Homosexuality

[Loudmouth]

Dude, people have rights. I have the right to open a business catering to a particular cross section of Americans.

No, you don't. You can't put up a sign in the front window of your business that says "White People Only". What you are claiming is factually false.

Individual persons have the right to open businesses that do not conflict with their beliefs or opinions.

A white supremist can not open a business and deny minorities entrance to that business. Your claims are factually false.

Individual persons have the right to their opinions and beliefs and they do not have to match yours or the LGTB camp.

Yes, just as a person has the right to believe that black people are inferior and should not eat at the same lunch counter. However, that same person can not enforce those beliefs as a restaurant owner and refuse to serve minorities. Do you understand the difference or not?

The LGBT argument is a fallacious, emotionally laden argument which seeks to take away rights from individuals and, in this instance, business owners.

Did desegregation oppress the poor white supremists? When we required businesses to treat people fairly, was that government oppression of the racists?

Do you realize that you are on the morally bankrupt side of this debate?

I do treat people like real people;

You label them "liberals" so you don't have to address their arguments.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't you still think it's wrong for that couple to sue the baker?

I think it was small minded. However, I can understand the need for test cases. If discrimination is given a pass for long periods of time then people will ask why no one spoke up earlier.

I think (I can't say for sure in all cases, but it's possible) that some of these gay couples are deliberately choosing to go to christian bakeries just so they can sue them for money.

I think it has much more to do with social justice than money.

You are looking at things from a secular worldly perspective, not God's perspective.

I am looking at things from a moral perspective. I am sure that you can demonstrate your obedience to biblical laws, but obedience is not the same as moral or just.

Second of all, comparing gay rights with civil rights makes zero sense. Gays are not segregated against.

That is what this recent discussion is about. We are talking about christians wanting the right to prevent gays from doing business with them. How is that not segregation?

I've never heard of a christian store owner refusing to sell products to a gay person, just because of the simple fact they were gay. The Colorado baker only refused to sell the cake because the cake was going to be used to celebrate a sinful union.

It is no different than not selling a cake to a mixed race couple because the baker does not believe in mixed marriages, which is illegal.

 

[Belk]

Sure it is.

If the cake did what?

If the cake had any moral implications which they had a problem with they would not sell cakes.

Sure it is. The cake is for a gay wedding; the baker believes strongly in marriage between a man and a woman; the baker refuses to bake the cake because of his conviction not because who is buying it. The baker has the right to choose his clientele. The baker has rights which should not be trampled by those who push their agendas on others.

No, it is who is buying it. The cake is for a wedding. The only difference that the baker is objecting to is the people who are participating in the wedding. The baker has no objections to baking cakes for any other wedding. The only difference, and therefore what they object to, is who the ceremony is for.

Not at all.

Judges are elected officials or appointed by a particular party. I have very little confidence that a good portion of their decisions are based on reasoned deliberation and not influenced by agendas.

In all cases? Then I submit that you issue is not with the judges but your poor view of humanity in general.

 

[Belk]

lol Ok then.

See, some of us can disagree yet maintain a sense of humor.

 

[Hentenza]

If the cake had any moral implications which they had a problem with they would not sell cakes.

Ok, thanks for explaining.

No, it is who is buying it. The cake is for a wedding. The only difference that the baker is objecting to is the people who are participating in the wedding. The baker has no objections to baking cakes for any other wedding. The only difference, and therefore what they object to, is who the ceremony is for.

I disagree with you. The cake is for a gay wedding; a type of wedding that contradicts the baker's convictions. The baker has no objections if the cake is for a wedding between a man and a woman. His objection is not with any particular persons per se but with weddings that are not between a man and a woman. His objection is general, not against the two men or two women (I don't remember which gender were involved in this particular case) who requested the cake.

In all cases? Then I submit that you issue is not with the judges but your poor view of humanity in general.

lol Not all humans are judges. Only a very small portion of humanity are judges. I do not have a poor view of humanity in general but I do have a poor view of judges in general.

 

[Hentenza]

See, some of us can disagree yet maintain a sense of humor.

Of course. I like civil conversations.

 

[Hentenza]

No, you don't. You can't put up a sign in the front window of your business that says "White People Only". What you are claiming is factually false.

