Same sex marriage (stations, required, build)

[Globe199]

I didn't respond to 216 because that question will cause us to go deep into the weeds on an issue that really is not as complex as you're making it.

Question: is the bakery a church? Or is the bakery a bakery? The answer to that question should lead one to the answer on whether he should be allowed to discriminate.

Legally, it does not matter whether he thinks this is an issue of religious freedom, or an issue of the sky being purple, or the earth being flat. Yeah, I can see how he might have his feelings hurt because he's being asked to bake a cake for some gay folk. But that doesn't matter one iota. What matters is how he conducts business under the law.

If this message doesn't address your question, then count me among those who have no idea what we're talking about anymore.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

I didn't respond to 216 because that question will cause us to go deep into the weeds on an issue that really is not as complex as you're making it.

Question: is the bakery a church? Or is the bakery a bakery? The answer to that question should lead one to the answer on whether he should be allowed to discriminate.

Ah, but the issue is not as simple as you make it.

A bakery is not a church, of course, but our freedom to practice our religion is not restricted to the confines of a building either. The baker is free to practice his religion in his day to day life. At the same time, I agree that the the gay engaged couple should be able to buy a cake, thus their rights conflict. Neither can fully exercise their rights without infringing on the other party's. This is what happens when enumerated rights proliferate.

The question is only simple when you close your mind to the rights of one side or the other.

[dravogadro]

What religion has 'thou shall not make confections for same-sex couples' as a tenet?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by dravogadro

What religion has 'thou shall not make confections for same-sex couples' as a tenet?

Apparently that's what baker believes. Is he not free to hold his own beliefs even when you disagree? Are you required to justify your beliefs or non-belief to him? If not, then he's not required to justify his beliefs to you.

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Ah, but the issue is not as simple as you make it.

A bakery is not a church, of course, but our freedom to practice our religion is not restricted to the confines of a building either. The baker is free to practice his religion in his day to day life. At the same time, I agree that the the gay engaged couple should be able to buy a cake, thus their rights conflict. Neither can fully exercise their rights without infringing on the other party's. This is what happens when enumerated rights proliferate.

The question is only simple when you close your mind to the rights of one side or the other.

Our accommodation laws require the baker to provide the cake because first it is the ethical thing to do and secondly, there is really no cost to the baker as he/she will be making the same amount of money for same purchase as if a straight couple had made the purchase.

The only burden for the baker is self imposed because he/she may not like a particular group of people, not by anything done by the couple.

Glenfield, "We the people" includes everyone. If they are allowed to deny purchase to a gay couple today then where does it stop? They may deny to a Jewish couple or Muslim couple in the future (based on so called religious belief). That is the third reason for accommodation laws...the slippery slope argument that if you discriminate against one group, soon enough it will be more and there are plenty examples of that in our nation's history.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

Our accommodation laws require the baker to provide the cake because first it is the ethical thing to do and secondly, there is really no cost to the baker as he/she will be making the same amount of money for same purchase as if a straight couple had made the purchase.

The only burden for the baker is self imposed because he/she may not like a particular group of people, not by anything done by the couple.

Glenfield, "We the people" includes everyone. If they are allowed to deny purchase to a gay couple today then where does it stop? They may deny to a Jewish couple or Muslim couple in the future (based on so called religious belief). That is the third reason for accommodation laws...the slippery slope argument that if you discriminate against one group, soon enough it will be more and there are plenty examples of that in our nation's history.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I agree that if we allow the baker to discriminate against the gay wedding party someone could easily use that to justify discrimination against another protected group. Yet it does not seem fair to require the baker to violate his conscience.

This reminds me of the case when the Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport refused to transport blind people with seeing eye dogs because they felt the dogs were unclean and it violated their religious beliefs to have to be in the same cab with a dog. In the end, they were forced to do so, but it was a similar situation.

It is also interesting to me that some people who are defending the baker here did not feel the same way about the Muslim cab drivers, but then people often seem to argue the side they sympathize with rather than a consistent principle.

Anyway, thanks again.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

The baker is free to practice his religion in his day to day life.

