The Flowers and the Wedding -- Just the FACTS, please

[Sparko]

Not what I said, so I have no further response.



"genetically determined" is an accurate description of the position.

1) A and B can marry or be intimate because they have differing genitals
2) C and D cannot marry or be intimate because they have matching genitals

This is the heart of the moral statement.
The only difference between the two statements is the genitals of the participants
Genitals are genetically determined. Ergo - what makes the act moral or immoral is the genetic makeup of its participants.

The baker and florist are refusing a service because the participants are same sex
Ergo - they are making a decision rooted in the genetics of the participants.

While you may want to label it "ridiculous" or "idiotic," the logic seems pretty inescapable to me. But feel free to point to which part of that sequence is not true.



I never said they didn't. I can ladle soup into a soup bowl for a black man at a soup kitchen while simultaneously denying them a seat in my diner. The former does not make the latter position less bigoted.

Well if they were discriminating on couples based on "genetics" or even "being gay" then why would they sell them products for other occasions? Which they did. They were against the Gay Wedding and being forced to create something that implied they were accepting of gay marriage.

[carpedm9587]

Wow. So marriage isn't voluntary any more?

Not what I said, so I have no further response.

And your 'genetically determined' nonsense is YOUR idiotic characterization re: motivation.

"genetically determined" is an accurate description of the position.

1) A and B can marry or be intimate because they have differing genitals
2) C and D cannot marry or be intimate because they have matching genitals

This is the heart of the moral statement.
The only difference between the two statements is the genitals of the participants
Genitals are genetically determined. Ergo - what makes the act moral or immoral is the genetic makeup of its participants.

The baker and florist are refusing a service because the participants are same sex
Ergo - they are making a decision rooted in the genetics of the participants.

While you may want to label it "ridiculous" or "idiotic," the logic seems pretty inescapable to me. But feel free to point to which part of that sequence is not true.

The florist sold flowers to gay couples for other occasions as did the cake baker. Such as birthdays. So your artificial objection is moot.

I never said they didn't. I can ladle soup into a soup bowl for a black man at a soup kitchen while simultaneously denying them a seat in my diner. The former does not make the latter position less bigoted. Likewise, I can sell a gay man cupcakes every day of the week, and deny them a wedding cake for their wedding. The former does not make the latter a less bigoted position.

[Sparko]

There is no incidence of special pleading. Membership in the KKK is ABOUT prejudice/bigotry and is not genetically determined. Someone who chooses to be a member of the KKK is choosing to affiliate themselves with a group that promotes hateful ideals. The same is not true of two people marrying.

Wow. So marriage isn't voluntary any more? And your 'genetically determined' nonsense is YOUR idiotic characterization re: motivation.

The florist sold flowers to gay couples for other occasions as did the cake baker. Such as birthdays. So your artificial objection is moot.

You are a hypocrite, pure and simple.

[carpedm9587]

And the special pleading is when you label a cake a "KKK cake" rather than a cake being used at a KKK rally.

There is no incidence of special pleading. Membership in the KKK is ABOUT prejudice/bigotry and is not genetically determined. Someone who chooses to be a member of the KKK is choosing to affiliate themselves with a group that promotes hateful ideals. The same is not true of two people marrying.

You are just re-characterizing things to fit your "morality" while denying others the same liberty. You don't want to make a cake for a KKK rally, so it's a "KKK cake" but you do want them to make cakes for a gay wedding so it is not a "gay wedding cake" but just a cake for a gay wedding.

I won't make a cake for a KKK gathering because membership to the KKK is voluntary and the organization represents hateful ideals. Two people marrying are not even in the same category.

You do this all the time. You redefine words and situations to your special internal language and then when people call you on your stated opinions or claims you can deny it and say they are misunderstanding you. Debating you is like trying to nail down smoke.

It boils down to "Carp is the good guy and his values are the bestest and you other guys are bigoted scum because you don't agree with carp" All while denying that is what you are saying.

This has been responded to - so I'll let my previous responses stand.

[carpedm9587]

How are they not? Each statement assumes the conclusion. If you had worded it as follows then you wouldn't have a problem:

"It is immoral for a black person to have sex with a white person" is a moral stand, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
"It is immoral for a woman to be the head of a household" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
"It is immoral for a man to have sex with a man" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.

Sorry, but you don't get the "bigotry" accusation for free. This would actually have to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.

No - the statements are intrinsically bigoted because they make a judgement on an individual's actions based on their genetic membership in a class. There is no "begged question" here. All three positions meet the definition of "prejudiced/bigoted." (more the former - bigoted can also have a wider definition that has to do with narrowmindedness - I am using it specifically with respect to things like racism, sexism, etc.).

[carpedm9587]

I'm wondering how long before we bigots will be taken to task for opposing the infliction of the kind of lifestyle that has been inflicted on such children as Desmond the Amazing and Queen Lactatia. (not linking - I'll leave it to google, for those who are willing to be confronted)

So I looked quickly. What I cannot tell from the site is if the "lifestyle" of these children is being "imposed" or "inflicted" (presumably to make money?) If that is true, then that is abhorrent. On the other hand, my eldest played "dress-up" using his mother's clothes for years and it was never imposed. He also loved being in the school play. If those two had intersected and he had ended up on stage I would have had no problem with it. And if it had made him famous, so what? As long as it did not compromise his education, and did not put him in jeopardy, I would have supported him.

As it happened, he only took it "out of the house" a couple times, for costume events. Today, he loves crazy clothes and occasionally polishes his nails. Such is life.

