Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes
Collapse
X
-
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWeren't miscegenation laws scrapped as unconstitutional awhile back? If the baker is race x, then he's discriminating against non-x.
in this example, say the baker is Japanese and belongs to some purity cult who believes that races are all equal but should not mix. He serves all races equally, if two Japanese people wanted to get married, he makes them a cake, same for two black, or two white, but if a white an black want him to make them a wedding cake, and he finds mixed race weddings to be sinful, then is it racism at play? I don't think so. It is religion. He has no problem with whites or blacks. Just different races marrying. He is not discriminating against "not Japanese" he is not discriminating against white, or black. There is no law at play here, as far as I know. He isn't the one marrying them, or trying to prevent them from being married. He just doesn't want to participate in their wedding by making them a cake.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe difference is, our argument has been supported by the SCOTUS. Phillips was within his rights to refuse to make the cake for the gay couple. His religious convictions trumped their accommodation. They can't force someone to create art for a purpose he disagrees with.
You keep repeating your argument, despite SCOTUS saying you are wrong. If anyone is has a failed argument, it is you.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSo I'm going to stay with "my last word to you" on the baker/cake issue. But this post made me curious. Do you use the same argument to defend Roe vs. Wade? After all, SCOTUS says you are wrong... right?
If we were arguing the morality of abortion, I would disagree with them. Also we know a lot more about what happens in the womb from a scientific view than we did 50 years ago.
You seem to be arguing the legality of the case and insisting it is illegal discrimination despite the SCOTUS saying he was within his first amendment rights to refuse to make the cake. And you keep mocking our arguments that it was about his religion and art and not about "genetics" despite the SCOTUS saying the same thing we have been saying and none of them agreeing with your theory.
I think it is because you have glommed onto your "genetics" theory and despite what anyone says, you can't reconsider that you could be wrong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf we were arguing the legality of abortion I would have to agree it is legal based on Roe v Wade. I don't like the decision but it is what it is.
If we were arguing the morality of abortion, I would disagree with them. Also we know a lot more about what happens in the womb from a scientific view than we did 50 years ago.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou seem to be arguing the legality of the case and insisting it is illegal discrimination despite the SCOTUS saying he was within his first amendment rights to refuse to make the cake. And you keep mocking our arguments that it was about his religion and art and not about "genetics" despite the SCOTUS saying the same thing we have been saying and none of them agreeing with your theory.
I think it is because you have glommed onto your "genetics" theory and despite what anyone says, you can't reconsider that you could be wrong.
As for the genetics theory, I am absolute open to the possibility that I am wrong - as soon as someone makes a rational argument refuting the one I have put forward. So far, mostly, the responses have been assertions and attempts at insulting me. I don't know how long it will take for people to realize that there is really no insult anyone can toss at me that is going to raise my blood pressure one iota. I am interested in the arguments. As Jesus once said (and I paraphrase), "nothing a man puts into his mouth can defile him - only what comes out of his mouth." Likewise, insults reflect on the insulter - not the insulted. So focusing on the argument at hand would be far more productive.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAnd you think my arguments have been about legality and not morality?
Actually - the legal question is not decided at this point. SCOTUS took a position on the basis of the obvious discrimination the Colorado Civil Rights group was itself showing, and sidestepped the issue of the baker. My position has been about the moral position (which I thought you were responding to, since you several times referred to my "relative morality,"). I also injected "(and eventually, hopefully, legally)" in several posts.
As for the genetics theory, I am absolute open to the possibility that I am wrong - as soon as someone makes a rational argument refuting the one I have put forward.
So far, mostly, the responses have been assertions and attempts at insulting me. I don't know how long it will take for people to realize that there is really no insult anyone can toss at me that is going to raise my blood pressure one iota. I am interested in the arguments. As Jesus once said (and I paraphrase), "nothing a man puts into his mouth can defile him - only what comes out of his mouth." Likewise, insults reflect on the insulter - not the insulted. So focusing on the argument at hand would be far more productive.
So much for 'the last word' again too huh?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIt should be since you have no leg to stand on to tell anyone else what the right morality is here.
You keep saying this but that is an over simplification of what the decision is, as I have quoted to you earlier. It also addresses that he was within his first amendment rights to refuse to make the cake. And that it was art.
Except you can't even seem to consider any other view because you do your damnedest to flip everything back to genetics no matter what anyone says.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThat isn't true. We have all been very patient with you and described in excruciating detail what our view is and why. At which point you play games, handwave it all away, and repeat yourself.
And the claim that it is "not true" is simply false. Simply go back and see all of the places where the responses have not been about the argument - but have been about me as a person. As I said, I take no offense. My focus is the arguments. I just find such responses a waste of everyone's time, and a poor reflection on the responder. If you can't keep it about the argument - perhaps it's because you don't have one?
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo much for 'the last word' again too huh?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNo one argues otherwise, Jim. Indeed - that has been noted, though your use of "natural" is problematic, IMO. And the same is true of infertile couples.
They are equivalent in terms of sex if you hold the sex of the participants constant. They are different in other ways. You appear to want to reduce everything to sex and deny that there are other substantive differences in marriages (age, race, ethnicity, culture, etc.). In so doing, you are being somewhat arbitrary. You are also arbitrarily deciding that children is a MAJOR component and all of the other are MINOR differences.
