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

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I would prefer to err on the side of protecting religious freedom, exactly the way the writers of the constitution intended. You know, when they made freedom of religion not only the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but the only one mentioned TWICE?

It's not a freedom of religion issue. It's a commerce issue. The dude is free to worship and believe as he pleases. He's not allowed to have discriminatory business practices.

If he were discriminating against a racial group "because of his religion" would you be suportive?

The tl;dr? version is this: No right is absolute, and occasionally exercise of one right is directly contrary to some other right. Someone has to give way, and society has decided it should be the bigots rather than the people the bigots are against.

Frankly, I'M a bigot in a number of areas, and even I prefer to live in a society where there are checks against my baser illogical tendencies.

 

[74x12]

Of course he doesn’t. But it does illustrate how the discrimination is the same. So, you’d be down with, “I don’t wanna serve black people because Jim Crow.” That’s nice.

To be clear; since you could be misled by my previous post a little bit. I think Jim crow laws are idiotic and unsupportable, unconstitutional in the first place. They're a violation of people's rights. However I disagree a little bit with the civil rights act because it doesn't guarantee people's right to refuse service for any reason. All while supporting anti-racism on a personal level.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

To be clear; since you could be misled by my previous post a little bit. I think Jim crow laws are idiotic and unsupportable, unconstitutional in the first place. They're a violation of people's rights. However I disagree a little bit with the civil rights act because it doesn't guarantee people's right to refuse service for any reason. All while supporting anti-racism on a personal level.

No one cares about your racism on a personal level. You can be racist as you like, personally. I sure am, and there's not a darn thing anyone can do about it except me. People you're prejudiced again still need to be able to access the same services as everyone else, and not everyone has the resources to just go somewhere else. And anyway, why should they have to? Just look at the sort of behaviour you're defending here. Is that really what you think?

 

[sojourner]

....and so your opinion of what Jesus would say/do trumps theirs to the point that you feel justified in having the government enforce your view?

No, fair treatment of others trumps their beliefs when their beliefs cause unfair treatment. That is, unless you think it ought to be ok to force blacks to the back of the bus. My point was that “religious reasons” in this case are as bogus as the “religious reasons” cited during the Equal Rights Movement.

 

[sojourner]

I wouldn't be personally down with it. However I have to defend people's right to do so.

So you’re in favor of unequal treatment. That’s nice.

it's not comparable to a good Samaritan situation

Of course it is. The point of the story is “who do I have to be nice to?” The lesson is that you have to be nice to everyone — even if you disagree with them. The baker isn’t doing that.

Secondly, there is man's law and God's Law. In God's law we are obliged to be like the good Samaritan

IOW, you have to be nice to everyone, even if you disagree with them.

So the extremity of your position right now is a theocracy

No, that’s your extremity: religious position determining lawful treatment.

I agree that serving the couple is a good thing to do. However not in a way that makes you join into what you personally consider to be offensive to God

He’s not “joining in.” He’s baking a cake.

So if you can only offend a human or God; then you have to offend a human

That’s not what Jesus taught when he advocated working on the Sabbath to take care of people.

 

[sojourner]

To be clear; since you could be misled by my previous post a little bit. I think Jim crow laws are idiotic and unsupportable, unconstitutional in the first place. They're a violation of people's rights. However I disagree a little bit with the civil rights act because it doesn't guarantee people's right to refuse service for any reason. All while supporting anti-racism on a personal level.

Bigotry isn’t a legitimate reason.

 

[leroy]

No, not always. When one is in a business to serve the public one cannot pick and choose which member of the public one can sell to. Change "gay" to "black" and the illegal nature of those decisions should be obvious.

The baker is an idiot, intolerant, stupid, fool there is no question about that.

But I still think that business owners should freely if they what to provide a service or not.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The baker is an idiot, intolerant, stupid, fool there is no question about that.

But I still think that business owners should freely if they what to provide a service or not.

They are. But once they decide to provide a service, they have to provide it to everyone, overwrought straw built exceptions aside.

 

[Sir Doom]

I would prefer to err on the side of protecting religious freedom, exactly the way the writers of the constitution intended. You know, when they made freedom of religion not only the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but the only one mentioned TWICE?

I'd prefer not to err at all, of course we rarely get that option. The founding fathers didn't either. They are the same people who counted slaves as a quarter vote and females as no vote at all. Guess what? They were wrong for that so we changed it. People died to change it, actually.

The truth is the founding fathers would probably have as tough a time agreeing on this issue as we do, except they're 200+ years removed and would be shocked that the situation existed at all.

One thing they most certainly got right was that the Constitution is a living document. It is meant to be modified as time progresses to stay current with a modern worldview from then until now and on into the future. I do not believe modification should be frivolous, frequent or taken lightly in any way, but what must be must be. The times, they are a'changin'.

 

[leroy]

E


Don't put yourself in that situation? If you make wedding cakes for the public, you get to make wedding cakes for the public. If you make birthday cakes for the public, you get to make birthday cakes for the public. Nothing in his "sincerely held religious beliefs" told him to not bake the cake. His God told him to kill non-gender conforming people and his Messiah told him to be nice to them. He refuses to do neither and lost, IMHO, the "sincerely held religious beliefs" thing.

.

Well if you where a baker, and pedophile what you to bake a cake to celebrate his 10th anniversary since he raped his first little girl, would you bake that cake. Would you consider that you should be free to decide if you what to bake that cake or not?

