Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

No one is forcing you think that gay people are abominations. I'm sad that you feel that way - what a blinkered outlook. Some people think Mormonism is an abomination too. But if they run a business, they must serve Mormon customers. And black customers and women customers and so on.

Let's try this again.  It is not the person, it's the perverse rite that is objectionable.  To quote myself:

Quote

 

The Greek conquerors of the Levant would later give way to the Romans, but while they were in charge of Judea, Syria, and surrounding areas, the Greeks wanted everybody to be fully standardized and incorporated in all ways to the Greek/Hellenistic way of life.  This included participating in public rituals (like eating the pork sacrificed on their altars to Greek gods), not being circumcised (because it was a violation of the body beautiful from the Greek point of view) and such things.  Jews were undergoing painful surgery to reverse their circumcisions.  A lot of Jews were "going along to get along," but to a sizable portion of the population of Judea and surrounding areas, when the Greek g-dking, Antiochus Epiphanes, had his image installed in the Jerusalem Temple and ordered that (a) pork sacrifices be burned to that image and (b) everybody had to partake of the sacrifice in order to be in good standing in Hellenistic society, the revolt began, led by the Macabbee family.

They eventually succeeded in kicking the Hellenes out politically.  This image and this profanation of G-d's Temple are referred to in the Book of Daniel as the "Abomination of Desolation," the perversion of the holy in service to the unholy.  It was an outrage and a sacrilege.

Compulsory participation in homosexual marriages is of a kind with Epiphanes' profanation of G-d's Temple.  It is a perversion of the holy  ...  not an imperfect imitation, as a secular wedding of man and woman, but a perversion.

 

So ...  now if you can pull yourself out of the state that compels you, apparently, to see things that aren't there in my posts or my arguments, please understand this:

It is not the person that's objectionable, but the abominable and perverse rite:  it offends religious sensibilities and leads the unwilling to say, when faced with compulsory participation, "That ain't right!"

There is a surfeit of cakebakers, just as there is a surfeit of churches willing to participate in the rite.

The bully seeks out the cakebaker, the church, the wedding planner, the limo driver who objects to participation and sets them up to fail an unfair and tyrannical test.

Your racial argument falls flat.  Race, if it's anything, is apparent.  Homosexuality, if it's anything, is not apparent in anything but behavior.

If a black person behaves "badly," perhaps in a supercilious and insulting manner, the merchant in most cases has the right to refuse to business with the unpleasant person.  But there is nothing about the person arising out of his race that permits the merchant to say, "No thank you" to his business.  Black folks qua black folks' weddings are not objectionable.  Nobody could reasonably have a religious basis for refusing to do business with them, least of all Mormons, whose BoM expressly levels all differences before G-d.

The difference between religious refusal based upon compulsory participation in some thing, a rite, and an imaginary religious refusal based upon race is huge.  And I'm having difficulty seeing how one could miss the ohsoobvious difference.

Edited July 11, 2017 by USU78

[T-Shirt]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Nope. I know the comparison you're trying to make, but it's specious.

If a business owner has the religious view that certain classes of people are treyf and can't be served, they're going to have a bad time, no matter which class of people it is.

I don't know if you misunderstood the argument or if you intentionally changed the argument to make it easier to demonize the opposition.  Either way, you completely missed the point.

3 hours ago, Gray said:

No, I'm not. I'm not the one trying conflate products with people.

Neither did he.  The, "treyf" is the product in both cases.  USU did not, in any way, compare a product to people.

The cake artist refused to make a product that conflicted with his religious view.  He was perfectly willing to sell other products to the gay couple.  If he was discriminating against the people, he would not have sold them anything.  He was not against the people, he was against making a product that, in his view, condoned actions that he didn't agree with on a religious basis.  There is a big difference.

The gay lobby prefers to change the argument to make it into something it is not.  That way they can be more successful in bullying people into doing what they want.  They choose to demonize the person rather than have an honest argument.

Quote

No one is forcing you think that gay people are abominations. I'm sad that you feel that way - what a blinkered outlook. Some people think Mormonism is an abomination too. But if they run a business, they must serve Mormon customers. And black customers and women customers and so on.

A Jewish deli should not be required to sell Ham to Mormons, regardless of whether or not they find Mormons an abomination.  The point is, it's not the people, it's the product.  If the Jewish deli refused to sell bagels and lox to Mormons, because they don't like Mormons, then you have an argument.  But it is so much easier to demonize and bully the opposition by changing the argument.  If the opposition tries to defend himself, the shouts of bigot and homophobe get louder and louder.  They win the argument with fear and lies.

