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

[Subduction Zone]

ad hominem attacks are not valid responses to an argument.

You do not appear to understand what an ad hominem is either. You made a poor argument. So poor it need no refutation.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who gets to define 'ethically?' Why do you get to define 'ethics' for anybody but you?

When it comes down to it, ethics come from people. Once you realize that all morals are subjective, but some are clearly superior to others, you may begin to see your errors.

 

[sojourner]

In other words, it's what the majority feels is socially acceptable that counts, not what the minority believes...and the majority rules.

er....what happens when the majority view changes, and suddenly your opinion is the minority one? Will you support that?

the constitution was not written to protect the views of the 'politically correct.' It wasn't even written to protect the innocent, the 'decent,' the 'fair,' or 'those of whose opinions we approve of generally." It was written to protect the rights of those with whom the majority DISAGREES.

Whether that is in speech or religion.

The difference has nothing to do with “what the majority wants.” This whole thing has to do with who people ARE, and why we can’t discriminate against who they ARE. Race is an identity. Gender is an identity. Nationality is an identity. Religion is an identity. Orientation is an identity. No one — majority or minority — can discriminate against someone because of their identity.

All the baker needs to know is “wedding cake.” He doesn’t need to know identities.

 

[dianaiad]

You do not appear to understand what an ad hominem is either. You made a poor argument. So poor it need no refutation.

Try again.

That, SZ, is the epitome of ad hominem. ....and a deflection.

I mean, really....you can't answer the argument so you claim it needs no refutation?

Evidently it does, and you don't have one.

 

[dianaiad]

When it comes down to it, ethics come from people. Once you realize that all morals are subjective, but some are clearly superior to others, you may begin to see your errors.

You realize that you have just supported my point, right?

 

[dianaiad]

The difference has nothing to do with “what the majority wants.” This whole thing has to do with who people ARE, and why we can’t discriminate against who they ARE. Race is an identity. Gender is an identity. Nationality is an identity. Religion is an identity. Orientation is an identity. No one — majority or minority — can discriminate against someone because of their identity.

All the baker needs to know is “wedding cake.” He doesn’t need to know identities.

that's like saying that all an Orthodox baker needs to know is 'wedding cake,' when the wedding involved is going to be anything BUT Kosher.

Sorry, but no dice. this isn't a hotel or a train. It is the personal artistic product of a person, not a corporation or a government entity.

and this person has just as many rights to his religious beliefs as the couple who wants the cake. My opinion is...the rights go to the one who has to do the 'thing.'

The couple can go elsewhere. The couple has many choices. the Baker has only two; violate his religious beliefs or...get sued, go out of business, get fined...all because he objects to making a cake for an EVENT his religion is against. In other words, the one being forced to abrogate his beliefs is the one whose freedom of religion is being violated.

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with those beliefs. It doesn't matter whether you or I would bake the cake (and you already know that I would). it only matters that we have no right to force someone to violate his religious beliefs by forcing him to do something he honestly feels is wrong.

.....and it's what HE thinks is wrong that is key here, not what you do, or I do.

Think about it; neither you nor the courts would fault this baker for refusing to cater that orgy, OR just bake a cake for it. Why? Because YOU don't think orgies are good things.

Well, neither do I, but what I think doesn't count either.

Nobody should lose his constitutional rights to his religion, or his right to freedom of speech, or any other such right, simply because he owns a business. It's just wrong.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If you own a business and someone whants to buy your products because they need them to do something that you would consider morally wrong you should have the right to deny the service. This is my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong. The law is not a vehicle for you to force others to act according to your beliefs.

If the law states thing like "you can discriminate pedophiles but you can't discriminate transgenders" you open the door to all sorts of ambiguities and cracks in the law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It only seems this way to you if you're not interested in understanding the justifications for the different stances to different things. Also, the fact you keep going back to the paedophile trope shows how weak your argument is. Gender reassignment is not inherently harmful to others; paedophilia is.

A tar-all-with-the-same-brush approach is profoundly idiotic.

There are over 500 different paraphilias imagine how impractical and long would a law be if it accounts for each one of these paraphilias.

Irrelevant as you've already decided equality law are too complicated to comprehend as it is.

 

[sojourner]

that's like saying that all an Orthodox baker needs to know is 'wedding cake,' when the wedding involved is going to be anything BUT Kosher

Sounds good to me. I don’t see a problem here. The baker can bake a kosher cake and the client will be none the wiser.

Sorry, but no dice. this isn't a hotel or a train. It is the personal artistic product of a person, not a corporation or a government entity

...Who can’t discriminate based on identity.

and this person has just as many rights to his religious beliefs as the couple who wants the cake.

But he doesn’t have the right to decide that someone’s identity isn’t worth his effort.

all because he objects to making a cake for an EVENT his religion is against

I thought we covered this. He does weddings; this is a ... wedding. So what he objects to are the people. Can’t do that.

it only matters that we have no right to force someone to violate his religious beliefs by forcing him to do something he honestly feels is wrong

The Equal Rights Amendment disagrees with you.

