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

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Per request of OP, closing thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Sparko]

And entirely rooted in a person's membership in a class. We used to make a similar argument

black + black = moral
white + white = moral
white + black = immoral

And we claimed it was perfectly logical then too. That didn't stop it from being a racist/bigoted/prejudicial view.

This one is not racist. It would be better described as genderist or sexist. But it is bigoted and prejudicial, for the same reasons. Morality is being rooted in a persons genetic identity, ironically by many of the very people that object to "identity politics." But apparently "identity morality" is no problem.

I don't agree.

Now it is "class" instead of "genetics?" Make up your mind and stick to it.

Adult+Child=Immoral
Man+sheep=Immoral
Brother+Sister=Immoral


Look, sometimes "class" can be a perfectly good reason to determine something is immoral

And I don't care if YOU think incest or bestiality is not immoral, others do, and there you are not calling them bigots because of "class" discrimination.

[Sparko]

You'll have to ask them. I don't see it as relevant, for the reasons noted.



"Providing a service" does not translate to "accepting the views." Hotels provide facilities for gatherings. That does not mean they endorse the positions/ideals of every group that books the facilities.

Here is your problem Carp. What YOU think constitutes "accepting their views" doesn't matter. What matters is how the Christian views it, since it it THEIR religious convictions on the line, not yours. You are wrong. And again you think that your OPINION is the only one that matters. It doesn't. The only thing that matters is the Christian Baker/Florists Religious Views and the Constitution of the USA.

And I note that you did NOT take me up on my invitation to tell me exactly where that line of reasoning was wrong or untrue in my previous post.

I don't see any such thing?

[tabibito]

OK, if I am reading you correctly, you believe that a thing is bigoted/prejudiced simply if it is labeled as such by someone? I don't follow that line of reasoning at all.

You got it wrong by a full 180 degrees. I was saying the opposite. Attitudes are not bigoted just because you consider them bigoted.

I use the terms "bigoted" and "prejudiced" when one group of people is being held to a different standard than another group for reasons that are not associated with the differences between the groups. That is what racism is/does. A person is treated according to their membership in a particular race and a bias the person has about the status of that race (i.e., they are inferior, evil, etc.).

There are clear differences between the groups that you nominated. Trying to foist off differences of life-style choices as equivalent to genetic characteristics is - to put it mildly - bulldust.

I think I have been fairly clear as to why I hold this view about homosexuality and same-sex unions/intimacy. I have outlined it several times now. I will change my view on whether or not the views are bigoted/prejudiced is someone can show me that they actually are not bigoted/prejudiced.

I'm sure that there are any number of paederasts who would consider opposition to their choices equally bigoted. Same goes for thieves or gossips, come to that. Or people who think they have the right to accuse others of things without knowing that the accusations are valid.

I don't know how you can do that, however. The moral prohibition and "sinful" declaration is completely rooted in genetic identity - as I have shown.

To the best of my knowledge, no-one here has been advocating prohibition of a person's choice to engage in homosexual partnerships - the argument has centred on being forced to endorse things that are considered inappropriate.

Not a single person has actually addressed the core of the argument. Well, Sparko sort of did. He at least acknowledged the argument had been made, and then responded to it by calling it "idiotic." Not much of a rebuttal, but pretty common here.

So you're saying that Sparko calling it idiotic doesn't make it idiotic?

We might get somewhere if people would actually address the argument, instead of the person making it.

Maybe you should set us all a good example and stop using insulting terms when you address the issues.

[seer]

I wondered when you'd be back.

I have already addressed beastiality. While I find it repugnant, I don't find it immoral for the same reasons.



And entirely rooted in a person's membership in a class. We used to make a similar argument

black + black = moral
white + white = moral
white + black = immoral

And we claimed it was perfectly logical then too. That didn't stop it from being a racist/bigoted/prejudicial view.

This one is not racist. It would be better described as genderist or sexist. But it is bigoted and prejudicial, for the same reasons. Morality is being rooted in a persons genetic identity, ironically by many of the very people that object to "identity politics." But apparently "identity morality" is no problem.

I don't agree.

Well I'm glad you agree that my position based on gender was logical. Whether you subjectively think it is sexist has no bearing except for you, and that can be dismissed - has no rational weight...

[Cow Poke]

As thread owner, I'm going to insist that we honor the OP....

Once again, I'm asking that we refrain from name calling, and just calmly discuss the facts of the case.

Yeah, I know, this horse has been whipped to death, but it just won't lay down and die.

What I want to know is simple, but I can't seem to find the actual answer in the news articles I've searched, including the "Queer Nation" website and others.

