Is that really what you think my point is?Malcolm wrote:When did this become an argument about politeness? Did they just walk in and say, "Bake me a cake, bitch?"
Indiana's freedom of religious discrimination
Vince wrote:GORDON wrote:Nice people are helping them get through it, though.
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
Up to about $499k now. And a couple of homosexuals appear to have donated as well.
As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild
The people who started the "go fund me" now getting death threats.
http://tinyurl.com/mldwvs3
Edited By GORDON on 1428072198
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
That census report said, what, 2% of the population was gay?
There was a really good study a couple of years back that made a solid point that about 5% of males are gay, with just over half being in the closet to one degree or another. But if an argument is going to be made about that being too small a number of people to worry about, remember that Jews are only 1.4% of the population and they have legal protections.
As to the issue of business versus private citizen, I think the best guideline would be could an employee of a business be fired for refusing to do the job based on their own beliefs regardless of the position of the business. So if the bakery as a business was absolutely fine with making fabulous gay wedding cakes but one of the bakers was all "Nope, I am absolutely not going to do that because God says no" would it be reasonable to fire that employee for refusing to do his job? If you wouldn't give that employee special protection and make the bakery continue to employ him anyway then you probably shouldn't be giving the business as a whole the right to do the same thing.
Edited By TPRJones on 1428077941
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Vince wrote:I think if both side can at least acknowledge the other side having a valid point, then that might be an actual starting point for debate.
Well ... I don't know I'd go so far as to say the bakery has a valid point. I was trying to avoid this part of it to keep things simple, but I do think it's obvious that this by logical necessity must be based in either homophobia or hypocrisy. There are a shit-load of rules in the bible about the things God cares about that are just as important - and in some cases more important - that these people don't give a crap about paying any attention to. Just the gay thing is all that seems to matter to them.
If someone tells me they can't serve gays and that they also try to follow all these rules as well then I will actually have some respect for their point of view. Otherwise they're totally full of shit.
But for the sake of continuing the general discussion, I'm willing to forego this point for now and pretend that "no gays" is the only important rule in their religion and they aren't complete hypocrites.
Edited By TPRJones on 1428079169
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I took his point being along my suspicions that there's a whole lot of noise being made about this that belies a spontaneous movement driven by a segment of the population that small. There's a much larger engine at work here and motivations beyond gay rights.TPRJones wrote:There was a really good study a couple of years back that made a solid point that about 5% of males are gay, with just over half being in the closet to one degree or another. But if an argument is going to be made about that being too small a number of people to worry about, remember that Jews are only 1.4% of the population and they have legal protections.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Again, this law doesn't protect the person you're describing. If they can't show that their religious beliefs are being violated, then they have no case. They can't just say "This is what I believe". They are going to have to get into things like which church they go to and their church's stance and doctrine, etc. And unless you want to completely do away with the First Amendment, then the court doesn't get to decide for your church what that are allowed and not allowed to believe in the Bible.TPRJones wrote:There are a shit-load of rules in the bible about the things God cares about that are just as important - and in some cases more important - that these people don't give a crap about paying any attention to. Just the gay thing is all that seems to matter to them.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Then they should also be required to demonstrate that they are making a good faith attempt to follow all the other rules of their religion as well in order to win the case, rather than just using that one particular rule to discriminate and ignoring the rest.
Which not one single one of the Christians in these cases would be able to do.
Edited By TPRJones on 1428081326
Which not one single one of the Christians in these cases would be able to do.
Edited By TPRJones on 1428081326
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Enlightened pizzeia owners speak.
The only people who have to choose to be hereto are typically closeted gays. Straights simply have to be heterosexual. That statement is insane. It's like "I choose to blink my eyes. I choose to breathe."
If this dude was about combating premarital sex as much as he was gay marriage, I might believe him. I mean, how could his conscience rest if he found out two grown adults had sex before they were married and he catered that shit? Can he point out the denomination he follows and where they say straight fucking before marriage isn't a mortal sin while two dudes fucking after getting married is? This is his religion, he ought to have his theology in order. Otherwise, "religion" is being used as a cover for "personal opinion."
Edited By Malcolm on 1428081846
“That lifestyle is something they choose,” Kevin told ABC57. “I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?”
The only people who have to choose to be hereto are typically closeted gays. Straights simply have to be heterosexual. That statement is insane. It's like "I choose to blink my eyes. I choose to breathe."
Then they should also be required to demonstrate that they are making a good faith attempt to follow all the other rules of their religion as well in order to win the case, rather than just using that one particular rule to discriminate and ignoring the rest.
Which not one single one of the Christians in these cases would be able to do.
If this dude was about combating premarital sex as much as he was gay marriage, I might believe him. I mean, how could his conscience rest if he found out two grown adults had sex before they were married and he catered that shit? Can he point out the denomination he follows and where they say straight fucking before marriage isn't a mortal sin while two dudes fucking after getting married is? This is his religion, he ought to have his theology in order. Otherwise, "religion" is being used as a cover for "personal opinion."
