Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Liberty and Same-sex "Marriage"

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?

Thoughts?
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:17:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

That would be hilarious.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 10:08:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Yes, they could. Which is why the state shouldn't compel Christians to photograph a same-sex couple, or a Church to marry them.

I like how you said same sex "ceremony." ;-)
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 12:12:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Equivocating all prejudice = shut up already
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 1:48:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Well said.

As a good Aristotelian, I am want to celebrate the polis, er ... State ... as it is the context for the development of virtue. But it appears that uncritical tolerance is a rather slipper "virtue."

Again, well played.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 2:04:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 12:12:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Equivocating all prejudice = shut up already

Making bandwidth-wasting, useless comments = shut up already
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 2:55:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Does your point extend across the board, or are you just trying to ring-fence wholly unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour in this case?

For example, should the state compel a photographer from ceasing to refuse its service to an interracial couple?

Should a restaurant be able to deny a table to Jewish couples?

And so on.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 3:16:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:55:57 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Does your point extend across the board, or are you just trying to ring-fence wholly unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour in this case?

For example, should the state compel a photographer from ceasing to refuse its service to an interracial couple?

Should a restaurant be able to deny a table to Jewish couples?

And so on.

That's a good question. Though I flirt with the idea of taking freedom of association and freedom of contract to be sacrosanct such that a business owner may, at his discretion, choose whom to provide his services to with no government interference, there are, perhaps, plausible grounds to compel such an individual to serve individuals in a non-discriminatory basis.

But suppose that we accept that we should not allow businesses, individuals, or government employees from refusing to serve someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. That's still perfectly compatible with respecting one's religious liberty to refrain from, say, baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony, for there is a difference between denying a service to someone because they are gay (or heterosexual) and refusing to celebrate a same-sex ceremony. The cake business, for example, could still be disallowed from provided a cake to someone simply because he is gay, yes, but it would be a different thing altogether to force the baker to provide his service related to marriage or the celebration of a "marriage" which his religious commitments lead him to see as gravely immoral.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 3:20:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Societally, we've come up with this idea that if you're open to the public, you have to serve everybody.

If you aren't open to the public, you don't have to (cf. Private Clubs).

The problem here is that the businesses want to be open to the public but...well, not really. Not THOSE public.

If I could possibly support the idea that they can do that, I'd say they have to make that explicitly posted on the exterior of their business and on all advertising. "No Jews allowed", "Will not photograph interracial couples", "gay people don't deserve cake" and so on. If they don't do that, they're falsely advertising, because as a general rule there's an implication that one going into a business will be served by that business.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 3:29:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 3:20:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Societally, we've come up with this idea that if you're open to the public, you have to serve everybody.

If you aren't open to the public, you don't have to (cf. Private Clubs).

The problem here is that the businesses want to be open to the public but...well, not really. Not THOSE public.

If I could possibly support the idea that they can do that, I'd say they have to make that explicitly posted on the exterior of their business and on all advertising. "No Jews allowed", "Will not photograph interracial couples", "gay people don't deserve cake" and so on. If they don't do that, they're falsely advertising, because as a general rule there's an implication that one going into a business will be served by that business.

Consider the following passage from an article:

"Try turning the moral math around as a thought experiment: Imagine you are the gay owner of a restaurant in Chelsea, a member in good standing of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, rainbow flag flying out front " and the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church decide that they want to rent your party room for their annual 'God Hates F*gs' Sunday brunch. Shouldn"t you have the right to refuse? There is in this sad world such a thing as a Ku Klux Klan wedding " should the management of Harlem"s famous Sylvia"s Restaurant be prosecuted under civil-rights law if the establishment should decline to cater such a wedding? It is impossible for me to imagine that that should be the case."

http://www.nationalreview.com...

