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

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. It is. The first amendment was not written to protect the speech of those with whom we all agree and approve of. It is meant to protect the rights of those with whom we do NOT agree.

So you believe there is no such thing as anti-discrimination law? Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to discriminate, especially when you're talking about a public business. There are laws that exist if you wish to operate a public business, and those include anti-discrimination laws. Denial of service is not protected speech.

How? Because you don't think they should be protected? What is justifiable about refusing service to people without shirts or shoes?

Hygiene.

Consider: many cultures demand that one REMOVE one's shoes before entering a home, because shoes are just plain dirty. Some require that one don a robe or change clothing while at home, for the same reason.

Irrelevant. Denying someone service based on lack of shoes or shirts is not remotely the same thing as denying them service based on race or sexuality. For starters, the policy is applied to everyone equally, and people cannot simply "pop home and put on a different race or sexuality".

...and if that caterer only offers services to a specific religious group or a specific type of wedding? You know, like a caterer who only 'does' gay and transgendered weddings?

I'd be against that too. Got any examples?

I live in California. I can give you the websites of a bunch of 'em.

Here's one...LGBT Wedding Photographers

From the website's "about" page:
Opposite-sex weddings
We photograph opposite-sex weddings, too. Check out our sister brand C Brown Photo.
Love wins, every time.

They do a great job, but note that the famous lawsuit against the photographer in Texas was partly about the advertisements. Cindy and Sharon, here, haven't got even one 'straight' wedding in their portfolio. Not one...not even the ones that look like they MIGHT be.

Someone didn't do their research:

Wedding Photography Portfolio

And nobody has sued Cindy and Sharon. They do a good job for the clientele they prefer to serve. Kudos to them, and if anybody attempted to sue them for discrimination, the plaintiff would be laughed out of court.

Baseless and uninformed nonsense.

I could give you others. Lots of 'em.

Please do.

................and I have no problems at all with them.

Since you've already said you think that denying black people service due to the colour of their skin is acceptable, what you do or do not have a problem with is not really barometer of whether or not it is actually immoral.

.....and caterers/bakers/photographers who don't happen to carry bride/bride or groom/groom cake toppers? Baloney. Boutiques who don't sell clothes over size six DO sell purses, scarves, whatever....and those things do not depend upon the size of the customer, do they?

And they wouldn't sell those things to people over a particular size? Got any examples?

but I have personally been told that a store doesn't have 'anything I would want." and been shown the door because I was too fat, or too old. It's annoying.

Did they have something you wanted?

I would also like to say that the stores that had that policy have gone out of business. That sort of thing happens when one limits one's customer base.

Good.

Really? Remember the lawsuit against that photographer in Texas? The one who has been dragged over the coals for YEARS for refusing to 'shoot' a 'gay wedding?"

................At the time, Texas did not recognize gay weddings. The photographer got sued anyway.

Source?

Why? Because you don't like the religious beliefs of the folks doing the discriminating?

Nope. Their religion is irrelevant. If it were an atheist doing the same thing, I would be responding in exactly the same way.

They are entering into a MARRIAGE, which for some people means male/female for the purpose of procreation. It is, for them, God given and a commandment. Same sex couples simply cannot procreate 'naturally.' There is no possibility of that. To those who believe this, such a marriage is rankest blasphemy, and it is a grave sin to support it.

Their personal beliefs are irrelevant. If you claim to provide a service to an event, but sometimes that event is immoral to you and you do not wish to provide a service for it, then you should not be providing that service. It's very simple. Unless you're willing to offer wedding or birthday cakes to all people equally, in accordance with anti-discrimination law, you should not offer the service of making or selling wedding or birthday cakes.

Not the same thing. You are still conflating the event with the people participating in it. Don't do that.

You're conflating denial of service with denial of participating in an event. Again, this is nonsense.

Yes I do. It's my honor, and you don't get to tell me what that is.

