Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:05 pm
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:Can I force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for my dog's bat mitzvah?
That thing you're calling a "bat mitzvah" there isn't anywhere close to what a practicing Jew would call one because not one of them would recognize a dog as being able to participate in such a ceremony.
I'll cease going back and forth on this, but if they'd just declare their own intolerance instead of chalking it up to a particular group's ultra-selective interpretation of certain literature, I wouldn't mind so much.
Saying, "I don't approve of gay people or their lifestyle so I'm not doing business with them," is one thing. It's an honest thing that comes from someone's personality, and if they really, really believe that shit, then fine, let them run their shop into the ground as they see fit. Saying, "My religion doesn't approve of gay people or their lifestyle," is shifting the reason for that judgement off and away YOU and your own psyche and onto some old-ass sacred texts written millennia ago by dudes halfway across the globe living in a different era of history.
Sounds to me like the baker interacted fine. He (or she... I think it was a female) said, "I don't recognize gay marriage, I wish you the best but I can't make you a wedding cake."
You expect me to believe someone who doesn't think enough of homosexuals to do business with them is, in reality, totally cool with them on a personal level?
Edited By Malcolm on 1393384092
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:30 am
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:You expect me to believe someone who doesn't think enough of homosexuals to do business with them is, in reality, totally cool with them on a personal level?
See, here's where the gaystapo here has been going off the rails. The baker in the Oregon case did not refuse to do business with the gays. The refused to bake a cake for what they felt was a perversion and/or mockery of a religious sacrament.
Christians say to love the sinner but hate the sin. That's all I'm seeing from them here. You show me an instance where a baker refused to bake a birthday cake for a gay, and I'll agree with you that they are a bigot. Not wanting to be forced to help facilitate something they see as against God's will and against their moral conscience (gay marriage) is not hate. If you have a problem with someone's religion, that's fine. But don't try to mask your own bigotry as theirs.
** edited to say, when I say "you" I don't mean you personally. When I tried to write both parties in third person with qualifiers it became really clunky to follow.
Edited By Vince on 1393417953
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:36 am
by TheCatt
Vince wrote:See, here's where the gaystapo here has been going off the rails. The baker in the Oregon case did not refuse to do business with the gays. The refused to bake a cake for what they felt was a perversion and/or mockery of a religious sacrament.
That's fine, if it's a bakery that only bakes for their church. But once you enter the public space to bake for anyone, you've got to do it.
And, since marriage isn't an exclusively religious ceremony, they have no basis for that argument.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:05 am
by TPRJones
See, here's where the gaystapo here has been going off the rails. The baker in the Oregon case did not refuse to do business with the gays. The refused to bake a cake for what they felt was a perversion and/or mockery of a religious sacrament.
Would it be okay if they refused to bake cakes for interracial marriages, if they believe that interracial marriages are a perversion and/or mockery of their religious sacrament?
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:22 am
by TheCatt
TPRJones wrote:See, here's where the gaystapo here has been going off the rails. The baker in the Oregon case did not refuse to do business with the gays. The refused to bake a cake for what they felt was a perversion and/or mockery of a religious sacrament.
Would it be okay if they refused to bake cakes for interracial marriages, if they believe that interracial marriages are a perversion and/or mockery of their religious sacrament?
C'mon TPR, the gays are different.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:03 am
by GORDON
I think people should not be compelled by government to morality no matter how bigoted they are, but that's just me.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:05 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:I think people should not be compelled by government to morality no matter how bigoted they are, but that's just me.
So Plessy v. Ferguson was a good ruling in your opinion?
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:I think people should not be compelled by government to morality no matter how bigoted they are, but that's just me.
If the government does anything, it should be guaranteeing the rights of the people. To me, that is job #1.
If people want to be bigots, fine. But your statement means that racism is fine.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:23 pm
by Vince
TPRJones wrote:Would it be okay if they refused to bake cakes for interracial marriages, if they believe that interracial marriages are a perversion and/or mockery of their religious sacrament?
Would it be okay? No, not to me. Should it be the government's business? No.
Maybe the gays can sue the Pope now in the event he doesn't allow the church to marry the gays.
The last group anyone should want to have as the arbiters of morality is the government.
I tend to hold the more enlightened and mature approach to life that if you don't like me, I don't like you first. Tends to cut down a lot on this wadded panty crybaby shit.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:32 pm
by Malcolm
Maybe the gays can sue the Pope now in the event he doesn't allow the church to marry the gays.
They gays don't give a fuck what Pope Frankie thinks. They do, however, very much give a fuck about the legal implications of being married to someone.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:32 pm
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:Maybe the gays can sue the Pope now in the event he doesn't allow the church to marry the gays.
They gays don't give a fuck what Pope Frankie thinks. They do, however, very much give a fuck about the legal implications of being married to someone.
And apparently about forcing someone to make a cake for them that doesn't want to make a cake for them.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:57 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:If people want to be bigots, fine. But your statement means that racism is fine.
Never said it was fine. Said I didn't want the government deciding for me what is, and is not, legally moral.
And I don't want to be forced to bake a cake for someone I don't like.
Edited By GORDON on 1393441064
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:06 pm
by Vince
There are enough gays in all walks of life that they can pretty much get coverage of anything even if ALL heteros were to cut them off from their places of business.
Except for carpentry work. While I'm sure there are lesbians that can add a room onto your house, it will be poorly done because we all know woman suck at that sort of thing.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:58 pm
by TheCatt
Vetoed.