Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Cow Poke]

They are an additional home a child could go to. Your argument that anti-gay adoption agencies should exist so that the most homeless children are adopted as reasonably possible is undermined by your argument that gay parents should have limited choices in agencies. The latter prevents the former.

You are incredibly closed minded. I also stated that anybody, or any agency, could open adoption agencies that are more gay friendly. This is unthinkable in your world.

Not at all. At a certain point, there is such a thing as too many car dealerships.

And the market sorts that out. It is not for an anti-gas bigot to determine that only Electric vehicle dealerships be allowed to operate.

For your argument for "as many agencies as possible" to work

I don't believe I actually said "as many agencies as possible" - I think I indicated that the market would determine how many is enough.

there would need to be a bunch of parents looking to adopt whose needs are not being met by currently available agencies.

I don't think you really understand free market.

A gay couple would of course be more comfortable working with a gay-friendly agency.

And there is nobody stopping them from being instituted.

Wouldn't it be nice, then, for all agencies to be gay-friendly, so that gay parents can check out all those option that those parents you've known have?

Fun?

Why is the anti-gay crowd so controlling and manipulating about who they adopt to? Why not allow gay parents choice?

So, once again, you are "pro choice" ONLY if you control all the options. Everybody needs to operate they way YOU want, and only THEN will it be "fun".

[oxmixmudd]

Jim - I've bolded the relevant portions. It's not true that "only a white person would participate at a white supremacist rally." Anyone can believe that whites are supreme. It is true that it is usually whites. It is true that it is mostly whites. It may even be true that no other race has ever participated in such a rally. But it is NOT true that only white people can be white supremacists. A black person could believe the white race is superior. A Latino person could believe the white race is superior. Indeed, one of the tragedies of racism is that the denigrated races sometimes (often) actually buy into the racist mindset, and see themselves as less. So the proscription is against a racist mindset - not a race.

You are, in fact, absolutely correct. I just figured if I said that you would have argued the other way (e.g. "Are you crazy, what non-white person would believe in or support the concept of white supremacy). My argument is in fact STRONGER if argued as you argue here - because it makes the equivalence stronger.

Likewise a same sex ceremony can be attended by anyone, but the marriage celebrates the union of two people with the same sex. It is based on the genitalia of the two people involved. Only same-sex people can be in a same-sex marriage. It is about who/what they are, not who/what they believe. Indeed, it's not even really about sexual orientation (necessarily). It's about the fact that the two people have like genitalia.

I am beginning to think you don't quite understand what this analogy is about, or what it shows. Equivalent does not mean Equal. It means that there is a 1-1 mapping from one to the other. Of course the events have different purposes. I never said they had the same purpose. And I never tried to, nor do I believe it is necessary, that the analogy tie two events that define some sort of bonding between two people. That borders on the ridiculous. But they are both events and they are both events that have the same characteristics in terms of drawing from a population of people with the immutable characteristic. They are also equivalent as to what divides the IC's into the subset that goes and the subset that does not go: a moral principle.

You cannot get away from this. One is about a racist philosophy - the other is about the sex of the participants in the event.

I don't need to get away from that. It is irrelevant.

I've said it several times now, and shown you where the logic breaks down. When you shift from "white" to "white supremacist," you shift the argument.

And I've said it several times now. That is irrelevant to the argument. There really isn't a point in continuing carpe. You want there to be a difference so bad you just can't see that the difference you see is simply the sort of difference that must exist for an analogy to work: they do in fact have to be about two different things that map into a singular principle or logical framework or it would not be an analogy! One is about two same-sex people and a cake maker, an event - a same sex marriage, and a moral conflict on the part of the cake maker with the event, the same-sex marriage. The other is about two white people, an event - a white supremacist rally, and a moral conflict on the part of the cake maker with the event, a white supremacist rally.

There, I have defined the pertinent points for you and why they are the elements that matter. and how they map as an equivalence. The inner workings of the event and its outcome really are irrelevant to the principle being illustrated on behalf of the original situation by the analogous situation. What matters is that the two plaintiffs be members of a group that can claim discrimination. That there is some sort of event that draws from that population. That the bakers have a moral objection to the event, and that the event itself be the sort of event that could be objected to by people in the same group as the plaintiffs. Your arguments above allows this analogy to also function if we require the event to be able to draw from people not in the group as the plaintiffs, but I wasn't going to add that restriction, I don't think it is necessary for the analogy to hold.

