Jump to content


Photo

LGBT Rights (Part 4)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
837 replies to this topic

#21 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,439 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 29 June 2015 - 01:42 PM


That's an extremely dangerous door to open.

 

No, not really. That door is only opened when you're bent on following up a simple point with non sequiturs. It should have been obvious that I do not mean to say that needs of the LGBT community are specific needs in the same sense one "needs" an injection. The specificity of the analogy has nothing to do with the point of the analogy, which is to show that equal treatment does not necessarily preclude discrimination (and sometimes constitutes it). 

 

I say you're following my point with non sequiturs because neither my analogy nor the LGBT situation involve the law being "slanted" towards a group, something which nearly all your examples presuppose. Both hetero/homosexual people and injection A/B people are being treated the same way after the law is reformed, in that they still have equal rights. Instead of one group being granted a preferential treatment (what I take "slanting" to mean), the law was made broad enough to accommodate both groups, without inconveniencing either. In that sense, it is no longer discriminatory. 

 

 

 

Why can't I argue that the Christian and Muslim communities of certain states don't have a need to see God's will (the way they interpret it) enforced on earth?

 

You can argue any position you want, as this forum and the rest of the internet makes evident.

The issue is how successful you are.


Edited by Tale, 29 June 2015 - 01:43 PM.

  • Goddess Nike likes this

#22 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 29 June 2015 - 01:53 PM


Instead of one group being granted a preferential treatment (what I take "slanting" to mean), the law was made broad enough to accommodate both groups, without inconveniencing either. In that sense, it is no longer discriminatory. 

 

Alright, with respect to the need to marry the sex that you are sexually attracted to, the law is no longer discriminatory. But how far can this group go to maintain this need? Can they start forcing Pastors Imams and Priests to wed same sex couples now under the threat of a lawsuit? Isn't that discriminatory to their need to maintain their religious beliefs? 


Edited by TridentPuff, 29 June 2015 - 01:54 PM.


#23 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,439 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 29 June 2015 - 02:02 PM

Alright, with respect to the need to marry the sex that you are sexually attracted to, the law is no longer discriminatory. But how far can this group go to maintain this need? Can they start forcing Pastors Rabbis Imams and Priests to wed same sex couples now under the threat of a lawsuit? Isn't that discriminatory to their religious beliefs? 

 

I would answer no to the second question. While I don't have much sympathy for religious beliefs or traditions (especially those most relevant to this thread), I don't think the law gives anyone the right (or should give them the right) to force other people to twist their religious traditions or doctrines to accommodate you. 

 

(I'm assuming those traditions are distinct from their secular counterparts. If, for instance, someone is required (by his or her position or whatever) to recognize or wed a homosexual couple in a secular context and refuses to do it on the basis of religious beliefs, then I think it would be fair to say that person is shirking his or her duties, in much the same way someone who refuses to teach the required curriculum or administer the right medicine would be shirking his duties).


Edited by Tale, 29 June 2015 - 02:04 PM.

  • Goddess Nike likes this

#24 ryuzaki07

ryuzaki07

    N00b

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • LocationOuter Haven

Posted 29 June 2015 - 02:58 PM

Laws on one matter don't just magically disappear just because a law on another matter was changed. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't change anything in existing pedophilia laws. Why would it? It's not like hetero-marriage overrules the rule either.

I know. Hence why i said "bypass". Perhaps the new laws writing allows for one thing to happen that overrides another. Like, theres a logic loophole.


Posted Image


#25 retroluffy13

retroluffy13

    Keeper of the Beasts

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,873 posts

Posted 29 June 2015 - 03:35 PM

I know. Hence why i said "bypass". Perhaps the new laws writing allows for one thing to happen that overrides another. Like, theres a logic loophole.

the American alchhol companies agree with this.

not sure how the rest of the world would feel doe.

Edited by retroluffy13, 29 June 2015 - 03:35 PM.

 this is a music video I made for a friend of mine.  give it a listen.  the visuals are pretty dope

Spoiler


also some ear kandy
Spoiler

when you love something..  and I mean. really love it.  you fight for it for as long as you can until you cant stand any longer.  then when its all said and done, walk away with a smile hoping you did right.


