SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[carpedm9587]

I have read through all of the responses in this thread, and given them thought. I'll put my general response here, and then I believe I will generally disconnect from this discussion. It is a duplicate of a discussion already had in another venue, and I am not seeing any significant value to rehashing what has already been said beyond this post. I will monitor the discussion and read what is said. If someone asks a direct question that I have not already answered, I'll be happy to answer it.

Person A and Person B are adults who are not related to one another in any way, who are in love, and who wish to get married and be intimate with one another. Is that moral?

You will note that for most (all?) people, if one is a male and the other is a female, the answer is "yes." But if both are males or both are females, for some people the answer becomes "no." This means that the morality of the situation is being determined by the genetic coding of the people involved. You cannot escape this reality.

Now consider the same situation 60 years ago. If I had told you that one was male and one was female, but one was also black and the other white, these people too would have been told it was immoral by many. But if they were both black or both white, it would have been moral. Today we look at that and say, "why does the race of the people marrying matter? You cannot make a situation moral in one case and immoral in another simply based on the genetic coding (for race) of the people involved.

So why are these situations any different? Why is it bigotry/prejudice to declare a marriage (and intimacy) immoral on the basis of race of the participants (which is a genetically coded attribute), but it is not prejudice to do so on the basis of the sex of the participants. If you are going to be consistent - declaring an act immoral cannot be done on the basis of the genetic coding of its participants. Either these are both bigotry/prejudice - or they are neither bigotry/prejudice.

I believe it is the latter - and for Christians to say otherwise is to be inconsistent in how they define morality.

The prejudice of the bakers was not about who they were willing or not willing to sell the cake to - it was about their unwillingness to make a wedding cake based on the sex of the two people being married. It doesn't matter who you insert into the buying process. I gave the example, in a previous chain, of the restaurant owner who refuses to serve food to black people. You cannot claim they are not prejudiced and dealing with everyone equally if they refuse to sell food to a white person who is going to give it to a black person. It's not about the buyer - it's about the consumer. Whether it is a black person buying the food - or a white person buying it for a black person - if the restaurant owner is refusing to sell because it will be consumed by a black person - they are being prejudiced/bigoted.

Likewise, if a baker who sells wedding cakes is refusing to sell it because the two people getting married share common sex genes, they are being bigoted/prejudiced. You cannot "escape" by claiming they won't sell the cake to anyone - they are still discriminating against people on the basis of their sex.

That does not mean anyone is being "forced" to do labor. Bakers can bake many things. Bakers can bake many cakes. But if they bake "wedding cakes," they need to provide them to all buyers without discrimination. To do otherwise is to return us to the age when a man (or woman) could be denied service because they were black, Hispanic, a woman, a short person, or any other attribute that places the person in a class of which their membership is not optional.

It's just a wedding cake. Not a "same sex" wedding cake.

ETA: I further believe that love between two people is not conditioned on the specific equipment present between their legs. I do not recall a single place in the Christian bible where Jesus spoke out and said, "love one another - but not too much if you are of the same sex." Paul added that in his epistle.

[Yttrium]

If you are going to be consistent - declaring an act immoral cannot be done on the basis of the genetic coding of its participants. Either these are both bigotry/prejudice - or they are neither bigotry/prejudice.

I believe it is the latter - and for Christians to say otherwise is to be inconsistent in how they define morality.

Christians typically define morality based on how they believe the Bible defines morality. They believe that Paul was divinely inspired, and Paul spoke out against homosexuality. Consequently, a great many Christians are opposed to gay rights to some degree. In their view, they're not being inconsistent, because the Bible makes exceptions to general rules.

That does not mean anyone is being "forced" to do labor. Bakers can bake many things. Bakers can bake many cakes. But if they bake "wedding cakes," they need to provide them to all buyers without discrimination. To do otherwise is to return us to the age when a man (or woman) could be denied service because they were black, Hispanic, a woman, a short person, or any other attribute that places the person in a class of which their membership is not optional.

