Missouri loves companies right to discriminate

[Blake]

"..
Missouri Measure Seeks Religious Exemptions on Gay Marriage

By*DAVID A. LIEB, ASSOCIATED PRESS

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Feb 23, 2016, 6:02 PM ET

Missouri*voters, who were among the first nationally to adopt a constitutional ban on gay marriage, could get a say later this year on whether to grant greater religious protections to some business owners and individuals who object to same-sex marriage.

A proposed constitutional amendment that got its first hearing Tuesday in a Senate committee would prohibit government penalties against those who decline to provide goods or services "of expressional or artistic creation" for same-sex marriage ceremonies and celebrations.

The Missouri measure doesn't list specific types of business people who would be covered — though it comes as bakers, florists and photographers in other states have faced legal challenges for declining to provide services for same-sex weddings.

Republican lawmakers in various states, including Georgia and West Virginia, have pushed measures that would expand religious protections following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last June that legalized gay marriage nationwide. A constitutional amendment also has been proposed in Oklahoma.

In some states, such proposals have drawn opposition from business groups concerned about the potential effect on the economy.

But Missouri's leading business groups stayed out of the fray Tuesday, testifying neither for nor against the proposal.

Missouri's four Republican gubernatorial candidates all expressed general support for religious protections Tuesday as they were officially filing their candidacy papers, though none was familiar with the details of the proposed constitutional amendment. Democratic Attorney General Chris Koster, who also is running for governor this year, declined to comment on religious exemption proposals

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/missouri-measure-seeks-religious-exemptions-gay-marriage-37147151

[DarrinS]

:cry make by rainbow cake, damn it :cry

[ChumpDumper]

Why wouldn't you want to sell a cake to teh gheys for money if selling cakes is your business?

[Blake]

:madrun we ain't gunna make no cake for fucking fagguts. :madrun

Because Jesus

[DarrinS]

:cry muh cake :cry

[RandomGuy]

On balance, I think it is probably good that a legislature is addressing the issue.

Where is the boundary between the right to act on one's conscience, and harming others?

[Blake]

:cry muh cake :cry

If a baker denied making a cake for a couple because they were black, would you be OK with it?

Just curious

[ChumpDumper]

:cry muh cake :cryWhy would any business that wants to make money want to discriminate against teh gheys, Darrin?

[Blake]

Why would any business that wants to make money want to discriminate against teh gheys, Darrin?

Because muh bible

[Spurminator]

Underrated thread title, tbh.

[baseline bum]

:cry I'm gonna go to San Francisco and demand my Jesus cake :cry

[Spurminator]

:cry I wanna drink from the same water fountain as white folks :cry

[Splits]

Underrated thread title, tbh.

Despite the grammatical error.

[Quetzal-X]

teh gheys should go ask those non-bible readin' bible humpers to make a sweet baby jesus cake.
Ask for the biblical version please...Black Jesus

[Quetzal-X]

Xocolatl Thunda Cake

[DMX7]

Misery loves company.

[boutons_deux]

"religious protections"

"religious freedom"

... total LIES from the Christian Taliban, hatefully imposing their morals, ethics.

[RandomGuy]

Despite the grammatical error.

Heh, some of the best threads have been grammatically challengeably.

[Blake]

"JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri's Republican-led Senate on Wednesday advanced a proposal to add greater religious protections to the state Constitution for business owners and individuals opposed to gay marriage after Democrats stalled a vote for about 37 hours.

The move marked an end to a stalemate emblematic of a national debate over balancing civil rights and religious liberties following last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

The proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution would prohibit government penalties against those who cite "a sincere religious belief" while declining to provide goods or services of "expressional or artistic creation" for same-sex marriage ceremonies or ensuring celebrations.

Revisions adopted Wednesday include a provision that businesses are protected if they deny services during a wedding or close before or after a reception.

The measure comes after bakers and florists have faced legal challenges in other states for declining to provide services for same-sex weddings due to their religious beliefs.

"No one should be compelled to make a work with their own hands that's offensive to their beliefs," Republican sponsor Sen. Bob Onder said during earlier debate on the measure.

Democrats fought the measure for days, saying it would allow discrimination against same-sex couples and could hurt the state economy.

Republicans used a rare procedural move early Wednesday to force an end to the Democratic filibuster that started Monday afternoon. They then gave the measure first-round approval by a 23-9 vote.

"The debate was starting to meander," Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard told reporters. "We couldn't come to a negotiated settlement. ... We had to move on."

A second Senate vote is expected Thursday to send the measure to the House, where Republican leaders also have expressed support. If passed by both chambers, the proposal would appear before voters either on the August primary or November general election ballot.

Senate Minority Leader Joe Keaveny, of St. Louis, said it's unclear how Democrats will respond to the Republicans' move. They'll have another chance to filibuster when the measure is brought up for a final Senate vote.

"Why are we allowing any kind of discrimination?" Keaveny said. "In this case, we're almost encouraging it."

http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-blocking-missouri-religious-objections-measure-085144992.html

[mingus]

If a baker denied making a cake for a couple because they were black, would you be OK with it?

Just curious

Do Blacks have a choice to be Black?

I think the more apt comparison would be something like Satanists. If Satanists wanted a Satanist themed cake, the business should be allowed to go tell them to go fuck themselves.

[baseline bum]

Do Blacks have a choice to be Black?

I think the more apt comparison would be something like Satanists. If Satanists wanted a Satanist themed cake, the business should be allowed to go tell them to go fuck themselves.

So gays choose their sexuality you're saying?

[Spurminator]

Do Blacks have a choice to be Black?

I think the more apt comparison would be something like Satanists. If Satanists wanted a Satanist themed cake, the business should be allowed to go tell them to go fuck themselves.

Jesus dude, do you even know a gay person?

[Chinook]

So gays choose their sexuality you're saying?


Jesus dude, do you even know a gay person?

I agree with the idea that being gay isn't a choice, but I also find it extremely tone-deaf for people to compare anti-gay prejudice and racial prejudice.

[Spurminator]

I also find it extremely tone-deaf for people to compare anti-gay prejudice and racial prejudice.

I think it falls somewhere between being black and being a satanist.

[Chinook]

I think it falls somewhere between being black and being a satanist.

Probably closer to being a Jew.

[Blake]

I agree with the idea that being gay isn't a choice, but I also find it extremely tone-deaf for people to compare anti-gay prejudice and racial prejudice.

Well, if someone is born gay then the comparison is rather valid.

[Winehole23]

when did the right to be mean to gays become a core tenet of religious belief?

[Blake]

when did the right to be mean to gays become a core tenet of religious belief?

Late 1800s iirc

[boutons_deux]

when did the right to be mean to gays become a core tenet of religious belief?

Jesus hated gays, said it all the time.

[rmt]

Why would a gay couple want someone (say a photographer) who doesn't agree with their lifestyle at their wedding? A wedding day should be a celebration, a day of well wishes, joyous, etc. Why force someone whose religious beliefs conflict with the occasion to be there? Aren't there other photographers (with no objections) who would be happy for the job?

[Winehole23]

Jesus hated gays, said it all the time.can you be more specific? there's some stuff in the Old Testament for sure...

[boutons_deux]

"Why would a gay couple want someone (say a photographer) who doesn't agree with their lifestyle at their wedding?"

the gays can pick up the cake, or a anybody can deliver it. Who said gays want Bible-humping homophobes at their wedding?

[Chinook]

Well, if someone is born gay then the comparison is rather valid.

Again, that's extremely tone-deaf. You aren't born with an active gay phenotype. A doctor isn't going to pull a baby out of a mother's womb and know the sexual orientation. A gay person doesn't have to live knowing their difference is hereditary. No one's talking about a one-drop gay rule.

And since it's a behavioral phenotype, it's possible to hide, and even was easy. Guys like Raymond Burr and Richard Chamberlain had successful careers hiding or denying their orientation (and yes, it's no one's business, PC folks). Where are the black people having successful careers pretending their white? Patsy Cline, maybe? Closest you're going to get are guys like Ritchie Valens, but that's a much more complex topic concerning race vs culture.

[rmt]

"Why would a gay couple want someone (say a photographer) who doesn't agree with their lifestyle at their wedding?"

the gays can pick up the cake, or a anybody can deliver it. Who said gays want Bible-humping homophobes at their wedding?

How would a photographer NOT be present at the wedding and reception?

[boutons_deux]

How would a photographer NOT be present at the wedding and reception?

If the photographer was just taking pics, and not trashing homos, why would the same-sex couple GAF if the photog was a homophobe?

[Chinook]

If the photographer was just taking pics, and not trashing homos, why would the same-sex couple GAF if the photog was a homophobe?

But is saying "I'd rather not do this job for you guys, because it goes against my personal beliefs" your definition of trashing gay people? Because if it is, then this country is losing its ability to have legitimate discourse.

[rmt]

If the photographer was just taking pics, and not trashing homos, why would the same-sex couple GAF if the photog was a homophobe?

You'd want someone at your wedding who doesn't want to be there, who's being forced to be there for fear of harming their business? There's no shortage of photographers around - why shove it down their throat?

[Blake]

Again, that's extremely tone-deaf. You aren't born with an active gay phenotype. A doctor isn't going to pull a baby out of a mother's womb and know the sexual orientation.

Pick a lane. Are people born gay or not?

The cake maker will know a person is gay if he/she tells them. The "being able to tell" is irrelevant.

[Blake]

can you be more specific? there's some stuff in the Old Testament for sure...

Then Jesus indirectly calls for gays to die

[Chinook]

Pick a lane. Are people born gay or not?

The cake maker will know a person is gay if he/she tells them. The "being able to tell" is irrelevant.

Don't be one of those psuedo-intellectual guys. You're the one with the inconsistent argument. The entire point of prejudice is "being able to tell" something is different. If black people looked exactly the same as white people, there'd be no discrimination based on skin color. Like duh.

As far as I know, the law in question is saying that artists can refuse to depict thing they don't want to depict. Like putting two brides on a wedding cake or taking photos of two grooms. It's not like these people need awesome gaydars in this case. If you want to assert that people shouldn't be able to use religion as an excuse to discriminate, that fine. I even sympathize with you. But don't trying to create a logical loophole where there isn't one.

[mingus]

Jesus dude, do you even know a gay person?

Yeah. I have a few really great gay friends.

You're being presumptuous.

I know for a fact that either they were born that way or/and at an early age environmentally/socially influenced to have the preference for the same sex. I don't dispute that. I don't know many people who do.

However, what some people do believe--and I'm not one of them--is that it's not the mere preference--which again they have no control of--but the homosexual lust & acts themselves, which they do in fact have control of, which goes against their religion. A person born with a genetic propensity for a certain behavior still has to make the choice to act on it.

Now FTR, I don't consider homosexuality immoral. I don't share these people's belief. But I think the people who have it are sincere in it, and should have it protected.

[Blake]

I agree with the idea that being gay isn't a choice.


You aren't born with an active gay phenotype.

Pick a lane or clarify it "not being a choice".

Simple stuff.

[Chinook]

Pick a lane or clarify it "not being a choice".

Simple stuff.

Again, you're trying to dig a loophole into solid ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

If you can't tell if a kid is gay when they're born, they aren't expressing the homosexual phenotype yet. That doesn't make it a choice any more than handedness is.

[Winehole23]

Then Jesus indirectly calls for gays to diehow so, and where?

[mingus]

But is saying "I'd rather not do this job for you guys, because it goes against my personal beliefs" your definition of trashing gay people? Because if it is, then this country is losing its ability to have legitimate discourse.

Unfortunately, at least this is what some of the liberals on this board have come to. Whether it's God, Religion, Abortion, Homosexuality, if you're not on their side on any of these (and other) issues, then they can't seem to respectfully disagree. You're patronized.

[Spurminator]

Yeah. I have a few really great gay friends.

You're being presumptuous.

I'm just saying, try that satanist comparison on one of your gay friends and see what they have to say.

[mingus]

I'm just saying, try that satanist comparison on one of your gay friends and see what they have to say.

As I've stated, the comparison isn't something I morally agree with in the sense that I think homosexuality = Satanism. But, to the socially conservative & religious crowd, who view homosexual behavior as antithetical to their belief systems, it would be an apt comparison. It's also an apt comparison, to me personally, since they are both partaken of due to choice. Whereas that is not the case with race.

That's all that was. I think you're PC barometer needs to be turned way down, seriously. It's just sounding off at anything.

[DisAsTerBot]

You'd want someone at your wedding who doesn't want to be there, who's being forced to be there for fear of harming their business? There's no shortage of photographers around - why shove it down their throat?

seriously? The couple calls a photographer they have seen on the internet or better yet was recommended by a close friend. They call up the photographer and maybe even get as far as meeting in person. The photographer decides they are not going to accept your business because of your sexuality. That's straight up discrimination. Of course the couple has most likely changed their minds about hiring said photographer as well. Doesn't change the discrimination.

[Spurminator]

As I've stated, the comparison isn't something I morally agree with in the sense that I think homosexuality = Satanism. But, to the socially conservative & religious crowd, who view homosexual behavior as antithetical to their belief systems, it would be an apt comparison. It's also an apt comparison, to me personally, since they are both partaken of due to choice. Whereas that is not the case with race.

That's all that was. I think you're PC barometer needs to be turned way down, seriously. It's just sounding off at anything.

Do your gay friends agree that they chose to be gay? I'm anything but PC. Maybe you're just not great at metaphors. Whether you believe people are "born gay" or not, it's not something you just pick like a religion or a car.

And even if it was, these hyper-religious blowhards will congregate in church to talk about how anyone who is not a very specific denomination of the Baptist church is going to hell, but you can bet they'd make a cake for a wedding occurring in any of those other churches. Even, God forbid, a Catholic wedding. They'll bake a cake for a heterosexual couple who is on their fourth marriage each. By discriminating on gay weddings, they've arbitrarily decided which weddings they refuse to offer a product for.

And there's a difference between designing a product that says something you disagree with, and designing a product for people whose race or sexual orientation is outside of your comfort zone. Nobody's asking these people to make a cake with two guys fucking. They're being asked to offer the same product they offer to everyone else to a couple who are the same gender.

[Blake]

Again, you're trying to dig a loophole into solid ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

If you can't tell if a kid is gay when they're born, they aren't expressing the homosexual phenotype yet. That doesn't make it a choice any more than handedness is.

it's yes or no. You're trying to walk the fence.

If it's not a choice for some, then it stops right there and the rest of your post is irrelevant. You're then discriminating against someone who has no choice to be who they are. Like skin color.

[Blake]

how so, and where?

Matthew 5

17*“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18*For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished



Leviticus 20:13New Living Translation (NLT)

13*“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

[Chinook]

it's yes or no. You're trying to walk the fence.

I'm starting to think you just aren't good at identifying these distinctions, man. My point is solid, and you apparently have missed it because you keep trying to put me in a dilemma. But it's a false dilemma, because it's not simply a matter of it being a choice. As I said, it's a matter of being concealable and that it's not based strongly (if at all) on heredity. It's also deniable, which for everyone but Clarence Thomas isn't true of being black.

Think about it this way: Let's say all gay people (or left-handed people) were forced into slavery. There'd be people who's parents weren't slaves and who's kids weren't slaves. The opposite is true for the free people. That's a critical difference in the discriminatory narrative that you're overlooking.

[Blake]

I'm starting to think you just aren't good at identifying these distinctions, man. My point is solid, and you apparently have missed it because you keep trying to put me in a dilemma. But it's a false dilemma, because it's not simply a matter of it being a choice. As I said, it's a matter of being concealable and that it's not based strongly (if at all) on heredity. It's also deniable, which for everyone but Clarence Thomas isn't true of being black.

