Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Sparko]

I speak out of my moral framework - as we all do. And we all think the way we assess morality is how everyone should be assessing morality. That does not make morality any less relative. If we thought the way someone else assessed a moral issue was "better" than ours, we would adopt that moral position instead.

When you expect everyone else to agree with your morality to the point of making it law, then you are no longer promoting moral relativity.

[Sparko]

The discrimination is against the couple marrying. Your example is analogous to the racist restaurateur who sells food to a white person oblivious to the fact that it is ultimately for a black person. It doesn't make them less racist.

Your examples really suck badly. It is nothing like that at all. In fact the baker was willing to sell the gay couple food (the cake) and even decorate it for a different occasion. He would be against making a gay wedding cake for anyone, not just that couple.

[seer]

The point remains carpe. you seem to have morals and values that you expect everyone else to agree with and at the same time you claim to be a moral relativist.

You have to understand that moral relativists like Carp tend to latch on to the acceptable zeitgeist to make them feel sophisticated and enlightened. They crave the recognition of the cosmopolitan elite in the futile attempt to bolster their lagging self worth and to bring meaning to their incessant moral gibberish...

[carpedm9587]

At this point, the discussion is degenerating into another round of "what is moral relativism" and other tangents. Those have all been discussed ad nauseum, so I'm going to let those go. And I'm going to cease responding to comments and observations since they appear to simply repeat previously made (and responded to) comments. I'm happy to let folks have their last word. If someone asks me a direct question, however, I will be happy to respond.

[Sparko]

At this point, the discussion is degenerating into another round of "what is moral relativism" and other tangents. Those have all been discussed ad nauseum, so I'm going to let those go. And I'm going to cease responding to comments and observations and let folks have their last word. If someone asks me a direct question, I will be happy to respond to those.

You haven't answered Ox. You pretty much avoided his question and scenario by deliberately 'misunderstanding' what he said even after he patiently explained it to you.

[carpedm9587]

You haven't answered Ox. You pretty much avoided his question and scenario by deliberately 'misunderstanding' what he said even after he patiently explained it to you.

Your observation is noted. I'll let Jim decide if I have adequately responded to him and if he has additional questions for me.

[oxmixmudd]

So yes to the first part - it is a moral judgment. Everyone imposes their moral framework on everyone else. The position of the Christian right is "homosexual sex is immoral." They believe it is immoral for everyone everywhere to to everyone everywhere. I don't see a difference. As for the "not true," we disagree on that.

The difference is that you have said it is not right for conservatives to force their morality on others. It can't possibly be wrong for them and not also wrong for you. So if you are willing to try to force a moral judgement on others and at the same time decry those that try to force moral judgement on you, then you have become a hypocrite. So in fact I am a bit surprised and your response here. You should mot be advocating for imposing your morality on others while at the same time regarding as evil others imposing their morality on you.

But there is in fact a deeper evil here. There are views and opinions. Cultural senses of what is done and what is not done, what is ok and what is not ok. And then there are deeply held moral convictions about what is right and what is wrong. Usually a deeply held sense of morality is a fundamental element of a person's makeup. A person may or may not willingly violate their own sense of what is morally right, but when a person chooses to act on what they truly to the core believe is right, that person is acting according to conscience and on a level fundamental to who they are. When another person then demands that person violate that commitment to their core morality, they do unspeakable harm to that person.

The plaintiffs in this case are committing far more evil than whatever evil may have come to them by being rejected as it relates to the cake. They could have simply moved on. Instead they have sought their revenge, and what they are now demanding as payment for their hurt is the corruption of the defendant's basic moral fiber or the elimination of their livelyhood. IT is never ok to force a person violate that which they truly believe is the right thing to do, especially as regards personal or sexual morality. And that is what this lawsuit attempts to do. What it is saying is that these people either compromise their conscience or go out of business. It is tyranny.

