Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

Right, take away my ability to feed my family because I refuse to be a part of an immoral act - homosexual marriage. That really is fascist Carp...

No one is removing your ability to feed your family. Someone who bakes can bake any number of things. Someone who bakes cakes can bake them for any number of gathering types. You are exaggerating a problem to try to hold a position.

But, frankly, even if there WERE someone who's entire living was "making wedding cakes" and who could not make any other type of cake or pastry, they would have to choose between entering another line of work, or providing their service equitably.

As for the fascist accusation, I have no response. It has no application here. I'm sure the people who fought against "white only" diners were also accused of being fascist.

[KingsGambit]

One person's education is another person's indoctrination. As best I can tell - if you WANT them to know it, it's education. If you don't want them to know it, it gets called indoctrination.

I think this is correct.

When I taught history, when I taught about the Holocaust, I mentioned that some people deny it ever happened but that they were simply wrong. I'm sure Holocaust denialists would have called this "indoctrination". Maybe it was by the definition of the word. But sometimes something is actually true.

[carpedm9587]

I think this is correct.

When I taught history, when I taught about the Holocaust, I mentioned that some people deny it ever happened but that they were simply wrong. I'm sure Holocaust denialists would have called this "indoctrination". Maybe it was by the definition of the word. But sometimes something is actually true.

Agreed. I tend to be more specific about education vs. indoctrination. I do not think, for example, that private Catholic schools are "indoctrinating" their pupils. It is a community of faith and, in general, they are simply teaching what they honestly believe to be true. Indoctrination happens, IMO, when someone has decided that no other point of view merits examination, narrowly constrains the message, and then adds a lot of psychological (and sometimes physical) pressure to ensure the desired outcome is achieved.

[seer]

Not everything held by "the majority" constitutes tyranny. Indeed, when the majority is seeking to expand civil liberties, it's hard to define that as "tyranny."

Correct, by forcing children to sit through leftist sexual propaganda, or forcing a baker to be involved with an event he finds deeply immoral. Expanding civil liberties - right.

Normal? Rape is, by definition, forced sex - and the forced aspect makes it immoral. Pedophilia is also forced sex because the human object is not capable of mature consent.

These behaviors are as natural or normal as homosexuality. And what do you have against force? You have no problem forcing the baker under the threat of law.

Prostitution is not something I have a moral objection to. And I do not defend/refute moral positions on the basis of what other animals do. Humans are relatively unique in their cognitive capabilities and the associated ability to moralize.

You were talking about what were "normal" human inclinations.

I provided you with a resource for legislation and constitution bases for civil rights actions since the early 1800s, Seer. I have to admit I am less than enthusiastic about working much harder than that given your historical rejection of pretty much any argument made. If you do not find it in the constitution, so be it.

That is not what I asked you for Carp, and you know it. I asked for Constitutional references. You can not provide one and you know that too. Courts can invent just about anything, with no relation to Constitutional law.

I do not see how this connects with what was being discussed.

Think about it, it is not that hard.

[seer]

No one is removing your ability to feed your family. Someone who bakes can bake any number of things. Someone who bakes cakes can bake them for any number of gathering types. You are exaggerating a problem to try to hold a position.

I exaggerate nothing, the increasing totalitarianism of the left is glaringly obvious. On all levels.

[Starlight]

Seer what types of people would you want to refuse service to in your shop if you had the freedom to do so?

[Tassman]

Right, take away my ability to feed my family because I refuse to be a part of an immoral act - homosexual marriage. That really is fascist Carp...

To my mind, refusing service to homosexual couples is the immoral act.

What you are refusing is obedience to the law, and for that you will bring certain consequences upon yourself. "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforces the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations". Cake shops are defined as public accommodations and therefore cannot discriminate against customers whose life-styles they dislike.

I exaggerate nothing, the increasing totalitarianism of the left is glaringly obvious. On all levels.

You don't think enforcing Evangelical values on everybody else is totalitarianism?

[NorrinRadd]

All marriage is elective. The reason for rejecting the customer is solely on the basis that two same-sex people are the ones engaging in the union - so it is about the sexual orientation, not the marriage. That is the point.



Homosexuality is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality. So if you reverse it for a moment, you'll see the problem. Imagine that you went into a store to buy something, and you were told you could not because you are heterosexual. Would you find that an acceptable state of affairs?

Yes. Private owners *should* be allowed to provide or deny services as they see fit.

But that is a false equivalency. The baker/florist scenarios go beyond just "buy(ing) something." They involve buying certain *particular* things for certain *particular* occasions in such a way that the store owners consciences convict them that they themselves would be *participating* in perverse activities.

