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 carpedm9587 View Post
    Why on earth would anyone expect him to make a cake for all holidays if he makes one for Halloween? Choose your business - provide it equally for all people - no problem. If you want to make April Fool cakes and not Memorial Day cakes - no problem - as long as you do it equally for all people.



    Since it's not about the event...


    ETA: Look, Sparko...the event is "a wedding." You want to make it "a gay wedding" so you can say "we're not discriminating, because we won't do "a gay wedding" for anyone. The discrimination happened when you put the word "gay" or "same-sex" before "wedding" and then used it as an excuse not to provide service. That makes the discrimination based solely on the sex of the two people marrying.
    The event is "a holiday" and he refuses to make cakes for Halloween. but you don't have a problem with that. It is the TYPE of holiday that he has a problem with, the specific event of Halloween. Just like he has a problem with the TYPE of wedding, a same-sex wedding.

    He believes that gay weddings are a sin. He doesn't want to participate or create a cake for a sinful event. He thinks it is a sin to celebrate Halloween. That is why he doesn't make Halloween cakes. Same reason for both refusals.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Sorry - but it is not an excuse. A wedding is the celebration of the marriage of a man and a women.
      No.

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      A same-sex wedding is the celebration of a 'marriage' of a man and man, or a women and women. They are not the same.
      They involve people of different sexes, Jim. They are both "marriages" and "wedding celebrations."

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      The symbology is different. The participants are different. The capacity to produce children is completely different. The former has been around more that 5 millenia. The latter has only spotty representation historically, and has only within the last 20 years become recognized within modern culture. Many religious officials refuse to do same-sex wedding ceremonies, whereas virtually none refuse to do traditional marriage ceremonies unless they do no marriages at all. traditional weddings do not violate the religious beliefs of anyone. Whereas same-sex weddings violate the religious beliefs of a large segment of the population.
      Yes - they do violate the religious beliefs of a lot of people. But that does not make discriminating against them "moral" or "right."

      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      They simply are NOT the same. You can't claim 'a wedding is a wedding'. It simply is not true.

      Jim
      Yes - a wedding is a wedding. I do not differentiate between weddings when they differ by race. ethnicity, fertility, religion, etc. I have no basis for differentiating on the basis of the sex of the participants. These weddings are different in your eyes because you have decided to make the sex of the participants an issue. It has been an issue for a long time, there is no question of that. But race was also an issue for a long time, and that has never been a justification for continuing it. The same is true of sex.
      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 JimL View Post
        It's fine if he chooses not to make divorce cakes or halloween cakes Sparko, BECAUSE IT ISN'T ABOUT THE EVENT. But if he did choose to make divorce cakes or halloween cakes he would have to sell them to everyone alike so as not to discriminate against the people taking part in the event, whomever they may be.
        If he did make gay wedding cakes he would have to sell them to everyone. Agreed. But he doesn't.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          As we saw in the video Sparko posted, the horrible things and hatred is only flowing in one direction in this case. I do not hate same sex people. I do not ever do horrible things to anyone.. This baker doesn't hate them either. He believes a same sex marriage is wrong, a violation of God's intent for marriage. That is not nor does it need to translate to any sort of hatred or any sort of horrible action.

          However, you can see from the response of the local gay community towards the baker true hatred in all its glorious colors. Continuous foul phone calls, death threats. Yep, that is hatred all right.

          I may think contraception is wrong. But I don't have to hate the people that use it. I may think getting drunk is wrong. But I don't have to hate the people that get drunk.

          Your response right now seems a hop skip and a jump from hatred towards christians and Christian faith. You seem here to be willing to paint us as haters. But to believe a moral standard does not imply hatred.

          In fact, Christ requires the Christian love his enemies. So even if christian teaching is that a same sex acts are sinful, no true follower of Christ can ever be acting in his faith and show any actual hatred for any gay person.

