Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the actual row about refusal to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding is something of a test -case on where the line is drawn between personal views and public declarations. And Sir Patrick specifically made a suggestion about this particular case - in the hopes of finding a reasonable dividing line (of which the bakers would be the right side on (1) but which I think will fail, unless the bakers say they are happy to provide a cake for a gay wedding, even with two dudes in - so long as the message is a conventional one and not personalized.
I think that shows that this 'distinction' of Stewart's, though well meant, is not going to work. But I could be wrong.
(1) or it may be "on which the bakers would be the right side of." grammar nazis to the rescue.
bakers get to decide who they sell too. Then let the state decide if it's ok or not for a mom and pop shop to do so. Not the fedz. If they refused a cake with a plane flying into a building for a 911 anniversary would we stop them?
Jeff is always ready to jump up screaming that he is being crucified by the goddless barstards not agreeing with everything he says.
In fact there IS a big grey area here as there is in churches declining to conduct single -sex weddings. (1)
Stewart pointed out that this particular objection was to the message. A custom cake and custom message and he presumably would not support the refusal to bake the cake. Now, if the bakers were happy to make a cake for a gay wedding with two dudes on the top, then there would be no problem. If they refused because the 'message' of two dudes marrying was offensive to their religious beliefs, then Sir Patrick is back where he started, custom message or not.
Perhaps the point here is not whether particular service providers have broken the law or not, but at what point the law is broken. Is it refusing to produce a cake for a Nazi celebration? That doesn't apply because Naziism is itself outside the law. Being gay isn't (anymore). Is it refusing to produce a cake with nothing but icing and 'congratulations' on for a wedding they know is gay? Yes, they are the wrong side of the law.
Is it refusing to produce a cake with an overtly Gay -wedding message? (I don't know what it was) or two dudes or two dames on? That may be a grey area and in fact I suspect Stewart may be finding a distinction that really isn't one. His argument was a nice one, but I suspect it may not stand up.
(1) to put it into context, the registrars who will not conduct same -sex weddings because of personal feelings can find another job. No two ways about that. The Job description is NEVER to be re-written (2) to accommodate some particular person's religious foibles. Private homes - well, as a general principle, I would not want to see state mind -control.
But a private business providing public services is more of a grey area. As a rule, a service provided privately to the public should comply with the law. If the law says you cannot now discriminate against gays and that includes gay marriages, I think these bakers (and Sir Patrick) are on a hiding to nothing.
(2) as a point of principle - in actual fact, this has happened because business owners would not bite the bullet and governments and the media would not support them if they did.
bakers get to decide who they sell too. Then let the state decide if it's ok or not for a mom and pop shop to do so. Not the fedz. If they refused a cake with a plane flying into a building for a 911 anniversary would we stop them?
The issue arises when the bakers refuse to sell something to one person that they would sell to another.
The issue arises when the bakers refuse to sell something to one person that they would sell to another.
not an issue at all. they are allowed to. Like I said, its for the locals to decide. There are some tough choices to be made and some innocent people are going to get insulted. We get to choose who. Picking the vast majority seems wrong to me.
Bert and Ernie gay pride cake? at a political event? that is a perfectly acceptable refusal. On any level.
bakers get to decide who they sell too. Then let the state decide if it's ok or not for a mom and pop shop to do so. Not the fedz. If they refused a cake with a plane flying into a building for a 911 anniversary would we stop them?
First off the article linked was about IRELAND, so their system of deciding which level of governance is responsible for these things is clearly not the same. It makes no sense to respond to a legal question in the UK with American legal theory... But you would need to actually read the article to get facts instead of responding based on emotional need...
Secondly in the majority of the US baker cases, it is being decided at the state level. There is no Federal antidiscrimination provision for sexual orientation, so any discrimination laws these businesses are violating are either state or local laws.
And for you and Jeff and whoever else apparently cannot bother to read before posting, They have every right not to make a 911 cake with a plane exploding buildings. However if they do make that cake for someone, then they should sell it to everyone.
