Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Psychic Missile]

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.

I am open minded for ideas that make sense, and your self-contradicting argument doesn't make sense. All agencies that allow for gay parents to adopt are as gay friendly as they need to be.

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.

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.

I don't think you really understand free market.

My question was if the market would favor the addition of all these anti-gay agencies. You don't start a business just hoping things are sorted out, especially when its purpose is supposedly humanitarian. If you are going to argue that we need more agencies, even if they are anti-gay, because of children who need adopting, you need to show that these new agencies will result in more children being adopted. You say I don't understand the free market, but you are acting as if you don't know what market saturation or a business plan is.

Fun?

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".

I never used the word "fun" so I don't know what you're talking about in that regard. My opinions concerning this matter are based on what's best for the children, and that's for as many qualified caregivers being able to adopt them as possible and them not being handled by an agency that may mistreat them if they are attracted to the same sex.

[firstfloor]

How do you propose to tell the difference? And does the law care? This is the sort of thing that shady people get away with all the time. They do something really bad or nasty, but they also know they are within the law. It is almost impossible to prevent that. The issue is the overarching basic principle. Which you seem to get, and in which case you've sided with discrimination as being what they both are about, whereas I side with the issue of an artisan being forced to create that which is in conflict with their morals - which I see as Tyranny. I think we all agree Tyranny must be avoided at all costs. That is what this nation was formed to avoid. And that is why I used the alternate example I did. No-one (except perhaps some form or new-nazi/white supremacist) would want to see an African-American owned business forced to make a cake for a white supremacist rally, or a Jewish Deli owner have to cater a Neo-Nazi dinner? Wouldn't that push your advantageous use of the law to the max? Can't you just see a bunch of Prejudiced white folk realizing that all they have to do to put the African-American baker down the street out of business is hire him to bake a specialty designer cake for their white's only event and then when he refuses sue him for discrimination?

This particular suit would set a precedent I don't think we really want set if it goes as (you think) you'd like to see it go.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

All agencies that allow for gay parents to adopt are as gay friendly as they need to be.

I am absolutely stunned by your genius!

OF COURSE they are, but that doesn't mean that all adoption agencies - particularly ones based on RELIGIOUS principles - should have to be required to adopt to gay couples when there are other options.

[oxmixmudd]

So this is essentially what I predicted. The focus is on the customer making the purchase - not the people being married. But if we take the parallel case of a restaurant owner refusing to make food for a black person, they are still justifiably accused of being prejudiced/bigoted if they refuse to make it even if it is a white person buying it to give to a black person. It doesn' matter how many intermediaries you put between the customer of record and the actual end customer, it is still an act of prejudice.

But you have once again changed the words around just enough to change the actual argument and discussion. First, you will not admit that 'same-sex marriage' is a valid descriptor. Yet who could argue that we can divide marriages into two kinds these days. Same-sex and heterosexual. Can we at least be sane enough to admit we now have to kinds of wedding and that to refuse to admit that simple fact exposes a serious bias in your thinking?

Next, you have gone from a baker refusing to make a type of cake for a customer to a restaurant refusing to serve a type of customer. For this to be valid, you must assume that the reason for refusing to make the cake is that they don't want to serve gay people. And as far as I know, there is not evidence that is the case - unless one first assumes the conclusion, which is circular reasoning.

Now - so far your reasoning has been that the only possible reason to refuse the same-sex wedding cake is to be discriminatory against same sex people.

But that is not the case. As I will show in a moment.

I have addressed the problem with the analogy. It basic boils down to this: you are completely focused on the claims without taking into account the truth of the claims. We have already shown that the claim "you are discriminating against us because we are white" is demonstrably untrue. The claim, "you are discriminating against me because we have the same sex" is demonstrably true. You cannot wave this distinction away and still claim the two situations are analogous.



And you are right that they cannot be decoupled - the act is inherently prejudicial. It does not matter if the person is willing to give other services (the bus allowed black people to sit at the back). What matters is whether the person is giving the same service to all who come without discrimination. This is patently not happening.

And here is the rub. You have indeed assumed the conclusion. You simply can't admit or accept that a person with no prejudice against gay people could refuse to make a same-sex wedding cake on moral grounds. Thus the bakers are lying.

But they are required to choose another path that other sex-combination are not required to choose. Therein lies the prejudicial act.

If I want size 19 shoes because I am big and tall I have to go to a shop that chooses to stock size 19 shoes. And the government can't require every shop to stock size 19 shoes just because some people are big and tall, or because they can't help being big and tall or change being big and tall. And the shop owners are not discriminating if they don't stock size 19 shoes. And it really doesn't matter whether or not the shop owner really doesn't like or actually really loves big and tall people.