          The opposite is not true, is it. You feel quite free to hate Christians who believe same sex marriage is wrong. Don't you.,

          Jim

          Starlight's hot button seems to be homosexuality. If you mention it, he goes off the rails and accuses you of hatred, etc.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            see? You understand and agree on every type of cake except the gay wedding cake.
            Baker - I will not make a "mixed race wedding cake" (i.e., a wedding cake for a mixed race wedding)!
            Patron - you're a racist!
            Baker - No I'm not - I won't make a "mixed race wedding cake" for anyone

            Baker - I will not make a "gay wedding cake" (i.e., a wedding cake for a gay wedding)!
            Patron - you're a sexist!
            Baker - No I'm not - I won't make a "gay wedding cake" for anyone

            These are equivalent propositions. As I have noted before, you cannot just stick "gay" in front of "wedding cake" and then dodge the reality of discrimination/bigotry/prejudice.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            It is no different. He doesn't agree with the event being celebrated.
            It's different as noted. He doesn't agree with the celebration because of the sex of the people being married, just as we used to not agree with the celebration because of the race of the people marrying. The situation is no different.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            He doesn't sell cakes celebrating halloween, antiAmericanism, or gay weddings. No matter who orders the cakes. He also said he has refused to make cakes condemning LBGT.

            You are inconsistent.
            I'm actually very consistent. A wedding is a wedding. Refusing to make a wedding cake on the basis of the sex of the participants is prejudice/bigotry. None of the examples have that characteristic.

            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            They did publish that Phillips WAS an artist, that his cakes were art and that an artist has the right to control who he creates art for.

            ----
            Accordingly, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is expressive. The use of his artistic talents to create a well-recognized symbol that celebrates the beginning of a marriage clearly communicates a message—certainly more so than nude dancing, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 565–566 (1991), or flying a plain red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931).3 Byforcing Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, Colorado’s public-accommodations law “alter[s] the expressive content” of his message. Hurley, 515 U. S., at 572. The meaning of expressive conduct, this Court has explained, depends on “the context in which it occur[s].” Johnson, 491 U. S., at 405. Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to “bear witness to [these] fact[s],” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, or to “affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees,” id., at 573. --Opinion of THOMAS, J.

            Just me...
            Yes- I've also read these arguments. "I'm an artist" does not justify bigotry of any form.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2018, 09:52 AM.
            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 Sparko View Post
              The event is "a holiday" and he refuses to make cakes for Halloween. but you don't have a problem with that.
              Correct.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              It is the TYPE of holiday that he has a problem with, the specific event of Halloween. Just like he has a problem with the TYPE of wedding, a same-sex wedding.
              Based on the sex of the two people marrying - which is bigotry/prejudice.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              He believes that gay weddings are a sin. He doesn't want to participate or create a cake for a sinful event. He thinks it is a sin to celebrate Halloween. That is why he doesn't make Halloween cakes. Same reason for both refusals.
              He is free to believe this if he wishes. And the Neo-Nazi is free to believe black people are inferior and polluting the white race. No one questions his right to believe what he wishes. We (society) DO say, however, that if the person starts a business and then applies his discrimination to their clientele, they can expect to be sued. Hopefully, it will be done without the anti-religion bias that was obviously showed by the Colorado agency involved, so the suit will be more successful next time.
              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 have read through all of this, a couple of times. As best I can tell, your entire argument is: MM and FF and MF are different kinds of marriage.

                I agree - by definition. The three "types" of marriage differ in terms of the sexual genetics of the participants. No question they are different. So too are BB, BW, and WW marriages (Black/White). They differ by the race of the participants. So too are MJ, MM, and JJ marriages (Methodist, Jewish). So to are FF, IF, and II marriages (infertile/fertile). So too are EF, FF, and EE marriages (English/French). Marriages can differ in many ways with many resulting consequences. For the MM/FM/FF marriages, the primary difference is how children are produced and raised. An FM marriage can produce children by the sex of the participants in the marriage if both participants are fertile. An MM or FF cannot. You will note the IF, FF, and II couples differ in exactly the same way. The FF family can have children in all other ways (adoption, insemination, surrogacy, etc.). The MM family is limited to adoption and surrogacy. In both the MM and FF families, at least one participant will not be the biological parent of the child.