I'm curious - have you ever been married?
You can make the claim - but you cannot substantiate it. Indeed, I find this kind of "what if" speculation largely pointless , so I'll leave it to you.
We've already noted, several times, that same sex marriages are not the same as opposite sex marriages. However, "not equivalent" suggests a comparison of "better" or "worse." If that is your intent, you have not made that case. If "not equivalent" merely means "has differences," that has been stipulated to.
Actually, I have noted they are different. No problem.
No. And by now I'm assuming you actually are not married. I can tell you that many (most?) people marry for love of one another, and considerations of children come later, if they come at all. You have a view of marriage that does not seem to align to reality. However, I agree it is about both. Indeed, love/relationship clearly has primacy. You need only run a simple thought experiment to see this:
- Couple A and Couple B meet, decide they would be good genetic matches, and agree to marry to breed children.
- Couple A and Couple B meet, fall in love, and decide to marry and be together for life, and mutually decide they do not want children.
- Couple A and Couple B meet, fall in love, and decide to marry and be together for life. They later decide to have children.
- Couple A and Couple B meet, fall in love, and both want to have children, so they decide to marry and be together for life.
I think most people would look at this list and see the potential for a healthy marriage relationship in all but the first one. Note that children are part of 1, 3, and 4; and love is part of 2, 3, and 4. Most people would see a marriage without children as "perfectly natural," but a marriage without love and relationship? Love is clearly a stronger gating criteria than children, which is an optional criteria for a marriage.
Ahh..so THAT's where you're going. I have already addressed this, Jim. There is no bigotry/prejudice in recognizing differences, or in honoring them in our choices. There is when the treatment of others is not related to the difference. MM, FF. MF marriages are different in many ways - most of which trace back to the sex of the participants. Because there is no basis for discriminating between individuals on the basis of sex - this discrimination is immoral. If you decide not to give an MM couple lacy negligees for their wedding gift - there is no inappropriate discrimination going on. If you decide not to make a wedding cake for an MM couple that you would make for an MF couple - you are in the world of bigotry and prejudice. There simply is no way around it.
True - and not applicable to this context. We have already seen that the idea of children CAN be removed from marriage without substantively changing the definition of marriage.
No. This is a specious distinction. An infertile couple (e.g., a woman with a hysterectomy, a woman of 70 years, a male who has had his testicles removed due to cancer, etc.), have ZERO potential for begetting children.
Correct.
It may not be one you approve of or like, Jim, but it is indeed a sexual union. It is NOT a sexual union that will produce an offspring, but then neither is the sexual union between an infertile man and/or an infertile woman.
Consummation of marriage merely means sexual intercourse has occurred. Because something has been a certain way does not establish that this is the only way it can be, or even should be.
You are pretty heavy into showing that same-sex couples cannot have biological children. I have stipulated to that multiple times now. I have agreed that MM, FF, and MF marriages are different (and shown other combinations that are likewise different). If all you wanted was for me to acknowledge the sexual differences and the impact on marriage, that seems to be accomplished.
MM, FF, and FM marriages have differences. Agreed. No problem. In MM and FF marriages, at least one of the couple will not be the biological parent of any children. Also agreed. No problem.
If that was the point you were making - I think we're in agreement and we appear to be done. If you are planning to take this observation and draw another conclusion from it, you might want to get to that part.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThat would be the point. You implied they were the same and I meant to show they are not.
JimThe ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
One would think that a same sex couple could simply put their own cake topper of two grooms or two brides on a wedding cake themselves but it all seems about forcing others to do so.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOne would think that a same sex couple could simply put their own cake topper of two grooms or two brides on a wedding cake themselves but it all seems about forcing others to do so.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut that is not the aim of these encounters - they are meant to legally harm anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOne would think that a same sex couple could simply put their own cake topper of two grooms or two brides on a wedding cake themselves but it all seems about forcing others to do so.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThen let me be clear: for the purposes of determining whether or not to bake a wedding cake - they are the same.
For the purposes of booking a wedding hall, they are the same. For the purposes of buying wedding gifts, they are (at least partially) different. For the purposes of determining how children will become part of the family, [each marriage (MM, FF, MF) has access to a differing set of procreation/family options. MF has the widest selection, FF has the same selection set minus one (coitus within the marriage). MM has the narrowest set of options. None of these differences are relevant to "should we bake a cake for them."
But to the point of showing the differences. These are cakes with two different purposes. One contains symbology that supports a heterosexual marriage, the other symbology that supports a same-sex marriage. And as we've already agreed. A same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage are not the same thing, and the cakes made are in fact also not the same thing. One violates the religious convictions of the baker. The other does not.
This is independent of any characteristic of the patrons requesting the cakes.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 06-13-2018, 11:11 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, 05-11-2024, 07:25 AM
|
23 responses
97 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by eider, 05-11-2024, 06:00 AM
|
38 responses
195 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 12:07 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-10-2024, 03:54 PM
|
14 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 03:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-10-2024, 12:05 PM
|
7 responses
64 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-10-2024, 05:10 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-09-2024, 04:14 PM
|
32 responses
200 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-11-2024, 04:50 AM
|
Comment