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

[Roy]

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.

Interracial relationships are behaviour. Sexual preference is not behaviour.

[Roy]

I was restructuring my statement to fit Carp's, like he did to try to show there was a difference between the cake and the billboard. I don't think the baker was refusing the customer, but the message. I don't think the billboard was refusing the customer but the message.

I believe the billboard company has the right to refuse to print any message from any client at any time. Just like the baker. Nobody should be forced to create a message in support of something they don't want to.

Good. All you have to do now is realise that many wedding cakes are not a message, not even a message that there is a wedding taking place.

You can practice on this one.
c4c206.jpg
Is this cake a message that same-sex marriage is acceptable? Would any baker be justified in refusing to provide this cake?

[seer]

Interracial relationships are behaviour. Sexual preference is not behaviour.

Sexual behavior is behavior. Race is not a behavior, nor does it lead to behavior.

[Sparko]

Good. All you have to do now is realise that many wedding cakes are not a message, not even a message that there is a wedding taking place.

You can practice on this one.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]29913[/ATTACH]
Is this cake a message that same-sex marriage is acceptable? Would any baker be justified in refusing to provide this cake?

It depends on the wedding. The cake is a message, celebrating the union of two people in marriage. A cake for a gay wedding is celebrating a homosexual marriage which is a sin. As a Christian I would not participate or attend a gay wedding because to do so is to give implicit approval to that sin. I sure would not give them a wedding gift. The same goes for the baker. Him making a cake celebrating their marriage is implicitly him giving his approval of a sin, which he will not do.

That is not hard to understand. Especially for you liberals who keep telling us we are giving implicit approval to everything Trump does merely because we voted for him, right?

[carpedm9587]

right, which is why it is wrong to force someone to create a cake for you if they believe it is celebrating a sin. Or to force someone to print a billboard for you, or a Tshirt for you. or perform any labor you don't want to.

This has already been responded to multiple times, and is a canard. No one is being "forced" to do anything.

To me it is not a personal preference. It is objectively true. The way you argue for what you think is morally right, shows me that you believe it too, despite protestations to the contrary.

And your claim that it is "objectively true." does not make it any more or less subjective and relative. A man can claim that his preference for his wife is based on the objective fact that his wife is better than any other woman - it does not change the fact that his love for his wife is a subjective phenomenon, and his assessment of "better" is subjective to his preferences. Your claims imply don't have any weight because you have no way of showing that your beliefs are based on something that IS objectively true.

I, on the other hand, know my moral framework is subjective/relative. I have a vested interest in convincing others to follow the same moral framework because I perceive it to be the best possible moral framework. If I didn't, then whatever I perceived to be "the best" would be my moral framework, by definition. When I cannot convince someone through discussion and debate, then we resort to ignoring the differences (for minor issues), isolation/separation (for major issues where that approach will preserve my moral framework), or contention (for all of the rest of the issues). This is is subject to both isolation/separation and contention, and the latter is exercises in our courts. For now, SCOTUS has aligned with you concerning the baker, and me concerning same-sex marriage. With the tide of public opinion moving strongly towards acceptance, I expect it is a matter of time before everything shifts to legal acceptance, but that is likely a delayed event given the recent shifts in SCOTUS. We may even see some temporary retraction.

[Terraceth]

I’ve said numerous times in various threads that the Civil Rights Act was legislated under several different parts of the Constitution...not just the fourteenth amendment...notably its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Some other parts of it may have been legislated based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The portion about public accommodations was not.

[Tassman]

Some other parts of it may have been legislated based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The portion about public accommodations was not.

That’s as may be, but the whole point of public-accommodations laws are to further the goals of several provisions of the Constitution such as the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[MaxVel]

All moral positions are relative/subjective, Max. So we can either continually shrug at one another, or we can all listen a bit, see if someone else might "have something" that we missed.

Why? It's not as if any particular moral position is any more valid or better than any other moral position. Why should someone change their moral positions? There can be no objective reason for doing so, since any position held by anyone, for whatever reason, is equally as true and right as any other position.

But you are correct, if the choice is then the issue will be decided using something other than reason and discussion. It will default to isolation/separation and/or some form of force.

Yeah, that's all you can have if your moral philosophy is true. Social ostracism or use of violence to force compliance.

The thing is, you continually talk as if your moral views were objectively better than ones you disagree with - thus I find you very unconvincing as a moral relativist. You don't act as if your moral philosophy was actually true, which is evidence that it is not actually true.

[NorrinRadd]

Interracial relationships are behaviour. Sexual preference is not behaviour.

Nor is the desire to have sex with 7-year-olds.

[Sparko]

The thing is, you continually talk as if your moral views were objectively better than ones you disagree with - thus I find you very unconvincing as a moral relativist. You don't act as if your moral philosophy was actually true, which is evidence that it is not actually true.

^^This.

[Roy]

It depends on the wedding. The cake is a message, celebrating the union of two people in marriage. A cake for a gay wedding is celebrating a homosexual marriage which is a sin. As a Christian I would not participate or attend a gay wedding because to do so is to give implicit approval to that sin. I sure would not give them a wedding gift. The same goes for the baker. Him making a cake celebrating their marriage is implicitly him giving his approval of a sin, which he will not do.

That is not hard to understand.