                All of this is stipulated to. If that was your point, then I have never actually disagreed with you, and this discussion appears to be much ado about nothing. I was under the impression you were trying to argue for the immorality of the same-sex marriage. Your use of "natural" and your insistence on marriage being primarily about children left me with that impression. Apparently I was mistaken.
                But it is not 'much ado about nothing'. It establishes that M/F marriages are in their very nature different from M/M and F/F marriages. Not so BB, BW and WW marriages. A BB M/F marriage is the functional equivalent of a BW M/F marriage and lkewise a WW M/F marriage. They are in every way equivalent. Not so M/F and {M/M or F/F } marriages. You can not then say that because BB and BW and WW marriages are equivalent that M/F, M/M and F/F marriages are equivalent. There is no 'so too ...'.

                I do still believe your use of "natural" and your insistence that "marriage is about children" without reflecting the other things marriage is about are problematic - but they appear to be irrelevant to the argument, so it is not an issue.
                They are not problematic since I am not ignoring them. I am pointing out what is fundamentally different between M/F and { M/M , F/F } marriages. And I am pointing out that at its core, a marriage is about producing a family.


                I need to address another issue, two basic issues of logic that you repeatedly violate and which waste a huge amount of time in our discussions.

                The first is that a logical statement often can't be reversed and the truth of the statement be retained. You are continuously reversing the logic of my statements and assuming that reversed logic is some truth I am trying to establish or that it is some logical statement I am assuming proved by the first.

                The second is that a statement which is made of a narrow set of conditions can't be arbitrarily expanded to some larger set of conditions and retain its truth value.


                As a person well versed in mathematics you should be aware of these simple facts.



                e.g. [sexuality that produces children is good] can't be reversed to imply [sexuality that does not produce children is bad]

                That would only be a valid implication only if the original statement read [only sexuality that produces children is good].


                It is the standard difference between 'if/then' and 'if and only if then'


                Likewise, if I say that the fundamental purpose of a marriage is to provide an environment for producing by natural means a family that is not saying that is its only purpose.

                However, if a fundamental purpose of a marriage is to produce and raise children, you can't create a construct that by its very nature can't produce children and then claim it is equivalent. You have, in fact, fundamentally redefined marriage in the process.

                Now notice that a M/F marriage of a couple that turns out to possibly be infertile is NOT a member of this new construct. Because such a union is not, by its very nature, unable to produce children. And indeed, it is not uncommon for couples thought to be infertile to eventually have children.



                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
                  But it is not 'much ado about nothing'. It establishes that M/F marriages are in their very nature different from M/M and F/F marriages. Not so BB, BW and WW marriages. A BB M/F marriage is the functional equivalent of a BW M/F marriage and lkewise a WW M/F marriage. They are in every way equivalent. Not so M/F and {M/M or F/F } marriages. You can not then say that because BB and BW and WW marriages are equivalent that M/F, M/M and F/F marriages are equivalent. There is no 'so too ...'.
                  Jim, all marriages are equivalent in some ways, and different in others. Differentiating a marriage by the sex of the participants in that marriage is the same as differentiating a marriage by the race of the participants in one way: the distinction is being made based on the genetic identity of the participants. That does no change that BB, WW, and BW marriages are different from one another, and different from MM, FF, and MF marriages, which are also different from one another (as has been noted).

                  Recognizing difference is not an issue. Treating differently on the basis of that difference when there is no basis for doing so is prejudice/bigotry. So I am not prejudiced/bigoted if I offer my white friends sunscreen and do not offer it to my black friend. Skin pigmentation changes the need for sunscreen - so no problem. I am prejudiced/bigoted if I do not invite my black friend to the scrabble party because "black people aren't smart enough to play scrabble." Likewise, I do not discriminate if I do not invite the MM couple to my wedding shower; wedding showers are traditionally thrown by women for women. I do discriminate if I do not invite the MM couple to my wedding because "I do not approve of homosexuals."