#26 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 29 June 2015 - 11:31 PM

Imagine if the gay marriage law has a bypass for pedophily.

Like, say a male 15 yo and a 40 yo decide to get married, and because none of the states can deny gay marriage no more they get married with no issues.

Let's hope the law took that into consideration.

An 80 year old can marry a 18 year old legally. i dont get your point. 

in the 1700, 1800s people got married at 12.  you are pulling strings. 


 

Alright, with respect to the need to marry the sex that you are sexually attracted to, the law is no longer discriminatory. But how far can this group go to maintain this need? Can they start forcing Pastors Imams and Priests to wed same sex couples now under the threat of a lawsuit? Isn't that discriminatory to their need to maintain their religious beliefs? 

Yes. That's exactly what will happen . A baker has already been sued for not making a gay cake. Disgusting people breaking the 1st amendment just for their own selfish needs


Edited by Miss.J, 29 June 2015 - 11:31 PM.

"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#27 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,470 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 June 2015 - 09:38 AM

Yes. That's exactly what will happen . A baker has already been sued for not making a gay cake. Disgusting people breaking the 1st amendment just for their own selfish needs

That was discrimination, they wasn't being force to marry the gay couple. They wasn't being force to give that couple holy communion. They are a damn bakery and their job is to bake cakes.

 

Even so the government does tell the church who and who they cannot marry. A priest cannot marry a 14 years old with a 18 years old. Marriage have nothing to do with religion in the first place.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#28 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 30 June 2015 - 10:09 AM


That was discrimination, they wasn't being force to marry the gay couple. They wasn't being force to give that couple holy communion. They are a damn bakery and their job is to bake cakes.

 

That is a reductionist sentiment.  In this country, we have many types of business which were all (hopefully) freely chosen to be owned and operated.  We have big giant corporations with big giant corporate values.  We have itty bitty mum and pop shops with itty bitty mum and pop values.  We have secular businesses and we have religious businesses.  For example, there are shops operated by Jewish people which sell kosher products and do not sell anything that goes against their religion.  There are catholic pharmacists who own their own places that do not stock birth control of any variety.  Many catholic companies refuse to provide medical benefits for abortion or birth control. There are many Christian stores which do not operate on Sunday or refuse to provide birth control.

 

Because as it turns out, religious identity is no less important than any other identity.  And many religions and religious folk, oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general.   They oppose as they do other topics.  It is simply unfair to suggest that anyone should be able to force another set of people to perform a business transaction for them if they do not wish to on the basis of religious conduct simply because they are a business.  This is nowhere near the same argument that was being used to discriminate against black people and to call it discrimination is an affront to the history of discrimination.  There are many cake shops in the world that make delicious baked goods.  There is no reason except being pigheaded and demanding to be considered normal and accepted that anyone would force someone who does not agree with their choices to make them a cake.

 


Even so the government does tell the church who and who they cannot marry. A priest cannot marry a 14 years old with a 18 years old. Marriage have nothing to do with religion in the first place.

 

Have you met even one religious person that was married into a church?  Of course marriage has something to do with religion for SOME people.  And many churches will not want to marry gay people because doing so directly opposes their religion.  


  • Phenomiracle likes this

tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#29 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,470 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 June 2015 - 11:00 AM

That is a reductionist sentiment.  In this country, we have many types of business which were all (hopefully) freely chosen to be owned and operated.  We have big giant corporations with big giant corporate values.  We have itty bitty mum and pop shops with itty bitty mum and pop values.  We have secular businesses and we have religious businesses.  For example, there are shops operated by Jewish people which sell kosher products and do not sell anything that goes against their religion.  There are catholic pharmacists who own their own places that do not stock birth control of any variety.  Many catholic companies refuse to provide medical benefits for abortion or birth control. There are many Christian stores which do not operate on Sunday or refuse to provide birth control.

 

Because as it turns out, religious identity is no less important than any other identity.  And many religions and religious folk, oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general.   They oppose as they do other topics.  It is simply unfair to suggest that anyone should be able to force another set of people to perform a business transaction for them if they do not wish to on the basis of religious conduct simply because they are a business.  This is nowhere near the same argument that was being used to discriminate against black people and to call it discrimination is an affront to the history of discrimination.  There are many cake shops in the world that make delicious baked goods.  There is no reason except being pigheaded and demanding to be considered normal and accepted that anyone would force someone who does not agree with their choices to make them a cake.