Think about it this way: Let's say all gay people (or left-handed people) were forced into slavery. There'd be people who's parents weren't slaves and who's kids weren't slaves. The opposite is true for the free people. That's a critical difference in the discriminatory narrative that you're overlooking.

I think it is a simple matter of being a choice or not. I think there's enough scientific evidence to suggest it's not.

But nice false slavery analogy tho. The ability to conceal being gay is completely irrelevant.

[Chinook]

I think it is a simple matter of being a choice or not.

Then that reinforces my assertion that you're tone-deaf. It's as simple as that. You seem completely unable to understand the nature of discrimination. May as well be one of the people you're trying to make fun of.

[Blake]

Then that reinforces my assertion that you're tone-deaf. It's as simple as that. You seem completely unable to understand the nature of discrimination. May as well be one of the people you're trying to make fun of.

Yu're trying to make it a more complex issue than it is. I'll make fun of you for walking the fence and contradicting yourself tho

[Blake]

It's also an apt comparison, to me personally, since they are both partaken of due to choice.

Except that it's not

[Chinook]

Yu're trying to make it a more complex issue than it is. I'll make fun of you for walking the fence and contradicting yourself tho

There's no fence. Why you think that the discrimination is binary is beyond me. And that's even more so for why you think the dividing line is whether someone's difference is the result a choice or not. Not only is it easily demonstrated that you don't believe that, but the fact that you're asserting it does indeed suggest you don't understand how discrimination works, why it's appealing and what steps need to be taken to stop it. You're not in any better of an intellectual position than the people who choose to discriminate.

[mingus]

Except that it's not

Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and other religious & socially conservative people by and large, from my personal experience, accept the fact that people are born a certain way, or with certain gender desires/preferences. It's acting upon it that is immoral, to them. I see no problem in protecting that belief system. It's prejudice against a choice to commit homosexual acts as opposed to the homosexual orientation, and it's based on a sincere religious belief. I don't know what else to say.

[Blake]

There's no fence. Why you think that the discrimination is binary is beyond me. And that's even more so for why you think the dividing line is whether someone's difference is the result a choice or not. Not only is it easily demonstrated that you don't believe that, but the fact that you're asserting it does indeed suggest you don't understand how discrimination works, why it's appealing and what steps need to be taken to stop it. You're not in any better of an intellectual position than the people who choose to discriminate.

If it's not a choice because you're born that way, then it's discrimination the same as it is for skin color. It's really that simple.

You said at first that you agree it's not a choice but promptly back pedaled and now you're incoherently rambling while walking the fence.

[Blake]

Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and other religious & socially conservative people by and large, from my personal experience, accept the fact that people are born a certain way, or with certain gender desires/preferences. It's acting upon it that is immoral, to them. I see no problem in protecting that belief system. It's prejudice against a choice to commit homosexual acts as opposed to the homosexual orientation, and it's based on a sincere religious belief. I don't know what else to say.

Except that science is saying more and more it's not a choice. In this case, if science validates it, then religion has no say so.

[I. Hustle]

Missouri loves company

[mingus]

Except that science is saying more and more it's not a choice. In this case, if science validates it, then religion has no say so.

I already believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice. I have little doubt that science will back that up empirically in the future. Most people I've talked to believe it's not a choice, that it's a blend of environment and genes, and that we have little choice in regards to the gender(s) we're
sexually attracted to. That's not the point. The issue is acting out on it, sexually. Moreover, doing it without remorse/repentance. It's the behavior, not the inherent qualities of the person that matter here.

[clambake]

acting out sexually, without remorse/repentance is the problem, huh?

[mingus]

Do your gay friends agree that they chose to be gay? I'm anything but PC. Maybe you're just not great at metaphors. Whether you believe people are "born gay" or not, it's not something you just pick like a religion or a car.

And even if it was, these hyper-religious blowhards will congregate in church to talk about how anyone who is not a very specific denomination of the Baptist church is going to hell, but you can bet they'd make a cake for a wedding occurring in any of those other churches. Even, God forbid, a Catholic wedding. They'll bake a cake for a heterosexual couple who is on their fourth marriage each. By discriminating on gay weddings, they've arbitrarily decided which weddings they refuse to offer a product for.

And there's a difference between designing a product that says something you disagree with, and designing a product for people whose race or sexual orientation is outside of your comfort zone. Nobody's asking these people to make a cake with two guys fucking. They're being asked to offer the same product they offer to everyone else to a couple who are the same gender.

In hindsight the metaphor could've been better, but I think my point was illustrated just fine by it if you've read what I've said after that post, and I've clarified where I'm coming from a little bit better.

I think you're for the most part right on on what you're saying in the second paragraph, but you're still disparaging an entire demonination based on a generalization. There's no room for sincerity of religiously held beliefs in your unfair analysis--they're all "blowhards", as you put it. That's not very fair.

And, they're not merely making something. They're assisting in something. In this case the celebration of a gay marriage. It's not hard to see why, according to their religious beliefs, that'd make the feel uneasy.

[mingus]

acting out sexually, without remorse/repentance is the problem, huh?

It's not a problem to me. Again, I'm not, sentimentally, on the side of these people. I'm not arguing on behalf of their views, but on their to have them protected.

So to answer your question: yes. At least according to pretty much every religious person I've talked to.

[clambake]

anyone that preaches the word should follow the word to the letter.


or forever keep their fucking mouth shut.

[mingus]

anyone that preaches the word should follow the word to the letter.


or forever keep their fucking mouth shut.

You're a step too slow. Christians already have that covered, since they believe they're born sinners, and so sin they will/must.

[clambake]

i was referring to all religions. they all have their "word".

[mingus]

i was referring to all religions. they all have their "word".

Yeah, I know what you meant, and I agree.

[Spurminator]

In hindsight the metaphor could've been better, but I think my point was illustrated just fine by it if you've read what I've said after that post, and I've clarified where I'm coming from a little bit better.

I think you're for the most part right on on what you're saying in the second paragraph, but you're still disparaging an entire demonination based on a generalization. There's no room for sincerity of religiously held beliefs in your unfair analysis--they're all "blowhards", as you put it. That's not very fair.

And, they're not merely making something. They're assisting in something. In this case the celebration of a gay marriage. It's not hard to see why, according to their religious beliefs, that'd make the feel uneasy.

I didn't mean to imply all religious people are blowhards, if that's what you mean (or Baptists, that was just an example). I'd be including myself and my family if that was the case. I do think there is a ridiculous amount of hypocrisy in what social ills Evangelical Christians choose to focus on and which ones they ignore, and I think this issue is a sterling example of that. The Jesus Christ I believe in, as a carpenter, would have made a table for a gay couple.

Evangelical fear of homosexuality basically boils down to a fear that their kids are going to grow up and "choose" to be gay. It's a fear that, for some reason, far exceeds their fear that their kids will grow up to be date rapists, criminals, drunks or downright assholes.

Your argument is reasonable and I'm sorry I got belligerent. I held a pretty similar opinion 10 years ago. I still don't agree, but agree to disagree.

[Blake]

I already believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice. I have little doubt that science will back that up empirically in the future. Most people I've talked to believe it's not a choice, that it's a blend of environment and genes, and that we have little choice in regards to the gender(s) we're
sexually attracted to. That's not the point. The issue is acting out on it, sexually. Moreover, doing it without remorse/repentance. It's the behavior, not the inherent qualities of the person that matter here.

Their/your argument that it's morally wrong is baseless and lolsmh ridiculous, especially if we're all agreeing it's not a choice. Why should someone feel remorse for being born a certain way?

[clambake]

he's saying you can't change a fossil.

[Blake]

he's saying you can't change a fossil.

And arguing that it shouldn't have to change it's suthern Baptist ways

[mingus]

Their/your argument that it's morally wrong is baseless and lolsmh ridiculous, especially if we're all agreeing it's not a choice. Why should someone feel remorse for being born a certain way?

Man, I'm not sure what you are saying here, so forgive me. But if I'm reading it correctly, I think what you're saying in the first statement comes from not comprehending correctly what I have already explained here, either directly or by implication. You're second statement conflates (again) sexual acts & lust with which detractors disagree and sexual preference. You can repudiate the former without having to do so for the latter.

[Blake]

Man, I'm not sure what you are saying here, so forgive me. But if I'm reading it correctly, I think what you're saying in the first statement comes from not comprehending correctly what I have already explained here, either directly or by implication. You're second statement conflates (again) sexual acts & lust with which detractors disagree and sexual preference. You can repudiate the former without having to do so for the latter.

You brought up repentance and remorse. That implies gays are doing something wrong if they need those things.

[Pelicans78]

If a baker denied making a cake for a couple because they were black, would you be OK with it?

Just curious

No religious justification for denying a black couple so they don't have any argument.

[mingus]

You brought up repentance and remorse. That implies gays are doing something wrong if they need those things.

Then you've missunderstood what I've said. I don't know. I don't know what you mean here. I think what I've said pretty cut-and-dry.

[clambake]

You brought up repentance and remorse. That implies gays are doing something wrong if they need those things.

i don't think thats his position.

i think he's stating whats left when the dust clears.

[Chinook]

If it's not a choice because you're born that way, then it's discrimination the same as it is for skin color. It's really that simple.

That's really a stupid statement. Discriminating against someone on basis of religion is also simple discrimination, and that is completely a choice.


Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Nowhere in that definition is it based on being "born a certain way". Nor is it even clear from that definition if we want to get rid of all types of discrimination. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only certain types are actually illegal (and yes, genius, sexual orientation is on there as are race and religion). That you don't realize that the are a ton of different ways people are discriminated against, with different levels of prevalence, acceptance and resulting harm for each, underscores that you're extremely tone-deaf on this issue. Saying "all discrimination is the same" may as well be saying, "no discrimination is bad".


You said at first that you agree it's not a choice but promptly back pedaled and now you're incoherently rambling while walking the fence.

It's NOT a choice. I've never said I didn't believe that. I have said that the nature of discrimination is different when you have a behavioral phenotype versus a physical, inconcealable phenotype that's also hereditary. That you consider that incoherent has nothing to do with the nature of the argument, but with your own limitations. You're pulling the exact kind of psudeo-intellectual bullshit RG and I were talking about last week. You're woefully ignorant on this issue, but because you have the liberal view, you assume it's the educated stance, and anyone who disagrees with you is just anti-intellectual.

I think the dumbest assumption you're making is that you think that I am arguing that it's more okay to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference than on race. I'm not. The question about whether it's okay for artists to refuse to do work for any reason they desire is very two-sided, and it's actually something that hasn't been as clearly defined legalistically as you seem to assume it is. So I agree with RG that it's probably a good thing there's a law on the books that can be sent up to the SCOTUS for precedent. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to discriminate against people for sexual orientation or race or religion. But that doesn't mean that those prejudices are all the same.

[Chinook]

Their/your argument that it's morally wrong is baseless

At the risk of you thinking I'm trying to defend hating on gay folk, what do you consider a legitimately based argument for something being morally wrong? Morality itself is either completely arbitrary or the result of consensus.

[Shastafarian]

No religious justification for denying a black couple so they don't have any argument.

My religion, in which I have sincere beliefs, forbids heterosexual couples from marrying. Therefore I will refuse to provide my cake baking while photographing services to any wedding between man and woman. This hypothetical just illustrates the point that just because you have sincere beliefs, doesn't make it ok to discriminate against people. Like others have pointed out, this bullshit about "religious convictions" is just a ruse to make homophobia and discrimination protected by law.

If you want a better example, I choose to reject to offer my services to anyone who eats pork or shellfish. The couple in question only wanted a cake but I know for a fact they eat pork. Should it be legal to deny service in that case? And if you think it should be, where does it end? What is over the limit in terms of when I can decline to offer my services?

Here's some nice investigation into what the bible actually says about homosexual unions (spoiler: not much):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-jefferson/bible-gay-marriage_b_886102.html

[Blake]

No religious justification for denying a black couple so they don't have any argument.

Flying spaghetti monster says to deny blacks a cake

[Blake]

That's really a stupid statement. Discriminating against someone on basis of religion is also simple discrimination, and that is completely a choice.

Nowhere in that definition is it based on being "born a certain way". Nor is it even clear from that definition if we want to get rid of all types of discrimination. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only certain types are actually illegal (and yes, genius, sexual orientation is on there as are race and religion). That you don't realize that the are a ton of different ways people are discriminated against, with different levels of prevalence, acceptance and resulting harm for each, underscores that you're extremely tone-deaf on this issue. Saying "all discrimination is the same" may as well be saying, "no discrimination is bad".



It's NOT a choice. I've never said I didn't believe that. I have said that the nature of discrimination is different when you have a behavioral phenotype versus a physical, inconcealable phenotype that's also hereditary. That you consider that incoherent has nothing to do with the nature of the argument, but with your own limitations. You're pulling the exact kind of psudeo-intellectual bullshit RG and I were talking about last week. You're woefully ignorant on this issue, but because you have the liberal view, you assume it's the educated stance, and anyone who disagrees with you is just anti-intellectual.

I think the dumbest assumption you're making is that you think that I am arguing that it's more okay to discriminate against people based on their sexual preference than on race. I'm not. The question about whether it's okay for artists to refuse to do work for any reason they desire is very two-sided, and it's actually something that hasn't been as clearly defined legalistically as you seem to assume it is. So I agree with RG that it's probably a good thing there's a law on the books that can be sent up to the SCOTUS for precedent. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to discriminate against people for sexual orientation or race or religion. But that doesn't mean that those prejudices are all the same.

Tldr that hill of words

Is being gay a choice? Y or N

[Blake]

At the risk of you thinking I'm trying to defend hating on gay folk, what do you consider a legitimately based argument for something being morally wrong? Morality itself is either completely arbitrary or the result of consensus.

The Christian bakers are the ones claiming homosexuality is morally wrong.

[Blake]

Then you've missunderstood what I've said. I don't know. I don't know what you mean here. I think what I've said pretty cut-and-dry.

Yeah, the definition of repentance is very cut and dry. You said it. Do you not understand what it means?

[Pelicans78]

My religion, in which I have sincere beliefs, forbids heterosexual couples from marrying. Therefore I will refuse to provide my cake baking while photographing services to any wedding between man and woman. This hypothetical just illustrates the point that just because you have sincere beliefs, doesn't make it ok to discriminate against people. Like others have pointed out, this bullshit about "religious convictions" is just a ruse to make homophobia and discrimination protected by law.

If you want a better example, I choose to reject to offer my services to anyone who eats pork or shellfish. The couple in question only wanted a cake but I know for a fact they eat pork. Should it be legal to deny service in that case? And if you think it should be, where does it end? What is over the limit in terms of when I can decline to offer my services?

Here's some nice investigation into what the bible actually says about homosexual unions (spoiler: not much):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-jefferson/bible-gay-marriage_b_886102.html

You have a right to decline services. No one should force you to go against your beliefs. Just don't be surprised if the business struggles.

[Chinook]

Tldr that hill of words

Is being gay a choice? Y or N

Nigga, read. For an faux-intellectual type like yourself, this should be too long:


It's NOT a choice. I've never said I didn't believe that. I have said that the nature of discrimination is different when you have a behavioral phenotype versus a physical, inconcealable phenotype that's also hereditary. That you consider that incoherent has nothing to do with the nature of the argument, but with your own limitations. You're pulling the exact kind of psudeo-intellectual bullshit RG and I were talking about last week. You're woefully ignorant on this issue, but because you have the liberal view, you assume it's the educated stance, and anyone who disagrees with you is just anti-intellectual.