I agree with the author; it wouldn't seem right to compel the gay restaurant owners to provide a room for the Westboro Baptist "Church." But if we should allow a gay restaurant owner to turn away the WBC for the "God Hates F*gs" brunch, then why can't a Christian baker refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony? This sort of government coercion seems intuitively to be gross.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 3:58:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Societally, we've come up with this idea that if you're open to the public, you have to serve everybody.

If you aren't open to the public, you don't have to (cf. Private Clubs).

The problem here is that the businesses want to be open to the public but...well, not really. Not THOSE public.

If I could possibly support the idea that they can do that, I'd say they have to make that explicitly posted on the exterior of their business and on all advertising. "No Jews allowed", "Will not photograph interracial couples", "gay people don't deserve cake" and so on. If they don't do that, they're falsely advertising, because as a general rule there's an implication that one going into a business will be served by that business.

Blade Runner,

Interesting point. The implications your offer are rather clear and understood. Here's the rub.

The private club or association you mention as a counterweight might not nearly be as clear cut. Take the boy scout controversy. As a private association, they would, by implication, have control over their internal membership, right?

But as it stands, practically speaking they do not. Hence, the defense offered (e.g. public/private) appears more tenuous than first imagined.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 4:05:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 3:16:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:55:57 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Does your point extend across the board, or are you just trying to ring-fence wholly unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour in this case?

For example, should the state compel a photographer from ceasing to refuse its service to an interracial couple?

Should a restaurant be able to deny a table to Jewish couples?

And so on.

That's a good question. Though I flirt with the idea of taking freedom of association and freedom of contract to be sacrosanct such that a business owner may, at his discretion, choose whom to provide his services to with no government interference, there are, perhaps, plausible grounds to compel such an individual to serve individuals in a non-discriminatory basis.

But suppose that we accept that we should not allow businesses, individuals, or government employees from refusing to serve someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. That's still perfectly compatible with respecting one's religious liberty to refrain from, say, baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony, for there is a difference between denying a service to someone because they are gay (or heterosexual) and refusing to celebrate a same-sex ceremony. The cake business, for example, could still be disallowed from provided a cake to someone simply because he is gay, yes, but it would be a different thing altogether to force the baker to provide his service related to marriage or the celebration of a "marriage" which his religious commitments lead him to see as gravely immoral.

I still think it's equally problematic that an objector to interracial marriage or even interfaith marriage (which could be used as an umbrella for anti-semitism or islamaphobia) could withdraw their service on this basis.

As bladerunner said, so long as this advertised as such, I'd have to accept it politically. On a personal level, I think I'd probably boycott the place. If a baker wants to make a moral issue out of a cake, they're opening themselves up to criticism.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 5:26:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 2:04:52 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 12:12:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Equivocating all prejudice = shut up already

Making bandwidth-wasting, useless comments = shut up already

Whatevs. Yer fault if you want to ignore the obvious flaw in yer "argument" (see look, I can put words in parenthesis too!).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 5:55:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 3:58:43 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Societally, we've come up with this idea that if you're open to the public, you have to serve everybody.

If you aren't open to the public, you don't have to (cf. Private Clubs).

The problem here is that the businesses want to be open to the public but...well, not really. Not THOSE public.

If I could possibly support the idea that they can do that, I'd say they have to make that explicitly posted on the exterior of their business and on all advertising. "No Jews allowed", "Will not photograph interracial couples", "gay people don't deserve cake" and so on. If they don't do that, they're falsely advertising, because as a general rule there's an implication that one going into a business will be served by that business.

Blade Runner,

Interesting point. The implications your offer are rather clear and understood. Here's the rub.

The private club or association you mention as a counterweight might not nearly be as clear cut. Take the boy scout controversy. As a private association, they would, by implication, have control over their internal membership, right?

But as it stands, practically speaking they do not. Hence, the defense offered (e.g. public/private) appears more tenuous than first imagined.

So are you saying you object to consumers exercising their rights to association and speech, then? Only business/organization owners have that?

