If you are asking should they sell them regular cakes they make, sure, why not. If the rally organizers asked them to write anti-jewish slogans on them then no, as long as it’s not a service they have provided before.
USMC,
So if your religion allowed discrimination based on skin color then you think that is an adequate defense for not serving a minority? What about a muslim baker/baker/landlord/mechanic/doctor/store owner refusing to serve a jewish/christian/buddhist/female etc because it is against their religious beliefs? At what point does this create the exact opposite of an inclusive society when we allow religious beliefs to institutionalize discrimination?
I don’t think we should shit on peoples religious identities, but I also don’t think that religion is an acceptable excuse for discrimination. Pharmacies have been refusing to provide birth control pills to women because the pharmacy owner doesn’t agree with contraception (though many women are prescribed BCP for other reasons than contraception). This may seem harmless in some areas with lots of pharmacies, but in some areas where the nearest competing pharmacy is hours away what should that woman do? I know the answer, drive 3 hours away to stay healthy/not have unwanted kids. The whole country will start to unravel if we let every yahoo with a belief system use that as the measure of whether they will provide a service to a person, and once it starts where will it end?
[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.[/quote]
It’s easy to become a statist when you’re bored, eh?[/quote]
Push,
I can now see how you have 40,000+ posts. Post something that makes sense next time.
[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.[/quote]
Surely (I know, don’t call you Shirley) you’re not taking the inane position that a man’s skin color is comparable to his sexual preference?
If so, cite the scientific evidence. I’ll wait.
In addition, I think a baker should never have to sell or provide mixed race marriage cakes to ANYONE if he so chooses. Would you force him to do so? I bet not. So that problem’s solved. What’s next?
Bottom line is people need to leave other folks the fuck alone. You don’t like a baker that makes cakes for who he wants to makes cakes? Boycott him and buy your motherfucking cakes somewhere else, you pansy ass meddlin’ sonofabitch. You don’t like a photographer that only wants to take wedding photos of gays or straights or bisexuals or yellows or whites or blacks or Eskimos? Boycott him and buy your motherfucking wedding photos somewhere else, you pansy ass meddlin’ sonofabitch.
Gays have been screeching, “STAY OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS” (and rightfully so) for decades but now they want the whole fucking world to be forced into their bedrooms, their weddings, their outhouses, and their nostrils. Gimme a break. Back off.[/quote]
I do equate being discriminated against due to sexual preference to being discriminated against because of race. I know you don’t hold the same view.
You believe they choose to be gay.
Maybe, maybe not. But choosing to believe in Jesus shouldn’t give people the right to discriminate against others.
[quote]magick wrote:
Should people be denied service based on something that has no bearing on their ability to pay for the service?
[/quote]
Hmm…I don’t know. If a guy makes a living cutting lawns, should he be allowed to charge some customers more money(due to yard size, etc.) or refuse to cut a lawn altogether(for whatever reason)? The price of a good or service shouldn’t be determined by anyone who is not either the potential purchaser or seller, in my opinion. In other words, there’s no way for anyone but the seller of a good/service to know what has bearing on a potential customer’s ability to pay for his good/service.
Of course, we can also look at it from this perspective: A gay couple wants to purchase a cake from Bakery A, but Bakery B and Bakery C are in the same town. Should the gay couple have to either purchase a separate cake from each bakery or pay the three bakers an equal amount to bake and decorate the cake together(the potential purchaser is providing the baker just as much a service/good-money-as the baker is providing him)? The first option compels the gay couple to spend three times what’s necessary to purchase a cake. The second eliminates competition and all the benefits(assuming that you see any benefits to competition) with which competition is associated.
(“Gay couple” in the above paragraph can be replaced by “black couple,” “interracial couple,” “white couple,” “man and sheep,” etc. I try not to look at issues like this from the “OMG, my feelz iz hurt” perspective.)
So if your religion allowed discrimination based on skin color then you think that is an adequate defense for not serving a minority? [/quote]
Does a religion like that exist on this planet? I think that in 2015 the free market would demolish any business or religion that acted like that. Worst case, they would survive as fringe elements.
They would figuratively and probably literally be destroyed by society.
[quote]
At what point does this create the exact opposite of an inclusive society when we allow religious beliefs to institutionalize discrimination? [/quote]
Inclusive for who? It doesn’t feel like society is being very inclusive of Christians to me.
[quote]
I don’t think we should shit on peoples religious identities, but I also don’t think that religion is an acceptable excuse for discrimination. [/quote]
You understand that many Christian’s believe they will go to hell for supporting sin, correct? That might not be a big deal to you, but it’s sort of a big deal to Christian’s.
[quote]
Pharmacies have been refusing to provide birth control pills to women because the pharmacy owner doesn’t agree with contraception (though many women are prescribed BCP for other reasons than contraception). This may seem harmless in some areas with lots of pharmacies, but in some areas where the nearest competing pharmacy is hours away what should that woman do? I know the answer, drive 3 hours away to stay healthy/not have unwanted kids. [/quote]
I’ve not heard that. I bet this is extremely rare.
[quote]
The whole country will start to unravel if we let every yahoo with a belief system use that as the measure of whether they will provide a service to a person, and once it starts where will it end?[/quote]
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
Pharmacies have been refusing to provide birth control pills to women because the pharmacy owner doesn’t agree with contraception (though many women are prescribed BCP for other reasons than contraception). This may seem harmless in some areas with lots of pharmacies, but in some areas where the nearest competing pharmacy is hours away what should that woman do? I know the answer, drive 3 hours away to stay healthy/not have unwanted kids. [/quote]
If you’re concerned with convenience, why would you live in an area with only one pharmacy within three hours? That would make you an idiot.