The point of the analogy is to strip away the emotional attachment to the issue of same-sex marriage. That has been accomplished. You are arguing they must be different because in the analogy you can see why the bakers should be able to refuse. Because you agree that white supremacy is something an african american baker should not have to bake a cake for. But what you can't do is recognize that the principle is the same in the original case. You don't seem to be able to abstract out the concept of a 'moral objection' independent of the specifics of the objection itself. Or at least that is my best guess at why you are still arguing the way you are.

Jim

[Tassman]

I'm sorry, in this political climate even if there were studies that demonstrate the superiority of straight parents (like nature and God intended) no one would have the guts to publish. They would be pilloried.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n_1208659.html

[Tassman]

The point of the analogy is to strip away the emotional attachment to the issue of same-sex marriage. That has been accomplished. You are arguing they must be different because in the analogy you can see why the bakers should be able to refuse. Because you agree that white supremacy is something an african american baker should not have to bake a cake for. But what you can't do is recognize that the principle is the same in the original case. You don't seem to be able to abstract out the concept of a 'moral objection' independent of the specifics of the objection itself. Or at least that is my best guess at why you are still arguing the way you are.

The analogy fails. The "principle" is not "the same". Cake shop owners have no choice under the Civil Rights Acts other than provide a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. OTOH I would have thought the Hate Crime laws in the United States would protect a black baker from having to provide a cake for a White Supremacist occasion.

[Cow Poke]

The analogy fails.

Only in your mind, and only because it doesn't fit your pro-gay agenda.

The "principle" is not "the same". Cake shop owners have no choice under the Civil Rights Acts other than provide a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding.

Actually, yes they do. But this doesn't stop a pro-gay activists from doing what they can to destroy that person's livelihood.

OTOH I would have thought the Hate Crime laws in the United States would protect a black baker from having to provide a cake for a White Supremacist occasion.

Not only do you enjoy the concept of using the hammer of justice to punish those with whom you disagree, you're even inventing new hammers! Impressive.

[carpedm9587]

You are, in fact, absolutely correct. I just figured if I said that you would have argued the other way (e.g. "Are you crazy, what non-white person would believe in or support the concept of white supremacy). My argument is in fact STRONGER if argued as you argue here - because it makes the equivalence stronger.

I am beginning to think you don't quite understand what this analogy is about, or what it shows. Equivalent does not mean Equal. It means that there is a 1-1 mapping from one to the other. Of course the events have different purposes. I never said they had the same purpose. And I never tried to, nor do I believe it is necessary, that the analogy tie two events that define some sort of bonding between two people. That borders on the ridiculous. But they are both events and they are both events that have the same characteristics in terms of drawing from a population of people with the immutable characteristic. They are also equivalent as to what divides the IC's into the subset that goes and the subset that does not go: a moral principle.

I have bolded your problem again. As soon as you acknowledge that ANY race can participate in a "white supremacy" rally, you are no longer talking about an "immutable characteristic." as a consequence, the objection can ONLY be about the meaning of the event. But for the same-sex marriage, we are actually talking about an immutable characteristic of the two participants - they have the same sex!

It is perplexing to me how you do not see this problem with your equivalence.

I don't need to get away from that. It is irrelevant.

Then that is your problem. You have decided, somewhat arbitrarily, that to deny people the service on the basis of what they are is apparently equivalent to denying people the service based solely on what they believe.

And I've said it several times now. That is irrelevant to the argument. There really isn't a point in continuing carpe. You want there to be a difference so bad you just can't see that the difference you see is simply the sort of difference that must exist for an analogy to work: they do in fact have to be about two different things that map into a singular principle or logical framework or it would not be an analogy! One is about two same-sex people and a cake maker, an event - a same sex marriage, and a moral conflict on the part of the cake maker with the event, the same-sex marriage. The other is about two white people, an event - a white supremacist rally, and a moral conflict on the part of the cake maker with the event, a white supremacist rally.

And one is about who people are - and the other is about voluntary membership in a group with a racist agenda. How you can even begin to draw an equivalence here is beyond me.

