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.
See more
See less

SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    There are laws that stop you discriminating on race. but if he were happy to serve black customers and white customers the same and only objected to participating in an interracial marriage then he isn't being racist is he? Which race is he discriminating against? The whites or the blacks? It is just that particular combination he has a religious conviction about in that hypothetical.
    Weren't miscegenation laws scrapped as unconstitutional awhile back? If the baker is race x, then he's discriminating against non-x.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Weren'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 Post
        The 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.
        So 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?
        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 Post
          So 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 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.


          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 Post
            If 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.
            And you think my arguments have been about legality and not morality?

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            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.
            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.
            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 Post
              And you think my arguments have been about legality and not morality?
              It should be since you have no leg to stand on to tell anyone else what the right morality is here.


              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.
              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.

              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.
              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.

              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.
              That 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.

              So much for 'the last word' again too huh?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                It 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.
                Since no one has successfully (IMO) refuted the genetics argument...of course I return to it. It is the heart of my argument and the heart of the inconsistency made by those advocating for the baker.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                That 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.
                What you consider "handwaving" I consider pointing out that the responses have not addressed the core argument. Indeed, I have noticed that the weaker the response, the more I get accused of "didging" and "handwaving" and "dancing" and all the rest.

                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 Post
                So much for 'the last word' again too huh?
                Yeah...I meant to focus on the SCOTUS argument, and we segued back to the gay baker issue. I'll have to add this to my list of "not successful."
                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 Post
                  No 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.
                  That would be the point. You implied they were the same and I meant to show they are not.

                  Jim
                  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


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    That would be the point. You implied they were the same and I meant to show they are not.

                    Jim
                    Then 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."
                    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


                    • 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 Post
                        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.
                        But that is not the aim of these encounters - they are meant to legally harm anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
                        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 rogue06 View Post
                          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.
                          But that wouldn't be equal treatement now, would it?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            But that is not the aim of these encounters - they are meant to legally harm anyone who disagrees with their agenda.
                            No, they are meant to ensure that people are not discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, the same as they can't be discriminated against for any other reason related to their personal identity.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              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 have not seen anything in any of the reporting that suggests they were unwilling to. The reports I have read indicate the baker would not sell any wedding cake to them if it was to be used for a wedding in which two people of the same sex were marrying. I know other things have been reported in this discussion, but after the ruling I dug around and could not find any of that affirmed.
                              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 Post
                                Then let me be clear: for the purposes of determining whether or not to bake a wedding cake - they are the same.
                                This baker isn't simply a baker. The requested service isn't just mixing flour and eggs and sugar in the correct proportions. The service requested was a specialized cake where the baker invents an artistic presentation where the unique and special attributes of the couples relationship are recreated in artwork on the cake. Something which for a same-sex relationship and marriage simply is not possible to do for this baker. One can't demand that an artist create from a dry well or operate in complete violation of his principles and morals. This situation is a complete and total violation of his conscience and being. He simply is not capable of offering them the service they desire any more than the couple is capable of suddenly deciding they are no longer same-sex attracted. He could give them a 'cake'. But he could not create what they would be paying for.

                                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."
                                Well, to the technical first. The MM/FF has no natural procreation options. They can adopt a child that has another father and another mother, or in the case of FF, one of the 'mothers' can get herself artificially impregnated with sperm from a MAN and make a baby. Either way, procreation only happens with a man and a women making a baby. There are NO same-sex procreation options.

                                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.



                                Jim
                                Last 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 little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                103 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                301 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X