danivon wrote:If they were being asked to be the celebrant, then I would understand. If they were invited to attend as witnesses or just as guests, I would understand. but it's just making a cake for them. You want to equate that to abortion? Sheesh.

1. I didn't "equate" it to an abortion. I said it's morally offensive. That is the issue. Apparently, nothing is so morally offensive to you that you would ever refuse to engage in an activity. Otherwise, you would understand the principle.

2. It' not simply "making a cake" (see below).

Which means that every religion would be able to discriminate against the 'activity' if they don't like it. I would advise caution on that one if I were you.

If there is an activity they find morally offensive and is defined by their holy book in such a way, then yes, I would.

What ingredients differ between a 'normal' wedding cake and a homosexual wedding cake? It is a wedding cake. The decoration may differ, but it is made of the same stuff.

That's a pretty feeble question. I'm sure you've seen wedding cakes. So, what do you suppose might be different for a homosexual wedding cake? Maybe you need some time--take a few weeks.

Okay, let me help you: two grooms (or two brides) on the cake, the couples' names, who knows? The point is a photographer or a baker is a participant the ceremony/celebration. If that were not so, no one would ever be picky about who provided those services. The services contribute to the wedding.

If homosexuals are free to buy whatever they want, and what they want is a wedding cake from a baker that makes and sells wedding cakes...

Then, they can buy one from a baker whose conscience is not disturbed by the event.

Or that I don't believe your paranoid delusions that this is about punishing Christians (newsflash, Muslims don't tend to agree with gay marriage either) - not that I addressed them, that was all you.

Right, but so far, it's been all about Christian vendors.

This is not about punishing Christians, it's about protecting people from discrimination by religious bigotry. And there is not a law about to come along to bar Christians from running a business.

When "religious bigotry" is based on a plain understanding of the Bible, that is discrimination against religion. It's hardly surprising that you can't see that as you are not exactly a religious person.

Because no one should ever be able to refuse anyone for moral reasons:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If they were being asked to be the celebrant, then I would understand. If they were invited to attend as witnesses or just as guests, I would understand. but it's just making a cake for them. You want to equate that to abortion? Sheesh.

1. I didn't "equate" it to an abortion. I said it's morally offensive. That is the issue. Apparently, nothing is so morally offensive to you that you would ever refuse to engage in an activity. Otherwise, you would understand the principle.

You are saying both are morally offensive, and that people should be able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, just as they can refuse to be an abortionist. In what way is that not 'equating' them? You want to move 'supplying something to gay weddings' over to the same side of the line as 'not training to perform an abortion'. The latter is a clear choice any doctor can make, and never have to have the 'moral dilemma' of being asked to perform one. The former is about who to make a cake for.

2. It' not simply "making a cake" (see below).[/quote]yes it is. It is making a cake.

Which means that every religion would be able to discriminate against the 'activity' if they don't like it. I would advise caution on that one if I were you.

If there is an activity they find morally offensive and is defined by their holy book in such a way, then yes, I would.

Not all religions have holy books like that. But earlier you said it would be wrong for a Muslim to refuse to serve a jew because he's a jew - what if some Muslims equate being a practicing Jew to a morally offensive activity. How far do we let people's religious mores (whether you agree with how they arrived at them or not) to override the rights of other people?

What ingredients differ between a 'normal' wedding cake and a homosexual wedding cake? It is a wedding cake. The decoration may differ, but it is made of the same stuff.

That's a pretty feeble question. I'm sure you've seen wedding cakes. So, what do you suppose might be different for a homosexual wedding cake? Maybe you need some time--take a few weeks.

Okay, let me help you: two grooms (or two brides) on the cake, the couples' names, who knows?

Sure, Some people think mixed race marriage is wrong, morally objectionable even, and perhaps mandated by their religious belief. So if the only difference between a 'normal' wedding cake is that it has a black person and a white person are modelled on the top.

Mind you, my wedding cake did not have a white dude and a brown woman on the top, so perhaps it might have looked to such a bigot like just a 'normal' wedding cake, had they not met both of us and made their 'moral judgement' of us.

The point is a photographer or a baker is a participant the ceremony/celebration. If that were not so, no one would ever be picky about who provided those services. The services contribute to the wedding.

The photographer does have to be there. The cake maker does not. How are they really 'participating'? We are not picky about 'who' provides the service. We are picky about what they provide and how. I couldn't care less who my baker for any 'event' was, as long as they made good cake that is safe to eat and looks as I ordered it. I may base a decision on personal recommendations etc, but it's not the 'person', it's the service.