There, I have defined the pertinent points for you and why they are the elements that matter. and how they map as an equivalence. The inner workings of the event and its outcome really are irrelevant to the principle being illustrated on behalf of the original situation by the analogous situation. What matters is that the two plaintiffs be members of a group that can claim discrimination. That there is some sort of event that draws from that population. That the bakers have a moral objection to the event, and that the event itself be the sort of event that could be objected to by people in the same group as the plaintiffs. Your arguments above allows this analogy to also function if we require the event to be able to draw from people not in the group as the plaintiffs, but I wasn't going to add that restriction, I don't think it is necessary for the analogy to hold.

The point of the analogy is to strip away the emotional attachment to the issue of same-sex marriage. That has been accomplished. You are arguing they must be different because in the analogy you can see why the bakers should be able to refuse. Because you agree that white supremacy is something an african american baker should not have to bake a cake for. But what you can't do is recognize that the principle is the same in the original case. You don't seem to be able to abstract out the concept of a 'moral objection' independent of the specifics of the objection itself. Or at least that is my best guess at why you are still arguing the way you are.

Jim

IMO, Jim, you have failed to do what you set out to do, because the equivalence fails. I've outlined the argumentation for why it fails. It appears we are at an impasse and you (and presumably Sparko) will continue to see me as "stubborn" and moving the goal posts, and handwaving, and all of the rest that gets tossed about. From my perspective, I make arguments that are simply ignored or denied out of hand with no counter argument, and then the other person claims frustration, accuses me of stubbornness, and ultimately walks away.

I will leave it to you to decide where you wish to go next. You are one of the people who is most likely to engage with good argumentation and minimal ad hominems, so I mostly enjoy the discussions. It would be nice if you could get to "no adhominems," but I'll leave that to you.

[seer]

And one is about who people are - and the other is about voluntary membership in a group with a racist agenda. How you can even begin to draw an equivalence here is beyond me.

Carp you keep saying this, but it isn't correct is it. We are speaking of homosexual behavior, physical acts and attractions. You claimed that they are cause by both nurture and nature. How is that different from racism? Tribalism which gives rise to racism may in fact have deep genetic roots, then add nurture and you have an ingrained characteristic. I don't see the distinction.

Prejudice Is Hard-wired Into The Human Brain, Says ASU Study


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0525105357.htm

[oxmixmudd]

I have bolded your problem again. As soon as you acknowledge that ANY race can participate in a "white supremacy" rally, you are no longer talking about an "immutable characteristic." as a consequence, the objection can ONLY be about the meaning of the event. But for the same-sex marriage, we are actually talking about an immutable characteristic of the two participants - they have the same sex!

It is perplexing to me how you do not see this problem with your equivalence.

Why can't you comprehend the difference between an event and an immutable characteristic? The event and the people asking for the cake are two different elements of the problem. You are being about as dense as the come, and I have to assume it is purposed.

Lets see. One More Time.

We have two people asking for a cake. Check! (two people | two people)
The two people have a characteristic they can't change. Check! (same-sex | white)


We have a baker: Check! (baker | baker)

We have an event: Check! (same-sex marriage | white supremacist rally)

Now: the fact we have an extra adjective here mans NOTHING. It is an event. That is the functional characteristic that matters. It could be a nitting club as long as the baker could have some moral reason to object to it.

We have a moral objection to the event by the baker. Check! (against same-sex marriages | against white supremacist rallies)
The baker refuses to bake the cake when he/she learns the type of event. Check! (refusal | refusal)

The two people claim the refusal is not base on a moral objection to the event but against them specifically DUE TO THE ELEMENT THEY CAN NOT CHANGE! (check).

This may be your stumbling block. In the second case, the two white people are not claiming the baker refuses because they are wihite supremacists. They claim the bakers are refusing them because they are WHITE. End of reason.

Just as the plaintiffs in the real case claim the objection is not about a moral objection to same-sex marriage, but has to do with the fact they are gay, so in the second case the plaintiffs claim the rejection is not about white supremacy, but rather the fact they are WHITE.

So again, the functional equivalence:

The same-sex people can't change that they are same-sex attracted
The white people can't change the fact they are white.

The same-sex people CHOOSE to believe same-sex marriage is good and makes sense
The white people CHOOSE to believe white supremacy is good and makes sense

The bakers CHOOSE to believe same-sex marriage is immoral
The bakers CHOOSE to believe white supremacy is immoral

The event is a same-sex marriage which invokes a moral conflict for the baker
The event promotes white supremacy which invokes a moral conflict for the baker

Both bakers CHOOSE to refuse to make the cake based on the fact the event invokes a moral conflict.

