in his pizza, and is that far against selling it to kids smoking weed, then yes he should have the right to decline service

And I never specified whether the cake was in the reception or ceremony, said it was a symbol of love. Splitting hairs that are not there

 

[sakinago]

Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

They Lost Their Bakery Now Face Bankruptcy Government s Discrimination Fine Brings Baker to Tears

Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News

Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Close Venue The Daily Caller

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No one has presumably or otherwise insisted or insinuated "a business person must give up his rights to exercise his own beliefs and convictions in all respects when he goes into business and must accommodate a customer who demands a product or service regardless of the activity or event involved or else it is okay to punish the business owner."

this is again the OP misconstruing what 'some' people have argued.

The OP has also yet again conflated selling of goods and services with participation or support of an event or activity

No one I can see has indicated that people must be denied "the right not to participate in an event or activity to which they do not want to be associated" No one. Try linking to a post where somebody has said these things

Is baking a wedding cake a work of art? Does that wedding cake symbolize a celebration of that marriage?

A work of art? Are you saying you think an artist or a dressmaker should not have to sell their goods if they will be used at a wedding of a gay couple?

The cake symbolizes nothing. The joined hands of the couple cutting the cake symbolizes something. It;s tradition and nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It's all part of a celebration, a party after the vows.

How about pizza delivery people? When they deliver pizzas to an event or celebration are they participating or being forced to recognize those events as worthy or valuable?

Yes I am saying they should have the right of consciousness. Just like a painter should not be forced (or suffer fine) to paint a picture of someone they do not like. Just like Jewish chef should not be forced to prepare a pig roast. Just like a writer should not be forced to write a book with a premise they fundamentally disagree with.

And yes, the gaudy cakes at weddings symbolize a celebration of that love. Just like wedding rings.

And yes those pizza caterers are participating in that event, they pour time, energy, and (hopefully) care to provide a product specifically for that event.

You mean the right of conscience. I see.

No painter has been forced to paint a painting. No baker has been forced to attend the wedding of a gay couple. The argument has been that the baker would be participating somehow in the wedding, which is an absurd argument. The baker is selling cakes. If your argument is you are against public accommodation laws as the OP admitted to being, just say so.

The cakes are not part of the ceremony. The ring is. When people buy a wedding ring are they asked what kind of a wedding it will be?

You admit to believing that delivering a pizza makes the delivery person part of an event they are delivering to. That idea is nonsense. By no definition can your statements be supported as accurate or true.

splitting hairs again, and making assertions that are not true. Yes baking that cake is participating in that wedding, and yea they were fined 150,000 dollars. Participating in the wedding does not mean just being a guest. Would you not say that the reverend is participating in that wedding, the wedding planner is participating in that wedding, the photographers are participating in that wedding, the dj is participating in that wedding?

And I haven't said that painter are being force to paint, example of an assertion that is not true. Good job beating on that straw man, "no ones being force to paint paintings!" I said those things to illustrate points that you probably agree with. And your logic is inconsistent. You say that no one is being forced to paint paintings, and then next line instead of saying no baker is being forced to bake cakes, you say no baker is being forced to ATTEND weddings. That baker maybe wasn't forced with a gun to the head (ridiculous that I have to clarify this, but you do love to split those hairs), but did have to pay 150,000 fine.

And yes, if a pizza maker takes that much pride in his pizza, and is that far against selling it to kids smoking weed, then yes he should have the right to decline service

And I never specified whether the cake was in the reception or ceremony, said it was a symbol of love. Splitting hairs that are not there

Baking a cake for a wedding, any wedding cannot be construed as participating in the wedding anymore than the maker of balloons or wine glasses or the maker of party favors has participated in the wedding. And it's ridiculous of you to keep asserting otherwise. It makes you look foolish and that is not what people come to the Clean Zone Debates for.

I would say a minister performs the wedding. That is their role.

