Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Sparko]

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.

correct. And the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. He refused it because he did not want to create an artwork celebrating a sin. He was willing to sell them the cake and the decorating material so they could do it themselves and they were free to go somewhere else.

So if you went to an artist and said you want him to paint a picture of a cat, he could not refuse you because you were gay, but he could refuse you because he doesn't want to paint cats or he just doesn't want to do it, or think you are ugly and smell bad.

[Sparko]

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.

No you are wrong. The issue has always been the message, not the client's sexual orientation. They did not refuse to sell them a cake, just to decorate it promoting a specific message or idea, "gay marriage"

[Sparko]

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.

exactly. It is more about it being repugnant culturally than genetic harm. It probably causes psychological harm to both the couple and the child too. But then Christians think the same thing of Gay Marriage. We find it repugnant and harmful to the family.

[Sparko]

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.

Way to totally miss the point.

[carpedm9587]

correct. And the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. He refused it because he did not want to create an artwork celebrating a sin. He was willing to sell them the cake and the decorating material so they could do it themselves and they were free to go somewhere else.

Classifying gay marriage and homosexual love as "sin" is where the discrimination occurs - it is based on sexual orientation. If the baker feels strongly about it, they are completely free to follow their religious inclinations - they simply have to do so in a nondiscriminatory manner. That means they either have to have someone else in their business make the cake, or they have to stop making cakes for weddings for everyone. The same would be true if they hated black people. They can simply stop making the cakes altogether and bake other things instead.

So if you went to an artist and said you want him to paint a picture of a cat, he could not refuse you because you were gay, but he could refuse you because he doesn't want to paint cats or he just doesn't want to do it, or think you are ugly and smell bad.

He cannot rightly refuse me service on the basis of my skin color, sexual orientation, sex, or any other attribute that is a defined part of "self." He cannot refuse me because I am under 4' tall, or because I have blue eyes. He CAN refuse me for any attribute other than that. If I smell, there is no reason he can't say, "this is a bake shop - and your smell is driving my customers away." I can always choose to bathe and return. If I am barefoot or without a shirt, he can refuse me on multiple grounds. I can always get shoes and a shirt.

This is pretty basic stuff, Sparko. Discrimination is discrimination. It's not rocket science. It's rejection of someone on the basis of their membership in a given class that is beyond their control. I am not discriminating (in the moral sense) if I do not want smelly people in my store. I am discriminating if I do not want black people or gay people or women in my store.

[Sparko]

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.

So if he wants to turn away all nazis, all gays, then so what?Your objection is duly dismissed.

[carpedm9587]

No you are wrong. The issue has always been the message, not the client's sexual orientation. They did not refuse to sell them a cake, just to decorate it promoting a specific message or idea, "gay marriage"

Then we disagree. And since the basis of the disagreement is rooted in the sexual orientation of the customers, we have a case of immoral (and possibly illegal) discrimination.

[carpedm9587]

exactly. It is more about it being repugnant culturally than genetic harm. It probably causes psychological harm to both the couple and the child too. But then Christians think the same thing of Gay Marriage. We find it repugnant and harmful to the family.

Yes it is. Frankly, I would not be out screaming if people set out to repeal laws against incest. It falls in the same class as "bestiality," IMO. It's and of no interest to me, but I don't see it as having a necessary moral content.

[Cow Poke]

Classifying gay marriage and homosexual love as "sin"...

Not homosexual "love" - homosexual sex, which is the perversion.

[carpedm9587]

Way to totally miss the point.

I don't see that I missed it at all. The argument "it didn't used to be legal" simply has no merit. Racial discrimination didn't used to be illegal before either. Then it was. And it took years to adjust the laws accordingly. We are only at the beginning place of the same process for the LGBTQ community.

And I did ask that people leave the condescending emojis out of this thread. Please adhere to the requests in the OP.

[Sparko]

Classifying gay marriage and homosexual love as "sin" is where the discrimination occurs - it is based on sexual orientation.

It is a behavior. It is a choice. It is not discriminating against a person if you don't want to participate in celebrating their behavior. If you don't like people who go around wearing leather and spanking each other you don't have to make a cake with whips and chains on it. Same principal. You can't refuse to sell them a cake but you don't have to decorate it for them.

You are trying to shoehorn discrimination where there is none. A baker doesn't have to make a cake celebrating adultery either if he doesn't want to, despite adultery being legal in all 50 states.

[carpedm9587]

So if he wants to turn away all nazis, all gays, then so what?Your objection is duly dismissed.

All Nazis, yes. That is voluntary membership into an organization with a repugnant/immoral political message (pro-racism). Gays - no. That is involuntary membership in a class that has no repugnant/immoral; political message (except to those who use their religion as a basis for discrimination).

[Cow Poke]

And I did ask that people leave the condescending emojis out of this thread. Please adhere to the requests in the OP.

Ya know, that's kinda really picking of nit, Carpe... it's like you want to run a kindergarten class. I don't recall anybody ever making such a (being polite here) 'unusual' limitation.

[carpedm9587]

Not homosexual "love" - homosexual sex, which is the perversion.

Homosexual sex is no more or less a "perversion" than heterosexual sex. Love is love. Sex is sex. Calling it a perversion on the basis of what is or is not dangling between the legs of the participants is no different than calling it a perversion on the basis of the color of the skin of the participants. It is a discriminatory position justified by religion.

[Sparko]

Then we disagree. And since the basis of the disagreement is rooted in the sexual orientation of the customers, we have a case of immoral (and possibly illegal) discrimination.

using your redefinition, then the bible must be outlawed because it teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Which if you tried it would be breaking the first amendment.