Quote

This is quite dramatic, isn't it? I'm not sure someone with this outlook has the disposition to run a business. Business owners must deal with the unwashed and unworthy masses, after all. That's the job, right?

There you go again.  It is not the people, it is the product.  Producing a product that celebrates an act one finds reprehensible on religious grounds should not be forced on anyone.  I make custom T-Shirts and while I am quite liberal in what I will print for my customers, for example; I would print T-Shirts for a gay wedding, but even I have my limits.  A White Supremacist once came to my shop and was planning a religious event.  He wanted me to print T-Shirts that portrayed an African American nailed to a cross.  I refused.  How is this any different?  Should I have been compelled to print his T-Shirts at the risk of heavy fines or even losing my business?  The only difference in the two cases, is that no one is going to come to the defense of the Skin Heads.  My action, on the public stage, would have been applauded, yet it is no different.  I would have gladly printed shirts for this man if it was another event, such as a family reunion or a biker rally.  I did not discriminate against him, I discriminated against an action that portrays something I find reprehensible on religious grounds.

Quote

So gay people aren't allowed to order wedding cakes?

Talk about, "dramatic".  This is a classic example of bullying by changing the whole argument into something it is not.  Gay people can and should be able to order all of the wedding cakes they want, but it should not be forced upon someone who does not agree with the wedding.  Do you notice the real argument there? 

Quote

Are there special water fountains they're not allowed to drink from too?

An appeal to blatant racism is despicable.  Can you find a single person who promotes the belief that they are opposed to, on religious grounds, gay people drinking water?

This is the way it always works.  Change the argument and shout down the opposition with cries of racism, bigotry and homophobia to bully people into doing what is wanted.  The most important part is that this tactic spreads fear among those who may have a different opinion, and effectively silences the opposition.  It is very effective, but it is dishonest, disgusting, and ultimately, real bigotry.

Edited July 11, 2017 by T-Shirt

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

What a burden it is for fundamentalist business owners to have to cater to "undesirables." I suppose they can console themselves by drying their tears on the good money they're earning from gay customers.

How easy it is to be cavalier when it's someone else's freedom of conscience that hangs in the balance.

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The cake artist refused to make a product that conflicted with his religious view....

A Jewish deli should not be required to sell Ham to Mormons, regardless of whether or not they find Mormons an abomination.  The point is, it's not the people, it's the product. 

I still don't see this as being a good or effective comparison.

A Hasid deli wouldn't want to handle or sell ham to anyone, correct?  It's the product they feel a revulsion for (pork).

In comparison, the baker sold wedding cakes to others and wasn't opposed to selling or handling wedding cakes (the product) except when the customer was gay.

There is most definitely a difference.

Edited July 11, 2017 by JulieM

[T-Shirt]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I still don't see this as being a good or effective comparison.

A Hasid deli wouldn't want to handle or sell ham to anyone, correct?

In comparison, the baker sold wedding cakes to others and wasn't opposed to selling or handling wedding cakes except when the customer was gay.

There is most definitely a difference.

No, there is no difference.  If a straight couple, a single person, a black person or a Jewish person came in to order a cake for a gay wedding, he would have refused.  He would not have sold the customized cake for a gay wedding to anyone.  It is not the person, it is the product.  You want to portray the cake shop as selling one product, but that is not true.  Each cake is a different product and portrays its own distinct message.  By the same token, I would not have printed T-Shirts with a black person nailed to a cross to anyone.  I do not discriminate against Skin Heads in my business, but I do discriminate against producing a product that portrays an event or an image I find deplorable.  Are you aware that the cake decorator also refused to make cakes for Halloween, because it conflicted with his religious beliefs?  Should he be compelled to bake a Halloween cake for a Celtic Irish or a Wiccan celebration?

Edited July 11, 2017 by T-Shirt

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

No, there is no difference.  

Yes, there's a big difference.  If a Hasid deli doesn't handle or sell ham and pork to anyone, there's no discrimination if they don't sell to Mormons too.  And, that's completely different from a bakery that makes and sells wedding cakes to everyone except gays.

Now, if you can find a Hasid deli that will handle and sell ham to everyone except Mormons, that would be a fair comparison (and a lawsuit you could win against the deli on grounds of religious discrimination!).

