Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[BSM1]

Well, the oath of a doctor demands that they serve those that need their help when comes to health, which is objective in nature.

To choose who to serve becomes subjective in nature.

The slippery slope you've declared doesn't exist.

Try again...

Doctors and surgeons will treat murderers or suspected murderers that have killed police. It's not a choice. It's part of their job. They might not like it but they do not discriminate because of the power they hold for all other humans.

So... Try again...

Really? Where does it say in the oath that a doctor must help anyone who demands it? And, again, if it came to spending a wasted fifteen minutes with a junkie trying to get a fix or, during that same fifteen minutes, saving the life of someone bleeding to death who do you think the doctor should run to?

 

[BSM1]

Because as health care providers we aren't given that as an option. Some people specialize in certain ailments and populations, but if you're going through college for such a program thinking "I will not service groups x, y, and z because I don't like/agree with them," then you are in the wrong field.
Think of Doctors Without Borders. They don't give a damn. They took an oath to heal people, and that is what they do. Military medics often treat allies and enemies alike. Any healthcare provider that halfway worth a damn can put their own prejudice and biases asides for the sake of treating a human being in need. That is the focus on health care, and it should not focus on anything other than the patient/client who is in need of treatment. White or black, Muslim or Buddhist, hetero or homo, those are all secondary to the fact they are a human being in need of medical treatment.

Of course health care providers are given that choice on whom to help. Even your DWB are choosing to help someone in a another country. You chose who the help constantly. Go to any emergency room and see what choices are made. It's definitely not first come, first served. RE: my junkie analogy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not how it works, it's his business and if he wants to not perform some services at all for his religious convictions it is his choice.

The courts do not agree. Such as, it does not matter what his religious convictions are, he cannot refuse to make a cake celebrating the birthday of a black person. He can't refuse to service someone who is a veteran. He can't say no to someone celebrating their 40th birthday (or anything over that). And the EEOC has extended sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course health care providers are given that choice on whom to help. Even your DWB are choosing to help someone in a another country. You chose who the help constantly. Go to any emergency room and see what choices are made. It's definitely not first come, first served. RE: my junkie analogy.

The point was we are given no choice, option, or ability to refuse service to someone over ideological differences. Of course not every client is going to be a good fit with every clinician and vice versa, but it would unacceptable for me to refuse to work with someone who is a Conservative Christian just because they are a Conservative Christian.
As for the ER, they tend to prioritize based upon availability of staff and severity of the incident that lead to someone going to the ER. If I have a deep wound that needs stitches but the bleeding has stabilized, pretty much every heart attack patient is going to be seen before me, and for good reason.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, then clearly you agree with me that it isn't about who the customer is, but what they want. Thanks.

No, I don't agree with you, and I don't appreciate you trying to pretend I do. It is entirely about who the costumer is and the baker getting his panties in a wad.

Already dealt with this, yes it is. Along with every time you decide between two or more options.

*sigh* Let me explain it this way. In my personal life I do not seek the company of Conservative Christians. That is my own life, my own choice, my own decision. However, as an OBHP I cannot say I refuse to work with Conservative Christians. Were a client to start heckling me over my own lack of religious beliefs, then I could request the client go to another clinician, but I would have no right, liberty, or privilege to make a blanket refusal to work with Conservative Christians. I accept that as a part of my job (along with other things, such as being on call 24 hours a day), I realize I won't agree or even like everyone I'll work with, but this is the field I went to school for, and I have to accept that, put all that aside, and go do my job.
Why is it so hard for Christians to do the same? After all, their Messiah is all about peace, love, goodwill, kumbaya around the campfire, and other hippy liberal stuff.

 

[Jainarayan]

When you read them do you ask God to give you His wisdom and understanding?

No, I don’t believe God (of the Bible) has that to give.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jesus summed up the law in the NT ...

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:36-40

Those who have placed their faith in Christ have His righteousness and fulfillment of the old laws applied to their lives. They are under grace, not bound by the letter of the law...

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14

There’s still nothing there that makes it an exclusive club.