This issue has nothing to do with race. Put away the race card. There are a plethora of businesses that cater to a particular cross section of Americans. A clothing company catering to skinny teens, for example, is not going to keep stock for very large women (no offense to large women).

A large portion of businesses have signs that exclude those without shoes and shirts from doing business in their establishment. I guess I could start a church called the "no shirt, no shoes" church, a spin off of the FSM church in which I see you are already a member, and sue establishments that prohibit the members of my church from entering without shoes or shirt.

A white supremist can not open a business and deny minorities entrance to that business. Your claims are factually false.

Again, race has nothing to do with this issue. Secondly, a white supremacist store stock will probably not appeal very much to minorities and the customer service would probably be lacking.

Yes, just as a person has the right to believe that black people are inferior and should not eat at the same lunch counter. However, that same person can not enforce those beliefs as a restaurant owner and refuse to serve minorities. Do you understand the difference or not? Did desegregation oppress the poor white supremists? When we required businesses to treat people fairly, was that government oppression of the racists?

Wow, you are stuck on race. Do you have a different argument? One that doesn't rely on emotional fallacies?

Do you realize that you are on the morally bankrupt side of this debate?

Nope. Your judgmentalism of those that disagree with your position betrays your lack of objectivity.

You label them "liberals" so you don't have to address their arguments.

I am addressing their arguments. Of course, a non-fallacious argument would be nice.

 

[Belk]

Ok, thanks for explaining.

Sure thing

I disagree with you. The cake is for a gay wedding; a type of wedding that contradicts the baker's convictions. The baker has no objections if the cake is for a wedding between a man and a woman. His objection is not with any particular persons per se but with weddings that are not between a man and a woman. His objection is general, not against the two men or two women (I don't remember which gender were involved in this particular case) who requested the cake.

The cake is for a wedding. The difference between this wedding and the type of weddings the baker is OK with is that the participants are homosexuals. That his objection is general (i.e. he would object to any gay couples wedding) does not change the fact that it is the sexuality of the individuals involved that is the issue. You flat out state that if the couple where heterosexual this would not have been an issue.

lol Not all humans are judges. Only a very small portion of humanity are judges. I do not have a poor view of humanity in general but I do have a poor view of judges in general.

It seems to me you have a poor view of humanities abilities to be good judges.

 

[Loudmouth]

This issue has nothing to do with race.

You claimed that a business owner can deny service based on whatever criteria they want. That is false. I am using race as the example.

There are a plethora of businesses that cater to a particular cross section of Americans. A clothing company catering to skinny teens, for example, is not going to keep stock for very large women (no offense to large women).

No one is saying that bakers are discriminating because they have a limited stock.

Again, race has nothing to do with this issue.

Discrimination is the issue, and racism is an example of it. You keep claiming that discrimination is allowed, but clearly it isn't.

Secondly, a white supremacist store stock will probably not appeal very much to minorities and the customer service would probably be lacking.

When you try to justify segregation, you are on the wrong side of the debate.

Wow, you are stuck on race. Do you have a different argument? One that doesn't rely on emotional fallacies?

What emotional fallacies? I am talking about discrimination, and using racism as a well understood form of discrimination.

Nope. Your judgmentalism of those that disagree with your position betrays your lack of objectivity.

It's a rather sad attempt of those practicing discrimination pretending that they are suffering from discrimination. It is a case of gays being discriminated against, plain and simple. It is no different than blacks being kicked out of restaurants.

I am addressing their arguments. Of course, a non-fallacious argument would be nice.

Pointing out the fallacies would be nicer.

 

[Sammy-San]

I think it was small minded. However, I can understand the need for test cases. If discrimination is given a pass for long periods of time then people will ask why no one spoke up earlier.



I think it has much more to do with social justice than money.



I am looking at things from a moral perspective. I am sure that you can demonstrate your obedience to biblical laws, but obedience is not the same as moral or just.



That is what this recent discussion is about. We are talking about christians wanting the right to prevent gays from doing business with them. How is that not segregation?



It is no different than not selling a cake to a mixed race couple because the baker does not believe in mixed marriages, which is illegal.

Mixed marriages do not go against what the Bible says, unlike homosexual marriages, which are sinful.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mixed marriages do not go against what the Bible says, unlike homosexual marriages, which are sinful.

