Support NeoGAF

[Shamylov]

Agreed, and well said.



So if a gay national socialist wants a swastika flyer made by a Jewish printer, does the printer HAVE to do it because he is a member of a protected class?

Again, distinguish the job from the person.



I think these are the most reasonable arguments I've read from your side, but I think the concept of content "affirming" that they are gay could be stretched all to hell and become meaningless. There has to be some line beyond which a purveyor of some sort of custom product can say "no," even to a member of one of the oppressed groups of the moment. And that line can't be as simple as "protected classes" get whatever they want, as in my gay national socialist example above.





I'm not sure what you are even responding to, since I never said anything about sin, the Bible, or anything other than legal principles.



That is very interesting, and really makes me think about it differently. If there is no "content" to the cake for him to find objectionable, I think the case against him makes a lot more sense.

Regarding your gay national socialist example, you are complicating the issue by adding a lot more compelling circumstances. There's no reason to complicate this. At the heart of the matter is discrimination based on sexual orientation and this shouldn't be allowed.

Even if what the baker is objecting to is "content", he is still objecting to it because of discrimination against sexual orientation. If the baker is willing to bake a cake with "content" on it then he is opening his business up to requests of "gay content". If he denies the request because the "content" is "gay", then that's discrimination based on sexual orientation. He's free to deny requests based on reasons not protected by the Constitution.

 

[Night Angel]

Yup basically. As a liberal, I am all for free love, marry who you want to and all. The church is a whole different beast. I still go to church due to my family and I gotta tell ya, many church pastors are definitely anti gay and heavily discourages the lifestyle. For the "devout" they would definitely ensure they do their part to also discourage the lifestyle. There is also likely the case where the baker isn't actually that devout and likely hiding his prejudice behind the bible. Either way if the baker refused to sell the couple a generic wedding cake that he would sell to anyone, he is in the wrong. If the couple wanted a custom designed wedding cake that was specific to their gay relationship/wedding such as having two men figures on top of the cake, then I can see the baker not being comfortable designing that cake. Its not the same as refusing to design an interracial wedding cake because the bible doesn't condemn interracial marriages.

I guess my next question is why is it ok to discriminate because your imaginary friend said it was ok? Your interracial comment is confusing. Words in an old book should be irrelevant when it comes to the treatment of protected classes.

 

[BANGS]

The government already tells business owners what to do on a myriad of issues, from employment practices to the quality of the products, etc. The issue should be whether the government is right in telling the business what to do in this instance.

The government already oversteps on alot of those issues. This being "just another one" doesn't make me feel better...

The problem with the religious freedom argument is that you shouldn't use your freedom as a weapon to discriminate against other protected groups, so the government should not allow it.

So the government can use the protected class as a weapon to discriminate against the religious?

I don't know what slippery slope we go down on when we let the government shit on religious freedoms. Feel free to expand on this.

FTFY...

Basically, you are forcing religious people to do things that go against their religious beliefs. Again, I understand why as I don't want to see people being discriminated against. But when it comes to religion, it's a double edged sword. In this case, you are either discriminating against the gay person or the religions person. Somebody is going to end up violated. It sucks...

 

[Shamylov]

Yup basically. As a liberal, I am all for free love, marry who you want to and all. The church is a whole different beast. I still go to church due to my family and I gotta tell ya, many church pastors are definitely anti gay and heavily discourages the lifestyle. For the "devout" they would definitely ensure they do their part to also discourage the lifestyle. There is also likely the case where the baker isn't actually that devout and likely hiding his prejudice behind the bible. Either way if the baker refused to sell the couple a generic wedding cake that he would sell to anyone, he is in the wrong. If the couple wanted a custom designed wedding cake that was specific to their gay relationship/wedding such as having two men figures on top of the cake, then I can see the baker not being comfortable designing that cake. Its not the same as refusing to design an interracial wedding cake because the bible doesn't condemn interracial marriages.

I've already explained a little bit before but it doesn't matter what his reasoning is if based on the Bible or whatever other religious excuse he has. I think Scalia already argued in a case that the government shouldn't expect proof that a religious belief is "sincerely held". So let's just focus on the simple matter of whether he is discriminating against a protected class; he in fact is by denying service because the customers are "gay" and want a "gay" thing. That's should be enough to satisfy the government and prohibit the practice.

Now, let's not compare a business to a church. A church is allowed more leeway in these instances than a business. Cake bakery is a business and not a church.

 

[Night Angel]

The government already oversteps on alot of those issues. This being "just another one" doesn't make me feel better...



So the government can use the protected class as a weapon to discriminate against the religious?



FTFY...

Basically, you are forcing religious people to do things that go against their religious beliefs. Again, I understand why as I don't want to see people being discriminated against. But when it comes to religion, it's a double edged sword. In this case, you are either discriminating against the gay person or the religions person. Somebody is going to end up violated. It sucks...

How do you feel about Sharia law? We force religious people to conform to societal norms all the time. Freedom of religion ends when you try to force your beliefs on others.

 

[Shamylov]

The government already oversteps on alot of those issues. This being "just another one" doesn't make me feel better...



So the government can use the protected class as a weapon to discriminate against the religious?



FTFY...

Basically, you are forcing religious people to do things that go against their religious beliefs. Again, I understand why as I don't want to see people being discriminated against. But when it comes to religion, it's a double edged sword. In this case, you are either discriminating against the gay person or the religions person. Somebody is going to end up violated. It sucks...

I don't know how to break up quotes to answer based on each part of what I'm quoting. Sorry about that.

