Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[oxmixmudd]

OK - this is a reasonable argument. Now I want to present an analogous situation (and I'm really posing this to all arguing this is about discrimination):

---
Two white men walk into an African-American owned specialty cakes shop. They sit down with the owners and discuss a cake with a civil war theme and come up with a design. Yes the owners reply, we made a similar cake in honor of Slaves that fought in the civil war last year. Then they ask the patrons, "by the way, what is this cake for?". "Oh", they reply, "We are hosting a white supremacy march downtown and we are having party afterwards. The cake is for the party.". The owners reply, "I'm sorry, we can't make a cake for an event like that". The white men then sue for discrimination. The black owners refused to make them a cake because they were white.

We get into an argument. No, I reply, they were not discriminating against white people. They refused because the cake is to be used for white supremacist celebration. No you reply, Only white people would attend a white supremacist rally and celebration, the were discriminated against because they were white.
---


Now:

same-sex marriage cake
White supremacist rally cake

only same-sex people would have a same-sex wedding
only white people would be part of a white supremacist rally

the owners made similar cakes for other things
the owners made similar cakes for other things

the owners believe same-sex marriage is immoral
the owners believe white supremacist rallies are immoral

the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
same-sex people

the plaintiffs claim the refusal is discrimination against
white people



Please tell me if you all wish to see both cases to be decided for the plaintiffs (i.e. as you wish the first case decided).

If not, can you please tell me why.

They look identical to me, and even application of the law means they should both be decided the same way.

And it is the possibility of such a case or cases that cause me to side where I have sided. The owners should be allowed to refuse to make the cake. In BOTH cases.



Jim

[Roy]

OK - this is a reasonable argument. Now I want to present an analogous situation (and I'm really posing this to all arguing this is about discrimination):

---
Two white men walk into an African-American owned specialty cakes shop. They sit down with the owners and discuss a cake with a civil war theme and come up with a design. Yes the owners reply, we made a similar cake in honor of Slaves that fought in the civil war last year. Then they ask the patrons, "by the way, what is this cake for?". "Oh", they reply, "We are hosting a white supremacy march downtown and we are having party afterwards. The cake is for the party.". The owners reply, "I'm sorry, we can't make a cake for an event like that". The white men then sue for discrimination. The black owners refused to make them a cake because they were white.

We get into an argument. No, I reply, they were not discriminating against white people. They refused because the cake is to be used for white supremacist celebration. No you reply, Only white people would attend a white supremacist rally and celebration, the were discriminated against because they were white.

I wouldn't reply that.

I would agree they were refused because they were white supremacists, with the expectation that other non-supremacists asking for a similar design (e.g. re-enacters) would not be refused.

I do not think this is analogous.

Now:

same-sex marriage cake
White supremacist rally cake

only same-sex people would have a same-sex wedding
only white people would be part of a white supremacist rall

Only white supremacists would be part of a white supremacist rally.

You've added a second qualifier, which changes the argument, and you're grouping them in one way when the other might be more applicable.

[oxmixmudd]

I wouldn't reply that.

Well I know you would not :).

But IF the same logic and reasoning is applied to both situations, a person advocating for the cake situation as discrimination (if held strictly to logic and form) would then be the person replying that way in my alternate scenario. Which is the point.

I would agree they were refused because they were white supremacists, with the expectation that other non-supremacists asking for a similar design (e.g. re-enacters) would not be refused.

I do not think this is analogous.Only white supremacists would be part of a white supremacist rally.

You've added a second qualifier, which changes the argument, and you're grouping them in one way when the other might be more applicable.

ok - oops:

white supremicist rally

same-sex wedding

The argument is not changed, though I did goof up the highlighting. Each entry is of the form [ <type> <celebration>] where

<type> ::= [white supremacist] | [same-sex]
<celebration> ::=[rally] | [wedding]

There is no difference I can see, though I didn't quite get the italics and bolding correct (they were there just for the convenience of the reader anyway)

Jim

[carpedm9587]

This situation is not even remotely like racial discrimination.

