Advertising company forced (?) to remove Greg Laurie's billboards.

[carpedm9587]

Maybe because as Christians, we view it the same way as Phillips does? And we actually listen and believe what he has said? On the other hand you, Tassman and the others ignore what he said, and make up your own motivations for why he did what he did, and then refuse to believe anything else. Aren't you the guy who always gets upset that people don't believe what you say and keep trying to mind-read you? It is exactly what you are doing to Jack Phillips.

No - I'm not.

[Sparko]

No - I'm not.

Looks like it to me. You are claiming he is discriminating against the people because they are gay, not the event, despite him saying over and over that he would make a cake for any other event for gay people, and that he would not make a cake for a gay wedding no matter who ordered it. That is you dismissing what he has said, and substituting what you think he 'really' was doing/thinking. Mind-reading.

[carpedm9587]

Looks like it to me. You are claiming he is discriminating against the people because they are gay, not the event, despite him saying over and over that he would make a cake for any other event for gay people, and that he would not make a cake for a gay wedding no matter who ordered it. That is you dismissing what he has said, and substituting what you think he 'really' was doing/thinking. Mind-reading.

My claim is based on what he is DOING - not what he is THINKING. He is refusing to serve people on the basis of their sex: if two people of opposite sex are getting married - they can have the service. If two people of the opposite sex are getting married - no service.

It is not just the baker. It is essentially anyone who holds this view. It does not matter to me if it's because "my religion says so" or "god says so" or "the bible says so" or whatever rationalization someone has for the position. The position is inherently discriminatory, prejudicial, and unjust. The morality of an act does not alter due to the genome of the participants. Morality is about action - not genome. If sex is moral is Situation A, I know it is moral in Situation B if the only difference between the two situations is the genetic make-up of the individual(s). That's true for race - for ethnicity - for hair color - eye color - and for gender/sex.

[Sparko]

My claim is based on what he is DOING - not what he is THINKING. He is refusing to serve people on the basis of their sex: if two people of opposite sex are getting married - they can have the service. If two people of the opposite sex are getting married - no service.

1. so?
2. He believes because of his faith that two men or two women getting married is a sin. That is his faith. It is protected by the 1st amendment. If he believed a man and a horse should not be married you would not have a problem with that. Or a man and a child. Or a man marrying his own brother. Or a dozen other combinations. This is a personal affront to you and that is why you are against it. But your scrupples don't matter here. Only Phillips'. Because it is a deeply held belief of his based on his faith.
3. His reason has everything to do with it. IF his reason was "I hate gays so I won't sell them a cake" then he would be in the wrong. His reasoning is his faith says gay marriage is a sin. YOUR reasoning has nothing to do with it, nor does your imposing your beliefs onto Phillips.

It is not just the baker. It is essentially anyone who holds this view. It does not matter to me if it's because "my religion says so" or "god says so" or "the bible says so" or whatever rationalization someone has for the position. The position is inherently discriminatory, prejudicial, and unjust. The morality of an act does not alter due to the genome of the participants. Morality is about action - not genome. If sex is moral is Situation A, I know it is moral in Situation B if the only difference between the two situations is the genetic make-up of the individual(s). That's true for race - for ethnicity - for hair color - eye color - and for gender/sex.

Again your outrage or disagreement with what other people believe doesn't matter here. Especially given that you don't believe in objective morality.


All that matters here is the legality of his actions and the actions of the billboard company. And for that, the motivation and reasoning for each person's actions is all that matters. Not what you think they are doing for your own reasoning.

[Tassman]

If he believed a man and a horse should not be married you would not have a problem with that. Or a man and a child. Or a man marrying his own brother. Or a dozen other combinations. This is a personal affront to you and that is why you are against it. But your scrupples don't matter here. Only Phillips'. Because it is a deeply held belief of his based on his faith.

The Civil Rights Act does not encompass marrying horses or children or close relatives. This is a non-issue. It DOES encompass gay marriage as per the Supreme Court Ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) The Court held that "same-sex couples have the fundamental right to get married, which may not be abridged by state laws."

3. His reason has everything to do with it. IF his reason was "I hate gays so I won't sell them a cake" then he would be in the wrong. His reasoning is his faith says gay marriage is a sin. YOUR reasoning has nothing to do with it, nor does your imposing your beliefs onto Phillips.

What about if his "deeply held faith" opposed interracial marriage, as in the Jim Crow era, would he be right to not sell them a cake?

[NorrinRadd]

The Civil Rights Act does not encompass marrying horses or children or close relatives. This is a non-issue. It DOES encompass gay marriage as per the Supreme Court Ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) The Court held that "same-sex couples have the fundamental right to get married, which may not be abridged by state laws."



