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

[sojourner]

How is his refusing to bake a cake for them affecting their choice to marry in any way?

You said that if they wanted a wedding cake baked, they could have a heterosexual wedding. That’s a choice that’s dictated by how he sees things.

 

[sojourner]

...and you have a right to your opinion about this.

I repeat. This isn't about what he thinks. It's not about what I think (and I think he's wrong). It's about what HE thinks.

Jim Crow was also about what the white establishment thought, just as you’re saying this is about what the straight/cis establishment thinks. See the glaring similarity? Yet, Jim Crow was outlawed and everyone’s raising a stink over “religious freedom.” I repeat: religious freedom cannot extend to discrimination.

 

[columbus]

It should be illegal to misrepresent oneself as an ordained minister without the same qualifications.

Wouldn't that violate their religious freedom?
The problem with religion is largely the utter lack of objective standards for much of anything.
Plenty of Christians think that your unwillingness to save hellbound sinners by condemning their love life makes you unfit to be a spiritual counselor.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

They don’t object to “an event.” They do wedding cakes all the time. What they’re objecting to is the people involved in the event.

They are objecting to the event. If they were objecting to the people in the event, they wouldn't sell them donuts or cakes for other occasions. If they DO sell them things for other occasions, it's the event.

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, but you misunderstand that amendment. A person's rights are no longer guaranteed once their actions affect others. He opened a business to the public, that means he must serve the public.

Uh huh.

You seem to like to bring up my personal beliefs in an attempt to discredit my arguments.

How about this one? The CoJCoLDS owns two businesses that are 'open to the public." One of them manufactures temple garments. The other is a store that sells LDS books, and most of them have a section for the purpose of selling temple garments and white temple clothing.

In order to purchase the clothing, one must have ID that proves that one is a church member; for specific clothing, one must produce a temple recommend.

If you don't have these, you can't buy the clothing. Period.

It wasn't always that way, but before the church cracked down on this, non-members would purchase the garments for the specific purpose of mocking and desecrating them during demonstrations, usually in front of a temple or in videos.

All this is based upon religious beliefs; ours.

But the government seems to be just fine with that.

What's the difference here?

 

[dianaiad]

You seemed to think for some strange reason that there is a difference.

You infer where I did not imply.

[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 5748358, member: 63191Not quite yet. Two guys cannot have their "own" child, nor can two women. But the ability to remove the DNA from ova and spermatazoid and planting them within an egg with the DNA removed is quickly approaching.[/QUOTE]

.....and someone else has to do that. Unless the couple involved happen to be specialists in reproductive technology complete with medical degrees, of course, and even then they will always require the aid of a lab...whatever.

(shrug) More power to them.

 

[dianaiad]

False on so many levels. It is true that some weddings are religious. But by no means are all of them.

And? Even the religious ones require government license to be legitimate. That whole license thing you so conveniently ignored.

Moreover? As far as the legality of weddings are concerned, that license is all you need for most states -- the ceremony is purely symbolic.

Finally? Weddings and the entire idea of them, was created long-long LONG before yours or any other modern religion was invented by men.

Weddings are much older than religion-- so that fact alone makes your statement pretty much false across the board...

Weddings are much older than religion? That's an interesting claim. Care to prove that one?

True, in many places around the world marriages are civil unions, basically; weddings are symbolic.

.............and that means that they are (wait for it) RELIGIOUS in nature. Perhaps they don't HAVE To be, but mostly they are. The point here is about who gets to decide when it is and when it isn't.

In the case of a baker or photographer who you wish to force to service a wedding, it is what the baker or photographer thinks about it that counts.

Not about what I think. Not about what you think. Not about what the soon to be married couple thinks. It's about what the service provider thinks, when it is his service you want to compel.

Slavery is supposed to be illegal, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh huh.

You seem to like to bring up my personal beliefs in an attempt to discredit my arguments.

How about this one? The CoJCoLDS owns two businesses that are 'open to the public." One of them manufactures temple garments. The other is a store that sells LDS books, and most of them have a section for the purpose of selling temple garments and white temple clothing.

In order to purchase the clothing, one must have ID that proves that one is a church member; for specific clothing, one must produce a temple recommend.

If you don't have these, you can't buy the clothing. Period.

It wasn't always that way, but before the church cracked down on this, non-members would purchase the garments for the specific purpose of mocking and desecrating them during demonstrations, usually in front of a temple or in videos.

All this is based upon religious beliefs; ours.

But the government seems to be just fine with that.

What's the difference here?

It is your personal beliefs about the First Amendment that are incorrect. Your arguments have all been refuted.

Please provide a link when making specific claims. Claims made without evidence can be refute without any evidence.

 

[dianaiad]

The bbb handles discrimination disputes and passes them on to legal departments and puts in contact with people like the ACLU as well as handling various guideline checks but in any case, a religious objection is not grounds for discrimination. And I've fired people, personally, for not providing service for someone because they had religious tattooing they objected to. Specifically they objected to having to touch a pentacle. Not doing so would have been legitimate grounds for suit on the patiant's part.

Your beliefs. Your choice.

Your employees are obliged to adhere to your policies, or quit. That's their choice--and they made that choice when they agreed to work for you.

What's happening HERE is that service providers are being put in a position where they cannot choose.

And that is slavery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weddings are much older than religion? That's an interesting claim. Care to prove that one?

True, in many places around the world marriages are civil unions, basically; weddings are symbolic.

.............and that means that they are (wait for it) RELIGIOUS in nature. Perhaps they don't HAVE To be, but mostly they are. The point here is about who gets to decide when it is and when it isn't.

In the case of a baker or photographer who you wish to force to service a wedding, it is what the baker or photographer thinks about it that counts.