A wedding planner plans a wedding. They do not necessarily get to attend one. Photographers and dj's or musicians are working at a wedding. You do know Jews who work as Christian weddings and the other way around? They are not blessing any wedding and their religious faiths are not being challenged.

the rest of your arguments, as a matter of fact most all of your arguments would never hold up in a court of law or even a Kangaroo court

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

They Lost Their Bakery Now Face Bankruptcy Government s Discrimination Fine Brings Baker to Tears

Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News

Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Close Venue The Daily Caller

A seller of wedding cakes refused to sell to a gay couple. They did this as discrimination against a class of citizens. They claim their religious beliefs prevent them from obeying Oregon law.

"Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation," Burr said.

Although the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa are religious, the bakery is not a religious institution under law.
​

I think you have to make better arguments

 

[sakinago]

Is baking a wedding cake a work of art? Does that wedding cake symbolize a celebration of that marriage?

A work of art? Are you saying you think an artist or a dressmaker should not have to sell their goods if they will be used at a wedding of a gay couple?

The cake symbolizes nothing. The joined hands of the couple cutting the cake symbolizes something. It;s tradition and nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It's all part of a celebration, a party after the vows.

How about pizza delivery people? When they deliver pizzas to an event or celebration are they participating or being forced to recognize those events as worthy or valuable?

Yes I am saying they should have the right of consciousness. Just like a painter should not be forced (or suffer fine) to paint a picture of someone they do not like. Just like Jewish chef should not be forced to prepare a pig roast. Just like a writer should not be forced to write a book with a premise they fundamentally disagree with.

And yes, the gaudy cakes at weddings symbolize a celebration of that love. Just like wedding rings.

And yes those pizza caterers are participating in that event, they pour time, energy, and (hopefully) care to provide a product specifically for that event.

You mean the right of conscience. I see.

No painter has been forced to paint a painting. No baker has been forced to attend the wedding of a gay couple. The argument has been that the baker would be participating somehow in the wedding, which is an absurd argument. The baker is selling cakes. If your argument is you are against public accommodation laws as the OP admitted to being, just say so.

The cakes are not part of the ceremony. The ring is. When people buy a wedding ring are they asked what kind of a wedding it will be?

You admit to believing that delivering a pizza makes the delivery person part of an event they are delivering to. That idea is nonsense. By no definition can your statements be supported as accurate or true.

splitting hairs again, and making assertions that are not true. Yes baking that cake is participating in that wedding, and yea they were fined 150,000 dollars. Participating in the wedding does not mean just being a guest. Would you not say that the reverend is participating in that wedding, the wedding planner is participating in that wedding, the photographers are participating in that wedding, the dj is participating in that wedding?

And I haven't said that painter are being force to paint, example of an assertion that is not true. Good job beating on that straw man, "no ones being force to paint paintings!" I said those things to illustrate points that you probably agree with. And your logic is inconsistent. You say that no one is being forced to paint paintings, and then next line instead of saying no baker is being forced to bake cakes, you say no baker is being forced to ATTEND weddings. That baker maybe wasn't forced with a gun to the head (ridiculous that I have to clarify this, but you do love to split those hairs), but did have to pay 150,000 fine.

And yes, if a pizza maker takes that much pride in his pizza, and is that far against selling it to kids smoking weed, then yes he should have the right to decline service

And I never specified whether the cake was in the reception or ceremony, said it was a symbol of love. Splitting hairs that are not there

Baking a cake for a wedding, any wedding cannot be construed as participating in the wedding anymore than the maker of balloons or wine glasses or the maker of party favors has participated in the wedding. And it's ridiculous of you to keep asserting otherwise. It makes you look foolish and that is not what people come to the Clean Zone Debates for.

I would say a minister performs the wedding. That is their role.

A wedding planner plans a wedding. They do not necessarily get to attend one. Photographers and dj's or musicians are working at a wedding. You do know Jews who work as Christian weddings and the other way around? They are not blessing any wedding and their religious faiths are not being challenged.

the rest of your arguments, as a matter of fact most all of your arguments would never hold up in a court of law or even a Kangaroo court

Oh please, there is no clean debate coming from your side, you've changed participating to attend, claimed I want kangaroo courts, and implied that I had no clue Jews participated in Christian weddings in this post alone.