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  They are not problematic since I am not ignoring them. I am pointing out what is fundamentally different between M/F and { M/M , F/F } marriages. And I am pointing out that at its core, a marriage is about producing a family.
                  It CAN be about producing a family, and it IS about the love and intimacy of the people marrying.

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  I need to address another issue, two basic issues of logic that you repeatedly violate and which waste a huge amount of time in our discussions.

                  The first is that a logical statement often can't be reversed and the truth of the statement be retained. You are continuously reversing the logic of my statements and assuming that reversed logic is some truth I am trying to establish or that it is some logical statement I am assuming proved by the first.

                  The second is that a statement which is made of a narrow set of conditions can't be arbitrarily expanded to some larger set of conditions and retain its truth value.
                  As a person well versed in mathematics you should be aware of these simple facts.

                  e.g. [sexuality that produces children is good] can't be reversed to imply [sexuality that does not produce children is bad]

                  That would only be a valid implication only if the original statement read [only sexuality that produces children is good].

                  It is the standard difference between 'if/then' and 'if and only if then'
                  Agreed. And you are right - I am guilty of this for this part of this discussion. You have repeatedly stated that marriage is for producing children (a position I do not agree with), and in the context of a discussion about the immorality of gay marriage. I took as your implication that, since a gay marriage cannot produce children, it is immoral/unacceptable. I have been under the impression (apparently mistaken) that you were continuing the previous discussions on why same-sex unions were immoral. Apparently, you just wanted to make the case that MM, FF, and MF marriages are different. I would accept that statement as obviously true.

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Likewise, if I say that the fundamental purpose of a marriage is to provide an environment for producing by natural means a family that is not saying that is its only purpose.
                  Here we disagree. "Fundamental" is not exactly the same as "only," but it's darned close. At the very least, it subsurviates (I think I just invented a word) one purpose to another - and on that we disagree. A valid claim can be made that marriage (and sex) for humans is more relational than procreative.

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  However, if a fundamental purpose of a marriage is to produce and raise children, you can't create a construct that by its very nature can't produce children and then claim it is equivalent. You have, in fact, fundamentally redefined marriage in the process.

                  Now notice that a M/F marriage of a couple that turns out to possibly be infertile is NOT a member of this new construct. Because such a union is not, by its very nature, unable to produce children. And indeed, it is not uncommon for couples thought to be infertile to eventually have children.

                  Jim
                  Now you are treading on fallacious territory. A marriage between two people, at least one of which is infertile, is - by its very nature - unable to produce children. I realize you claim otherwise, but if it is the natural condition of one or more of the partners to be infertile (due to age, low sperm count, etc.) then it is the natural status of this marriage to be childless. That some eventually do is irrelevant. Many (most?) never do because of the infertility of one or more partners. A couple can marry in their 60s, well beyond child rearing. Their infertility is perfectly natural, because they are past the age of child bearing. I doubt anyone would call this marriage a "fundamental redefinition of marriage." Likewise, an MM or FF couple cannot bear children of which they are both biological parents, for perfectly natural and obvious reasons.