[T-Shirt]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, there's a big difference.  If a Hasid deli doesn't handle or sell ham and pork to anyone, there's no discrimination if they don't sell to Mormons too.  And, that's completely different from a bakery that makes and sells wedding cakes to everyone except gays.

Now, if you can find a Hasid deli that will handle and sell ham to everyone except Mormons, that would be a fair comparison (and a lawsuit you could win against the deli on grounds of religious discrimination!).

Still wrong.  A Jewish deli sells deli meats, but not pork.  I sell T-Shirts, but not T-Shirts with the image of a black man on a cross.  A cake decorator sells cakes, but not wedding cakes for gay weddings and Halloween.  In each case, should a customer be able to force the business owner to sell them a product they do not sell?  Keep in mind that the cake baker would have gladly sold a birthday cake to the gay couple.

Edited July 11, 2017 by T-Shirt

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Still wrong.  A Jewish deli sells deli meats, but not pork.  

And so, there's no discrimination if they don't carry or sell pork to any of their customers.

However, the baker does carry and sell wedding cakes and is not repulsed or religiously opposed to wedding cakes.  They sell those to all their customers (unless they're gay).  That's discrimination (because they do sell wedding cakes.)

Big difference.  

If you can't see that, I'm amazed!  But I'm not continuing this back and forth.  I'm done with this part of the conversation here.

(And, using your example above, if you sold t-shirts with a black man on a cross to all your customers except then refused to allow a few other customers to purchase them, then yes, that's discrimination too).

Edited July 11, 2017 by JulieM

[USU78]

50 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I still don't see this as being a good or effective comparison.

A Hasid deli wouldn't want to handle or sell ham to anyone, correct?  It's the product they feel a revulsion for (pork).

In comparison, the baker sold wedding cakes to others and wasn't opposed to selling or handling wedding cakes (the product) except when the customer was gay.

There is most definitely a difference.

It's called a hypothetical for a reason.

BUT  ...  deli meats are what deli owners sell.  Ham is but one kind of deli meat, and it happens to be a kind of meat that no good Hasid would handle in our hypothetical.  You could order any kind of turkey or chicken or beef deli meat in the deli.  There would be no problem.

BUT  ...  if the law compels the deli owner to carry ham and sell it against his religious principles, that law is tyrannical.  

AND  ...  the person who orders ham in the Hassadic Deli::

(a) knowing they don't carry it, and

(b) knowing it is abominable to them on religious grounds, and

(c) knowing that there's a profit in it for them to set the Hasid behind the counter up by asking him for ham, and then

(d) whining about it to the press and regulatory agencies tasked with enforcing the "everyone must sell ham" law  ...  

IS

A

BULLY!

That person is, if anybody is, abominable.

Edit:  T-Shirt said it better, with fewer words.

Edited July 11, 2017 by USU78
T-Shirt is brilliant.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

BUT  ...  if the law compels the deli owner to carry ham and sell it against his religious principles, that law is tyrannical.  

Well, that's something entirely different, I agree.

However, it's not applicable here because the bakery already carried and sold wedding cakes.  

[T-Shirt]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And so, there's no discrimination if they don't carry or sell pork to any of their customers.

However, the baker does carry and sell wedding cakes and is not repulsed or religiously opposed to wedding cakes.  They sell those to all their customers (unless they're gay).  That's discrimination.

Big difference.  

If you can't see that, I'm amazed!  But I'm not continuing this back and forth.  I'm done with this part of the conversation here.

I carry t-shirts and sell t-shirts for religious celebrations and am not repulsed by or religiously opposed to shirts for religious celebrations.  I will sell t-shirts for religious celebrations to all of my customers (unless they portray a black man on a cross) That is not discrimination.

If you can't see that, I'm amazed!

You keep missing what is very plain to see.  They are not opposed to selling a product to a gay person.  They would sell a wedding cake to a gay person if it was designed for his straight brother and his wife.  It is not the person!  It is the product with the decoration on the product and the event the product celebrates that they find objectionable.

Discrimination would be when a business tells a gay person to leave his business because he does not do business with a gay person.  If a business does not sell gay wedding cakes, and no one can ever buy a gay wedding cake in his shop, that is not discrimination.  It is the same for everyone.  If a business does not sell Halloween cakes, and no one can ever buy a Halloween cake in his shop, that is not discrimination.  It is the same for everyone.  If a business does not sell T-Shirts with a crucified black person, and no one can ever buy a T-Shirt with a crucified black person in his shop, that is not discrimination.  It is the same for everyone.  If a business does not sell Pork, and no one can ever buy pork in his shop, that is not discrimination.  It is the same for everyone.  