To your first point, it seems we have a different view of what the government should be allowed to do. That's ok; we are allowed philosophical differences on that. Instead I'll be more practical and say that it would be very drastic for the Supreme Court to define a new role for the government based on this case. Let's just focus on whether what the baker did should be allowed or not.

To your second and last points, the baker is using his religious freedom to infringe on the rights of a protected class. He is free to practice his religion but the government should not allow him to use it as a weapon against the couple. To say that his freedom is being violated is not correct because he wants his fist to reach the couple's noses, so to speak.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm on the fence with this issue. I don't want government telling me what to do as a business owner, but I don't want people discriminated against and having trouble finding goods and services. The slippery slope is full of slippery shit in both directions...

There are already laws on the books about this. The slope has already been created 50 years ago and businesses have been fine since.

Why wouldn't he?

First of all, celebrating a birthday isn't considered holy. It's not a religious sacrament.

Secondly, it's not about not making something to people because they are sinful or something like that. For the baker, a marriage between two people of same gender doesn't exist, at least not in a religious sense. A girl still has her birthday no matter how potentially sinfully she was conceived. So even if it was about being against sinful people, which it isn't, the girl wouldn't have anything to do with the way she was conceived and with her parents' decisions or whatever has happened that has made the mother single.

No the guy said he's against gay marriage due to his religous beliefs. He feels like making the cake means he's participating in a marriage that's against those beliefs. So

So on that same notion, we know for a fact that out of wedlock sex is against he's religious beliefs. So in the same vein he shouldn't be okay with making a birthday cake for a kid that belongs to two people or a single mother that was birth here in that way.

ALSO....question would this guy seriously have made a cake for these gay guys had they wanted a "birthday" cake that looked EXACTLY like a wedding cake in design?

 

[BANGS]

How do you feel about Sharia law? We force religious people to conform to societal norms all the time. Freedom of religion ends when you try to force your beliefs on others.

Well to be fair, it's just a fucking bakery. This is basically a non-issue...

But again that's why it's hard to say. It must be really hard to be a muslim in america and be forced to anger your gods daily. I feel for them, but there is no easy solution...

 

[Airola]

You are basically advocating against same-sex marriage with this argument, which should have been put to pasture years ago. But ok, let's do this again, I guess.

If the baker is fine with different-sex couples getting married, regardless of whether or not they are straight, then he only supports happy and fulfilling marriages between straight people. He is denying gay couples a cake if he thinks they could have happy and fulfilling same-sex marriages.

Why should happy and fulfilling marriages for straight couples be the only ones that get protection from the government?

No, it's not about supporting a happy and fulfilling thing. It's about a thing that is holy in the religion.

Again, a Biblical marriage isn't about two people in love making their relationship official. It's not about creating a happy and fulfilling situation. It's about making a male and a female be one.

What comes to gay marriage in general and my personal beliefs about that, I think it should be ok for them to register as couples and be married in the secular sense. And if a church wants to do it, let them do it. But I don't believe churches should be forced to perform a wedding if it's not what the wedding is according to their teachings.

I believe there should be secular and religious options to get married. And whenever the option is religious, the place that performs the sacrament should be able to say what the sacrament means to them and perform it according to that meaning. And of course if a church is open to that, then they can perform it to a gay couple. And the people who belong to that church and don't like it can find another church for them. I would personally think they don't see marriage the way it is in the Bible, but they can do that. I'm not stopping them and I don't have anything against the existence of such churches.

As this is about the baker's beliefs I think it's good to explain what a Biblical marriage means so that you could better know where he comes from.

This is silly. The only time two men will get married, barring some absurd movie comedy, is if they are both gay. Saying you object to two men getting married is for all intents and purposes the same thing as saying you object to gay people getting married. This is a distinction without a difference.

But there are lots of gay men who have got married with a woman. And lots of lesbians who have got married with a man. That happens. Religious people have nothing against it.

In addition, this was going to be for the reception as far as I'm aware, not for the ceremony itself. So his sacred cake was not going to "participate" in the unholy wedding of sodomites. It was going to be used for a celebration afterward, which makes this objection weaker. Will he refuse to make cakes for anniversary celebrations for gay couples based on his religion?

How is the celebration and reception not part of the whole thing?

 

[Shamylov]

No, it's not about supporting a happy and fulfilling thing. It's about a thing that is holy in the religion.

Again, a Biblical marriage isn't about two people in love making their relationship official. It's not about creating a happy and fulfilling situation. It's about making a male and a female be one.

What comes to gay marriage in general and my personal beliefs about that, I think it should be ok for them to register as couples and be married in the secular sense. And if a church wants to do it, let them do it. But I don't believe churches should be forced to perform a wedding if it's not what the wedding is according to their teachings.

I believe there should be secular and religious options to get married. And whenever the option is religious, the place that performs the sacrament should be able to say what the sacrament means to them and perform it according to that meaning. And of course if a church is open to that, then they can perform it to a gay couple. And the people who belong to that church and don't like it can find another church for them. I would personally think they don't see marriage the way it is in the Bible, but they can do that. I'm not stopping them and I don't have anything against the existence of such churches.

As this is about the baker's beliefs I think it's good to explain what a Biblical marriage means so that you could better know where he comes from.




But there are lots of gay men who have got married with a woman. And lots of lesbians who have got married with a man. That happens. Religious people have nothing against it.



How is the celebration and reception not part of the whole thing?