They are allowed to discriminate for a great many reasons. They don't have to bake a cake for a Nazi wedding if they don't want to. They don't have to bake a cake with the words "Trump is a Jerk!" on it if they don't want to. There are very specific situations that they can't discriminate against, as defined by law.

ETA: I further believe that love between two people is not conditioned on the specific equipment present between their legs. I do not recall a single place in the Christian bible where Jesus spoke out and said, "love one another - but not too much if you are of the same sex." Paul added that in his epistle.

For a great many Christians, both the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul are the teachings of God. There are more and more Christians who tend to view Paul's statements on homosexuality as a personal opinion rather than divinely inspired, but it's not so easy for others to accept that idea.

[thewriteranon]

Check your tags. That wasn't me.

[Cow Poke]

It's just a wedding cake. Not a "same sex" wedding cake.

A) That's just ignorant - nearly every story on the internet about this has the heading "same sex wedding cake" - Google it for yoursel
2) Were you there when the gay couple was discussing this with the baker?
C) I've overseen over a hundred weddings in my career - there is no such thing as "just a wedding cake". Almost always, there's a bride and groom on top of the cake - do you really think this gay couple would have wanted that?

ETA: I further believe that love between two people is not conditioned on the specific equipment present between their legs. I do not recall a single place in the Christian bible where Jesus spoke out and said, "love one another - but not too much if you are of the same sex." Paul added that in his epistle.

4) I'm a little surprised that somebody of your scholastic stature would try to sneak in an argument from silence.
E) Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, was no less inspired by God than were the Gospel writers. As you're probably aware, Jesus didn't write anything (except whatever that was He wrote in the dirt ) - One of the Gospel writers needed to be there to record His words.

and, finally....

X) John tells us (21:25 ESV) "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Kinda underscores the uselessness of arguing from silence with regard to Jesus when we're flat out told not everything he did (and we'd have to assume said) was recorded in the Bible.

[Joel]

Your observation here is a good one. It is not just about being "mean." It is about applying distinctions to someone based on their membership in a class that is unrelated to that class. That is the very essence of prejudice/bigotry. "I do not want to hire you to work in my office because you are black." There is nothing about being black that precludes working in the average office. On the other hand, there is nothing bigoted about the statement, "I do not want to hire you to play George Washington in my movie because you are black." George Washington was white, and if the intent is to do a historical portrayal, matching the sex and race of the character (and even the physical appearance) makes perfect sense.

So why then the distinction between biology and beliefs? Someone could refuse to hire (in an office) people who believe in Islam.

I had to think about this for a while, and I recognize what you are saying. However, you cannot get away from the reality that if someone voted for Clinton (even if it was because they didn't want Trump in office), they ultimately believed Clinton was better suited to the office than Trump. They may have wanted to vote for one of the other candidates, and did not do so because it might mean a victory for Trump - but that does not alter the fact that they ultimately decided to vote FOR Clinton, even if it was to avoid voting FOR Trump. The same is true in reverse.

I think this entire "I didn't vote for, I voted against" is just a convenient way to avoid responsibility for the choice. Trump is in office because more people voted for him (in the states that mattered) than voted for Clinton.

Sure, they should take responsibility for the fact that they thought avoiding candidate X was more important than avoiding candidate Y (and their corresponding choice). Do people in such a position deny that level of responsibility? E.g. in your example, the person who voted against Trump--and who insists that it was a vote against--presumably they don't deny that they thought Clinton was better (at least in the sense of somewhat less bad) than Trump? Or likewise in reverse?

[Cow Poke]

I had to think about this for a while, and I recognize what you are saying. However, you cannot get away from the reality that if someone voted for Clinton (even if it was because they didn't want Trump in office), they ultimately believed Clinton was better suited to the office than Trump.

And I still think that's a crock - like the argument about whether a glass is half full of half empty. I think Trump would have been LESS BAD for the country than Hillary. To insist that I believe Trump was "better suited" implies I believe he was suited at all. You hate it when people try to read your mind - so get out of mine.

[Cow Poke]

It's just a wedding cake. Not a "same sex" wedding cake.

Google "same sex wedding cake" then click on "images"....