This anti-gay baker in an intolerant idiot, but he should still be free to deny a service if it goes against his personal believes.(or for whatever other reason)

 

[leroy]

They are. But once they decide to provide a service, they have to provide it to everyone, overwrought straw built exceptions aside.

What about private schools that don’t allow male students?

Shouldn’t school owners freely decide if they what to allow just female students? Business owners have (or should have) the right to restrict their services if they want.

Richard dawkins refuses to debate with William lane creig and other theist that he considers irrational, isn’t Dawkins free to decide to accept or reject debate offers?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds like paradise to me.

But then....I DID make my own wedding cake and never even thought about going to a baker. In fact, I don't think anybody in my family has EVER gone to a baker for that.

You missed the point that going to someone else isn't necessarily a feasible option around here because options are limited, for many, many things. For many services, in this area, there is no going to someone else because there is no one else.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What about private schools that don’t allow male students?

Shouldn’t school owners freely decide if they what to allow just female students? Business owners have (or should have) the right to restrict their services if they want.

Richard dawkins refuses to debate with William lane creig and other theist that he considers irrational, isn’t Dawkins free to decide to accept or reject debate offers?

Private schools, being private, are not subject to the same rules as public businesses. Richard Dawkins isn't a public business, either.

Could you please at least try for a like with like comparison?

 

[leroy]

Private schools, being private, are not subject to the same rules as public businesses. Richard Dawkins isn't a public business, either.

Could you please at least try for a like with like comparison?

If I were to bet, I would say that the cake shop is also a private business.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If I were to bet, I would say that the cake shop is also a private business.

Apparently not, or he wouldn't have gotten into this trouble in the first place.

 

[leroy]

Apparently not, or he wouldn't have gotten into this trouble in the first place.

I am sorry English is not my first language

As far as I know “Public” means “owned by the government” are you saying that the cake shop was owned by the government?...if not, then what fundamental difference is there between private schools or Richard Dawkins and the cake shop?

 

[dianaiad]

Well, you are right. The Bible does not suggest to discriminate gays, it prescribes to stone them to death. So, we are better now, but not because of the Bible, but despite It.

However, I would be unhappy if someone does not serve me a cake because of something concerning my sexual orientation.

I make an example: suppose a mixed couple (a black and a white) are denied a marriage cake, because the owner’s holy book says that it is wrong to marry if you are not the same race (assuming that there is such a thing). After all the owner can defend himself appealing to his religious morality and conscious.

Would you condone it? If not, why not? Because your holy book is a better excuse to discriminate than his holy book?

And why would that be, since both gods have the same evidence of being true (zero)?

Who cares? This isn't about what YOU believe to be true (or not true). It's about what the business owner believes to be true. You would not be a bit happy to have the government decided that you had to, by law, (for instance) bow to a religious leader if you encounter one on a sidewalk, would you? You would feel that your freedom to disbelieve was being violated, right?

Same thing.

EXACTLY the same thing. You want to force someone who doesn't agree with you to act as if s/he does.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dianaiad]

It's not a freedom of religion issue. It's a commerce issue. The dude is free to worship and believe as he pleases. He's not allowed to have discriminatory business practices.

Baloney. It is precisely a freedom of religion issue. People do not lose their freedom of religion because they own a business.

If he were discriminating against a racial group "because of his religion" would you be suportive?

Define 'supportive." Would I shop there, use his services, give him any but really nasty references, or personally support his business in any way whatsoever? No.

Would I defend his right to be a bigot? Yes.

The tl;dr? version is this: No right is absolute, and occasionally exercise of one right is directly contrary to some other right. Someone has to give way, and society has decided it should be the bigots rather than the people the bigots are against.

Except of course that 'bigot' is a subjective, not an objective, label. It's a judgment of the majority, and today's bigot could band together with other bigots who agree with him, and then enforce HIS opinions on YOU....and you would have no recourse, no argument, to use against him.

Frankly, I'M a bigot in a number of areas, and even I prefer to live in a society where there are checks against my baser illogical tendencies.

That's...your problem. I personally would rather see a bigot be a public bigot so that I know what I'm dealing with, rather than someone who hides and does his bigotry in the dark and in secret.

If you KNOW someone is a bigot, you can avoid him, choose not to patronize his business, and let others know your opinion. If you don't know, you might well end up supporting his secret agenda and not be aware that you are doing so.

 

[dianaiad]

No, fair treatment of others trumps their beliefs when their beliefs cause unfair treatment. That is, unless you think it ought to be ok to force blacks to the back of the bus.

Buses ARE public. As in, cities with bus service only have one bus service; if you want to ride a bus, that's the one you MUST ride.

Privately owned businesses are NOT, IMO, 'public accommodations." You can choose another baker or caterer, or even do your own cake. You cannot ride your own bus.

My point was that “religious reasons” in this case are as bogus as the “religious reasons” cited during the Equal Rights Movement.

What you really mean is that religious reasons that disagree with YOUR religious opinions are bogus.

Well, they are as bogus as yours might be if 'they' got the majority vote and decided that what you believe doesn't matter as much as what they do, so you get to do what THEY want.

 

[sojourner]

Buses ARE public. As in, cities with bus service only have one bus service; if you want to ride a bus, that's the one you MUST ride.

Privately owned businesses are NOT, IMO, 'public accommodations." You can choose another baker or caterer, or even do your own cake. You cannot ride your own bus

That’s all beside the point. The point is, no one should be treated unfairly based on how someone feels about them. No one should be allowed to treat anyone unfairly based on how they feel about them.