Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

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.

I do not base my moral standard on "nature," and I am atheist

[carpedm9587]

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.

Any artist can refuse to do any particular work they wish - they simply cannot base that refusal on the color of a person's skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation unless it is directly related to that art. We've been around this horn before. I'm not saying anything new here.

[carpedm9587]

So, homosexuals are targeting a protected class (Religion) when they are insisting that a Christian Baker create a cake celebrating homosexuality. You don't seem to have a problem with that.

Again, baking has nothing to do with religion. No one is forcing the baker to bake. No one is targeting a baker on the basis of their religion, and the baker's freedom to exercise their religion is not being curtailed. They are simply being told they cannot withhold services on the basis of gender, race, or sexual orientation. The baker has several avenues to avoid this problem.

[carpedm9587]

You think I was kidding?

https://jalopnik.com/man-who-has-had...tle-1445719610

No - I just found (and still find) it amusing...

[carpedm9587]

What if they had no children? What if they were the same sex?

Responded to in a previous post.

Tell that to anyone who offers a personal service. Like a lawyer for instance. He can refuse to take on any client he wishes.

And if they base that refusal on gender, race, or sexual orientation when that has nothing to do with their service, then they are wrong.

No an artist can refuse to do any work for YOU. Even if he specializes in painting cats and paints cats for everyone else. He can say "I think Michel is a piece of crap and I will never work for him!" and be perfectly justified.

Yes, they can refuse me service for any number of reasons. If those reasons are based in race, gender, or orientation - they are wrong.

yes if you bake cakes you will have to bake them for anyone and sell them, because they are a standard product. But you don't have to decorate them. that is art.

It makes no difference.

[carpedm9587]

again, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. But you are NOT allowed to discriminate based on religion, which is a protected class.

No one is discriminating based on religion. This is a commonly used turn-around, but it simply does not apply. The person's right to follow their religious beliefs is not being challenged. Their right to use that religion as a basis for discriminating IS being challenged.

[carpedm9587]

Oh please, we were not even speaking of civics class, but sex ed. The point is, you would not hurt homosexuals by not bringing it up in the classroom, anymore than you hurt the adulterer by not bringing up adultery in the classroom.

I think you may have lost track of the conversation. The class you were talking about earlier was cited as a civics class which your son needed to graduate. But it doesn't matter if it's civics or sex ed. Homosexuality is a normal human orientation and should be covered in both classes, from differing points of view. In the civics class, the topic should be covered as part of the current civil liberties battle in the U.S. In the sex ed class it should be covered from an definition/acceptance/safety perspective.

Like forcing our kids to sit through immoral sexual indoctrination.

Like requiring students to a public school to learn about human sexuality.

So you get to decide what is normal by definition now? A bit self-serving...

Actually, not just me. Homosexuality has been removed from the list of psychological "diseases" or aberrations, and our knowledge of it has expanded significantly. There is a fair amount of literature on the subject if you care to explore.

Again, you have no Constitutional support, and if you force a man, by law, to act against his religious beliefs or undermine his ability of free association you are in fact violating Constitutional principles. Of course leftists never did understand freedom, everyone must conform to their mindset...

Since no one is being forced to act against their religious beliefs, this does not apply. All that is being required is that a person not discriminate and use their religion as an excuse. This can be accomplished in several ways that do not compromise the person's religion.

Nope, why not require the religious doctor to give out the morning after pill?

This is a good question. I need to noodle on it a bit.

[Sparko]

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.

Even if he wanted it saying "Kill all N***" and wanted a dead black person depicted on the cake with the groom's boot on his head? Again, it's not the cake itself that is the problem it is forcing the baker to decorate it with a message that he doesn't agree with.

[Sparko]

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.



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.

The chance of genetic harm can occur in any pregnancy in any marriage or outside of it. And the actual chances of genetic harm from inbreeding is actually pretty small. Most cases will not end up with some freak but a totally normal baby unless they both have some recessive gene for a damaging disease or birth defect which is pretty rare.

[Sparko]

"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.

same sex marriage IS a choice though. And it was completely illegal until recently. So if this occurred 15 years ago, there would have been no problem with refusing to make the cake, would there?

[Sparko]

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).

A business can turn away customers who are not wearing shoes or a tie. Your examples are dumb.

[carpedm9587]

Even if he wanted it saying "Kill all N***" and wanted a dead black person depicted on the cake with the groom's boot on his head? Again, it's not the cake itself that is the problem it is forcing the baker to decorate it with a message that he doesn't agree with.

The issue is not about agreeing/disagreeing with the message - the issue is whether the basis for that disagreement is rooted in a personal attribute. Refusing to write "Kill all N" is refusing to write something that is racially discriminating. The baker SHOULD do that. Refusing service to a member of the KKK is refusing service to someone who has chosen participation in a racist organization.

The wedding cake is not aligned. First, I have never seen a wedding cake with a message on it. A quick search of wedding cake images shows image after image of a cake with lovely decoration, and no written words. Most people consider "writing" to be a bit tacky for a wedding cake. Birthday, anniversary, graduation cakes, not so much. But wedding cakes tend to highly decorated and tiered, with generally no written messages. When they do have a message, it is generally something like "love" or "life" etc. Try doing a search and you will see. And the refusal to provide this service in rooted in an attribute of the person - not their elective membership in an unacceptable group.

[carpedm9587]

The chance of genetic harm can occur in any pregnancy in any marriage or outside of it. And the actual chances of genetic harm from inbreeding is actually pretty small. Most cases will not end up with some freak but a totally normal baby unless they both have some recessive gene for a damaging disease or birth defect which is pretty rare.

Yes, it can. Sickle cell anemia is a good example, and couples should be aware of the dangers in such situations. But the chance is significantly enhanced within a nuclear family (though still comparatively small). More importantly, it is magnified in successive generations, which I believe is the primary reason for the block.

Still - the prohibition against incest is largely a cultural prohibition.

[carpedm9587]

same sex marriage IS a choice though. And it was completely illegal until recently. So if this occurred 15 years ago, there would have been no problem with refusing to make the cake, would there?

This is like saying, "slavery was legal 200 years ago - so what's the big deal?"

I assume you can work the rest out for yourself.

[carpedm9587]

A business can turn away customers who are not wearing shoes or a tie. Your examples are dumb.

Yes - they can. But that is ALL people who do not wear shoes or a tie.

And your opinion on the examples is duly noted.