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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Actually, all I was getting at was that the LDS Church wasn't a party to the lawsuit.

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

Come again? I read it two more times to make sure I didn't miss anything; it doesn't say anything about the lawsuit being 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.

I'm glad your bishop values compassion over doctrine.

So will you stop this?

Stop what?

You keep using your own prejudices against MY belief system to deflect from the discussion being held here.

Which has nothing at all to do with my personal religious beliefs.

I think you may be confused. That was the first time I replied to you in the whole thread, and I didn't mention your beliefs at all.

 

[dianaiad]

.....



This is where what he supposedly believes does not matter. .....

What he believes is the whole point. It's the only thing that does matter. It's what the first amendment is all about.

Oh....

and criticizing the form and manner of a post is generally a sign that the respondent can't address the subject of the post and has to go straight to the ad hominem.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, all I was getting at was that the LDS Church wasn't a party to the lawsuit.


Come again? I read it two more times to make sure I didn't miss anything; it doesn't say anything about the lawsuit being dropped.


I'm glad your bishop values compassion over doctrine.


Stop what?



I think you may be confused. That was the first time I replied to you in the whole thread, and I didn't mention your beliefs at all.

I realized that you were not who I thought I was responding to very quickly, and edited my reply to reflect that. Sorry...you were considerably faster to respond than I was to edit. (blush).

 

[Subduction Zone]

What he believes is the whole point. It's the only thing that does matter. It's what the first amendment is all about.

Oh....

and criticizing the form and manner of a post is generally a sign that the respondent can't address the subject of the post and has to go straight to the ad hominem.

Nope, once again when one enters a public business one has to put such personal beliefs aside. It is perfectly legal to hate people of other races. It is when one bases one's behaviors on those beliefs that one may run afoul of the law. The baker's personal beliefs are perfectly legal, but when he acts and treats others differently based upon those beliefs is when he runs afoul of the law. One's religious beliefs are not a valid reason for breaking the law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Actually, the first right mentioned is the right to a secular state and that no law passed will show preference or favor towards any religion (it appears again elsewhere such as banning tests of faith to hold public office) then you get to personally believe what you will then other laws (such anti-discrimination laws) come into play and those laws govern the public spheres of our lives. You can still believe whatever it is you want, but you have no right to discriminate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since any clergyman can be an authorized officiator, that makes weddings religious in nature.

I can officiate a wedding, with the marriage being official, entirely and completely sans religion.

 

[sojourner]

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.

If that happened, we’d be back to “whites only.”

 

[sojourner]

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

Unreasonable bigotry resulting in unfair treatment isn’t a right, and it doesn’t merit tolerance.

By forcing someone to participate in a religious event (a wedding) that violates his religious beliefs, YOU are forcing YOUR religious beliefs upon him and violating HIS rights

He not being asked to participate in the service. He’s baking a cake. If he bakes a cake for a birthday party, he’s not participating in the party.

The baker/photographer isn't forcing anything at all upon that gay couple. They are no worse off at a refusal than they would have been had that bakery not existed at all, are they?

Yes he is. He’s forcing marginalization on them. Yes, they are worse off, every time they’re marginalized.

....and I'm sorry, folks, but not being able to buy a wedding cake from a baker who disapproves of one's wedding doesn't qualify as physical injury

It qualifies as emotional injury.

 

[sojourner]

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

Because baking a cake isn’t the same thing as solemnizing wedding vows. The baker wasn’t “doing the wedding.”

 

[sojourner]

What he believes is the whole point. It's the only thing that does matter. It's what the first amendment is all about

What about people who believe blacks should not be rented property or granted mortgages for home ownership?

 

[leroy]

If that happened, we’d be back to “whites only.”

99.999% 0f business would never put a “whites only” sign even if it where legal to do it.

Homophobia and racism should be eradicated because people willingly decide that those ideologies are stupid, not because the law says so.

 

[leroy]

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

As far as I can tell, we are not talking about what the laws says (I am assuming that each state and country has different laws)

We are talking about what should and shouldn’t be illegal.

So answer yes or no.

Should a baker have the right to refuse to make a cake with pedophile theme? We are assuming that the pedophile is not planning to rape anyone.

 

[sojourner]

99.999% 0f business would never put a “whites only” sign even if it where legal to do it.

Homophobia and racism should be eradicated because people willingly decide that those ideologies are stupid, not because the law says so.