What about if his "deeply held faith" opposed interracial marriage, as in the Jim Crow era, would he be right to not sell them a cake?

He SHOULD have that legal right.

[Sparko]

The Civil Rights Act does not encompass marrying horses or children or close relatives. This is a non-issue. It DOES encompass gay marriage as per the Supreme Court Ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) The Court held that "same-sex couples have the fundamental right to get married, which may not be abridged by state laws."



What about if his "deeply held faith" opposed interracial marriage, as in the Jim Crow era, would he be right to not sell them a cake?

Tassman, at this point I am not going to answer your posts, since you merely repeat yourself over and over. Additionally, this is not the thread to discuss the cake case. take it to the other thread.

[carpedm9587]

1. so?

So his moral code is based on genetics. I find that reprehensible, and reminiscent of the laws and moral position we once had about mixed-race marriages.

2. He believes because of his faith that two men or two women getting married is a sin. That is his faith. It is protected by the 1st amendment. If he believed a man and a horse should not be married you would not have a problem with that. Or a man and a child. Or a man marrying his own brother. Or a dozen other combinations. This is a personal affront to you and that is why you are against it. But your scrupples don't matter here. Only Phillips'. Because it is a deeply held belief of his based on his faith.

What he believes is of no account to me. He is free to believe anything he wishes. When his beliefs cause him to discriminate in a publicly offered business, it becomes all of our business. At this point SCOTUS disagrees. SCOTUS is not perfect and has had bad rulings before. Hopefully this ruling will also someday change. Given the make-up of the court at this point, that probably won't be for a long time.

3. His reason has everything to do with it. IF his reason was "I hate gays so I won't sell them a cake" then he would be in the wrong. His reasoning is his faith says gay marriage is a sin. YOUR reasoning has nothing to do with it, nor does your imposing your beliefs onto Phillips.

Since his reason is based in assigning moral value to genetics - then it is flawed. Full stop. No qualifications.

Again your outrage or disagreement with what other people believe doesn't matter here. Especially given that you don't believe in objective morality.

Not sure what the relevance here is. All morality is relative/subjective. That you and others like you think you're an exception is irrelevant. You're not.

All that matters here is the legality of his actions and the actions of the billboard company. And for that, the motivation and reasoning for each person's actions is all that matters. Not what you think they are doing for your own reasoning.

I am surprised to hear you claim that legality trumps morality. The action of the baker is immoral. Right now SCOTUS has said it is legal. I disagree with their assessment, much as you probably disagree with Roe vs. Wade. For now, we have to live with it as it is. What is legal, however, is not always what is moral.

[seer]

So his moral code is based on genetics. I find that reprehensible, and reminiscent of the laws and moral position we once had about mixed-race marriages.

This nonsense again Carp? Homosexual behavior is, well, behavior. Race is not behavior. And again, in your relative world, what you find reprehensible has no merit as far as I can tell.

[Terraceth]

The Civil Rights Act does not encompass marrying horses or children or close relatives. This is a non-issue. It DOES encompass gay marriage as per the Supreme Court Ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) The Court held that "same-sex couples have the fundamental right to get married, which may not be abridged by state laws."

The decision in Obergefell v Hodges had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act.

[One Bad Pig]

My claim is based on what he is DOING - not what he is THINKING. He is refusing to serve people on the basis of their sex: if two people of opposite sex are getting married - they can have the service. If two people of the opposite sex are getting married - no service.

You're talking nonsense. What he is DOING is "refusing to serve people". "on the basis of...." is THINKING, not DOING.

[Tassman]

He SHOULD have that legal right.

The logical conclusion to that is that any religious crackpot, no matter what crazy deeply-held religious notions he may have, has the right to refuse service on the basis of these beliefs no matter how legal the customer's demands.

Tassman, at this point I am not going to answer your posts, since you merely repeat yourself over and over. Additionally, this is not the thread to discuss the cake case. take it to the other thread.

You're the one who mentioned "the cake."

[NorrinRadd]

The logical conclusion to that is that any religious crackpot, no matter what crazy deeply-held religious notions he may have, has the right to refuse service on the basis of these beliefs no matter how legal the customer's demands.

Yes.

[Tassman]

Yes.

So what happens to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when you give special treatment to every religious crackpot at the expense of other citizens?

[NorrinRadd]

So what happens to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when you give special treatment to every religious crackpot at the expense of other citizens?

If it's a private business, it doesn't apply.

If it's da gubmint, SCOTUS will have to decide whether the First or Fourteenth Amendment takes precedence. (I favor First, of course.)