Both pairs of people CHOOSE to define the refusal on the basis of what they are (same-sex attracted | white) and sue on the basis of discrimination.

They are two different cases that are functionally equivalent in every way that matters in terms of drawing a precedent. And that is my concern. Because if they are functionally equivalent, then the decision must be the same in both cases. And if the decision goes as you want it to go, then the African American bakers will lose their case.

Now carpe. Where the rubber meets the road. Show me which of the above statements defining the functional equivalence is false.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

Carp you keep saying this, but it isn't correct is it. We are speaking of homosexual behavior, physical acts and attractions.

We are speaking of both. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are states of being. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can be in love, marry, and be intimate, which are actions. There is no basis (other than religiously driven prejudice) for telling one group that being intimate is moral, and the other that being intimate is not.

You claimed that they are cause by both nurture and nature. How is that different from racism? Tribalism which gives rise to racism may in fact have deep genetic roots, then add nurture and you have an ingrained characteristic. I don't see the distinction.

I do not understand this question in this context. Almost everything about us is a blend of nature and nurture. Being black is genetic (nature), and black culture is nurture. Being female is genetic (nature) and aspects of "being women" in our world are culturally derived. Prejudice/racism/bigotry are when someone is held to/from something on the basis of their nature without their being a substantive/just cause. So when we say, "women cannot serve in the military because they're weaker then men," we practice bigotry. When we set a standard for what it takes to be in the military to do the job, and open it to everyone, and more men pass than women because men are genetically predisposed to be larger, we are not practicing bigotry/prejudice (as long as the standard was set to meet the needs of the job, and not to intentionally exclude women).

Tribalism can be a form of prejudice/bigotry. I don't see the connection in this setting.

Prejudice Is Hard-wired Into The Human Brain, Says ASU Study


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0525105357.htm

So, let me guess this right. You're apparently suggesting that, because we have a predisposition to prejudice based on our early rise as hunter/gatherers and the importance of group, we should just throw up our hands and say, "what the heck - might as well be a bigot. It's in my genes!" I have a bit more positive of view of human capability. We also have a mind capable of reasoning, and we can recognize an immoral approach, even if it is "in our nature," and rise above it.

And let me short-circuit the inevitable reply of, "well then homosexuals should rise above it and act morally!" The entire point is that holding two couples to a different moral standard based solely on what is or is not dangling between their legs is itself a bigoted/prejudiced position. The entire claim that it is immoral rests on a few lines in a few "holy books," which were also written by men and in an ancient land in a different context. When you set those aside and look at the actual situation, there is no basis for telling one group they can be intimate and the other that they cannot. Basing who can and cannot be intimate on the basis of sexual equipment is no different than basing who can and cannot be intimate on the basis of skin color, or any other physical, immutable, attribute. THAT is the core point, which continues to be ignored.

[carpedm9587]

It is equally perplexing to me your incapacity to generalize the problem. I have spelled out the correlation to you so many times it is ridiculous. Doing it one more time will not help.

We are done.

Jim

I actually did follow your generalization, and your analogy. I pointed to specifically where your analogy/equivalence fails. Other than "it doesn't matter" and "I don't need to get away from that," it has not been responded to. Your caught on the horns of a dilemma. If you acknowledge that anyone can participate in a white supremacist rally, then you no longer have a claim to "immutable characteristics" in both analogs, which breaks the equivalence. On the other hand, if you narrowly focus it to "white" vs. "same-sex," then your analog has a false statement in it. Either way, you end up with one analog focused on voluntary membership in a group, and the other focused on an immutable characteristic. Because that is at the heart of the bigotry/prejudice claim, you cannot simply wave it away and claim your analog still holds.

However, I understand if you do not wish to proceed further. You way well be right that there is nothing further to be gained.

Until next time (if there is one)...

Michel

[oxmixmudd]

I actually did follow your generalization, and your analogy. I pointed to specifically where your analogy/equivalence fails. Other than "it doesn't matter" and "I don't need to get away from that," it has not been responded to. Your caught on the horns of a dilemma. If you acknowledge that anyone can participate in a white supremacist rally, then you no longer have a claim to "immutable characteristics" in both analogs, which breaks the equivalence. On the other hand, if you narrowly focus it to "white" vs. "same-sex," then your analog has a false statement in it. Either way, you end up with one analog focused on voluntary membership in a group, and the other focused on an immutable characteristic. Because that is at the heart of the bigotry/prejudice claim, you cannot simply wave it away and claim your analog still holds.

