Shugart's 'Gay Basher' Article

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
244

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a Jewish baker provides cake decorating services, what gives that baker the right to deny anyone a Holocaust cake? That’s the road we’re going down.

Sure, it’s discriminatory. We discriminate all the time and don’t bat an eyelid. We don’t let women sell their bodies for example, is that okay? We don’t let 20 year olds buy alcohol, is that okay? We let business’ turn away customers not wearing a shirt or shoes, is that okay? Personal financial planners turn people away if they don’t have a certain amount of assets, is that okay?

There are a lot of examples. [/quote]

I feel like, as long as they refuse to sell all people that cake, it is equal. If they only refused to sell it to one group, that would be discrimination.[/quote]

So a bakery refusing to decorate a cake with two grooms should be fine, right? A bakery refusing to decorate a cake with “Congratulations, Ace and Gary!” should be just fine, right? A bakery owner telling any customer(regardless of that person’s sexuality) who asks about such services that “I don’t bake cakes for fags” is not a problem, right?

245

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a Jewish baker provides cake decorating services, what gives that baker the right to deny anyone a Holocaust cake? That’s the road we’re going down.

Sure, it’s discriminatory. We discriminate all the time and don’t bat an eyelid. We don’t let women sell their bodies for example, is that okay? We don’t let 20 year olds buy alcohol, is that okay? We let business’ turn away customers not wearing a shirt or shoes, is that okay? Personal financial planners turn people away if they don’t have a certain amount of assets, is that okay?

There are a lot of examples. [/quote]

I feel like, as long as they refuse to sell all people that cake, it is equal. If they only refused to sell it to one group, that would be discrimination.[/quote]

So a bakery refusing to decorate a cake with two grooms should be fine, right? A bakery refusing to decorate a cake with “Congratulations, Ace and Gary!” should be just fine, right? A bakery owner telling any customer(regardless of that person’s sexuality) who asks about such services that “I don’t bake cakes for fags” is not a problem, right?[/quote]

I don’t know. I was only responding to the example about a jewish bakery, as I felt it did not serve its purpose.

EDIT: Like, if we wanted to make it more apt, we could ask if it’s wrong for a Jewish bakery to refuse to sell a normal cake to a neo-nazi KNOWING that the cake was going to be sold at a bake sale to raise funds for a Jewish book burning event.

I feel like in this instance, we’re still hitting the idea (someone giving business that violates their beliefs) without putting the business in a position wherein they are selling a product that they don’t carry. Less confusion of the issue.

246

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Yes, but there are two separate questions: what is allowed under the various relevant laws as they exist, and what ought to be allowed. I think that most people are here concerned with the latter.

Edit: though you and Jack always have fascinating things to say about the former.[/quote]

You’re correct, and I’ve even gotten confused a few times on what angle I was trying to argue from, because philosophically speaking I side with the libertarian viewpoint that the laws themselves are unnecessary, unfair, etc. to the business owner(s).

However, given that they are written and enforced, the rational side of me tries to see reasonable scrutiny from contrary viewpoints too. Even though many might agree that religious liberty, as a First Amendment right, always should prevail in similar legal matters, it’s tough to not acknowledge that in doing so it opens up a proverbial can of worms when it conflicts with secular laws like this, because eventually someone is going to cling to religious beliefs to engage in broader discrimination or otherwise test the meaning of the law in a radical way. We’ve bantered back and forth around here about how valid the “slippery slope” logic really is, and perhaps it isn’t, but it does beg the question of whether or not some fringe minority is going to try to cite religious pretext in subverting other laws or regulations that apply to private enterprise too, sans just the discrimination issue. I suppose cases like this will continue to test the meaning of the First Amendment, and though the SCOTUS rejected a similar case on appeal from New Mexico last year (c.f., Elane Photography v. Willock) - it should be noted that was a compelled speech issue too, I’d argue they need to settle this matter as well.

247

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Maybe it, the science, will come. Maybe not. If not, what will you* do? Continue to beat folks like me over the head with the “Someday” bat? The “Just Accept it and Move On” club? Will you attempt to crush the opposition as per the Global Warming crowd? Will you try and win the debate with sheer noise?

  • the proverbial “you”[/quote]

I’m certainly one who respects the right of everyone to have an opinion, and disagreement doesn’t equate to bigotry in my book. There is a radical element to the GSM (gender and sexual minority) community that certainly wants to crush the opposition, going so far as to punish the church or force acceptance to a point that I don’t support (e.g., punishing private businesses with legitimate religious objections). However, I tend to believe there is a middle ground here where we can work to respect religious freedoms, while still giving some equal legal rights to gays and lesbians.