 

[InChrist]

There is a major huge difference between me preferring to not spend my time with fundamentalist Christians and if I were to refuse to work with a fundamental Christian over ideological differences. And, guess what? When it comes to hiring, there is a laundry list of categories that employers are prohibited from discriminating against. With public services, there are laws prohibiting discrimination. In a number of fields any and all discrimination is prohibited (such as, a Christian firefighter cannot refuse to serve a Satanist, Atheist, homosexual, or transsexual who's house is on fire).

There is a difference between saving lives, serving, and endorsing. The bakery guy serves everyone, including homosexuals and transsexuals, but he chooses not to endorse those behaviors by making a cake celebrating those behaviors. A firefighter will not discriminate against a satanist, atheist , homosexual, etc when it comes to putting out their house fires, but they may choose not to endorse a homosexual wedding or satanist ritual.

"In stories about this case, the mainstream media again misrepresented the fundamental issue involved. Jack Phillips did not refuse the same-sex couple or the transgender lawyer because of their sexual orientation or their transgender identity, but because he disagreed with the message they were asking him to convey."
3 Disgusting Ways the Media Twisted the Truth in the Colorado Baker Transgender Cake Story

 

[InChrist]

No, I don’t believe God (of the Bible) has that to give.

Okay, then I don't believe you can comprehend the scriptures, which claim to be God's living words, if you don't even believe God is present and alive to provide His insight and understanding.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"In stories about this case, the mainstream media again misrepresented the fundamental issue involved. Jack Phillips did not refuse the same-sex couple or the transgender lawyer because of their sexual orientation or their transgender identity, but because he disagreed with the message they were asking him to convey."

That's no different than that non-sense of "hate the sin, love the sinner." A self-righteous pat on the back to assure yourself that you really aren't discriminating because you just don't like that thing that they do....even though that thing they do is who they are and what is hated.

The bakery guy serves everyone, including homosexuals and transsexuals, but he chooses not to endorse those behaviors by making a cake celebrating those behaviors.

How is he endorsing it? Have you never noticed on a movie at the beginning it will say something to the extent "the commentary provided is not an endorsement from studio x?" And does he not know of all the artists who have had their creations be used and transformed into something other than what the artist intended? Do you think Metallica wrote the song Fuel with the intention of being used in a car commercial? John Lennon certainly didn't intend Michael Jackson to use Beetle's songs like he did. But when it leaves the artist's hands, the artist has no control over how their creation is used. If someone buys a doll of Trump, the person who made it has no control over the purchaser of the doll using it an alter piece or burning effigy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay, then I don't believe you can comprehend the scriptures, which claim to be God's living words, if you don't even believe God is present and alive to provide His insight and understanding.

Oh, he believes in god alright. Just not your god.

 

[InChrist]

There’s still nothing there that makes it an exclusive club.

It's not a club, it's the body of Christ made up of all born again believers...

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. Romans 7:4

 

[InChrist]

That's no different than that non-sense of "hate the sin, love the sinner." A self-righteous pat on the back to assure yourself that you really aren't discriminating because you just don't like that thing that they do....even though that thing they do is who they are and what is hated.

That's like saying a parent hates their beloved son or daughter because they don't like or support their child's drug addiction, habit of stealing, or whatever the issue may be. There is a difference. One can love another and completely disagree with the behavior.

How is he endorsing it? Have you never noticed on a movie at the beginning it will say something to the extent "the commentary provided is not an endorsement from studio x?" And does he not know of all the artists who have had their creations be used and transformed into something other than what the artist intended? Do you think Metallica wrote the song Fuel with the intention of being used in a car commercial? John Lennon certainly didn't intend Michael Jackson to use Beetle's songs like he did. But when it leaves the artist's hands, the artist has no control over how their creation is used. If someone buys a doll of Trump, the person who made it has no control over the purchaser of the doll using it an alter piece or burning effigy.

It is endorsing it because he was requested to make a custom cakes specifically designed for, first a same sex wedding, then a satanist cake, then the transgender celebration cake. The baker would have sold a generic cake to any of these customers, which would be along the lines as your examples above. But he refused to personally make custom designed cakes for things contrary to his beliefs.