You completely missed my point and I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or not. Let me rephrase it again, just in case you missed it: if you allow restrictions against same-sex marriage then you are only supporting happy and fulfilling marriages for straight couples. It doesn't matter what your Bible or religious reasoning is, the end result is that you're only allowing a viable option for straight couples.

I'll also repeat this once again, you are bringing up arguments that were used against same-sex marriage and I will not entertain this foolish debate. Feel free to look up all the past arguments, videos, legal cases, etc that were made and the series of events that brought us to the "legal same-sex marriage" present that we are in.

I am more than willing to engage in a discussion about the issue of the baker so please move back to that issue and stop trying to rope in same-sex marriage.

 

[Airola]

You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on sex or gender either. Still not ok.

That depends though.

I think it's very much ok to not let men compete with women at decathlon. Or men compete with women in weightlifting.

Discrimination based on sex or gender is ok at least in sports I think.

 

[bevishead]

I guess my next question is why is it ok to discriminate because your imaginary friend said it was ok? Your interracial comment is confusing. Words in an old book should be irrelevant when it comes to the treatment of protected classes.

If it were up to me the baker would have to make he cake plain and simple or get fined/shutdown. As imaginary as the bible may be most of the country believes in it. Good luck getting people to believe "God's word" is to be ignored. Gay Marriage is a relatively new thing. Many people aren't yet comfortable with it. It is not OK to discriminate, the baker should not be able to discriminate. If those dudes just wanted to buy a wedding cake and he said no because they were gay that is against the law.

I've already explained a little bit before but it doesn't matter what his reasoning is if based on the Bible or whatever other religious excuse he has. I think Scalia already argued in a case that the government shouldn't expect proof that a religious belief is "sincerely held". So let's just focus on the simple matter of whether he is discriminating against a protected class; he in fact is by denying service because the customers are "gay" and want a "gay" thing. That's should be enough to satisfy the government and prohibit the practice.

Now, let's not compare a business to a church. A church is allowed more leeway in these instances than a business. Cake bakery is a business and not a church.

I agree, making a wedding cake for this couple isn't going to condemn the baker to hell. It also isn't going to force the couple straight. If he refused to sell a stock cake to the couple that is illegal. The baker's justification is he doesn't want to use his artistic talent to create something that is against his religious beliefs. This couple likely wanted a custom designed cake for their wedding like most couples.

 

[Airola]

No the guy said he's against gay marriage due to his religous beliefs. He feels like making the cake means he's participating in a marriage that's against those beliefs. So

So on that same notion, we know for a fact that out of wedlock sex is against he's religious beliefs. So in the same vein he shouldn't be okay with making a birthday cake for a kid that belongs to two people or a single mother that was birth here in that way.

No, that would be if he would not make cakes for people who sin. He wouldn't be able to make cakes for himself then either.

You don't understand what a religious sacrament means. Sex outside of a wedlock isn't about that at all. And he is not making a cake to celebrate the sex. Or to celebrate the mother being single. It would be about the girl's birth. It's not even the birth that is sinful or against Biblical teachings in that scenario. The birth is a completely different thing. It's the action that happened ~9 months before the birth that would be the issue. A birthday cake would have nothing to do with that.

ALSO....question would this guy seriously have made a cake for these gay guys had they wanted a "birthday" cake that looked EXACTLY like a wedding cake in design?

I'd say it's a conscience thing. If he could find a "loophole" of some sort that would not clash with his conscience about the subject and with him 100% believing he's now not going against his conscience I could see that scenario happening.

I think his view of what's a birthday cake and what is a wedding cake have distinct differences. He seems to be that much of a religious person that he would have a different approach in making a wedding cake instead of a birthday cake. I mean, even non-religious persons most often create way different cakes for each situation. I'd say if we would se pictures of every birthday cake and every wedding cake ever made, most could point out from most of the pictures which was made for a wedding and which was made for a birthday.

I think he wouldn't have made a birthday cake that would resemble a wedding cake because as he is a religious person he probably has a much different approach to things that can be symbolical than what a regular secular person would have. He wouldn't probably use religious symbols in places that he feels don't belong to them, even if someone would want him to do that.

 

[Shamylov]

That depends though.

I think it's very much ok to not let men compete with women at decathlon. Or men compete with women in weightlifting.

Discrimination based on sex or gender is ok at least in sports I think.

That's not the context in which I made my statement. It should be clear what I meant.

If it were up to me the baker would have to make he cake plain and simple or get fined/shutdown. As imaginary as the bible may be most of the country believes in it. Good luck getting people to believe "God's word" is to be ignored. Gay Marriage is a relatively new thing. Many people aren't yet comfortable with it. It is not OK to discriminate, the baker should not be able to discriminate. If those dudes just wanted to buy a wedding cake and he said no because they were gay that is against the law.





I agree, making a wedding cake for this couple isn't going to condemn the baker to hell. It also isn't going to force the couple straight. If he refused to sell a stock cake to the couple that is illegal. The baker's justification is he doesn't want to use his artistic talent to create something that is against his religious beliefs. This couple likely wanted a custom designed cake for their wedding like most couples.

Providing a service is likely using a talent for someone so I don't know why his talent in particular should be considered different. If what you mean is that he should be protected under by free speech then that's a more complicated question and I'm not entirely sure about it. What I can say is that making a cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony is not inherently offensive or harmful; it might be according to his religious belief but then we're going back to the issue of excluding the couple specifically because of a characteristic that makes them a protected class.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Oh the irony.

You yap about everyone being leftist, as you generalize people people whose political opinions you know nothing about. You're a total hypocrite.

"Leftists bad!"

That's the extent of Blood Borne's repertoire.