Mixed marriages do go against the beliefs of some people. Since people do have these beliefs, are they justified in discriminating against them? Does having a fervent belief give you a mural justification for discriminating against other people?

 

[New Legacy]

No, I don't. I find it much more likely that Christians are breaking the law and that selling somebody a cake is neither endorsement nor participation and that religion does not give one a free pass to be a jerk.

If they are decorating it with two grooms, wording, etc, then it is. A homosexual couple could order a regular cake and no one would know. This is all about agenda.

 

[Sammy-San]

Mixed marriages do go against the beliefs of some people. Since people do have these beliefs, are they justified in discriminating against them? Does having a fervent belief give you a mural justification for discriminating against other people?

In some situations, yes. In some situations, the only alternative to discrimination is supporting sinful behavior.

 

[Belk]

If they are decorating it with two grooms, wording, etc, then it is.

Then it is what? Participation? Since when is selling someone a product endorsement or participation in anything? It is selling them a product.

A homosexual couple could order a regular cake and no one would know. This is all about agenda.

Indeed. It is about the continued agenda of some Christians who are attempting to demand special treatment and get upset when they are refused. Your religious beliefs do not give you the right to ostracize those you do not like.

Now, that said if you want to talk that the right of free association should give you the right to not have to serve some people because you feel it morally indefensible to be forced to provide something to someone you do not wish to deal with I am all ears. But the religious argument is a no go in my opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

In some situations, yes.

So how do you decide when you can and can't discriminate?

In some situations, the only alternative to discrimination is supporting sinful behavior.

It would seem that there is another option. You could not discriminate, and still not support what you see as sinful behavior.

 

[Alithis]

Mixed marriages do go against the beliefs of some people. Since people do have these beliefs, are they justified in discriminating against them? Does having a fervent belief give you a mural justification for discriminating against other people?

does having a fervent belief for ..or against ..
excuse any one from giving account to God ?

 

[tremble]

They do have the right to refuse to participate in an activity they believe morally wrong. They quite obviously do not find baking cakes to be morally wrong. Ergo it is not the activity, it is the people who they are against.

It is, therefore, not the cake which is the issue. It is the people to whom the cake is being sold.

Hi Belk. Would it help you change your position if you saw evidence contrary to your position? Here are a couple of quotes from the baker himself;

'If it's just a birthday, I have no problem with that. My issue is that I don't want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding'.

If you continue on with the above kind of reasoning after seeing the evidence then we will know that you really are pushing an agenda and "social justice" is there just to make it sound righteous.

belk
Indeed. It is about the continued agenda of some Christians who are attempting to demand special treatment and get upset when they are refused. Your religious beliefs do not give you the right to ostracize those you do not like.

That "special treatment" is called having a conscience, in this particular case. The guy made it clear that he was willing to back other kinds of cakes for gays, just not a cake supporting gay marriage.

No one was being ostracized. They were given an explanation for why the guy didn't want to make the cake. They simply didn't like the explanation. It's like they were offended at the guy having a conscience. I believe it's a reaction on their part. For so long gays have been treated badly and now they are finding a lot more support for their lifestyle. They are starting to fight back against all those years of hate and in their new found freedom to express themselves they've made a mistake and wrongly pressured someone who was not hating them.

I read another story a few days ago about a group of LGBT who visited a night club, ordered drinks, and then received a bill with a hateful message on it at the end of the night. They got their service, but still experienced hate. That's a case where I'd see no problem with bringing light to the hatred and dealing with it publicly even if just to shame the nightclub owner into take actions against those who did the hating. No one should be hated.

But read the stories about the cake baker. Look at the guy's comments and quotes. There is no hate there, only a guy with a conscience.

Now, that said if you want to talk that the right of free association should give you the right to not have to serve some people because you feel it morally indefensible to be forced to provide something to someone you do not wish to deal with I am all ears. But the religious argument is a no go in my opinion.

Wait, if someone says, "I won't bake a gay wedding cake because of my views on "right of free association"" then that's okay, but if someone says, "I won't bake a gay wedding cake because of my loyalty to God" then that is wrong?

Why should faith in God be a "no go" on this issue? Is this YOUR agenda popping now?