[Chinook]

The Christian bakers are the ones claiming homosexuality is morally wrong.

They are. I'm just saying what is your basis for morality, and why is it good enough to reject theirs?

[Spurminator]

You have a right to decline services. No one should force you to go against your beliefs.

Thing is, these business owners aren't being forced to go against their beliefs. They are free to choose a business that doesn't provide services for weddings.


Just don't be surprised if the business struggles.

The law should get involved in these matters because of the risk that the business won't struggle, but in fact, flourish. By allowing businesses to deny their product to people based on sexual orientation, you introduce a scenario where a business' acceptance or rejection of homosexuals becomes a litmus for whether or not others will do business with them. Suddenly it's not just one random baker in Oregon who won't provide service to gay weddings, it's every business owner in any rural town where the majority opposes homosexuality and pressures local businesses to do the same. Now the local CPA won't file a tax return for a gay couple, the photographer won't take family photos, the day care won't take the kid with two dads, etc.

You may not believe the comparison to race discrimination is apt, but the potential result is similar. Businesses didn't deny black people service because of the law, they denied them in large part because their patrons expected them to and their business would suffer if they didn't.

[Blake]

You have a right to decline services. No one should force you to go against your beliefs. Just don't be surprised if the business struggles.

Genereally no, you don't have a right to decline service based on discrimination. The CRA of 64 forces people to go against their bigoted beliefs.

[Chinook]

If you want a better example, I choose to reject to offer my services to anyone who eats pork or shellfish. The couple in question only wanted a cake but I know for a fact they eat pork. Should it be legal to deny service in that case? And if you think it should be, where does it end? What is over the limit in terms of when I can decline to offer my services?

Like that's not a better example. A better example would be a seafood restaurant that doesn't serve shellfish or a barbecue joint that doesn't have pork. The idea that those places need to accommodate non-kosher diets lest they be bigoted doesn't sit well with people. That's why this is a two-sided issue. Is a person that works for themselves free to use their services in ways they seem fit? Or are they bound to render those services for anyone who's willing to pay?

When can someone refuse service? Like can a bakery refuse to make a dick-shaped cake for a frat party? Does a vegan photographer have to photograph a hog-killing party (and yes, that's actually a thing)? You take an awful lot of freedom away from people when you argue the government should force them to work without discrimination. In a world with social media and the pressure it brings, it seems like government intervention is unnecessary and unwise.

[Blake]

Nigga, read. For an faux-intellectual type like yourself, this should be too long:

Right, you're saying the same shit as before only in a different faux intellectual style type that you're whining about.

You can't say gays have no choice to who they are but then say the discrimination should be different than to someone that has no choice to the color of their skin.

[Chinook]

That does almost nothing to individual artisans.

[Spurminator]

Like that's not a better example. A better example would be a seafood restaurant that doesn't serve shellfish or a barbecue joint that doesn't have pork. The idea that those places need to accommodate non-kosher diets lest they be bigoted doesn't sit well with people.

This comparison implies there's a such thing as a gay cake. The ask is that businesses who make a product make that product available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.


When can someone refuse service? Like can a bakery refuse to make a dick-shaped cake for a frat party? Does a vegan photographer have to photograph a hog-killing party (and yes, that's actually a thing)? You take an awful lot of freedom away from people when you argue the government should force them to work without discrimination. In a world with social media and the pressure it brings, it seems like government intervention is unnecessary and unwise.

Yes, the business can refuse all of those things because they're being asked to produce a product that they wouldn't otherwise produce.

[Chinook]

You can't say gays have no choice to who they are but then say the discrimination should be different than to someone that has no choice to the color of their skin.

I never said that. This has been your problem the whole time. Discrimination (and whether it should exist or not) is not based on a person's choice. That's why I used race (that no one argues is a choice) and religion (which everyone knows is a choice) as bookends. All three of those are things I don't believe you should be able to discriminate against. But doesn't mean that I think the nature of those discriminations are the same. Because they aren't. And you failing to understand that doesn't undermine the position at all.

[Chinook]

This comparison implies there's a such thing as a gay cake. The ask is that businesses who make a product make that product available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Is it just a cake? Or is it a cake with two brides or two grooms? We're not talking about Walmart refusing to sell cakes here.


Yes, the business can refuse all of those things because they're being asked to produce a product that they wouldn't otherwise produce.

Um, no. I can understand the cake thing a little. But the photographer with the hog-killing party is just taking pictures like they would be at a farmers market.

[Blake]

They are. I'm just saying what is your basis for morality, and why is it good enough to reject theirs?

Irrelevant but ok, I base my own personal moral belief system on history.

A Christian bases his/hers on the bible, which is filled with laws that we can all agree today are morally detestable.

Therefore my morals > Christian morals

[Chinook]

Irrelevant but ok, I base my own personal moral belief system on history.

Meaning what?

And no, it's not irrelevant. Calling someone's morality baseless implies that either there is not basis for morality or that there are better bases for it.

[Blake]

I never said that.

It's what you literally said in post 87


I have said that the nature of discrimination is different..



This has been your problem the whole time. Discrimination (and whether it should exist or not) is not based on a person's choice. That's why I used race (that no one argues is a choice) and religion (which everyone knows is a choice) as bookends. All three of those are things I don't believe you should be able to discriminate against. But doesn't mean that I think the nature of those discriminations are the same. Because they aren't. And you failing to understand that doesn't undermine the position at all.

You're trying to say that homosexuality isn't the same bookend as race.

It is. Science says so.

[rmt]

Thing is, these business owners aren't being forced to go against their beliefs. They are free to choose a business that doesn't provide services for weddings.



The law should get involved in these matters because of the risk that the business won't struggle, but in fact, flourish. By allowing businesses to deny their product to people based on sexual orientation, you introduce a scenario where a business' acceptance or rejection of homosexuals becomes a litmus for whether or not others will do business with them. Suddenly it's not just one random baker in Oregon who won't provide service to gay weddings, it's every business owner in any rural town where the majority opposes homosexuality and pressures local businesses to do the same. Now the local CPA won't file a tax return for a gay couple, the photographer won't take family photos, the day care won't take the kid with two dads, etc.

You may not believe the comparison to race discrimination is apt, but the potential result is similar. Businesses didn't deny black people service because of the law, they denied them in large part because their patrons expected them to and their business would suffer if they didn't.

So, what say you about gay couples wanting to get married in churches and having pastors/priests go against their beliefs and church teachings to perform these weddings? Should they also get out of the wedding business?

[Blake]

Meaning what?

And no, it's not irrelevant. Calling someone's morality baseless implies that either there is not basis for morality or that there are better bases for it.

It's the baker's morality that is on trial, not mine.

I think though that everyone can agree harming someone else is morally wrong. Christian baker is causing harm according to the states of Colorado and Oregon. His religious reason for causing this harm is morally baseless. He's only doing it because God told him to.

[Chinook]

It's what you literally said in post 87

No, I literally didn't. I said the NATURE of discrimination (its origins, its effects and the ways to cope with it/fight against it) is different for those two things. You're interpreting that to mean that I said discrimination should be different, and that's completely wrong. You need to own up to the fact that you've misunderstood what's been a rather straight-forward and oft-repeated stance.


You're trying to say that homosexuality isn't the same bookend as race.

It is. Science says so.

It's like you don't even know what the word bookend means.

[Blake]

So, what say you about gay couples wanting to get married in churches and having pastors/priests go against their beliefs and church teachings to perform these weddings? Should they also get out of the wedding business?

That's a tough one, but I'd say if they're gonna open their services up to the public at large, then they're setting themselves up for potential lawsuits.

[Blake]

No, I literally didn't. I said the NATURE of discrimination (its origins, its effects and the ways to cope with it/fight against it) is different for those two things. You're interpreting that to mean that I said discrimination should be different, and that's completely wrong. You need to own up to the fact that you've misunderstood what's been a rather straight-forward and oft-repeated stance.



It's like you don't even know what the word bookend means.

It's like you didn't read what you literally wrote.

[Spurminator]

Is it just a cake? Or is it a cake with two brides or two grooms? We're not talking about Walmart refusing to sell cakes here.

As far as I know there is no legal requirement for them to put two brides or two grooms on the cake, or anything else requested by the customer.


Um, no. I can understand the cake thing a little. But the photographer with the hog-killing party is just taking pictures like they would be at a farmers market.

I don't agree with forcing a business owner to attend an event they are opposed to, and I'm not sure they are required to.

[Spurminator]

So, what say you about gay couples wanting to get married in churches and having pastors/priests go against their beliefs and church teachings to perform these weddings? Should they also get out of the wedding business?

Religious institutions are exempt. I don't believe churches should be forced to perform ceremonies that go against their tenants and to this point, neither does the law. Many churches only perform services for members of their church, and they have a right to deny membership.

[Chinook]

It's the baker's morality that is on trial, not mine.

But the trial would set a precedent for all morality trials.


I think though that everyone can agree harming someone else is morally wrong.

Not really. There are SOOOO many exceptions to that rule. Like so many.


Christian baker is causing harm according to the states of Colorado and Oregon.

Is this baker in those states?


His religious reason for causing this harm is morally baseless. He's only doing it because God told him to.

He's doing it because a book tells him to do so. In some ways that's worse (could understand being under the threat of an all-powerful deity if we knew that one existed) and in some ways it's better (most of our morals and beliefs are the result of shit that someone has written down anyway).

[Blake]

Like can a bakery refuse to make a dick-shaped cake for a frat party?

Of course they can refuse that. It's pretty stupid to think otherwise.

[Chinook]

As far as I know there is no legal requirement for them to put two brides or two grooms on the cake, or anything else requested by the customer.

Do we know what was refused in this case? Again, if it was just a guy refusing to give a generic cake, that's one thing (and I agree with you in that case). If it was a guy refusing to make a custom cake with depictions of a same-sex couple or even a custom note, then that's a murkier issue.


I don't agree with forcing a business owner to attend an event they are opposed to, and I'm not sure they are required to.

The photographer angle was being discussed here before I weighed in.

[Chinook]

Of course they can refuse that. It's pretty stupid to think otherwise.

Why can they? And I like how you avoided that second example like the plague.

[Spurminator]

Do we know what was refused in this case? Again, if it was just a guy refusing to give a generic cake, that's one thing (and I agree with you in that case). If it was a guy refusing to make a custom cake with depictions of a same-sex couple or even a custom note, then that's a murkier issue.

I'm not sure. I'm not a wedding cake expert, but I don't feel like most of them really have pictures or messages on them anyway. They're usually generic designs.

As I understand it, the business felt that by making a cake for a gay couple, they were endorsing that couple's marriage. Providing the service was at issue for them, not what they had to put on their product.

[Chinook]

I'm not sure. I'm not a wedding cake expert, but I don't feel like most of them really have pictures or messages on them anyway. They're usually generic designs.

As I understand it, the business felt that by making a cake for a gay couple, they were endorsing that couple's marriage. Providing the service was at issue for them, not what they had to put on their product.

Yeah, I definitely don't think denying generic service can be justified using individual liberty. But customer services are a different fight, and that's also being discussed in Oregon now.

[Blake]

Why can they? And I like how you avoided that second example like the plague.

Lolololol you think there's a slippery slope for having to make a dick cake.

Your second example is pretty stupid too. The dick one made me laugh tho.

[Chinook]

Lolololol you think there's a slippery slope for having to make a dick cake.

You also don't know what a slippery slope is. Wasn't asserting one here.


Your second example is pretty stupid too.

Still didn't answer it.

[rmt]

Religious institutions are exempt. I don't believe churches should be forced to perform ceremonies that go against their tenants and to this point, neither does the law. Many churches only perform services for members of their church, and they have a right to deny membership.

You do realize that some people are born into their churches, become members as children or before they "come out"?

What's the difference then between a pastor who performs weddings at a non-church facility (eg. I went to a wedding in San Antonio where the ceremony was at the reception site) and a photographer? Do you think the pastor should have to perform a gay wedding the same as a photographer should have to take pictures at a gay wedding?

[Spurminator]

You do realize that some people are born into their churches, become members as children or before they "come out"?

I do. And you realize those churches can (and sometimes do) revoke their membership?


What's the difference then between a pastor who performs weddings at a non-church facility (eg. I went to a wedding in San Antonio where the ceremony was at the reception site) and a photographer? Do you think the pastor should have to perform a gay wedding the same as a photographer should have to take pictures at a gay wedding?

I don't believe either of those people should have to be at the wedding. I think there's a fundamental difference between providing a product or service from a place of business vs. providing a service that requires you to be somewhere.

I don't believe photographers should have to go to a gay wedding to take pictures. I do believe photographers that have a studio should be required to allow a gay couple to take photos in that studio.

[Blake]

You also don't know what a slippery slope is. Wasn't asserting one here.

Which fallacy do you believe it is then?



Still didn't answer it.

I said it was stupid. A non-faux intellectual such as yourself should be able to Google why it's stupid.

[Chinook]

Which fallacy do you believe it is then?

It's not a fallacy. It could be a bad comparison, but it's not a fallacy.


I said it was stupid.

That's not a yes or a no.


A non-faux intellectual such as yourself should be able to Google why it's stupid.

Lol, talk about your logical fallacies.

[Blake]

It's not a fallacy. It could be a bad comparison, but it's not a fallacy.


It's a "what's next? Penis cakes for frats?" argument you made.

It's a slippery slope fallacy.



That's not a yes or a no.

Right, it's a "your scenario is stupid"



Lol, talk about your logical fallacies.

So I shouldn't have assumed you know how to Google?

Noted for future reference.

[Chinook]

It's a "what's next? Penis cakes for frats?" argument you made.

Nope. Didn't even suggest that's what I was saying.


It's a slippery slope fallacy.

No, because that's actually something that happens right now. Some places will make those cakes and some won't. But no one's complaining about those bakers refusing. A slippery slope argument implies two things, one that A will lead to B, and two that B is bad enough to warrant stopping A. I don't agree on either account.


Right, it's a "your scenario is stupid"

That's NOT a yes or a no. It's just a repeated logical fallacy. And it underlines your hypocrisy in this thread. Sitting on the fence like a bird right now.


So I shouldn't have assumed you know how to Google?

Noted for future reference.

You shouldn't think that Google can fight your battles for you. The best it can do is give other people's opinions as to why you're right. But that's still fallacious as shit.

[Chinook]

It's like you didn't read what you literally wrote.

Oh, didn't see this. No. You're the one who thinks the two statements are the same. And it's completely stupid of you. And you don't even seem to know what "literally means".

[Blake]

Like can a bakery refuse to make a dick-shaped cake for a frat party? Does a vegan photographer have to photograph a hog-killing party (and yes, that's actually a thing)? You take an awful lot of freedom away from people when you argue the government should force them to work without discrimination.

Nobody is arguing that the government should force them to make a cock cake or photo a hog slaughter.

Slippery slopes.

[Chinook]

Nobody is arguing that the government should force them to make a cock cake or photo a hog slaughter.

Still haven't seen a yes or a no. Just more of you trying to redirect and not know what a fallacy is.

[Blake]

Still haven't seen a yes or a no. Just more of you trying to redirect and not know what a fallacy is.

No, a photographer does not have to take hog killing party pictures.

Good lord me calling you stupid should have clued you in that it was a "no".

Please note that for future reference.

[Chinook]

No, a photographer does not have to take hog killing party pictures.

All right. So now you just have to defend your position. (And no, unless you have an easily accessible blog, telling someone to Google it isn't sufficient.)


Good lord me calling you stupid should have clued you in.