First off the article linked was about IRELAND, so their system of deciding which level of governance is responsible for these things is clearly not the same. It makes no sense to respond to a legal question in the UK with American legal theory... But you would need to actually read the article to get facts instead of responding based on emotional need...
Secondly in the majority of the US baker cases, it is being decided at the state level. There is no Federal antidiscrimination provision for sexual orientation, so any discrimination laws these businesses are violating are either state or local laws.
And for you and Jeff and whoever else apparently cannot bother to read before posting, They have every right not to make a 911 cake with a plane exploding buildings. However if they do make that cake for someone, then they should sell it to everyone.
-NoCapo
The issue is not this case, it never is. If it was this cake(or case) it would be a non issue. So no need for me to waste my time reading it. Because its stupid simple.
The bigger issue is letting locals decide what types of cakes they make and who they sell to. Let gays open their own bakery and make money off of stupid people. Those being the ones who would by from a gay baker to prove they aint (whatever) to themselves. For me, gays probably make great cakes too, so I go to the closest bakery.
The trouble gets when chain bakers choose not to cell, then we have to draw a line. Yup, we have to draw it and its hard. Throwing a blanket over us is stupid, ignorant, and rude.
Thank you. My mistake. I was sloppy and thought that Stewart was weighing in the US wedding -cake case.
In fact it seems pretty much the same issue, because whether an overt 'support Gay marriage' message or just a couple of dudes, the issue is apparently the same.
The reaction is 50 odd percent letting them refuse and thirty odd saying they can't. And it does prima facie look like a case of telling people what they can or can't do in their own business. But businesses provided to the public must comply with the law. Though here it seems the problem is with the devolved NI government who still seem unable to bring themselves to vote in favour of gay marriage. So maybe the discrimination is legal, but the row is about whether it should be and how long before Stormont gets with it.
There may be a point about the message. If they refused to bake a 'Congratulations on your wedding - Adam and Steve' then Sir Patrick's argument would not hold water. But an overt plea to support gay marriage might indicate that he has a point. But I suspect it isn't the real point. But as I suggested before if this bakery said they would bake a cake with 'Congratulations on your wedding - Adam and Steve' then I would give them the benefit of the doubt and would suggest that the flames be turned on the NI government that is dragging its feet over this issue.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-06-2015 at 07:07 AM..
This comment simply shows a lack of understanding of the reasoning behind refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Why? Because the reasoning does not apply to a mixed-race or alternate religion wedding cake.
The point is not the axioms you are using, the point is your logic. And my point, and that of other is you are using arguments that can equally support a host of abuses and morally evils that even you would agree you don't wish to support. Arguing that other people's religious interpretations of a text are wrong, and therefore they cannot be used as axioms, while your interpretation is valid is precisely why we have the seperation of church and state. The law is not equipped to make distinctions between valid theology and invalid theology, nor should it be. It must treat all theological arguments as being of equal worth.
So in the end we need to examine not your religious rules that are at the core of this,(we freely admit that the law has no business invalidating or validating religious claims) but the legal reasoning you are using, knowing that any faith claim must be treated as a valid axiom in the same logic. This is why you tend to see so many comparisons to views that you do not believe, because the reasoning must be examined against them as well, and we must decide if the outcome in all cases is what we wish for a society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
I would posit that a cake, by its very nature, is a message, words or not. A cake is normally used in celebratory events and the cake, depending on its quality, either emphasizes or detracts from the celebration. A professional, artistically superior cake can increase the positive nature of a celebration, conversely a poorly made cake can have a negative impact on the nature of the celebration.
