Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

Not if they adopt....

While true, the potential for genetic harm exists, which is the basis for the law (AFAIK). I suppose one could craft the law to say family members may marry only if they are unable to conceive. It's an odd construct, and the repugnance of same-family marriage is pretty deeply rooted. However, "same family" is widely interpreted. The only prohibition that appears to be universal is within the same nuclear family.

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.

On this we disagree. I agree that they should be able to provide/deny for any reason, so long as they do so without discrimination. So "I don't paint cats" is fine. "I don't paint for black people" is not.

[carpedm9587]

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.

"Member of the KKK" is not a personal attribute that one cannot change. It's not like being female, black, homosexual, or Italian. It is a chosen membership in an organization I may find repugnant and not want to support in any way because of what that organization stands for. It's a form of boycott. Boycotting an organization is substantively different from refusing to serve a type of person.

[carpedm9587]

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.

I think we have to be careful with language here. "Legal right to be served" is exactly what Seer is objecting to, I think. No one has a "legal right to be served" by a particular business. A business may reject providing the service for any number of reasons, most of which will not be illegal (e.g., capacity issues, shortage of product, discovered product deficiencies, etc.). What is being said is that, if they provide/deny a service, the basis for that must be equitable - it cannot be based on gender, race, etc unless the cause is specifically gender, race, etc. related.

It is not illegal for a gynocologist to deny service to a man.
It is not illegal for a business to turn away customers when the store is full.
It is not illegal for a business to reject a service they do not specialize in (e.g., painting cats).

[seer]

"Member of the KKK" is not a personal attribute that one cannot change. It's not like being female, black, homosexual, or Italian. It is a chosen membership in an organization I may find repugnant and not want to support in any way because of what that organization stands for. It's a form of boycott. Boycotting an organization is substantively different from refusing to serve a type of person.

That is not an argument Carp, first there is no good evidence that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Second, homosexual behavior, or getting married is a choice. An immoral one. Gay marriage is an arrangement that many would find just as repugnant as you find the KKK.

[seer]

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

Probably no one, I can't think of any.

[carpedm9587]

That is not an argument Carp, first there is no good evidence that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

So, "immutable" is a pretty absolute word. Homosexuality is not a physical attribute like skin color or gender. It has been shown to be an attribute that is influenced by a combination of factors including genetics, environment, etc. Any attribute, physical or otherwise, can be altered to some degree. Gender can be surgically changed. Skin color can be altered in various ways. No attribute is "immutable." Likewise, a homosexual can be conditioned in various ways. That does not alter the underlying reality of homosexuality as part nature, part nurture.

And the phrase "good evidence" strikes me as an escape clause. You can reject the evidence that exists by simply calling it "not good." There is a wide body of evidence linking specific genes to homosexuality. There is also a nurture component.

Second, homosexual behavior, or getting married is a choice. An immoral one. Gay marriage is an arrangement that many would find just as repugnant as you find the KKK.

Getting married is indeed a choice. Not an immoral one. The issue is not the marriage, it is the people getting married. And repugnance is not a basis for morality.

[Cow Poke]

Gender can be surgically changed.

I wish people would decide what "gender" actually means.

gender: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
"traditional concepts of gender"

My psychology professor always had a cow (figuratively) when somebody used the word gender to refer to sex. That was 30 or so years ago - I really wonder how he would explain it today.

[seer]

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.

This is completely stupid! You don't hurt the homosexual by not bringing up in the classroom anymore than you hurt the adulterer by not bringing up adultery in the classroom. You make no sense.

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."

Yes, force is good for things you agree with.

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

So is the orientation to rape or sleep with another man's wife or bed a sheep. So? Homosexual behavior is still not normal since by definition it deviates from the norm. And you used the term normal.

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.

So you finally admit that there is no Constitutional support for your position. I will start with the freedom of religion and the freedom of association also grounded in the First Amendment.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/PROJECT...ssociation.htm

Then to 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

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.

Nonsense, forcing a man to be involved in a practice that he finds deeply immoral on religious grounds, or give up his livelihood, does violate his religious freedom. Could we, by law, force a religious Doctor to be involved in abortions? Why not?

[seer]

So, "immutable" is a pretty absolute word. Homosexuality is not a physical attribute like skin color or gender. It has been shown to be an attribute that is influenced by a combination of factors including genetics, environment, etc. Any attribute, physical or otherwise, can be altered to some degree. Gender can be surgically changed. Skin color can be altered in various ways. No attribute is "immutable." Likewise, a homosexual can be conditioned in various ways. That does not alter the underlying reality of homosexuality as part nature, part nurture.