However, I understand if you do not wish to proceed further. You way well be right that there is nothing further to be gained.

Until next time (if there is one)...

Michel

I actually went back an tried again Michel. I'm doubtful my nth restatement will change anything, but lets see ...

[seer]

We are speaking of both. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are states of being. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can be in love, marry, and be intimate, which are actions. There is no basis (other than religiously driven prejudice) for telling one group that being intimate is moral, and the other that being intimate is not.

I do not understand this question in this context. Almost everything about us is a blend of nature and nurture. Being black is genetic (nature), and black culture is nurture. Being female is genetic (nature) and aspects of "being women" in our world are culturally derived. Prejudice/racism/bigotry are when someone is held to/from something on the basis of their nature without their being a substantive/just cause. So when we say, "women cannot serve in the military because they're weaker then men," we practice bigotry. When we set a standard for what it takes to be in the military to do the job, and open it to everyone, and more men pass than women because men are genetically predisposed to be larger, we are not practicing bigotry/prejudice (as long as the standard was set to meet the needs of the job, and not to intentionally exclude women).

Tribalism can be a form of prejudice/bigotry. I don't see the connection in this setting.

So, let me guess this right. You're apparently suggesting that, because we have a predisposition to prejudice based on our early rise as hunter/gatherers and the importance of group, we should just throw up our hands and say, "what the heck - might as well be a bigot. It's in my genes!" I have a bit more positive of view of human capability. We also have a mind capable of reasoning, and we can recognize an immoral approach, even if it is "in our nature," and rise above it.

And let me short-circuit the inevitable reply of, "well then homosexuals should rise above it and act morally!" The entire point is that holding two couples to a different moral standard based solely on what is or is not dangling between their legs is itself a bigoted/prejudiced position. The entire claim that it is immoral rests on a few lines in a few "holy books," which were also written by men and in an ancient land in a different context. When you set those aside and look at the actual situation, there is no basis for telling one group they can be intimate and the other that they cannot. Basing who can and cannot be intimate on the basis of sexual equipment is no different than basing who can and cannot be intimate on the basis of skin color, or any other physical, immutable, attribute. THAT is the core point, which continues to be ignored.

Carp, the point is your use of "state of being." And the fact that it is ambiguous. Why is an innate inclination towards prejudice and racism any less a "state of being" than homosexual inclinations? The only difference I see is that you are willing to subjectively justify homosexual behavior because of their "state of being" while at the same time throwing the racist under the bus for his "state of being." In other words, again, one's "state of being" tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of the behaviors that follow.

[carpedm9587]

I actually went back an tried again Michel. I'm doubtful my nth restatement will change anything, but lets see ...

You are going to - or you have?

[carpedm9587]

Why can't you comprehend the difference between an event and an immutable characteristic? The event and the people asking for the cake are two different elements of the problem. You are being about as dense as the come, and I have to assume it is purposed.

You know Jim, you are welcome to make any pejorative statements you wish about me. I won't pretend it doesn't get very tedious. But it would be nice if you extended the same courtesy in the discussion that I extend you. I do not understand why you are not seeing the disconnect, but I do not accuse you of being "dense" or being "purposeful" about it.

That being said, you are entitled to your opinion. It doesn't change who or what I am. It just gets a bit old. Now - back to the actual argument.

Lets see. One More Time.

We have two people asking for a cake. Check! (two people | two people)
The two people have a characteristic they can't change. Check! (same-sex | white)

Check on both.

We have a baker: Check! (baker | baker)

We have an event: Check! (same-sex marriage | white supremacist rally)

Check on both.

Now: the fact we have an extra adjective here mans NOTHING. It is an event. That is the functional characteristic that matters. It could be a nitting club as long as the baker could have some moral reason to object to it.

We have a moral objection to the event by the baker. Check! (against same-sex marriages | against white supremacist rallies)

Agreed.

The baker refuses to bake the cake when he/she learns the type of event. Check! (refusal | refusal)

Check on both.

The two people claim the refusal is not base on a moral objection to the event but against them specifically DUE TO THE ELEMENT THEY CAN NOT CHANGE! (check).

Check on both.

This may be your stumbling block. In the second case, the two white people are not claiming the baker refuses because they are wihite supremacists. They claim the bakers are refusing them because they are WHITE. End of reason.