Were you asleep last year when Charlottesville?? I lived in the Deep South during the late 60s. I’ve heard people talk around here recently. “Should” =/= “reality.”

The county clerk who was arrested in Rowan County, KY for refusing a marriage license a few years ago still has a lot of support here. No, I’m afraid we need laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as I can tell, we are not talking about what the laws says (I am assuming that each state and country has different laws)

We are talking about what should and shouldn’t be illegal.

So answer yes or no.

Should a baker have the right to refuse to make a cake with pedophile theme? We are assuming that the pedophile is not planning to rape anyone.

I was discussing the law, but it is even worse for you if you discuss what should and what shouldn't be illegal.

You seem to be assuming that pedophilia can in any way be legal. It is not. Nor is it moral. It is perfectly fine for a person not to wish to support an illegal activity. So that would be a "No". You should realize that by definition pedophilia is rape.

 

[leroy]

I was discussing the law, but it is even worse for you if you discuss what should and what shouldn't be illegal.

You seem to be assuming that pedophilia can in any way be legal. It is not. Nor is it moral. It is perfectly fine for a person not to wish to support an illegal activity. So that would be a "No". You should realize that by definition pedophilia is rape.

pedophile:
(psychiatry) A person aged 16 years old or older who is mostly or only sexually attracted toward prepubescent children.
pedophile - Wiktionary


A pedophile is not necesairly a rapist.


It is not illegal (nor immoral) to feel a sexual attraction towards children.
One is not guilty for feeling attraction towards the incorrect people
(as long as you don´t rape anybody)


So answer Yes or No

Should the baker be free to ether accept or deny baking a cake with a pedophile theme?

 

[Subduction Zone]

pedophile:
(psychiatry) A person aged 16 years old or older who is mostly or only sexually attracted toward prepubescent children.
pedophile - Wiktionary


A pedophile is not necesairly a rapist.


It is not illegal (nor immoral) to feel a sexual attraction towards children.
One is not guilty for feeling attraction towards the incorrect people
(as long as you don´t rape anybody)


So answer Yes or No

Should the baker be free to ether accept or deny baking a cake with a pedophile theme?

Your misused dictionary definition does not support you. See if you can find your error and try again.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Your misused dictionary definition does not support you. See if you can find your error and try again.

No, they are correct. Pedophilia is not the same thing as child molestation. Pedophilia describes the desire, child molestation describes the action. Being a pedophile, which is a mental state, is not illegal.
The big difference between LGBT and @leroy example is that acting on pedophelia has tangible harms to society and LGBT doesn't (specifically child endangerment, child abuse and erosion of informed consent) Like race, sex, national origin and religion, LGBT or discriminated against for no ethical reason to hold up in a court of law. Hence why those became protected classes. You should no more be able to say no no gays or no trans as no blacks or no atheists.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, all I was getting at was that the LDS Church wasn't a party to the lawsuit.

then why bring it up at all?

Come again? I read it two more times to make sure I didn't miss anything; it doesn't say anything about the lawsuit being dropped.

At the bottom, one of the two last paragraphs.

I'm glad your bishop values compassion over doctrine.

What makes you think he was? Rather, what makes you think that his compassion wasn't doctrinal?

 

[dianaiad]

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.

the First Amendment does not protect BELIEFS. Read it carefully. It protects the FREE EXERCISE of those beliefs.

If a baker feels that he cannot, in good conscience, bake a cake for a specific wedding, then he is not abrogating anybody's rights. He is not forcing anybody to do anything against their beliefs. At most he is refusing to allow someone to force him to do something against his beliefs.

If his choice is...do the wedding or cease to do business with anybody, then that is forcing him to do the wedding; abrogating his religious rights.

That gay couple has a choice; they can get their cake elsewhere. Or not have one. Or make one themselves. It's the same choice I would have if I wanted a bakery to make a cake that is artistically repugnant to the owner, and he refuses out of sheer aesthetic disgust. THAT would be acceptable...

but refusing to bake a cake because doing so would violate his religious principles, a right guaranteed to him by the constitution?

I don't get this argument at all. It scares me, frankly.

 

[dianaiad]

And tell me, what would be wrong with a gay couple raising a child?

I don't recall saying that there was anything wrong with a gay couple raising a child.

Someday soon they may even be able to "have their own".

They can do that now, but not without considerable outside aid, and that outside aid will be required no matter how far advanced the technology gets.

And no, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that, either.