Homosexuality

[DogmaHunter]

I feel like this whole "refusing to bake a gay wedding cake" argument is opening a can of worms.

If a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then I feel like I should be able to refuse paying taxes that will be used to support organized religion.

I am of the conviction that organized religions is immoral. I don't want to support it in any way nore should I be obligated to support it in any way.

Yet, organized religions are sponsored by the state with tax money. Money that comes straight out of my pocket.

So please explain to me why I shouldn't be exempt from paying those taxes, while a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake?

 

[Hentenza]

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.

Nah, again, the objection is against gay marriage not against individual gays. I guess we are just going to disagree. That's fine.

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

lol No, I just view the judicial system as somewhat broken and judges as not impartial. I don't have a dim view of humanity in general.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

The baker is not denying service based on race. Race is not part of this discussion.

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

And that is not what I said.

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

There is not discrimination. The baker merely objects to gay marriage and refused service on that basis only. Race is not part of the issue.

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

I am not justifying segregation. Get off the emotional fallacy.

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

No. You are using racial discrimination to "poison the well" and appeal to emotion.

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.

Yes, there is a big difference between racial discrimination and refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Pointing out the fallacies would be nicer.

Already did.

 

[Hentenza]

I feel like this whole "refusing to bake a gay wedding cake" argument is opening a can of worms.

If a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then I feel like I should be able to refuse paying taxes that will be used to support organized religion.

I am of the conviction that organized religions is immoral. I don't want to support it in any way nore should I be obligated to support it in any way.

Yet, organized religions are sponsored by the state with tax money. Money that comes straight out of my pocket.

So please explain to me why I shouldn't be exempt from paying those taxes, while a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake?

Tax free =/= tax supported.

 

[Belk]

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

It shows nothing of the sort. Simply because he is not discriminating against them in all instances does not change the times that he is.

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?

Why would I send a thank you note to someone who I paid for a service? Do you send thank you notes to your barber for cutting your hair? Do you send a thank you note to a department store for selling you cloths? Normally we thank people who do something they are not contracted to do. Selling someone a cake does not imply endorsement of any activity other than cake commerce.

Double standard much?

No double standard at all. Selling a cake is not participation in a wedding.

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.

It is disappointing that you are unable to parse the reasoning behind the ruling and address it. Simply because someone is not discriminating against someone in all cases does not change the cases in which they are. The difference between this wedding and any other wedding is the sexual orientation of the participants.

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

They are indeed capable of being wrong. You have failed to address the reasoning behind their decision and show why it is wrong and your evidence does not show this to not be illegal discrimination.

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.

I did give a reason. Baking a cake is not a religious activity. You do not get to flout the law simply because you have a religious conviction.

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.

The people who did so had evidence from their holy book as well. That is not in any way relevant to the situation though since baking a cake is not an exercise of religion and selling a cake is not participation.

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

Lol, you funny guy.

Did you read the rest of the post where I go on to point out where your presentation of my argument was incorrect?

Agenda much?

Kindly spare me your attempts at labeling my point of view as an “agenda”. It’s redundant and superfluous since we both have agendas or we would not be arguing on opposite sides of the issue.

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.

Yes, to quite some extent it does. However since this cake had no written messages or any artistic input that could be construed as free speech it did not meet the threshold for forced speech. That the discrimination was not because of their sexuality does not logically follow, as I have addressed repeatedly.

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!

Perhaps you should ask me instead of just projecting your suspicions onto me?

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

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.

Except that your “crucial evidence” does not show what you purport it does. That the baker does not discriminate in all instances does not change the discrimination he is engaging in. Simply because the Baker is OK with homosexuals having birthdays but not having weddings does not change that he is discriminating based on sexual orientation.

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.

And you keep trying to draw a distinction by using the term “gay marriage”. It is just marriage. The fact that he is against marriage, that has gays as its participants, shows why people keep losing this argument over and over.