 

 

Yes, it is the same. Think if those people did it to a black person. They decide that they didn't want to serve them. What would you called that. They are bakers they bake cakes. They cannot decide what their cakes are use for. Now, if the make pizza than no you cannot force them to make a cake for you.

 

Then when does it stop. If every walmart decide tomorrow to stop selling to gays because of their religion than will you be fine with it?


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#30 Passingby

Passingby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • LocationWindy City

Posted 30 June 2015 - 01:22 PM

Rehash from thread 1 and 2:
 
So if a religious sculptor who makes a living sculpting religious figures is propositioned by a customer to make him a sculpture of Jesus Christ for the sole purpose of desecrating said sculpture, should the sculpture oblige or is he able to deny this customer business?
 
How about a gay sign maker propositioned by activists to make them signs that is to be used to rally against LGBT rights, should the gay person oblige?
 
Or how about a caucasian actor auditioning for a role as MLK, should the production be sued for discrimination if they chose an african american actor instead?
 
Perhaps an african american tailor should oblige when propositioned by a KKK member to provide him some hoods?
 
Business always reserve the right to deny business if it's something that is against their own corporate value or if they at their discretion think that doing business with a customer would result to some other violation(s).
 
I'm of the opinion that usually people who file frivolous lawsuits such as the case with that of the baker are those with malicious intent rather than actual convictions. It honestly is a waste of time, money, and most of all a cause of undue hardship to the business owner. It's actually very disgusting.

Edited by Passingby, 30 June 2015 - 01:23 PM.

  • TridentPuff, Phenomiracle, Misty and 1 other like this

YouTube: • MV 레드벨벳 • 

 

crYWlPI.gif

RED VELVET


#31 ryuzaki07

ryuzaki07

    N00b

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,560 posts
  • LocationOuter Haven

Posted 30 June 2015 - 01:26 PM


An 80 year old can marry a 18 year old legally. i dont get your point. 
in the 1700, 1800s people got married at 12.  you are pulling strings. 

It aint a point, im just wondering if the new law has any logic loopholes. 


Posted Image


#32 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,088 posts

Posted 30 June 2015 - 01:43 PM

 

Rehash from thread 1 and 2:
 
So if a religious sculptor who makes a living sculpting religious figures is propositioned by a customer to make him a sculpture of Jesus Christ for the sole purpose of desecrating said sculpture, should the sculpture oblige or is he able to deny this customer business?
 
How about a gay sign maker propositioned by activists to make them signs that is to be used to rally against LGBT rights, should the gay person oblige?
 
Or how about a caucasian actor auditioning for a role as MLK, should the production be sued for discrimination if they chose an african american actor instead?
 
Perhaps an african american tailor should oblige when propositioned by a KKK member to provide him some hoods?
 
Business always reserve the right to deny business if it's something that is against their own corporate value or if they at their discretion think that doing business with a customer would result to some other violation(s).
 
I'm of the opinion that usually people who file frivolous lawsuits such as the case with that of the baker are those with malicious intent rather than actual convictions. It honestly is a waste of time, money, and most of all a cause of undue hardship to the business owner. It's actually very disgusting.

 

 

All those are examples of a customer subverting your brand and therefore reputation and image with malicious intent.

 

Gay people asking for a cake (ex: wedding cake) is not the same as any of the above. That level of discrimination falls along the lines of refusing to bake a cake for customer because she's a woman or she's black or she's engaged to an indonesian.


Edited by DarkNemesis, 30 June 2015 - 01:44 PM.

  • waleuska likes this

Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#33 Passingby

Passingby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,508 posts
  • LocationWindy City

Posted 30 June 2015 - 02:02 PM

If the baker denied the gay couple a cake, not a "wedding" cake, but just a good ole' cake for any kind of occasion besides their wedding, then yes I would agree that he's being discriminatory without viable grounds for it. But no, he was propositioned to partake in the celebration of something that is specifically against his values. It's like a hotel refusing their AV rooms for the use of white supremacist meetings. If it were for a powerpoint presentation of the supremacist's construction company, and the hotel refused them usage of it, just because they're white and racist, then there may be a point for contention, the same way for the gay couple.