And yes planners attend weddings, just like bakers do ( they have to assemble the cake at the wedding). Art is a form of speech, which we have the freedom to. And photographers, musicians, DJs, and wedding cake bakers consider themselves artist. So it is ok to enforce a fine on a painter who does not want to paint a portrait of a gay couple on their wedding day?

Essentially you are saying that no one has the right to refuse service (outside of bartender for the overly intoxicated), am I correct?

 

[sakinago]

Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

They Lost Their Bakery Now Face Bankruptcy Government s Discrimination Fine Brings Baker to Tears

Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News

Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Close Venue The Daily Caller

A seller of wedding cakes refused to sell to a gay couple. They did this as discrimination against a class of citizens. They claim their religious beliefs prevent them from obeying Oregon law.

"Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation," Burr said.

Although the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa are religious, the bakery is not a religious institution under law.
​

I think you have to make better arguments

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

 

[Nosmo King]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

 

[Foxfyre]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

And I do not see it as an attack on Christianity or any other point of view. I see it as a power play that would force somebody to participate in or contribute to an event against that somebody's will. It would be the same regardless of whether the business owner was straight, gay, black, white, or whatever. No business owner or, with very few exceptions, anybody else, should be forced to participate or contribute to an event that he or she disapproves of or just doesn't want to participate in for any reason. And I dare say nobody can give a clear, coherent rationale for how that violates anybody's rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A work of art? Are you saying you think an artist or a dressmaker should not have to sell their goods if they will be used at a wedding of a gay couple?

The cake symbolizes nothing. The joined hands of the couple cutting the cake symbolizes something. It;s tradition and nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It's all part of a celebration, a party after the vows.

How about pizza delivery people? When they deliver pizzas to an event or celebration are they participating or being forced to recognize those events as worthy or valuable?

Yes I am saying they should have the right of consciousness. Just like a painter should not be forced (or suffer fine) to paint a picture of someone they do not like. Just like Jewish chef should not be forced to prepare a pig roast. Just like a writer should not be forced to write a book with a premise they fundamentally disagree with.

And yes, the gaudy cakes at weddings symbolize a celebration of that love. Just like wedding rings.

And yes those pizza caterers are participating in that event, they pour time, energy, and (hopefully) care to provide a product specifically for that event.

You mean the right of conscience. I see.

No painter has been forced to paint a painting. No baker has been forced to attend the wedding of a gay couple. The argument has been that the baker would be participating somehow in the wedding, which is an absurd argument. The baker is selling cakes. If your argument is you are against public accommodation laws as the OP admitted to being, just say so.

The cakes are not part of the ceremony. The ring is. When people buy a wedding ring are they asked what kind of a wedding it will be?

You admit to believing that delivering a pizza makes the delivery person part of an event they are delivering to. That idea is nonsense. By no definition can your statements be supported as accurate or true.

splitting hairs again, and making assertions that are not true. Yes baking that cake is participating in that wedding, and yea they were fined 150,000 dollars. Participating in the wedding does not mean just being a guest. Would you not say that the reverend is participating in that wedding, the wedding planner is participating in that wedding, the photographers are participating in that wedding, the dj is participating in that wedding?

And I haven't said that painter are being force to paint, example of an assertion that is not true. Good job beating on that straw man, "no ones being force to paint paintings!" I said those things to illustrate points that you probably agree with. And your logic is inconsistent. You say that no one is being forced to paint paintings, and then next line instead of saying no baker is being forced to bake cakes, you say no baker is being forced to ATTEND weddings. That baker maybe wasn't forced with a gun to the head (ridiculous that I have to clarify this, but you do love to split those hairs), but did have to pay 150,000 fine.