Because that's pretty much the only thing the BSA had to deal with--though, of course, there were some other issues because they'd been getting sweetheart deals from the government in ways highly inappropriate to a bigoted organization such as them.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:01:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 4:05:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/22/2014 3:16:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:55:57 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Does your point extend across the board, or are you just trying to ring-fence wholly unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour in this case?

For example, should the state compel a photographer from ceasing to refuse its service to an interracial couple?

Should a restaurant be able to deny a table to Jewish couples?

And so on.

That's a good question. Though I flirt with the idea of taking freedom of association and freedom of contract to be sacrosanct such that a business owner may, at his discretion, choose whom to provide his services to with no government interference, there are, perhaps, plausible grounds to compel such an individual to serve individuals in a non-discriminatory basis.

But suppose that we accept that we should not allow businesses, individuals, or government employees from refusing to serve someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. That's still perfectly compatible with respecting one's religious liberty to refrain from, say, baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony, for there is a difference between denying a service to someone because they are gay (or heterosexual) and refusing to celebrate a same-sex ceremony. The cake business, for example, could still be disallowed from provided a cake to someone simply because he is gay, yes, but it would be a different thing altogether to force the baker to provide his service related to marriage or the celebration of a "marriage" which his religious commitments lead him to see as gravely immoral.

I still think it's equally problematic that an objector to interracial marriage or even interfaith marriage (which could be used as an umbrella for anti-semitism or islamaphobia) could withdraw their service on this basis.

Well, I suppose that would depend on how you qualify what you take to be a "sincerely held religious belief" so that you could maybe distinguish between an ad hoc rationalization with no theological basis and one that is sincerely held. This notwithstanding, I suppose the question we might ask ourselves is "is this a price we're willing to pay"? For, again, if the state can coerce a Christian to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony, then it would seem as if the state can likewise coerce a Jewish baker to bake a cake depicting a celebration of concentration camps, or of Nazi ideology.

As bladerunner said, so long as this advertised as such, I'd have to accept it politically. On a personal level, I think I'd probably boycott the place. If a baker wants to make a moral issue out of a cake, they're opening themselves up to criticism.

But note again that the baker/photographer/etc. who refused to provide a service of theirs for a same-sex ceremony didn't do so out of malice or hate; rather, they refused to do so because doing so would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Imagine, for example, a Jewish baker who uses only kosher goods. A non-Jewish couple walks in and demands that the baker make a cake for them but without kosher goods and he refuses, saying "sorry, I cannot do that, but I can recommend various other bakeries who will." The baker isn't refusing to provide his services out of malice, but rather because of sincerely held religious beliefs. People should be free, of course, to boycott the business to their heart's desire, but it seems just awful to use the machinery of the state to coerce and punish the baker into either giving up his business or making a non-kosher cake.

It's pretty cheesy, but tolerance is a two-way street, after all.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 5:26:33 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:04:52 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 12:12:39 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Equivocating all prejudice = shut up already

Making bandwidth-wasting, useless comments = shut up already

Whatevs. Yer fault if you want to ignore the obvious flaw in yer "argument" (see look, I can put words in parenthesis too!).

Yer might want to point out the "obvious flaws" in myr argument. Yer yer. Whatevs.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:04:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 3:29:58 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 3:20:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Societally, we've come up with this idea that if you're open to the public, you have to serve everybody.

If you aren't open to the public, you don't have to (cf. Private Clubs).

The problem here is that the businesses want to be open to the public but...well, not really. Not THOSE public.

If I could possibly support the idea that they can do that, I'd say they have to make that explicitly posted on the exterior of their business and on all advertising. "No Jews allowed", "Will not photograph interracial couples", "gay people don't deserve cake" and so on. If they don't do that, they're falsely advertising, because as a general rule there's an implication that one going into a business will be served by that business.