Personally, I tend to believe that sexual orientation, of any variety (assuming the possibility of some fluidity), isn’t inherently genetic, but rather influenced by a complex set of pre and post-natal influences, but also that it isn’t much of a choice for 99% of the population, but that’s just me - I certainly could be wrong too.[/quote]

Reading through this thread, I tend to agree with your position as stated in this post although I am sure you and I are in different areas of the middle ground. Still, I do very much believe that a complex set of influences is at work.

248

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[
Again, fine. The baker does not EVER sell or provide gay marriage cakes to ANYONE. Satisfied?
[/quote]

Again, fine, The baker does not EVER sell or provide mixed race marriage cakes to ANYONE.

250

I’m not surprised that gay people were pushing to change the laws, it was in there own interest. What surprised me is how many straight people got on board and made it a crusade. I can only think there must be a lot of bored people out there looking for a cause no matter what it is. I wonder what the next one will be?

251

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The difference is the gay couple can just as easily use a different business. They aren’t being forced to use Bakery X, Y, or Z by the government. [/quote]

Should people be denied service based on something that has no bearing on their ability to pay for the service?

252

[quote]Beyond Beyond wrote:
I’m not surprised that gay people were pushing to change the laws, it was in there own interest. What surprised me is how many straight people got on board and made it a crusade. I can only think there must be a lot of bored people out there looking for a cause no matter what it is. I wonder what the next one will be?
[/quote]

This is asinine.

Why did a bunch of white people risk their own lives trying to end black slavery in the 19th century, and then again in the middle of the 20th century to end segregation.

253

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The difference is the gay couple can just as easily use a different business. They aren’t being forced to use Bakery X, Y, or Z by the government. [/quote]

Should people be denied service based on something that has no bearing on their ability to pay for the service?

[/quote]

No, but this has nothing to do with their ability to pay for the service.

I honestly don’t understand why this is such a contested issue. Some Christian’s feel it is a sin for them to participate in gay marriage. Christian bakers have been put into a position where their product is used in gay wedding ceremonies, which in their mind, is participating in sin. So they don’t want to provide the cake. Why can’t a gay couple just use a secular bakery? I bet 95+% of bakeries would sell them a cake… This is a non-issue.

254

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:
A lot of these “what if” scenarios are irrelevant, because you can’t force a business to provide a good or service that they don’t sell or provide on a regular basis…

[/quote]

Again, fine. The baker does not EVER sell or provide gay marriage cakes to ANYONE. Satisfied?
[/quote]

Push,

What is a “Gay Marriage Cake”? I’m pretty sure they are a gay couple getting a wedding cake, you know, tiered, overpriced, not particularly tasty. Not a cake that says “Happy Gay Wedding” with a picture of a dick with a line through it. So in this case you should point your “anti-aircraft gun” at your previous post and shoot it down. They asked for a cake for a wedding, the fact that they are gay is immaterial to the product they requested. They asked for a wedding cake, end of story.

255

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The difference is the gay couple can just as easily use a different business. They aren’t being forced to use Bakery X, Y, or Z by the government. [/quote]

Should people be denied service based on something that has no bearing on their ability to pay for the service?

[/quote]

No, but this has nothing to do with their ability to pay for the service.

I honestly don’t understand why this is such a contested issue. Some Christian’s feel it is a sin for them to participate in gay marriage. Christian bakers have been put into a position where their product is used in gay wedding ceremonies, which in their mind, is participating in sin. So they don’t want to provide the cake. Why can’t a gay couple just use a secular bakery? I bet 95+% of bakeries would sell them a cake… This is a non-issue. [/quote]

USMC,

First off, I don’t see the issue here either. If an apartment complex refuses to rent an apartment to a minority, so what. If a restaurant, or even a town full of restaurants decide to not serve minorities, who cares, it’s their choice. As long as this is not OFFICIAL discrimination (state sanctioned) what’s the harm.

I see a lot of “slippery slope” arguments on this site, however this is not one. We actually have state and federal agencies that deal with this shit daily (suspected discrimination) in the service industry. Donald Sterling (remember him) refused to rent to blacks, hispanics and people with kids, he ended up paying 7.2 million in two separate lawsuits, it seems unfair because, well he owned the apartments, shouldn’t he decide who lives there? If Donald Sterling said his religion prevented him from renting to minorities would we give him a pass?

I don’t think the issue is a cake, I think the issue is that people are DISCRIMINATING against the gays or blacks, hispanics, jews, disabled etc. And real discrimination (as opposed to safety based discrimination like drinking laws, driving laws etc) is not something we should tolerate.

256

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The difference is the gay couple can just as easily use a different business. They aren’t being forced to use Bakery X, Y, or Z by the government. [/quote]

Should people be denied service based on something that has no bearing on their ability to pay for the service?

[/quote]

No, but this has nothing to do with their ability to pay for the service.