Class of products:

Meat = T-Shirt = Cake

Sub-class of products:

Pork = Gay wedding cake= T-Shirt with objectionable image

A business can sell the first without selling the second

Edited July 11, 2017 by T-Shirt

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And so, there's no discrimination if they don't carry or sell pork to any of their customers.

However, the baker does carry and sell wedding cakes and is not repulsed or religiously opposed to wedding cakes.  They sell those to all their customers (unless they're gay).  That's discrimination (because they do sell wedding cakes.)

Big difference.  

If you can't see that, I'm amazed!  But I'm not continuing this back and forth.  I'm done with this part of the conversation here.

(And, using your example above, if you sold t-shirts with a black man on a cross to all your customers except then refused to allow a few other customers to purchase them, then yes, that's discrimination too).

There is in fact no difference. If you don't like the deli analogy, then carefully consider T-Shirt's T-shirt analogy. He will not produce or sell a T-shirt with an objectionable message, one that conflicts with his values, for anyone, no matter who they are.

And I'm amazed that you can't see that.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I carry t-shirts and sell t-shirts for religious celebrations and am not repulsed by or religiously opposed to shirts for religious celebrations.  I will sell t-shirts for religious celebrations to all of my customers (unless they portray a black man on a cross) That is not discrimination.

Correct. 

However (and you must have missed my addition above), if you carry and sell those shirts to all your customers but then turn around and refuse to sell them to a few, that IS discrimination!

And now, I am truly done with this conversation as I have to get back to work 

Edited July 11, 2017 by JulieM

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, that's something entirely different, I agree.

However, it's not applicable here because the bakery already carried and sold wedding cakes.  

The bakery doesn't sell wedding cakes with two boy dolls or two girl dolls on top.  That's the ham.

It only sells wedding cakes with a boy and a girl doll on top.  That's the turkey or chicken or beef.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Correct. 

However (and you must have missed my addition above), if you carry and sell those shirts to all your customers but then turn around and refuse to sell them to a few, that IS discrimination!

And now, I am truly done with this conversation as I have to get back to work 

But the baker doesn't carry and sell gay wedding cakes for any customers, though he does carry and sell other kinds of cakes for all his customers.

If there is discrimination here, it is against an objectionable product, not a person.

It would be similar to a restaurant owner who elected not to dispense liquor in his establishment. No one could reasonably object to his making that choice. Just like no one should reasonably object to T-Shirt refusing to sell a certain kind of T-shirt, or to a baker refusing to sell a certain kind of cake.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[T-Shirt]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Correct. 

However (and you must have missed my addition above), if you carry and sell those shirts to all your customers but then turn around and refuse to sell them to a few, that IS discrimination!

And now, I am truly done with this conversation as I have to get back to work 

You have a great big, giant tree blocking your view of the forest.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You have a great big, giant tree blocking your view of the forest.

No. She's got it figured out just fine.

Playing semantic games doesn't change the fact that the bakery is discriminating against a type of person attempting to purchase a cake. Call it ham, or a t-shirt or whatever silly euphemism you want, but at the end of the day a gay person is not able to purchase a cake for the same purpose (wedding) as a straight person would. Dress it up however you want to feel good about it, but it is discrimination.

Take the word "gay" out of "gay wedding cake" and you have "wedding cake". Would you support a bakery refusing to sell a "wedding cake" to a gay person if it didn't have 2 men or 2 women on the top (who really does that anyway?) If so, why? What is gay about the actual cake? The baker is refusing to sell a cake to a person because the baker doesn't approve of the place where that cake will be eaten nor by whom.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. She's got it figured out just fine.

Playing semantic games doesn't change the fact that the bakery is discriminating against a type of person attempting to purchase a cake. Call it ham, or a t-shirt or whatever silly euphemism you want, but at the end of the day a gay person is not able to purchase a cake for the same purpose (wedding) as a straight person would. Dress it up however you want to feel good about it, but it is discrimination.