                  Jim, you (and others like you) are attempting to place constrains of MM and FF marriage that are simply rooted in historic bigotry and prejudice. That it exists is understandable. That it continue to exist is not defensible, for all of the reasons I have cited.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2018, 11:09 AM.
                  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
                    Jim, all marriages are equivalent in some ways, and different in others. Differentiating a marriage by the sex of the participants in that marriage is the same as differentiating a marriage by the race of the participants in one way: the distinction is being made based on the genetic identity of the participants. That does no change that BB, WW, and BW marriages are different from one another, and different from MM, FF, and MF marriages, which are also different from one another (as has been noted).
                    Carpe, M/F and {M/M and F/F } marriages differ from one another in terms of their capacity to naturally produce children. To produce a natural family. This is a MAJOR difference between the two. To claim otherwise is just to ignore reality. BB/BW/WW marriages of the M/F kind are functionally equivalent unions. They don't differ in this MAJOR component. You are not thinking logically or practically. You can't equate minor cultural differences or differences in personality with being by nature capable of producing children. In the MAJOR area of the capacity to produce and create an ongoing family, they differ at their core. I contend that without the the capacity to produce and the needs associated with raising children we might not even have a construct like marriage. It is a MAJOR component. But not the only component.


                    Recognizing difference is not an issue. Treating differently on the basis of that difference when there is no basis for doing so is prejudice/bigotry. So I am not prejudiced/bigoted if I offer my white friends sunscreen and do not offer it to my black friend. Skin pigmentation changes the need for sunscreen - so no problem. I am prejudiced/bigoted if I do not invite my black friend to the scrabble party because "black people aren't smart enough to play scrabble." Likewise, I do not discriminate if I do not invite the MM couple to my wedding shower; wedding showers are traditionally thrown by women for women. I do discriminate if I do not invite the MM couple to my wedding because "I do not approve of homosexuals."
                    You are out in the weeds carpe. None of those examples have anything to do with the point I am arguing. And that is that M/F and {M/M ,F/F } marriages are fundamentally different things because their natural capacity to produce children is completely different. I would further argue that marriages would not even exist as a common construct of human culture if children were not the natural by-product of M/F unions. That is why they came to be. that is why they exist. And removing that capability from the equation BY DESIGN changes its fundamental nature. Hence same-sex marriages are not equivalent.

                    Notice, by the way, that I give a logical sequence with a conclusion they are not equivalent. You simply assert they are the same.


                    It CAN be about producing a family, and it IS about the love and intimacy of the people marrying.
                    It ALMOST ALWAYS is about both producing a family AND the love and intimacy of the people marrying. Take away one or the other and you have changed what marriage is, and that is why M/F marriages are not equivalent to {M/M and F/F} marriages. And again, I am arguing they are not equivalent, not the morality of either.

                    That difference translates into morality in the religion of the baker. But the fact they ARE different means you can't simply claim all weddings are the same. They aren't. Some weddings produce unions which by their nature have the potential to produce children, others do not.


                    Agreed. And you are right - I am guilty of this for this part of this discussion. You have repeatedly stated that marriage is for producing children (a position I do not agree with), and in the context of a discussion about the immorality of gay marriage. I took as your implication that, since a gay marriage cannot produce children, it is immoral/unacceptable. I have been under the impression (apparently mistaken) that you were continuing the previous discussions on why same-sex unions were immoral. Apparently, you just wanted to make the case that MM, FF, and MF marriages are different. I would accept that statement as obviously true.



                    Here we disagree. "Fundamental" is not exactly the same as "only," but it's darned close. At the very least, it subsurviates (I think I just invented a word) one purpose to another - and on that we disagree. A valid claim can be made that marriage (and sex) for humans is more relational than procreative.
                    Actually, two elements can be equally important to defining a state or construct. So much so that the removal of either changes the definition of the state or construct.


                    Now you are treading on fallacious territory. A marriage between two people, at least one of which is infertile, is - by its very nature - unable to produce children. I realize you claim otherwise, but if it is the natural condition of one or more of the partners to be infertile (due to age, low sperm count, etc.) then it is the natural status of this marriage to be childless. That some eventually do is irrelevant. Many (most?) never do because of the infertility of one or more partners. A couple can marry in their 60s, well beyond child rearing. Their infertility is perfectly natural, because they are past the age of child bearing. I doubt anyone would call this marriage a "fundamental redefinition of marriage." Likewise, an MM or FF couple cannot bear children of which they are both biological parents, for perfectly natural and obvious reasons.
                    Your focus on infertility is a red herring. A male and a female, by their nature, and without further specification, have the potential to produce offspring. A male and a male, or a female and a female, byt their nature and without further specification simply have no natural potential to create a child. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Their union is not a sexual union in the biological sense. And it doesn't matter how well or how poorly their equipment works. A marriage is, in fact, all about providing a safe environment for that BIOLOGICAL sexual union. There is no BIOLOGICAL sexual union in a same sex marriage. And - in many cultures - the marriage itself is null and void if the BIOLOGICAL sexual union never takes place. The proper term is 'the consummation of the marriage'.