And yes, if a pizza maker takes that much pride in his pizza, and is that far against selling it to kids smoking weed, then yes he should have the right to decline service

And I never specified whether the cake was in the reception or ceremony, said it was a symbol of love. Splitting hairs that are not there

Baking a cake for a wedding, any wedding cannot be construed as participating in the wedding anymore than the maker of balloons or wine glasses or the maker of party favors has participated in the wedding. And it's ridiculous of you to keep asserting otherwise. It makes you look foolish and that is not what people come to the Clean Zone Debates for.

I would say a minister performs the wedding. That is their role.

A wedding planner plans a wedding. They do not necessarily get to attend one. Photographers and dj's or musicians are working at a wedding. You do know Jews who work as Christian weddings and the other way around? They are not blessing any wedding and their religious faiths are not being challenged.

the rest of your arguments, as a matter of fact most all of your arguments would never hold up in a court of law or even a Kangaroo court

Oh please, there is no clean debate coming from your side, you've changed participating to attend, claimed I want kangaroo courts, and implied that I had no clue Jews participated in Christian weddings in this post alone.

And yes planners attend weddings, just like bakers do ( they have to assemble the cake at the wedding). Art is a form of speech, which we have the freedom to. And photographers, musicians, DJs, and wedding cake bakers consider themselves artist. So it is ok to enforce a fine on a painter who does not want to paint a portrait of a gay couple on their wedding day?

Essentially you are saying that no one has the right to refuse service (outside of bartender for the overly intoxicated), am I correct?

Bakers are not ATTENDING a wedding when they set up a cake. What are they part of the guests and wedding party? That's ridiculous. If a painter had a stand or store out in public it would be unacceptable for him to put up a sign saying "no gay married couples can or will be painted"

You frame your arguments and questions as if up is down and wet is dry. Artists who contract out their talents would never be in a position to discriminate. Any business can refuse service to anyone without question. The problem comes when one refuses service based on a person's status as a class. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

So like the OP, you admit to being against public accommodation laws?

 

[sakinago]

How the intolerant have adopted the language of the victim. They think bakers are"forced" to engage in commerce and bake a cake. They see marriage equality as an "attack" on Christianity.

Let's look at these "attacks". Homosexual couples come into a bakery expecting the same high level of service they have seen and heard of that brought them into the store in the first place. These homosexual attackers come with cash and credit cards in hand as paying customers. All they want is what every other customer gets. Quality goods and service.

What manner of attack is this?

A baker bakes cakes. How is a paying customer forcing her to do anything she would not regularly do in the daily course of business?

And these bakers stand up and tell us that their Christian faith...let me repeat that...their Christian Faith dictates that engaging in commerce, the normal commerce of their occupation, dictates that engaging in commerce with homosexuals will endanger their mortal souls.

In my church (Presbyterian) we have never heard an admonishment to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Instead, we are taught to love our neighbor, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sins. These are the basic tenets of my faith.

Some are convinced that dogmatic thinking that tells the faithful to ignore those tenets and feel free to continue to perpetuate fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes. How quickly they abandon the loving, forgiving and beautiful faith for the cover this dogma provides.

No one who is a paying customer expects any merchant to fit into the narrow template of intolerance. Yet merchants seek to impose their narrow morality upon certain customers, but not all customers. These merchants will gladly accept payment for services from sinners. Green counts more than faith.

And these merchants want to hide behind the 1st amendment claiming that this amendment protects them while they humiliate and discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

"Attacks" on faith? No. There is no attack on faith. No customer is prohibiting merchants from attending services. No paying customer wants to tear down any faith. They just want what every other customer receives. Quality products and great service.

So there is no 150,000 fine?

And you have no clue what my views are on gay marriage. I don't think government should be telling us what marriage is. If my church wants to marry me and my gay partner, or me and my multiple wives, I should be able to do it. After all we supposably have the freedom of religion. The only part govt should have is recognizing, witnessing, and enforcing the contract I make with those people. The only reason we need to go out and get a marriage license (listen to how ridiculous that statement is) is because people got together and said I don't like whites marrying blacks, so we're going to make people get a license to marry from the govt. And if it's an interracial couple we will deny them that license. Government should not have the power to do that! But no, people see things they don't like and go running to the govt to do something about it, only giving the government more power that shouldn't belong to them. I will stand up for the gay baker refusing to bake a cake for Westboro baptist church, just as much as the Oregon baker. It is their business, and as long as they are not harming, or stealing from anyone, government should have no business in their own damn business. I thought we had property rights in this country?