Consider the following passage from an article:

"Try turning the moral math around as a thought experiment: Imagine you are the gay owner of a restaurant in Chelsea, a member in good standing of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, rainbow flag flying out front " and the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church decide that they want to rent your party room for their annual 'God Hates F*gs' Sunday brunch. Shouldn"t you have the right to refuse? There is in this sad world such a thing as a Ku Klux Klan wedding " should the management of Harlem"s famous Sylvia"s Restaurant be prosecuted under civil-rights law if the establishment should decline to cater such a wedding? It is impossible for me to imagine that that should be the case."

http://www.nationalreview.com...

I agree with the author; it wouldn't seem right to compel the gay restaurant owners to provide a room for the Westboro Baptist "Church." But if we should allow a gay restaurant owner to turn away the WBC for the "God Hates F*gs" brunch, then why can't a Christian baker refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony? This sort of government coercion seems intuitively to be gross.

Unless you go with the necessary implications of the argument you're making, and say it's totally okay if someone starves to death because they can't buy food, not because they don't have money, but only because no one will serve them.

No matter what, there are problems with any approach to the issue.

I would say that under my suggestion, the bar that says "We won't serve bigots like WBC" is likely to get a BOOST in sales, as opposed to the one that does not.

But, fundamentally, there needs to be a recognition that a business open to the public (which uses public infrastructure in order to exist) has a certain responsibility to serve the public. I think the fact that there's already a mechanism in place to allow bigots to be bigots, the private club, makes most complaints seem unwarranted.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:07:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, these so-called "anti-discrimination" and "equality" business laws seem to be gross encroachments upon one's freedom of association. If I were a business owner, it would seem pretty intuitive to me that I should have a right as to whom I hire (except children, for example, for independent reasons). If I don't want to hire a homosexual, for example, then that's my business. If I want to hire only males, then that's my business. If I want to fire someone because I find out that they attend orgies every weekend, then that's my business.

It also seems intuitive to me as a hypothetical business owner that I should have the right to choose to whom I sell my goods or services to. If some weirdo comes in my store and, for whatever reason, I don't want to sell him anything, then I shouldn't be coerced into selling him anything. If I run a fine establishment of fine whiskeys, fine cigars, fine wines and fine steaks and some schmuck comes in with shorts, flip flops and a shirt with a YOLO logo, then I should be able to tell the schmuck to take a hike.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:08:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 6:01:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 4:05:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/22/2014 3:16:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:55:57 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Does your point extend across the board, or are you just trying to ring-fence wholly unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour in this case?

For example, should the state compel a photographer from ceasing to refuse its service to an interracial couple?

Should a restaurant be able to deny a table to Jewish couples?

And so on.

That's a good question. Though I flirt with the idea of taking freedom of association and freedom of contract to be sacrosanct such that a business owner may, at his discretion, choose whom to provide his services to with no government interference, there are, perhaps, plausible grounds to compel such an individual to serve individuals in a non-discriminatory basis.

But suppose that we accept that we should not allow businesses, individuals, or government employees from refusing to serve someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. That's still perfectly compatible with respecting one's religious liberty to refrain from, say, baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony, for there is a difference between denying a service to someone because they are gay (or heterosexual) and refusing to celebrate a same-sex ceremony. The cake business, for example, could still be disallowed from provided a cake to someone simply because he is gay, yes, but it would be a different thing altogether to force the baker to provide his service related to marriage or the celebration of a "marriage" which his religious commitments lead him to see as gravely immoral.

I still think it's equally problematic that an objector to interracial marriage or even interfaith marriage (which could be used as an umbrella for anti-semitism or islamaphobia) could withdraw their service on this basis.

Well, I suppose that would depend on how you qualify what you take to be a "sincerely held religious belief" so that you could maybe distinguish between an ad hoc rationalization with no theological basis and one that is sincerely held. This notwithstanding, I suppose the question we might ask ourselves is "is this a price we're willing to pay"? For, again, if the state can coerce a Christian to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony, then it would seem as if the state can likewise coerce a Jewish baker to bake a cake depicting a celebration of concentration camps, or of Nazi ideology.