So what is your point?

And the phrase "good evidence" strikes me as an escape clause. You can reject the evidence that exists by simply calling it "not good." There is a wide body of evidence linking specific genes to homosexuality. There is also a nurture component.

Right and I'm sure you would find both nurture and nature components in the common thief. And?

Getting married is indeed a choice. Not an immoral one. The issue is not the marriage, it is the people getting married. And repugnance is not a basis for morality.

Yet you would not serve the KKK member because you find his beliefs repugnant! Go figure...

[Starlight]

This is completely stupid! You don't hurt the homosexual by not bringing up in the classroom anymore than you hurt the adulterer by not bringing up adultery in the classroom.

Actually, as has been explained to you before, you do hurt them by complete silence on the matter.

A kid who grows up experiencing same-sex attractions without having a clue that homosexuals even exist as a category, can become quite distressed and have a very poor self-understanding. Likewise the other kids, if they don't understand the basic fact that some people have same-sex attractions, can themselves be quite confused about the behavior and vary from being scared of gay people (under the belief it might be contagious) to, more commonly in a school environment, bully them.

You can, and probably should, never mention 'adultery' in the classroom because by the time it ever becomes relevant to the kids, they will be adults and will know all about it. However, on average people report having their first sexual thoughts and desires around age 11, give or take a couple of years. So the kids will be beginning to become aware at that age whether the sexual thoughts they are having are about people of the same-sex or opposite-sex or both. And by the end of high-school, most kids will have gone out on at least one 'date' or gone to a ball with somebody. And while I'm not personally a big fan of teenagers having sex, the fact is that many do.

So having a basic understanding of the facts of the matter that themselves or their friends might have a sexual attraction to the same sex, is relevant to them in the 11-17 high-school age range in a way that adultery isn't relevant.

[seer]

Actually, as has been explained to you before, you do hurt them by complete silence on the matter.

Nonsense, do you hurt the prostitute or adulterer by not bringing up that behavior in the class room.

A kid who grows up experiencing same-sex attractions without having a clue that homosexuals even exist as a category, can become quite distressed and have a very poor self-understanding. Likewise the other kids, if they don't understand the basic fact that some people have same-sex attractions, can themselves be quite confused about the behavior and vary from being scared of gay people (under the belief it might be contagious) to, more commonly in a school environment, bully them

.

Let me fix that for you.

A kid who grows up experiencing a sexual attraction to sheep, without having a clue that bestiality even exist as a category, can become quite distressed and have a very poor self-understanding....

[Cow Poke]

Actually, as has been explained to you before...

Having said something in the past does not make it truerererer.

[Mountain Man]

As I've noted before, since the only moral standard available to the atheist is nature, then on that basis alone we can condemn homosexually as inarguably unnatural and contrary to normal biological functions. It is, in that respect, no different than bestiality. The usual counterargument is that this would also seem to condemn childless heterosexual couples, and from a basis of natural morality, that may be true, but that's a problem for the atheist to wrestle with since the moral standard for the theist does not rest in nature alone.

[Roy]

As I've noted before, since the only moral standard available to the atheist is nature, ...

Trivially false, since Xtian moral standards are available to atheists even if their supposed source is disbelieved.

... then on that basis alone we can condemn homosexually as inarguably unnatural and contrary to normal biological functions.

So MM not only can't imagine that atheists can read the bible, he doesn't know anything about Texan lizards and the many other examples of homosexuality among animals.

The usual counterargument is that this would also seem to condemn childless heterosexual couples, and from a basis of natural morality, that may be true, but that's a problem for the atheist to wrestle with ...

It's not a problem for atheists, so there's nothing to wrestle with.

[Sparko]

The basis for the SCOTUS decisions were the equal protection and due process clauses.

That has nothing to do with this. Again, according to the law as it now stands, sexual orientation is not a protected class (except I believe in California but that law is being challenged)

And I totally agree that a business cannot refuse to serve gays. Places like restaurants and retail stores and butcher shops and bakeries. As long as they are buying a standard product. The problem comes in when they are requesting a custom personalized service. Then it becomes a commission of a piece of art. And you can't force an artist to create a work of art to your specifications. They can refuse, legally, anyone they want. Decorating a cake is art. Like making a painting. The cake itself is a standard product. If they had ready made wedding cakes in a window, they could not refuse to sell them to a gay couple. I totally agree with that.