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

 

[sakinago]

Yes I am saying they should have the right of consciousness. Just like a painter should not be forced (or suffer fine) to paint a picture of someone they do not like. Just like Jewish chef should not be forced to prepare a pig roast. Just like a writer should not be forced to write a book with a premise they fundamentally disagree with.

And yes, the gaudy cakes at weddings symbolize a celebration of that love. Just like wedding rings.

And yes those pizza caterers are participating in that event, they pour time, energy, and (hopefully) care to provide a product specifically for that event.

You mean the right of conscience. I see.

No painter has been forced to paint a painting. No baker has been forced to attend the wedding of a gay couple. The argument has been that the baker would be participating somehow in the wedding, which is an absurd argument. The baker is selling cakes. If your argument is you are against public accommodation laws as the OP admitted to being, just say so.

The cakes are not part of the ceremony. The ring is. When people buy a wedding ring are they asked what kind of a wedding it will be?

You admit to believing that delivering a pizza makes the delivery person part of an event they are delivering to. That idea is nonsense. By no definition can your statements be supported as accurate or true.

splitting hairs again, and making assertions that are not true. Yes baking that cake is participating in that wedding, and yea they were fined 150,000 dollars. Participating in the wedding does not mean just being a guest. Would you not say that the reverend is participating in that wedding, the wedding planner is participating in that wedding, the photographers are participating in that wedding, the dj is participating in that wedding?

And I haven't said that painter are being force to paint, example of an assertion that is not true. Good job beating on that straw man, "no ones being force to paint paintings!" I said those things to illustrate points that you probably agree with. And your logic is inconsistent. You say that no one is being forced to paint paintings, and then next line instead of saying no baker is being forced to bake cakes, you say no baker is being forced to ATTEND weddings. That baker maybe wasn't forced with a gun to the head (ridiculous that I have to clarify this, but you do love to split those hairs), but did have to pay 150,000 fine.

And yes, if a pizza maker takes that much pride in his pizza, and is that far against selling it to kids smoking weed, then yes he should have the right to decline service

And I never specified whether the cake was in the reception or ceremony, said it was a symbol of love. Splitting hairs that are not there

Baking a cake for a wedding, any wedding cannot be construed as participating in the wedding anymore than the maker of balloons or wine glasses or the maker of party favors has participated in the wedding. And it's ridiculous of you to keep asserting otherwise. It makes you look foolish and that is not what people come to the Clean Zone Debates for.

I would say a minister performs the wedding. That is their role.

A wedding planner plans a wedding. They do not necessarily get to attend one. Photographers and dj's or musicians are working at a wedding. You do know Jews who work as Christian weddings and the other way around? They are not blessing any wedding and their religious faiths are not being challenged.

the rest of your arguments, as a matter of fact most all of your arguments would never hold up in a court of law or even a Kangaroo court

Oh please, there is no clean debate coming from your side, you've changed participating to attend, claimed I want kangaroo courts, and implied that I had no clue Jews participated in Christian weddings in this post alone.

And yes planners attend weddings, just like bakers do ( they have to assemble the cake at the wedding). Art is a form of speech, which we have the freedom to. And photographers, musicians, DJs, and wedding cake bakers consider themselves artist. So it is ok to enforce a fine on a painter who does not want to paint a portrait of a gay couple on their wedding day?

Essentially you are saying that no one has the right to refuse service (outside of bartender for the overly intoxicated), am I correct?