The law says we have freedom to practice religion. It is against the Christian religion to participate in homosexual behaviour.

No one asked him to participate in homosexual behavior. Marriage is not a homosexual behavior and no one asked him to participate.

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.

I will not dispute that many people interpret the bible to say just that. But, and I will emphasize this again, baking a cake is not an act of religious worship. You don’t get to claim that since your bible is against homosexuality you can decide to break the law against discrimination. You can ban them from your church if you wish. You can tell them that you will not officiate at their wedding. Those fall under religious protection. Providing them with goods and services does not.

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.

If I decide that I will make you a birthday cake but I will not provide you a wedding cake because you are having a “Christian wedding” does that prove I am not discriminating against because you are a Christian?

 

[Belk]

Nah, again, the objection is against gay marriage not against individual gays. I guess we are just going to disagree. That's fine.

No, the objection is against marriages in which gays are participating. Not sure why you think it would be against specific gay people.

lol No, I just view the judicial system as somewhat broken and judges as not impartial. I don't have a dim view of humanity in general.

Fair enough and I can somewhat agree that judges are not impartial no matter how hard they try or project that they try.

 

[Aldebaran]

Start a bake shop and put up a sign that says, "White People Only". See how long it is before you are successfully sued for discrimination.

When you start saying stuff like this, it becomes obvious you're not here to learn anything, but only to keep an argument going. There's no other way to explain why you would make such a statement concerning race when nothing I said--or even the subject of this thread--had anything to do with race.

You have lost all respect for the US Constitution, human rights, and equal treatment.

This response to RBPerry when he said he has lost all respect for the Surpeme Court doesn't really show that you're even trying.

When are you going to figure out that the big issue here is that Christians have the right to NOT do things that violate our conscience or beliefs, and that the constitution of the USA affirms this in the very first amendment? You may personally disagree with what Christians believe, but that's also YOUR choice, which I have to respect. But I will choose to not participate in something that is against my own conscience, and the government should not be forcing anyone to do so. It is against my own human rights, and against the constitution this country and it's laws are founded on. The SCOTUS may disagree, or may have their own agenda, but that's another matter.

 

[Alithis]

Funny how folks like to impose false accusations directly upon Christians for exercising freedom of religious practice... but seldom take up that stance in such a direct manner against Muslims .
ie.. a gay couple would go to a Christian baker and cry in protest when refused service.
But would they go to a Muslim butchery and demand they prepare pork for the same wedding?

 

[Belk]

Funny how folks like to impose false accusations directly upon Christians for exercising freedom of religious practice... but seldom take up that stance in such a direct manner against Muslims .
ie.. a gay couple would go to a Christian baker and cry in protest when refused service.
But would they go to a Muslim butchery and demand they prepare pork for the same wedding?

Do they offer pork to heterosexuals but not gays? What is with Christians thinking Muslims somehow get a free pass? Last I checked there is not a large Muslim push in the US trying to claim they can use their religious convictions to discriminate against protected minorities.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Funny how folks like to impose false accusations directly upon Christians for exercising freedom of religious practice... but seldom take up that stance in such a direct manner against Muslims .
ie.. a gay couple would go to a Christian baker and cry in protest when refused service.
But would they go to a Muslim butchery and demand they prepare pork for the same wedding?

Is this the ridiculous defence of "... But they do it too?"

ps: the muslim butcher doesn't have pork in hos shop. But that baker does have wedding cakes... You comparision is as ridiculous as your claim is.

 

[Loudmouth]

The baker is not denying service based on race. Race is not part of this discussion.

I was being told that business owners can deny services to anyone based on any criteria. Obviously, that isn't true. That is why I am using race as the example, to demonstrate that businesses owners can not deny services for whatever reasons they choose.

There is not discrimination. The baker merely objects to gay marriage and refused service on that basis only. Race is not part of the issue.

You do know that discrimination and race are not synonyms, right?

Refusing services to an entire group of people is discrimination by definition. I could just as easily use religion or sex as additional examples of discrimination.