  • Phenomiracle and Misty like this

YouTube: • MV 레드벨벳 • 

 

crYWlPI.gif

RED VELVET


#34 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 30 June 2015 - 03:17 PM


Gay people asking for a cake (ex: wedding cake) is not the same as any of the above. That level of discrimination falls along the lines of refusing to bake a cake for customer because she's a woman or she's black or she's engaged to an indonesian.

 

That would assume that said individual has bought into the rhetoric of it "not being a choice".   Which compared to the woman, indonesian, black example is not nearly firmly demonstrated by science. 

 


Yes, it is the same. Think if those people did it to a black person. They decide that they didn't want to serve them. What would you called that. They are bakers they bake cakes. They cannot decide what their cakes are use for. Now, if the make pizza than no you cannot force them to make a cake for you.



Then when does it stop. If every walmart decide tomorrow to stop selling to gays because of their religion than will you be fine with it?

 

We'll go slowly here,  because there is a lot in this small space:

 

The discrimination against black people wasn't just a wedding cake, it was sweeping and generalized to the point of society basically having two of everything (one white, one black).   The discrimination had bled into schools, churches, employment, buses, restaurants, trains, really everything and anything including water fountains. 

 

I'm not even going to call refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple when you don't agree with gay marriage discrimination, because compared to what I very briefly outlined above, it is not even in the same school as it. 

 

People were not "philosophically" opposed to black people in commerce.  They literally believed they were and should be second class citizens.

 

Which other than the most extreme extreme conservatives, the tip of the eagle's right wing feather, has NEVER been the same case for the gay community to get to make. They aren't angry they cannot ride the same bus or eat in a restaurant, they're angry they cannot get a wedding cake from a particular bakery. Do you really need me to outline how offended people who went through that era would and should feel at the mere suggestion they are in any real way alike?  It wasn't about a cake, it was about every section of their life.

 

They are people who bake cakes. People with values. People with values that happen to not agree. They refused to bake those cakes in the capacity of humans, not bakers. They are not a misbehaving tool. 

 

If walmart decides that I would actually applaud them for finally having values they are willing to lose a lot of money to uphold. Just like I applauded Hobby Lobby and the baker, and anyone else who will put their money where their mouth is. 


  • TridentPuff likes this

tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#35 DarkNemesis

DarkNemesis

    Keeper of the Threads

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,088 posts

Posted 30 June 2015 - 04:52 PM

 

If the baker denied the gay couple a cake, not a "wedding" cake, but just a good ole' cake for any kind of occasion besides their wedding, then yes I would agree that he's being discriminatory without viable grounds for it. But no, he was propositioned to partake in the celebration of something that is specifically against his values. It's like a hotel refusing their AV rooms for the use of white supremacist meetings. If it were for a powerpoint presentation of the supremacist's construction company, and the hotel refused them usage of it, just because they're white and racist, then there may be a point for contention, the same way for the gay couple.

 

 


That would assume that said individual has bought into the rhetoric of it "not being a choice". Which compared to the woman, indonesian, black example is not nearly firmly demonstrated by science.

 

So I did a quick google and found this: http://www.gotquesti...l-marriage.html. It's interesting because though there's nothing against interracial marriage, inter-religious marriage is a problem, biblically. So if this religious cake-maker came across an atheist or a christian engaged to an atheist, they could refuse service on the same grounds (ie. religious belief).

 

@Misty - marrying an African, European, Arab, Indonesian, or Mongolian is a choice. Also, if it's against his/her religious beliefs, then it wouldn't matter if the cake-maker believed it was a choice or not. So that assumption as a reason falls flat.


Kubo's announcement will be his new work will be called Tide; not as strong as bleach but does its trolling in a more colorful fashion! - arcane_chaos

Spoiler

#36 Misty

Misty

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,361 posts
  • LocationThe Kitchen In Gander's Serbian Fetish Dungeon

User's Awards

2   

Posted 30 June 2015 - 06:01 PM


marrying an African, European, Arab, Indonesian, or Mongolian is a choice. Also, if it's against his/her religious beliefs, then it wouldn't matter if the cake-maker believed it was a choice or not. So that assumption as a reason falls flat.

