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.
All the examples you suggest are "off the peg" examples, and examples where there was no conflict. It's not whether or not he was part of anything, it's whether his right to expression as an artist is secondary to the right of a quasi protected class to demand service. Was your construction guy who made your smoker an artist? Is the car you bought a work of art? Would you agree that a person who is a custom car painter is an artist? Therefore what is the difference between someone custom painting a car, and someone who custom decorates a cake?
You understand that to condone an event, does not require your participation, yes? If you provide something for an event, then you condone it, do you agree? So if someone provides an auditorium for a KKK gathering, they are more or less condoning the meeting, if they have ethical objections they should be free to refuse them the use of the auditorium (or I'd argue they have the right to refuse for any reason whatsoever, as freedom of association is a guaranteed right). Certainly the auditorium would be the target of vilification for holding such a gathering, as would any businesses who provide services to that gathering (catering, decorations, etc.). So public opinion also holds that providing services confers a degree of condoning any event, just look at the complaints about the NRA functions.
Thus if someone has an ethical objection to SSM (regardless of participants orientation), then there is a degree of implicit condoning of the event. This may clash with their ethics or beliefs thus the conflict, and the fact is that we as a people, actually hold that providing services is an indirect form of participation, or certainly condoning any event associated with those services, by our very responses to businesses providing services to groups, organizations, and people we object to.
The guy who made my smoker IS and an artist he's not a construction worker, he owns a forge and does custom metal work. He custom makes all kinds of things as well as metal art pieces (I have 2 of his sculptures as well as the smoker I custom ordered). I'm sure that the designer that designed the car considered it a work of art. I could agree that SOME car painters are artists, but not that all of their jobs are art. If I have my car painted solid blue, is it art? If I have the papa smurf painted on it is it art? Which again leads us to whose expression is it if I design every detail and have someone else do the work?
No I don;t agree that by providing an item for an event you are condoning it in all cases. If I rent tables is the rental agency condoning the event? If I buy a cake off the shelf is the baker condoning the event? Is the limo driver, or the hotel, or the jeweler condoning the event? If I buy and cook chicken, is the grocery store condoning the event?
As for the KKK, they are not a protected group in any state as far as I know.
I can appreciate your position, I simply don't agree with it. I get that you believe that anyone should be able to refuse service for any reason, we tried that once and it didn't work out well for those that were refused the services so we changed things.
For those of you who are for the gay couple/against the baker, if a gay man went into a tattoo parlor and asked the tattoo artist to draw a swastika on his arm which the tattooist then refused to do, could the gay man take the tattooist to court for discrimination for not serving him and doing what he asked for?
For those of you who are for the gay couple/against the baker, if a gay man went into a tattoo parlor and asked the tattoo artist to draw a swastika on his arm which the tattooist then refused to do, could the gay man take the tattooist to court for discrimination for not serving him and doing what he asked for?
That would only apply if the gay couple went in and demanded a cake with gay men having sex or something. As it is he was not objecting to the DESIGN since the design was not discussed.
Now, if the gay guy went to the tattoo shop and was told no tattoo at all for you because I don't agree with gays getting tattoos, before any design was discussed, would you side with tattoo artist?
That would only apply if the gay couple went in and demanded a cake with gay men having sex or something. As it is he was not objecting to the DESIGN since the design was not discussed.
Now, if the gay guy went to the tattoo shop and was told no tattoo at all for you because I don't agree with gays getting tattoos, before any design was discussed, would you side with tattoo artist?
From the transcript at the Supreme Court hearing the other day: "Mr. Phillips offered the couple anything in his store, as well as offered to sell additional cakes, custom cakes, that would express other messages"
So no...the baker did not say "no cake for you at all".
Obviously if the tattooist said he doesn't give tattoos to gay men, he/she would be absolutely wrong but that's not what's going on in this case.
From the transcript at the Supreme Court hearing the other day: "Mr. Phillips offered the couple anything in his store, as well as offered to sell additional cakes, custom cakes, that would express other messages"
So no...the baker did not say "no cake for you at all".
Obviously if the tattooist said he doesn't give tattoos to gay men, he/she would be absolutely wrong but that's not what's going on in this case.
The baker said that he would not sell them any wedding cake, but would sell them birthday cakes, cookies, or brownies. He also refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their commitment ceremony.
The couple did not ask for any image like a swastika, or any words like gay is great.
Quote:
6.Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.â€
7.Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.
8.The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like.
Why would he sell baked goods to a married gay couple at all? Yet he did/does. That's what you all are not getting. He's not anti-gay. He just declines to create work to be used specifically as a part of a same sex wedding ceremony/celebration, citing both Constitutional Rights: exercise of religion and free speech (which includes artistic expression).
In other words...
His tolerance and hypocrisy, only go so far.
That is called Liberty.
The baker said that he would not sell them any wedding cake, but would sell them birthday cakes, cookies, or brownies. He also refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their commitment ceremony.
The couple did not ask for any image like a swastika, or any words like gay is great.
Then the baker is not being discriminatory. Unlike the civil rights era where discrimination had everything to do with a person's physical identity, this has nothing to do with the gay people themselves. Otherwise, he would have refused to sell them anything.
The baker is only discriminating against the institution of GAY MARRIAGE which Christians who support the Bible believe it is a great offense to God. The baker does not want to create a product that celebrates sin.
Then the baker is not being discriminatory. Unlike the civil rights era where discrimination had everything to do with a person's physical identity, this has nothing to do with the gay people themselves. Otherwise, he would have refused to sell them anything.
The baker is only discriminating against the institution of GAY MARRIAGE which Christians who support the Bible believe it is a great offense to God. The baker does not want to create a product that celebrates sin.
Maurice Bessinger would disagree, he claimed that he had no problem with blacks, he was just against mixing of the races. He would sell them anything from the menu, but only from the take out window. He wasn't refusing all services, just sitting inside services. If he was against blacks themselves he would have refused all services. He just didn't want to contribute to the sin of racial mixing.
If you believe that people should be allowed to violate state laws based on their religious beliefs, what laws does that include? Which religious beliefs?
this thread is nearly 70 pages long in 2 days... wow.
I do like something Kennedy said in his questioning... That being that tolerance doesn't seem to be a two way street....
I was pleased with the decision that led to same sex marriage. the Equal Treatment clause means something and even though I am a deeply devout Christian who can explain the doctrinal position related to sin etc where this subject is concerned, as an American I recognize that my freedom to be a devout Christian is only supported by my wiliness to allow others to live out their own belief system with the same freedom. I don't get to tell some other person who they can and cannot marry.
That was my position long before SSM went before SCOTUS.
however, the first amendment requires a constitutional respect for an individual religious belief. No person should be forced to participate in an act they deem to be a sin. Just as those of us that have a traditional Christian view must accept that those that don't share our faith should have the same legal access to marriage that we enjoy; those on the other side must recognize they must be tolerant of those who do not wish to participate in their actions.
I am fully in support of gay marriage, and I fully support a wedding cake baker's right to refuse to make a cake for a wedding the deem to be morally wrong. period.
I don't even see why this is controversial.
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.