 

[BANGS]

"Leftists bad!"

That's the extent of Blood Borne's repertoire.

Are you implying 90% of this board isn't exactly the same way, just on the other side?

 

[Airola]

You completely missed my point and I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or not. Let me rephrase it again, just in case you missed it: if you allow restrictions against same-sex marriage then you are only supporting happy and fulfilling marriages for straight couples. It doesn't matter what your Bible or religious reasoning is, the end result is that you're only allowing a viable option for straight couples.

I'll also repeat this once again, you are bringing up arguments that were used against same-sex marriage and I will not entertain this foolish debate. Feel free to look up all the past arguments, videos, legal cases, etc that were made and the series of events that brought us to the "legal same-sex marriage" present that we are in.

I am more than willing to engage in a discussion about the issue of the baker so please move back to that issue and stop trying to rope in same-sex marriage.

The issue here is that you don't understand at all the meaning religious sacraments and rituals hold to religious people. You are looking at this through a secular person's eyes.

Now, I get it that you mean that a gay man married to a lesbian couldn't have a happy and fulfilling marriage with each other. While I would say it's still possible for even them, I understand that it probably isn't. And I think they shouldn't get married if they aren't fully ok with doing it. They shouldn't try to look for happiness and fulfillment in that way if they aren't really up for it. But they can try it if they want to, and many have tried with varied results.

But as I said, marriage isn't about that. It isn't just about looking for a happy and fulfilling thing. It can be a result of it though, but the core of the whole thing is for a male and a female to become one. It is a holy thing that goes beyond looking for a happy and fulfilling thing. If the core of it is not that, then it is not a marriage in a Biblical sense. That's the angle the baker looks at this whole thing.

If a gay couple wants to get married in a church, they should be able to look for a church that is willing to do that, but they shouldn't expect the church to change their beliefs into what they believe. And I would also say that they shouldn't expect a business owner (the baker in this case) to change his or her religious beliefs just because it would be good for the business. It would be then them expecting that a business owner would go against his deep religious beliefs when money and business becomes part of it, and I would think most truly religious people would have hard time to take that step over their personal religious conscience especially if money and business would be the reason.

You have the right to say the baker is a shitty person and you have the right to boycott his business but this thing really isn't just as simple as saying he doesn't bake a cake to them because they are gay.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'd say it's a conscience thing. If he could find a "loophole" of some sort that would not clash with his conscience about the subject and with him 100% believing he's now not going against his conscience I could see that scenario happening.

I think his view of what's a birthday cake and what is a wedding cake have distinct differences. He seems to be that much of a religious person that he would have a different approach in making a wedding cake instead of a birthday cake. I mean, even non-religious persons most often create way different cakes for each situation. I'd say if we would se pictures of every birthday cake and every wedding cake ever made, most could point out from most of the pictures which was made for a wedding and which was made for a birthday.

I think he wouldn't have made a birthday cake that would resemble a wedding cake because as he is a religious person he probably has a much different approach to things that can be symbolical than what a regular secular person would have. He wouldn't probably use religious symbols in places that he feels don't belong to them, even if someone would want him to do that.

Things get really tricky when you bring up a conscience thing. Would we also let barbers not cut or do the hair of people that are participating in a gay or lesbian wedding?

Or what if two straight married people went to buy a cake for their gay brother's wedding? Would these people turn down that business also?

 

[HStallion]

Things get really tricky when you bring up a conscience thing. Would we also let barbers not cut or do the hair of people that are participating in a gay or lesbian wedding?

Or what if two straight married people went to buy a cake for their gay brother's wedding? Would these people turn down that business also?

Obviously Jesus wouldn't wash the feet of a gay couple going to get married.

 

[Dude Abides]

But there are lots of gay men who have got married with a woman. And lots of lesbians who have got married with a man. That happens. Religious people have nothing against it.

So what? This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that refusing to bake a cake for a marriage celebration between two men is discrimination against gay men. If the baker refused to bake a cake that someone was going to use in connection with a Catholic first communion celebration, would you accept his justification that it wasn't anti-Catholic discrimination because he sells cakes to Catholics in other circumstances? I very much doubt it.

 

[Dunki]

Obviously Jesus wouldn't wash the feet of a gay couple going to get married.

Ok let me tell you about some case that happend a year ago or so in Germany A Muslim refugee got a job as a Barber in some barber shop. When no one else was availabe he denied a woman a hair cut because of his relgion.

Ok or not ok?

 

[Night Angel]

Ok let me tell you about some case that happend a year ago or so in Germany A Muslim refugee got a job as a Barber in some barber shop. When no one else was availabe he denied a woman a hair cut because of his relgion.

Ok or not ok?

Not OK. Next.

 

[BANGS]

ayyy lmao

 

[HStallion]

Ok let me tell you about some case that happend a year ago or so in Germany A Muslim refugee got a job as a Barber in some barber shop. When no one else was availabe he denied a woman a hair cut because of his relgion.

Ok or not ok?

I don't care because that has nothing at all to do with the joke I was making.

 

[Shamylov]

The issue here is that you don't understand at all the meaning religious sacraments and rituals hold to religious people. You are looking at this through a secular person's eyes.

Now, I get it that you mean that a gay man married to a lesbian couldn't have a happy and fulfilling marriage with each other. While I would say it's still possible for even them, I understand that it probably isn't. And I think they shouldn't get married if they aren't fully ok with doing it. They shouldn't try to look for happiness and fulfillment in that way if they aren't really up for it. But they can try it if they want to, and many have tried with varied results.