 

In this circumstance the distinction I was drawing was in the discrimination against the person for a quality they cannot control.  I was suggesting that compared to being black or a woman, being gay, in the views of some, is a choice one can make. I was suggesting for the very fact it (the gayness) could be seen as controllable is the very reason it is in a class separate from discrimination.

 

I do however agree, that marriage is a choice and not even one that must be made.  Yet another reason it classes as not a true discrimination. 


tumblr_nppka9tuR81tgmuxgo1_r3_500.jpg

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

 

Go Ask Me Questions On Ma Question Time and Vote for the Next One!


#37 Goddess Nike

Goddess Nike

    Tsundere

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • LocationIn Despair

Posted 30 June 2015 - 07:01 PM

So I did a quick google and found this: http://www.gotquesti...-marriage.html. It's interesting because though there's nothing against interracial marriage, inter-religious marriage is a problem, biblically. So if this religious cake-maker came across an atheist or a christian engaged to an atheist, they could refuse service on the same grounds (ie. religious belief).


Refusing to sell someone a cake while not at all innocuous isn't such a great injustice that it requires the government to step in imo. I'm not a memeber of the lgbt community but in for the examples you gave either of those scenarios could theoretically apply to me (though unlikely given how common interfaith and especially interracial relationships are in NYC) and personally I would just go somewhere else for business. Still I won't tell someone else how to react in regards to possible discrimination. Somewhat similar to what Tale said, while I have no special love for religious beliefs and traditions, I respect their right to have said beliefs too much to force them to act contrary to them outside of major violations against their right to Life, Liberty, and Property (though where that line begins is itself up for debate). Unless there is a monopoly involved where there are no viable alternatives or the discriminations occur over something that seriously effects one's quality of life, I'd just move on. As someone that's engaged right now I know there is too much to plan and keep track of to spend significant time worrying about a cake of all things.


  • Phenomiracle, Tale and Passingby like this


2h7297a.jpg

Pro Scientia Atque Sapientia


#38 Miss.J

Miss.J

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,275 posts

Posted 30 June 2015 - 09:14 PM

That was discrimination, they wasn't being force to marry the gay couple. They wasn't being force to give that couple holy communion. They are a damn bakery and their job is to bake cakes.

 

Even so the government does tell the church who and who they cannot marry. A priest cannot marry a 14 years old with a 18 years old. Marriage have nothing to do with religion in the first place.

No itsnot. All restaurants reserve the right not to serve customers. That was a disgusting abuse of power. 

 

What ;s the government part about? What's the point of telling me that? I never said anythign about religion


 

Yes, it is the same. Think if those people did it to a black person. They decide that they didn't want to serve them. What would you called that. They are bakers they bake cakes. They cannot decide what their cakes are use for. Now, if the make pizza than no you cannot force them to make a cake for you.

 

Then when does it stop. If every walmart decide tomorrow to stop selling to gays because of their religion than will you be fine with it?

This is such bad logic. It's not like the restaurant had gay cakes laying around and didn't want to give one to the couple. They were forced to  custom make the cake. 

 

That's like forcing a pizzeria to make a strawberry pizza and suing them if they dont. If its not on the menu, they dont ahve to do it. Unless you support communism and dictatorship, which i think you do. 


Edited by Miss.J, 30 June 2015 - 09:14 PM.

"sabo is not alive, this is some kind of trick" captian kidd

Spoiler


#39 waleuska

waleuska

    Pirate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,470 posts
  • Locationeverywhere but nowhere

Posted 30 June 2015 - 10:18 PM

 

If the baker denied the gay couple a cake, not a "wedding" cake, but just a good ole' cake for any kind of occasion besides their wedding, then yes I would agree that he's being discriminatory without viable grounds for it. But no, he was propositioned to partake in the celebration of something that is specifically against his values. It's like a hotel refusing their AV rooms for the use of white supremacist meetings. If it were for a powerpoint presentation of the supremacist's construction company, and the hotel refused them usage of it, just because they're white and racist, then there may be a point for contention, the same way for the gay couple.