.....and it's what HE thinks is wrong that is key here, not what you do, or I do

So, if some business owner thinks that he’s not ok with serving blacks, that’s ok?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That, SZ, is the epitome of ad hominem. ....and a deflection.

I mean, really....you can't answer the argument so you claim it needs no refutation?

Evidently it does, and you don't have one.

Sorry, it was not. In argument when one accuses another of an "ad hominem" what that person actually means was that an ad hominem fallacy was used, and I did not do that. I did not even form an ad hominem attack, I merely made an observation. If I said "You are immoral therefore you are wrong" that would have been an adhominem. Instead I have observed poor morals on your part, but that does not automatically make you wrong.

And no, your argument was refuted. You did not seem to understand the refutation. You had to use unrealistic examples and cases of advocating illegal acts to try to make an argument. Those are failed arguments. No real refutation except for identifying them necessary. It is like many strawman arguments by creationists against evolution. Identify the strawman and the argument fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You realize that you have just supported my point, right?

Nope, too bad that you did not understand that post.

 

[dianaiad]

Sounds good to me. I don’t see a problem here. The baker can bake a kosher cake and the client will be none the wiser.


...Who can’t discriminate based on identity.


But he doesn’t have the right to decide that someone’s identity isn’t worth his effort.


I thought we covered this. He does weddings; this is a ... wedding. So what he objects to are the people. Can’t do that.


The Equal Rights Amendment disagrees with you.


So, if some business owner thinks that he’s not ok with serving blacks, that’s ok?

In all honesty? Yeah. It's ALSO OK for everybody in the neighborhood to refuse to use his services, to picket him, and to educate him as to the idiocy of his policies.

Libertarian here, remember?

I honestly believe that bigots should be allowed to be bigots 'out loud,' so we know who they are and can avoid them.

 

[dianaiad]

Nope, too bad that you did not understand that post.

Too bad that every time you are defeated in an argument, your 'go to' response is 'you didn't understand,' or something along the lines of 'I'm not wrong, you're too stupid."

I'm not buying it, SZ.

 

[sojourner]

In all honesty? Yeah. It's ALSO OK for everybody in the neighborhood to refuse to use his services, to picket him, and to educate him as to the idiocy of his policies.

Libertarian here, remember?

I honestly believe that bigots should be allowed to be bigots 'out loud,' so we know who they are and can avoid them.

All I can say is: it’s easy to say that when you’re not the one looking over her shoulder everywhere you go, enduring the constant judgment, comments, bigotry, and living with that constant, systemic abuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In all honesty? Yeah. It's ALSO OK for everybody in the neighborhood to refuse to use his services, to picket him, and to educate him as to the idiocy of his policies.

Libertarian here, remember?

I honestly believe that bigots should be allowed to be bigots 'out loud,' so we know who they are and can avoid them.

Once again you ignore history. That did not work in the south, there are many places it would not work today. That is why the rights of minorities are protected at times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too bad that every time you are defeated in an argument, your 'go to' response is 'you didn't understand,' or something along the lines of 'I'm not wrong, you're too stupid."

I'm not buying it, SZ.

No, you clearly did not "defeat" me. I explained your error to you, and at best it went over your head. You may be simply dishonest in this matter.

You made a false claim of an ad hominem attack. Yet you could not demonstrate it. I then explained why your claim failed and at best you did not understand the explanation. I will gladly go over it again.

 

[dianaiad]

All I can say is: it’s easy to say that when you’re not the one looking over her shoulder everywhere you go, enduring the constant judgment, comments, bigotry, and living with that constant, systemic abuse.

I'm a woman and a Mormon.

For crying out loud; you don't think I don't know what that's like?

Sheesh.

 

[dianaiad]

Once again you ignore history. That did not work in the south, there are many places it would not work today. That is why the rights of minorities are protected at times.

That's the problem. Which minority is being protected here?

It seems to me that we have two minorities. I object to any idea that one minority has the right to force another one to do something that is against his deepest beliefs.

 

[dianaiad]

No, you clearly did not "defeat" me. I explained your error to you, and at best it went over your head. You may be simply dishonest in this matter.

You made a false claim of an ad hominem attack. Yet you could not demonstrate it. I then explained why your claim failed and at best you did not understand the explanation. I will gladly go over it again.

Please. Don't. I have had enough condescension for one decade.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm a woman and a Mormon.

For crying out loud; you don't think I don't know what that's like?

Sheesh.

Which makes your lack of empathy rather puzzling.

Of course being a Mormon does not mean that you will be discriminated against. There are areas of high Mormon density where it is the non-Mormon's that have to worry. Though judging by your post you do not live in one of those areas. Or were you perhaps talking about how your own sect treats its members? I know that Mormonism is not quite as cultic as the Jehovah's Witnesses, but it is up there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's the problem. Which minority is being protected here?

It seems to me that we have two minorities. I object to any idea that one minority has the right to force another one to do something that is against his deepest beliefs.

Once again, when you open a business to the public you surrender certain "rights". I had my own business and there were one or two people that I would have wished did not come in my store but I never even thought of banning them. Nor would I ever tell one customer that I could sell them a product and tell another that I could not. When the baker opened a public business he lost the ability to discriminate in that fashion.