But as I said, marriage isn't about that. It isn't just about looking for a happy and fulfilling thing. It can be a result of it though, but the core of the whole thing is for a male and a female to become one. It is a holy thing that goes beyond looking for a happy and fulfilling thing. If the core of it is not that, then it is not a marriage in a Biblical sense. That's the angle the baker looks at this whole thing.

If a gay couple wants to get married in a church, they should be able to look for a church that is willing to do that, but they shouldn't expect the church to change their beliefs into what they believe. And I would also say that they shouldn't expect a business owner (the baker in this case) to change his or her religious beliefs just because it would be good for the business. It would be then them expecting that a business owner would go against his deep religious beliefs when money and business becomes part of it, and I would think most truly religious people would have hard time to take that step over their personal religious conscience especially if money and business would be the reason.

You have the right to say the baker is a shitty person and you have the right to boycott his business but this thing really isn't just as simple as saying he doesn't bake a cake to them because they are gay.

I am looking at this from a strictly secular point of view because the court is looking at this from a strictly secular point of view and I have no interest whatsoever in the religious point of view. I'm not going to pull out a Bible and debate based on theology; I don't care and the court shouldn't care.

I am also setting aside your arguments about homosexuals marrying people of the opposite sex because I already said I'm not discussing arguments against same-sex marriage. This matter has been settled and you can educated yourself about it without me.

And another one,I am setting aside your argument about this business being treated like a church; they are very different things and the government recognizes that. If a business infringes on the constitutional protections of people then it can expect legal retribution.

I will address your suggestion that same-sex couples can just think bad about the business owner and boycott his business. You are ignoring the fact that the constitution protects their right to not be discriminated based on their sexual orientation. They also have a right to ask the court to intervene on their behalf. I'm sure they've considered their options to deal with the baker and have decided to pursue legal action. I commend them for standing up for their rights and hope the court rules in favor of upholding their constitutional protections.

I will consider better arguments if you present them.

 

[mckmas8808]

Ok let me tell you about some case that happend a year ago or so in Germany A Muslim refugee got a job as a Barber in some barber shop. When no one else was availabe he denied a woman a hair cut because of his relgion.

Ok or not ok?

Here's the thing though.......couldn't the lady wait for someone else to become available?

 

[Airola]

That's not the context in which I made my statement. It should be clear what I meant.

I just meant that discrimination is a word that means a lot of things in many different contexts. That sport example is discrimination, there's no way around it. But it's ok for most people.

Just because you say discrimination based on sex and gender is wrong in whatever this baker context holds, it still might not be just as simple as that because we are esentially talking about religious sacraments. In Biblical marriage there simply doesn't exist a possibility where a same sex couple would be able to be married in that Biblical sense. It's is completely illogical thing in Biblical context. It's a thing that doesn't exist.

So while it technically would be discriminatory towards genders it is like that more in a same sense than discrimination in sports would be. Well, it's still much different than that, but it's more like that than discrimination in, say, if only men would be allowed to be librarians.

As it is clear that men and women have so big differences in sports so that it's more logical and wise to let them compete in their own groups, it's ok to accept discrimination in those situations.
This marriage thing then, when it is in a religious context, is just a thing where the other option doesn't really even exist unless you want to change the Bible. So for people who hold on to those beliefs it's not about discrimination in gender because that's just a concept that doesn't exist, but again in secular sense it can be said it's discriminatory. And then it comes to how much we should be let religious people to live their religion the way they see it. And then we come to the question of when we cross the line of discriminating based on religion.

So it really isn't that simple. It isn't as simple as to just claim something to be discrimination against something. We need to go deeper into religious logic to really be able to tackle the issue in any way.

Maybe the world will slowly change into something where it's a 100% non-issue in Christian or Muslim or Jewish weddings to have same sex couples to be wed. But until that happens I think it's good to try to understand the logic in why they don't accept it. Without that understanding there will be more trouble ahead than with going through understanding the core of the issue. And no, the core of the issue is not homophobia or discrimination or whatever other word can be quickly used to slam down the opposition.

 

[Dunki]

Here's the thing though.......couldn't the lady wait for someone else to become available?

She had an appointment and in the end she went home without a haircut. So I guess no.

 

[HStallion]

I just meant that discrimination is a word that means a lot of things in many different contexts. That sport example is discrimination, there's no way around it. But it's ok for most people.

Just because you say discrimination based on sex and gender is wrong in whatever this baker context holds, it still might not be just as simple as that because we are esentially talking about religious sacraments. In Biblical marriage there simply doesn't exist a possibility where a same sex couple would be able to be married in that Biblical sense. It's is completely illogical thing in Biblical context. It's a thing that doesn't exist.

So while it technically would be discriminatory towards genders it is like that more in a same sense than discrimination in sports would be. Well, it's still much different than that, but it's more like that than discrimination in, say, if only men would be allowed to be librarians.

As it is clear that men and women have so big differences in sports so that it's more logical and wise to let them compete in their own groups, it's ok to accept discrimination in those situations.
This marriage thing then, when it is in a religious context, is just a thing where the other option doesn't really even exist unless you want to change the Bible. So for people who hold on to those beliefs it's not about discrimination in gender because that's just a concept that doesn't exist, but again in secular sense it can be said it's discriminatory. And then it comes to how much we should be let religious people to live their religion the way they see it. And then we come to the question of when we cross the line of discriminating based on religion.

So it really isn't that simple. It isn't as simple as to just claim something to be discrimination against something. We need to go deeper into religious logic to really be able to tackle the issue in any way.