No one is contesting this point. His freedom to practice his religion, in his private life, is not at issue. At issue is whether he sells this couple a cake. You're kind of making a straw man here.

At the same time, I agree that the the gay engaged couple should be able to buy a cake, thus their rights conflict. Neither can fully exercise their rights without infringing on the other party's. This is what happens when enumerated rights proliferate.

False. There is no legal conflict. The problem for the baker is that he does not have the right to discriminate. He does not have that right, therefore he cannot exercise it, and cannot claim infringement.

You mentioned Muslim taxi drivers and whether they'd transport dogs. They also ran into an issue in transporting alcohol. Refresh my memory, but I don't think any of them were "forced" to transport anything against their will. It seemed like more a case of "Do it or we'll find someone who will." I don't know that any law was invoked.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

You mentioned Muslim taxi drivers and whether they'd transport dogs. They also ran into an issue in transporting alcohol. Refresh my memory, but I don't think any of them were "forced" to transport anything against their will. It seemed like more a case of "Do it or we'll find someone who will." I don't know that any law was invoked.

"Do it or we'll find someone who will " sounds like force to me.

They were required (that means forced) to transport the dogs and alcohol if they wanted to remain cab drivers or their licenses (granted to them under the law) would be revoked if they didn't. I am not sure why you feel a need to change what happened. I personally think that the MAC made the right decision, but I can also argue from the cab drivers' (or baker's) perspective.

Have you even considered an argument where you disagreed with the outcome, either because it was right in principle or simply to better understand those who disagree with you? You should try it. It will give you a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of your own positions.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Have you even considered an argument where you disagreed with the outcome, either because it was right in principle or simply to better understand those who disagree with you? You should try it. It will give you a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of your own positions.

There are some issues on which I agree with conservatives. This is not one of them. I deeply and fundamentally disagree with the baker's position on every conceivable level. I am not religious; in fact, I'm anti-religion. I support gay rights 100%. So in this situation, me and that baker have nothing in common. I'm not sure what purpose is served by me trying to "understand" his position when I disagree with it so strongly.

Despite the fears of regressives, we are not going backwards in time on the issue of gay rights. It isn't happening. People need to get over it and move on with their lives. Find another group of citizens to try and disenfranchise. They've still got the voting war, keep working on that.

This discussion is strongly related to the constitutional argument we're having on the other thread. Specifically, what is the role and power of religion in our country? Hobby Lobby recently sued so they don't have to cover emergency contraception for their employees, ostensibly for "religious reasons." However, Hobby Lobby is obviously not a church or religious organization.

So you tell me -- what influence in our laws should religion have? If Hobby Lobby can claim that god himself told them that contraception is bad, where do we draw the line? If I invent my own religion, should I be exempt from laws that conflict with it? We're on an extremely treacherous course if we start granting legal exemptions to every little backwater religion that comes out of the woodwork because they don't like this law or that. There is a battle brewing in this country over this issue, and it will only serve to further divide us.

[Tyryztoll]

Originally Posted by Globe199

There are some issues on which I agree with conservatives. This is not one of them. I deeply and fundamentally disagree with the baker's position on every conceivable level. I am not religious; in fact, I'm anti-religion. I support gay rights 100%. So in this situation, me and that baker have nothing in common. I'm not sure what purpose is served by me trying to "understand" his position when I disagree with it so strongly.

Despite the fears of regressives, we are not going backwards in time on the issue of gay rights. It isn't happening. People need to get over it and move on with their lives. Find another group of citizens to try and disenfranchise. They've still got the voting war, keep working on that.

So what you're basically saying is that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge anothers set of beliefs because they may not line up with yours. How very "progressive" of you.

You know....to me, this new wave of hating on religion and the religious is the mirror image of something as undeniably wrong as racism. The agenda induced venom directed at folks who still have core beliefs and who choose to live by them has really become a dispicable thing to witness and incur both in this country and abroad.

And I love the term "regressives" you puked up here, too. Is that the new power-lib term for folks who refuse to align with the militant gay movement?

Incredible would be a vastly underwhelming term for it all.