                    Jim, you (and others like you) are attempting to place constrains of MM and FF marriage that are simply rooted in historic bigotry and prejudice. That it exists is understandable. That it continue to exist is not defensible, for all of the reasons I have cited.
                    No - in this case the differences I am pointing out are the simple science of sexual reproduction and the practical realities of producing functional new members of our species. They are fundamental to why a same-sex marriage can never be 'the same' as a hetero-sexual marriage. The same-sex marriage strips away one of the primary components that drove the development of the institution itself.


                    Jim
                    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-13-2018, 12:31 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


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Baker - I will not make a "mixed race wedding cake" (i.e., a wedding cake for a mixed race wedding)!
                      Patron - you're a racist!
                      Baker - No I'm not - I won't make a "mixed race wedding cake" for anyone
                      If he makes wedding cakes for black couples and white couples, then you can't claim he is racist. He is not against the person's race, just type of marriage. But he would not be able to use Christianity as a defense on that one. But if he belonged to a religion that said that races cannot marry, then I think he is within his rights to refuse to make that cake. It's a free country. Get your cake somewhere else.

                      And again, it is the same as
                      I will not make you a Halloween Cake. or, I will not make you a Ramadan Cake. or, I will not make you a Wedding Cake for your marriage to your brother.

                      Your "genetic" excuse doesn't even make sense. There is no "gay gene" that anyone has found and the baker is not discriminating against either sex. He sells wedding cakes to women and men. No, it is not the genes that matter, but that TWO men are getting married or two women. Your argument is like saying a baker who refused to make a cake for an incestual marriage between a brother and sister was doing it based on genetics because the participants had different genitals. It might be the case that they do have different genitals but that isn't the reason he is refusing to marry them. It is because such a marriage is invalid in his eyes and he finds such a marriage to be immoral.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        But if he belonged to a religion that said that races cannot marry, then I think he is within his rights to refuse to make that cake. It's a free country. Get your cake somewhere else.
                        Isn't that actually against the law? I thought that there were some anti-discrimination rules in place that dealt with that kind of thing.
                        Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Carpe, M/F and {M/M and F/F } marriages differ from one another in terms of their capacity to naturally produce children. To produce a natural family. This is a MAJOR difference between the two. To claim otherwise is just to ignore reality.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          BB/BW/WW marriages of the M/F kind are functionally equivalent unions. They don't differ in this MAJOR component. You are not thinking logically or practically. You can't equate minor cultural differences or differences in personality with being by nature capable of producing children. In the MAJOR area of the capacity to produce and create an ongoing family, they differ at their core. I contend that without the the capacity to produce and the needs associated with raising children we might not even have a construct like marriage. It is a MAJOR component. But not the only component.
                          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?

