The whole reason for not doing the cake is because they are homosexual. Why do you keep saying it's not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Judge rules in favor of Baker refusing to make cake for same sex couple.
- Thread starter David1967
- Start date
The whole reason for not doing the cake is because they are homosexual. Why do you keep saying it's not?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why this is not a clear case of discrimination. What else CAN one call it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Ummm . . . selective reasoning?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I suppose, but still, more than a bit unseemly for a judge.
I don't know.
This case seems as clear-cut to me as that of a lunch counter refusing to serve a black customer... only with the added wrinkle that the owner is saying that serving black customers a particular menu item goes against his religion.
You might be inviting internet abuse, but a lawsuit? On what grounds? The government is required to observe free speech rules, but private citizens mostly aren't.
Tom
Curious George
Veteran Member
Yeah you can tell a Trump supporter to leave your store if you want. You could even do the whole "we dont serve yer kind 'ere" shtick. In some places, however, orientation is not a protected class and LGBTQ people do face this type of discrimination. It is for that reason many feel principled law suits are very much in order when they are in an area where the law provides for orientation as a protected class.
The irony is, if people did not and had not continually discriminated against people based on orientation then orientation wouldn't be a protected class and people could discriminate based on orientation when it came to contributing services towards same sex weddings. But that wasn't the choice that was made. Many people vented and some continue to vent their hatred towards people based on their sexual orientation.
I fail to see why it is a big issue for the people being compelled to provide services. While this case is unique in that it brings up potential free speech issues, the real reason that people seem to be upset is that they believe they are being forced to contribute something to a same-sex wedding. Frankly, I see no issue there. We are dealing with state laws. States certainly have the right to dictate how business is conducted in their state. So where is the problem?
Last edited:
This ^^^^
The real problem here is that Christians have historically had license to discriminate all they wanted to. Now they feel persecuted because the right to drag bronze age ethics into the modern world isn't universally accepted.
Tom
The issue here is actually gender or sex, not orientation.
If someone would sell a product for the wedding of a bisexual couple where the couple is opposite-sex but wouldn't for the wedding of a bisexual couple where the couple is same-sex, then they aren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Someone who only wants to sell wedding cakes to straight couples wouldn't be selling a cake to that first bisexual couple either.
Discrimination against same-sex weddings is based on sex.
Curious George
Veteran Member
This seems like a weird tangent to go down.
The problem is the orientation of the event. The issue is taken because it is a same-sex wedding. That is because one person is the same sex as the person who they are marrying. That means that the issue is not with a particular sex but with a particular sex's orientation to another particular sex. Hence, orientation is the basis for the discrimination.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I don't get why you think it is acceptable to freely discriminate against people because of their political stance.
I think it's valid. To me it sounds like the old "gays have the same marriage rights as anyone else... a gay man can marry any woman he wants".
Completely missed the point.
See? You get it!
Aww... you don't get it.
An "event" doesn't have a sexual orientation. People have sexual orientations. The discrimination is based on the sex of the participants. It's discrimination based on sex:
- they don't think anyone should marry a man but a woman.
- they don't think anyone should marry a woman but a man.
It's entirely about sex.
Curious George
Veteran Member
It is entirely about the orientation of one sex to another.
I get what you are saying, I just think it is incorrect.
Curious George
Veteran Member
What? You think discussing whether it is discrimination based on sexual orientation discrimination based on orientation that is a good tangent to discuss?I think it's valid. To me it sounds like the old "gays have the same marriage rights as anyone else... a gay man can marry any woman he wants".
How is calling this discrimination based on orientation or based on the sex to which one is oriented similar to saying a gay man can marry any woman he wants?
Shad
Veteran Member
My point wasn't about the IF but the conduct verses.
Because the ignorance and bigotry are the same.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this except it seems not like what "sexual orientation" normally means.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Which one sounds like the same bigotry?