Here's the question....
Did Stuzman (the florist) refuse to sell "flowers"? Or did she decline to provide the SERVICE of arranging the flowers at the wedding?

Let's establish that fact first, before arguing whether it matters or not. (To some of us it will matter, to others it won't)

Here's Stutzman's account

Source: NYDaily News

“He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’" Stutzman said. She said it was the only wedding she had declined in 37 years.

© Copyright Original Source

In stories that appear to favor Stutzman, there's the additional statement to the effect "he said he understood and respected my belief, and we hugged", but that's missing from the stories that tend to favor the Ingersoll and Freed.

Again....

Is it known that what she was refusing/declining was "selling" the flowers? Or was it "providing the flowers for the wedding"?

If you'd like to express your OPINIONS on who or what should be done, please do that in some other thread.

Thanks.

[carpedm9587]

Are you really back to this nonsense Carp? You arbitrarily define the logical parameters, then claim victory if one doesn't meet your standard. And why can't morality be rooted in the genetics? Like a man and his sheep? Why not gender?

I wondered when you'd be back.

I have already addressed beastiality. While I find it repugnant, I don't find it immoral for the same reasons.

male+female=moral

male+male=immoral

female+female=immoral

perfectly logical.

And entirely rooted in a person's membership in a class. We used to make a similar argument

black + black = moral
white + white = moral
white + black = immoral

And we claimed it was perfectly logical then too. That didn't stop it from being a racist/bigoted/prejudicial view.

This one is not racist. It would be better described as genderist or sexist. But it is bigoted and prejudicial, for the same reasons. Morality is being rooted in a persons genetic identity, ironically by many of the very people that object to "identity politics." But apparently "identity morality" is no problem.

I don't agree.

[carpedm9587]

Calling a train a boat doesn't mean it can sail. You calling something bigoted does mean it IS bigoted.

OK, if I am reading you correctly, you believe that a thing is bigoted/prejudiced simply if it is labeled as such by someone? I don't follow that line of reasoning at all.

I use the terms "bigoted" and "prejudiced" when one group of people is being held to a different standard than another group for reasons that are not associated with the differences between the groups. That is what racism is/does. A person is treated according to their membership in a particular race and a bias the person has about the status of that race (i.e., they are inferior, evil, etc.).

I think I have been fairly clear as to why I hold this view about homosexuality and same-sex unions/intimacy. I have outlined it several times now. I will change my view on whether or not the views are bigoted/prejudiced is someone can show me that they actually are not bigoted/prejudiced. I don't know how you can do that, however. The moral prohibition and "sinful" declaration is completely rooted in genetic identity - as I have shown. Not a single person has actually addressed the core of the argument. Well, Sparko sort of did. He at least acknowledged the argument had been made, and then responded to it by calling it "idiotic." Not much of a rebuttal, but pretty common here.

We might get somewhere if people would actually address the argument, instead of the person making it.

[seer]

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.

Are you really back to this nonsense Carp? You arbitrarily define the logical parameters, then claim victory if one doesn't meet your standard. And why can't morality be rooted in the genetics? Like a man and his sheep? Why not gender?

male+female=moral

male+male=immoral

female+female=immoral

perfectly logical.

[tabibito]

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.

Calling a train a boat doesn't mean it can sail. You calling something bigoted does mean it IS bigoted.

Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't discriminatory. Refusing to allow someone to set up an olympic swimming pool in the middle of your baseball diamond would be equally discriminatory.

[carpedm9587]

When I said that, it was totally in a Carpeian "I don't really mean it at all" sort of way.

You can have the last word.

Actually - Carpe usually does mean it...but then either forgets he said it or cannot resist responding to a particularly provocative post.

But I'm working on it!

[carpedm9587]

Here we go - Problem Solvered.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37558[/ATTACH]

Ar you under the impression you've made a substantive contribution to the debate?

[Cow Poke]

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

When I said that, it was totally in a Carpeian "I don't really mean it at all" sort of way.

You can have the last word.

[carpedm9587]

Well if they were discriminating on couples based on "genetics" or even "being gay" then why would they sell them products for other occasions?

You'll have to ask them. I don't see it as relevant, for the reasons noted.

Which they did. They were against the Gay Wedding and being forced to create something that implied they were accepting of gay marriage.

"Providing a service" does not translate to "accepting the views." Hotels provide facilities for gatherings. That does not mean they endorse the positions/ideals of every group that books the facilities.

And I note that you did NOT take me up on my invitation to tell me exactly where that line of reasoning was wrong or untrue in my previous post.

[tabibito]

Here we go - Problem Solvered.

Marriage.jpg