Maybe the world will slowly change into something where it's a 100% non-issue in Christian or Muslim or Jewish weddings to have same sex couples to be wed. But until that happens I think it's good to try to understand the logic in why they don't accept it. Without that understanding there will be more trouble ahead than with going through understanding the core of the issue. And no, the core of the issue is not homophobia or discrimination or whatever other word can be quickly used to slam down the opposition.

Uhh it very much is homophobia and discrimination. You're just playing a semantics game to soften the blow about what the religious right is attempting to do here.

 

[Shamylov]

I just meant that discrimination is a word that means a lot of things in many different contexts. That sport example is discrimination, there's no way around it. But it's ok for most people.

Just because you say discrimination based on sex and gender is wrong in whatever this baker context holds, it still might not be just as simple as that because we are esentially talking about religious sacraments. In Biblical marriage there simply doesn't exist a possibility where a same sex couple would be able to be married in that Biblical sense. It's is completely illogical thing in Biblical context. It's a thing that doesn't exist.

So while it technically would be discriminatory towards genders it is like that more in a same sense than discrimination in sports would be. Well, it's still much different than that, but it's more like that than discrimination in, say, if only men would be allowed to be librarians.

As it is clear that men and women have so big differences in sports so that it's more logical and wise to let them compete in their own groups, it's ok to accept discrimination in those situations.
This marriage thing then, when it is in a religious context, is just a thing where the other option doesn't really even exist unless you want to change the Bible. So for people who hold on to those beliefs it's not about discrimination in gender because that's just a concept that doesn't exist, but again in secular sense it can be said it's discriminatory. And then it comes to how much we should be let religious people to live their religion the way they see it. And then we come to the question of when we cross the line of discriminating based on religion.

So it really isn't that simple. It isn't as simple as to just claim something to be discrimination against something. We need to go deeper into religious logic to really be able to tackle the issue in any way.

Maybe the world will slowly change into something where it's a 100% non-issue in Christian or Muslim or Jewish weddings to have same sex couples to be wed. But until that happens I think it's good to try to understand the logic in why they don't accept it. Without that understanding there will be more trouble ahead than with going through understanding the core of the issue. And no, the core of the issue is not homophobia or discrimination or whatever other word can be quickly used to slam down the opposition.

I'm not sure why exactly you brought up sports in this discussion. All I understood is that discrimination in sports is ok and because of the Bible, discrimination in the case of the baker should be ok. I completely disagree and that's all I can say about it because I don't see a proper argument for it in your post. I should mention that I am not here to discuss discrimination based on sex or gender in sports. I would be willing to discuss a connection between that and this case, but you didn't show one at all from what I can see.

Your other point is that we should understand where the religious are getting their reasoning for discriminating against same-sex couples or people of a same-sex sexual orientation. That's irrelevant. It boils down to the religious wanting to discriminate and the court's decision should be based on that.

The idea that we should understand the religious people that want to discriminate because it's difficult for them to reconcile the current legal protections against those they disagree with is really not our problem, it's theirs. I am open to considering their point of view and talking about what the new legal reality means for them, but if the discussion is starting from the point of being allowed to discriminate until they change their mind, then that's a non-starter.

The discriminated groups already had to deal with a society and institutions that were not tolerant of them or willing to stand up for their rights. They now can enjoy what they should have rightfully enjoyed all along. Wanting to go back to discrimination is not an acceptable reason to roll that back. Try again.

 

[Airola]

Things get really tricky when you bring up a conscience thing. Would we also let barbers not cut or do the hair of people that are participating in a gay or lesbian wedding?

Probably would depend how much of a symbolic thing the barber feels the haircut would be.

Or what if two straight married people went to buy a cake for their gay brother's wedding? Would these people turn down that business also?

Obviously if he wouldn't know about it, he wouldn't have anything to say about it. But obviously if he would be asked to design something that shows it's for a gay wedding, then he might oppose to it.

Yeah, it's not a simple thing.

So what? This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that refusing to bake a cake for a marriage celebration between two men is discrimination against gay men. If the baker refused to bake a cake that someone was going to use in connection with a Catholic first communion celebration, would you accept his justification that it wasn't anti-Catholic discrimination because he sells cakes to Catholics in other circumstances? I very much doubt it.

I wouldn't want an atheist to be forced to create something for a religious ceremony. And for me it's obvious that there can be such a big differences in different nominations among the same religion that if one feels it goes against their beliefs they should have the right to not be part of that. I wouldn't want a Jehova's Witness to be forced to make a thing that would glorify some Catholic belief that would be opposed to the JW's beliefs.

Obviously it's better if all could just do whatever products to whoever, like for example it would be great, or at least interesting, to have an artist from a Christian heavy metal band to play in a Satanic heavy metal band, and vice versa (like Hellhammer played drums in Antestor's record - or like Possession made a cover of a King Diamond song). But I would absolutely understand the atheist's unwillingness to be part of a Christian band or a Christian band to play a secular song.

 

[Shamylov]

Probably would depend how much of a symbolic thing the barber feels the haircut would be.



Obviously if he wouldn't know about it, he wouldn't have anything to say about it. But obviously if he would be asked to design something that shows it's for a gay wedding, then he might oppose to it.

Yeah, it's not a simple thing.




I wouldn't want an atheist to be forced to create something for a religious ceremony. And for me it's obvious that there can be such a big differences in different nominations among the same religion that if one feels it goes against their beliefs they should have the right to not be part of that. I wouldn't want a Jehova's Witness to be forced to make a thing that would glorify some Catholic belief that would be opposed to the JW's beliefs.

