SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[carpedm9587]

One step at a time, OK?

It is my sincerely held religious belief that 'gay marriage' is not valid.

Does that make me a bigot?

Unfortunately, CP, yes - it does. You are basing a moral position on genetics. That is pretty much a classic case of bigotry/prejudice.

[Cow Poke]

Unfortunately, CP, yes - it does. You are basing a moral position on genetics. That is pretty much a classic case of bigotry/prejudice.

Then there's really nothing to discuss with you on this.

GLBTX+ rights, in your mind, outweigh religious liberty.

[carpedm9587]

Then there's really nothing to discuss with you on this.

GLBTX+ rights, in your mind, outweigh religious liberty.

No...they don't.

And I still have not seen anyone refute the basic argument that this is a moral position based on genetics.

[Sparko]

No.

I think an artist that voluntarily provides a service cannot discriminate against me because of my sex, my race, or my ethnicity.

So let's say a black person wants an artist to create a logo for a Black Lives Matter event and the artist refuses because he says BLM is a racist group and his brother is a cop.

Right. Keep telling yourself that.

That is your argument just saying logo instead of wedding cake.

Actually - not at all. No artist can be forced to articulate a view they find reprehensible. However, when what they "find reprehensible" is discriminatory, we have a different issue.

How do you know their true motivation? In this case you are not believing the baker and claim he is being bigoted when he claims he is not. How do you know?

[Sparko]

I'm not making the baker a bigot, Sparko. He's doing that all on his little lonesome. I'm just calling it for what it is.

nope. You are mind reading him and deciding what he was doing was bigotry. The supreme court disagreed.

[Sparko]

Unfortunately, CP, yes - it does. You are basing a moral position on genetics. That is pretty much a classic case of bigotry/prejudice.

And yet, it wasn't bigotry for the thousands of years that everyone in the world was against gay marriage. Then poof!

[carpedm9587]

So let's say a black person wants an artist to create a logo for a Black Lives Matter event and the artist refuses because he says BLM is a racist group and his brother is a cop.

That one is a tougher one for me. Some Black Lives Matter people ARE racist, but the parent organization is not. However, this is about an organization, and not about the race, sex, or ethnicity of the people trying to secure the cake. So I would have to say they are in their rights to refuse.

That is your argument just saying logo instead of wedding cake.

How do you know their true motivation? In this case you are not believing the baker and claim he is being bigoted when he claims he is not. How do you know?

Actually, you raise a good point. The baker could have simply said, "you know what, my calendar is full and I cannot take on any new clients right now," and no one would have known the actual reason was about bigotry/prejudice. I give them kudos for being honest. As for how I know - I know because he told me so.

[carpedm9587]

nope. You are mind reading him and deciding what he was doing was bigotry. The supreme court disagreed.

The supreme court ruled on the basis of the actions of the Colorado agency hearing the case, leaving the door open for the issue to arise again. I agreed with their ruling.

But even if they had said, "no - the baker was in the right," I would have disagreed with their ruling, much as you disagree with Roe v. Wade.

You're not under the illusion that everything SCOTUS does is "right" or "moral" are you?

As for reading minds - no - I don't need to read minds. I am taking the baker at his word.

[carpedm9587]

And yet, it wasn't bigotry for the thousands of years that everyone in the world was against gay marriage. Then poof!

Actually - it was. But it was not something we were sensitized to. And it was racism when we treated the native populations of the Americas and Africa as sub-human and enslaved them or killed them. But it took us centuries to realize that too.

"We always did it that way" is a poor argument.

[carpedm9587]

Then there's really nothing to discuss with you on this.

GLBTX+ rights, in your mind, outweigh religious liberty.

I've been reflecting on this comment, and realizing that you are, again, trying to read my mind. So let me tell you what actually IS in my mind.

• I do not think bigotry/prejudice can ever be defended on religious grounds.
• I do not think a religious person has any less right to free speech than anyone else.
• All rights and liberties have limits.
• I AM NOT challenging the right of religious people to HAVE this bigotry/prejudice.
• I AM challenging their right to exercise it in the public marketplace, especially when there is a simple alternative that gives the LGBTQ community its rights and preserves the religious freedom of the bakers. From my perspective, they want the right to have and follow their own moral framework and they want someone else to pay the cost.

That's the basics of my position. The reason I see it as a bigoted/prejudiced position I have already outlined. I do not believe you can base a moral position on genetics and escape the problem of bigotry/prejudice. When something is right for one person (or persons) but wrong for another, and the only difference is the genetic makeup of the participants, something is badly wrong. This observation keeps getting glossed over, ignored, or just "handwaved" away (as so many of you are so fond of saying). But it ha snot yet been actually addressed. If people cannot find another moral position that is based solely on the genetic identity of the participants, then I have to suggest that the argument against same-sex marriage and same-sex intimacy is a massive case of special pleading.