We disagree.

These was a cake for a specific type of celebration, one they can not support morally. It had nothing to do with who the people asking for the cake ARE, it had to do with what they wanted to DO. Your obstinate refusal to comprehend the difference is why we can't have a meaningful discussion on the issue. You can't provide one reason to support your assertion they refused them because of who they ARE, and you can't explain why my case it is about what they wanted to DO is wrong. You simply assert it is about who they ARE.

Jim, I know the right is all focused on the "celebration," but you cannot get away from the fact that the "celebration" was a marriage. The only thing that made this celebration "immoral" to the bakers is the sexual orientation of it's participants. You can try to squirm through "it's not about sexual orientation - it's the same rule for everyone," but you and I both know that only homosexual (or bisexual) people marry a same-sex person. Heterosexual people do not. So it is not "marriage" that is being rejected - it is marriage by two homosexuals/bisexuals. The service is being rejected because the people celebrating it are gay.

Refusing to put vulgar things on a cake is applied equally to all - gay, straight, bi. So no problem. Refusing to make cakes that promotes a KKK message or supports the NRA is applied to all. the NRA and KKK are clubs - membership is voluntary. There is no problem refusing service that does not align with values in those cases.

And there is nothing wrong with saying "I cannot bring myself to make a wedding cake for same-sex weddings." Then stop making wedding cakes. Problem gone. This couple actually SAID they would do that. But you cannot offer a service, and then limit who can get the service on the basis of their orientation, race, etc.

Your assertions are not reasons. I have explained over and over WHY I believe this is NOT about discrimination. To form a reasoned counter to my points, you must establish that they were refusing the people based on who they ARE and not simply bowing out of producing their product for a particular kind of celebration, because of what they were DOING. Asserting that is the case is NOT a reason and it is not honest in terms of being 'open minded' in the discussion, which is something you claim you value.

Jim

I believe I have done that. The sexual orientation of the marrying couple is central to the refusal. There is simply no way around it. Just because they are willing to sell other services to the gay couple doesn't make mean the act of refusing them THIS service is not about their sexual orientation. After all - black people were allowed to ride the bus - they just had to sit at the back.

[seer]

Jim, I know the right is all focused on the "celebration," but you cannot get away from the fact that the "celebration" was a marriage. The only thing that made this celebration "immoral" to the bakers is the sexual orientation of it's participants.

But that is not right is it. In the Melissa Sweet Cakes situation the gay couple could have purchased a ready made cake without decoration. How is that not about the actual celebration and decorating aspect?

[carpedm9587]

But that is not right is it. In the Melissa Sweet Cakes situation the gay couple could have purchased a ready made cake without decoration. How is that not about the actual celebration and decorating aspect?

Yes - they could have purchased another service - and that makes no difference. The service they WANTED was denied them solely on the basis of the fact that they were the same sex and marrying. A service available to other couples was denied to them on the basis of their sex.

By your argument, the black person forced to sit at the back of the bus cannot claim "racism." After all, the bus company is willing to give them a service. They just can't get the service of "sitting in front" because they are black. And the restaurant with "black only" toilets is not racist. They're willing to let the man use the potty. Just not the one reserved for white people.

And the gay couple can get any cake they want - just not the one reserved for heterosexual marriages.

[seer]

Yes - they could have purchased another service - and that makes no difference. The service they WANTED was denied them solely on the basis of the fact that they were the same sex and marrying. A service available to other couples was denied to them on the basis of their sex.

Well of course it makes a difference, that couple was not denying the homosexual couple a wedding cake, there were ready made ones. They did not want to be forced to decorate a cake for a clearly immoral event.