Bakers are not ATTENDING a wedding when they set up a cake. What are they part of the guests and wedding party? That's ridiculous. If a painter had a stand or store out in public it would be unacceptable for him to put up a sign saying "no gay married couples can or will be painted"

You frame your arguments and questions as if up is down and wet is dry. Artists who contract out their talents would never be in a position to discriminate. Any business can refuse service to anyone without question. The problem comes when one refuses service based on a person's status as a class. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

So like the OP, you admit to being against public accommodation laws?

Oh I absolutely do, does it not make business owner take actions that they are fundamentally opposed too ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

You can re-frame however you like, but facts are facts. The government has not gone after artists and business owners for exercising their first amendment rights.

A baker and a few other sellers of services or goods have claimed a right that has no basis in our law. These people and their supporters keep lying about the facts and worse, keep conflating what they do as being art and forcing them to attend and/or validate gay weddings.

 

[sakinago]

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So like the OP, you admit to being against public accommodation laws?

Oh I absolutely do, does it not make business owner take actions that they are fundamentally opposed too ?

Congrats

When one goes into business, one agrees to abide by the laws of the land. "Actions' that they are 'fundamentally' opposed to? What, like delivering a cake or dressing one up before a marriage ceremony takes place? again, it's a ridiculous argument you make, that delivering a cake or dressing it up demands the person selling their services and good must attend the event or recognize it as what it is .. a wonderful union between two people. They can look at it as an abomination and that view is not under attack by the law.

 

[sakinago]

The govt. Giving a 150,000 fine to business owners/artisans for exercising their first is a perfect example of people running to the government to fix what they don't like about other people. Yea, real free country we live in folks.

You can re-frame however you like, but facts are facts. The government has not gone after artists and business owners for exercising their first amendment rights.

A baker and a few other sellers of services or goods have claimed a right that has no basis in our law. These people and their supporters keep lying about the facts and worse, keep conflating what they do as being art and forcing them to attend and/or validate gay weddings.

Thought we weren't allowed to use current law, but I'll say this, just because it's law, does not make it right. If that's the case, you cannot say that slavery, Jim Crow, rounding up Japanese, manifest destiny, or pretty much any ugly thing in our past was wrong at the time because it was law

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

 

[sakinago]

So like the OP, you admit to being against public accommodation laws?

Oh I absolutely do, does it not make business owner take actions that they are fundamentally opposed too ?

Congrats

When one goes into business, one agrees to abide by the laws of the land. "Actions' that they are 'fundamentally' opposed to? What, like delivering a cake or dressing one up before a marriage ceremony takes place? again, it's a ridiculous argument you make, that delivering a cake or dressing it up demands the person selling their services and good must attend the event or recognize it as what it is .. a wonderful union between two people. They can look at it as an abomination and that view is not under attack by the law.

In response see my last post. All those things I listed were laws of the land. In your view they cannot be opposed.

Who gets to determine what's tolerant and intolerant?

 

[sakinago]

Oh so they didn't get fined, because that is what you said earlier.

I find this

"Forcing someone to bake cakes in gay weddings, and maybe even gay weddings. This is what happens when we become a nation of men, not laws."

Can you post a link to a situation where this has actually happened? Where somebody has been forced to bake a cake for a wedding of a gay couple? Are you saying people have been forced to attend weddings of gay couples? Your first sentence quoted above seems a bit disjointed​

..
and this...

"Splitting hairs Dante, but fine I'll say "bake the cake, or face consequence of a 150,000 fine enforced by the government"

What are you talking about? Somebody was forced to bake a cake or pay a fine?​

yet I don't find what you claim. hmm...

You posted links and in a fuller context they do not back up your assertions. It isn't bake and sell cakes to gay couples, it's get fined if you don't stop violating the laws.

You're kidding me, you cannot continue with this argument until you answer this question. What put them in violation of the law? What actions made them in violation of the law? Was it not baking a cake????

Refusing a service to somebody based upon their belonging to a class of citizens is the classic text book definition of bigotry and discrimination.

First, what law were they charged with violating? The bake-a-cake law?

Wow, so they did not get fined for not baking a cake?

This is coming from the guy who didn't even know that the bakers got fined