Then, they can buy one from a baker whose conscience is not disturbed by the event.

And if there are no such bakers nearby? This is re-introducing 'separate but equal', where we also found that sometimes there was not such a good choice for the 'wrong' people.

Right, but so far, it's been all about Christian vendors.

Because they are the ones who actively discriminate. It's not like people seek out Christian bakers to troll for wedding cake. No-one would care if they just kept their beliefs to themselves instead of trying to impose them on others and get the law to back them up.

And what is odd is that the legislation to allow it to be legal to discriminate is popping up all over the USA. How many actual cases have there been of people winning a lawsuit on this? I make it (a maximum of) two bakeries, a florist and a photography business. One bakery is refusing to go to reconciliation and would rather go out of business. That seems to be their choice. Fox News 21 Jan

When "religious bigotry" is based on a plain understanding of the Bible, that is discrimination against religion. It's hardly surprising that you can't see that as you are not exactly a religious person.

No, I'm not a religious person. Partly because I have seen religious bigotry being based on a 'plain understanding' of the Bible. And yes, we do discriminate against religions - based on their desired activity. Mormons are not legally allowed to commit bigamy. Orthodox Jews are not allowed to make women sit on the back of a public bus (well, not in the USA, anyway - they get to do it in Israel). Satanists are not allowed to commit human sacrifice.

So again, we have a line on what is legal, and what is not, regardless of what religious people would like to be legal / illegal. That seems reasonable to me, in a secular society.

Doctor Fate wrote:Because no one should ever be able to refuse anyone for moral reasons:

bbauska already referenced this kind of example. We already discussed it. Being a racist is not the same as getting married. Sorry.

danivon wrote:You are saying both are morally offensive, and that people should be able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, just as they can refuse to be an abortionist. In what way is that not 'equating' them?

Um, because I'm not saying they're "equal." There are similarities as both are moral issues.

yes it is. It is making a cake.

No, it's not. When people get married, they are often very particular about the cake decorations. No one gets a sheet cake at the nearest grocery store and takes it home to decorate it themselves. If that's what we were talking about, I would agree.

Why did the Christians in Colorado object? After all, if the homosexual couple just came in and bought a cake, how would the baker know it was for a homosexual wedding?

You're being disingenuous.

Not all religions have holy books like that.

Then they'd have a more difficult time making their case.

But earlier you said it would be wrong for a Muslim to refuse to serve a jew because he's a jew - what if some Muslims equate being a practicing Jew to a morally offensive activity.

That's pure whatiffery.

How far do we let people's religious mores (whether you agree with how they arrived at them or not) to override the rights of other people?

It's fairly simple. If it can be demonstrated that a reasonable interpretation of a faith's Scriptures (etc.) prohibit an activity, they should not be forced to participate in said activity. As to "how far," that's up to the courts.

Sure, Some people think mixed race marriage is wrong, morally objectionable even, and perhaps mandated by their religious belief. So if the only difference between a 'normal' wedding cake is that it has a black person and a white person are modelled on the top.

Ah, but here's where your reasoning shows its massive cracks. That marriage cannot be reasonably shown by Scripture to be morally objectionable. You lose.

And if there are no such bakers nearby? This is re-introducing 'separate but equal', where we also found that sometimes there was not such a good choice for the 'wrong' people.

More whatiffery.

Because they are the ones who actively discriminate.

Translation: they have consciences. I know that shocks you.

It's not like people seek out Christian bakers to troll for wedding cake.

How do you know that?

No-one would care if they just kept their beliefs to themselves instead of trying to impose them on others and get the law to back them up.

You've got it 100% backward. Homosexuals are using courts to force acceptance of homosexual marriage--even from vendors whose consciences are being violated.

One bakery is refusing to go to reconciliation and would rather go out of business. That seems to be their choice. Fox News 21 Jan

From your link:

The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.

It's all about "tolerance" don't you know.

No, I'm not a religious person. Partly because I have seen religious bigotry being based on a 'plain understanding' of the Bible. And yes, we do discriminate against religions - based on their desired activity. Mormons are not legally allowed to commit bigamy.

They actually stopped that more than a hundred years ago so they could join the union.

Orthodox Jews are not allowed to make women sit on the back of a public bus (well, not in the USA, anyway - they get to do it in Israel). Satanists are not allowed to commit human sacrifice.

None of those are comparable.

So again, we have a line on what is legal, and what is not, regardless of what religious people would like to be legal / illegal. That seems reasonable to me, in a secular society.