We can debate morality. We can try to change opinions through education and research. But to force a man to violate his conscience as part of our revenge reverses the role of victim and criminal in this situation. Had the baker truly discriminated on sexual orientation, the case would be different. But that is not the case here. The baker has a moral code and can not in good conscience build a cake which celebrates same-sex marriage. And no-one has a right to force him to violate his conscience, and only an evil person would try to destroy his business or capacity to do business as payment. Assuming this is in fact a moral conflict for the baker, the baker is acting out of moral conviction, not vindictiveness, not hatred, in fact not out of any evil intent.

Further - the basic principles of this case - that a customer has the right to dictate the creative activities of an artisan regardless of what the artisan's conscience tells them about the activity, opens wide the door for a whole host of abuses. I can imagine a Neo-Nazi couple using these results to put a Jewish baker out of business by demanding their wedding cake be decorated with Nazi swasticas and figurines of Hitler and Gestapo thugs. He would of course refuse, but this case would give them the right to sue him and destroy his business.

You have no idea what you are actually supporting here. And it is not the rights of same-sex couples to exist, marry, and live in peace.

All of them have to do with who is married - not what "being married" is.

Wrong. who is being married (a man and a women) and the type of commitment made (lifelong, faithful and monogamous) are absolutely core elements of what marriage is. This is nearly universal across nearly all cultures. Thousands of years and billions of people in thousands of cultures and these elements are at the core of nearly ALL their definitions of marriage.

Proponents of same-sex marriage want to CHANGE those core elements so that they can redefine marriage to include a new conception of marriage. AFAIK, before the last 30 years, marriage is not and never has been in human history divorced from the concept that the two participants were of the opposite sex.

The issue is that the two people marrying share the same sexual equipment.

Not in this case. In this case THE issue is can a customer demand an artisan violate their conscience by demanding they create something they consider celebrates immorality.

I have no idea, and I try not to speculate. If they did, they would be wrong. If they did not, they would be fine.

That is evasion. You know that it goes to the core of the issue here. The problem is the moral conflict over same-sex marriage and being asked to create a work or art that celebrates it. The baker would have made a generic cake for them. And likely would have been quite happy to create an artistic cake for them to celebrate other things where there was no moral conflict. This is how we can split the difference. If the baker would not have created ANY cake for ANYTHING this couple wanted to celebrate, then it would be discrimination. But if the baker would have made them a cake celebrating almost anything other than same-sex marriage, then the issue is the moral conflict and the right of the baker to chose his work according to that conscience.

This is simply not the case. The only difference is the sex of the two people marrying.

And we will never agree on this case. But it would not be hard to parse the truth here. If the bakers routinely baked cakes for homosexual customers without regard to their sexual orientation, then the issue is the moral conflict, the celebration itself. If they routinely eschew homosexual patrons, then one could make your case as reflective of the reality.

But more importantly and to the key point: any person concerned with the well being of others, any person of moral character would never ask another person to violate deeply held issues of conscience for their own personal convenience.


Jim

[Tassman]

When you expect everyone else to agree with your morality to the point of making it law, then you are no longer promoting moral relativity.

One does not have to agree with the moral views of another. What one does have to do is apply equality under the law to all citizens as was the case when the Supreme Court of the United States mandated gay marriage.on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. This is guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[carpedm9587]

Jim -

After writing a detailed response, it suddenly dawned on me that you didn't ask a single question of me. So I'm going to leave your response as a "last word." Most of what I would have responded I have already said in other venues.

[seer]

Jim -

After writing a detailed response, it suddenly dawned on me that you didn't ask a single question of me. So I'm going to leave your response as a "last word." Most of what I would have responded I have already said in other venues.

Since you are willing to answer specific questions I will ask again Carp: Should a Catholic doctor be required, by law, to prescribe the morning after pill?

[carpedm9587]

Since you are willing to answer specific questions I will ask again Carp: Should a Catholic doctor be required, by law, to prescribe the morning after pill?

I've been giving some thought to this. I don't see a reason why this should be a requirement. The problem is consistently providing service without respect to the type of customer. If a doctor provides morning after pills to white women and not black ones, that would be a problem. There is also no problem with providing the pill to women and not men, since the pill is for women. But if the doctor declines to provide the pill to anyone, they are being consistent in the service they offer. They are not doing one thing for one group and another thing for another group. There is no reason to impose this requirement, AFAICT.