Obviously it's better if all could just do whatever products to whoever, like for example it would be great, or at least interesting, to have an artist from a Christian heavy metal band to play in a Satanic heavy metal band, and vice versa (like Hellhammer played drums in Antestor's record - or like Possession made a cover of a King Diamond song). But I would absolutely understand the atheist's unwillingness to be part of a Christian band or a Christian band to play a secular song.

The issue with the baker isn't simply about him being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. The issue is that he doesn't want to comply with the constitution. Metal band players playing for a different band doesn't concern the constitution, discrimination based on sexual orientation does.

EDIT: I should mention that way you frame your arguments continues to ignore the fact that sexual orientation is protected by the constitution so I'll make it more clear for you. People of sexual orientations other than heterosexual have faced significant discrimination and hostility against mainstream society and its institution without any proper cause to justify it. This discrimination goes against the ideals of the just and free society that we should aspire to live in. It's unfortunate that it took so much time and suffering for us to get to the point we are and even more so that we still have a lot left to go. What we should definitely not do is roll back those protections to allow for the same discrimination of the past, we should have moved on from that.

 

[Night Angel]

The issue with the baker isn't simply about him being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. The issue is that he doesn't want to comply with the constitution. Metal band players playing for a different band doesn't concern the constitution, discrimination based on sexual orientation does.

Not surprising that people keep trying to use irrelevant analogies to wave away legally defined/protected classes' discrimination. Sports, music, etc. have nothing to do with this case.

 

[Airola]

I will consider better arguments if you present them.

I probably can't. And that could be either that you just don't understand my point of view or I don't understand yours. I assume everything you have said feels obvious to you, and I can say what I have written seems obvious to me. And we aren't doing much to make ourselves to understand each other.

But at the very least opinions, examples, replies, and all have been thrown around from different perspectives and it's up to the readers of this thread to figure out what their opinions are and what they will be.

Not that this thread might even have much readers nowadays though because of... things

 

[Shamylov]

I probably can't. And that could be either that you just don't understand my point of view or I don't understand yours. I assume everything you have said feels obvious to you, and I can say what I have written seems obvious to me. And we aren't doing much to make ourselves to understand each other.

But at the very least opinions, examples, replies, and all have been thrown around from different perspectives and it's up to the readers of this thread to figure out what their opinions are and what they will be.

Not that this thread might even have much readers nowadays though because of... things

What I mean from that statement is that I wish you would make better arguments than "homosexuals can still marry people of the opposite sex", "marriage is supposed to be a holy union so we can't expand it to include same-sex couples", "we should have separate marriages for the religious and the secular", "we shouldn't force churches to change what they preach and do", "we shouldn't force people to go against their religious beliefs". These are all tired arguments that were made against same-sex marriage and you are repackaging to advocate businesses being allowed to discriminate. There have to be better arguments than those.

 

[Dude Abides]

I wouldn't want an atheist to be forced to create something for a religious ceremony. And for me it's obvious that there can be such a big differences in different nominations among the same religion that if one feels it goes against their beliefs they should have the right to not be part of that. I wouldn't want a Jehova's Witness to be forced to make a thing that would glorify some Catholic belief that would be opposed to the JW's beliefs.

We are not talking about something that glorifies a belief. We are talking about a cake. You really think it would be a good thing if a Muslim shoemaker could refuse to serve a priest because he didn't want his shoes to be worn at a mass?

 

[mckmas8808]

Probably would depend how much of a symbolic thing the barber feels the haircut would be.



Obviously if he wouldn't know about it, he wouldn't have anything to say about it. But obviously if he would be asked to design something that shows it's for a gay wedding, then he might oppose to it.

Yeah, it's not a simple thing.




I wouldn't want an atheist to be forced to create something for a religious ceremony. And for me it's obvious that there can be such a big differences in different nominations among the same religion that if one feels it goes against their beliefs they should have the right to not be part of that. I wouldn't want a Jehova's Witness to be forced to make a thing that would glorify some Catholic belief that would be opposed to the JW's beliefs.

Obviously it's better if all could just do whatever products to whoever, like for example it would be great, or at least interesting, to have an artist from a Christian heavy metal band to play in a Satanic heavy metal band, and vice versa (like Hellhammer played drums in Antestor's record - or like Possession made a cover of a King Diamond song). But I would absolutely understand the atheist's unwillingness to be part of a Christian band or a Christian band to play a secular song.

Trust me A Jehovah's Witness that owns a bakery would have made the cake. It's not against Christian values or beliefs to serve people that are gay. That I know for sure.

Now for a more specific business like being a photographer for a gay wedding will be met with more resistance from JWs.

We are not talking about something that glorifies a belief. We are talking about a cake. You really think it would be a good thing if a Muslim shoemaker could refuse to serve a priest because he didn't want his shoes to be worn at a mass?

People talking about a slipperly slope. This is the real slippery slope. Once you allow this guy to discriminate like this, you'll see the above next.

 

[Blood Borne]

I hope you're not American. Every kid in America read about Plessy v. Ferguson. That ruling is what ALLOWED for Jim Crow laws. And Jim Crow laws where created on the state and local level and Southern Democrats VOTED in support of these laws in a time where black people were not allowed to vote. They existed until the FEDERAL government deemed them unconstitutional. Jesus, is our education system failing us this badly???? Please actually start reading. It's disgraceful that someone so uneducated can discuss these topics, let alone vote. You need to go back to school or watch a few Youtube videos.

