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

[dianaiad]

Again: there’s no legal differentiation for “wedding.” The license and application and process are identical, no matter who’s getting married. Sounds like the guy is simply a common scofflaw.


So it’s about who he thinks can or can’t get married.


No, it’s unequal treatment, because it normalizes one set of legal and moral behaviors over others. And he’s making the rules as a member of the “normal” group.

this would be true if he were actively attempting to prevent it.

he is not.

He is simply refusing to participate.

As is his right.

 

[dianaiad]

Then why is damn near every last one of them a white, heterosexual Christian?

"damn near every last one?"

Have you taken a good look at the makeup of the US Congress, lately?

Of the 435 members of the House, and 100 members in the Senate (that's 535, btw) it turns out that considerably less than half are 'white, hetersexual Christian men." (I noticed that you didn't include women...are women suddenly not a protected class? Or is it that women are beginning to think for themselves and not necessarily marching lockstep with the Democrat/liberal agenda, so they don't count as a 'minority' any more? )

You might also notice that the majority of 'white, heterosexual Christian men" are old farts who have held their seats for quite awhile. Try checking the demographics among the more recently elected.

However you want to count this, though, even if you want to eliminate women from your animadversions, 'damn near every last one' is hardly accurate.

 

[dianaiad]

Do you really? Let’s test that:

Say a baker has a religious objection to proper handwashing; do you think they should be allowed to keep doing business with the public?

Or say that, for religious reasons, a Buddhist monastery has decided that they need to feed one of their recently-deceased monks to vultures and you live next to where they plan to do it.

(FYI - this is a real thing: 5 Insane Beliefs of the World's Major Religions | Cracked.com)

Are you on board with both of those? Or are you only interested in religious freedom for people you identify with?

Do you understand the difference between very real physical danger and a simple refusal to support someone else's religious event?

Those two examples are NOT equivalent to this, and you know it.

However, I would only ask that the monks go somewhere downwind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you understand the difference between very real physical danger and a simple refusal to support someone else's religious event?

Those two examples are NOT equivalent to this, and you know it.

I know they're not equivalent. Getting an E.coli infection from improper food handling is much more serious than just being offended by a bigot and denied a cake.

The point I was getting at - and that I think you confirmed with your answer - is that even you don't think that religious freedom is absolute.

We both agree that religious freedom has limits; we just disagree on where to draw the line.

 

[sojourner]

this would be true if he were actively attempting to prevent it.

he is not.

He is simply refusing to participate.

As is his right.

It’s the “why” that matters, and the “why” is “who.” That’s discrimination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of the 435 members of the House, and 100 members in the Senate (that's 535, btw) it turns out that considerably less than half are 'white, hetersexual Christian men." (I noticed that you didn't include women...are women suddenly not a protected class? Or is it that women are beginning to think for themselves and not necessarily marching lockstep with the Democrat/liberal agenda, so they don't count as a 'minority' any more? )

About 80% of the 115th Congress is white. 90% identify as Christian. 19% are female.

(I noticed that you didn't include women...are women suddenly not a protected class? Or is it that women are beginning to think for themselves and not necessarily marching lockstep with the Democrat/liberal agenda, so they don't count as a 'minority' any more? )

I didn't know I was required to run the gauntlet when pointing out minority status to those who harp on about "identity politics." Should I also include the fact they're also all pretty much heterosexual, cisgender, and come from wealth and privilege?

 

[dianaiad]

I know they're not equivalent. Getting an E.coli infection from improper food handling is much more serious than just being offended by a bigot and denied a cake.

The point I was getting at - and that I think you confirmed with your answer - is that even you don't think that religious freedom is absolute.

We both agree that religious freedom has limits; we just disagree on where to draw the line.

Draw the line here: where there is a possibility of harm to someone who has not consented to participate, that's where you draw the line.

That takes care of infant sacrifices, not washing one's hands, upwind messy burial ceremonies, and forcing people to bake cakes for your wedding just because you are gay and he's not.

See, that's the problem here: if that baker had refused to bake that cake because the prospective couple had a divorce in their background (Baker is Catholic) or refuses to do a non-Kosher cake for a 'gentile' couple, or simply because the bride (or groom or whatever) wants purple icing with puce roses, nobody would have a problem.

But because the couple is gay, THEIR rights seem to supercede all other rights. It is they who are doing the harm here.

