Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Tassman]

It prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Forcing a Christian Baker has to accommodate gay patrons against his religious beliefs is doing exactly that. Unless you think being Gay is a religion and the Christian belief is interfering with their religious belief that they can force Christians to do their bidding?

[seer]

BUT HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS in the civil rights act.

[Cow Poke]

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause....

Why is it you liberals always try to rip that one clause out of the First Amendment without also reverencing the "Prohibition Clause" -

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.

[rogue06]

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause also prevents the preference of one religion over another religion, or no religion.

It also prevents "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion as well which many on the left seem to willfully ignore while demanding things like crosses be removed from cemeteries.

Our Constitution is not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose which parts you like and ignore the rest.








ETA: Dang-blasted prodder of bovines ninja'd me

[oxmixmudd]

It is not simply the structure. Each element is equivalent. IOW, if there was a monetary amount in my alternate scenario, It would be the same monetary amount. Every person arguing for the plaintiffs have claimed race and same-sex orientation are equivalent in terms of the potential for discrimination. Certainly the request for a cake and the type of business are identical, the fact the owners had strong moral objections to the celebration is obvious, and finally each cake targets a stpecific type of celebration. I even point out that there are people in each group that would have moral abjections to the celebration. AFAICT, They are equivalent in every way that matters legally. The only difference is your specific alignment to the morality of the bakers. Perhaps a jury would be swayed one way or the other on each case, that would depend on their alignment with the morality of the bakers and or the plaintiffs. That is also a bit irrelevant as regards the academic discussion of what kind of case this is, specifically what the likely driver is for the bakers, is it discrimination against the plaintiffs, or is it their commitment to a moral code without any specific desire to deprive the plaintiffs of their services based on who the plaintiffs are.

I am surprised you would say both cases are about discrimination - BUT - that is a consistent assessment. You are applying the same yardstick to both cases and as a result, since they are equivalent,they should 'measure' out the same.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It also prevents "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion as well which many on the left seem to willfully ignore while demanding things like crosses be removed from cemeteries.

Our Constitution is not a cafeteria where you get to pick and choose which parts you like and ignore the rest.








ETA: Dang-blasted prodder of bovines ninja'd me

As an aside - not to derail this thread, there is a recent decision in Oklahoma to allow faith based agencies to place children according to the moral guidelines of their faith, which in some cases means they would not adopt out children to LGBT couples. The truth of the matter is that if the state refuses to allow faith based adoption centers to operate this way, they will simply shut down their operations. The can't be required to run the adoption centers.

So which is better. To have the expanded capability to place children in loving homes by allowing the faith based centers to operate on their terms, or to effectively cut that extra capacity and reduce by a significant percentage the number of orphaned children that find loving homes to care for them?

It is always the innocent that suffer in these idiot fights. In my perspective, the LGBT community needs to leave the kids out of their fight. There will be plenty of state and religious based centers for them to adopt through. But more children will find homes if the faith based centers that would close are allowed to function within their moral parameters. It's just nothing but selfishness for those in the LGBT community to fight their fight for recognition over the lives of innocent children. And it is far more evil than whatever slight they may feel by not being able to adopt out of those specific charities.

Jim

[seer]

So which is better. To have the expanded capability to place children in loving homes by allowing the faith based centers to operate on their terms, or to effectively cut that extra capacity and reduce by a significant percentage the number of orphaned children that find loving homes to care for them?

That is exactly what happened in Massachusetts. Catholic Family Services (one of the best NGOs for placing kids) had to get out of the business because they would not place with homosexual couples.

[Psychic Missile]

As an aside - not to derail this thread, there is a recent decision in Oklahoma to allow faith based agencies to place children according to the moral guidelines of their faith, which in some cases means they would not adopt out children to LGBT couples. The truth of the matter is that if the state refuses to allow faith based adoption centers to operate this way, they will simply shut down their operations. The can't be required to run the adoption centers.

So which is better. To have the expanded capability to place children in loving homes by allowing the faith based centers to operate on their terms, or to effectively cut that extra capacity and reduce by a significant percentage the number of orphaned children that find loving homes to care for them?

It is always the innocent that suffer in these idiot fights. In my perspective, the LGBT community needs to leave the kids out of their fight. There will be plenty of state and religious based centers for them to adopt through. But more children will find homes if the faith based centers that would close are allowed to function within their moral parameters. It's just nothing but selfishness for those in the LGBT community to fight their fight for recognition over the lives of innocent children. And it is far more evil than whatever slight they may feel by not being able to adopt out of those specific charities.

Jim

If an adoption agency refuses to place children into the home of a homosexual couple, it cannot be said to have the children's best interests in mind, so it is preferable that the agency does not operate.