Eh, no. Insults aren't arguments, and even calling an argument stupid as an attempted answer is a logical fallacy. The fact that you had to be pinned down to answer a yes/no question doesn't reflect well on your ability to have intellectual discourse, though. But you conceding almost all other ground also reflects that, so I guess this is just further evidence.

[Blake]

All right. So now you just have to defend your position. (And no, unless you have an easily accessible blog, telling someone to Google it isn't sufficient.)


Lolsmh no I don't.

It's your scenario, you show how the photographer is breaking the law by denying hog party photo services.

[rmt]

I do. And you realize those churches can (and sometimes do) revoke their membership?



I don't believe either of those people should have to be at the wedding. I think there's a fundamental difference between providing a product or service from a place of business vs. providing a service that requires you to be somewhere.

I don't believe photographers should have to go to a gay wedding to take pictures. I do believe photographers that have a studio should be required to allow a gay couple to take photos in that studio.

So, for you, it's more the location? Not the religious belief? The studio is a place of business, but refusing to photograph at a gay wedding is ok? That's a fine line to differentiate and the photographer is open to being sued. Small businesses can't afford any lawsuit/bad publicity. In Florida:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/204261-gov-rick-scott-signs-pastor-protection-bill-law

[Blake]

So, for you, it's more the location? Not the religious belief? The studio is a place of business, but refusing to photograph at a gay wedding is ok? That's a fine line to differentiate and the photographer is open to being sued. Small businesses can't afford any lawsuit/bad publicity. In Florida:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/204261-gov-rick-scott-signs-pastor-protection-bill-law

It's more of a difference of being open and being closed to the general public

[Spurminator]

So, for you, it's more the location? Not the religious belief? The studio is a place of business, but refusing to photograph at a gay wedding is ok? That's a fine line to differentiate and the photographer is open to being sued. Small businesses can't afford any lawsuit/bad publicity.

It's more about requiring someone to BE somewhere that they don't want to be. It seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.


In Florida:

http://floridapolitics.com/archives/204261-gov-rick-scott-signs-pastor-protection-bill-law

An unnecessary bill meant to pander to people who feel needlessly threatened by gay marriage. It doesn't apply to businesses run by religious people who oppose gay marriage, only religious organizations (who are already protected under the First Amendment). Not surprising that one of the worst governors in the country would waste time on this.

[Blake]

It's more about requiring someone to BE somewhere that they don't want to be. It seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.

If you're a white photographer open for the public and you tell a black couple you're not taking pictures at their n-bomb wedding that's 2 blocks away, you're gonna get sued.

If you don't want to go, come up with a better reason and you're fine.

[Spurminator]

If you're a white photographer open for the public and you tell a black couple you're not taking pictures at their n-bomb wedding that's 2 blocks away, you're gonna get sued.

If you don't want to go, come up with a better reason and you're fine.

That's where the racial and behavioral difference comes in to play. That photographer isn't avoiding going to a wedding with gay people. They are avoiding going to a wedding where two people of the same sex are being married, something that goes against his/her religion.

If the photographer is smart, they will just say they are booked for the weekend. But as far as I know, there's no law requiring businesses of any kind to appear in any place they choose not to appear to provide a service.

[Chinook]

Lolsmh no I don't.

Yeah, you really do. You're giving a different answer to a question about the same topic. If you consider them different, you have to defend that.


It's your scenario, you show how the photographer is breaking the law by denying hog party photo services.

Lot of things wrong with this.

One thing is you're trying to appeal to authority (it's right because the law says it right), which is pathetic for a person trying to carry a progressive torch.

Second thing is that the whole point of this thread is about Mizzou making a law to protect such choices, so hiding behind the law makes little sense. And acting like what Oregon or Colorado have done affects this case is silly.

Third, you're again overstating the reach of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunities Act. It's not clear that a national law has any effect on a photographer with a small business.

Fourth, I just have to demonstrate how it's discrimination to do so, and it obviously is. These hog guys are paying like anyone else. Why does the photographer get to refuse this job but not the gay couple? Are they not both based on their ethics? The legality question is separate, as that's at the discretion of law-makers.

Most damning of all is that hiding behind the law means that you're agreeing with the stances of most states prior the the SCOTUS ruling this year. Would your response to this thread been the same a year ago? I hope so. I'd rather you be a hypocrite than a guy who's prejudice is so malleable.

[Blake]

That's where the racial and behavioral difference comes in to play. That photographer isn't avoiding going to a wedding with gay people. They are avoiding going to a wedding where two people of the same sex are being married, something that goes against his/her religion.

If the photographer is smart, they will just say they are booked for the weekend. But as far as I know, there's no law requiring businesses of any kind to appear in any place they choose not to appear to provide a service.

Yeah, just like if the baker was smart they'd have said something similar.

In some states you can't deny photography services to a gay couple because you claim it's your religious right. You're gonna have to go or say your camera broke.

[rmt]

It's more about requiring someone to BE somewhere that they don't want to be. It seems like a pretty clear distinction to me.



An unnecessary bill meant to pander to people who feel needlessly threatened by gay marriage. It doesn't apply to businesses run by religious people who oppose gay marriage, only religious organizations (who are already protected under the First Amendment). Not surprising that one of the worst governors in the country would waste time on this.

As a Floridian, I am very happy with Rick Scott. He's kept state university tuition very reasonable (as opposed to the previous 15% per year possible raise) - about $6313 per year. They've also given free rides at 6 universities to all Florida National Merits. 6% sales tax, no income tax, assessed property tax capped at 3% increase (by contrast Texas is 10%), pension system in pretty good shape. About the only complaint I have is I wish there were more tech companies here. His doughnut commercial is kinda corny but at least he's trying.

[Blake]

Yeah, you really do. You're giving a different answer to a question about the same topic. If you consider them different, you have to defend that.

Ok, there's no law in any state that forces someone to take pictures at a hog slaughter.

Unless you show how the photographer is breaking the law by denying service, I win.

[Blake]

Lot of things wrong with this.

One thing is you're trying to appeal to authority (it's right because the law says it right), which is pathetic for a person trying to carry a progressive torch.

Second thing is that the whole point of this thread is about Mizzou making a law to protect such choices, so hiding behind the law makes little sense. And acting like what Oregon or Colorado have done affects this case is silly.

Third, you're again overstating the reach of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunities Act. It's not clear that a national law has any effect on a photographer with a small business.

Fourth, I just have to demonstrate how it's discrimination to do so, and it obviously is. These hog guys are paying like anyone else. Why does the photographer get to refuse this job but not the gay couple? Are they not both based on their ethics? The legality question is separate, as that's at the discretion of law-makers.

Most damning of all is that hiding behind the law means that you're agreeing with the stances of most states prior the the SCOTUS ruling this year. Would your response to this thread been the same a year ago? I hope so. I'd rather you be a hypocrite than a guy who's prejudice is so malleable.

Lots of things wrong with this, but I just don't care enough to go point by point with you. Sorry.

[Chinook]

Ok, there's no law in any state that forces someone to take pictures at a hog slaughter.

Unless you show how the photographer is breaking the law by denying service, I win.

How on Earth do you win anything? Is your sense of morality and reasoning really just what the law tells you it is?

[Chinook]

Lots of things wrong with this, but I just don't care enough to go point by point with you. Sorry.

And that's ANOTHER logical fallacy. You're just full of them aren't you? You should totally try to get a job with the Trump campaign with that low level of critical thinking.

[Blake]

How on Earth do you win anything? Is your sense of morality and reasoning really just what the law tells you it is?

I don't see anything wrong with denying them photography service. I'm going to guess you don't either.

Your analogy of denying hog killers vs denying gays is ridiculously stupid. lol.

[Blake]

And that's ANOTHER logical fallacy. You're just full of them aren't you? You should totally try to get a job with the Trump campaign with that low level of critical thinking.

Which fallacy is it exactly?

[Chinook]

I don't see anything wrong with denying them photography service. I'm going to guess you don't either.

You see nothing wrong with certain types of discrimination, but not others. I'm glad we're making progress. Now, you've got to justify your claim.


Your analogy of denying hog killers vs denying gays is ridiculously stupid

That's nothing but an observation lacking argumentative substance. It's just the same fallacy repeated.


Which fallacy is it exactly?

You've been appealing to the stone this whole time. Calling an argument stupid or wrong repeatedly doesn't actually address it. Your most legitimate argument has been you saying that if it's not illegal, it's not wrong. And that was appealing to authority (which again is pathetic for a progressive). You've appealed to the people when asking me to look something up on Google to justify your answer. You've been inconsistent in your conclusions, created a false dichotomy and then tried to put me in a false dilemma. I'm sure there are more, but I don't want to go through this thread. It's quite an impressive scoreboard. And it underscores why you've been acting in a faux-intellectual manner this entire time.

[Pelicans78]

Religious institutions are exempt. I don't believe churches should be forced to perform ceremonies that go against their tenants and to this point, neither does the law. Many churches only perform services for members of their church, and they have a right to deny membership.

Why are religious institutions exempt and not individual people? That doesn't seem fair.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You see nothing wrong with certain types of discrimination, but not others. I'm glad we're making progress. Now, you've got to justify your claim.



That's nothing but an observation lacking argumentative substance. It's just the same fallacy repeated.



You've been appealing to the stone this whole time. Calling an argument stupid or wrong repeatedly doesn't actually address it. Your most legitimate argument has been you saying that if it's not illegal, it's not wrong. And that was appealing to authority (which again is pathetic for a progressive). You've appealed to the people when asking me to look something up on Google to justify your answer. You've been inconsistent in your conclusions, created a false dichotomy and then tried to put me in a false dilemma. I'm sure there are more, but I don't want to go through this thread. It's quite an impressive scoreboard. And it underscores why you've been acting in a faux-intellectual manner this entire time.

The law is an objective standard. Sure it's an appeal to authority but in this case the authority is legitimate.

You instead want to fixate on your false equivalences when in fact the law and the high courts majority interpretation rejects that very paradigm.

You can believe whatever you want but as long as the 14th amendment is being interpreted the same as Justice Kennedy and friends are then your position is irrelevant to actual policy and law enforcement.

I did like the faux-intellectual part though considering your vapid walls of text and grade school level statistical analysis overall. Parroting 'fallacy' over and over again without demonstrating how any of them apply with specifics was also amusing.

[Blake]

You see nothing wrong with certain types of discrimination, but not others. I'm glad we're making progress.

Correct. I'm not sure you've learned anything yet tho.


Now, you've got to justify your claim.

I already did. You just didn't like it.



You've been appealing to the stone this whole time. Calling an argument stupid or wrong repeatedly doesn't actually address it. Your most legitimate argument has been you saying that if it's not illegal, it's not wrong. And that was appealing to authority (which again is pathetic for a progressive).

Lol. You didn't make an argument with your hog party scenario. You asked a question if the photographer should be made to take pictures there.

It's not a stupid argument you made. It's a stupid question you asked.



You've appealed to the people when asking me to look something up on Google to justify your answer.

No, I told you that a person in a higher intellectual position than myself should be able to use Google to find the answer he's looking for to answer his own ridiculously stupid question.




You've been inconsistent in your conclusions, created a false dichotomy and then tried to put me in a false dilemma. I'm sure there are more, but I don't want to go through this thread. It's quite an impressive scoreboard. And it underscores why you've been acting in a faux-intellectual manner this entire time.

You're all over the place and started out with ad hominem right off the bat.

[Spurminator]

Why are religious institutions exempt and not individual people? That doesn't seem fair.

I don't know that I have a great answer for that, but the First Amendment is pretty ironclad in this regard. Churches aren't forced to accept or keep members and they're allowed to discriminate on gender and sexuality for leadership positions, so if we're going to hold religious institutions to the same standard as regular businesses, there is a lot that will need to change.

Fundamentally, a marriage in a church/synegogue/etc. is a religious ceremony first and foremost. Legally/secularly, the ceremony itself doesn't really do anything official. So to expect a religious institution to perform a ceremony within its walls that contradicts core tenants would be an unnecessary overstep. A cake is a cake... You can make the same looking cake for a gay couple as you can for a straight couple. A marriage ceremony is more complex.

That said, we could be looking at some serious conversations in the near future about churches' tax exempt status.

[Chinook]

Correct. I'm not sure you've learned anything yet tho.

You're right. All I've gotten from you is that you have finally admitted that simply calling two things discrimination doesn't make them the same. It's been pulling teeth, but you're finally moving along.


I already did. You just didn't like it.

You replied with a fallacy. And the reply is one you'd contradict yourself if given a chance in a different thread. I did you the favor of asking for another one.


Lol. You didn't make an argument with your hog party scenario. You asked a question if the photographer should be made to take pictures there.

It's not a stupid argument you made. It's a stupid question you asked.

Eh, sure didn't stop you from trying to label it a slippery slope fallacy. So you knew it was an argument that hadn't been explicated because you kept stoning it. We were FINALLY able to move on after you stopped stoning..


No, I told you that a person in a higher intellectual position than myself should be able to use Google to find the answer he's looking for to answer his own ridiculously stupid question.

But that's not a retort. "Why are you right?" "Go research and find out." Like that means nothing. Do you try to justify all of your opinions by telling people to Google? And it still doesn't get past the appeal to the people issue, because again, at best I'd find in your favor people agreeing with your view point. But that doesn't make it right.


You're all over the place and started out with ad hominem right off the bat.

I used no ad homenim. I did say that your view is tone-deaf, but I proceeded to explain in tldr detail why I disagreed with you. Ad homenims are supposed to be arguments in and of themselves. They aren't just anything that can be interpreted as an insult. And I repeatedly asked for you to explain why you held the view I called tone-deaf, and when you gave the bit of explanation, I responded to it. And ad homenim would be me disregarding your points simply because I considered you tone-deaf.

[Blake]

Lol the line by line is brutal.

I never said all discrimination is equal. I said discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays is equal in this case because they don't have a choice as to who they are.

I asked if you think gays have a choice and you said "no.....but it's different...." and blathered on about genes.
You haven't made any argument or given a clear opinion on if you think business owners should be able to discriminate or not. You just want to ride down the middle whining about the style of my posts without picking a lane yourself.

Oh yeah, and you told me not to be pseudo intellectual off the bat which is ad hominem.

Me telling you you're not good at this might be ad hominem, but eh, I'm OK with it because I think there's enough here to show you really have no clue what you're talking about.

[diego]

As a former baker, this is just a case of manners and pr. It's rude to deny someone interested in your service, moreso because of discrimination- unless, you want to make a pr mess about it and flaunt your holier than thou bullshit, which is exactly what is happening here. I doubt they had a sign up saying they respectfully declined to serve homosexuals "due to our profound religious beliefs". he should have been a decent human being and said," I'm so sorry, we're unavailable for those dates" it's that easy to discriminate without being a dick (and unfortunately probably the best you can expect in terms of reducing discrimination).

Businesses should have a right to refuse service, but not a right to insult/offend people they don't like. Gay people aren't the ones making these situations difficult, religious nuts are.

[Blake]

Missouri is just hell bent on allowing bigotry


JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — After a failed 37-hour filibuster by Democrats, the Missouri Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to add greater religious protections to the state constitution for some business owners and individuals opposed to gay marriage.

Senators voted 23-7 along party lines to give the measure final approval following the Democratic filibuster, which ground work in the chamber to a halt.

Division over the measure highlights a national debate over how to balance the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and religious liberties following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer that legalized same-sex marriages in all states.

At issue is legislation to amend the Missouri Constitution to prohibit government penalties against those who cite a "sincere religious belief" while declining to provide goods and services for same-sex marriage ceremonies or ensuing celebrations taking place around the same time as a wedding ceremony. The measure cites photographers and florists as examples of those who could be covered. It would also shield clergy and worship places that decline to participate in such weddings.

