A Discussion of Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights

[Archivist]

He serves others cake and presumably he would given them a cake - just not a wedding cake (or a halloween cake for that matter). It is equal treatment to a point, the point where he is asked to make something he finds objectionable.

Equal treatment to a point is still discrimination. The folks at Ollies BBQ offered their customers equal treatment to a point, they would sell them the same ribs they sold their white customers. They just wouldn't let them eat at the restaurant. That was still held to be discrimination. Equal treatment means equal treatment, not equal treatment to a point.

 

[SilverBear]

Am talking about not having sex, regardless of orientation, which is why I asked if that was not a "choice" in the LGBT community. It goes to whether one is choosing to sin or not.
The assumption was made that by "choice" I could have only meant choosing orientation. I don't know but have read some aren't attracted to opposite sex, but even they still have a choice or should have a choice to be sexually active or not. Have also read that not a few living the "lifestyle" are not in that same category, meaning for them attraction to one sex had nothing to do with their behavior/decisions. Any way one arrives at choosing to act, unless we consider counting lust as many of us do, the action is the sin not the orientation.

People are gay or straight or bi regardless of weather they have ever had sex or not.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Are the workers who made your car happy? What about those who see your ahirts? I don't think the customers care whether Phillips. Is happy when he makes their wedding cake. He runs a bakery and makes wedding cakes. They just want him to make the same wedding cake he would make for any heterosexual couple.

Yes, that is the PC correct mantra and the claim. My initial comment was not specific to this couple or this case. Am saying cases "like this" are not just about getting equal service. Certainly no one likes being told what they are doing is wrong. Someone standing for their convictions to refuse a request like this represents a rejection of the notion that nothing is wrong. The fact we have people comparing a refusal to make a wedding cake to the holocaust and racially motivated murder should make it evident there is more to this than simply getting "equal service".
But to close the loop and back to the case, from all that has been said it appears Phillips would reject any request that requires him to make something he finds morally objectionable. From that standpoint everyone is getting "equal treatment" whether they find it morally objectionable to themselves or not.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

People are gay or straight or bi regardless of weather they have ever had sex or not.

Am sure people identify or align themselves with other groupings of people and labels for a lot of reasons, some of which have nothing to with what sort of sex one is or is not having.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Equal treatment to a point is still discrimination. The folks at Ollies BBQ offered their customers equal treatment to a point, they would sell them the same ribs they sold their white customers. They just wouldn't let them eat at the restaurant. That was still held to be discrimination. Equal treatment means equal treatment, not equal treatment to a point.

I would not agree with or support Phillips not allowing LGBT folks to eat in his shop. A right is a right, but where two rights exists and can conflict there has to be a point otherwise one of the two rights really does not exist.
Adding - The questions aught to be why is there a line being drawn, is there a right protecting the drawing of that line, and does that right to draw a line create so much harm to another person's rights that we are not going to allow it.

 

[Monk Brendan]

If one is not happy with what one is doing am not sure one can be a good businessman and should be doing something else. I was not talking about what makes Phillips happy. I was talking about the only thing that would satisfy some is that Phillips be happy making them a wedding cake.

Non-sequitur. Just because I was not always happy doing most of the work did not make me unhappy with working and owning a shop. Creating a platinum necklace with the center diamond being a flawless canary diamond weighing 1.75 carats, and another carat's worth of diamonds around it was very enjoyable. Selling it was also enjoyable.

Have you ever owned a business?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Non-sequitur. Just because I was not always happy doing most of the work did not make me unhappy with working and owning a shop. Creating a platinum necklace with the center diamond being a flawless canary diamond weighing 1.75 carats, and another carat's worth of diamonds around it was very enjoyable. Selling it was also enjoyable.

Have you ever owned a business?

Several including the one I am in now. If I am in a business or job that does not make me happy, then I should be doing something else as soon as I can.
Am unclear how stating one found some enjoyment in some aspect of a job disproves my point - that would be a non-sequitur. I agree there is probably some positive way to look at any given situation. Perhaps like seeing it as a positive that someone would stand on a conviction, even if it meant I could not get exactly what I wanted from them.

 

[Monk Brendan]

DP

 

[Archivist]

Yes, that is the PC correct mantra and the claim. My initial comment was not specific to this couple or this case. Am saying cases "like this" are not just about getting equal service. Certainly no one likes being told what they are doing is wrong. Someone standing for their convictions to refuse a request like this represents a rejection of the notion that nothing is wrong. The fact we have people comparing a refusal to make a wedding cake to the holocaust and racially motivated murder should make it evident there is more to this than simply getting "equal service".
But to close the loop and back to the case, from all that has been said it appears Phillips would reject any request that requires him to make something he finds morally objectionable. From that standpoint everyone is getting "equal treatment" whether they find it morally objectionable to themselves or not.

Then the blacks who were refused indoor service at Ollies BBQ were also getting "equal treatment". They came for ribs, they got ribs. The US Supreme Court thought otherwise.

I long ago gave up trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but I would be very surprised if it came down on Mr. Phillip's side. I don't see how supplying a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding reception amounts to anything more than supply goods, no different than supply the steak for the dinner or the champagne for the toast.

And just for the record, I have never compared this situation to the holocaust and racially motivated murder.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Several including the one I am in now. If I am in a business or job that does not make me happy, then I should be doing something else as soon as I can.

Then you should know that running a business is very hard work. But just because the work is hard doesn't mean I didn't like the job. I loved my business! It was the bits where I was on my face in snow while policemen were going through my briefcase that I didn't like. It was the hours spent in front of a loud motor polishing jewelry while the brushes and buffs threw up a lot of dust that wore away my fingerprints and embedded gold underneath the skin. Yes, I had a sense of accomplishment when I was finished, but I also had to brush all the dust off, and carefully clean my face and hands.

A contractor who steps on a nail (an occupational hazard) while building a house is not going to praise God, then call 911 to have someone send an ambulance to take him to a hospital to get that nail removed, his wound sterilized, and then get a booster tetanus shot, and hope that they got all the germs out before closing the wound. And while he's gone, he might have some concern that the construction team is goofing around instead of working. Because he is not there, what might walk out of the front door? Or what might Mike, who has a mouth and a bad attitude toward women say to some woman that could get his business closed.

None of those things are enjoyable in themselves but owning the business is.

And you should have known what I was talking about in the first place, O business owner. Otherwise you might be the CEO, but your not down on the ground actually doing the work.

Forgive me, but this has gotten all blown out of shape. I began by asking about rights, and most of the posters have been speaking about sin.

Moderator, please close this thread!

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed at request of OP

MOD HAT OFF​