Perfectly clear. The issue is not with the nature of the cake, but with the nature of the customers, and portraying these refusals of service as being a result of the design or decoration of the cake is deliberate misrepresentation of the underlying reason, which is discrimination against homosexuals.

[Sparko]

Perfectly clear. The issue is not with the nature of the cake, but with the nature of the customers, and portraying these refusals of service as being a result of the design or decoration of the cake is deliberate misrepresentation of the underlying reason, which is discrimination against homosexuals.

Not with the nature of the customers but the nature of the event. You keep wanting to mischaracterize the situation to fit your paradigm. He will sell those same customers cakes for other events. And he will not sell ANY customers a cake for a gay wedding. So it is clear (and to SCOTUS also) that he was not being discriminatory to the customer. He was refusing to participate in an event. But this is off topic for this thread. It was only brought up as a comparison.

You admit that here it is the message and not the customer. That the billboard company was refusing to print a message but probably would print other billboards for Christians. It is the same situation with the baker.

[carpedm9587]

Why?

I would think that would be obvious. Because our individual moral positions can significantly impact us (if we interact regularly) and also "roll up" into collective social action. Since morality is designed to guide our decisions so as to protect/defend what we most value, we have a vested interest in engaging with others and convincing them that something we see as good is indeed good. This dynamic plays out constantly in every segment of society.

It's not as if any particular moral position is any more valid or better than any other moral position.

You left out "objectively/absolutely" - which is, of course, the common response to this position - and it is, as I have noted before - a non-response. It just reaffirms that subjective/relative morality is not objective/absolute. We already know that.

Why should someone change their moral positions?

As with everything, they will change their moral positions if they find the line of reasoning rational and it links to something they value. They will not if they don't and/or it doesn't.

There can be no objective reason for doing so, since any position held by anyone, for whatever reason, is equally as true and right as any other position.

In theory - true (of course, this is just a variation on "moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective"). Practically, since most of us tend to value similar things because of our immense breadth of shared experience (all human, all on this planet, all in society, etc.), there is significant overlap in what we value and why, opening the door to discussion and debate.

Yeah, that's all you can have if your moral philosophy is true. Social ostracism or use of violence to force compliance.

That is all ANY moral framework has, Max, even those who cling to the illusion of an objective/absolute moral framework. When someone says, "I don't agree with that" and lives differently, the group holding that framework takes the usual steps: they might ostracize or even expel the offending member from the group. In the past, when religions had more political power, offenders were severely punished, incarcerated, or killed. And, of course, there is the usual eternal punishment for noncompliance...the threat of "hell" and promise of "heaven" (however, someone interprets those two things).

The thing is, you continually talk as if your moral views were objectively better than ones you disagree with - thus I find you very unconvincing as a moral relativist. You don't act as if your moral philosophy was actually true, which is evidence that it is not actually true.

Any moral agent will, by definition, see their moral point of view as "the best there is." If they did not, then they would immediately adopt the one they believe IS the best and THAT would become their moral framework. That is what the discussion part is all about. If I can convince someone that a moral position they hold is actually more harmful than beneficial to something they value, they will immediately adopt the new position. If they can convince me instead, I will immediately adopt the new position.

This does not make morality "objective." It cannot be, because it is rooted in what we value and the relative ways we value. If I am confronting a person who values wealth above life, I have little hope of convincing them to adopt my moral view. To protect what I value (life), I will then seek to either isolate myself from the person, or join a society where that "valuing" is not accepted and seek to create protections in law.

There is nothing odd here, Max. And that does not make me a moral objectivist or absolutist (or "realist," as so many seem to like to call themselves).

[Roy]

Not with the nature of the customers but the nature of the event.

But not the nature of the cake.

You admit that here it is the message and not the customer. That the billboard company was refusing to print a message but probably would print other billboards for Christians. It is the same situation with the baker.

You are equivocating on the word 'message', choosing in one instance to use it to describe a written or symbolic meaning, and on the other a willingness to endorse a viewpoint. They are not the same thing.

The billboard company would not produce a billboard with a particular appearance, but would produce billboards with other appearances. The difference is in what the billboard looks like. Change the billboard design and there is no issue.

The baker would not produce any wedding cake regardless of appearance. The difference is not in what the wedding cake looks like. Changing the wedding cake design cannot resolve the issue.

Different situations.

[Sparko]

But not the nature of the cake.

The cake is a representation of the baker's acceptance of the event - his message, his art. Nobody claimed the cake was gay.

You are equivocating on the word 'message', choosing in one instance to use it to describe a written or symbolic meaning, and on the other a willingness to endorse a viewpoint. They are not the same thing.

The billboard company would not produce a billboard with a particular appearance, but would produce billboards with other appearances. The difference is in what the billboard looks like. Change the billboard design and there is no issue.

The baker would not produce any wedding cake regardless of appearance. The difference is not in what the wedding cake looks like. Changing the wedding cake design cannot resolve the issue.

Different situations.

No. Same situation. The message is symbolic. The billboard had a bible on it. That message offended people so the the billboard company took down the billboards. The cake too is symbolic. It celebrates the marriage. In this case of two men. Which is a sin to the baker so he did not want to put his artistic talent into making a symbol that celebrates a sin. He would gladly make a cake to celebrate a gay person's birthday or any other event or holiday (except Halloween).