"This amendment will protect those individuals from being commandeered into a wedding ceremony in violation of their religious conscious," said Republican sponsor Sen. Bob Onder, of Lake St. Louis.

Democrats, who argued it would allow discrimination against LGBT people, stalled an initial vote on the measure from Monday afternoon to early Wednesday, when Republicans used a rare procedural move to end what was the longest continuous filibuster in recent state history.

On Thursday, action by frustrated Democrats continued to delay work in the Senate. Their pushback included nearly six hours spent reviewing and debating what's in the official state record of Senate action this week before the measure came up for a final vote.

Democratic Sen. Scott Sifton, of Affton, said if senators and voters met his father and uncle, who are gay, and their partners, the proposal would fail and "Missouri voters would reject it unanimously."

Some Democratic lawmakers invoked images of an era when businesses refused to serve people because of the color of their skin. Sen. Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City, said the proposal could allow businesses to hang signs banning LGBT people.

"It's wrong, and we shouldn't do it," he said. "Generations from now, people will look back on what we've done, and they'll be ashamed of us."

The proposal, which could go before voters as a ballot measure this year, is among the latest efforts by Republican lawmakers in some states in reaction to the high court's ruling..........

http://news.yahoo.com/missouri-religious-objection-measure-needs-vote-advance-071137592.html

[Chinook]

Lol the line by line is brutal.

Of course it is, since it means you'd just repeat non-arguments over and over again.


I never said all discrimination is equal. I said discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays is equal in this case because they don't have a choice as to who they are.

And I've repeatedly demonstrated why choice is irrelevant and made arguments at to why I consider racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual preference different in terms of their NATURE. Like, you don't get to discriminate against Muslims just because they choose to follow Islam. So if something that is completely a choice can be a protected class, then there's no sexual preference is protected no matter where you put it on the continuum. Hence why I used the term bookends, which you seemed to fail to understand.


You can't say gays have no choice to who they are but then say the discrimination should be different than to someone that has no choice to the color of their skin.

To be clear, I don't think discrimination based on race, sexual preference or religion (or gender, political affiliation etc.) should exist. So in that regard, I don't think they should be different. However, I still maintain they ARE different for many reasons, which I have enumerated multiple times. Being gay will NEVER be the same as being black. But it doesn't have to be that bad for me to want it to not exist.


I asked if you think gays have a choice and you said "no.....but it's different...." and blathered on about genes.

I said no. I haven't qualified that no at all since I've said it. But you keep making the mistake of believing that a yes or no to your question meant anything. It didn't. You were asking the wrong question the whole time.


You haven't made any argument or given a clear opinion on if you think business owners should be able to discriminate or not.

This the the first time you've asked for one. But yeah, I do think it's a tricky issue. I don't feel comfortable with the government encroaching on people's rights to be assholes in most cases. Like if Walmart today banned black people from entering the store, I wouldn't want Uncle Sam stopping them. There are other non-governmental controls that will take care of them, and I'd go to Target until those worked their magic. I feel like that's even more true for small businesses, and the Oregon example showed what happens when social pressure starts to work. That business was sunk long before they lost the court case.

Only time I think it's critical for the government to force a business' hand is when there isn't an alternative within a reasonable difference. So like it wouldn't be okay to wait for the only Walmart in town to reintegrate.


Oh yeah, and you told me not to be pseudo intellectual off the bat which is ad hominem.

You REALLY need to figure out what an ad homenim is. It's not just "calling you a name".


Me telling you you're not good at this might be ad hominem

It's not. It's an appeal to the stone. I've already told you that.


I think there's enough here to show you really have no clue what you're talking about.

All that has been shown is that you shrivel up like a raisin when challenged.

[Chinook]

Businesses should have a right to refuse service, but not a right to insult/offend people they don't like. Gay people aren't the ones making these situations difficult, religious nuts are.

Again is, "I don't agree with the ceremony, so I am declining your business" an insult? I feel like the honesty is better than the lie in almost all cases, and this is one of them. I don't think anyone should legally condone intentional misleading, as it can be challenged pretty easily. If a baker starts spamming slurs and quoting Leviticus, I can totally see what you're saying. But I think people need to re-calibrate what can reasonably be considered offensive if it includes directly stating your opposition in a respectful manner.

[Blake]

That's where the racial and behavioral difference comes in to play. That photographer isn't avoiding going to a wedding with gay people. They are avoiding going to a wedding where two people of the same sex are being married, something that goes against his/her religion.

If the photographer is smart, they will just say they are booked for the weekend. But as far as I know, there's no law requiring businesses of any kind to appear in any place they choose not to appear to provide a service.

"Court: Photographer who wouldn’t work a gay wedding violated anti-discrimination lawBy Molly McDonoughAug 22, 2013, 09:05 pm CDT

A Christian photographer who refused to photograph the wedding of a gay couple violated state anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography, refused to photograph the commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple because she believes marriage is a union between one man and one woman. In May 2012, a*New Mexico appeals court said the refusal violated*the state’s law and Thursday’s decision upholds that finding.

“We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the [New Mexico Human Rights Act] and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,”*the court opined(PDF).

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling.

“When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs,” Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. “The Constitution guarantees religious freedom in this country, but we are not entitled to use our beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against other people.”

In Thursday’s ruling, the New Mexico court said the state’s anti-discrimination law doesn’t violate free speech guarantees in this case because the law doesn’t compel “Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another.” Indeed, the court noted that Elane Photography could advertise that its owners are personally opposed to same-sex marriage.........


http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/court_photographer_who_wouldnt_work_a_gay_wedding_ violated_antidiscriminati/

[Blake]

......Like if Walmart today banned black people from entering the store, I wouldn't want Uncle Sam stopping them.

Rofl....holy shit, it took 100k words for it to finally come out that you condone racial bigotry. No wonder we weren't getting anywhere. I was under a faulty assumption. My bad.

Lololololoooooooool

[Shastafarian]

Like that's not a better example. A better example would be a seafood restaurant that doesn't serve shellfish or a barbecue joint that doesn't have pork. The idea that those places need to accommodate non-kosher diets lest they be bigoted doesn't sit well with people. That's why this is a two-sided issue. Is a person that works for themselves free to use their services in ways they seem fit? Or are they bound to render those services for anyone who's willing to pay? :lol Your analogy is much worse. In mine, a NEW service isn't being requested. In your analogy, you are asking someone to provide a service they normally wouldn't provide (i.e. handling and cooking treif food items) that in actuality is infringing on their actual religious beliefs. My analogy supposes only that a person is being required to offer their NORMAL services. Holy shit you're terrible at analogies.


When can someone refuse service? Like can a bakery refuse to make a dick-shaped cake for a frat party?Again, that's protected because 1) it's vulgar, and 2) you're asking them to provide a service they don't normally provide (making NOVELTY cakes).

Does a vegan photographer have to photograph a hog-killing party (and yes, that's actually a thing)? You take an awful lot of freedom away from people when you argue the government should force them to work without discrimination. In a world with social media and the pressure it brings, it seems like government intervention is unnecessary and unwise.That's not discrimination because it involves FORCING someone to watch the killing of animals. How are you so obtuse you don't understand the difference in these analogies?


Again is, "I don't agree with the ceremony, so I am declining your business" an insult?:lol ABSOLUTELY it is. Telling someone either you think they're going to hell or you don't think they should be allowed to get married (most likely both) is 100% an insult. Saying it nicely doesn't make it less so.

I feel like the honesty is better than the lie in almost all cases, and this is one of them. I don't think anyone should legally condone intentional misleading, as it can be challenged pretty easily. If a baker starts spamming slurs and quoting Leviticus, I can totally see what you're saying. But I think people need to re-calibrate what can reasonably be considered offensive if it includes directly stating your opposition in a respectful manner.You are so clueless it's laughable.

[Chinook]

Rofl....holy shit, it took 100k words for it to finally come out that you condone racial bigotry. No wonder we weren't getting anywhere. I was under a faulty assumption. My bad.

Lololololoooooooool

I don't condone it. But I don't condone the government intruding in the right of people to make poor choices. It's sad for you that you want the government to impress your morals onto everyone else. It really seems like you're the close-minded bigot here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't condone it. But I don't condone the government intruding in the right of people to make poor choices. It's sad for you that you want the government to impress your morals onto everyone else. It really seems like you're the close-minded bigot here.

You're ignoring the initial discrimination and whining about the backlash.

You're the one that likes to peddle first cause nonsense. This concept should be easy for you.

Bottom line is that SCOTUS has given LGBT equal protection. You've already lost and now that Scalia is dead unless Cruz gets the nomination you have no hope at all.

[Chinook]

:lol Your analogy is much worse. In mine, a NEW service isn't being requested. In your analogy, you are asking someone to provide a service they normally wouldn't provide (i.e. handling and cooking treif food items) that in actuality is infringing on their actual religious beliefs. My analogy supposes only that a person is being required to offer their NORMAL services. Holy shit you're terrible at analogies.

This has already been addressed. I agree that it doesn't violate the baker's right if someone wants to buy a generic cake. I was under the impression that these cakes were at least somewhat customized. If that's the case, it's not simply a normal service.


Again, that's protected because 1) it's vulgar, and 2) you're asking them to provide a service they don't normally provide (making NOVELTY cakes).

1) Vulgarity is totally in eyes of the beholder. That's why this is even being discussed.

2) How do you know they don't provide this? This was my scenario, and as I had already explained, I was looking at this from a custom cake perspective. I've repeated said that I see this as a rights clash between the state and artisans. I wouldn't consider generic manufacturers to be in the latter group.


That's not discrimination because it involves FORCING someone to watch the killing of animals. How are you so obtuse you don't understand the difference in these analogies?

I think you're the one who doesn't understand analogies. Or in the very least, you have no idea how subjective your perspective is. You act like killing animals isn't something that happens millions of times a day with the only reason why we aren't all intimately acquainted with it is because we live in a modern society. This isn't human sacrifices to an ancient god we're talking about here. There are plenty of people who see these events as normal and necessary. That you and the photographer find it horrifying is your problem.


:lol ABSOLUTELY it is. Telling someone either you think they're going to hell or you don't think they shouldn't be allowed to get married (most likely both) is 100% an insult. Saying it nicely doesn't make it less so.

I don't think you'll find a lot of support out there that telling someone you disagree with them is an insult. If you get all bible-thumpy and bellicose, that's one thing. You have a right to have your own opinion, and if you only give it to them when solicited, it's really hard for me to see how being honest should be discouraged.


You are so clueless it's laughable.

So are you advocating that they lie to their prospective customers? I think that's stupid for many reasons, the biggest being that it's easy to call out.

A: My partner and I would like you to come take pictures of our wedding on May 7.
B: I can't I'm...booked that day.
A: Well what openings do you have in your schedule? We are really big fans of your work, so we'd really love for you to be the one who captures the ceremony.

There goes any way of B had of getting out of this without it becoming awkward or convoluted. That you think I'm clueless for arguing that doing this is wrong is silly.

[Shastafarian]

This has already been addressed. I agree that it doesn't violate the baker's right if someone wants to buy a generic cake. I was under the impression that these cakes were at least somewhat customized. If that's the case, it's not simply a normal service.The only way your argument holds water is if the customization is offensive. And if the baker feels it is offensive, and not simply that it goes against their religious beliefs, then they can let the courts decide whether it truly is offensive.



1) Vulgarity is totally in eyes of the beholder. That's why this is even being discussed.The beholder being the court system if the person truly believes it is or isn't vulgar.


2) How do you know they don't provide this? This was my scenario, and as I had already explained, I was looking at this from a custom cake perspective. I've repeated said that I see this as a rights clash between the state and artisans. I wouldn't consider generic manufacturers to be in the latter group.So if they already provide it, what is their reason for saying no? Because they hate fraternities? :rollin


I think you're the one who doesn't understand analogies.anyone reading through this knows which one of us has a better handle on analogous situations.

Or in the very least, you have no idea how subjective your perspective is. You act like killing animals isn't something that happens millions of times a day with the only reason why we aren't all intimately acquainted with it is because we live in a modern society. This isn't human sacrifices to an ancient god we're talking about here. There are plenty of people who see these events as normal and necessary. That you and the photographer find it horrifying is your problem.And again you don't understand analogous situations. You're equating killing living things to marrying a person of the same gender. Those two situations are not analogous. The fact that some people are fine watching animals be slaughtered doesn't mean anyone should be forced to watch it. If you're seriously going to claim that equates to forcing someone to watch two men get married... :lol



I don't think you'll find a lot of support out there that telling someone you disagree with them is an insult.I guess it's not just analogies you don't understand. Being gay isn't an OPINION. These people aren't disagreeing with gay people. They are saying gay people are going to burn in hell or shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as non-gay people. That is insulting. Just like it's insulting to deny an interracial couple the right to get married.

If you get all bible-thumpy and bellicose, that's one thing. You have a right to have your own opinion, and if you only give it to them when solicited, it's really hard for me to see how being honest should be discouraged.Everyone has the right to an opinion. Everyone does not have a right to discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. How do you not understand this?


So are you advocating that they lie to their prospective customers? I think that's stupid for many reasons, the biggest being that it's easy to call out. Don't care. If they feel like lying in order to deny services then they have to face the consequences of losing business.


A: My partner and I would like you to come take pictures of our wedding on May 7.
B: I can't I'm...booked that day.
A: Well what openings do you have in your schedule? We are really big fans of your work, so we'd really love for you to be the one who captures the ceremony.

There goes any way of B had of getting out of this without it becoming awkward or convoluted. That you think I'm clueless for arguing that doing this is wrong is silly.I think you're clueless because you've shown you have no empathy for gay people (or other minorities for that matter). You don't understand their argument and you clearly don't understand situations that would be analogous to their plight.

[Blake]

I don't condone it. But I don't condone the government intruding in the right of people to make poor choices. It's sad for you that you want the government to impress your morals onto everyone else. It really seems like you're the close-minded bigot here.

You're absolutely condoning the right to discrimination based on skin color.

Let darky build his own Walmart!

and lmao you trying the rubber/glue I know you're a bigot but what am I tactic.

[Chinook]

The only way your argument holds water is if the customization is offensive. And if the baker feels it is offensive, and not simply that it goes against their religious beliefs, then they can let the courts decide whether it truly is offensive.

The beholder being the court system if the person truly believes it is or isn't vulgar.\

Just as with Blake I find myself flabbergasted at how progressives are trying to play the government card right now. The whole point of progressivism is to push for rights that the government isn't currently protecting. Just seem surreal to use this as a basis for an argument. Again, though, this thread is about Mizzou trying to make a law to protect this type of discrimination, so the government angle doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I do think this will end up going to the SCOTUS if the Oregon case doesn't do it first. But in the world we live in at the moment where this is still up to states to decide, basing morals on laws and precedents seems silly.


So if they already provide it, what is their reason for saying no? Because they hate fraternities?

Are we talking about custom cakes or dick-shaped cakes here? Obviously, if this was a store that sells penis-shaped cakes on the regular, then it would be absurd of them to deny a frat's money. But if this was a custom cake shop and they denied the request because of their morals, then yeah, it's a murkier issue than you're making it out to be.


anyone reading through this knows which one of us has a better handle on analogous situations.

Pointless statement.


And again you don't understand analogous situations. You're equating killing living things to marrying a person of the same gender.