Not about what I think. Not about what you think. Not about what the soon to be married couple thinks. It's about what the service provider thinks, when it is his service you want to compel.

Slavery is supposed to be illegal, isn't it?

He did not say older than religion. He said older than modern religions.

And no, the baker cannot use his personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. Protection of minorities is legal in this country.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your beliefs. Your choice.

Your employees are obliged to adhere to your policies, or quit. That's their choice--and they made that choice when they agreed to work for you.

What's happening HERE is that service providers are being put in a position where they cannot choose.

And that is slavery.

Hardly. He voluntarily entered into a business that sells to the public. Now he wants to refuse to sell his product to specific members of the public, that is discrimination and is not protected behavior.

One's life choices have consequences. He chose to open a business. He could have found many different ways to make a living and now he does not like an aspect of doing business. Too bad.

 

[dianaiad]

Except freedom of religion doesn't matter one iota, because this man's right to practice his religion isn't being infringed in any way.

Seriously?

This man is being forced to do something that is very much against his religion, and you claim that his right to practice his religion isn't being infringed in any way?

It is against my religion to drink coffee, tea or alcohol, and it's against my religion to use tobacco. What you are saying is, essentially, that if someone came into my bakery and wanted me to make tiramisu and serve it with espresso at her coffee tasting party, and I refused, she could sue me and that this isn't infringing my right to practice my religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously?

This man is being forced to do something that is very much against his religion, and you claim that his right to practice his religion isn't being infringed in any way?

It is against my religion to drink coffee, tea or alcohol, and it's against my religion to use tobacco. What you are saying is, essentially, that if someone came into my bakery and wanted me to make tiramisu and serve it with espresso at her coffee tasting party, and I refused, she could sue me and that this isn't infringing my right to practice my religion.

When a person cannot think rationally they can't make proper analogies. The baker was not asked to do anything that he does not normally do. He was asked to make a cake with the materials that he carries at his shop. I assume that your shop would not have coffee therefore you could not make tiramisu. Your analogy fails.

 

[sojourner]

Wouldn't that violate their religious freedom?
The problem with religion is largely the utter lack of objective standards for much of anything.
Plenty of Christians think that your unwillingness to save hellbound sinners by condemning their love life makes you unfit to be a spiritual counselor.
Tom

May be. But consider that holy orders isn’t a right. Just as becoming a doctor isn’t a right.

 

[sojourner]

They are objecting to the event. If they were objecting to the people in the event, they wouldn't sell them donuts or cakes for other occasions. If they DO sell them things for other occasions, it's the event.

How can it be the event? They bake cakes for weddings all the time.
And before you answer, “a gay wedding is an event,” consider that straight and gay weddings are universally legal in this country. When a couple picks up a license application, they don’t have to specify “gay or straight.” The form is identical. It’s a marriage application. Not a gay marriage application. There is no differentiation on the license; I know, I’ve been involved with both. Marriage is marriage is marriage. Weddings are weddings are weddings. So a wedding event is a wedding event. It’s not a “gay wedding” because no such specific definition exists on the license. Therefore, the ONLY real objection MUST be against the people involved. A precedent has been set that we may not discriminate against people. The courts have determined that there’s no difference between a black marriage or a white marriage, or a Jewish marriage or a Christian marriage. Marriage is marriage.

Why should someone ask, “Is this a gay wedding I’m making a cake for?” The legal answer would be: “no, it’s a wedding you’re making a cake for, because that’s what the application and license say.”
If there were to be no names on the cake, and the best man ordered the cake under his name, and the couple’s names were Chris White and Terry Smith, the baker would never know. He’d just be baking a wedding cake like always. He does nothing different.

Until he brings the cake to the wedding, sees the couple and goes, “EWW! ICK!!” It’s the people.

So we’re left with “the baker has a religious problem with the people involved in the event.” Just as we’re ultimately left with “the landlord had a religious problem with the (black) people involved in the property rental.”

 

[sojourner]

Seriously?

This man is being forced to do something that is very much against his religion, and you claim that his right to practice his religion isn't being infringed in any way?

It is against my religion to drink coffee, tea or alcohol, and it's against my religion to use tobacco. What you are saying is, essentially, that if someone came into my bakery and wanted me to make tiramisu and serve it with espresso at her coffee tasting party, and I refused, she could sue me and that this isn't infringing my right to practice my religion.

It’s against your religion to drink coffee. Serving it is another matter.

 

[sojourner]

What's happening HERE is that service providers are being put in a position where they cannot choose.

And that is slavery

Military personnel cannot refuse direct orders. They can’t choose to fire or not fire weapons. Radio and TV broadcasters cannot choose whom to receive their signals. Airline pilots can’t choose to not carry married, homosexual psssengers. None of this is slavery; it’s expected of the job. Like baking cakes for weddings.

This man is being forced to do something that is very much against his religion, and you claim that his right to practice his religion isn't being infringed in any way?

What is it, specifically, that is very much against his religion? Does his religion require him specifically to not do business with homosexuals? Can he point to one piece of doctrine or one Bible verse expressly forbidding him to do that? If so, I’d be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, his aversion is only a personal opinion and not a religious directive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's happening HERE is that service providers are being put in a position where they cannot choose.

And that is slavery.

He’s forced to make and sell cakes? I didn’t realize.

 

[dianaiad]

He’s forced to make and sell cakes? I didn’t realize.

Isn't that what this is all about? Because one couple wants HIM to make their cake, it doesn't matter whether he has religious objections to their wedding or not, he is being forced to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't that what this is all about? Because one couple wants HIM to make their cake, it doesn't matter whether he has religious objections to their wedding or not, he is being forced to do so.

You can’t be forced to do something you do voluntarily. He always has the option to find some other line of work. It’s not like he’s been conscripted into the army to make cakes.