............and I say again; should a gay couple want me to do a cake for them, I'd happily bake one, and join in the dancing at the reception. No problem at all.

But if they so much as HINT that I don't have the right to say 'no,' that's it.

We all have the absolute RIGHT to be bigots. The rest of us might not like that, and that's a good thing. The REST of us can provide the services needed.

But I want that bigot up front and without excuse; I want to know who he is.

 

[dianaiad]

About 80% of the 115th Congress is white. 90% identify as Christian. 19% are female.

I didn't know I was required to run the gauntlet when pointing out minority status to those who harp on about "identity politics." Should I also include the fact they're also all pretty much heterosexual, cisgender, and come from wealth and privilege?

You are the one who said that 'every single damn one of them."

.....and your stats are faulty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are the one who said that 'every single damn one of them."

.....and your stats are faulty.

I never said "every single damn one of them."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

.....and your stats are faulty.

And, no, they are accurate. I did those things called "fact checking" and "research."

 

[dianaiad]

I never said "every single damn one of them."

My apologies. You actually said 'damn near every one of them."

Close enough.

 

[dianaiad]

And, no, they are accurate. I did those things called "fact checking" and "research."

CFR.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My apologies. You actually said 'damn near every one of them."

Close enough.

No, because "every single damn one" would be 100%, which without having to check everyone should know would be false, but with a statement of "damn near everyone" we can expect the statistics to show us numbers of 80%-90% of a group, especially when there are over 500 in that group.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine.

Your numbers are already wrong, so why don't you start so we can examine them and explain how you reached the false conclusion that in politics you don't want to be a white, heterosexual, male, Christian. They still dominate.

 

[sojourner]

But because the couple is gay, THEIR rights seem to supercede all other rights. It is they who are doing the harm here.

Do you know why?

Throughout history, there has been a “scapegoat du jour” — that is, some minority group without a voice, that can be demonized for some perceived difference that serves the purposes of power. That group has all the moral and ethical flotsam of society dumped on them. And when they (and others) decide that enough is enough, and the embedded power structures are challenged in order to broaden the power base to give this group an equal voice, all attention is turned to that group.

Blacks, Asians, Jews, Irish, women, handicapped, First Nations, Latino, Eastern Europeans, Muslims, Catholics — all have suffered and become the center of attention. Yes, right now the LGBTQ community holds that “honor.” Latinos are also in the hot seat. The LGBTQ community has decided that it’s had enough. All that’s being asked for is equal treatment, regardless of how others feel about them. To you it’s a cake. No big deal. They can just go somewhere else. But to them it’s HUGE! Finally, finally, finally, they obtained the right to marry. Now no one will recognize the legitimacy of it. To them, it’s a sign that they are second class citizens — not recognized as real human beings. How human can they be, if people won’t even bake them a G. D. cake??

Your last sentence only adds to that scapegoating. “‘THEY’ are doing the damage.” What damage? It’s so damaging to have to treat them like real human beings? Get lucid!

 

[Subduction Zone]

this would be true if he were actively attempting to prevent it.

he is not.

He is simply refusing to participate.

As is his right.

Making a cake is hardly "participating" .

 

[Subduction Zone]

About 80% of the 115th Congress is white. 90% identify as Christian. 19% are female.

I didn't know I was required to run the gauntlet when pointing out minority status to those who harp on about "identity politics." Should I also include the fact they're also all pretty much heterosexual, cisgender, and come from wealth and privilege?

if you are correct that puts roughly 58% as white Christian male. Though it could be higher, or even a bit lower.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

if you are correct that puts roughly 58% as white Christian male. Though it could be higher, or even a bit lower.

The sad thing, those numbers are also the most diverse Congress has ever been. It's still an extremely poor and lopsided representation of the American populace in general, but it's still the most diverse it's ever been. I don't think I need to mention which party contributed more and less to that diversity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The sad thing, those numbers are also the most diverse Congress has ever been. It's still an extremely poor and lopsided representation of the American populace in general, but it's still the most diverse it's ever been. I don't think I need to mention which party contributed more and less to that diversity.

Don't worry. The new acronym is MAWA

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don't worry. The new acronym is MAWA

What's a MAWA?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's a MAWA?

MAGA is Make America Great Again. Think about it and the sort of people that support Trump.