 

[tremble]

No one is forcing christians to be bakers. If being a baker requires you to go against your convictions, then don't be a baker. Seems pretty simple to me

No one is forcing them to be bakers, but can't you see that, according to your logic, they are being forced not to bake? The guy has already said he has stopped baking all wedding cakes as a result of all this fighting. It's either, bake against your conscience or don't bake at all. Is that the legacy you want for the gay community?

That is what this recent discussion is about. We are talking about christians wanting the right to prevent gays from doing business with them. How is that not segregation?

Much like belk, you've missed vital evidence which could likely change your opinion.

Here is what the baker said;

'If it's just a birthday, I have no problem with that. My issue is that I don't want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding'.

This is not a guy refusing to deal with gays. This is a guy who has a reason for why he does not want to bake a specific kind of cake. It's not "being" gay which he has a problem with. It is supporting gay marriage that he has a problem with. There is a distinction there which you either do not want to see or cannot see, probably because of your fervour for the issue.

It is no different than not selling a cake to a mixed race couple because the baker does not believe in mixed marriages, which is illegal.

Are you aware that this guy's refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding is based on teaching from his holy book? Are you aware of what that holy book is? Have you ever read that holy book? Do you know what other teachings are or are not in that holy book?

Are you aware of any teachings supporting racism in that book? Are you aware of any teachings against racism in that holy book?

Until you can answer those questions, you really have no grounds to make a comparison between this situation and racial segregation. They are two different issues.

No, it is who is buying it. The cake is for a wedding. The only difference that the baker is objecting to is the people who are participating in the wedding. The baker has no objections to baking cakes for any other wedding. The only difference, and therefore what they object to, is who the ceremony is for.

It's not "who is buying it". It's the occasion for which the cake will be used. For example, if a heterosexual walked into the shop and explained that he wanted a cake for his gay friends wedding, I'm quite certain the baker would still refuse.

People keep saying that, but you're too busy feeling offended to hear it. You seem to see this situation as the front-lines of the war for social justice, but it's a misfire. You got the wrong guy. I believe you have good intentions, but all you've really done is to show how the law can be manipulated to force people to act against their conscience.

Now you've opened the door to people who do not have good intentions to abuse the precedent further.

It would seem that there is another option. You could not discriminate, and still not support what you see as sinful behavior.

Good suggestion. How do you see the cake baker applying it? How could he have avoided discrimination while still staying true to his conscience? The answer is there in the quote the guy provided (which I pasted at the start of this post). I wonder if you can see it?

 

[Belk]

Hi Belk. Would it help you change your position if you saw evidence contrary to your position? Here are a couple of quotes from the baker himself;

'If it's just a birthday, I have no problem with that. My issue is that I don't want to be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding'.

If you continue on with the above kind of reasoning after seeing the evidence then we will know that you really are pushing an agenda and "social justice" is there just to make it sound righteous.

You will know nothing of the sort. First off he was not being forced to participate in any wedding. He was being asked to provide a cake for a wedding which is a service he provides to the public. Secondly, simply because he was willing to provide other services does not stop this one time from being a case of illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That "special treatment" is called having a conscience, in this particular case. The guy made it clear that he was willing to back other kinds of cakes for gays, just not a cake supporting gay marriage.

Which is illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation. From the ruling:

The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.

No one was being ostracized. They were given an explanation for why the guy didn't want to make the cake. They simply didn't like the explanation. It's like they were offended at the guy having a conscience. I believe it's a reaction on their part. For so long gays have been treated badly and now they are finding a lot more support for their lifestyle. They are starting to fight back against all those years of hate and in their new found freedom to express themselves they've made a mistake and wrongly pressured someone who was not hating them.

I read another story a few days ago about a group of LGBT who visited a night club, ordered drinks, and then received a bill with a hateful message on it at the end of the night. They got their service, but still experienced hate. That's a case where I'd see no problem with bringing light to the hatred and dealing with it publicly even if just to shame the nightclub owner into take actions against those who did the hating. No one should be hated.

But read the stories about the cake baker. Look at the guy's comments and quotes. There is no hate there, only a guy with a conscience.

And, as I said, if he had couched it in those terms he would likely have a case. Unfortunately he tried to make it about his religion and that does not fly.

Wait, if someone says, "I won't bake a gay wedding cake because of my views on "right of free association"" then that's okay, but if someone says, "I won't bake a gay wedding cake because of my loyalty to God" then that is wrong?