[Sparko]

That one is a tougher one for me. Some Black Lives Matter people ARE racist, but the parent organization is not. However, this is about an organization, and not about the race, sex, or ethnicity of the people trying to secure the cake. So I would have to say they are in their rights to refuse.

yet you could make the same argument that you used with the baker and said that the only reason he refused to make the logo was because the person was black and black lives matter is a black organization so he was being racist and a bigot because of "genetics"

yet in this case you accept his explanation that it was about not agreeing with the organization's principals not about the person. But in the case of the baker, you refuse to accept that he is just not agreeing with the principal of homosexual weddings being valid. the reason is that you WANT to accuse the baker of being a bigot so you don't take his word for it. This is all you.

You refuse to accept it is a "gay wedding cake" and insist it is just a wedding cake, so he has no basis to refuse to make it for anyone. I just used the same argument with the logo. It wasn't a "racist logo" it was just a logo used for racist purposes.

Actually, you raise a good point. The baker could have simply said, "you know what, my calendar is full and I cannot take on any new clients right now," and no one would have known the actual reason was about bigotry/prejudice. I give them kudos for being honest. As for how I know - I know because he told me so.

He was honest and said he was not refusing to sell to gay people. He just refused to make cakes for gay weddings.

[Sparko]

Actually - it was. But it was not something we were sensitized to. And it was racism when we treated the native populations of the Americas and Africa as sub-human and enslaved them or killed them. But it took us centuries to realize that too.

"We always did it that way" is a poor argument.

It was only bigotry to YOU, remember? Relative morality?

Not bigotry to the other billions of people living on Earth at the time.

[carpedm9587]

yet you could make the same argument that you used with the baker and said that the only reason he refused to make the logo was because the person was black and black lives matter is a black organization so he was being racist and a bigot because of "genetics"

If that was his reason, then yes - it would be bigoted and he would be wrong to refuse the cake, for exactly that reason.

yet in this case you accept his explanation that it was about not agreeing with the organization's principals not about the person. But in the case of the baker, you refuse to accept that he is just not agreeing with the principal of homosexual weddings being valid. the reason is that you WANT to accuse the baker of being a bigot so you don't take his word for it. This is all you.

No. You are free to put "gay" in front of wedding cake if you wish. You just can't use it as an excuse to discriminate. Treating a same-sex marriage as different from an opposite-sex marriage is an act of bigotry/prejudice because it is based in nothing but the sex of the two participants (genetics). The objection of the baker was to the same-sex couple marrying, hence his refusal to provide service to them. Refusing to provide service to a couple because of their sex is bigotry. Pure and simple. And he told me that was why he refused the service, so I am taking him at his word.

You refuse to accept it is a "gay wedding cake" and insist it is just a wedding cake, so he has no basis to refuse to make it for anyone. I just used the same argument with the logo. It wasn't a "racist logo" it was just a logo used for racist purposes.

Previously answered. See my previous responses.

He was honest and said he was not refusing to sell to gay people. He just refused to make cakes for gay weddings.

Yes - because the two people marrying have the same sex. Bigotry.

Even the racist, Sparko, let the black person use the "black only" bathroom. Clearly they were not racist, right. After all, they provided a bathroom.

If you provide a service for X, and refuse to provide the same service for Y solely on the basis of their genetic identify, you are engaging in bigotry and prejudice. There is simply no escaping it.

[carpedm9587]

It was only bigotry to YOU, remember? Relative morality?

Yes, it is bigotry to me. It is bigotry to a growing (and now majority) segment of our population. You may not agree. I have pointed you to the inconsistency in your own moral framework. You reject bigotry on the basis of genetics in racial issues, but accept them in sexual issues. Whether or not you do something about that inconsistency is up to you. I tend to see inconsistency as an indicator of a problem. Perhaps you are different.

Not bigotry to the other billions of people living on Earth at the time.

No, it wasn't. For for all of those years, there's was the dominant moral view and it permeated our laws and our cultures. That is just now being reversed.

[Tassman]

One step at a time, OK?

It is my sincerely held religious belief that 'gay marriage' is not valid.

Does that make me a bigot?

Yes. Because you are interpreting the bible according to your pre-existing personal views and using it to justify bigotry. Pre-existing values guide interpretation of the Bible. Other Christians interpret the bible on gay marriage quite differently. E.g. Two-thirds of Catholics now support same-sex marriage, as do a similar share of white mainline Protestants (68%).

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/c...-gay-marriage/