Take the word "gay" out of "gay wedding cake" and you have "wedding cake". Would you support a bakery refusing to sell a "wedding cake" to a gay person if it didn't have 2 men or 2 women on the top (who really does that anyway?) If so, why? What is gay about the actual cake? The baker is refusing to sell a cake to a person because the baker doesn't approve of the place where that cake will be eaten nor by whom.

CFR on the above-bolded portion.

 

Quote

... at the end of the day a gay person is not able to purchase a cake for the same purpose (wedding) as a straight person would.

Who says? My understanding is that the baker would willingly sell to anyone a cake that is to be used at a straight wedding. Ergo, your assertion is not true.

I think you're making assumptions here that don't hold up. But I await your response to the CFR.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How easy it is to be cavalier when it's someone else's freedom of conscience that hangs in the balance.

When the privilege of the majority goes up against the civil rights of the minority, I'll always side with the minority.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

When the privilege of the majority goes up against the civil rights of the minority, I'll always side with the minority.

Even when it means infringing on someone's freedom of conscience, apparently.

What about the "civil rights" of the one whose freedom of conscience is being infringed upon? Not only do you have no regard for such freedom, you mock it with cavalier remarks.

How noble of you.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

I don't know if you misunderstood the argument or if you intentionally changed the argument to make it easier to demonize the opposition.  Either way, you completely missed the point.

No, I didn't. He was trying to conflate business owners not wanting to serve certain products (which is within their rights) with business owners not wanting to serve certain people (not within their rights, the shirtless and shoeless notwithstanding).

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Neither did he.  The, "treyf" is the product in both cases.  USU did not, in any way, compare a product to people.

He actually did just that.

 

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

The cake artist refused to make a product that conflicted with his religious view.  He was perfectly willing to sell other products to the gay couple.  If he was discriminating against the people, he would not have sold them anything.  He was not against the people, he was against making a product that, in his view, condoned actions that he didn't agree with on a religious basis.  There is a big difference.

Which product specifically? A wedding cake? Does the baker sell wedding cakes to straight couples?

 

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

The gay lobby prefers to change the argument to make it into something it is not.  That way they can be more successful in bullying people into doing what they want.  They choose to demonize the person rather than have an honest argument.

I guess some folks are pretty upset - they want to discriminate and at the same time never be criticized for it. It's tough out there!

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

A Jewish deli should not be required to sell Ham to Mormons, regardless of whether or not they find Mormons an abomination.  The point is, it's not the people, it's the product.  If the Jewish deli refused to sell bagels and lox to Mormons, because they don't like Mormons, then you have an argument.  But it is so much easier to demonize and bully the opposition by changing the argument.  If the opposition tries to defend himself, the shouts of bigot and homophobe get louder and louder.  They win the argument with fear and lies.

That is precisely equivalent to bakers refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay couples.

 

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

There you go again.  It is not the people, it is the product.  Producing a product that celebrates an act one finds reprehensible on religious grounds should not be forced on anyone.  I make custom T-Shirts and while I am quite liberal in what I will print for my customers, for example; I would print T-Shirts for a gay wedding, but even I have my limits.  A White Supremacist once came to my shop and was planning a religious event.  He wanted me to print T-Shirts that portrayed an African American nailed to a cross.  I refused.  How is this any different?  Should I have been compelled to print his T-Shirts at the risk of heavy fines or even losing my business?  The only difference in the two cases, is that no one is going to come to the defense of the Skin Heads.  My action, on the public stage, would have been applauded, yet it is no different.  I would have gladly printed shirts for this man if it was another event, such as a family reunion or a biker rally.  I did not discriminate against him, I discriminated against an action that portrays something I find reprehensible on religious grounds.

You're going way off in left field. Bottom line, if they offer a product to straight people, the same product should be available to gay people.

 

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Talk about, "dramatic".  This is a classic example of bullying by changing the whole argument into something it is not.  Gay people can and should be able to order all of the wedding cakes they want, but it should not be forced upon someone who does not agree with the wedding.  Do you notice the real argument there? 

Again, there seems to be a desire to call a whole classes of people "abominations" but when called on it some people seem to feel bullied. That's extraordinarily thin skinned, especially given the intensely vicious act of calling gay people "abominations"

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

An appeal to blatant racism is despicable.  Can you find a single person who promotes the belief that they are opposed to, on religious grounds, gay people drinking water?

The comparison should be obvious. The principle of separate drinking fountains for classes of people deemed to be "inferior" uses the same logic as those arguing for discrimination against gay folks.