 

[BSM1]

The point was we are given no choice, option, or ability to refuse service to someone over ideological differences. Of course not every client is going to be a good fit with every clinician and vice versa, but it would unacceptable for me to refuse to work with someone who is a Conservative Christian just because they are a Conservative Christian.
As for the ER, they tend to prioritize based upon availability of staff and severity of the incident that lead to someone going to the ER. If I have a deep wound that needs stitches but the bleeding has stabilized, pretty much every heart attack patient is going to be seen before me, and for good reason.

Of course you do. Many doctors will not perform an abortion of choice. And when faced with a religious sect that does not believe in blood transfusions, doctors will not give that transfusion without a court order even though it is needed immediately to save a life. Health givers constantly make choices.

 

[suncowiam]

Really? Where does it say in the oath that a doctor must help anyone who demands it? And, again, if it came to spending a wasted fifteen minutes with a junkie trying to get a fix or, during that same fifteen minutes, saving the life of someone bleeding to death who do you think the doctor should run to?

That's not to say the doctor wouldn't help both if enough time was given. You've changed the subject. It's not about prioritization when time is of the essence. It is the offering of a service. The doctor would not deny service.

 

[suncowiam]

He didn't. He's the proprietor, he's not "finding work", he's made his own. He had the personal accountability to form his own workplace where he doesn't have a boss.


Good for you, and if the potential customer had said "I want a birthday cake, this flavor with this icing" it would have been made. But, they specifically wanted this baker who is known for his strict religious convictions and that he won't do work to celebrate acts that misalign with those to be aware it was for a transition celebration.

He wasn't objecting to making a birthday cake. Full stop.


I think you need to look up what the word discriminate means. Then think about why we call illegal discrimination, illegal discrimination instead of just discrimination.


What are you talking about, discriminant is just the adjective of the verb discriminate.


I won't make arguments for positions I've never espoused. What I've said is that a creator should have freedom to discriminate in regards to what purpose he or she creates for.


Yes, I've heard your regressive position before. I'm glad I live somewhere where we've decided that forcing people out of the public sphere because we find them icky is a fundamental evil. Freedom is an amazing thing

Your argument about a creator is hypothetical and does not apply to real world situations. Because again, if you can't prove that the creator exists and that the creator wants to discriminate then you have no position in this argument.

I can go hypothetical and suggest that a creator exists but the creator does not want to discriminate. You can't disprove me so now what? Does absolutely no good in the real world does it.

 

[suncowiam]

Of course health care providers are given that choice on whom to help. Even your DWB are choosing to help someone in a another country. You chose who the help constantly. Go to any emergency room and see what choices are made. It's definitely not first come, first served. RE: my junkie analogy.

That's not the point. All will be served if their health is in question. The prioritization occurs because of who's health is more at stake. You are completely off from the subject. The emergency room will serve ALL just at different times

 

[Mister Emu]

Your argument about a creator is hypothetical and does not apply to real world situations. Because again, if you can't prove that the creator exists

What? I was saying creators, artists, painters, writers, anyone who provides customized special service, should be able to decide for what purposes they will provide such service.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I've heard your regressive position before. I'm glad I live somewhere where we've decided that forcing people out of the public sphere because we find them icky is a fundamental evil. Freedom is an amazing thing

Requiring a business to adhere to a basic level of ethics is hardly “forcing people from the public sphere because we find them icky.”

In all sorts of ways, government has limited this business’s competition and set up barriers to entry. This business benefits from this: they can charge higher prices and make larger profits than would have been the case otherwise. It’s deeply hypocritical to enjoy these limitations on freedom of others while appealing to “freedom” when complaining about the measures that are put in place to restore some balance after these market distortions.

If things were truly free, a group of people could set up shop right next to Masterpiece Cake Shop, undercut their prices, and drive them out of business. In the real world, if someone tried this, in many ways, the government will step in and stop it. Your appeal to “freedom” is hypocritical.

 

[Milton Platt]

Call me silly, but I'm pretty sure Jesus would have baked the cake and then sat down to enjoy it with it's recipient in celebration of their birthday.

Wonder how many cakes this guy has baked and decorated for gay, lesbian and transgendered and never even knew it?