I am not justifying segregation. Get off the emotional fallacy.

That isn't an emotional fallacy. You don't seem to know what what an emotional fallacy is. You simply whip it out when you don't want to address an argument.

You attempted to justify segregation by trying to assert that it benefitted people.

No. You are using racial discrimination to "poison the well" and appeal to emotion.

I am using it as an example of illegal discrimination to counter the claim that business owners can do whatever they want.

Yes, there is a big difference between racial discrimination and refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

And that difference is . . . ?

Already did.

Reiterating the claim is not an explanation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Funny how folks like to impose false accusations directly upon Christians for exercising freedom of religious practice... but seldom take up that stance in such a direct manner against Muslims .

I wasn't aware that baking cakes was a religious practice.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you start saying stuff like this, it becomes obvious you're not here to learn anything, but only to keep an argument going. There's no other way to explain why you would make such a statement concerning race when nothing I said--or even the subject of this thread--had anything to do with race.

In post 177 you said:

"So a bake shop owned by someone is run in the way chosen by the owner, and they can chose to do business with whomever they choose."

I am showing you that this is false. Will you admit that you were wrong?

This response to RBPerry when he said he has lost all respect for the Surpeme Court doesn't really show that you're even trying.

How is someone trying when the ignore court decisions like they mean nothing? How can someone claim they are for protecting constitutional rights, and then run away from the decisions made by courts that were given the power to make decisions by the very same constitution?

When are you going to figure out that the big issue here is that Christians have the right to NOT do things that violate our conscience or beliefs, and that the constitution of the USA affirms this in the very first amendment?

No one is forcing a single christian to open a bakery. If a christian does open a business they are expected to abide by the same laws as everyone else. If following those laws violates their conscience, then they shouldn't open that business. It really is that simple.

Also, a fervent belief has never been a valid justificiation for discrimination, as I have pointed out time and time again.

But I will choose to not participate in something that is against my own conscience, and the government should not be forcing anyone to do so. It is against my own human rights, and against the constitution this country and it's laws are founded on. The SCOTUS may disagree, or may have their own agenda, but that's another matter.

It is the SCOTUS who decides what is and isn't a violation of constitutional rights. You can't have one without the other.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nah, again, the objection is against gay marriage not against individual gays.

So it's ok to discriminate against all blacks since that is not discrimination against an individual black person?

 

[Hentenza]

So it's ok to discriminate against all blacks since that is not discrimination against an individual black person?

Again, race is not the issue here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, race is not the issue here.

Again, racism is an example of discrimination, and discrimination IS the issue.

It is claimed that as long as discrimination is not focused on an individual that it is allowable. I am showing that this is false.

 

[Hentenza]

Again, racism is an example of discrimination, and discrimination IS the issue.

It is claimed that as long as discrimination is not focused on an individual that it is allowable. I am showing that this is false.

You are poisoning the well. An example of racial discrimination proves absolutely nothing in this debate.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are poisoning the well. An example of racial discrimination proves absolutely nothing in this debate.

It proves nothing because you say so?

Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that. Why don't you forward a real argument instead of handwaving it away. Tell me why I can't use racism as a model for how we determine discrimination.

 

[Hentenza]

It proves nothing because you say so?

It proves nothing because this debate is not about racial discrimination.

Sorry, you are going to have to do better than that.

lol I don;t have to do anything at all.

Why don't you forward a real argument instead of handwaving it away.

I am not handwaving it away. You are stuck on race not me.

Tell me why I can't use racism as a model for how we determine discrimination.

Because this issue is NOT about racism. What you are trying to do is put forth an emotional argument using race to incite emotion. You are poisoning the well.

 

[Belk]

Again, race is not the issue here.

Why is it that you seem unable to deal with examples of the same logic applied to other areas? Would it help if we used religion instead of race?


is it ok to discriminate against all Christians since that is not discrimination against an individual religious person?