[NorrinRadd]

Genetic harm...

Not if they adopt....

IMO, your delineation is arbitrary. If you sell a good or offer a service, you cannot discriminate.



The question is what the artist does for work. An artist can refuse to paint a cat if they are refusing to paint cats for all people. They cannot only paint cats of white people and refuse to do it for black people. That is what I was saying about the cakes. Bake something else. But if you bake wedding cakes, you have to bake them for anyone that wants them. Likewise, if you paint cats, you have to paint them for anyone that wants them (barring capacity or other business-related issues).

They *should* be allowed to provide or deny for whatever reason they choose.

But again, this is false equivalency. They should *especially* be allowed to deny if, e.g., the "black" customer commissioned a painting of a cat specially adorned for use in a pagan religious ceremony.

[NorrinRadd]

... You don't think enforcing Evangelical values on everybody else is totalitarianism?

No one is doing that.

[Roy]

The baker is in business selling cakes to the public with messages written on them. Why should he be able to refuse the KKK but not a gay couple?

He's not in the business of selling cakes with messages on, he's in the business of selling wedding cakes. He should not be able to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a KKK member.

[Tassman]

No one is doing that.

That's exactly what you are doing if you refuse service to customers based upon personal religious beliefs, just because you think they take precedence over the customers's legal right to be served.

[carpedm9587]

Correct, by forcing children to sit through leftist sexual propaganda, or forcing a baker to be involved with an event he finds deeply immoral. Expanding civil liberties - right.

It is common for expanded civil liberties to make some people feel disenfranchised. In the civil rights era, when white separatists were told, "you can no longer discriminate against black people," and the civil rights elements of our histories began to appear in our school curricula, white separatists made the same complaints. They were experiencing a "loss of freedom." Their rights were being curtailed to provide rights long missing to a class long disparaged. So your feelings are understandable. But your rights to promote your anti-homosexuality agenda are not rights the majority of us think are proper or moral. Times have changed.

These behaviors are as natural or normal as homosexuality. And what do you have against force? You have no problem forcing the baker under the threat of law.

Force is necessary in some places. Self defense, for one. Forcefully engaging in violent sex is not one of them. And again, no one is "forcing" the baker to work. The baker is simply being told, "if you work, same rules for everyone."

You were talking about what were "normal" human inclinations.

I was talking about sexual orientation being an aspect of the human person.

That is not what I asked you for Carp, and you know it. I asked for Constitutional references. You can not provide one and you know that too. Courts can invent just about anything, with no relation to Constitutional law.

Seer, not every law is outlined in the Constitution, and I think you know that. Show me in the Constitution where is requires a business to make allowances for people with physical challenges. Yet the ADA has been upheld time and time again. A law may be passed even though it is not specifically spelled out in he constitution. A law may NOT be passed if it violates the constitution in some way. I have never heard of a case against a law that went to court on the basis of "show me where it is in the constitution." The case is always, "show me what constitutional clause it violates." So the task is not for me to show you where "limiting the baker" is in the constitution. The task is for you to show where "limiting the baker" is counter to a constitutional principal.

And before you tout our "freedom to practice" your religion, baking is not a religious practice, and no one is forcing the baker to bake. The baker can freely practice their religion; they simply are not free to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate.

Think about it, it is not that hard.

I'll leave this one alone, since I have no clue what it is about.

[carpedm9587]

I exaggerate nothing, the increasing totalitarianism of the left is glaringly obvious. On all levels.

I have no response to this perspective.

[carpedm9587]

Yes. Private owners *should* be allowed to provide or deny services as they see fit.

On that we disagree. To go down that route is to go back down the route of "white only" diners and all of the rest of the discriminatory practices we have worked so hard to eliminate. What a person says/does in their own home is their business. If they offer a public service, it should be offered without discrimination. That doesn't mean they cannot refuse service; it simply means it can not be done in a discriminatory fashion.

But that is a false equivalency. The baker/florist scenarios go beyond just "buy(ing) something." They involve buying certain *particular* things for certain *particular* occasions in such a way that the store owners consciences convict them that they themselves would be *participating* in perverse activities.

I do not believe baking a cake makes a baker a participant in the marriage. Nor does renting the hall, providing the favors, etc. At no point, as I was getting married, did the various businesses from which we bought the things we wanted/needed "participate" in our marriage. People who sell condoms don't "participate in our sex." People who sell skis don't "participate in our skiing." Each furnishes a product we want, nothing more.