Of course it is - and it is likewise a prejudicial act if the same policy is not being applied across all people. Look, religion has been hammering on the immorality of homosexuality for so long, there is a fairly long line of people who acknowledge their homosexuality, and have been convinced they are wrong/immoral if they act on those feelings. They are quite likely to engage in exactly the same prejudicial/bigoted choices as heterosexuals when they have been so convinced. We saw the same thing in the black community, with those who had actually been convinced they were indeed lesser than, and subservient to, white people, and they would engage in the same kind of amazing racism against their own race who sought to extract themselves from their oppressed condition.

I never said the gay baker thought same-sex marriage was immoral because he thought homosexuality is immoral! No, my gay baker thinks same-sex marriage is immoral because it imposes an archaic ritual designed for heterosexual needs as regards the care and nurture of children on same-sex people that have no such intrinsic need! My gay baker thinks imposing or encourage fealty to such a construct on same-sex people in this day and age with all its legal obligations and moral requirements is itself immoral and he will have no part of it.

So first, it is refreshing to hear you acknowledge I might be taking a position and arguing a position on its merits, and not because I simply stubbornly want to cling to my position. Your initial analogy had me in thought for a significant period of time. It appeared bulletproof, and I was actually in the process of writing a concession, when I spotted the problem.

Saying I understand your position doesn't mean I agree with it or thing it is necessarily logical. I just have a better understanding of the reasoning you are using to arrive at your position.

And I fundamentally disagree with your last sentence above. Showing that W does not discriminate against X in situation Y does NOT prove that W does not discriminate against X in situation Z. It merely shows that their discrimination is constrained, or perhaps inconsistent. Indeed, I find myself scratching my head at someone who says, "I won't sell you a custom cake, which I made, for your wedding because I don't morally agree with you" on the one hand and then says "I will sell you a generic cake, which I made, for your wedding" on the one hand. The entire position is rife with inconsistencies.

This gets pretty crazy. You can't stop someone from pretending not to be prejudicial and only expressing that element in ways the law can't control, discern, or correct. We don't need thought police.

Selling the generic cake is a compromise, a concession. It is the sort of inconsistency that arises from compassion when you know adhering to your morals puts someone else in a difficult spot.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

But you have once again changed the words around just enough to change the actual argument and discussion. First, you will not admit that 'same-sex marriage' is a valid descriptor.

Same sex marriage is a valid descriptor. That is, after all what it is.

Yet who could argue that we can divide marriages into two kinds these days. Same-sex and heterosexual. Can we at least be sane enough to admit we now have to kinds of wedding and that to refuse to admit that simple fact exposes a serious bias in your thinking?

Same sex marriage is to heterosexual marriage as same-sex friendship is to heterosexual friendship. If you feel a need to separate the former, then you need to separate the latter. I have no problem acknowledging that there are differences when same-sex relationships are formed and when opposite-sex relationships are formed. That would seem to me to be fairly obvious.

Next, you have gone from a baker refusing to make a type of cake for a customer to a restaurant refusing to serve a type of customer. For this to be valid, you must assume that the reason for refusing to make the cake is that they don't want to serve gay people.

No. I observe that they don't want want to provide a particular service to same-sex couples - one they are happy to provide for opposite-sex couples.

And as far as I know, there is not evidence that is the case - unless one first assumes the conclusion, which is circular reasoning.

There is no circle here. They are rejecting the service for one type of marrying couple, and providing it for another. Intermediaries are irrelevant. Other services are irrelevant.

Now - so far your reasoning has been that the only possible reason to refuse the same-sex wedding cake is to be discriminatory against same sex people.

No. There are many reasons for refusing to make the cake. If, however, the reason is that the marrying couple have the same genitals - we are into a world of discrimination, for reasons already cited.

But that is not the case. As I will show in a moment.

And here is the rub. You have indeed assumed the conclusion. You simply can't admit or accept that a person with no prejudice against gay people could refuse to make a same-sex wedding cake on moral grounds. Thus the bakers are lying.

At no point have I said the bakers are lying. I have said that providing service to people A and denying it to people B solely on their membership in an immutable class is the very definition of bigotry/prejudice (setting aside the places where this denial is related to the characteristic (e.g., denying gynecological services to a man).

If I want size 19 shoes because I am big and tall I have to go to a shop that chooses to stock size 19 shoes. And the government can't require every shop to stock size 19 shoes just because some people are big and tall, or because they can't help being big and tall or change being big and tall. And the shop owners are not discriminating if they don't stock size 19 shoes. And it really doesn't matter whether or not the shop owner really doesn't like or actually really loves big and tall people.

