SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Cow Poke]

They also tend not to stock much of anything I actually want to read (been that way since well before I converted to Orthodoxy).

Yeah, I think they try too hard to be generic or something. The last time I asked for something they didn't carry, the guy told me "I can special order it for you". I said "two words - Amazon Prime". He said, "yeah, I get a lot of that".

It's like the "Baptist Book Stores" becoming "Lifeway" to appeal to more people, and our Sunday School Literature being made "more inclusive" so other churches or denominations could buy it.

[Cow Poke]

A good number of people I know voted to protest whoever they saw as the worst of the two.

Jim

EGGzacly, not necessarily the "better of the two", but the "lesser of two evils". But, for whatever reason, there is this dadblamed steadfast determination to insist "but you voted FOR....."

[Cow Poke]

That description appears to fit the overwhelming majority of "Trump supporters" around here.

It's like.....

Worst of the Bad Guys: OK, Poker of Cows, the time has come - you will die either by lethal injection or being tickled to death, entirely up to you.
Poker of Cows: Hmmmm... I absolutely HATE being tickled, so ... if I must die.... give me the needle.

Newspaper the next morning: Poker of Cows was a supporter of lethal injection to the very end!



(yeah, I know, it doesn't cover the "stay home and not vote" option, or the "you coulda voted for the green party candidate"... or the flat out.... I JUST WANT TO BE RIGHT!!!!)

[One Bad Pig]

I knew that I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary, so the choice for me was whether I could vote at all (which I couldn't decide on until the last couple of days).

Was thinking about doing a write-in. I'd have voted for Bernie over Hillary.

[Joel]

It's like.....

Worst of the Bad Guys: OK, Poker of Cows, the time has come - you will die either by lethal injection or being tickled to death, entirely up to you.
Poker of Cows: Hmmmm... I absolutely HATE being tickled, so ... if I must die.... give me the needle.

Newspaper the next morning: Poker of Cows was a supporter of lethal injection to the very end!

Or suppose it were a villain imposing the choice on a poor victim. Later when the villain is on trial for the murder he uses the argument, "But he WANTED me to inject him."

Or slaves allowed to vote between slave masters. Then the newly elected slave master: "They want to be my slaves: They voted FOR being enslaved to me."

[Cow Poke]

Or suppose it were a villain imposing the choice on a poor victim. Later when the villain is on trial for the murder he uses the argument, "But he WANTED me to inject him."

Or slaves allowed to vote between slave masters. Then the newly elected slave master: "They want to be my slaves: They voted FOR being enslaved to me."

Yeah, it's silly, but, for some reason, there are those who are absolutely determined to....

It's like the guy and his wife in a hot air balloon, and got lost in the fog. Suddenly, out of nowhere, he sees a tall building emerging from the fog, and as they approache it, they see a man out on the balcony watering his plants. The balloonists calls out "Hey, I'm lost, can you tell me where I am?"

The man calls back "you are in a hot air balloon, approximately 120 feet above the ground".

The man tells his wife, "it's OK, honey, we're near SEATAC airport, we'll be OK". She asked, "how in the world did you get that from what he said?"

The man responded "I knew that had to be the Microsoft building because, like their technical support, online help and product documentation, the response they gave me was technically correct, but absolutely completely useless."

[Sparko]

I have read through all of the responses in this thread, and given them thought. I'll put my general response here, and then I believe I will generally disconnect from this discussion. It is a duplicate of a discussion already had in another venue, and I am not seeing any significant value to rehashing what has already been said beyond this post. I will monitor the discussion and read what is said. If someone asks a direct question that I have not already answered, I'll be happy to answer it.

Person A and Person B are adults who are not related to one another in any way, who are in love, and who wish to get married and be intimate with one another. Is that moral?

You will note that for most (all?) people, if one is a male and the other is a female, the answer is "yes." But if both are males or both are females, for some people the answer becomes "no." This means that the morality of the situation is being determined by the genetic coding of the people involved. You cannot escape this reality.

Now consider the same situation 60 years ago. If I had told you that one was male and one was female, but one was also black and the other white, these people too would have been told it was immoral by many. But if they were both black or both white, it would have been moral. Today we look at that and say, "why does the race of the people marrying matter? You cannot make a situation moral in one case and immoral in another simply based on the genetic coding (for race) of the people involved.