No - I got that they believe they are being refused "because they are white."

Just as the plaintiffs in the real case claim the objection is not about a moral objection to same-sex marriage, but has to do with the fact they are gay, so in the second case the plaintiffs claim the rejection is not about white supremacy, but rather the fact they are WHITE.

Yes - they both make that claim.

So again, the functional equivalence:

The same-sex people can't change that they are same-sex attracted
The white people can't change the fact they are white.

Correct - they cannot. Neither can change that immutable characteristic. But the breakdown in your equivalence rests on the demonstrable truth/untruth of the claim to prejudice.

White supremacists: they CLAIM they are being discriminated against on the basis of their race. This is demonstrably untrue because ANY person can hold a white supremacist rally. It is not an inherent characteristic of "white people." So the objection is not to "white" it is to "white supremacy." This is further substantiated by the baker's unwillingness to make custom cakes for ANY such gathering, regardless of the characteristics of the requester. So the claim to "based on an immutable characteristic" fails.

Same-sex: they CLAIM they are being discriminated against because they are a same-sex couple getting married - and that is exactly what is happening. Indeed, the baker admits this. The discrimination here is on the basis of an actual immutable characteristic, which is NOT the case in the "white supremacist" claim that they are being discriminated against. We can see this in the willingness of the baker to make a custom wedding cake for a heterosexual couple, but not a same-sex couple. This one IS rooted in an immutable characteristic of the requesters, as well as their choice, breaking the equivalence.

Indeed, the very heart of what I have said is that the basic rule "I will not make cakes for white supremacists" and "I will not make cakes for weddings" needs to be applied across the board. The baker would absolutely refuse to make a cake for a white supremacist gathering for anyone of any race, gender, creed, or ethnicity. But they only refuse to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. They do NOT refuse it for other legally marrying partners. You (and others) apparently want to make the generalize rule, "I will not make same-sex wedding cakes for anyone," and claim "no bigotry/prejudice." That doesn't work because the bigotry/prejudice has been "baked into" the rule.

The same-sex people CHOOSE to believe same-sex marriage is good and makes sense
The white people CHOOSE to believe white supremacy is good and makes sense

The same-sex couple have to audacity to claim that their right to marriage is equivalent to heterosexual couples - they are asking for equivalence and justice.
The white supremacists have the audacity to claim that their race is superior to all others and they are entitled to racial purity.

Yes - they are equivalent in that each party is making a choice. They are not equivalent with respect to what the choices entail.

The bakers CHOOSE to believe same-sex marriage is immoral
The bakers CHOOSE to believe white supremacy is immoral

These are equivalent.

The event is a same-sex marriage which invokes a moral conflict for the baker
The event promotes white supremacy which invokes a moral conflict for the baker

These are equivalent

Both bakers CHOOSE to refuse to make the cake based on the fact the event invokes a moral conflict.

They do - but in one scenario the decision is demonstrably not rooted in an immutable characteristic - so that leaves only the choice/belief. In the latter it is demonstrably rooted in an immutable characteristic (only same-sex couples can engage in a same-sex marriage) as well as a choice. This discontinuity breaks your equivalence. You're comparing apples to oranges from that point on (see above).

Both pairs of people CHOOSE to define the refusal on the basis of what they are (same-sex attracted | white) and sue on the basis of discrimination.

They are two different cases that are functionally equivalent in every way that matters in terms of drawing a precedent. And that is my concern. Because if they are functionally equivalent, then the decision must be the same in both cases. And if the decision goes as you want it to go, then the African American bakers will lose their case.

Now carpe. Where the rubber meets the road. Show me which of the above statements defining the functional equivalence is false.

Jim

Hopefully, this time it will be clear. The organization helps.

Michel

[oxmixmudd]

You know Jim, you are welcome to make any pejorative statements you wish about me. I won't pretend it doesn't get very tedious. But it would be nice if you extended the same courtesy in the discussion that I extend you. I do not understand why you are not seeing the disconnect, but I do not accuse you of being "dense" or being "purposeful" about it.

That being said, you are entitled to your opinion. It doesn't change who or what I am. It just gets a bit old. Now - back to the actual argument.



Check on both.



Check on both.



Agreed.



Check on both.



Check on both.



No - I got that they believe they are being refused "because they are white."



Yes - they both make that claim.