By your argument, the black person forced to sit at the back of the bus cannot claim "racism." After all, the bus company is willing to give them a service. They just can't get the service of "sitting in front" because they are black. And the restaurant with "black only" toilets is not racist. They're willing to let the man use the potty. Just not the one reserved for white people.
And the gay couple can get any cake they want - just not the one reserved for heterosexual marriages.

No the gays just need to "adjust." After all, Federally, they are not a protected class.

[Sparko]

"Civil Rights Act of 1964 definition. A federal law that authorised federal action against segregation in public accommodations, public facilities, and employment". A cake shop falls under the category of a "public accommodation", so the personal views of the cake shop owners are irrelevant.

As I said previously, it only counts against protected classes. Being Gay is not a protected class, yet. And religious freedom trumps any laws. The constitution says that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Sparko]

The difference would be in selling already made cakes or making a cake for them. If a Nazi went to a carpenter and said "I want you to build a swastika for me" the carpenter could say no. But if the carpenter also sold sheets of plywood, he would have to sell that to the Nazi.

Still this is a complete sideline to what I was arguing about the Masterpiece case. Which is the one before the SCOTUS.

[carpedm9587]

Well of course it makes a difference, that couple was not denying the homosexual couple a wedding cake, there were ready made ones. They did not want to be forced to decorate a cake for a clearly immoral event.

They did not want to make a cake for an event that was between a specific kind of persons. There-in lies the discrimination. Immoral is your opinion (as are all moral statements), and it is (fortunately) increasingly a minority opinion.

No the gays just need to "adjust." After all, Federally, they are not a protected class.

Yet. Before the civil rights changes to the both the constitution and federal/state laws, black people were also not a federally protected class. That did make it any less prejudice/bigotry. The same applies here. We are in the early stages of recognizing the implicit discrimination that is happening, and we are just starting to adjust laws. I suspect this one will go slower. There was significant church support for changes to civil liberties based on race. There is significant opposition to this. SO instead of churches advocating for an end to bigotry/prejudice, many churches are now advocating for continuing bigotry/prejudice. That will slow things down.

But I believe this train is on the roll. It may be slowed - but it won't be stopped.

[seer]

They did not want to make a cake for an event that was between a specific kind of persons.

But they did not refuse a ready made cake to the same couple. So how can it be about the "kind of person" rather than being involved in an event?

[carpedm9587]

But they did not refuse a ready made cake to the same couple. So how can it be about the "kind of person" rather than being involved in an event?

Again - that a different service is available says nothing. See the discussion about separate bathrooms and back of the bus below.

Different rules for different kinds of people = bigotry/prejudice (unless the difference has a direct relationship to the attribute).

[oxmixmudd]

We disagree.



Jim, I know the right is all focused on the "celebration," but you cannot get away from the fact that the "celebration" was a marriage. The only thing that made this celebration "immoral" to the bakers is the sexual orientation of it's participants. You can try to squirm through "it's not about sexual orientation - it's the same rule for everyone," but you and I both know that only homosexual (or bisexual) people marry a same-sex person. Heterosexual people do not. So it is not "marriage" that is being rejected - it is marriage by two homosexuals/bisexuals. The service is being rejected because the people celebrating it are gay.

Refusing to put vulgar things on a cake is applied equally to all - gay, straight, bi. So no problem. Refusing to make cakes that promotes a KKK message or supports the NRA is applied to all. the NRA and KKK are clubs - membership is voluntary. There is no problem refusing service that does not align with values in those cases.

And there is nothing wrong with saying "I cannot bring myself to make a wedding cake for same-sex weddings." Then stop making wedding cakes. Problem gone. This couple actually SAID they would do that. But you cannot offer a service, and then limit who can get the service on the basis of their orientation, race, etc.



I believe I have done that. The sexual orientation of the marrying couple is central to the refusal. There is simply no way around it. Just because they are willing to sell other services to the gay couple doesn't make mean the act of refusing them THIS service is not about their sexual orientation. After all - black people were allowed to ride the bus - they just had to sit at the back.