Of course you think it's reasonable. Religion must be stomped out.

This is nothing less than an assault on the First Amendment. As a person who is bigoted against Christianity, I'm not surprised you favor it.

danivon wrote:bbauska already referenced this kind of example. We already discussed it. Being a racist is not the same as getting married. Sorry.

Um, the Klansmen in the pic are getting married . . .

The hairdresser is a bigot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1027072

Doctor Fate wrote:The hairdresser is a bigot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1027072

Wow, How is this different?

DF - you post a whole bunch of hypothetical questions like kosher dleis asked to make a chhese and ham sandwich and a cartoon about a KKK couple going to a black baker and you then get prissy about 'whatiffery'?

And you top it all off by calling me a bigot who wants to stomp out all religions.

Enough.

danivon wrote:DF - you post a whole bunch of hypothetical questions like kosher dleis asked to make a chhese and ham sandwich and a cartoon about a KKK couple going to a black baker and you then get prissy about 'whatiffery'?

Fair critique. All I will say is I was trying to construct comparable scenarios, some better than others, and you were engaged in fanciful stretches.

And you top it all off by calling me a bigot who wants to stomp out all religions.

Because that is the inevitable end of your positions. If religion may not be practiced except within the home and the church, then you mean to end it.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I think I was clear in agreeing that if the advertisement were occurring this would be a problem.

So as long as the discrimination isn't publicly known, its okay?
And how do you keep the discrimination quiet? Especially when those being discriminated against make their tribulations public?
In effect, the results of making the discrimination public have already taken place. As soon as the bill became widely publicized, especially out side Arizona the general public passes a moral judgement on the law.
The market of public pressure, including the commercial repercussions feared, have spoken Bbauska. And in that way you've had exactly what you wanted. A market based decision.

Are you mandating "thought police" here Rickyp?

If the market is reacting, I am all for it. Perhaps you are supporting nothing from the government since the "market of public pressure" is in effect? There is no need for gov't legislation because of the market taking care of the problem. I think we are in agreement once again.

Doctor Fate wrote:

And you top it all off by calling me a bigot who wants to stomp out all religions.

Because that is the inevitable end of your positions. If religion may not be practiced except within the home and the church, then you mean to end it.

I never said that religion could not be practiced outside home/church. So you are misapplying your 'logic'. I just don't see why one person's religious morals should trump anyone else's rights.

For the second time,

Enough.

danivon wrote:I never said that religion could not be practiced outside home/church. So you are misapplying your 'logic'. I just don't see why one person's religious morals should trump anyone else's rights.

For the second time,

Enough.

You have said it may not be practiced in a business. That is outside home/church. I'm not misapplying anything. I'm reading what you've written.

bbauska
I

f the market is reacting, I am all for it. Perhaps you are supporting nothing from the government since the "market of public pressure" is in effect? There is no need for gov't legislation because of the market taking care of the problem. I think we are in agreement once again.

So you are agreeing with me that the proposed law has been judged morally repugnant by the recent public and business outcry against law and as such its a good thing that it will not be signed into law.

Some points

(1) While someone does not lose their right to practice religion outside the home and church when they go into the public arena their religion beliefs must be balanced against other interests (e.g non- discrimination)
(2) Since we are talking about private behavior, we are not talking about constitutional rights, but simply rules that prevent discrimination against certain groups. In other words, we are free to come up with rules that balance the freedom for someone to practice a business how they wish with the societal determination that is not fair to allow someone the freedom to deny business based on their membership in groups that society determines have importance (race, gender, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.)
(3) everyone is part of multiple groups, every time declined service the offended person could claim discrimination on the part of some group or another, so we have to be careful of which types of group we delineate for protection.
(4) In most cases we should allow people not to offer services they do not want as long as the denial is to everyone.
(5) The more the denial relates to a group rather than participation the less likely it would be upheld. A baker should not be allowed to deny selling cakes to gay people. Whether a baker can deny sellling cakes to a gay person because it is a participation in an activity prohibited by his religion is a closer call. In my opinion, if a baker sells cakes to gay people but refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because they sincerely believe their participation is prohibited by their religion, then I don't think they should have to do it. But what if they have employees who could do the cake who are not religious? What if they got out of the requirement to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple by simply not providing wedding cakes at all? We should not force people to violate their religion...but we can require that they, if they are going into the public arena to sell something, have to take reasonable alternatives that both avoid offending their religion and discriminating against suspect groups (sort of akin to the reasonable accomodation analysis with regard to the ADA).