Here's the first page:

same sex wedding cake.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

I have read through all of the responses in this thread, and given them thought. I'll put my general response here, and then I believe I will generally disconnect from this discussion. It is a duplicate of a discussion already had in another venue, and I am not seeing any significant value to rehashing what has already been said beyond this post. I will monitor the discussion and read what is said. If someone asks a direct question that I have not already answered, I'll be happy to answer it.

Person A and Person B are adults who are not related to one another in any way, who are in love, and who wish to get married and be intimate with one another. Is that moral?

You will note that for most (all?) people, if one is a male and the other is a female, the answer is "yes." But if both are males or both are females, for some people the answer becomes "no." This means that the morality of the situation is being determined by the genetic coding of the people involved. You cannot escape this reality.

Now consider the same situation 60 years ago. If I had told you that one was male and one was female, but one was also black and the other white, these people too would have been told it was immoral by many. But if they were both black or both white, it would have been moral. Today we look at that and say, "why does the race of the people marrying matter? You cannot make a situation moral in one case and immoral in another simply based on the genetic coding (for race) of the people involved.

So why are these situations any different? Why is it bigotry/prejudice to declare a marriage (and intimacy) immoral on the basis of race of the participants (which is a genetically coded attribute), but it is not prejudice to do so on the basis of the sex of the participants. If you are going to be consistent - declaring an act immoral cannot be done on the basis of the genetic coding of its participants. Either these are both bigotry/prejudice - or they are neither bigotry/prejudice.

I believe it is the latter - and for Christians to say otherwise is to be inconsistent in how they define morality.

The prejudice of the bakers was not about who they were willing or not willing to sell the cake to - it was about their unwillingness to make a wedding cake based on the sex of the two people being married. It doesn't matter who you insert into the buying process. I gave the example, in a previous chain, of the restaurant owner who refuses to serve food to black people. You cannot claim they are not prejudiced and dealing with everyone equally if they refuse to sell food to a white person who is going to give it to a black person. It's not about the buyer - it's about the consumer. Whether it is a black person buying the food - or a white person buying it for a black person - if the restaurant owner is refusing to sell because it will be consumed by a black person - they are being prejudiced/bigoted.

Likewise, if a baker who sells wedding cakes is refusing to sell it because the two people getting married share common sex genes, they are being bigoted/prejudiced. You cannot "escape" by claiming they won't sell the cake to anyone - they are still discriminating against people on the basis of their sex.

That does not mean anyone is being "forced" to do labor. Bakers can bake many things. Bakers can bake many cakes. But if they bake "wedding cakes," they need to provide them to all buyers without discrimination. To do otherwise is to return us to the age when a man (or woman) could be denied service because they were black, Hispanic, a woman, a short person, or any other attribute that places the person in a class of which their membership is not optional.

It's just a wedding cake. Not a "same sex" wedding cake.

ETA: I further believe that love between two people is not conditioned on the specific equipment present between their legs. I do not recall a single place in the Christian bible where Jesus spoke out and said, "love one another - but not too much if you are of the same sex." Paul added that in his epistle.

All you have done here carpe is show that you refuse to listen to or understand any of the arguments presented. And the fact SCOTUS nearly argued word for word the same things said here against what you have outlined here does not move you to reconsider your position one bit.

What you are saying is that you refuse to accept or acknowledge that this particular situation pits two critical elements against each other. When in fact that is exactly what it does. And the Majority of the Justices of SCOTUS said so. For you not to acknowledge that freedom of religion, Freedom not to participate in creating the symbol of an event that violates ones religious teachings and morals explicitly and directly is as much a right as the right not to be discriminated against is just - well - dishonest. To pretend it can be simplified to just one issue is just - well - dishonest. Not to address the other issue at all is just - well -dishonest.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I have read through all of the responses in this thread, and given them thought. I'll put my general response here, and then I believe I will generally disconnect from this discussion. It is a duplicate of a discussion already had in another venue, and I am not seeing any significant value to rehashing what has already been said beyond this post. I will monitor the discussion and read what is said. If someone asks a direct question that I have not already answered, I'll be happy to answer it.