You have not. You have simply asserted the issue is discrimination, over and over again. To each and every reason I've give as to why it does not have to be discrimination, you just simply reassert it is about discrimination because they chose not to make the cake.

So no, the type of event that cake was for is central to the issue. Did you take a look at my alternate scenario above? I think it illustrates the issue in a different context quite well.

Bottom line: to establish that the issue was that they were a same-sex couple, then you would need to show that it did not matter what sort of event the cake was for, they would have refused to make it for that couple. The issues are conflated because to be having a same-sex wedding the couple themselves need be of the same-sex. Since the reason for refusing to make the cake could be the type of marriage ceremony or the sexual orientation of the couple, you have to look at their behavior to them or other same-sex couples for other types of cakes/events. If the bakers are consistent in only rejecting a customers request for a cake when the decorative content or targeted celebration violates their moral code, then the issue is not one of discrimination. If you can establish these bakers tend to reject request from customers with a same-sex orientation, then you are dealing with a case of discrimination. It's really not all that hard.

But there is a difference between the two. And I'm pretty sure that much is obvious, you are just stubborn.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

You have not. You have simply asserted the issue is discrimination, over and over again. To each and every reason I've give as to why it does not have to be discrimination, you just simply reassert it is about discrimination because they chose not to make the cake.

So first - every statement is an assertion. If it is an unsupported assertion, that's pretty meaningless. But mine are not. You comment here ignores all of the reasons I have provided for why not making the cake in that context is immoral and amounts to prejudice/bigotry. You may not accept the reasons, but you haven't really responded to them.

So no, the type of event that cake was for is central to the issue. Did you take a look at my alternate scenario above? I think it illustrates the issue in a different context quite well.

I have no idea what alternative scenario this references, and there is nothing "above" this post.

Bottom line: to establish that the issue was that they were a same-sex couple, then you would need to show that it did not matter what sort of event the cake was for, they would have refused to make it for that couple.

No - I don't, as I have repeatedly explained.

The issues are conflated because to be having a same-sex wedding the couple themselves need be of the same-sex. Since the reason for refusing to make the cake could be the type of marriage ceremony or the sexual orientation of the couple, you have to look at their behavior to them or other same-sex couples for other types of cakes/events. If the bakers are consistent in only rejecting a customers request for a cake when the decorative content or targeted celebration violates their moral code, then the issue is not one of discrimination. If you can establish these bakers tend to reject request from customers with a same-sex orientation, then you are dealing with a case of discrimination. It's really not all that hard.

And I have responded to this several times as well. I'll refer you to my previous posts.

But there is a difference between the two. And I'm pretty sure that much is obvious, you are just stubborn.

Jim

You're entitled to your opinion, Jim. However, accusing me of stubbornness doesn't make me stubborn. It just means you think I am. Respond to the arguments, and we can get somewhere. But ignoring them and then accusing me of asserting and being stubborn is not really going to move the discussion anywhere.

[oxmixmudd]

So first - every statement is an assertion. If it is an unsupported assertion, that's pretty meaningless. But mine are not. You comment here ignores all of the reasons I have provided for why not making the cake in that context is immoral and amounts to prejudice/bigotry. You may not accept the reasons, but you haven't really responded to them.



I have no idea what alternative scenario this references, and there is nothing "above" this post.



No - I don't, as I have repeatedly explained.



And I have responded to this several times as well. I'll refer you to my previous posts.



You're entitled to your opinion, Jim. However, accusing me of stubbornness doesn't make me stubborn. It just means you think I am. Respond to the arguments, and we can get somewhere. But ignoring them and then accusing me of asserting and being stubborn is not really going to move the discussion anywhere.

I have responded over an over with explanation after explanation. The example I mentioned is in post 391, I wouldn't even begin to guess why you couldn't look back 1 page, but whatever. We are at an impasse though. If you think I'm not listening to you, and I certainly think you are not listening to me. So on to another topic.

Jim