Not every decision that discriminates is prejudiced/bigoted. If I do not stock size 19 shoes because I hate people with big feet - I am prejudiced/bigoted. If I do not stock size 19 shoes because I do not sell enough of them to merit the shelf space to store them - that is a business decision. It has nothing to do with the characteristic of the person.

I never said the gay baker thought same-sex marriage was immoral because he thought homosexuality is immoral! No, my gay baker thinks same-sex marriage is immoral because it imposes an archaic ritual designed for heterosexual needs as regards the care and nurture of children on same-sex people that have no such intrinsic need!

Jim - you are really reaching here. First I did not say the baker said homosexuality was immoral. Second, this line of reasoning is way out on the co-dependent measuring stick. It is not the baker's place to decide what is being imposed on the people marrying. You might as well say the baker is entitled to say, "I won't make you a wedding cake because I just don't think you're her type." It's a ridiculous suggestion, and a horrible business practice, injecting the baker into the midst of a personal decision between two people.

My gay baker thinks imposing or encourage fealty to such a construct on same-sex people in this day and age with all its legal obligations and moral requirements is itself immoral and he will have no part of it.

Oh horse hockey. The people engaging in this ceremony are screaming for it. It opens doors to benefits and cultural norms they have been denied, and paves the way to broader acceptance. This attempt of yours to paint the bakers in a "I'm doing it for them" light is...well...pretty pathetic. I have the distinct impression you know your argument has collapsed, and you're grasping.

Saying I understand your position doesn't mean I agree with it or thing it is necessarily logical. I just have a better understanding of the reasoning you are using to arrive at your position.

I don't expect you to agree with me, Jim. Frankly, I expect you will do what most others of your beliefs have done...and simply declare me "stubborn" and "hand waving" and "shifting the goal posts" and all the rest. I suspect, however, that there is at least a small part of you that knows the argument you made is not sustainable. Perhaps that small part will someday come to the fore.

This gets pretty crazy. You can't stop someone from pretending not to be prejudicial and only expressing that element in ways the law can't control, discern, or correct. We don't need thought police.

I have no clue how this applies to the discussion in progress.

Selling the generic cake is a compromise, a concession. It is the sort of inconsistency that arises from compassion when you know adhering to your morals puts someone else in a difficult spot.

Jim

Sorry, Jim, but that just does not fly. The act is inconsistent, period. I have no idea why someone who feel morally compelled to separate themselves from this "moral abomination" would even begin to entertain the possibility. It almost seems as if some part of them knows they are not acting morally, and it looking for a lifeline. They, of course, are the only ones who know. Perhaps they are simply inconsistent with their moral code.

[carpedm9587]

I am absolutely stunned by your genius!

OF COURSE they are, but that doesn't mean that all adoption agencies - particularly ones based on RELIGIOUS principles - should have to be required to adopt to gay couples when there are other options.

I agree with you - within bounds. If the religious adoption agency is limiting itself to making adoptions happen between members of that religion, I agree they should be able to limit that in any way they wish. That is an "intra-religion" issue. As soon as they open themselves to the wider marketplace, however, they need to come under the operational banner of the wider marketplace. If they cannot, they should limit themselves to operating within their faith. Then, I believe, the first amendment protects them.

[Cow Poke]

I agree with you - within bounds. If the religious adoption agency is limiting itself to making adoptions happen between members of that religion, I agree they should be able to limit that in any way they wish. That is an "intra-religion" issue. As soon as they open themselves to the wider marketplace, however, they need to come under the operational banner of the wider marketplace. If they cannot, they should limit themselves to operating within their faith. Then, I believe, the first amendment protects them.

I think you want to be supreme emperor of the galaxy. You seem to want to limit it to "members of that religion", when the agency itself does not make such limitations. There is an expression in religion known as 'of like faith and order', which can be pretty flexible. It doesn't mean, for example, that a Catholic organization would only adopt to members of the Catholic church, but may well include members of the catholic church, as well.

[Tassman]

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

No, the analogy fails because it doesn't fit the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, among other things, prohibits "unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." The last being what applies to cake shops.

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

The livelihood of homophobic cake-shop owners is at risk only if they disobey the law.

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.

I guess the Law and Order Party is not interested in obeying the law when it interferes with its own agenda to impose its own values on everybody else.

[Starlight]

I think you want to be supreme emperor of the galaxy.

Sounds good. Where do I sign up?

Galactic Rule #1:
CP must write "I will not write dumb things on TWeb" a thousand times.

[Cow Poke]

No, the analogy fails because it doesn't fit the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, among other things, prohibits "unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." The last being what applies to cake shops.

Yes, I'm sure they were worried to death about 'cake shops'.