So why are these situations any different? Why is it bigotry/prejudice to declare a marriage (and intimacy) immoral on the basis of race of the participants (which is a genetically coded attribute), but it is not prejudice to do so on the basis of the sex of the participants. If you are going to be consistent - declaring an act immoral cannot be done on the basis of the genetic coding of its participants. Either these are both bigotry/prejudice - or they are neither bigotry/prejudice.

I believe it is the latter - and for Christians to say otherwise is to be inconsistent in how they define morality.

The prejudice of the bakers was not about who they were willing or not willing to sell the cake to - it was about their unwillingness to make a wedding cake based on the sex of the two people being married. It doesn't matter who you insert into the buying process. I gave the example, in a previous chain, of the restaurant owner who refuses to serve food to black people. You cannot claim they are not prejudiced and dealing with everyone equally if they refuse to sell food to a white person who is going to give it to a black person. It's not about the buyer - it's about the consumer. Whether it is a black person buying the food - or a white person buying it for a black person - if the restaurant owner is refusing to sell because it will be consumed by a black person - they are being prejudiced/bigoted.

Likewise, if a baker who sells wedding cakes is refusing to sell it because the two people getting married share common sex genes, they are being bigoted/prejudiced. You cannot "escape" by claiming they won't sell the cake to anyone - they are still discriminating against people on the basis of their sex.

That does not mean anyone is being "forced" to do labor. Bakers can bake many things. Bakers can bake many cakes. But if they bake "wedding cakes," they need to provide them to all buyers without discrimination. To do otherwise is to return us to the age when a man (or woman) could be denied service because they were black, Hispanic, a woman, a short person, or any other attribute that places the person in a class of which their membership is not optional.

It's just a wedding cake. Not a "same sex" wedding cake.

ETA: I further believe that love between two people is not conditioned on the specific equipment present between their legs. I do not recall a single place in the Christian bible where Jesus spoke out and said, "love one another - but not too much if you are of the same sex." Paul added that in his epistle.

You have two people who are getting married. A.

You have ten people who are getting married (to each other). B.

Why is it OK to discriminate against Group B purely based on the number of people getting married?

Yes it is OK to discriminate on a marriage for the number of people getting married, or the relationship of the people getting married (incest), or the age of the people getting married, or the gender combination of the people getting married. It was fine and legal to discriminate against two men or two women getting married for the entire history of our country until a few years ago. The morality didn't suddenly change. Nobody thought it was bigotry before then.

So your objection is dismissed as the baseless opinion that it is. Unless you think there is some objective moral standard that we have been violating for the last 250 years that makes it always have been immoral?

[Sparko]

I don't think it's about the event per se, it's about the baker discriminating against people whose sexual orientation is offensive to his personal beliefs. The baker is offended by everything about the people, the fact that they are gay, the fact that they should be wedded and the fact of gay marriage itself. I believe though that point is, as a public business you can not discriminate against people simply based upon your own personal opinions of them whether those opinions are based on racial, religious, gender, or sexual orientation. Discrimination is discrimination!

So I just said that he sold stuff to gay customers before and has no problem with selling them cakes for other events and you just ignore me and respond by claiming he is discriminating against homosexuals and is offended about everything about them.

Do you even bother to read anyone else's posts? Or are you trying to emulate a troll bot?

[carpedm9587]

When I voted "for" Trump, I didn't think he had a chance of winning. My vote as a protest vote against Hillary. If, somehow, it makes you happy to insist I voted "for Trump", yeah, technically I did.

Happy?

Yeah - technically you did.

And yes - I am very happy to have defeated you so thoroughly in this critical debate.

Sorry - I was channeling MM a little there...

[carpedm9587]

It seems you didn't understand my question. You seemed to claim earlier (post 212) that it is prejudice for a business to refuse to serve someone based on their biology, but not prejudice if based on their belief. But surely someone can prejudicially refuse to hire or refuse to serve someone because they are a Muslim, for example. How is that not prejudicial discrimination?

(The issue wasn't about refusing to accept the beliefs of a Muslim/Republican/etc. Not about challenging the beliefs. But a business refusing to serve them.)