Person A and Person B are adults who are not related to one another in any way, who are in love, and who wish to get married and be intimate with one another. Is that moral?

You will note that for most (all?) people, if one is a male and the other is a female, the answer is "yes." But if both are males or both are females, for some people the answer becomes "no." This means that the morality of the situation is being determined by the genetic coding of the people involved. You cannot escape this reality.

Now consider the same situation 60 years ago. If I had told you that one was male and one was female, but one was also black and the other white, these people too would have been told it was immoral by many. But if they were both black or both white, it would have been moral. Today we look at that and say, "why does the race of the people marrying matter? You cannot make a situation moral in one case and immoral in another simply based on the genetic coding (for race) of the people involved.

So why are these situations any different? Why is it bigotry/prejudice to declare a marriage (and intimacy) immoral on the basis of race of the participants (which is a genetically coded attribute), but it is not prejudice to do so on the basis of the sex of the participants. If you are going to be consistent - declaring an act immoral cannot be done on the basis of the genetic coding of its participants. Either these are both bigotry/prejudice - or they are neither bigotry/prejudice.

I believe it is the latter - and for Christians to say otherwise is to be inconsistent in how they define morality.

The prejudice of the bakers was not about who they were willing or not willing to sell the cake to - it was about their unwillingness to make a wedding cake based on the sex of the two people being married. It doesn't matter who you insert into the buying process. I gave the example, in a previous chain, of the restaurant owner who refuses to serve food to black people. You cannot claim they are not prejudiced and dealing with everyone equally if they refuse to sell food to a white person who is going to give it to a black person. It's not about the buyer - it's about the consumer. Whether it is a black person buying the food - or a white person buying it for a black person - if the restaurant owner is refusing to sell because it will be consumed by a black person - they are being prejudiced/bigoted.

Likewise, if a baker who sells wedding cakes is refusing to sell it because the two people getting married share common sex genes, they are being bigoted/prejudiced. You cannot "escape" by claiming they won't sell the cake to anyone - they are still discriminating against people on the basis of their sex.

That does not mean anyone is being "forced" to do labor. Bakers can bake many things. Bakers can bake many cakes. But if they bake "wedding cakes," they need to provide them to all buyers without discrimination. To do otherwise is to return us to the age when a man (or woman) could be denied service because they were black, Hispanic, a woman, a short person, or any other attribute that places the person in a class of which their membership is not optional.

It's just a wedding cake. Not a "same sex" wedding cake.

ETA: I further believe that love between two people is not conditioned on the specific equipment present between their legs. I do not recall a single place in the Christian bible where Jesus spoke out and said, "love one another - but not too much if you are of the same sex." Paul added that in his epistle.

It occurs to me there is a fairly simple way to solve this problem, it's a bit of a compromise for the baker, but it mee
Ts the requirements of the law. The baker simply produces a catalogue of designs or design elements that he will produce. Any customer can, from the specified elements and decorations create any cake they like. The baker then can only offer elements of design that can only lead to wedding symbology that is consistent with his beliefs and the customers can decide if what he offers meets their needs or not.

Jim

[Cerebrum123]

They wouldn't be denying it to "a couple" - they would be denying same sex wedding cakes equally to EVERYBODY, just like they deny Halloween cakes equally to everybody. But, apparently, you would use the hammer of justice to force the baker to bake whatever cake a customer wants. This "morally" thing is crap - you discard the right of the baker to respect his own morals, and substitute your own.

You're just wrong on this.

Especially since he thinks morals are relative.

[Cerebrum123]

All you have done here carpe is show that you refuse to listen to or understand any of the arguments presented. And the fact SCOTUS nearly argued word for word the same things said here against what you have outlined here does not move you to reconsider your position one bit.