You're actually buttressing my point. Government created segregation NOT free market. Yes, it was government that rectified it but that's because it was government that caused it, hence I don't know point you're trying to make.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

You're actually buttressing my point. Government created segregation NOT free market. Yes, it was government that rectified it but that's because it was government that caused it, hence I don't know point you're trying to make.

Not really. Segregation came about before there even was a united states. It's build into the DNA of western societies. To sit and say that government is the cause of segregation is a blatant fallacy. Your ignorance is showing.

Don't try to weasel out of that unregulated free markets is a fucking cancer on society.

 

[Blood Borne]

Not really. Segregation came about before there even was a united states. It's build into the DNA of western societies. To sit and say that government is the cause of segregation is a blatant fallacy. Your ignorance is showing.

Don't try to weasel out of that unregulated free markets is a fucking cancer on society.

I'm confused. Are you saying that free markets forced people to segregate their businesses? There were laws on the books that MANDATED that businesses should segregate.

 

[Big Blue]

Do you know how laws are made???

 

[Airola]

EDIT: I should mention that way you frame your arguments continues to ignore the fact that sexual orientation is protected by the constitution so I'll make it more clear for you. People of sexual orientations other than heterosexual have faced significant discrimination and hostility against mainstream society and its institution without any proper cause to justify it. This discrimination goes against the ideals of the just and free society that we should aspire to live in. It's unfortunate that it took so much time and suffering for us to get to the point we are and even more so that we still have a lot left to go. What we should definitely not do is roll back those protections to allow for the same discrimination of the past, we should have moved on from that.

I guess you have a good point there.

For me this was about trying to see if there was a case for religious freedom because it seems it was a special case that had more to do with a person dealing with a special religious situation and not about being against gays in general. And that's what I thought it was. I mean, he had his religious way of dealing with certain situations in his business set up from the get go and that should be respected.

But I'm not quite sure about that anymore.

Maybe there is something to the view that if you are in a business, you should have your mind removed from the religious matters and it should be so with any religion in every case. Because, yeah, let's face it, as one poster said there is a possibility for a real slippery slope in matters like these.

I still hold on to the belief that churches should be able to refuse creating a ceremony that goes against what the ceremony stands to them, but perhaps individuals in regular businesses are a completely different matter if just for the sake of making basic life more even for everyone.

I'm not quite sure if I still see the real problem here that people seem to see better than me, but I'm going to think about it.

 

[Blood Borne]

Do you know how laws are made???

Yes. Laws are made because leftists want to stomp out the last vestige of anything they deem evil/unjust/unfair.

Leftists can't tolerate anything 'bad' in this life. They're on a mission to create a perfect world and they believe the answer to everything wrong in this life can be solved via legislation.

 

[Big Blue]

Yes. Laws are made because leftists want to stomp out the last vestige of anything they deem evil/unjust/unfair.

Leftists can't tolerate anything 'bad' in this life. They're on a mission to create a perfect world and they believe the answer to everything wrong in this life can be solved via legislation.

That's exactly how Jim Crow laws were made. Congratulations you passed 5th grade history. Righties just want the power to oppress. You're really upset that you have to treat Everyone equally, oh the horror. Mean we have posters who don't know 5th grade history voting. That's scary

 

[Night Angel]

Yes. Laws are made because leftists want to stomp out the last vestige of anything they deem evil/unjust/unfair.

Leftists can't tolerate anything 'bad' in this life. They're on a mission to create a perfect world and they believe the answer to everything wrong in this life can be solved via legislation.

Remember that time the leftists tried to pass legislation to get rid of abortion?

All law is the result of leftists. Lmao

Blood Borne literally laying the creation of modern society (or any society) at the feet of leftists. Thank goodness for leftists, they helped us not live in caves.

 

[Blood Borne]

Remember that time the leftists tried to pass legislation to get rid of abortion?

All law is the result of leftists. Lmao

Blood Borne literally laying the creation of modern society (or any society) at the feet of leftists. Thank goodness for leftists, they helped us not live in caves.

Some see abortion as murder, I'm sure everyone is against murder. So in their view, trying to stop murder is just.

Whether abortion is murder or not, is entirely a different debate. But that is their reason. Hence, you're being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Blood Borne]

That's exactly how Jim Crow laws were made. Congratulations you passed 5th grade history. Righties just want the power to oppress. You're really upset that you have to treat Everyone equally, oh the horror. Mean we have posters who don't know 5th grade history voting. That's scary

So wait. Are you saying that it is good and just that the government created Jim crow laws?

 

[Night Angel]

Some see abortion as murder, I'm sure everyone is against murder. So in their view, trying to stop murder is just.

Whether abortion is murder or not, is entirely a different debate. But that is their reason. Hence, you're being intellectually dishonest.

But the laws against murder were created by filthy leftists who want to ruin everything

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

But the laws against murder were created by filthy leftists who want to ruin everything

Goddamn Leftists tramping on my liberty.

 

[Big Blue]

So wait. Are you saying that it is good and just that the government created Jim crow laws?

I can't. You're just too slow. If you want to learn more PM or watch a YouTube video. The government created Jim Crow laws because their constituents wanted them too. Do I need to talk you through democracy as well? Jim Crow laws were not a federal statute. They were laws enacted by Southern Democrats in response to the fallout of the Civil War freeing slaves. Initially segregation did not formally exist, until a train company decided to have separate train cars for black and white men. A black man sued and the SC noted as long as accommodations were equal, it could be allowed.

I was congratulating you for understanding democracy. Not agreeing with you.