As bladerunner said, so long as this advertised as such, I'd have to accept it politically. On a personal level, I think I'd probably boycott the place. If a baker wants to make a moral issue out of a cake, they're opening themselves up to criticism.

But note again that the baker/photographer/etc. who refused to provide a service of theirs for a same-sex ceremony didn't do so out of malice or hate; rather, they refused to do so because doing so would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

I'm gonna call shenanigans on support for THAT, particularly since the same "sincerely held religious beliefs" didn't hold them back from being willing to make cakes for divorces, unwed mothers, and so on.

This IS out of malice and hate. They could not point to any place in the bible that says "thou shalt not serve the gays".

If this was merely them refusing to put a message on the cake with which they disagreed, it would be another argument entirely. But they refused the cake altogether.

Imagine, for example, a Jewish baker who uses only kosher goods. A non-Jewish couple walks in and demands that the baker make a cake for them but without kosher goods and he refuses, saying "sorry, I cannot do that, but I can recommend various other bakeries who will." The baker isn't refusing to provide his services out of malice, but rather because of sincerely held religious beliefs.

That's a kosher bakery--it's an entirely different situation, because it's labeled as a kosher bakery. Further, making non-kosher items is not a service the kosher baker provides. As opposed to "make a cake" which is a service that a cake maker provides.

Also, the baker would undoubtedly offer to MAKE a cake that was within the scope of the services he provides. Again, something lacking in your cake situation.

People should be free, of course, to boycott the business to their heart's desire, but it seems just awful to use the machinery of the state to coerce and punish the baker into either giving up his business or making a non-kosher cake.

I think this is an unfair example that doesn't correlate.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:44:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

I don't know why a vegan restaurant owner would be compelled to smell meat, since it's not something an omnivorous restaurant owner is compelled to do.

Anyway, your swastika tattoo analogy does make sense. I can, however, make opposing analogies. Should a tattoo artist be allowed to turn down a customer requesting a crucifix tattoo because he doesn't support Christianity? Should a wedding photographer be allowed to turn down a couple because he doesn't like the way they're dressed?

The truth is that there is no easy answer to what rights a business should have in this sense. There is no black and white for this problem. Society decides what's right and what's wrong. It's not a perfect system, but I think it's best for the laws to be able change alongside society.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Sane
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 9:34:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Compelling a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony is only compelling them to offer the same service (wedding photography) to everybody equally.

Compelling a tattoo artist to tattoo a swastika is compelling them to offer a specific service. So is compelling a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat.

There's a difference.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:14:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 9:34:26 PM, Sane wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Compelling a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony is only compelling them to offer the same service (wedding photography) to everybody equally.

Compelling a tattoo artist to tattoo a swastika is compelling them to offer a specific service. So is compelling a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat.

There's a difference.

One could say that male-male/female-female weddings are a specific service. They could be willing to photograph male-female weddings regardless of sexual orientation and refuse male-male/female-female weddings regardless of sexual orientation. It's the same principle, though it's a bastardized version of it.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Sane
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:22:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 10:14:45 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 2/22/2014 9:34:26 PM, Sane wrote:

Compelling a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony is only compelling them to offer the same service (wedding photography) to everybody equally.

Compelling a tattoo artist to tattoo a swastika is compelling them to offer a specific service. So is compelling a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat.

There's a difference.

One could say that male-male/female-female weddings are a specific service. They could be willing to photograph male-female weddings regardless of sexual orientation and refuse male-male/female-female weddings regardless of sexual orientation. It's the same principle, though it's a bastardized version of it.

Well, I would have to disagree with anybody who says that.

First and foremost the only distinction that you're providing in this argument is a characteristic of the person/people involved. Gender or sexual orientation, to me it doesn't matter which we address, because either way the person offering the service would have to 'discriminate' based on a characteristic of the person.