So you've demonstrated that you struggle to understand what an analogy is supposed to be used for. I'm not arguing that killing animals is the same as getting married to someone of the same sex. I am arguing that objecting to photographing the killing of animals due to moral reasons is analogous to objecting to photographing a same-sex ceremony for moral reasons. Your argument against that so far has been pretty much, "Come on, killing animals is way worse." And that's silly. Hog killing parties are people killing animals for food. You can think it's gross all you want, but slaughtering livestock is a fundamental part of human life, and unless you're a perfect vegan, you owe much of your existence to people who are willing to do it. That you try to brand the act as somehow unfit for normal people is pretty prejudiced.

But I'm willing to entertain another argument if you have one.


I guess it's not just analogies you don't understand. Being gay isn't an OPINION.

Dude, I've stated that I don't believe it's an opinion too many times in this thread for you to not have seen it.


These people aren't disagreeing with gay people.

They aren't.


They are saying gay people are going to burn in hell or shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as non-gay people.

They're saying that when solicited, maybe. You make it sound like these folks are disrupting ceremonies to say gays are going to hell. They aren't. You won't ever be able to govern thoughts out of people's heads, so if your issue is the beliefs they have, you're gonna be SOL.


Everyone does not have a right to discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. How do you not understand this?

The issue is that hasn't been completely established. Certain laws and court cases have limited the ways in which people can be discriminated against, but there are still more. There's a reason why people like Rush and Robertson haven't been censored. And there's a reason why the government wouldn't be caught dead endorsing discrimination in their own ranks. Those are the two bookends on the continuum of how involved the government is in deterring discrimination. Issues like what happened in Oregon and what's going on in Missouri are the current frontier in the fight to see where on that continuum our society sits right now. Even over this specific point, it's going to be a long battle.


Don't care. If they feel like lying in order to deny services then they have to face the consequences of losing business.

Or they could be honest and also face those consequences. That's been shown to be extremely effective, so why is there a need to litigate this?


I think you're clueless because you've shown you have no empathy for gay people (or other minorities for that matter).

Do you not understand there are multiple minorities in this situation? There are gay people who are the minorities in the general populace. And there are the bigots, who are also the minority, as the majority of people in this country (us being included) don't agree with their beliefs. Both groups need to have their rights respected. You're only looking at this from the perspective of the group you support, but it's more complicated that than. Even when it sucks, the country has to stick to it's principles. The same thing is true when guilty people go free because our court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't go around squashing dissenting opinions. It will turn out badly for everyone in the end.


You don't understand their argument and you clearly don't understand situations that would be analogous to their plight.

It seems like you're one of those people who tries to tell minorities how they feel and just ignore their opinions. You know nothing about me, so you don't know what type of discrimination I've had to deal with. The argument that the only way I can disagree with you is if I am callous to gay people is silly. If you only put yourself in one person's shoes, you'll end up making extremely biased decisions. That's why you don't see deontological systems based on such reasoning.

[Chinook]

You're absolutely condoning the right to discrimination based on skin color..

I don't condone guilty people going free. But I also don't condone making a legal system that makes acquittals virtually impossible. I believe some bad things have to be allowed to happen to protect the good things. I don't care if you want to live in a world where everything you hate is eliminated. It's not realistic.


Let darky build his own Walmart!

I specifically didn't say that.


and lmao you trying the rubber/glue I know you're a bigot but what am I tactic.

Calling out a tactic isn't refuting it. You want the government to force your beliefs onto everyone else. You've suggested that time and time again. Googling the word 'bigot' returns a definition of "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." That describes you in this case. Me saying that I disagree with discrimination but don't want the government to eliminate it more than necessary is pretty much the definition of tolerance (first Google definition being "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."). Just keeps underscoring that you are a pseudo-intellectual trying desperately to act like you're being rational.

[Blake]

I specifically didn't say that.

Well if the black man isn't allowed in Walmart, where does he go?

[Chinook]

Well if the black man isn't allowed in Walmart, where does he go?


Like if Walmart today banned black people from entering the store, I wouldn't want Uncle Sam stopping them. There are other non-governmental controls that will take care of them, and I'd go to Target until those worked their magic. I feel like that's even more true for small businesses, and the Oregon example showed what happens when social pressure starts to work. That business was sunk long before they lost the court case.

Only time I think it's critical for the government to force a business' hand is when there isn't an alternative within a reasonable difference. So like it wouldn't be okay to wait for the only Walmart in town to reintegrate.

The second paragraph isn't as clear as I'd like. But I said that if I were banned from going to Walmart because of my race, I'd go to Target or K-Mart until social pressure forced the store to reintegrate. The only time I'd feel the government should interfere is if there's no reasonable way to work around that business discriminating. Like if Walmart was the only store in town and didn't let black people shop there, then the government should step in to guarantee that people have access to basic supplies.

[Blake]

The second paragraph isn't as clear as I'd like. But I said that if I were banned from going to Walmart because of my race, I'd go to Target or K-Mart until social pressure forced the store to reintegrate. The only time I'd feel the government should interfere is if there's no reasonable way to work around that business discriminating. Like if Walmart was the only store in town and didn't let black people shop there, then the government should step in to guarantee that people have access to basic supplies.

So you want government when you want it.

If Target and Kmart deny black people, where do these government supplies come from for the blacks?

[ElNono]

The second paragraph isn't as clear as I'd like. But I said that if I were banned from going to Walmart because of my race, I'd go to Target or K-Mart until social pressure forced the store to reintegrate. The only time I'd feel the government should interfere is if there's no reasonable way to work around that business discriminating. Like if Walmart was the only store in town and didn't let black people shop there, then the government should step in to guarantee that people have access to basic supplies.

It doesn't work like that though. Government intervention, likely through the judiciary or otherwise, will happen and that's because we have laws in the books (constitution and local level) about equal protection and discrimination.

The clash here is really only about two competing interests, religion freedom vs equal protection of classes.Again, because it involves rights or privileges granted by law, there's no removing the government from it. The only question is which way the government will resolve the question.

[SpursforSix]

If Kmart deny black people,

LOL. What alternate universe is this?

[Chinook]

So you want government when you want it.

Not only is that a tautology, but it's also true. I think the government has an obligation to make sure people can meet their basic needs. And services like Welfare and Medicaid are examples of that.


If Target and Kmart deny black people, where do these government supplies come from for the blacks?

Pretty sure the government isn't going to Target or K-Mart for its supplies now.

[Chinook]

It doesn't work like that though. Government intervention, likely through the judiciary or otherwise, will happen and that's because we have laws in the books (constitution and local level) about equal protection and discrimination.
I don't disagree with that.


The clash here is really only about two competing interests, religion freedom vs equal protection of classes.Again, because it involves rights or privileges granted by law, there's no removing the government from it. The only question is which way the government will resolve the question.

The interests aren't equal now, though. This is pretty much the marriage equality question in reverse. It doesn't interfere with religious freedom of some people for other people to get married. No one has a right to stop other people from getting hitched. The SCOTUS pretty much recognized that inequality in ground and sided with the group who had a legitimate case. In this case, it's hard to argue that you have a right to get a cake from a specific store (in my opinion), whereas it seems at least open to question whether businesses have a right to deny service. I mean, they can reject you if you don't have a shirt or shoes, so there's definitely room for debate.

I agree that the SCOTUS will have to decide in favor of one side, but one side keeps the status quo and the other changes it.

[SpursforSix]

Not only is that a tautology, but it's also true. I think the government has an obligation to make sure people can meet their basic needs. And services like Welfare and Medicaid are examples of that.


Why should the government be required to take care of people that won't begin to lift a finger to take care of themselves?
Not to say that this is the case for everyone receiving benefits. But why dilute the goods to those that really need it? Or take away form those that are actually busting their ass to support their families?

[Chinook]

Why should the government be required to take care of people that won't begin to lift a finger to take care of themselves?

Because that's what it means to have a social contract. Now I do think entitlement programs need to be reformed, and I'm not against a cut-off for people milking the system. But you can't go into the situation assuming that the system is getting gamed all the time.

[SpursforSix]

Because that's what it means to have a social contract. Now I do think entitlement programs need to be reformed, and I'm not against a cut-off for people milking the system. But you can't go into the situation assuming that the system is getting gamed all the time.

Fair enough.

[ElNono]

The interests aren't equal now, though. This is pretty much the marriage equality question in reverse. It doesn't interfere with religious freedom of some people for other people to get married. No one has a right to stop other people from getting hitched. The SCOTUS pretty much recognized that inequality in ground and sided with the group who had a legitimate case. In this case, it's hard to argue that you have a right to get a cake from a specific store (in my opinion), whereas it seems at least open to question whether businesses have a right to deny service. I mean, they can reject you if you don't have a shirt or shoes, so there's definitely room for debate.

I agree that the SCOTUS will have to decide in favor of one side, but one side keeps the status quo and the other changes it.

What I wanted to point out is that there's no such thing as keeping the government non-involved. It's likely not even a choice (would be really unlikely somebody doesn't sue)

Now, what the government decides, like most things, will include winners and losers, and it will be debatable, much like Roe vs Wade was (which personally I thought was a sound, Solomonic decision, but plenty of people disagree) which was another case of competing interests.

[Chinook]

What I wanted to point out is that there's no such thing as keeping the government non-involved. It's likely not even a choice (would be really unlikely somebody doesn't sue)

Now, what the government decides, like most things, will include winners and losers, and it will be debatable, much like Roe vs Wade was (which personally I thought was a sound, Solomonic decision, but plenty of people disagree) which was another case of competing interests.

I guess I'm looking at it as the SCOTUS either deciding that it's constitutional for Mizzou to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people or not. It's not like them siding against whoever sues Mizzou means they endorse discrimination. It would just be them saying they aren't going to step in themselves. It's similar but different if Oregon gets brought to the SCOTUS (which I think will actually happen). The court would be ruling that governments in general can't weigh in on this issue. It wouldn't be the courts saying who's right between gays and religious folk; it would be the court either accepting or rejecting government involvement on either side.

[ElNono]

I guess I'm looking at it as the SCOTUS either deciding that it's constitutional for Mizzou to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people or not. It's not like them siding against whoever sues Mizzou means they endorse discrimination. It would just be them saying they aren't going to step in themselves. It's similar but different if Oregon gets brought to the SCOTUS (which I think will actually happen). The court would be ruling that governments in general can't weigh in on this issue. It wouldn't be the courts saying who's right between gays and religious folk; it would be the court either accepting or rejecting government involvement on either side.

I think the discussion will be framed a different way, simply because the SCOTUS has now set a precedent that sexual orientation is a protected class (back in 2013) under the 5th and potentially the 14th amendment. That puts the conversation squarely on a clash of equal protection vs religious freedom. How they decide is anyone's guess, and largely will probably depend on the merits of each case, but when it comes to constitutional questions, they're very unlikely to pass (even more so if there's different decisions from lower courts, which I don't know if it's the case here, but one would suspect it will be over time unless there's guidance from the higher court). I can see it getting delayed until there's a full SCOTUS, but I would expect them to tackle it head on.

At any rate, even a lower court tackling this is per se government intervention.

[Chinook]

I think the discussion will be framed a different way, simply because the SCOTUS has now set a precedent that sexual orientation is a protected class (back in 2013) under the 5th and potentially the 14th amendment. That puts the conversation squarely on a clash of equal protection vs religious freedom. How they decide is anyone's guess, and largely will probably depend on the merits of each case, but when it comes to constitutional questions, they're very unlikely to pass (even more so if there's different decisions from lower courts, which I don't know if it's the case here, but one would suspect it will be over time unless there's guidance from the higher court). I can see it getting delayed until there's a full SCOTUS, but I would expect them to tackle it head on.

At any rate, even a lower court tackling this is per se government intervention.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't see the court ruling against a plaintiff as supporting the defendant (if those are the appropriate terms). The SCOTUS decides whether the government is constitutionally allowed to do something (at least in cases like we're likely to see about this topic). For example, if Oregon sued and wins in the Supreme Court, I don't think it would mean that Missouri's proposed law would be deemed unconstitutional. Rather, the SCOTUS would uphold Oregon's right to make a state law addressing this issue. However, if the Court rule against Oregon, then it WOULD set a national precedent that states can't prohibit this type of discrimination. The inverse is true if Missouri is sued. While one side will win and the other will lose, I don't think that the Court siding with the state (whichever that is) is any more them intervening in this debate than a person who declines to give a homeless person money is intervening in the homeless person's economic situation.

[ElNono]

I understand what you're saying. I just don't see the court ruling against a plaintiff as supporting the defendant (if those are the appropriate terms). The SCOTUS decides whether the government is constitutionally allowed to do something (at least in cases like we're likely to see about this topic). For example, if Oregon sued and wins in the Supreme Court, I don't think it would mean that Missouri's proposed law would be deemed unconstitutional. Rather, the SCOTUS would uphold Oregon's right to make a state law addressing this issue. However, if the Court rule against Oregon, then it WOULD set a national precedent that states can't prohibit this type of discrimination. The inverse is true if Missouri is sued. While one side will win and the other will lose, I don't think that the Court siding with the state (whichever that is) is any more them intervening in this debate than a person who declines to give a homeless person money is intervening in the homeless person's economic situation.

If the fundamental question is the same (and I have not read the dockets/law, but from a cursory look it appears to be), then the way this normally works is the SCOTUS makes a decision, sets a certain test to answer these questions, and that serves both as precedent and guidance to lower courts on how to deal with this constitutional question. From there, other courts must then use that test going forward to address that. So, it's not really automatic, and it obviously depends on what the SCOTUS decides this "test" is, and also the particular of the cases and how they apply to this "test", but it pretty much will remove the ambiguity that made the cases reach the higher court in the first place. At least for a while.

I would actually hazard that if the Oregon case triggers such review from the SCOTUS, it's inevitable that whatever the ruling is will be brought up in Missouri, be it for or against the proposed law, because the constitutional ambiguity that the court has to deal with will be resolved by then (or the law will be re-written looking for a loophole around the "test", in which case it will trigger another review).

[Blake]

Not only is that a tautology, but it's also true. I think the government has an obligation to make sure people can meet their basic needs. And services like Welfare and Medicaid are examples of that.

Where will blacks go to use their food stamps or medicare if Walmart etc and doctors deny them service?




Pretty sure the government isn't going to Target or K-Mart for its supplies now.

What government agency makes food and drugs?

[Blake]

I think the discussion will be framed a different way, simply because the SCOTUS has now set a precedent that sexual orientation is a protected class (back in 2013) under the 5th and potentially the 14th amendment. That puts the conversation squarely on a clash of equal protection vs religious freedom. How they decide is anyone's guess, and largely will probably depend on the merits of each case, but when it comes to constitutional questions, they're very unlikely to pass (even more so if there's different decisions from lower courts, which I don't know if it's the case here, but one would suspect it will be over time unless there's guidance from the higher court). I can see it getting delayed until there's a full SCOTUS, but I would expect them to tackle it head on.

At any rate, even a lower court tackling this is per se government intervention.

I expect the SCOTUS won't have to tackle much if Congress amends the CRA of 64......which I'm guessing will happen sooner than later

[ElNono]

I expect the SCOTUS won't have to tackle much if Congress amends the CRA of 64......which I'm guessing will happen sooner than later

I'm not so sure about that with the current political climate. Perhaps if Shillary wins, but even then, the current Congressional makeup would have to change.

[Chinook]

Where will blacks go to use their food stamps or medicare if Walmart etc and doctors deny them service?

First, we're not talking food stamps here. We're talking actual money that people have but can't use because the store refuse them service. Second, I don't see why food stamps wouldn't work at a government store. Third, there are such things are public hospitals, you know. In fact, I assume more are public.


What government agency makes food and drugs?

You realize that Walmart is usually not actual manufacturer of their own goods, right? And they certainly aren't the ones growing the food.