Again, I repeat, you do not have to honor it. You can challenge it. I have no idea if you'd win because I have no context or understanding of the specifics, but you don't "have to" honor any such arrangement.

If the situation was the same; that is, the caterer refused to 'do' the wedding of a black or mixed race couple even though s/he does everything ELSE for that black or mixed race couple, I would be arguing for his freedom of religion and freedom to refuse.

Then you're an apologist for racism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

yes, I would. I would make this same argument. Then I would either find a better caterer for the couple, or do the work myself for them.

So you believe it is perfectly legal to deny service to black people?

It does if it is based upon the SAME THING, that is, the religious beliefs of the business owner.

But it isn't, because the goods being provided aren't religious in nature and the beliefs of the business owner are irrelevant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure in my eyes there is nothing wrong with being transgender.

But I also respect the fact that some people are homofobic and in my opinion we most tolerate them too.

Transgenders should have the right to get married if they want, and homofobic bakers should have the right to deny their products to transgenders if they what.

Tolerance if about tolerating all people, not just those who think like you.

Except denial of service isn't an issue of "tolerance". We don't "tolerate" people denying service on the basis of race, sexuality or religion for the same reason we don't "tolerate" segregated buses. You're no longer just talking about the rights of an individual selling cakes but the rights of individuals who wish to buy cakes. BOTH sets of rights need to be taken into account, and in this case, the right of the baker to his beliefs is not being infringed in any way - he is still free to practice, believe and preach whatever he chooses - but the rights of the customers - specifically, the right not to be discriminated against or denied service on unfair grounds - is being infringed.

He has the right to be homophobic, but that right does not allow him to use his business to actively discriminate against homosexuals. If you don't understand why this is different from freedom of speech, then I'm not sure what I can do to help you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You ARE aware that 'slippery slope' is a fallacious argument, right?

You are claiming that if we allow someone to exercise his religious beliefs in refusing to bake a cake (or photograph) a religious event that violates his own beliefs, that the next thing you know he's going to be kidnapping and sacrificing your kids to some pagan idol.

No, the next thing - if the “religious freedom” people get their way - is that you won’t able to access medical marijuana:

Lawsuit to block medical marijuana initiative claims measure violates Mormons’ religious freedom

The Supreme Court decision is being cited in a lawsuit to block the legalization of medical marijuana in Utah. The plaintiffs argue that if medical marijuana is legalized, it could put landlords in the situation of having to rent out to marijuana dispensaries despite the landlords’ religious objection to marijuana.

So because the LDS Church is against marijuana for their own members, they (edit: these Mormons, not the LDS Church itself) think that nobody in Utah should be allowed to smoke it, even if it would be medically beneficial.

Tell me again how they’re the side that’s supporting “freedom.”

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well pretend that a pedophile whants cake to celebrate his 10th anniversary after he raped his first girl ...... shouldn't the baker freely decide if he whants to deny the service ?

If the baker makes other people rape anniversary cakes, then no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well pretend that a pedophile whants cake to celebrate his 10th anniversary after he raped his first girl ...... shouldn't the baker freely decide if he whants to deny the service ?

Wow! I have heard people scrape bottom before but this is a new low. As the poster just before me knows, pedophilia is rape even if the child says "yes". He would have to agree to make everyone a rape case.

How about trying to limit your objections to legal events.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem here lies in the fact that it is what HE believes that counts, not what you think of his beliefs.

It's not a matter of belief but a matter of law. The same religious arguments were used in favor of racial segregation, and the law ruled it doesn't matter. Women in the work place? The law said it doesn't matter what your beliefs are. You can believe red headed people, left handed people, and those with physical handicaps are demonically possessed devil worshipers all you, the law won't allow you to refuse them and they'll require you to accommodate the handicapped to boot. You can believe those who served as infantry in the military are hell bound murderers with no redemptive qualities and you'll have nothing to do with them, but, if you bake cakes for the public, it's tough titties when it comes to your beliefs as the law prohibits discrimination against military/veteran status.