[seer]

If an adoption agency refuses to place children into the home of a homosexual couple, it cannot be said to have the children's best interests in mind, so it is preferable that the agency does not operate.

The best thing for a child is a father and mother. As nature or God intended.

[Cow Poke]

If an adoption agency refuses to place children into the home of a homosexual couple, it cannot be said to have the children's best interests in mind, so it is preferable that the agency does not operate.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is only that. And your rationale is incredibly biased and flawed. Are the children "worse off" in a two-parent family, assuming proper background was done on the parents? No. Just because your pro-gay agenda demands that homosexual couples be considered as recipients does not mean the adoption agency should shut down. That's just goofy.

[Psychic Missile]

The best thing for a child is a father and mother. As nature or God intended.

I don't think the statistics comparing straight and gay couples back you up on this, but even if they did, a qualified gay couple or single parent would be superior to no parents.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think the statistics comparing straight and gay couples back you up on this, but even if they did, a qualified gay couple or single parent would be superior to no parents.

And shutting down an adoption agency because they didn't advance your pro-gay agenda would aggravate the problem of children having no parents. You care more about the pro-gay agenda than you do about children getting parents.

[Psychic Missile]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is only that. And your rationale is incredibly biased and flawed. Are the children "worse off" in a two-parent family, assuming proper background was done on the parents? No. Just because your pro-gay agenda demands that homosexual couples be considered as recipients does not mean the adoption agency should shut down. That's just goofy.

I don't understand your point about children being worse off in a two-parent family, could you elaborate? How is my reasoning biased and flawed?

[carpedm9587]

Irrelevant.

I specified the set of equivalences, I have showed each element is equivalent, each stage in the process is equivalent, each conclusion is equivalent.

(1) In each case, there is a set of people that carry an immutable characteristic (IC).
(2) In each case there is a type of event.
(3) In each case there is a subset of the IC group that will attend the event, and a subset that will not.
(4) In each case there are moral objections to the type of event by the service provider.
(5) In each case there are people from the IC subset that will attend the event that are soliciting a service - a specialty cake.
(6) In each case those people are refused by the service provider.
(7) In each case the reason for refusal is the same: the perceived morality of the event by the service provider.
(8) In each case the people from the IC subset believe they were refused not on moral grounds but due to discrimination on the grounds of their IC.

The DIFFERENCE here is that you agree with the morality of the African American Bakery and want them to be able to refuse to make a cake for a white supremacist rally, and you disagree with the morality of the original bakery owners and you want to be able to force them to make the cake for the same-sex wedding or go out of business. But no matter how hard you try, there is no way out of the plain logic of what I've outlined in terms of the equivalence of the two circumstances. And that equivalence means that legally they are the same, and to force the original bakery to make the cake is to force the African Amercan bakery to make the cake.

It's all as plain as the nose on one's face. As far as I can tell, you just don't want to accept the logic because it is not what you WANT to be true. When it gets to the point where one can follow the rules of logic and create a symbolic extrapolation of the case and produces a description that is character for character equivalent and you still will not allow the simple logic to override your primary political and ideological dogma and bias, we are done. There is no possibility of discussion or debate. You mind is made up. Logic be damned.

Jim

The difference, Jim - is that white supremacy is a political position - not a state of being. Homosexuality is a state of being. That is what makes the former rejection of service acceptable and not prejudice/bigotry, and the latter not.

[carpedm9587]

If was going was going to summarize your position, I would say that you hold that holding homosexual acts to be immoral is itself immoral, and this justifies forcing baker that hold such a view to bake cakes in support of it.

That is actually quite correct. To tell a person that their action is immoral on the basis of what they are is immoral. There is no distinction between telling two people they cannot be sexually intimate because they both have penises and telling two people they cannot be sexually intimate because they have different color skin. In both cases, the morality is tracing to a physical attribute - membership in a class - about which the individuals have no choice. An action can be immoral if it objectifies - if it harms - if it forces, but it cannot be immoral simply because the person has Physical Characteristic A.

It is possible slightly more light might be show by considering if bakers who don't think it's immoral refuse to bake the cake, or if bakers can refuse to bake cake nobody views as immoral, or any of a variety of cake baking scenarios, but I'm going to ask a different question:

From the baker's perspective, what are you requiring of him?

The MOST moral act, IMO, is for the baker to offer their cake service to all couples legally marrying. If they cannot see fit to do that, then their next option is to simply stop offering that specific service to anyone (as they said several times they would do). I;m not sure if that is "from the baker's perspective." No one is requiring the baker to make cakes. What IS being required is that they make the cakes without prejudice.