The woman can drive, move, keep her legs together, or purchase condoms. This isn’t even a service being provided to some and not others. This is a service not offered at all.
My local QuikLube works on cars but refuses to rebuild my car’s engine, because “We only know how to change oil and wiper blades.” Master, please solve my problem.
I think it’s pretty weaksauce to think that because same sex marriage has been made legal that someday polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, etc etc will be legalized. We’er latecomers to the same sex marriage legalization game, but as far as I know… none of the previously mentioned practices have been legalized anywhere.
As far as the discrimination goes, has anyone read the Oregon state statute that protects a person’s class?
I wonder if they’ve ever turned away customers that were previously divorced? If they’re using Leviticus 18:22 as justification, I’d expect them to not bake a cake if the groom wears a wool suit with a silk tie (Leviticus 19:19) or for midgets (Leviticus 21:17-24). It’s funny to me which parts of the bible people choose to pay attention to. A sin is a sin as far as God’s concerned, with the little sins holding just as much weight as the big ones.
To that end, religion is more of a choice than your sexual preference.
[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.[/quote]
There is a difference in the real world, in the magnitude of importance of an issue and how it effects the broader society. Slavery I would argue had a much greater negative effect on the human rights of those subjected to it. In most 1st world countries being gay is no longer a criminal act. If we are talking about equal rights for gay people under the law, I don’t really have a problem in a broad sense. Equal rights under the law are not the same as making something identical. What I don’t agree with is calling a gay union, marriage. When you can redefine a word to mean something substancially different, you start going down a slippery slope. It is an attempt to change how a society perceives reality.
Another example would be how someone born a man, and who has operations, breast implants, takes female hormones that attempts to make them look like a woman. I sympathise with the pain and difficulty that this type of person must go through living their life, both before and after. However I don’t like how in some countries that they are legally allowed to change their passport, and or birth certificate to show that they actually are or were born as a woman. No matter how hard this person wishes or even successfully physically resembles a woman, they aren’t and deep down they know it.
But choosing to believe in Jesus shouldn’t give people the right to discriminate against others.
[/quote]
A bit more regarding this tripe.
No known society since the dawn of human civilization that has institutionalized marriage has EVER done so for homosexuals.
So again, trying to play the Jesus card is really, really lame. And desperate.
[/quote]
Your belief in Jesus is a choice. You think getting hard looking at another guy’s sweaty ballsack is a choice. You think your choice should be protected but theirs shouldn’t. I don’t give a fat baby’s dick if other societies that institutionalized marriage did so for homosexuals or not. Doesn’t affect the weak point you are arguing.
They would figuratively and probably literally be destroyed by society.[/quote]
Similarly to what’s happening to these bakeries? Do you think it’s “right”?
Suppose a Muslim chose to deny service to any woman who isn’t wearing a hijab, because that offends his/her religious sensibilities.
By your argument, there’s nothing wrong with this. The Muslim is simply following what his/her religions dictates.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So? Consumers would determine if they agree or not with their dollars.[/quote]
I think you missed my point.
If one has to respect a religion, then one has to respect all religions, and everything you seem to think this entails. This is a very dangerous rabbit-hole to go down into.
I think you’re fine with it only because it’s Christians that are being publicy “oppressed” right now.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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]
Wanna bet a thousand actual U.S. dollars that I’ve never once actually wrote on this site that I agree with the gay people on this bakery stuff?
And, no, I vehemently oppose special minority rights.
Edit-
Honestly, I’m arguing mostly because I don’t think the argument that Christians need to be protected because they believe in X is a particularly good argument.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
Pharmacies have been refusing to provide birth control pills to women because the pharmacy owner doesn’t agree with contraception (though many women are prescribed BCP for other reasons than contraception). This may seem harmless in some areas with lots of pharmacies, but in some areas where the nearest competing pharmacy is hours away what should that woman do? I know the answer, drive 3 hours away to stay healthy/not have unwanted kids. [/quote]
If you’re concerned with convenience, why would you live in an area with only one pharmacy within three hours? That would make you an idiot.
The woman can drive, move, keep her legs together, or purchase condoms. This isn’t even a service being provided to some and not others. This is a service not offered at all.
My local QuikLube works on cars but refuses to rebuild my car’s engine, because “We only know how to change oil and wiper blades.” Master, please solve my problem.[/quote]
NickViar,
This should be easy to explain. I shall address your points.
1 If you are concerned with convenience… I did not choose my house, nor my employment based on pharmacies in the area. I did not always have the same medical conditions as the day I bought my house. I am now blind and unable to drive. I could probably make a much more extensive list of why the person in this example is not an idiot, merely a victim of circumstance.
Keep your legs closed… Nice answer. My doctor prescribed the pill as a cancer preventative. To relieve my Endometriosis. To relieve my PCOS. There are more but you get the point. I cleverly hid the fact that many women are prescribed the pill for reasons other than birth control by stating that exact thing and hiding the words in parentheses (literary camouflage) you probably miseed that as well, I said literary camouflage.
Your local Quiklube sounds awesome, I have a Shih_tzu named Gracie, I only mention that because I gather we are at a point in this conversation where we say stupid shit unrelated to the issue.
Push,
SO the lady is blind, or poor and has no car, it’s a 3 hour walk/public transport/paddleboard trip to the pharmacy. Now the logistics are worked out. Try to come up with a better response than NickViar (it shouldn’t be hard)