[Chinook]

I expect the SCOTUS won't have to tackle much if Congress amends the CRA of 64......which I'm guessing will happen sooner than later

You still need the court to uphold that individuals are bound by it. They usually aren't, and Congress' ability to use the Commerce Clause to extend into local businesses has actually been reduced recently. A place like Walmart would be subject, but a person having a side business photographing weddings is a different story.

[Th'Pusher]

The second paragraph isn't as clear as I'd like. But I said that if I were banned from going to Walmart because of my race, I'd go to Target or K-Mart until social pressure forced the store to reintegrate. The only time I'd feel the government should interfere is if there's no reasonable way to work around that business discriminating. Like if Walmart was the only store in town and didn't let black people shop there, then the government should step in to guarantee that people have access to basic supplies.

Let's say there is a small town in the south that has a Walmart and local hardware store. The local hardware store explicitly discriminates against blacks. There is a subset of the population that doesn't care that the hardware store discriminates against blacks which allows it to remain profitable and stay in business.

Since the local black population can shop at Walmart to get everything they could potentially buy at the hardware store, is it your position that the state should not compell the hardware store not to discriminate against blacks?

[Chinook]

Let's say there is a small town in the south that has a Walmart and local hardware store. The local hardware store explicitly discriminates against blacks. There is a subset of the population that doesn't care that the hardware store discriminates against blacks which allows it to remain profitable and stay in business.

Since the local black population can shop at Walmart to get everything they could potentially buy at the hardware store, is it your position that the state should not compell the hardware store not to discriminate against blacks?

Yep. And I don't think the state would have to lift a finger. Public pressure is real, and even though that store may get customers, it would probably lose vendors, especially if the vendors aren't local. Look what happened to the cake place. They were ruined long before the Oregon court got to them.

[Blake]

You still need the court to uphold that individuals are bound by it. They usually aren't, and Congress' ability to use the Commerce Clause to extend into local businesses has actually been reduced recently. A place like Walmart would be subject, but a person having a side business photographing weddings is a different story.

The Court has already upheld the CRA as constitutional under the commerce clause. Extending the same protection to gays would no doubt be upheld just the same.

[Blake]

First, we're not talking food stamps here. We're talking actual money that people have but can't use because the store refuse them service. Second, I don't see why food stamps wouldn't work at a government store. Third, there are such things are public hospitals, you know. In fact, I assume more are public.



You realize that Walmart is usually not actual manufacturer of their own goods, right? And they certainly aren't the ones growing the food.

What government store are you referring to exactly?

[Spurminator]

"Court: Photographer who wouldn’t work a gay wedding violated anti-discrimination lawBy Molly McDonoughAug 22, 2013, 09:05 pm CDT

A Christian photographer who refused to photograph the wedding of a gay couple violated state anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography, refused to photograph the commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple because she believes marriage is a union between one man and one woman. In May 2012, a*New Mexico appeals court said the refusal violated*the state’s law and Thursday’s decision upholds that finding.

“We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the [New Mexico Human Rights Act] and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,”*the court opined(PDF).

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling.

“When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs,” Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director, said in a statement. “The Constitution guarantees religious freedom in this country, but we are not entitled to use our beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against other people.”

In Thursday’s ruling, the New Mexico court said the state’s anti-discrimination law doesn’t violate free speech guarantees in this case because the law doesn’t compel “Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another.” Indeed, the court noted that Elane Photography could advertise that its owners are personally opposed to same-sex marriage.........


http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/court_photographer_who_wouldnt_work_a_gay_wedding_ violated_antidiscriminati/

This is an overstep, in my opinion. I'm not comfortable with the idea that a person working for a business should be compelled to appear in a setting that violates their beliefs. It's one thing to close your doors to people based on their sexual orientation, but this ruling goes too far.

If I was having strippers at my wedding reception, for example, I wouldn't expect a devout Mormon photographer to be at my wedding to document the event even though strippers at a private function are perfectly legal. On the other hand, I would expect that photographer to not close his/her doors to me and my wife if we came in for studio shots that didn't involve strippers.

I would say the same thing for an atheist photographer who felt uncomfortable in a church.

[Ginobilly]

It's what you literally said in post 87





You're trying to say that homosexuality isn't the same bookend as race.

It is. Science says so.

You can't choose the color of your skin or other traits but you do choose what behavior patterns you do in life. And that's why they get discriminated, because of their behavior, not because of anything else. Why do you think child molesters, pedophiles, rapists, necrophiliacs, sexual deviants,etc have been discriminated throughout human history? Do you think all those people were "born that way"? To genetic predispositions for abnormal behavior that is not conducive for normal healthy human living that propagates life. I used to believe it was purely genetic when I was a young liberal, but as I got older and experienced the real world I changed my stand on it. Go visit Jails/prisons, shelters, AA groups, Narcotics A groups, to get a closer look of what that lifestyle is really like.

[Spurminator]

And that's why they get discriminated, because of their behavior, not because of anything else. Why do you think child molesters, pedophiles, rapists, necrophiliacs, sexual deviants,etc have been discriminated throughout human history? Do you think all those people were "born that way"

This is a great point, because on the other hand history has no examples of people being discriminated upon based on their race or other "born" traits.

[Chinook]

The Court has already upheld the CRA as constitutional under the commerce clause. Extending the same protection to gays would no doubt be upheld just the same.

Again, the Commerce Clause is actually being rolled back a little by the SCOTUS. The ACA was limited by the Court declaring that the federal government couldn't force people to buy health insurance.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/an-important-new-limit-on-the-commerce-clause/?_r=0


While the health care legislation itself survived, the limitation of Congressional power under the commerce clause is likely to have far-reaching consequences, and the decision may prove a Pyrrhic victory for liberal supporters of Congress’s expansive power. Some Libertarians, while disappointed that the law was not struck down, were celebrating the stake the court drove into the heart of the commerce clause.

“We finally won a three-decades-long battle over the commerce clause,” said John Eastman, a conservative and a professor at Chapman University.


The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the act under Congress’s taxing power, but a strong libertarian argument runs through that part of the opinion, too. Chief Justice Roberts made clear that the health care act survived because the “penalty” for not buying health insurance functioned as a tax, and is sufficiently modest that individuals remain free to opt out of the mandate if they wish by simply paying a tax.

So yeah, we don't know where it's going to go, and Court didn't extend the Civil Rights Act completely. Both major court cases about this passed because the Court felt both businesses did enough trade with out-of-state consumers to be considered interstate. As far as I know, a local bakery or a side photography business are not in the same category.

[Blake]

This is an overstep, in my opinion. I'm not comfortable with the idea that a person working for a business should be compelled to appear in a setting that violates their beliefs. It's one thing to close your doors to people based on their sexual orientation, but this ruling goes too far.

If I was having strippers at my wedding reception, for example, I wouldn't expect a devout Mormon photographer to be at my wedding to document the event even though strippers at a private function are perfectly legal. On the other hand, I would expect that photographer to not close his/her doors to me and my wife if we came in for studio shots that didn't involve strippers.

I would say the same thing for an atheist photographer who felt uncomfortable in a church.

In this case, if you don't want to photograph a wedding because strippers are present, you don't have to.....the same way you can turn them down at your studio.

You just can't say you don't want to do it because the couple is gay. That's pretty much as far as it goes.

[Chinook]

What government store are you referring to exactly?

The alternative one that would likely spring up if there is a vacuum in the market. In reality, SOMEONE would build a store at a place where there's a large number of people who need to spend money. But if there isn't such a store, then the government would provide one. That's what it's there for.

[Spurminator]

In this case, if you don't want to photograph a wedding because strippers are present, you don't have to.....the same way you can turn them down at your studio.

You just can't say you don't want to do it because the couple is gay. That's pretty much as far as it goes.

What's the difference? Stripping and gay marriage are equally legal.

[Blake]

The alternative one that would likely spring up if there is a vacuum in the market.

Lol imaginary alternate universe government store for blacks



In reality, SOMEONE would build a store at a place where there's a large number of people who need to spend money. But if there isn't such a store, then the government would provide one. That's what it's there for.

In reality, it's like you have no clue what happened during the era of the Civil Rights movement.

[Blake]

What's the difference? Stripping and gay marriage are equally legal.

Seriously?

[Chinook]

In this case, if you don't want to photograph a wedding because strippers are present, you don't have to.....the same way you can turn them down at your studio.

You just can't say you don't want to do it because the couple is gay. That's pretty much as far as it goes.

Do you not realize the issue with this line of reasoning? You're masquerading a subjective viewpoint as some objective judgment. Some people consider gay weddings to be sinful, unnatural and disgusting. It literally goes against their morals. And some people consider strippers at a party to be sinful, unnatural and disgusting. It literally goes against their morals.

You're telling one group that their disgust is fine and another that their disgust is not fine. But you don't want to state a basis for why we should go along with that. The best you have is relying on what the law says, but that makes no sense for reasons I've already stated.

[Blake]

Again, the Commerce Clause is actually being rolled back a little by the SCOTUS. The ACA was limited by the Court declaring that the federal government couldn't force people to buy health insurance.





So yeah, we don't know where it's going to go, and Court didn't extend the Civil Rights Act completely. Both major court cases about this passed because the Court felt both businesses did enough trade with out-of-state consumers to be considered interstate. As far as I know, a local bakery or a side photography business are not in the same category.

What does that directly have to do with Civil Rights Act?

The answer is nothing and I'm not gonna get off on a worthless tangent.

[Chinook]

Lol imaginary alternate universe government store for blacks

The store wouldn't be for black people. It would be integrated.


You just can't say you don't want to do it because the couple is gay. That's pretty much as far as it goes.

It's like YOU don't know what happened during the Civil Rights Movement. The law didn't force the integration of businesses, socioeconomic pressure did. The boycotts made it unprofitable to segregate or discriminate. The law, especially at the beginning, was to prevent local governments from segregating.

[Blake]

Do you think all those people were "born that way"?

No.

Do you think none of "those people" are "born that way"?

[Chinook]

What does that directly have to do with Civil Rights Act?

The answer is nothing and I'm not gonna get off on a worthless tangent.

The second one was saying that you don't know what the courts have done to extend the Civil Rights Act. Their current test as Nono put it is that the business has to do 75 percent of its business interstate to fall under the commerce clause. Not likely that small businesses like a photographer are doing that, either buying or selling.

The first one is to counter your assumption that the Court is going to keep rolling out the Commerce Clause. The most recent time it was brought up, the Court rejected it.

[Blake]

The store wouldn't be for black people. It would be integrated.

Right, I'm sure there'd be tons of white people willingly shopping in a place where black people are forced to shop.



It's like YOU don't know what happened during the Civil Rights Movement. The law didn't force the integration of businesses, socioeconomic pressure did. The boycotts made it unprofitable to segregate or discriminate. The law, especially at the beginning, was to prevent local governments from segregating.

Riots are just a part of doing business in a free market!

:cry I know you didn't know about the Civil Rights Movement but what am I :cry

[Ginobilly]

This is a great point, because on the other hand history has no examples of people being discriminated upon based on their race or other "born" traits.


yup. I've met "ex homosexuals/tanny's" at AA/NA meeting and some of these guys are happily married with kids now after they snapped out of that lifestyle. Some of these guys said that they went through a supernatural transformation (i.e found Jesus/God/budda etc) and that they no longer get a hard on for other men anymore, and that they slowly started noticing the other gender. So what happens to your "gay rights", protected class status after you feel that your not gay anymore?

[Chinook]

Right, I'm sure there'd be tons of white people willingly shopping in a place where black people are forced to shop.

Yeah. Why not?


Riots are just a part of doing business in a free market!

You know, because the sit-ins and boycotts at the start of the movement were actually riots...


:cry I know you didn't know about the Civil Rights Movement but what am I :cry

There's little defense for you when you try to act like Congress forced the first businesses to integrate. Hell, they didn't even force collegiate sports to integrate. You seem to have no idea how civil rights work.

[clambake]

lol

[Blake]

The second one was saying that you don't know what the courts have done to extend the Civil Rights Act. Their current test as Nono put it is that the business has to do 75 percent of its business interstate to fall under the commerce clause. Not likely that small businesses like a photographer are doing that, either buying or selling.

The first one is to counter your assumption that the Court is going to keep rolling out the Commerce Clause. The most recent time it was brought up, the Court rejected it.

So in effect, nothing. Worthless tangent.

[Blake]

Yeah. Why not?

Rofl

[Chinook]

So in effect, nothing. Worthless tangent.

So to recap, you're like "The Court has already decided the CRA extends to small businesses, so they just have to allow gays." I'm like, "The Court hasn't actually said anything about small businesses like photographers and bakers," and you're like, "That has nothing to do with what I said."

[Chinook]

Rofl

You're laughing at the idea of white people shopping at a store where black people shop. Is this real life?

But great job crawfishing about the Civil Rights Movement.

[Blake]

So to recap, you're like "The Court has already decided the CRA extends to small businesses, so they just have to allow gays." I'm like, "The Court hasn't actually said anything about small businesses like photographers and bakers," and you're like, "That has nothing to do with what I said."

And I'm like "you're going on a worthless tangent" and you're like "I'm the rubber you're the glue"

[Blake]

You're laughing at the idea of white people shopping at a store where black people shop. Is this real life?

No, we clarified already that this is only in your alternate reality

[Chinook]

And I'm like "you're going on a worthless tangent" and you're like "I'm the rubber you're the glue"

There hasn't been a rubber-glue statement in this line of discussion. It's just been you not wanting to admit that you didn't know what the Court has done to extend the Civil Rights Act to local businesses.

[Chinook]

No, we clarified already that this is only in your alternate reality

You were laughing this exchange:



Right, I'm sure there'd be tons of white people willingly shopping in a place where black people are forced to shop. Yeah. Why not?

If you had a segregated store and an integrated store, do you really think that you wouldn't see white people (hell, most white people) shopping at the integrated store? Was the Civil Rights Movement a black-only thing in your mind? Is the Gay Rights Movement an LGBT-only thing?

[spurraider21]

You're woefully ignorant on this issue, but because you have the liberal view, you assume it's the educated stance, and anyone who disagrees with you is just anti-intellectual.
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Fry-Clapping-With-Sandwiches.gif

[Spurminator]

Seriously?

Yes, they are seriously both legal. Why can someone refuse to photograph a reception with strippers but they can't refuse one with two men getting married? Those are both legal things that offend the sensibilities of the photographer.

[Chinook]

Yes, they are seriously both legal. Why can someone refuse to photograph a reception with strippers but they can't refuse one with two men getting married? Those are both legal things that offend the sensibilities of the photographer.

Some people can't wrap their heads around the fact that morality and vulgarity are subjective. They don't think about the objecting people or their rights. They only care about protecting their side.

[Blake]

There hasn't been a rubber-glue statement in this line of discussion. It's just been you not wanting to admit that you didn't know what the Court has done to extend the Civil Rights Act to local businesses.

Lol you even capitalized YOU in the "no, YOU are the one...."

[Blake]

You were laughing this exchange:



If you had a segregated store and an integrated store, do you really think that you wouldn't see white people (hell, most white people) shopping at the integrated store? Was the Civil Rights Movement a black-only thing in your mind? Is the Gay Rights Movement an LGBT-only thing?

K, put an imaginary number on your imaginary store:

What percent of shoppers are willing white people on your average day?

Blacks? Other?

[Chinook]

Lol you even capitalized YOU in the "no, YOU are the one...."

That's a different line of discussion. That one was about a government alternative to a store, and this one is about the Civil Rights Act and how far the Commerce Clause can extend it. I said nothing in this line of discussion that is supposed to reflect your criticisms back at you. The store one, yes, because it's clear you were trying to throw stones when you were the actual offender. But don't blame me if you can't keep this straight in your head.

