Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[seer]

Okay sure. I am confused why you think that observation gains you anything, because it's equally true of everything else in the world.

I told you what it gains. That our best moral instincts are not merely the unintended by product of amoral forces of nature. That they are grounded in something eternal, permanent and certain. Not merely grounded in the subjective whims of men.

Which god(s) we believe in is entirely arbitrary.

No it is not entirely arbitrary. We have reasons. I didn't flip a coin and decide to believe in Jesus, especially after 37 years of being agnostic.

Premises two and three are false.

Really? Start with number two - how can morality be rational is there is no justice? Please explain.

[Spartacus]

Any further details on the story from the OP yet?

[Starlight]

So really do you think that the teachings of Christ are arbitrary? The love of neighbor, friend and foe? Forgiveness? Mercy? Self control? Kindness? Helping the poor, fidelity in marriage, etc...?

No, I think they follow my moral code of valuing people, and are therefore objective and not arbitrary. Paul contrasts this 'spiritual' type of moral code to the 'letter of the law' divine-command type of moral code where people try and follow the exact words of an ancient holy book.

[Bill the Cat]

Any further details on the story from the OP yet?

No. The government is notoriously slow.

[Joel]

I searched this thread, and I didn't see anyone point out that the DJ in question did not discriminate against the customer based on her sexual orientation. It would seem the DJ would refuse to do the event regardless of who the customer is.

[hamster]

I know right.... so much evil in the world!

[seer]

No, I think they follow my moral code of valuing people, and are therefore objective and not arbitrary. Paul contrasts this 'spiritual' type of moral code to the 'letter of the law' divine-command type of moral code where people try and follow the exact words of an ancient holy book.

This is just silly Star. You moral code is based on no more than an accident of birth. Relative to the largely Christian culture you happen to be born in. If you were raised in Feudal Japan or Mao's China your moral sensibilities may be quite different. Therefore your moral opinion is pretty much immaterial.

And again: how can morality be rational if there is no justice? Please explain.

[fm93]

So basically, it still appears to be the case that a deejay refused to provide the simple service of playing music at a birthday party just because the man of honor is gay? Not because of any lewd or lascivious activity, or mentions of gay marriage?

[Starlight]

This is just silly Star. You moral code is based on no more than an accident of birth. Relative to the largely Christian culture you happen to be born in. If you were raised in Feudal Japan or Mao's China your moral sensibilities may be quite different. Therefore your moral opinion is pretty much immaterial.

Well that's backwards. My moral code is based on valuing other people. Different cultures don't affect that except superficially. Your moral code is based on valuing the will of God, and different cultures believe in different Gods with different rules.

And again: how can morality be rational if there is no justice? Please explain.

If a person values something, then them acting in accordance with those values is rational. You value God's will, therefore it's rational for you to act according to it. I value people, therefore it's rational for me to act according to that. "Justice" or the lack of it has nothing to do with it... I don't really understand what you even think the relationship is between those things or why anyone would endorse the original premise.

[Tassman]

How have I discriminated Tassman? Did you even read the original post:

You discriminated by suggesting it was reasonable for a Christian baker to not provide the same standard service to homosexuals as that being offered to heterosexuals.

A baker bakes cakes. If a baker doesn't choose to hold certain cake decorations in stock then how is that discriminating?

Are you serious? If a cake shop owner cannot provide equal service to homosexual couples because the owner

You keep repeating the same mantra over and over again like a broken record that I am demanding special treatment. How am I demanding special treatment? Or since when is freedom of speech 'special treatment'?

I think anyone with any decency and having read these posts will know this is false. There is a conflict of interests when two identities in opposition to each other on a certain issue come into contact and so either the one has to give way or there has to be some sort of compromise. You want Christians to give way entirely. I have taken the compromise where the service is still given but on the understanding the provider is still able to voice their Christian identity to the client. Perhaps you are happy to live in a world where the service providers are expected to suspend their morals but I am not. What you are wanting is nothing less than Christians be prohibited from opening shops -

Yes. If Christians cannot comply with the law and provide full standard service to all comers, regardless of their personal beliefs, then they are not in a position to operate businesses which come under the purview of the Civil Rights Act.

[Spartacus]

Haven't y'all been over this dozens of times by now and gotten no closer to convincing each other?

[Tassman]

Thankfully, I'm not a Muslim. I follow the Lord, Christ Jesus. So really do you think that the teachings of Christ are arbitrary? The love of neighbor, friend and foe? Forgiveness? Mercy? Self control? Kindness? Helping the poor, fidelity in marriage, etc...?