If one takes this stance, then building maintenance, leasing, food service, all forms of decoration, parking, and transportation services are also messages. In fact every commercial transaction becomes speech! Is that really where you want to go with this? I don't claim to be a visionary thinker, but even I can see how allowing any commercial transaction to become protected speech would wreak havoc on our society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
The issue that is being raised is that Christians believe that same-sex marriages are immoral, similar to a divorce, or a one-night stand. They are perfectly happy keeping these beliefs confined in their own lives, but if they happen to work in a service industry they are now faced with two unfortunate choices; Either they use their skills and talents to promote and enhance a celebration of an event that runs contrary to their conscience, or they refuse and are driven out of town by the liberals with pitchforks and torches.
Do only celebrations count? Using your logic, why on earth would selling supplies for a celebration of a gay wedding be a sin, but selling furniture to the same gay couple not be? After all selling them a bed is directly supporting their sin, catering a celebration is only supporting people's misguided and short lived happiness for two vile sinners who will writhe in agony in hellfire for eternity.
Law is in general a broad tool. Whatever laws we have about commerce, about religious rights, about what equality means in our nation must apply broadly. Part of the reason our legal code is so screwed up is that we keep making laws that are far too narrow, which contain for to many loopholes and gaps, because the people who bought those laws in the first place were only intending them to apply for their own gain. Trying to make a law that will allow you to discriminate legally on your firmly held convictions, but will deny that to others is just a poor law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
As Americans, we deal with this sort of dichotomy on a daily basis. As a diverse people, we understand that others may not share the same moral values we do and we are taught to respect that. Whether it is a Jewish friend that doesn't eat pork, or a Muslim friend that won't see an 'R' rated movie, we accept these differences and we strive to live within them, not force others to capitulate to our moral ethics by force or government fiat.
I agree with you. And some people want to marry the partner of their choice in front of the family, friends, church family, minister, and God. My Muslim friends do not drink alcohol, but they do not demand that I also become a teetotaller before they will let me have any kabsa ( a celebratory dish for special occasions). Maybe you can try being more like my Saudi Arabian Muslim friends, they seem to have a better handle on respecting the values of others that you are displaying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
This is no different than a t-shirt maker refusing to make an custom shirt with obscenities, or a photographer politely declining to do a nude portrait, or a vegan restaurant declining to cater a barbeque.
and here is the rub. If it was no different, I would agree with you. This is what Patrick Stewart was saying. If the issue is the product ( which it is in all these cases), then the owner has the right to say, "I am sorry, I don't make those."
But the cases in the US are not the same. They are the equivalent to a t-shirt maker who does make obscene t-shirts, but who will not sell them to left handed Philipinos. If you do make wedding cakes, if you do rent houses, if you do sell groceries, if you do perform civil marriages, then you need to provide that service equally and without discrimination. If you cannot, then you should not provide those services.
Because the law cannot, and should not, judge the validity of a religious belief, if we allow you to deny services to gay people because you think it is a sin, then how can we justly deny the same protection to those who believe interracial marriage is a sin, or divorce is a sin, or apostasy is a sin, or polytheism is a sin? We cannot, and there you are in one go having utterly reduced the idea of E Pluribus Unum to dust. Following your logic would put us to a point where landlords could run undesirables, like blacks, gays, Muslims, or Christians out of town, where local businesses could refuse to serve certain minorities, and depending on how far you take it, government officials could decline to do their duties for specific minorities with no penalty. That seems to me to be the recipe for collapsing our nation into the Balkans or the Middle East, a society based on tribalism. I am not interested, and I think what we have now is already working mush better than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
This is not about homosexuality, not about discrimination, not about race, it is about being a decent person and understanding and respecting it comes to a society that has a whole spectrum of beliefs and morals that may differ from your own.
This I agree with! But I would argue that all those beliefs and morals must necessarily be subsumed on a social level to the rule of law which we generate, albeit imperfectly, from a combination of societal consensus and moral principle as enshrined in the Constitution. So because of the First Amendment principle of Separation of Church and state, the Government must weight the Constitutional principle of equality under the law more highly than the desire of a specific religious groups to be exempt from that principle based on religion.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