[Cow Poke]

No, the analogy fails because it doesn't fit the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, among other things, prohibits "unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." The last being what applies to cake shops.

Actually, Title II says...

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Not a word in there about sexual orientation or wedding cakes.

[oxmixmudd]

Same sex marriage is a valid descriptor. That is, after all what it is.



Same sex marriage is to heterosexual marriage as same-sex friendship is to heterosexual friendship. If you feel a need to separate the former, then you need to separate the latter. I have no problem acknowledging that there are differences when same-sex relationships are formed and when opposite-sex relationships are formed. That would seem to me to be fairly obvious.



No. I observe that they don't want want to provide a particular service to same-sex couples - one they are happy to provide for opposite-sex couples.



There is no circle here. They are rejecting the service for one type of marrying couple, and providing it for another. Intermediaries are irrelevant. Other services are irrelevant.



No. There are many reasons for refusing to make the cake. If, however, the reason is that the marrying couple have the same genitals - we are into a world of discrimination, for reasons already cited.



At no point have I said the bakers are lying. I have said that providing service to people A and denying it to people B solely on their membership in an immutable class is the very definition of bigotry/prejudice (setting aside the places where this denial is related to the characteristic (e.g., denying gynecological services to a man).



Not every decision that discriminates is prejudiced/bigoted. If I do not stock size 19 shoes because I hate people with big feet - I am prejudiced/bigoted. If I do not stock size 19 shoes because I do not sell enough of them to merit the shelf space to store them - that is a business decision. It has nothing to do with the characteristic of the person.



Jim - you are really reaching here. First I did not say the baker said homosexuality was immoral. Second, this line of reasoning is way out on the co-dependent measuring stick. It is not the baker's place to decide what is being imposed on the people marrying. You might as well say the baker is entitled to say, "I won't make you a wedding cake because I just don't think you're her type." It's a ridiculous suggestion, and a horrible business practice, injecting the baker into the midst of a personal decision between two people.



Oh horse hockey. The people engaging in this ceremony are screaming for it. It opens doors to benefits and cultural norms they have been denied, and paves the way to broader acceptance. This attempt of yours to paint the bakers in a "I'm doing it for them" light is...well...pretty pathetic. I have the distinct impression you know your argument has collapsed, and you're grasping.



I don't expect you to agree with me, Jim. Frankly, I expect you will do what most others of your beliefs have done...and simply declare me "stubborn" and "hand waving" and "shifting the goal posts" and all the rest. I suspect, however, that there is at least a small part of you that knows the argument you made is not sustainable. Perhaps that small part will someday come to the fore.



I have no clue how this applies to the discussion in progress.



Sorry, Jim, but that just does not fly. The act is inconsistent, period. I have no idea why someone who feel morally compelled to separate themselves from this "moral abomination" would even begin to entertain the possibility. It almost seems as if some part of them knows they are not acting morally, and it looking for a lifeline. They, of course, are the only ones who know. Perhaps they are simply inconsistent with their moral code.

We are back where we started. You believe the denial of the cake is selective, you believe it is based on who the people are. I believe the denial is universal. They will not make a cake for that purpose for anyone.

What you are saying is that to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex marriage is to discriminate against gay people. That there is no freedom to chose what sort of cake will be made in that case. I disagree with that assessment. I believe they can or at least should be able to choose not to make such a cake. In your world, If I put a sign that says "I decorate cakes" in my shop window, then no matter who walks in the door, no matter what sort of decoration they request, I must create it for them. In my world that is tyranny. I can decline a person my service if what they ask me to create is offensive to me.

What that means is that I would support a cake shop's right to refuse to make a mixed race cake. But not because I think that is a good way to be. On the contrary, I would exercise my right not to give that shop my business from that day forward. That is how it should work. If I was about to marry a women of another race and the shop keeper said he didn't make mixed race wedding cakes, I'd move on. I would not sue him or her. But I would tell my friends what happened. And they and I would all vote with our feet and take our business elsewhere. That cake maker has the right to choose what they will make. And I and others like me have the right to choose who to give our business.



Jim

[Tassman]

Yes, I'm sure they were worried to death about 'cake shops'.

They were concerned about equal Constitutional rights for all citizens.

[oxmixmudd]

No, the analogy fails because it doesn't fit the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, among other things, prohibits "unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations." The last being what applies to cake shops.



The livelihood of homophobic cake-shop owners is at risk only if they disobey the law.



I guess the Law and Order Party is not interested in obeying the law when it interferes with its own agenda to impose its own values on everybody else.

A public accommodation is a bathroom or water fountain. A cake shop is a private business.

Jim

[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.

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.