I honestly don’t understand why this is such a contested issue. Some Christian’s feel it is a sin for them to participate in gay marriage. Christian bakers have been put into a position where their product is used in gay wedding ceremonies, which in their mind, is participating in sin. So they don’t want to provide the cake. Why can’t a gay couple just use a secular bakery? I bet 95+% of bakeries would sell them a cake… This is a non-issue. [/quote]

USMC,

First off, I don’t see the issue here either. If an apartment complex refuses to rent an apartment to a minority, so what. If a restaurant, or even a town full of restaurants decide to not serve minorities, who cares, it’s their choice. As long as this is not OFFICIAL discrimination (state sanctioned) what’s the harm.

I see a lot of “slippery slope” arguments on this site, however this is not one. We actually have state and federal agencies that deal with this shit daily (suspected discrimination) in the service industry. Donald Sterling (remember him) refused to rent to blacks, hispanics and people with kids, he ended up paying 7.2 million in two separate lawsuits, it seems unfair because, well he owned the apartments, shouldn’t he decide who lives there? If Donald Sterling said his religion prevented him from renting to minorities would we give him a pass? [/quote]

The key variable you are missing is that this so called discrimination of gays is based on a deeply held religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. This isn’t Donald Sterling hating blacks because they’re black. This isn’t segregation bullshit. This a group of people not wanting to participate in what they believe is wrong based on their religious belief.

No religion that I’m aware of says being a minority is a sin…

The issue is participation in sin. How about real discrimination against Christians like Aaron and Melissa Klein who have been fined $135,000 for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding ceremony, have supposedly had their 1st amendment pissed on, and now might have a lien put on their personal residence?

257

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No, but this has nothing to do with their ability to pay for the service.[/quote]

Wait, so are you are saying that people shouldn’t be denied service if they’re more than capable of paying for the service?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I honestly don’t understand why this is such a contested issue. Some Christian’s feel it is a sin for them to participate in gay marriage. Christian bakers have been put into a position where their product is used in gay wedding ceremonies, which in their mind, is participating in sin.[/quote]

Because this would mean that any other religion that feels that it’s having its religious liberty violated would be just as justified as Christians to deny service, for one.

Another, is there a limit to how much a government should accommodate a religious belief?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So they don’t want to provide the cake. Why can’t a gay couple just use a secular bakery? I bet 95+% of bakeries would sell them a cake… This is a non-issue. [/quote]

This is silly. There could be many reasons why a particular bakery is preferred over the other.

This is like saying because a steakhouse is a steakhouse, all steakhouses can substitute for the other.

But attempting to compare Outback with some first-class super steakhouse doesn’t work.

Plus, this is essentially the same argument as segregated dining places, etc.

258

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No, but this has nothing to do with their ability to pay for the service.[/quote]

Wait, so are you are saying that people shouldn’t be denied service if they’re more than capable of paying for the service?
[/quote]

No, I’m saying their ability to pay has nothing to do with it.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I honestly don’t understand why this is such a contested issue. Some Christian’s feel it is a sin for them to participate in gay marriage. Christian bakers have been put into a position where their product is used in gay wedding ceremonies, which in their mind, is participating in sin.[/quote]

Because this would mean that any other religion that feels that it’s having its religious liberty violated would be just as justified as Christians to deny service, for one.

Another, is there a limit to how much a government should accommodate a religious belief?
[/quote]

So? Consumers would determine if they agree or not with their dollars.

It isn’t accommodating a religious belief. It’s respecting a religious belief.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So they don’t want to provide the cake. Why can’t a gay couple just use a secular bakery? I bet 95+% of bakeries would sell them a cake… This is a non-issue. [/quote]

This is silly. There could be many reasons why a particular bakery is preferred over the other. [/quote]

Again so what? I would have preferred to go to Harvard over the MD state school I went to. Sadly Harvard turned me down…

[quote]
This is like saying because a steakhouse is a steakhouse, all steakhouses can substitute for the other.

But attempting to compare Outback with some first-class super steakhouse doesn’t work. [/quote]

Well, in my opinion all steakhouses are basically a substitute for each other. They might taste different based on seasoning or cooking technique and obviously some are better than others, but a porterhouse is a porterhouse regardless of where you go.

Should a first class steakhouse be allowed to turn me down if I have the ability to pay for my dinner, but I’m not wearing the appropriate dinner attire for that specific restaurant?

You are advocating for the government to compel a small business, through force or threat of force, to provide a service that directly violates their religious belief and your okay with that? I think that’s silly.

[quote]
Plus, this is essentially the same argument as segregated dining places, etc.[/quote]

The culture and climate of the United States is like 1,000x different now than it was during segregation.

Speaking of discrimination:
Are you okay with minority scholarships?
Are you okay with affirmative action laws?
Are you okay with sanctuary cities?

All the above are discriminatory and all the above are legal.