Again, though, I love how you gave up on trying to hide behind the Commerce Clause and resorted to trying to lol your way out of trouble.

[Chinook]

K, put an imaginary number on your imaginary store:

What percent of shoppers are willing white people on your average day?

Blacks? Other?

That's dependent on the store's location. In rural Mississippi, maybe not that many (45 percent-ish). In Cali or Austin, probably about 80 percent. Where are you going with this?

[Blake]

Yes, they are seriously both legal. Why can someone refuse to photograph a reception with strippers but they can't refuse one with two men getting married? Those are both legal things that offend the sensibilities of the photographer.

Are there kids at this wedding?

Just curious

[Blake]

That's dependent on the store's location. In rural Mississippi, maybe not that many (45 percent-ish). In Cali or Austin, probably about 80 percent. Where are you going with this?

Rofl you think a government store in Austin where the only place blacks can go for food will be made up of 80% white shoppers? Even with Walmart, Target, HEB and Piggly Wiggly being black free?

Rofl.this is so good. .

[Blake]

That's a different line of discussion. That one was about a government alternative to a store, and this one is about the Civil Rights Act and how far the Commerce Clause can extend it. I said nothing in this line of discussion that is supposed to reflect your criticisms back at you. The store one, yes, because it's clear you were trying to throw stones when you were the actual offender. But don't blame me if you can't keep this straight in your head.

Again, though, I love how you gave up on trying to hide behind the Commerce Clause and resorted to trying to lol your way out of trouble.

Lol hiding behind the Commerce Clause. You're all over the place.

[Chinook]

Rofl you think a government store in Austin where the only place blacks can go for food will be made up of 80% white shoppers? Even with Walmart, Target, HEB and Piggly Wiggly being black free?

Rofl.this is so good. .

In the interest of fairness, I took your question to mean what percentage of white people would shop there, rather than what percentage of shoppers are while. I apologize for that.

But yeah, I do think that the social pressure is great enough to where even people that would shop at the alternative stores over HEB and the like. The only reason why they wouldn't is if the alternative stores can't handle the volume of shoppers. But people don't like being called out as being racists, at least not most of them. The public shaming that would happen to people shopping at segregated stores would be astounding, and it would probably only take a week or so of boycotting the other stores to force them to change.

[Blake]

So to recap, you're like "The Court has already decided the CRA extends to small businesses, so they just have to allow gays." I'm like, "The Court hasn't actually said anything about small businesses like photographers and bakers," and you're like, "That has nothing to do with what I said."


The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday it won’t take up a case in which a New Mexico photography business alleges its rights were violated when it landed in hot water for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony. - See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/04/07/supreme-court-wont-hear-n-m-photographer-case/#sthash.GENAuAwk.dpuf

You good now or you wanna keep on with this

[Chinook]

Lol hiding behind the Commerce Clause. You're all over the place.

You are hiding behind the Commerce Clause and your lack of understanding of the Civil Rights Act. That's why you've given up that whole line of argument. That's why you've given up almost every line of argument you've had (not that there are many). You think crawfishing while loling allows you to save face. You're not fooling anyone here.

[Blake]

In the interest of fairness, I took your question to mean what percentage of white people would shop there, rather than what percentage of shoppers are while. I apologize for that.

No problem. What's your updated percentage then.

[Blake]

You are hiding behind the Commerce Clause and your lack of understanding of the Civil Rights Act. That's why you've given up that whole line of argument. That's why you've given up almost every line of argument you've had (not that there are many). You think crawfishing while loling allows you to save face. You're not fooling anyone here.

Lol crawfishing

[Shastafarian]

Yes, they are seriously both legal. Why can someone refuse to photograph a reception with strippers but they can't refuse one with two men getting married? Those are both legal things that offend the sensibilities of the photographer.

Um, what about the "Miller Test"? Wouldn't that apply in that situation?

[Chinook]

You good now or you wanna keep on with this

The Court refusing the hear a case is not them making a ruling against it. That's especially true given the turmoil in the Court right now. It sure doesn't mean that extended the Commerce Clause to this situation. In fact, it implies the opposite, as the SCOTUS is essentially saying that this is a state affair rather than a national one.

[Chinook]

No problem. What's your updated percentage then.

Just looking at the census data online and spit-balling, I'd guess it would be close to 40 percent in MS and close to 65 percent in Austin.

[Chinook]

Um, what about the "Miller Test"? Wouldn't that apply in that situation?

Could see that being a template for a similar test, but that doesn't get you past hog-killing parties, which have scientific and cultural value, and have nothing to do with sex.

[Shastafarian]

Just as with Blake I find myself flabbergasted at how progressives are trying to play the government card right now. The whole point of progressivism is to push for rights that the government isn't currently protecting. Why don't you leave progressive agendas to progressives because what you state here is not accurate.


Are we talking about custom cakes or dick-shaped cakes here? Obviously, if this was a store that sells penis-shaped cakes on the regular, then it would be absurd of them to deny a frat's money. But if this was a custom cake shop and they denied the request because of their morals, then yeah, it's a murkier issue than you're making it out to be.What morals? What is their specific objection? Be specific in your analogy.




Pointless statement. As was yours.




So you've demonstrated that you struggle to understand what an analogy is supposed to be used for. I'm not arguing that killing animals is the same as getting married to someone of the same sex. I am arguing that objecting to photographing the killing of animals due to moral reasons is analogous to objecting to photographing a same-sex ceremony for moral reasons.Except that it's not because your analogy doesn't use analogous situations. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT

Your argument against that so far has been pretty much, "Come on, killing animals is way worse." And that's silly. Hog killing parties are people killing animals for food. You can think it's gross all you want, but slaughtering livestock is a fundamental part of human life, and unless you're a perfect vegan, you owe much of your existence to people who are willing to do it. That you try to brand the act as somehow unfit for normal people is pretty prejudiced. Never said killing animals is "Way worse" but rather that KILLING a living thing can actually been seen as objectionable whereas watching gay people get married is only objectionable to homophobes. I know you want to protect their right to be homophobes, which is fine, but that right shouldn't extend to discriminating others. This is where we differ.



Dude, I've stated that I don't believe it's an opinion too many times in this thread for you to not have seen it.:lol You've said it's not an opinion yet you continue to maintain that this is merely a case of people DISAGREEING with gay people on their right to marry each other. That language implies it is an opinion.




They aren't.You say this but I get the feeling you're not totally understanding it.




They're saying that when solicited, maybe. You make it sound like these folks are disrupting ceremonies to say gays are going to hell. They aren't. You won't ever be able to govern thoughts out of people's heads, so if your issue is the beliefs they have, you're gonna be SOL. They are saying it with their actions! They're not literally saying that unless they're complete morons. But what other reason would someone have if they cite "religious beliefs" as the reason they are refusing service?




The issue is that hasn't been completely established. Certain laws and court cases have limited the ways in which people can be discriminated against, but there are still more. There's a reason why people like Rush and Robertson haven't been censored. And there's a reason why the government wouldn't be caught dead endorsing discrimination in their own ranks. Those are the two bookends on the continuum of how involved the government is in deterring discrimination. Issues like what happened in Oregon and what's going on in Missouri are the current frontier in the fight to see where on that continuum our society sits right now. Even over this specific point, it's going to be a long battle.Long battle? I doubt it. You'll have to come here in a year or two and explain why you were on the losing side of this battle.



Do you not understand there are multiple minorities in this situation? There are gay people who are the minorities in the general populace. And there are the bigots, who are also the minority, as the majority of people in this country (us being included) don't agree with their beliefs. Both groups need to have their rights respected.:rollin No, they don't. Or did segregationists and people who refused to marry interracial couples deserve to have their "rights" respected too?

You're only looking at this from the perspective of the group you support, but it's more complicated that than.It's not.

Even when it sucks, the country has to stick to it's principles. The same thing is true when guilty people go free because our court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't go around squashing dissenting opinions. It will turn out badly for everyone in the end.It's not a dissenting OPINION. When these people refuse services they go from opinion to action. Again, how do you not see this?




It seems like you're one of those people who tries to tell minorities how they feel and just ignore their opinions. You know nothing about me, so you don't know what type of discrimination I've had to deal with. The argument that the only way I can disagree with you is if I am callous to gay people is silly. If you only put yourself in one person's shoes, you'll end up making extremely biased decisions. That's why you don't see deontological systems based on such reasoning.I don't know you. I'm going by what you say, which shows a severe lack of empathy.

[Shastafarian]

Could see that being a template for a similar test, but that doesn't get you past hog-killing parties, which have scientific and cultural value, and have nothing to do with sex.

What's the scientific value? And I don't know of specific laws or regulations, but if it ever went to a higher court there is 0 chance someone would be forced to watch anything labeled a "killing party". Your analogies continue to suck.

[Chinook]

Why don't you leave progressive agendas to progressives because what you state here is not accurate.


2.(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

If it's already implemented, then it's not new. If it's already established, it's not reform.


What morals? What is their specific objection? Be specific in your analogy.

I was pretty specific. "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Seems like a moral stance to me. Obviously the religion part is a moral stance. It simply doesn't matter that you don't support the latter side.



Never said killing animals is "Way worse" but rather that KILLING a living thing can actually been seen as objectionable whereas watching gay people get married is only objectionable to homophobes.

You say this like it's an objective difference, but it's not.



:lol You've said it's not an opinion yet you continue to maintain that this is merely a case of people DISAGREEING with gay people on their right to marry each other. That language implies it is an opinion.

Um, yes, marriage equality is an issue with two sides. There has been and will be disagreement. The question of choice has nothing to do with it.


They are saying it with their actions!

That's not good enough. You don't get to run up on someone say, "Accept me!" and then be offended when they decline.


Long battle? I doubt it. You'll have to come here in a year or two and explain why you were on the losing side of this battle.

The Court choosing to table this issue this year means it could well be a long battle yet.


:rollin No, they don't. Or did segregationists and people who refused to marry interracial couples deserve to have their "rights" respected too?

YES! MFing yes!. That's what it means to have freedom of opinion in this country. They are people who pay taxes and follow this country's laws. They absolutely deserve to have their rights respected when they represent themselves. Do they have the same rights when the represent the government? No. That's why the woman who refused to issue the marriage license was wrong.


It's not a dissenting OPINION. When these people refuse services they go from opinion to action. Again, how do you not see this?

Speaking is an action too. But in places that aren't Oregon, NM and Colorado where you aren't legally obligated to serve everyone, refusing to do so is just exercising your rights.


I don't know you. I'm going by what you say, which shows a severe lack of empathy.

I have a tolerance for people who disagree with me, and I know that you can't make a moral system by only looking at one side. Too often people pull that "what if it were you?" card, and you will end up making bad decisions if you get trapped into relying on that logic.

[Chinook]

What's the scientific value? And I don't know of specific laws or regulations, but if it ever went to a higher court there is 0 chance someone would be forced to watch anything labeled a "killing party". Your analogies continue to suck.

People need food to eat. Maybe scientific means only educational, but I think fulfilling a biological necessity should fit. Its lack of a sexual nature still means it fails the Miller test, though. So you have to come up with a better justification for your reasoning besides "everyone knows I'm right".

[Spurminator]

Are there kids at this wedding?

Just curious

There may be.

[Spurminator]

Um, what about the "Miller Test"? Wouldn't that apply in that situation?

The Miller Test relates to what can be determined obscene and protected by the First Amendment, so I'm not sure how it relates to a person's right to abstain from exposure to obscenity at a private event, if at all. But say it's a striptease, if that works better. Very PG-13.

I think you guys are getting too hung up on the hypothetical.

[Blake]

There may be.

Damn, then there might be some people going to jail on felony charges.

As it is, in a public place, it would be indecent exposure. Not legal.

[Blake]

The Miller Test relates to what can be determined obscene and protected by the First Amendment, so I'm not sure how it relates to a person's right to abstain from exposure to obscenity at a private event, if at all. But say it's a striptease, if that works better. Very PG-13.

I think you guys are getting too hung up on the hypothetical.

No, if you're going with the stripping hypothetical, go all out, rated xxx

[Spurminator]

Damn, then there might be some people going to jail on felony charges.

As it is, in a public place, it would be indecent exposure. Not legal.

It's a private reception. Parents can choose to bring their kids to a private event regardless of the content, in most cases.

[Blake]

Just looking at the census data online and spit-balling, I'd guess it would be close to 40 percent in MS and close to 65 percent in Austin.

Roffffffllllll 65% in Austin

[Blake]

It's a private reception. Parents can choose to bring their kids to a private event regardless of the content, in most cases.

Lol no, you can't expose your kids to strippers under any circumstance. Good lord.

[Spurminator]

Lol no, you can't expose your kids to strippers under any circumstance. Good lord.
Guess you'll have to tell all the parents who bring their kids to Burning Man and that Juggalos party in the woods, among other things. Anyway, back to the photographer, who is not a child...

[spurraider21]

Lol you even capitalized YOU in the "no, YOU are the one...."


Rofl you think a government store in Austin where the only place blacks can go for food will be made up of 80% white shoppers? Even with Walmart, Target, HEB and Piggly Wiggly being black free?

Rofl.this is so good. .


Lol hiding behind the Commerce Clause. You're all over the place.


Lol crawfishing


Roffffffllllll 65% in Austin


Lol no, you can't expose your kids to strippers under any circumstance. Good lord.
do you realize that you are basically dabom? only difference is he just says "lmao" at the end instead of the beginning and includes emoticons

[Blake]

do you realize that you are basically dabom? only difference is he just says "lmao" at the end instead of the beginning and includes emoticons

I guess if I find someone else that tracks lol and emoticons stats, I'll call them a spurraider.

Lol :tu

[Blake]

Guess you'll have to tell all the parents who bring their kids to Burning Man and that Juggalos party in the woods, among other things. Anyway, back to the photographer, who is not a child...

Doesn't matter, it's indecent exposure. I'm guessing if there's nudity at Burning Man, it's art.

[ElNono]

yup. I've met "ex homosexuals/tanny's" at AA/NA meeting and some of these guys are happily married with kids now after they snapped out of that lifestyle. Some of these guys said that they went through a supernatural transformation (i.e found Jesus/God/budda etc) and that they no longer get a hard on for other men anymore, and that they slowly started noticing the other gender. So what happens to your "gay rights", protected class status after you feel that your not gay anymore?

I suppose the same that happens to religious freedom when a christian turns into an atheist???

[Spurminator]

Doesn't matter, it's indecent exposure. I'm guessing if there's nudity at Burning Man, it's art.

If you want to call people walking around naked and having sex in the woods, art, I have no issue with that. Indecent exposure is only an issue when the parents of the exposed are not present or were unaware.

But like I said, back to the photographer who is an adult and doesn't want to photograph a wedding with legal nudity...

[Blake]

If you want to call people walking around naked and having sex in the woods, art, I have no issue with that. Indecent exposure is only an issue when the parents of the exposed are not present or were unaware.

But like I said, back to the photographer who is an adult and doesn't want to photograph a wedding with legal nudity...

I don't know enough about Burning Man.

Back to the photographer......you can't force someone to take pictures of indecent exposure. Strip clubs are legal, stripping in public is not.

[Spurminator]

I don't know enough about Burning Man.

Back to the photographer......you can't force someone to take pictures of indecent exposure. Strip clubs are legal, stripping in public is not.

Hiring strippers for a private event is legal. Nobody said he was taking pictures of the strippers, just that strippers would be there and he is uncomfortable with that.

[Blake]

I suppose the same that happens to religious freedom when a christian turns into an atheist???

Det Christian gene tho