Why should faith in God be a "no go" on this issue? Is this YOUR agenda popping now?

Very poorly stated and not really what I said, but yes. The right of free association (Not the persons views on it) would make for a much stronger legal case. The righ of religious freedom does not really apply since baking a cake is not an expression of religion. From the ruling again:

Though Phillips objected to providing the cake on religious grounds, the ALJ pointed out that baking a cake is not actually conduct that is part of his religion. Thus, it does not qualify for exemption from regulation:

Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.​

It has nothing to do with my agenda and everything to do with what I believe to be sound reasoning. If you are going to argue with the law you should know what the law says and what is considered to be valid reasoning and what is not.

​

 

[tremble]

You will know nothing of the sort. First off he was not being forced to participate in any wedding. He was being asked to provide a cake for a wedding which is a service he provides to the public. Secondly, simply because he was willing to provide other services does not stop this one time from being a case of illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It shows that he was not discriminating against them for "being" homosexual. He was prepared to bake a birthday cake for homosexuals.

And it's a rather silly argument to say that baking a cake for a wedding is not the same as supporting the wedding. Let's pretend that you married someone and afterwards you sent out "thank-you" notices to all the people who helped make the wedding happen. Would you avoid sending a thank you to the person who baked the cake because in your mind baking a cake for a wedding is not the same as supporting the wedding?

Double standard much?

Which is illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation. From the ruling:

It's rather disappointing to see you hiding behind a ruling when there is evidence to show that it was not discrimination against being gay. The fact that he would have baked a birthday cake for them shows that just "being" gay was not the issue. The guy did not want to support gay activity.

Even judges can get it wrong sometimes. In this case, they misinterpreted the evidence.

And, as I said, if he had couched it in those terms he would likely have a case. Unfortunately he tried to make it about his religion and that does not fly.

But you don't give any reason for why his faith in God is not a good enough reason for his decision. I think it's probably because you view decisions based on faith in God as not good enough, though you have no rational reason to think that way. It doesn't need to be good enough for you or for the gay community.

The guy said it was an issue of conscience and he has evidence from his holy book to support that stand. He could not do the same if it was a case of racism.

Very poorly stated and not really what I said, but yes.

It's poorly stated and not really what you said buuuuuut...yes.

Lol, you funny guy.

The right of free association (Not the persons views on it) would make for a much stronger legal case. The righ of religious freedom does not really apply since baking a cake is not an expression of religion. From the ruling again:

Agenda much? It really depends on the content of the cake, doesn't it? That's why the guy said he'd be willing to bake a birthday cake for homosexuals, but not a cake supporting gay marriage. The clients in both cases are gays. Obviously, the discrimination is not with being gay.

The only difference the two cakes is the reason for why the cake is being made in the first place.

I will bake a birthday cake for an atheist, but I will not bake a cake for a "Jesus isn't real" party. Is the baker against atheists? No, of course not. The reason for the cake makes all the difference. I don't know why you keep refusing to see that but I suspect it's because you feel this is a really good case for the LGBT movement, getting the movement into the spotlight and showing the world that gays can eat cake too!

But it's a misfire. In your efforts to promote social justice, you've ignored crucial evidence to keep the case going.

It has nothing to do with my agenda and everything to do with what I believe to be sound reasoning.

But it is not sound reasoning. You are ignoring the fact that the guy would have baked a birthday cake for gays. You keep saying it's about discrimination against gays. The evidence shows that it was not. It was discrimination against a particular activity, which gay people just happened to be participating in.

Ask the same baker to bake a cake for an adultery party and he will almost certainly refuse. Why? Is he against heterosexuals, too? No, just against the action of adultery, like he is against the action of gay marriage. That is what the evidence shows.

If you are going to argue with the law you should know what the law says and what is considered to be valid reasoning and what is not.

The law says we have freedom to practice religion. It is against the Christian religion to participate in homosexual behaviour. There is evidence inside the Christian's holy book to support this. It is not a case of discriminating against a particular group of people so much as it is a case of trying to be loyal to the values of that religion.

This is proven by the fact that the guy would have made a birthday cake for the same two gay men who sued him for not making a wedding cake. They wanted him to support gay marriage, not just to bake any kind of cake.