The moral strictures of your "Lord Christ Jesus", as with all moral systems, are grounded in evolved moral behaviour and are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. It's no accident that they're encapsulated in the Golden Rule which dates back many thousands of years and is found in virtually all societies throughout history.

So you agree that greed and selfishness are just as instinctual as other behaviors? So the 1% are only doing what they are predetermined to do. No big deal.

[Abigail]

You discriminated by suggesting it was reasonable for a Christian baker to not provide the same standard service to homosexuals as that being offered to heterosexuals.

The Christian baker provides wedding cakes with heterosexual mannequins. Homosexuals are not denied these and are welcome to buy these wedding cakes.

Are you serious? If a cake shop owner cannot provide equal service to homosexual couples because the owner “chooses” to not stock certain items which would enable such a service, then the owner is clearly discriminating against homosexuals, and is consequently in violation of the Civil Rights Act. What part of this don’t you understand?

Again, the Christian baker stocks for the cakes which he wants to sell. Homosexuals (and blacks and whites and Jews and Asians and Hispanics etc etc) are WELCOME to buy wedding cakes with the heterosexual mannequins and are not denied these at all. When someone (anyone) wants a decoration not carried by the shop then the shop owner is not obligated to acquire the decoration.

You’re demanding freedom for Christians to refuse wedding accoutrements to those who offend their personal beliefs, i.e. homosexuals. Most people recognize that blacks or Jews etc cannot be discriminated against based on the personal views of service providers and yet you’re demanding this right for Christians. This is a demand for special treatment.

Again. Homosexuals are not being denied any service the baker went into business to do. They are welcome to buy wedding cakes with heterosexual mannequins. You can only refuse to give out an accoutrement if you have it in stock. A shop owner goes into business with a plan of the services he will offer. A service provider is not obligated to cater for every section of the population, or shall we start outlawing oversized stores because they are anti-thin people and thus discriminatory.

Yes. If Christians cannot comply with the law and provide full standard service to all comers, regardless of their personal beliefs, then they are not in a position to operate businesses which come under the purview of the Civil Rights Act.

So a service provider cannot decide for himself which services he will offer and which sections of the population he will tailor his services towards (because this is how business has always been done). Of course no one is prevented from purchasing the service even though it might not suit them - this is where anti-discrimination laws are supposed to work. Under your thinking I could sue my locals Sainsbury for discrimination because they don't carry the chocolate I want.

[Abigail]

Haven't y'all been over this dozens of times by now and gotten no closer to convincing each other?

Yes you are right. However as far as I understand, the original bakery case is going to appeal.

[Tassman]

The Christian baker provides wedding cakes with heterosexual mannequins. Homosexuals are not denied these and are welcome to buy these wedding cakes.

But, unlike heterosexual couples, they are denied mannequins which are more appropriate to their situation...namely same-sex mannequins...hence discrimination.

Again, the Christian baker stocks for the cakes which he wants to sell. Homosexuals (and blacks and whites and Jews and Asians and Hispanics etc etc) are WELCOME to buy wedding cakes with the heterosexual mannequins and are not denied these at all. When someone (anyone) wants a decoration not carried by the shop then the shop owner is not obligated to acquire the decoration.

The shop owner is obliged to provide the same service to all without discrimination.

Again. Homosexuals are not being denied any service the baker went into business to do. They are welcome to buy wedding cakes with heterosexual mannequins. You can only refuse to give out an accoutrement if you have it in stock. A shop owner goes into business with a plan of the services he will offer. A service provider is not obligated to cater for every section of the population, or shall we start outlawing oversized stores because they are anti-thin people and thus discriminatory.

So a shop owner goes into business "with a plan of the services he will offer" and to whom, i.e. no blacks or Jews. Or homosexual weddings! Is this your point? Do you not see the underlying discrimination here?

So a service provider cannot decide for himself which services he will offer and which sections of the population he will tailor his services towards (because this is how business has always been done). Of course no one is prevented from purchasing the service even though it might not suit them - this is where anti-discrimination laws are supposed to work.

Whatever services a service provider decides to offer it must be available to all, not just those that meet with their personal approval.

Under your thinking I could sue my locals Sainsbury for discrimination because they don't carry the chocolate I want.

No you can’t, unless you can prove that Sainsbury’s is withholding your favourite chocolate from you whilst offering it other people.