Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[selfinflikted]

Yes, if it was something that violated the conscience of the person being asked to provide that service, or it caused him to violate a principle of his religion. If the customer requesting that service at that store wants something that this particular owner is not willing to provide, then the customer can go to someone who is willing to provide it.

I don't understand how baking a cake is a violation of any religious belief. I do understand how a racist someone who believes a white person shouldn't marry a black person would want to spite the couple by not baking a cake, though.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't understand how baking a cake is a violation of any religious belief. I do understand how a racist someone who believes a white person shouldn't marry a black person would want to spite the couple by not baking a cake, though.

Maybe it's not for you to understand. It's for the person who's conscience and religious convictions are being violated to understand and for them to act accordingly. Do you think you have to understand something in order to respect a person's decisions? Haven't you ever heard of freedom?

 

[selfinflikted]

Maybe it's not for you to understand. It's for the person who's conscience and religious convictions are being violated to understand and for them to act accordingly. Do you think you have to understand something in order to respect a person's decisions? Haven't you ever heard of freedom?

I don't respect decisions made born from hate and prejudice. Sorry. I have a very sick feeling that if you boil away all the religious rhetoric, this is what you will find in cases like this.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I am.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't respect decisions made born from hate and prejudice. Sorry. I have a very sick feeling that if you boil away all the religious rhetoric, this is what you will find in cases like this.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I am.

You can feel that way if you wish, but it's really not for you to judge someone's motives, especially when you ascribe hate to their motives when you really don't know.

 

[Euler]

I don't respect decisions made born from hate and prejudice. Sorry. I have a very sick feeling that if you boil away all the religious rhetoric, this is what you will find in cases like this.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I am.

I think you're very, very right!

The link between religious fundamentalism and attitudes of bigotry and prejudice has been well established.

 

[David Brider]

Yes, if it was something that violated the conscience of the person being asked to provide that service, or it caused him to violate a principle of his religion.

Leaving aside the whole issue of public accommodation business being obliged to serve the public without discrimination based on protected classes (including, but not limited to, sex and sexual orientation); and leaving aside the issue of businesses not having a religion or conscience, because they're not individuals...

How exactly does baking a cake violate a principle of religion? Which principle would you say it violates?

 

[Aldebaran]

Leaving aside the whole issue of public accommodation business being obliged to serve the public without discrimination based on protected classes (including, but not limited to, sex and sexual orientation); and leaving aside the issue of businesses not having a religion or conscience, because they're not individuals...

If you were the owner of a business and was the one conducting business there, are you no longer a person?

Businesses don't get sued. People do.

 

[Euler]

If you were the owner of a business and was the one conducting business there, are you no longer a person?

Businesses don't get sued. People do.

Yes people get sued when they try to hide behind a business structure in order to practise their hatred and bigotry!

 

[selfinflikted]

You can feel that way if you wish, but it's really not for you to judge someone's motives, especially when you ascribe hate to their motives when you really don't know.

Of course it's for me to judge motives, especially in topics like this. And I didn't say I knew, but I highly suspect it. Why? Because I've seen motives like this in other areas many, many times. It's a reasonable conclusion.

 

[David Brider]

If you were the owner of a business and was the one conducting business there, are you no longer a person?

Yes, you are.

An individual conducting a business is not the same thing as a business.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes people get sued when they try to hide behind a business structure in order to practise their hatred and bigotry!

Now why do you assume that's what they're doing? Don't individuals have the right to associate with and do things with those they choose? So why would they feel the need to "hide behind a business structure" to do the same thing that you so describe in such lovely terms? You really are making no sense at all here!

 

[Aldebaran]

Of course it's for me to judge motives, especially in topics like this. And I didn't say I knew, but I highly suspect it. Why? Because I've seen motives like this in other areas many, many times. It's a reasonable conclusion.

It's not a reasonable conclusion. It's a judgement, which atheists like to say we're not supposed to make. So how do you feel qualified to judge me?

 

[Euler]

It's not a reasonable conclusion. It's a judgement, which atheists like to say we're not supposed to make. So how do you feel qualified to judge me?

"By their fruits............."

 

[Euler]

Now why do you assume that's what they're doing? Don't individuals have the right to associate with and do things with those they choose? So why would they feel the need to "hide behind a business structure" to do the same thing that you so describe in such lovely terms? You really are making no sense at all here!

Because, like you and that .......person......Windstaff, they feel they can use the structure of a business as some form of shield to justify their discrimination. How many times have we seen in this and related threads, the lame bleating excuse of "it's their business, so they should be able to refuse who they like"?

It's dishonest and cowardly.

 

[selfinflikted]

It's not a reasonable conclusion. It's a judgement, which atheists like to say we're not supposed to make. So how do you feel qualified to judge me?

Well, don't lump this atheist in that group. People judge. All the time. In every way. It's human nature. I'm not ashamed to say I judge people. I've already judged you ages ago.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Yes marriage is a simple word giving opportunity for loose use, such as "the marriage of Apple and Microsoft" for example.

Interracial marriage was not permitted in some US states until only a hundred or more years ago. There are splinter groups of religious people, so that is why there were restrictions.

I look at origins of our civilization, culture and philosophy. They were Rome and Greece, the pagans. Rape was part of the Greek culture and homosexuality was normal. The woman for children, the man for pleasure. Rome had a non patriarchal system. Sons were adopted, pederized and if pleasing their father more than natural sons, they gained the inheritance. Relationships between sons and mothers and nieces and uncles were accepted.

We don't inherit paganism. We inherit a patriarchal system and post pagan Greek and Roman civilization. So the defense is, the old system was discarded as lesser and darkness compared to light. These greats of Europe, set the pattern worth defending. A pattern that was in effect for so very long. Traditional Greek and Roman weddings are a popular establishment. Arts celebrated this with the film, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".

So the ancient marriage system from Europe is defined in contrast to ideas with the change to marriage. And includes unlike in the former USA, interracial marriage. The idea of races was different in the defining times. Sometimes marriage between cousins was considered unhealthy.

 

[Aldebaran]

Because, like you and that .......person......Windstaff, they feel they can use the structure of a business as some form of shield to justify their discrimination. How many times have we seen in this and related threads, the lame bleating excuse of "it's their business, so they should be able to refuse who they like"?

It's dishonest and cowardly.

As usual, you have it all backwards here. If you've been doing any reading on this forum at all, you'd notice that it's actually the atheists who like to hide behind the business structure to say, "You are running a business that serves the public and so you have to follow the law that says you no longer have any say in how you conduct yourself".

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, don't lump this atheist in that group. People judge. All the time. In every way. It's human nature. I'm not ashamed to say I judge people. I've already judged you ages ago.

One reason I don't take you seriously....

 

[David Brider]

As usual, you have it all backwards here. If you've been doing any reading on this forum at all, you'd notice that it's actually the atheists who like to hide behind the business structure to say, "You are running a business that serves the public and so you have to follow the law that says you no longer have any say in how you conduct yourself".

If by "hiding behind the business structure" you mean "agreeing that businesses have a responsibility to abide by the business rules and regulations that apply in the area where they operate," then no, it's not just the atheists.

 

[Euler]

If by "hiding behind the business structure" you mean "agreeing that businesses have a responsibility to abide by the business rules and regulations that apply in the area where they operate," then no, it's not just the atheists.

Well said.

Last time I looked, the U.S. was still a "nation of laws". Apparently there are some that feel entitled to brush those laws aside.