Secondly, the service that the person is offering clearly doesn't change. The photographer of a same-sex wedding takes pictures just as the photographer of a heterosexual wedding does.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 10:58:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 6:08:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/22/2014 6:01:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 4:05:29 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/22/2014 3:16:20 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 2:55:57 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Does your point extend across the board, or are you just trying to ring-fence wholly unprofessional and discriminatory behaviour in this case?

For example, should the state compel a photographer from ceasing to refuse its service to an interracial couple?

Should a restaurant be able to deny a table to Jewish couples?

And so on.

That's a good question. Though I flirt with the idea of taking freedom of association and freedom of contract to be sacrosanct such that a business owner may, at his discretion, choose whom to provide his services to with no government interference, there are, perhaps, plausible grounds to compel such an individual to serve individuals in a non-discriminatory basis.

But suppose that we accept that we should not allow businesses, individuals, or government employees from refusing to serve someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation. That's still perfectly compatible with respecting one's religious liberty to refrain from, say, baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony, for there is a difference between denying a service to someone because they are gay (or heterosexual) and refusing to celebrate a same-sex ceremony. The cake business, for example, could still be disallowed from provided a cake to someone simply because he is gay, yes, but it would be a different thing altogether to force the baker to provide his service related to marriage or the celebration of a "marriage" which his religious commitments lead him to see as gravely immoral.

I still think it's equally problematic that an objector to interracial marriage or even interfaith marriage (which could be used as an umbrella for anti-semitism or islamaphobia) could withdraw their service on this basis.

Well, I suppose that would depend on how you qualify what you take to be a "sincerely held religious belief" so that you could maybe distinguish between an ad hoc rationalization with no theological basis and one that is sincerely held. This notwithstanding, I suppose the question we might ask ourselves is "is this a price we're willing to pay"? For, again, if the state can coerce a Christian to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony, then it would seem as if the state can likewise coerce a Jewish baker to bake a cake depicting a celebration of concentration camps, or of Nazi ideology.

As bladerunner said, so long as this advertised as such, I'd have to accept it politically. On a personal level, I think I'd probably boycott the place. If a baker wants to make a moral issue out of a cake, they're opening themselves up to criticism.

But note again that the baker/photographer/etc. who refused to provide a service of theirs for a same-sex ceremony didn't do so out of malice or hate; rather, they refused to do so because doing so would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

I'm gonna call shenanigans on support for THAT, particularly since the same "sincerely held religious beliefs" didn't hold them back from being willing to make cakes for divorces, unwed mothers, and so on.

Huh? Who buys a cake to celebrate a divorce or being an unwed mother?


This IS out of malice and hate. They could not point to any place in the bible that says "thou shalt not serve the gays".

Haha. But they can point to a place in the Bible that says that homosexual acts are immoral and so far worse for any law or ceremony that attempts to enshrine and glorify an immorality. Catholics/Thomists could not only point to the Bible, but also to Natural Law to demonstrate that homosexual acts are immoral and their celebrating them would be a gross action.


If this was merely them refusing to put a message on the cake with which they disagreed, it would be another argument entirely. But they refused the cake altogether.

Of course. Why would they want to celebrate something that to them is an immorality? Again, consider the case of the homosexual restaurant owner and the WBC. If the WBC asks the owner to rent a room out to them to host their annual "God Hates F*gs" brunch, don't you think the owner would say "hell no, get the hell out of my restaurant"? And shouldn't we respect his decision to not rent them a room because doing so would conflict with his religious/metaphysical/ethical beliefs?


Imagine, for example, a Jewish baker who uses only kosher goods. A non-Jewish couple walks in and demands that the baker make a cake for them but without kosher goods and he refuses, saying "sorry, I cannot do that, but I can recommend various other bakeries who will." The baker isn't refusing to provide his services out of malice, but rather because of sincerely held religious beliefs.

That's a kosher bakery--it's an entirely different situation, because it's labeled as a kosher bakery. Further, making non-kosher items is not a service the kosher baker provides. As opposed to "make a cake" which is a service that a cake maker provides.