Yeah - my language was a little sloppy. Generally, prejudice means "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." I find it a serous form of prejudice when someone discriminates against another person on the basis of their race, their sex, their ethnicity, or any other membership in a group that is essentially immutable to the individual. It is possible to be prejudiced against a religion or belief as well - but only if it meets the criteria "without being based on reason." But it is NOT prejudice when the position is actually based on reason. I do not have a general prejudice against Christians or Muslims or any other faith. I do take a stand when someone uses those beliefs to defend a prejudicial position. I would consider it a prejudicial position to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their being a Muslim, or a Christian, or any other faith/belief. I do believe it is inappropriate to refuse to serve someone because they are a member of the KKK. However, it is not inappropriate to refuse to create something that espouses an immoral position (e.g., a cake with a racist theme) or to tolerate someone espousing immoral views in a business (e.g., I would ask that member of the KKK to leave if they started spouting their racist agenda in my store.

[carpedm9587]

You have two people who are getting married. A.

You have ten people who are getting married (to each other). B.

Why is it OK to discriminate against Group B purely based on the number of people getting married?

Since you asked a question - IMO it's not.

Yes it is OK to discriminate on a marriage for the number of people getting married, or the relationship of the people getting married (incest), or the age of the people getting married, or the gender combination of the people getting married. It was fine and legal to discriminate against two men or two women getting married for the entire history of our country until a few years ago. The morality didn't suddenly change. Nobody thought it was bigotry before then.

So your objection is dismissed as the baseless opinion that it is. Unless you think there is some objective moral standard that we have been violating for the last 250 years that makes it always have been immoral?

Since morality is relative/subjective, this question has no meaning - so it cannot be answered.

[rogue06]

Yeah - technically you did.

And yes - I am very happy to have defeated you so thoroughly in this critical debate.

Sorry - I was channeling MM a little there...

More like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail

Complete with Spanish subtitles

[carpedm9587]

More like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail

Complete with Spanish subtitles

I'll bite your leg off...

[Joel]

Yeah - my language was a little sloppy. Generally, prejudice means "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." I find it a serous form of prejudice when someone discriminates against another person on the basis of their race, their sex, their ethnicity, or any other membership in a group that is essentially immutable to the individual. It is possible to be prejudiced against a religion or belief as well - but only if it meets the criteria "without being based on reason." But it is NOT prejudice when the position is actually based on reason. I do not have a general prejudice against Christians or Muslims or any other faith. I do take a stand when someone uses those beliefs to defend a prejudicial position. I would consider it a prejudicial position to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their being a Muslim, or a Christian, or any other faith/belief. I do believe it is inappropriate to refuse to serve someone because they are a member of the KKK. However, it is not inappropriate to refuse to create something that espouses an immoral position (e.g., a cake with a racist theme) or to tolerate someone espousing immoral views in a business (e.g., I would ask that member of the KKK to leave if they started spouting their racist agenda in my store.

Why do you find it not a "serious form" (or find it less serious?) otherwise?


Incidentally to what you said here, do you believe it is likewise inappropriate for a consumer to refuse buy from a seller because they are, say, a member of the KKK? (or a fortiori, engage in an organized boycott of the seller because he is a member of the KKK?)

[carpedm9587]

Why do you find it not a "serious form" (or find it less serious?) otherwise?

You make a good point, and I am not thinking before I write. ANY prejudice against a person that is based solely on their membership in a group (unless that group itself implies a moral problem) is unacceptable. I have to admit that I do find something more onerous when it is membership in a group that is about "state of being" rather than "choice to join," but neither is acceptable.

Incidentally to what you said here, do you believe it is likewise inappropriate for a consumer to refuse buy from a seller because they are, say, a member of the KKK? (or a fortiori, engage in an organized boycott of the seller because he is a member of the KKK?)

The core philosophy of the KKK is a racist (e.g., bigoted/prejudiced) position. While I would hope we do what we can to convince them with kindness rather than hatred, I do not have a problem with a person who boycotts a business or person that is espousing this kind of position. The boycott against Laura Ingraham, for example, is simply another form of speech. I don't have a problem with it. I also would have no problem with a religious group saying, "we will not marry same sex couples" or "we will boycott any institution that marries same-sex couples." I person is free to choose where they send their dollars - and to use those dollars to take a political or social position - even if I disagree with it. Even the KKK member is free to decide they will not buy from the black proprietor, as repugnant as I find that position.


P.S. You're making me think - which I like. You're also keeping it about the issue and not making it personal, which I appreciate. I've been working to ignore the persistent jabs...but I do have to admit they do get tedious. It's refreshing to have a discussion without them.