 

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

This is the way it always works.  Change the argument and shout down the opposition with cries of racism, bigotry and homophobia to bully people into doing what is wanted.  The most important part is that this tactic spreads fear among those who may have a different opinion, and effectively silences the opposition.  It is very effective, but it is dishonest, disgusting, and ultimately, real bigotry.

I would like to think that we've learned a thing or two from the civil rights movement, but here we are. History is repeating itself, and the same arguments get reapplied to new classes of "undesirables"

 

[T-Shirt]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

When the privilege of the majority goes up against the civil rights of the minority, I'll always side with the minority.

The argument was never about civil rights, it was about changing the definition of a word.  The proponents of gay marriage couldn't win that battle so they took a different approach, bullying people into agreeing with them.  Gays have always had the same Civil Rights as anyone else. Even in regards to marriage.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Let's try this again.  It is not the person, it's the perverse rite that is objectionable.  To quote myself:

If you find it objectionable to marry someone of the same sex, no one will force you into such a relationship. But if you own a business, you'll find yourself catering to all kinds of folks who fail your purity tests.

 

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

So ...  now if you can pull yourself out of the state that compels you, apparently, to see things that aren't there in my posts or my arguments, please understand this:

It is not the person that's objectionable, but the abominable and perverse rite:  it offends religious sensibilities and leads the unwilling to say, when faced with compulsory participation, "That ain't right!"

There is a surfeit of cakebakers, just as there is a surfeit of churches willing to participate in the rite.

The bully seeks out the cakebaker, the church, the wedding planner, the limo driver who objects to participation and sets them up to fail an unfair and tyrannical test.

I think what's actually perverse is recasting discriminators as "victims". We've been through all this in the civil rights movement. Let's try to learn from history.

 

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Your racial argument falls flat.  Race, if it's anything, is apparent.  Homosexuality, if it's anything, is not apparent in anything but behavior.

Race isn't always apparent, and there are certainly some behaviors connected to race that fundamentalists over the years have strenuously objected to, such as mixed race marriage.

 

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

If a black person behaves "badly," perhaps in a supercilious and insulting manner, the merchant in most cases has the right to refuse to business with the unpleasant person.  But there is nothing about the person arising out of his race that permits the merchant to say, "No thank you" to his business.  Black folks qua black folks' weddings are not objectionable.  Nobody could reasonably have a religious basis for refusing to do business with them, least of all Mormons, whose BoM expressly levels all differences before G-d.

The difference between religious refusal based upon compulsory participation in some thing, a rite, and an imaginary religious refusal based upon race is huge.  And I'm having difficulty seeing how one could miss the ohsoobvious difference.

And if you decide that Jewish weddings are "perverse" - does that give you a right to refuse service to them?

 

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

You have a great big, giant tree blocking your view of the forest.

Well, she's correct with her views and luckily the majority and the law back her up now.  Your examples are very inept (using t-shirts, ham or whatever ) and your comparisons are not at all the same as what took place with the baker and the gay couple who entered the bakery to order a wedding cake (a product commonly supplied to others by this baker).

I'll go on record as stating that I disagree with this couple if they purposely went after the bakery or tried to set them up (I don't know if that's the case or not).  But, that doesn't change the fact that part of this bakery's business involved making and selling wedding cakes to the public and what they did was most definitely discrimination and was wrong to do.  No one was asking this baker to attend the wedding or even voice approval or congratulations. They were being asked to do what they offered as part of their business to the public (including gays), simply to bake and sell a wedding cake.

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR on the above-bolded portion.

Silly CFR. We're talking about the general issue of bakers refusing to sell gay wedding cakes. You've shared your opinions about why the bakers refused and I shared my opinion (the part you bolded). The only difference is I didn't ask you for a silly CFR on your opinion.

There are multiple "gay wedding cake" stories; Texas, Colorado, Oregon etc. If it's not about the where or who it must be about the what. But the what is simply a wedding cake. The only difference, and the reason why bakers seem to be refusing on religious grounds, is because of who it is for and where (a gay wedding) it will be used. Are you arguing that there is something tangibly different about the gay wedding cake that makes it different from a wedding cake? Are these bakers refusing to bake the cakes because of little figures at the top? I haven't seen anything indicating that the actual cake is any different from other wedding cakes. Have you? If so, please share.

So if it isn't about the "what" it must be about something else. IMO- it's about the who and where. Obviously this is in dispute, which is why SCOTUS will be hearing the case.