I suppose you're right. Good point. Troublesome analogy.


Also, the baker would undoubtedly offer to MAKE a cake that was within the scope of the services he provides. Again, something lacking in your cake situation.

People should be free, of course, to boycott the business to their heart's desire, but it seems just awful to use the machinery of the state to coerce and punish the baker into either giving up his business or making a non-kosher cake.

I think this is an unfair example that doesn't correlate.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 11:00:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 9:34:26 PM, Sane wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony, then can the state compel a tattoo artist who is a practicing Jew to tattoo a swastika on a man's chest? Or compel a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat?


Thoughts?

Compelling a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony is only compelling them to offer the same service (wedding photography) to everybody equally.

Compelling a tattoo artist to tattoo a swastika is compelling them to offer a specific service. So is compelling a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat.

There's a difference.

What? It seems as if you're trying way too hard to point out a "difference" that isn't even there. Isn't asking a Christian baker (or photographer, or whatever) to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony too asking for a "specific service"? This just seems like ad hoc and unnecessary word masturbation to me (no pun intended).
Sane
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 11:06:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 11:00:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 9:34:26 PM, Sane wrote:

Compelling a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony is only compelling them to offer the same service (wedding photography) to everybody equally.

Compelling a tattoo artist to tattoo a swastika is compelling them to offer a specific service. So is compelling a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat.

There's a difference.

What? It seems as if you're trying way too hard to point out a "difference" that isn't even there. Isn't asking a Christian baker (or photographer, or whatever) to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony too asking for a "specific service"? This just seems like ad hoc and unnecessary word masturbation to me (no pun intended).

No. The work that the person offering the service has to do is the same. The only thing that changes is the characteristics of the person that they're offering it to.

Let me offer you another scenario that demonstrates this point. Two people go to a Christian wedding photographer asking for that person to photograph their wedding. One looks like a man but the other is totally androgynous. What does the Christian wedding photographer do? Is it within their rights to ask "what gender are you" before deciding whether or not to refuse service? The very fact that I even have to ask shows that this is all based merely on observable characteristics of the person, not any difference in the service being offered itself.

Even if there was an answer to those questions, there are, in fact, people who have genetic abnormalities and cannot be shoe-horned into either gender alone. Who should they be allowed to marry? The ridiculousness of the question indicates the ridiculousness of the argument that marriage should depend on gender.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 11:28:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 5:55:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/22/2014 3:58:43 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Societally, we've come up with this idea that if you're open to the public, you have to serve everybody.

If you aren't open to the public, you don't have to (cf. Private Clubs).

The problem here is that the businesses want to be open to the public but...well, not really. Not THOSE public.

If I could possibly support the idea that they can do that, I'd say they have to make that explicitly posted on the exterior of their business and on all advertising. "No Jews allowed", "Will not photograph interracial couples", "gay people don't deserve cake" and so on. If they don't do that, they're falsely advertising, because as a general rule there's an implication that one going into a business will be served by that business.

Blade Runner,

Interesting point. The implications your offer are rather clear and understood. Here's the rub.

The private club or association you mention as a counterweight might not nearly be as clear cut. Take the boy scout controversy. As a private association, they would, by implication, have control over their internal membership, right?

But as it stands, practically speaking they do not. Hence, the defense offered (e.g. public/private) appears more tenuous than first imagined.

So are you saying you object to consumers exercising their rights to association and speech, then? Only business/organization owners have that?

Because that's pretty much the only thing the BSA had to deal with--though, of course, there were some other issues because they'd been getting sweetheart deals from the government in ways highly inappropriate to a bigoted organization such as them.

Bladerunner,

It appears that you have missed my assertion entirely. To clarify, your proffered point is that a business carries a unspecified social obligation. That was your point, correct?

"[Business] ... you have to serve everybody"

Then you qualified your claim by making a distinction.

"If you aren't open to the public, you don't have to (cf. private clubs)."