 

[leroy]

Wow! I have heard people scrape bottom before but this is a new low. As the poster just before me knows, pedophilia is rape even if the child says "yes". He would have to agree to make everyone a rape case.

How about trying to limit your objections to legal events.

Well pretend that we are talking about a pedophile who has never ever raped anyone, pretend that this pedophile limits his perversion to fantasies, and he wants a cake with “pedophilia theme.” (there is nothing illegal in this case)

Shouldn’t the baker have the right to deny the cake?

 

[leroy]

Except denial of service isn't an issue of "tolerance". We don't "tolerate" people denying service on the basis of race, sexuality or religion for the same reason we don't "tolerate" segregated buses. You're no longer just talking about the rights of an individual selling cakes but the rights of individuals who wish to buy cakes. BOTH sets of rights need to be taken into account, and in this case, the right of the baker to his beliefs is not being infringed in any way - he is still free to practice, believe and preach whatever he chooses - but the rights of the customers - specifically, the right not to be discriminated against or denied service on unfair grounds - is being infringed.

He has the right to be homophobic, but that right does not allow him to use his business to actively discriminate against homosexuals. If you don't understand why this is different from freedom of speech, then I'm not sure what I can do to help you.

sure:

The baker is not being tolerant and he is wrong. My point is that we (as external observers) should tolerate transgenders, homophobics and others that might think different than us.

What do you mean by “unfair grounds” who should decide what counts as unfair ground?

Can a baker discriminate Gays? Can he discriminate people with a different political ideology, can he discriminate pedophiles? Can he discriminate men? Can he discriminate heterosexuals, can he discriminate criminals?

What if the bakers is vegan and he is not willing to use anything other than soy milk for his cakes? Can he deny the service to someone who wants cow-milk? ........who decides in which cases can someone discriminate?

What if the baker hates Mcdonalds and you deny a service from this restaurant?

What you call “unfair grounds” might not be consider unfair by others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well pretend that we are talking about a pedophile who has never ever raped anyone, pretend that this pedophile limits his perversion to fantasies, and he wants a cake with “pedophilia theme.” (there is nothing illegal in this case)

Shouldn’t the baker have the right to deny the cake?

Try to ask for someone that is doing something legal. That you need to go to an illegal act tells us how weak your argument is.

 

[dianaiad]

No, it isn't. You need some work on your logical fallacies. The slippery slope is a statement that a small first step leads to the extreme:


Slippery slope - Wikipedia

I used an extreme where the wrong was obvious to illustrate what was wrong with this much smaller real life example. The principals are the same and I did not claim that one led to the other.

And that is precisely what you did when you equated sacrificing children to idols with refusing to bake a cake for a specific event.

Please, if a person does that he is simply taking himself too seriously. He is a baker. His job is to make cakes. If a person can't separate fantasy from his job perhaps he needs a different job.

In other words, if he doesn't agree with your beliefs then he doesn't have a right to exercise his.

By the way, your cake was made by you for your ceremony. It is an extremely bad example since you were in the ceremony, there would not have been a ceremony without you. Ironically you are much closer to a slippery slope fallacy by using your extreme than I was.

Hardly an extreme example. In fact, it's a very doable alternative...and...

And do you know what this cake was to be like? It was a simple cake with blue frosting on the outside and pink on the inside (or vice versa). What extra touches would that take?

My cake was considerably 'fancier' than that, with roses and all sorts of decorations. However, in this it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what the couple involved thinks. It doesn't matter how complicated or simple the cake is.

What matters is what the baker sincerely believes. You and I do NOT have the right to force him to abrogate his beliefs, or ....how does that go again...prohibit the free exercise of his religion simply because you think it's silly and I wouldn't have a problem making the cake. It's not OUR freedom to exercise our religious beliefs that is at stake here, is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that is precisely what you did when you equated sacrificing children to idols with refusing to bake a cake for a specific event.

