Missouri loves companies right to discriminate

[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 bull 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 bull about "religious convictions" is just a ruse to make phobia 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 s fish. 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 sexual unions (spoiler: not much):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-je..._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 bull 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 sexuality 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 bull about "religious convictions" is just a ruse to make phobia 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 s fish. 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 sexual unions (spoiler: not much):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-je..._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

, 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 bull 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 sexuality 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 sexuals 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 sexuality 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 s fish. 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 s fish 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 -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]

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

Right, you're saying the same 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 s fish 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 -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 sexuality 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 sexuals 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 sexuality 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?