 

 

 

That would assume that said individual has bought into the rhetoric of it "not being a choice".   Which compared to the woman, indonesian, black example is not nearly firmly demonstrated by science. 

 

 

 

 

We'll go slowly here,  because there is a lot in this small space:

 

The discrimination against black people wasn't just a wedding cake, it was sweeping and generalized to the point of society basically having two of everything (one white, one black).   The discrimination had bled into schools, churches, employment, buses, restaurants, trains, really everything and anything including water fountains. 

 

I'm not even going to call refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple when you don't agree with gay marriage discrimination, because compared to what I very briefly outlined above, it is not even in the same school as it. 

 

People were not "philosophically" opposed to black people in commerce.  They literally believed they were and should be second class citizens.

 

Which other than the most extreme extreme conservatives, the tip of the eagle's right wing feather, has NEVER been the same case for the gay community to get to make. They aren't angry they cannot ride the same bus or eat in a restaurant, they're angry they cannot get a wedding cake from a particular bakery. Do you really need me to outline how offended people who went through that era would and should feel at the mere suggestion they are in any real way alike?  It wasn't about a cake, it was about every section of their life.

 

They are people who bake cakes. People with values. People with values that happen to not agree. They refused to bake those cakes in the capacity of humans, not bakers. They are not a misbehaving tool. 

 

If walmart decides that I would actually applaud them for finally having values they are willing to lose a lot of money to uphold. Just like I applauded Hobby Lobby and the baker, and anyone else who will put their money where their mouth is. 

 

 

No itsnot. All restaurants reserve the right not to serve customers. That was a disgusting abuse of power. 

 

What ;s the government part about? What's the point of telling me that? I never said anythign about religion


 

This is such bad logic. It's not like the restaurant had gay cakes laying around and didn't want to give one to the couple. They were forced to  custom make the cake. 

 

That's like forcing a pizzeria to make a strawberry pizza and suing them if they dont. If its not on the menu, they dont ahve to do it. Unless you support communism and dictatorship, which i think you do. 

It was a wedding cake they where making. They make wedding cakes all of the time.

 

 

It doesn't matter what you think of a person. If you offer a service you must offer it to everyone. Not only that but it does matter what they do with your service unless it is going to harm someone.

 

 

If a black person owns a hotel he cannot refuse membership to the KKK unless he have reason to think they might burn his hotel down or kill people in it. If a Christan sculptor is ask to make a Jesus sculptor knowing that those people are going to blow it up he cannot refuse.

 

It does not matter what people are going to do with the item they brought. It is none of your business. Those guys make cakes for a living. They also make wedding cakes for a living. It is none of their business what is the wedding cake is use for make it and STFU.


p5Y5w8P.jpg


#40 TridentPuff

TridentPuff

    Warrior

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • LocationIsle of Patience.

Posted 30 June 2015 - 10:32 PM

It was a wedding cake they where making. They make wedding cakes all of the time.

 

 

It doesn't matter what you think of a person. If you offer a service you must offer it to everyone. Not only that but it does matter what they do with your service unless it is going to harm someone.

 

 

If a black person owns a hotel he cannot refuse membership to the KKK unless he have reason to think they might burn his hotel down or kill people in it. If a Christan sculptor is ask to make a Jesus sculptor knowing that those people are going to blow it up he cannot refuse.

 

It does not matter what people are going to do with the item they brought. It is none of your business. Those guys make cakes for a living. They also make wedding cakes for a living. It is none of their business what is the wedding cake is use for make it and STFU.

Making a wedding cake for a gay marriage is supporting and in some form enabling gay marriage. Making a cake for someone who happens to be gay does not mean you are supporting a sexual orientation anymore than me loaning a wrench or some jumper cables to a guy with two arms means I support him having two arms. There is a big difference here. 

 

Alrght then, I'll argue that she is offering a service to make cakes for traditional Christian weddings. Is not making cakes for homosexual weddings not offering the service of making a cake for a traditional Christian wedding? 

 

Again, there is a difference between renting a room to a KKK member and allowing that member to host a Klan rally in his room. And show me some evidence of this latter claim. 

 

I think you need to relax buddy. They can refuse service as long as they are not discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation. 


Edited by TridentPuff, 30 June 2015 - 10:33 PM.

  • Misty likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users