[Sparko]

The bigotry happens when they label it a "gay wedding cake" and refuse to make it, rather than just a "wedding cake." It differentiates the wedding on the basis of the genitals of its members - which is basing the distinction in genetics.

We've seen this before. I cannot avoid an accusation of bigotry by labeling any food eaten by a black person as "black food" and then saying "I won't sell black food to anyone." Likewise, I cannot escape bigotry by labeling a wedding cake "gay wedding cake" because it is going to a same-sex wedding ceremony, and then saying, "see, I won't sell gay wedding cakes to anyone. I'm not a bigot!"

And the special pleading is when you label a cake a "KKK cake" rather than a cake being used at a KKK rally.

You are just re-characterizing things to fit your "morality" while denying others the same liberty. You don't want to make a cake for a KKK rally, so it's a "KKK cake" but you do want them to make cakes for a gay wedding so it is not a "gay wedding cake" but just a cake for a gay wedding.

You do this all the time. You redefine words and situations to your special internal language and then when people call you on your stated opinions or claims you can deny it and say they are misunderstanding you. Debating you is like trying to nail down smoke.

It boils down to "Carp is the good guy and his values are the bestest and you other guys are bigoted scum because you don't agree with carp" All while denying that is what you are saying.

[Mountain Man]

How are they begged questions?

How are they not? Each statement assumes the conclusion. If you had worded it as follows then you wouldn't have a problem:

"It is immoral for a black person to have sex with a white person" is a moral stand, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
"It is immoral for a woman to be the head of a household" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
"It is immoral for a man to have sex with a man" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.

Sorry, but you don't get the "bigotry" accusation for free. This would actually have to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.

[carpedm9587]

and the baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding for anyone. Even if a straight person ordered the cake for a gay wedding he would refuse it. Problem solved.

The bigotry happens when they label it a "gay wedding cake" and refuse to make it, rather than just a "wedding cake." It differentiates the wedding on the basis of the genitals of its members - which is basing the distinction in genetics.

We've seen this before. I cannot avoid an accusation of bigotry by labeling any food eaten by a black person as "black food" and then saying "I won't sell black food to anyone." Likewise, I cannot escape bigotry by labeling a wedding cake "gay wedding cake" because it is going to a same-sex wedding ceremony, and then saying, "see, I won't sell gay wedding cakes to anyone. I'm not a bigot!"

[carpedm9587]

Discussion? When is discussion possible with a person who brands, ipso facto, a person with opposing views as bigoted?

My wife has an opposing view of how we should manage our finances - she is not "bigoted/prejudiced" about finances.
You and I disagree on whether or not a god exists - you are not "bigoted/prejudiced" about god
I disagree with MM on whether or not there should be an electoral college - he is not "bigoted/prejudiced" about the American election system.

No matter how many times you guys try to twist what I am saying into "if we disagree - we're bigoted" - that is NOT what I am saying and not what I have EVER said. And I am going to make this my last response to that ridiculous assertion. It's not true - and I prefer to defend positions I actually hold, not positions people put in my mouth and then rail against.

No-one other than you yourself has shifted the discussion to personal attacks.

I invite you to reread the thread. The position "it is immoral for a man to have sex with a man" is a position that is bigoted and prejudiced by it's very nature. That is not easy to hear, I understand. But the statement is about the position because the position meets the definition of "bigotry" and "prejudice." Likewise, the position, "it is immoral for a white person to marry or have sex with a black person" is a position based in bigotry and prejudice.

The response, so far, has been an argument from outrage and offense. Not a single person has addressed the actual core issue, which I have outlined several times. If you want to convince, simply set aside the outrage and address the arguments. Outrage is not a convincing argument.

Branding people "bigots" isn't a personal attack? In what universe would that be possible?

There is no way to say "that position is bigoted" without causing offense. Nobody likes to hear that they hold bigoted views. That does not mean they are not bigoted views. If you want me to be politically correct to avoid treading on your sensibilities, you've come to the wrong place. I prefer to name a thing for what it is.

I invite you to address the core part of the argument - and show that the position is NOT bigoted. I suspect, if you were to actually try to do that, you would find yourself facing the inevitable reality. Then you would be in a conundrum: you live your life by your bible and your bible contains a bigoted position. Do you continue to live by it, or will that be an indication to you that maybe something is wrong with how you structure and arrive at your beliefs?

[tabibito]

I'm wondering how long before we bigots will be taken to task for opposing the infliction of the kind of lifestyle that has been inflicted on such children as Desmond the Amazing and Queen Lactatia. (not linking - I'll leave it to google, for those who are willing to be confronted)

[Sparko]

Yes, I would. For everyone.

and the baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding for anyone. Even if a straight person ordered the cake for a gay wedding he would refuse it. Problem solved.

[tabibito]

Do you think that shifting the discussion to personal attacks in any way advances your argument?

Discussion? When is discussion possible with a person who brands, ipso facto, a person with opposing views as bigoted?
No-one other than you yourself has shifted the discussion to personal attacks.
Branding people "bigots" isn't a personal attack? In what universe would that be possible?

[carpedm9587]

I got news for you, Carpe. You're not the boss of the world, and for that, I am glad.

I have never thought or implied I'm "boss of the world."

Do you think that shifting the discussion to personal attacks in any way advances your argument?




ETA: OK - I can't resist - but only because you've tugged my chain on this so often.... Last word...?

[carpedm9587]

I don't suppose it has yet dawned on you that every single one of these examples is a begged question.

How are they begged questions?