No, it is not. You see you are trying to defend an illegal action by asking if the baker would make a cake for an illegal action, There is nothing illegal, or in fact even immoral about a gay wedding.. Your analogy failed right there.

In other words, if he doesn't agree with your beliefs then he doesn't have a right to exercise his.

Now now, let's not be dishonest. That is a sign that you know that you are wrong. This has nothing to do with what I believe.

Hardly an extreme example. In fact, it's a very doable alternative...and...

Yes, it is extreme. Let's try to be honest.

My cake was considerably 'fancier' than that, with roses and all sorts of decorations. However, in this it doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what the couple involved thinks. It doesn't matter how complicated or simple the cake is.

Fine, you made a pretty cake all by yourself. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

What matters is what the baker sincerely believes. You and I do NOT have the right to force him to abrogate his beliefs, or ....how does that go again...prohibit the free exercise of his religion simply because you think it's silly and I wouldn't have a problem making the cake. It's not OUR freedom to exercise our religious beliefs that is at stake here, is it?

This is where what he supposedly believes does not matter. Once again when you are in a public business to sell to the public one does not have the right to deny service to customers that are asking for a perfectly legal product.

And excessively breaking down a post is also a sign that one knows that he or she is wrong. Let's try not to "blow up" posts, okay?

 

[dianaiad]

Why wouldn't a gay marriage be a marriage in "the religious sense"? I do believe you may be unaware of what marriage was like in the Bible:

Very funny. A little over the top, but funny.

..........uh......you ARE aware that I'm a Mormon, right?

True, I'm not a polygamist. We haven't 'done that' for quite some time. However, of the four sets of great grandparents I have, three of 'em were. They did fine with it.

I believe that marriage is a vital part of our eternal lives. Male and female, together. Same sex partnerships simply don't qualify. However, those are MY beliefs, and those who don't share those beliefs certainly shouldn't be forced to abide by them.

.....and that goes for the gay couple who wants to force someone to bake a cake (or 'shoot') their wedding when that someone sincerely believes that it would be wrong for him/her to do so.

Let 'em come to me. I'll do it. Not a problem.

 

[dianaiad]

So you believe there is no such thing as anti-discrimination law? Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to discriminate, especially when you're talking about a public business. There are laws that exist if you wish to operate a public business, and those include anti-discrimination laws. Denial of service is not protected speech.

The first right mentioned in the First Amendment is NOT 'freedom of speech." It is freedom of religion, and it is the only right that is mentioned TWICE.

 

[leroy]

Try to ask for someone that is doing something legal. That you need to go to an illegal act tells us how weak your argument is.

There is nothing illegal in my example, it is not illegal to feel physical attraction towards little girls, and it is not illegal to bake a cake with a pedophile theme.

there are no victims, nobody is being raped.




So should the baker have the right to refuse to bake that cake? …yes or no?...why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very funny. A little over the top, but funny.

..........uh......you ARE aware that I'm a Mormon, right?

True, I'm not a polygamist. We haven't 'done that' for quite some time. However, of the four sets of great grandparents I have, three of 'em were. They did fine with it.

I believe that marriage is a vital part of our eternal lives. Male and female, together. Same sex partnerships simply don't qualify. However, those are MY beliefs, and those who don't share those beliefs certainly shouldn't be forced to abide by them.

.....and that goes for the gay couple who wants to force someone to bake a cake (or 'shoot') their wedding when that someone sincerely believes that it would be wrong for him/her to do so.

Let 'em come to me. I'll do it. Not a problem.

The problem is that when one goes into a public business regardless of what one believes that person cannot inflict his beliefs upon others. This is a simple concept that you should be able to understand. A person may truly believe that people of other races are inferior and not wish to do business with them. That does not matter, that person does not have that choice since by opening a public business one has agreed to sell to the public. The baker has no excuse.

