Missouri loves companies right to discriminate

[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 sexuality 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 ins utions 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 that someone has written down anyway).

[Blake]

Like can a bakery refuse to make a -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 cake.

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

[Chinook]

Lolololol you think there's a slippery slope for having to make a 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 ins utions 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 .

[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 -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 cake or photo a hog slaughter.

Slippery slopes.

[Chinook]

Nobody is arguing that the government should force them to make a 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.