Correct - they cannot. Neither can change that immutable characteristic. But the breakdown in your equivalence rests on the demonstrable truth/untruth of the claim to prejudice.

White supremacists: they CLAIM they are being discriminated against on the basis of their race. This is demonstrably untrue because ANY person can hold a white supremacist rally. It is not an inherent characteristic of "white people." So the objection is not to "white" it is to "white supremacy." This is further substantiated by the baker's unwillingness to make custom cakes for ANY such gathering, regardless of the characteristics of the requester. So the claim to "based on an immutable characteristic" fails.

Same-sex: they CLAIM they are being discriminated against because they are a same-sex couple getting married - and that is exactly what is happening. Indeed, the baker admits this. The discrimination here is on the basis of an actual immutable characteristic, which is NOT the case in the "white supremacist" claim that they are being discriminated against. We can see this in the willingness of the baker to make a custom wedding cake for a heterosexual couple, but not a same-sex couple. This one IS rooted in an immutable characteristic of the requesters, as well as their choice, breaking the equivalence.

Indeed, the very heart of what I have said is that the basic rule "I will not make cakes for white supremacists" and "I will not make cakes for weddings" needs to be applied across the board. The baker would absolutely refuse to make a cake for a white supremacist gathering for anyone of any race, gender, creed, or ethnicity. But they only refuse to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. They do NOT refuse it for other legally marrying partners. You (and others) apparently want to make the generalize rule, "I will not make same-sex wedding cakes for anyone," and claim "no bigotry/prejudice." That doesn't work because the bigotry/prejudice has been "baked into" the rule.

Well, at least we know where we part ways. No, you are refusing to allow for the fact that the moral conflict comes from the fact it is a same-sex wedding. The moral conflict does not apply to all weddings. It applies to same-sex weddings. To you that means they discriminate against same-sex people. But that is not what it means. They will not bake same-sex cakes for anybody. So if a heterosexual couple came in and requested a cake for their same-sex friend's wedding, they'd refuse as well. Because the type of customer is not the problem. We went through this once before and you just don't want to accept it is possible to separate the two elements. But as I said before, a gay couple asking for a bat-mitsvah cake would have no trouble getting a cake from them. The issue is the type of event the cake is for, not the type of customer. The moral issue is invoked by the type of event that cake is being created for.

We are never going to agree though. But this is not a problem with the analogy. You can't understand that a person can be against the idea of a same sex wedding without it being coupled directly to a discriminatory act against same-sex people. I've tried to show you how they can be decoupled, but you will not acknowledge the possibility. So we really can't make any more progress.

The same-sex couple have to audacity to claim that their right to marriage is equivalent to heterosexual couples - they are asking for equivalence and justice.
The white supremacists have the audacity to claim that their race is superior to all others and they are entitled to racial purity.

Yes - they are equivalent in that each party is making a choice. They are not equivalent with respect to what the choices entail.



These are equivalent.



These are equivalent



They do - but in one scenario the decision is demonstrably not rooted in an immutable characteristic - so that leaves only the choice/belief. In the latter it is demonstrably rooted in an immutable characteristic (only same-sex couples can engage in a same-sex marriage) as well as a choice. This discontinuity breaks your equivalence. You're comparing apples to oranges from that point on (see above).

The immutable characteristic does not make it impossible for them to chose another path. A person attracted to the same-sex can chose not to act on it. So a person can say that same-sex acts are immoral and BE same-sex attracted themselves. That event is immoral to the baker. But that baker offers an identical service to all people regardless of race etc. The baker does not bake same-sex wedding cakes for anyone. The baker will bake bat-mitzvah cakes for anyone.

Ok - so here is a test question, and if the answer is 'yes' then we have established my point:

Is it possible you could have a gay baker that refuses to bake same-sex wedding cakes because he believes same-sex marriage is immoral?

Hopefully, this time it will be clear. The organization helps.

Michel

Sure - I get were you are coming from a bit better now. But I still disagree with you. I think it is clear the moral rejection of the event can be decoupled from whether or not the baker discriminated against the people themselves. And as said before, the conflation of terms, the possibility the decision could be based on the fact the people are gay or the fact the baker believes same-sex marriage is wrong makes a direct evaluation of discrimination difficult if not impossible. One has to look at how the bakers serve gay people when they ask for other kinds of cakes to establish if they are being discriminatory.



Jim