But I am glad that you watched the video. Please note that in it he went way past the old Mormon concept of multiple wives.

And tell me, what would be wrong with a gay couple raising a child? Someday soon they may even be able to "have their own".

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is nothing illegal in my example, it is not illegal to feel physical attraction towards little girls, and it is not illegal to bake a cake with a pedophile theme.

there are no victims, nobody is being raped.




So should the baker have the right to refuse to bake that cake? …yes or no?...why?

Sorry, but it is still not a protected activity. This is an example of a slippery slope fallacy. Try finding a better example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first right mentioned in the First Amendment is NOT 'freedom of speech." It is freedom of religion, and it is the only right that is mentioned TWICE.

No one is impeding the person from his religion. What is being done is stopping the baker from attempting to enforce his religious beliefs upon others. You keep forgetting that he chose to enter into a business that serves the public.

 

[dianaiad]

So you believe it is perfectly legal to deny service to black people?

Depends completely upon why.

But it isn't, because the goods being provided aren't religious in nature and the beliefs of the business owner are irrelevant.

Oh, don't be silly. Weddings are religious in nature. Anybody who doesn't think so has his/her head so far up his/her politically correct armpit that they can't see anything but the need to shave.

Never mind Phelps. He's an idiot. His original claim was that it was the event he objected to, which in his mind (and in the mind of pretty much everybody else) that event IS religious in nature. He stated that he would provide services to gays for any other reason or purpose. Whether he has changed his tune on that or not since then is irrelevant to my argument here.

In fact, In California a 'wedding' requires a license and an authorized officiator. Since any clergyman can be an authorized officiator, that makes weddings religious in nature.

Here. The laws regarding solemnizing marriages in California (which is pretty typical of US laws in general)

Please note some important things here: a marriage MUST be solemnized by someone; just getting a license won't do the job. In fact, after getting a license, one must marry within 90 days or start over. This marriage doesn't HAVE to be solemnized by a clergyman. One can go to a judge, (even a bankruptcy or tax court judge) a member of congress (past or present), a city clerk, or anybody who has ever been, or is now, elected to a city or county office.

But the first people listed are CLERGY. Which makes it religious when clergy are involved, and please note this: no clergyperson may be forced to perform a wedding which violates his or her beliefs.

Now tell me: if the law cannot force the clergy to perform weddings, when performing weddings is an important part of their JOBS, how can you justify forcing a baker/photographer to 'do' a wedding which violates HIS/HER beliefs?

The thing is, gay people can, and do, marry people of the opposite sex. It's probably a very bad idea and may well result in unhappiness and even tragedy, but they CAN do that....and if they do, you can bet your cake topper that the baker/photographer would have had no problem 'doing' the wedding.

Even if one of the bridal party is gay.

 

[dianaiad]

No, the next thing - if the “religious freedom” people get their way - is that you won’t able to access medical marijuana:

Lawsuit to block medical marijuana initiative claims measure violates Mormons’ religious freedom

The Supreme Court decision is being cited in a lawsuit to block the legalization of medical marijuana in Utah. The plaintiffs argue that if medical marijuana is legalized, it could put landlords in the situation of having to rent out to marijuana dispensaries despite the landlords’ religious objection to marijuana.

So because the LDS Church is against marijuana for their own members, they (edit: these Mormons, not the LDS Church itself) think that nobody in Utah should be allowed to smoke it, even if it would be medically beneficial.

Tell me again how they’re the side that’s supporting “freedom.”

Well how nice of you to acknowledge that the church itself doesn't object.

....and how ever so slightly deceptive of you to NOT mention (as the article does) that the lawsuit was dropped.

...............btw, I happen to be on chemotherapy and my LDS bishop has already let me know that if I needed to use medical marijuana that it wouldn't be any problem at all.

Using your own prejudices against MY belief system to deflect from the discussion being held here is a rather large and smelly red herring.