Ok, so far, so good, right?

My point was to demonstrate that such a bright-line distinction is not as clear as imagined. Simply put, the boy scouts are private organization which, ironically, has a historic charter. This charter- whether you agree with it or not qualifies it as a "private club". Perhaps, you may want to make an additional qualification. Fair enough, but then your argument would need modification as well.

Thus, my implicit question remains unanswered. If the criteria you forward as normative public versus private, then how do you justify compelling both the "baker" (public business) and the boy scouts (private club).

It appears that such a justification is rather contradictory. Curious on your response.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 11:38:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 11:06:44 PM, Sane wrote:
At 2/22/2014 11:00:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/22/2014 9:34:26 PM, Sane wrote:

Compelling a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony is only compelling them to offer the same service (wedding photography) to everybody equally.

Compelling a tattoo artist to tattoo a swastika is compelling them to offer a specific service. So is compelling a vegan restaurant owner to sell meat.

There's a difference.

What? It seems as if you're trying way too hard to point out a "difference" that isn't even there. Isn't asking a Christian baker (or photographer, or whatever) to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony too asking for a "specific service"? This just seems like ad hoc and unnecessary word masturbation to me (no pun intended).

No. The work that the person offering the service has to do is the same.

Likewise with the Jewish tattoo artist.

The only thing that changes is the characteristics of the person that they're offering it to.

Let me offer you another scenario that demonstrates this point. Two people go to a Christian wedding photographer asking for that person to photograph their wedding. One looks like a man but the other is totally androgynous. What does the Christian wedding photographer do? Is it within their rights to ask "what gender are you" before deciding whether or not to refuse service?

Well, obviously. For knowing the gender of the two individuals asking for a cake for a ceremony will determine, for the Christian, whether the making of the cake will celebrate an immorality or something that is not immoral. If two men ask for a wedding cake to celebrate their ceremony, then the Christian should have the right to refuse to make a cake as doing so would be to violate his deeply held religious beliefs. If a man and a woman ask for a cake to celebrate their wedding, however, it would not violate the Christian's religious beliefs to make a cake for them. And that makes all the difference.

The very fact that I even have to ask shows that this is all based merely on observable characteristics of the person, not any difference in the service being offered itself.

This is just trivial. You're basically complaining that you have to know some empirical information in order to determine whether your action will be in violation with your religious beliefs. Suppose that I walk into a Christian's bakery with another individual who is completely covered in strange clothing from head to toe such that it is impossible to tell whether the individual is male or female. I ask the baker to make a cake for our wedding ceremony. He asks me in turn whether the person I'm "marrying" is male or female. Why would he ask such a thing? Well, because if the person I'm marrying is a female, then making a cake for our ceremony wouldn't conflict with his religious beliefs. If I answer that I am "marrying" a man, on the other hand, baking a cake would conflict with his religious beliefs.


Even if there was an answer to those questions, there are, in fact, people who have genetic abnormalities and cannot be shoe-horned into either gender alone. Who should they be allowed to marry? The ridiculousness of the question indicates the ridiculousness of the argument that marriage should depend on gender.

That hardly shows that one can or ought to do away with gender in marriage. All that shows is that you are either male, female, or otherwise defective. This is irrelevant to the topic at hand anyways.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 11:59:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony,

I would like to know when the state has forced anyone to do this. Until then your assumption that it does is making you paranoid about nothing.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 11:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 2/21/2014 4:32:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If the state can compel, say, a Christian to photograph a same-sex ceremony,

I would like to know when the state has forced anyone to do this. Until then your assumption that it does is making you paranoid about nothing.

http://www.nationalreview.com...

The state has already not only forced adoption agencies to close via its same-sex "marriage" agenda. Besides that, photographers, bakers, and other businesses have been forced by the state to either make a cake/photograph/etc. a same-sex ceremony or otherwise have been fined or face business closure if they refuse. This isn't paranoia; this is happening before our very eyes.