What you are saying is that you refuse to accept or acknowledge that this particular situation pits two critical elements against each other. When in fact that is exactly what it does. And the Majority of the Justices of SCOTUS said so. For you not to acknowledge that freedom of religion, Freedom not to participate in creating the symbol of an event that violates ones religious teachings and morals explicitly and directly is as much a right as the right not to be discriminated against is just - well - dishonest. To pretend it can be simplified to just one issue is just - well - dishonest. Not to address the other issue at all is just - well -dishonest.

Jim

Maybe a new analogy will help. carp's own views on abortion say that making a woman carry a baby to term is "slavery" if she does not want to, but the fetus is an innocent human being. In his mind the issue of abortion pits two rights against each other, and each side is ignoring one of them. I think he is wrong in the case of abortion, but he clearly can see a conflict of rights in another issue, so he should be capable of seeing it in another.

[One Bad Pig]

A) That's just ignorant - nearly every story on the internet about this has the heading "same sex wedding cake" - Google it for yoursel
2) Were you there when the gay couple was discussing this with the baker?
C) I've overseen over a hundred weddings in my career - there is no such thing as "just a wedding cake". Almost always, there's a bride and groom on top of the cake - do you really think this gay couple would have wanted that?



4) I'm a little surprised that somebody of your scholastic stature would try to sneak in an argument from silence.
E) Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, was no less inspired by God than were the Gospel writers. As you're probably aware, Jesus didn't write anything (except whatever that was He wrote in the dirt ) - One of the Gospel writers needed to be there to record His words.

and, finally....

X) John tells us (21:25 ESV) "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

Kinda underscores the uselessness of arguing from silence with regard to Jesus when we're flat out told not everything he did (and we'd have to assume said) was recorded in the Bible.

Carpe's manure spreader tends to malfunction and throw the whole load at once when he ducks out of a conversation.

[carpedm9587]

So why then the distinction between biology and beliefs? Someone could refuse to hire (in an office) people who believe in Islam.

It is not "being mean" to refuse to accept a belief/position that is unjust or discriminatory, Joel. If a man is racist, I can reject his views and challenge them privately and publicly and still be generally respectful. I may have to say hard things, but I don't have to call names or ridicule or condescend to the person. I can simply reject the view as immoral.

As for the second part of your statement, you didn't ask a question, so I'll limit my response to the observation that I see "hiring" as different from "providing a service."

Sure, they should take responsibility for the fact that they thought avoiding candidate X was more important than avoiding candidate Y (and their corresponding choice). Do people in such a position deny that level of responsibility? E.g. in your example, the person who voted against Trump--and who insists that it was a vote against--presumably they don't deny that they thought Clinton was better (at least in the sense of somewhat less bad) than Trump? Or likewise in reverse?

Mostly, my experience is they work really hard to say "I didn't vote FOR him...I voted AGAINST her." (or vice versa). I think it's a way to distance themselves from their choice, given the horrendous nature of the man (or woman).

[carpedm9587]

And I still think that's a crock - like the argument about whether a glass is half full of half empty. I think Trump would have been LESS BAD for the country than Hillary. To insist that I believe Trump was "better suited" implies I believe he was suited at all. You hate it when people try to read your mind - so get out of mine.

Just to be clear - I'm not attempting to read anyone's mind. I simply find the claim, "I didn't vote for - I voted against" a specious claim that belies how elections work, for the reasons I've noted. I didn't like Clinton. I thought she was a poor candidate. I voted for her because I saw her as superior to Trump in basically every measurable way. Doesn't mean I thought she was the most awesome candidate in the world, or that I was a "Clinton supporter." It just means I thought she was better than Trump. That's basically how elections work.

[JimL]

It isn't about the gender of the customers at all. He has sold cakes to both genders. He would even sell other items to a same sex couple so it isn't even about what they believe. It is about the event. I know you can't accept that, but it is true.

I don't think it's about the event per se, it's about the baker discriminating against people whose sexual orientation is offensive to his personal beliefs. The baker is offended by everything about the people, the fact that they are gay, the fact that they should be wedded and the fact of gay marriage itself. I believe though that point is, as a public business you can not discriminate against people simply based upon your own personal opinions of them whether those opinions are based on racial, religious, gender, or sexual orientation. Discrimination is discrimination!