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          You are out in the weeds carpe. None of those examples have anything to do with the point I am arguing. And that is that M/F and {M/M ,F/F } marriages are fundamentally different things because their natural capacity to produce children is completely different. I would further argue that marriages would not even exist as a common construct of human culture if children were not the natural by-product of M/F unions. That is why they came to be. that is why they exist. And removing that capability from the equation BY DESIGN changes its fundamental nature.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Hence same-sex marriages are not equivalent.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Notice, by the way, that I give a logical sequence with a conclusion they are not equivalent. You simply assert they are the same.
                          Actually, I have noted they are different. No problem.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          It ALMOST ALWAYS is about both producing a family AND the love and intimacy of the people marrying. Take away one or the other and you have changed what marriage is, and that is why M/F marriages are not equivalent to {M/M and F/F} marriages. And again, I am arguing they are not equivalent, not the morality of either.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          That difference translates into morality in the religion of the baker. But the fact they ARE different means you can't simply claim all weddings are the same. They aren't. Some weddings produce unions which by their nature have the potential to produce children, others do not.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Actually, two elements can be equally important to defining a state or construct. So much so that the removal of either changes the definition of the state or construct.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Your focus on infertility is a red herring. A male and a female, by their nature, and without further specification, have the potential to produce offspring.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          A male and a male, or a female and a female, simply have no natural potential to create a child. None. Nada. Zip. Zero.
                          Correct.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Their union is not a sexual union in the biological sense.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          And it doesn't matter how well or how poorly their equipment works. A marriage is, in fact, all about providing a safe environment for that BIOLOGICAL sexual union. There is no BIOLOGICAL sexual union in a same sex marriage. And - in many cultures - the marriage itself is null and void if the BIOLOGICAL sexual union never takes place. The proper term is 'the consummation of the marriage'.
                          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.

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          No - in this case the differences I am pointing out are the simple science of sexual reproduction and the practical realities of producing functional new members of our species. They are fundamental to why a same-sex marriage can never be 'the same' as a hetero-sexual marriage. The same-sex marriage strips away the primary component that drove the development of the institution itself. To induce a commitment that transcends all obstacles in order to provide support for the biological sexual union with an environment a child needs to grow to a healthy and productive maturity and a construct to support the resultant family.

                          Jim
                          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.
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2018, 12:57 PM.
                          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 Sparko View Post
                            If he makes wedding cakes for black couples and white couples, then you can't claim he is racist. He is not against the person's race, just type of marriage. But he would not be able to use Christianity as a defense on that one. But if he belonged to a religion that said that races cannot marry, then I think he is within his rights to refuse to make that cake. It's a free country. Get your cake somewhere else.

                            And again, it is the same as
                            I will not make you a Halloween Cake. or, I will not make you a Ramadan Cake. or, I will not make you a Wedding Cake for your marriage to your brother.

                            Your "genetic" excuse doesn't even make sense. There is no "gay gene" that anyone has found and the baker is not discriminating against either sex. He sells wedding cakes to women and men. No, it is not the genes that matter, but that TWO men are getting married or two women. Your argument is like saying a baker who refused to make a cake for an incestual marriage between a brother and sister was doing it based on genetics because the participants had different genitals. It might be the case that they do have different genitals but that isn't the reason he is refusing to marry them. It is because such a marriage is invalid in his eyes and he finds such a marriage to be immoral.
                            At this point, Sparko, all I'll be doing is repeating myself ad infinitum. We're clearly not going to agree, and you're just repeating the same failed argument over and over. To claim that a person who would not make a cake for a mixed race couple because of their mixed race nature is "not racist" because he'd make one for a same-race couple is, IMO, ridiculous. You're reaching.

                            And I am sure you have the same view of my argument.

                            I do not have much inclination to continue, so I'll leave the lass word to you and continue with others who are making more reasoned (IMO) arguments.
                            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 Yttrium View Post
                              Isn't that actually against the law? I thought that there were some anti-discrimination rules in place that dealt with that kind of thing.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                At this point, Sparko, all I'll be doing is repeating myself ad infinitum. We're clearly not going to agree, and you're just repeating the same failed argument over and over. To claim that a person who would not make a cake for a mixed race couple because of their mixed race nature is "not racist" because he'd make one for a same-race couple is, IMO, ridiculous. You're reaching.

                                And I am sure you have the same view of my argument.

                                I do not have much inclination to continue, so I'll leave the lass word to you and continue with others who are making more reasoned (IMO) arguments.
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                172 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                410 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X