For that same reason, I don't agree with the attempt to force a business to insure medical practices that run counter to that business owner's morality. No one is forcing people to work there, and as long as what is and is not covered is made public at time of hiring, the same principal applies: everyone is being treated the same. There is no prejudice involved.

[seer]

I've been giving some thought to this. I don't see a reason why this should be a requirement. The problem is consistently providing service without respect to the type of customer. If a doctor provides morning after pills to white women and not black ones, that would be a problem. There is also no problem with providing the pill to women and not men, since the pill is for women. But if the doctor declines to provide the pill to anyone, they are being consistent in the service they offer. They are not doing one thing for one group and another thing for another group. There is no reason to impose this requirement, AFAICT.

So you would have no problem with a person following his religious conscious in this instance where the consequences (good or bad) would be much more profound than in the case of a wedding cake.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim -

After writing a detailed response, it suddenly dawned on me that you didn't ask a single question of me. So I'm going to leave your response as a "last word." Most of what I would have responded I have already said in other venues.

There is a reason I dd not ask any questions. I asked many question earlier, and anytime an honest answer to the obvious question or logical conflict would have undermined your claim this is only about discrimination, you evaded the question. I can only give you a pass on so many of those sorts of responses. So it was time to simply lay out my case and be done with it. You will notice at the end of that 'laying out of my case' I gave a path to the resolution of the question of whether this was discrimination vs a question of conscience. You see, I recognize it could be either. That is what honesty is about in a discussion like this. It is not about towing a preferred line and refusing the acknowledge any other logical possibility exists. That is what people with an agenda do to advance their cause and silence debate.

I point this out because I believe fundamentally you want to honest and reasoned in your responses to these issues. But how you've handled this specific debate would indicate to me this is one topic where you are not yet quite able to do that.

In the end, I believe that this case, if it ends up siding with the plaintiffs, will be a massive blow to the ability of citizens of this nation to act according to conscience. Yes, it will make advocates of same-sex rights feel better. But at the cost of one more step towards true tyranny. Towards an Orwellian society where thought and conscience is effectively controlled by the state.


Jim

[Sparko]

Carpe what do you think of the case where the bakery refused to make a bible shaped cake with "God hates Gays" on it?



In March of 2014, a customer named Bill Jack requested several cakes in the shapes of Bibles from the Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colo., according to the bakery owner, Marjorie Silva.

Silva says Jack pulled out a piece of paper with phrases like "God hates gays" and requested her to write them on his cakes.

He wouldn't let employees make a copy of the paper and would not read the words out loud, Silva claims. The bakery owner also says the customer wanted an image of two men holding hands with an "X" on top.

"After I read it, I was like 'No way,'" Silva said. "'We're not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.'"

In a statement to 9NEWS Jack said, "I believe I was discriminated against by the bakery based on my creed."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cake/22061115/

[carpedm9587]

Carpe what do you think of the case where the bakery refused to make a bible shaped cake with "God hates Gays" on it?

In March of 2014, a customer named Bill Jack requested several cakes in the shapes of Bibles from the Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colo., according to the bakery owner, Marjorie Silva.

Silva says Jack pulled out a piece of paper with phrases like "God hates gays" and requested her to write them on his cakes.

He wouldn't let employees make a copy of the paper and would not read the words out loud, Silva claims. The bakery owner also says the customer wanted an image of two men holding hands with an "X" on top.

"After I read it, I was like 'No way,'" Silva said. "'We're not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.'"

In a statement to 9NEWS Jack said, "I believe I was discriminated against by the bakery based on my creed."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cake/22061115/

I see no problem with rejecting this business. They are rejecting a request to make something with a prejudicial message, and they would do that for anyone who requested it, so the service is not being denied to anyone on a prejudicial basis.

The same thing happens if the baker refuses to make wedding cakes for anyone and simply bakes other things. There is nothing prejudicial about NOT offering a service, so long as the service is being rejected (or provided) in the same way for all classes of people.