Edited By Malcolm on 1428081846
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Is it time for Westboro Baptist Church to start going to gay printers for getting their literature printed up? Would the printers have a right to say no? Or should the printers be forced to either suck it up and take the job or shut down?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Vince wrote:Is it time for Westboro Baptist Church to start going to gay printers for getting their literature printed up? Would the printers have a right to say no? Or should the printers be forced to either suck it up and take the job or shut down?
If those pathetic examples of human beings could stand to be in the same room with a homosexual for two seconds, that might get brought up at some point. Again, in this case you've got an organization whose members have all made a choice to follow an insane faith. They also have a very political agenda, unless you want me to believe their protests at military funerals are their form of worship. Gays at a gay wedding are being gay. Their agenda is getting married to enjoy legal rights and protections. They aren't campaigning to make your religion recognize them.
Edited By Malcolm on 1428085871
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Which has zero bearing on Constitutional protections. The speech the Constitution was set up to protect was specifically political speech.Malcolm wrote:They also have a very political agenda. Gays at a gay wedding are being gay. Their agenda is getting married to enjoy legal rights and protections. They aren't campaigning to make your religion recognize them.
And sorry, they ARE campaigning to have religions recognize the marriages. By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage". It's as simple as that. Otherwise the there's no wedding in the mind of the Christian to sue over.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage".
No, it doesn't. Unless your marriage is made official by the people serving food. It means you provide sustenance to a client for a predetermined cost.
The speech the Constitution was set up to protect was specifically political speech.
Yeah, it doesn't say shit about them dragging down others with their beliefs. Just like A&E can boot the beards from "Duck Dynasty" because those guys are associated with their network. When the WBC is associated with your biz, there can be real legal consequences. If the biz owner can show all his other customers won't patronize his shit, then he probably doesn't have to do dick for WBC. If anybody from the pizzeria can show me a signed petition from a few hundred customers stating they won't eat at "teh g3y pizza place" I'm inclined to say killing his financial living isn't worth a single client.
Edited By Malcolm on 1428086954
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Okay, so why are they suing? For not catering or providing other services for a WEDDING. If the court recognizes their right to not view this as real wedding in their faith, then there's no basis for a lawsuit.Malcolm wrote:No, it doesn't. Unless your marriage is made official by the people serving food.By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage".
Can they bake them a birthday cake for their wedding?
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Can they bake them a birthday cake for their wedding?
If the customer's cool with their wedding cake saying "Happy Birthday," sure. A cake is a cake is a cake, despite the purpose. Decoration is a detail between the owner and customer, unless the owner decides take into account circumstantial external factors not relevant to the customer request. Your faith doesn't mean a thing to your client or his wants. They want a cake or pizza or whatever widget they ordered. Now, your client's faith on the other hand...
If you found out some Voodoo folk were going to sacrifice a live chicken at a party and you're either heavy into animal rights or Buddhism, then you might have a basis for refusal. Being gay isn't a religion, though.
You can try to half-ass the cake you don't want to bake and make like you're incompetent, I suppose. Then again, I suppose your client could show up, claim it, and take out a billboard with your shitty craftsmanship front and center. See how a couple thinly veiled lies on either side could take the courts out of this? Hell, how about a flyer up in the store anywhere that says, "Please don't ask me to make cakes for same sex marriages. You might legally be able to force me, but you're probably better off hiring someone who's going to be a bit more into it than me." Dude shouldn't be afraid to advertise his faith in his own store if he's going to base biz decisions on it, otherwise he's ambushing his customers with his beliefs.
Edited By Malcolm on 1428087953
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Vince wrote:Malcolm wrote:By stating "you HAVE to cater my wedding" means "You HAVE to recognize this marriage".
No, it doesn't. Unless your marriage is made official by the people serving food.
Okay, so why are they suing? For not catering or providing other services for a WEDDING. If the court recognizes their right to not view this as real wedding in their faith, then there's no basis for a lawsuit.
By refusing they are accepting that it is indeed a valid wedding in the first place. If they really didn't believe it was a legitimate wedding then they shouldn't have any problem catering the non-specific event they've been asked to cater.
Silly, I know, but if you are going to try to apply logic to it you have to go to the conclusion of the logical chain, not stop halfway.
Edited By TPRJones on 1428087872
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TPRJones wrote:By refusing they are accepting that it is indeed a valid wedding in the first place. If they really didn't believe it was a legitimate wedding then they shouldn't have any problem catering the non-specific event they've been asked to cater.
Silly, I know, but if you are going to try to apply logic to it you have to go to the conclusion of the logical chain, not stop halfway.
So Atheists that refuse to pray in doing so are acknowledging that there is a God? Jews by refusing to print Aryan propaganda are admitting to their own Nazism? I could go on and on.
Edited By Vince on 1428092088
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren