|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I do think there's a couple of issues underneath the cake thing that are worth consideration:
1) The idea that nobody should be required to endorse a political opinion they disagree with, which I do believe to be true.
and 2) Whether a creative can be considered to personally endorse something they're commissioned to create, or that their brand is attached to.
I think if you were, say, a (liberal) graphic designer and someone tried to commission you to make a gun lobby poster, or some alt-right propaganda, it would be quite reasonable for you to decline.
I can imagine that the cake guy sees the comissioned cake as being a personal, political endorsement of SSM itself, and I think it's not unreasonable for him to back out due to the conflict with his own position.
This runs into the obvious issue that the gun lobby is not a protected class while LGBT is. However, the law doesn't require you to take the side of the protected class in every debate just because they are protected. If a group of Christians (who are themselves a protected class) asked our earlier graphic designer to create a video advocating, say, a ban on pre-marital sex, he would be able to decline.
So the question is: is the cake a cake, or an endorsement of a political position?
In my opinion it's probably a cake, and the guy should probably have just made it. However, I can see how he might have seen things the other way without any particular malice against the client. I don't think it's all that helpful to set every SSM-objector up as some kind of frothing-at-the-mouth boogeyman.
|
On March 24 2018 19:48 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 19:35 Gorsameth wrote:On March 24 2018 10:02 A3th3r wrote:On March 24 2018 09:41 zlefin wrote:On March 24 2018 08:58 A3th3r wrote:On March 24 2018 08:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
On one hand, "let there be tapes".
On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on.
ps.
Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters.
Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach. Interesting how people who can’t compromise with their religion to not be complete assholes to gay customers are very flexible when it’s about voting for a guy who cheated his pregnant wife with a pornstar. But nevermind. So, anyway, does the whole thing work with islam with practitioners discriminating against, say, non muslim people, or have christian nuts the monopoly of being jerks under the protection of the constitution? Because, let me tell you, it’s a very, very slippery slope. And one wouldn’t want to be accused of double standard and using the constitution to justify biggotery and intolerance. I think that the point here is that this is not a video game. We're not in a Tom Clancy novel or a Farcry universe here. This is real life. Trump does make compromises to the vast white & mexican constituencies that elected him by campaigning to change the job market in such a way that things are better for most people. I understand that this upsets people who didn't vote for him. That's a bummer but what can ya do. That being said, I wish that the trade deficit that America has with other countries were a little smaller. It does seem like what the president is doing is renegotiating the trade contracts that he has with other countries in order to try & trim things down a bit. That's not such a bad idea in & of itself as long as the US economy does do well. Brazil & Peru are following the US right now & are trying to reform their own economies there so I guess what I'm saying is that there are changes that are going on right now. Specifically, Brazil is cutting the national interest rates in an effort to shake up the banking system a bit & see what comes out https://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-central-bank-cuts-rate-again-sees-additional-easing-as-appropriate-1521675795https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-mixed-race-brazil-sperm-imports-from-u-s-whites-are-booming-1521711000 what campaigns to change the job market by trump are you referring to? (i.e. I have no idea what you're talking about and it seems more like a non-sequitur and/or faulty premise) Trump is trying to lower the US trade deficit to other countries & protect local industries. That's what he's been trying to do for quite a while lately. Do you read the newspaper or pay attention to presidential politics? You are aware that tariffs raise the prize of US produced goods right? So it means that either people pay more for the products on the shelves in the US or the factory makes less money and has to fire people. It doesn't improve the job market, it actively worsens them. Do you think there is any sort of problem with China having such a large trade imbalance with the US? Is this something that can and should continue indefinitely? Is it fair that China has trade barriers that make it very difficult for companies like Tesla to compete there? Apart from the threat of tariffs what else could be done to make China budge on such issues? Show nested quote +Musk spoke out against two things that he says have made things “very difficult” for Tesla. First, he explained to the president how the US places a 2.5 percent tariff on cars imported to the US from China, while China places a 25 percent tariff on US imports. Then he brought up how, in China, the government forces foreign automakers that want to manufacture cars in the country to partner with a Chinese car company.
In a message to The Verge, Musk said he wants Trump to pressure China to change its stance on these issues. “It is better if all countries lower tariffs,” he wrote. But when Trump read Musk’s tweets during the press event where he announced the tariffs, he said that “at some point,” he’s likely to enforce what he called a “reciprocal, a mirror tax,” where he’ll match the tariffs China has put on US imports.
Tesla has exported cars to China for years now, and they sell well in the country, accounting for around 9 percent of the EV market there. To get around the 25 percent import tariff, though, the company has explored setting up a factory. While other major carmakers like GM have acquiesced to China’s manufacturing rules, Tesla has resisted partnering with local carmakers, and has been pushing the government there for an exemption. The government reportedly won’t budge, and so the two sides are at an impasse.
On Twitter, Musk complained this was unfair since there are “five 100 [percent] China-owned EV auto companies in the US,” (presumably referring to startups like NIO, Faraday Future, SF Motors, and Byton). He also said that Tesla tried to work with the Obama administration on this imbalance, but that “nothing happened.” https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/8/17097158/elon-musk-tesla-trump-china-tariffs-trade-twitter
No I don't think the trade imbalance is a problem. US consumers like cheap goods. China produces cheap goods.
Yes the world isn't fair, shit happens. More knowledgeable people then me have tried and failed to make China open up, so no I don't have a solution to that.
But that doesn't change my point that Trumps tariffs do nothing to help the US job market and in fact are more likely to worsen it.
|
|
|
On March 24 2018 19:58 Belisarius wrote:
I do think there's a couple of issues underneath the cake thing that are worth consideration:
1) The idea that nobody should be required to endorse a political opinion they disagree with, which I do believe to be true.
and 2) Whether a creative can be considered to personally endorse something they're commissioned to create, or that their brand is attached to.
I think if you were, say, a (liberal) graphic designer and someone tried to commission you to make a gun lobby poster, or some alt-right propaganda, it would be quite reasonable for you to decline.
I can imagine that the cake guy sees the comissioned cake as being a personal, political endorsement of SSM itself, and I think it's not unreasonable for him to back out due to the conflict with his own position.
This runs into the obvious issue that the gun lobby is not a protected class while LGBT is. However, the law doesn't require you to take the side of the protected class in every debate just because they are protected. If a group of Christians (who are themselves a protected class) asked our earlier graphic designer to create a video advocating, say, a ban on pre-marital sex, he would be able to decline.
So the question is: is the cake a cake, or an endorsement of a political position?
In my opinion it's probably a cake, and the guy should probably have just made it. However, I can see how he might have seen things the other way without any particular malice against the client. I don't think it's all that helpful to set every SSM-objector up as some kind of frothing-at-the-mouth boogeyman.
I think you miss the distinction between what people think and what people are. Opposing people for what they think is natural, and actually a necessary part of democatic life. Inversely, opposing people for what they are is intolerance and biggotry.
It’s not that gun owners are not a priviledged, protected class. It’s that supporting gun ownership is an idea. Being gay is not, it’s who you are, just as being black, white, handicaped, or ginger.
Religions are a weird one, because they are obviously ideas, but for some reason being religious is considered something people are and not something people think, and with all the protections that go with it. Which is something I personally vehemently opppose.
So to recap, having a problem with people who support guns or abortion or fascism, or liberal values is totally legitimate. Discriminating against gingers, gays or black folks is not. It’s really not the same to refuse to bake a cake that says « heil hitler » or « hurrah to the nra », or refuse to bake a cake because your customers are gay and your interpretation of the gospel is that you should totally be a jerk to them.
|
On March 24 2018 10:00 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 09:52 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:31 NewSunshine wrote:
The reason the religion thing has experienced such friction is because it's a business, not someone's personal relationship or venture. Serving a gay person/couple who is just going about their business isn't doing anything to persecute you as a religious person, they're simply offering money in exchange for a service. I find it hard to buy the idea that refusing to serve gay people on the premise of your religion's backward view on gay people is anything but discrimination. Their money is the same as anyone else's, and who they choose to love is their business.
On the other hand, while I wouldn't be sad if it came to a court decision, I'm also all for that couple simply taking their business elsewhere, and letting the court of public opinion deal with a cake-maker that refuses to acknowledge gay rights. But maybe they didn't have the luxury of choice. Either way, I don't think it's a wise decision to let anyone freely deny service to gay people under the vague blanket of religious protection. It would be, how you say, a slippery slope. I find that universal rejection of ones civil rights just because it applies to all aspects of their lives is foolhardy. You can believe what you want about religion as long as you never intend to work a job and have it influence your life. No. Absolutely not. There’s a trade off involved, since it makes no sense for an ER nurse to refuse service to some religion, or for an artist in business for himself to be forced to create a morally reprehensible piece. That’s the trade-off that people like you are so careful to ignore. In fact, he relentlessly acknowledged anyone’s rights to buy any product he made in his store, save for one custom service of art not yet made. It sounds like you’re preferring alternative facts to govern your argument, instead of plainly dealing in freedom of conscience objections not covered by your simplistic interpretations. It sounds like you’d be stunned to hear the Supreme Court even took the case, not even acknowledging how controversial are these lines. You can have your rights, as long as you leave those at the door of your business. Sheesh. Their right in this case is the ability to deny the rights of people who just want to be treated the same, so yes, I'm hesitant to just buy into it because it was written in a religious text. If I was a cakemaker, I wouldn't deny you a custom service for your religious beliefs, even if I disagreed vehemently with the idea of being religious, because it has nothing to do with you paying me for a service. Forget cakes, lets go with your hospital example. Were I doctor or nurse, I wouldn't dare deny you service because of your religion, nor would I deny you service because you were gay or transgender. Why would I even think of doing that? This person is ill/injured and needs my services, what they are in their personal lives is none of my concern. Yes, it is strictly business if you ask me.
I really question how well people here can put themselves into the shoes of business owners with strong religious beliefs. A wedding is a traditionally religious event. Just buying a premade cake is not. That’s why writing on a cake “God smiles on this event” would be a form of compelled speech for them. I don’t think hospital care has such a big hold on religion. But even then, religious objectors (ob-gyn) routinely refuse to do abortions and are granted that exemption. That example is more in keeping with a small list of things someone won’t do, versus refusing anything at the door (which they did not do, may i remind you).
|
On March 24 2018 18:59 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 09:19 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach. The religious right in America aren't exactly the posterboys for compromise, though, are they? The push/pull here is pretty obvious; the government doesn't want to violate religious liberty, but a lot of people think 'religious liberty' is equal to 'discriminate against gay people', which is something the government also doesn't want. Both sides think their side should win out, for whatever reason. Your argument for going with Trump is fine, provided you accept that Evangelicals have given up the moral high ground. You cannot make the argument 'I'm supporting Trump while condemning Trump'; the conscientious thing to do would surely have been not to vote if Hilary really is as bad as your side claims, and Trump... well, Trump absolutely is as bad as everyone thinks he is and most of your side - including yourself - know it. When gay people are mostly campaigning to be treated like everyone else and Christians are campaigning to treat them like they're different, there's no easy solution. Long-term, though, the gays are likely to win out. As are trans people, actually, but that will take quite a long time since I don't think many people even know what a trans person really is yet, let alone understand them. The opposite is in fact true. The crusaders against any common sense religious liberty accommodations are rejected in favor of zero-compromise “discrimination” framings. Your rights are meaningless, because I choose to interpret your religion as merely an excuse for discrimination. And, well, it’s saddening but a lot of people have adopted that mean-spirited attitude against the religious faithful. It’s totally counter-factual too—if the real goal was discrimination, they would refuse other services to gay couples. Instead, companies like Masterpiece Cakeshop serve all customers of any religion and creed the full extent of services not involving their custom religious ceremony artistic creations. I don’t really think you understood my post based on the remainder of what you’ve written. Christians will accept someone that doesn’t campaign so vociferously against their civil rights if that’s the current trend. The indifference of a morally repugnant individual is preferential to these moral busybodies that agitate against personal liberty. It’s that people in agreement with your point of view have made themselves so odious in lawmaking that they’ve made a great many alternatives easily acceptable. You would have to be wilfully blind not to be aware that Christian lawmakers love to trample on civil liberties. Need I remind you that Mike Pence very recently said 'we will see the end of abortion in our time'? There are plenty of Christians in America who - if they had their way - would strip the rights from a lot of different vulnerable groups based on 'religious' reasoning. Didn't Roy Moore specifically say he felt gays deserve no rights? Christians are the definition of moral busybodies, poking their noses into other people's lives and bedrooms and telling them to live their lives in a way the religious deem 'more moral'. It's not a 'mean-spirited attitude' its acknowledgement of a truth that religious people choose to conveniently ignore. Did you read that article about how black Christians are leaving evangelical churches in increasingly large numbers? How can you argue that it is not discrimination when you literally just wrote that they deny a particular service that they offer to gay people because they are gay? That is literally what discrimination is. They want the liberty to discriminate against gay people by denying them a particular service. Because they're gay. If they were not gay, the service would be available to them. And all of that ignores the argument that marriage doesn't have to be religious and can be entirely secular. I don't know if this is the case in America, but in the UK churches need a license from the state to perform a marriage. They don't need a licence to perform Sunday mass, however.
We already have less abortion restrictions than Europe does. Like, America is way more radical than Europe on this issue. It sounds like Christian lawmakers are a pretty sorry lot on that issue. Frankly, people that think fetal viability is the correct dividing line on abortion should join the more supported end of the movement. Remember, a developing baby should not be absolutely deprived of any rights, or at least I think that he second after birth does not suddenly entitle him or her to an abundance of rights whereas the second before he or she lacked any to speak of.
They do not put a sign up at the door saying they refuse to serve gays. The whole store is open to them. It was this expressive service, deserving of first amendment protections, that was denied. It’s an intimate part of their speech rights (and protections against compelled speech) with a traditionally religious ceremony. I’d say the same about Hindu bakers and custom cake services for Christian weddings, and Muslims (I take it they’re forced to write “Mohammed was a false prophet” in your rubric).
There’s no point in casting a marriage as secular when the history of the biggest religions in America made it a distinctly religious event. That’s ignoring history to engage in make-believe about conflicts in religious conscience. I really don’t think that’s a useful pretense. But of course, get married in a truly secular wedding and pick an atheist baker if that’s your choice.
|
On March 24 2018 19:58 Belisarius wrote:
I do think there's a couple of issues underneath the cake thing that are worth consideration:
1) The idea that nobody should be required to endorse a political opinion they disagree with, which I do believe to be true.
and 2) Whether a creative can be considered to personally endorse something they're commissioned to create, or that their brand is attached to.
I think if you were, say, a (liberal) graphic designer and someone tried to commission you to make a gun lobby poster, or some alt-right propaganda, it would be quite reasonable for you to decline.
I can imagine that the cake guy sees the comissioned cake as being a personal, political endorsement of SSM itself, and I think it's not unreasonable for him to back out due to the conflict with his own position.
This runs into the obvious issue that the gun lobby is not a protected class while LGBT is. However, the law doesn't require you to take the side of the protected class in every debate just because they are protected. If a group of Christians (who are themselves a protected class) asked our earlier graphic designer to create a video advocating, say, a ban on pre-marital sex, he would be able to decline.
So the question is: is the cake a cake, or an endorsement of a political position?
In my opinion it's probably a cake, and the guy should probably have just made it. However, I can see how he might have seen things the other way without any particular malice against the client. I don't think it's all that helpful to set every SSM-objector up as some kind of frothing-at-the-mouth boogeyman.
I agree that treating SSM objectors as discriminatory bigots is not at all helpful in this situation. The case before the Supreme Court were two historical customers who had been happily served for years before this event. Hardly the setup that has been constantly portrayed here.
|
On March 24 2018 19:24 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +
How can you argue that it is not discrimination when you literally just wrote that they deny a particular service that they offer to gay people because they are gay? That is literally what discrimination is. They want the liberty to discriminate against gay people by denying them a particular service. Because they're gay. If they were not gay, the service would be available to them.
And all of that ignores the argument that marriage doesn't have to be religious and can be entirely secular. I don't know if this is the case in America, but in the UK churches need a license from the state to perform a marriage. They don't need a licence to perform Sunday mass, however.
So much this. I do personally have quite a chip on my shoulder about religion, but despite my pessimism it still amazes what goes to court / becomes an issue. How was denying someone a service you offer on the basis of sexuality ever on the cards, how did cake-shop owners or whatever have you ever think to do that, or that it was acceptable? It's not denying the rights of the religious, it's denying them the special privilege to discriminate. Like that special privilege they have to not paying taxes despite the strong involvement in politics that has emerged. The majority of US citizens are christian, and even so the religion is ridiculously over-represented in US politicians, there is seriously no risk they are going to get persecuted in a hurry. Having a belief doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate against gay people. Imagine if an inter-racial couple was denied service for the same reason, there'd be hell to pay and rightly so.Especially with the current republican platform, religion has massively overstepped its boundaries in US politics, and shouldn't expect the diplomatic shielding it often enjoys in the public eye. If you want to be involved in politics and power, expect to be checked upon.
On March 25 2018 00:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 10:00 NewSunshine wrote:On March 24 2018 09:52 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:31 NewSunshine wrote:
The reason the religion thing has experienced such friction is because it's a business, not someone's personal relationship or venture. Serving a gay person/couple who is just going about their business isn't doing anything to persecute you as a religious person, they're simply offering money in exchange for a service. I find it hard to buy the idea that refusing to serve gay people on the premise of your religion's backward view on gay people is anything but discrimination. Their money is the same as anyone else's, and who they choose to love is their business.
On the other hand, while I wouldn't be sad if it came to a court decision, I'm also all for that couple simply taking their business elsewhere, and letting the court of public opinion deal with a cake-maker that refuses to acknowledge gay rights. But maybe they didn't have the luxury of choice. Either way, I don't think it's a wise decision to let anyone freely deny service to gay people under the vague blanket of religious protection. It would be, how you say, a slippery slope. I find that universal rejection of ones civil rights just because it applies to all aspects of their lives is foolhardy. You can believe what you want about religion as long as you never intend to work a job and have it influence your life. No. Absolutely not. There’s a trade off involved, since it makes no sense for an ER nurse to refuse service to some religion, or for an artist in business for himself to be forced to create a morally reprehensible piece. That’s the trade-off that people like you are so careful to ignore. In fact, he relentlessly acknowledged anyone’s rights to buy any product he made in his store, save for one custom service of art not yet made. It sounds like you’re preferring alternative facts to govern your argument, instead of plainly dealing in freedom of conscience objections not covered by your simplistic interpretations. It sounds like you’d be stunned to hear the Supreme Court even took the case, not even acknowledging how controversial are these lines. You can have your rights, as long as you leave those at the door of your business. Sheesh. Their right in this case is the ability to deny the rights of people who just want to be treated the same, so yes, I'm hesitant to just buy into it because it was written in a religious text. If I was a cakemaker, I wouldn't deny you a custom service for your religious beliefs, even if I disagreed vehemently with the idea of being religious, because it has nothing to do with you paying me for a service. Forget cakes, lets go with your hospital example. Were I doctor or nurse, I wouldn't dare deny you service because of your religion, nor would I deny you service because you were gay or transgender. Why would I even think of doing that? This person is ill/injured and needs my services, what they are in their personal lives is none of my concern. Yes, it is strictly business if you ask me. I really question how well people here can put themselves into the shoes of business owners with strong religious beliefs. A wedding is a traditionally religious event. Just buying a premade cake is not. That’s why writing on a cake “God smiles on this event” would be a form of compelled speech for them. I don’t think hospital care has such a big hold on religion. But even then, religious objectors (ob-gyn) routinely refuse to do abortions and are granted that exemption. That example is more in keeping with a small list of things someone won’t do, versus refusing anything at the door (which they did not do, may i remind you).
Thing is, back when interracial marriage was an issue and anti-miscegenation laws were a thing, Christians made all the same arguments against it that they make against gay marriage today. A conservative of the 1960s would have argued that forcing a Christian backer to write on a wedding cake for an interracial marriage "God smiles on this event," would be compelled speech.
Part of the reason liberals don't really have any patience for this freedom to discriminate nonsense is because this country has already had this entire argument from start to finish, and then conservatives changed a couple of nouns and started the whole thing over again.
Also, Danglars, would you say that a baker has a right to ask an individual who they do not know the sexual orientation of to clarify their orientation or deny service if they don't answer on the basis of "they might be gay"?
|
On March 25 2018 00:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 18:59 iamthedave wrote:On March 24 2018 09:19 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach. The religious right in America aren't exactly the posterboys for compromise, though, are they? The push/pull here is pretty obvious; the government doesn't want to violate religious liberty, but a lot of people think 'religious liberty' is equal to 'discriminate against gay people', which is something the government also doesn't want. Both sides think their side should win out, for whatever reason. Your argument for going with Trump is fine, provided you accept that Evangelicals have given up the moral high ground. You cannot make the argument 'I'm supporting Trump while condemning Trump'; the conscientious thing to do would surely have been not to vote if Hilary really is as bad as your side claims, and Trump... well, Trump absolutely is as bad as everyone thinks he is and most of your side - including yourself - know it. When gay people are mostly campaigning to be treated like everyone else and Christians are campaigning to treat them like they're different, there's no easy solution. Long-term, though, the gays are likely to win out. As are trans people, actually, but that will take quite a long time since I don't think many people even know what a trans person really is yet, let alone understand them. The opposite is in fact true. The crusaders against any common sense religious liberty accommodations are rejected in favor of zero-compromise “discrimination” framings. Your rights are meaningless, because I choose to interpret your religion as merely an excuse for discrimination. And, well, it’s saddening but a lot of people have adopted that mean-spirited attitude against the religious faithful. It’s totally counter-factual too—if the real goal was discrimination, they would refuse other services to gay couples. Instead, companies like Masterpiece Cakeshop serve all customers of any religion and creed the full extent of services not involving their custom religious ceremony artistic creations. I don’t really think you understood my post based on the remainder of what you’ve written. Christians will accept someone that doesn’t campaign so vociferously against their civil rights if that’s the current trend. The indifference of a morally repugnant individual is preferential to these moral busybodies that agitate against personal liberty. It’s that people in agreement with your point of view have made themselves so odious in lawmaking that they’ve made a great many alternatives easily acceptable. You would have to be wilfully blind not to be aware that Christian lawmakers love to trample on civil liberties. Need I remind you that Mike Pence very recently said 'we will see the end of abortion in our time'? There are plenty of Christians in America who - if they had their way - would strip the rights from a lot of different vulnerable groups based on 'religious' reasoning. Didn't Roy Moore specifically say he felt gays deserve no rights? Christians are the definition of moral busybodies, poking their noses into other people's lives and bedrooms and telling them to live their lives in a way the religious deem 'more moral'. It's not a 'mean-spirited attitude' its acknowledgement of a truth that religious people choose to conveniently ignore. Did you read that article about how black Christians are leaving evangelical churches in increasingly large numbers? How can you argue that it is not discrimination when you literally just wrote that they deny a particular service that they offer to gay people because they are gay? That is literally what discrimination is. They want the liberty to discriminate against gay people by denying them a particular service. Because they're gay. If they were not gay, the service would be available to them. And all of that ignores the argument that marriage doesn't have to be religious and can be entirely secular. I don't know if this is the case in America, but in the UK churches need a license from the state to perform a marriage. They don't need a licence to perform Sunday mass, however. We already have less abortion restrictions than Europe does. Like, America is way more radical than Europe on this issue. It sounds like Christian lawmakers are a pretty sorry lot on that issue. Frankly, people that think fetal viability is the correct dividing line on abortion should join the more supported end of the movement. Remember, a developing baby should not be absolutely deprived of any rights, or at least I think that he second after birth does not suddenly entitle him or her to an abundance of rights whereas the second before he or she lacked any to speak of. They do not put a sign up at the door saying they refuse to serve gays. The whole store is open to them. It was this expressive service, deserving of first amendment protections, that was denied. It’s an intimate part of their speech rights (and protections against compelled speech) with a traditionally religious ceremony. I’d say the same about Hindu bakers and custom cake services for Christian weddings, and Muslims (I take it they’re forced to write “Mohammed was a false prophet” in your rubric). There’s no point in casting a marriage as secular when the history of the biggest religions in America made it a distinctly religious event. That’s ignoring history to engage in make-believe about conflicts in religious conscience. I really don’t think that’s a useful pretense. But of course, get married in a truly secular wedding and pick an atheist baker if that’s your choice.
I consider marriage an obsolete idea that doesn't reflect modern relationships or the pressures upon them, and have no intention of any marriage of any sort at any point in my life. It's too often a cage of misery for one or even both partners that strangles them in legalities and compulsions.
But factually, marriage is heavily secular; pretty much forever, marriage has only been possible when permitted by the state. You can take the religion out of marriage and there's still a marriage happening. You can't take the religion out of Sunday Mass. People confuse the fact that throughout history religious people have been getting married to be the same as marriage being a de facto religious occasion, when it isn't. If it were the state would have no part in it, and certainly couldn't revoke a church's marriage license or, even, annul a marriage without the chuch's consent, which it can. In a society where everyone is religious, only religious people are getting married. That doesn't make marriage a religious ceremony.
For final conclusions on that point, consider what happened when the Vatican tried to tell the King of England that a holy marriage couldn't be annulled save under the terms they set, and the King said 'Umm... no.' And who won in that debate? 'Twas not religion.
You know better than I, I suspect, how hard your religious lawmakers have tried to restrict abortions, and have mostly been put down by the court. Nonetheless, your claim that America's laws are lax doesn't hold much water, given the torturous extremes women have to go to to get a legal abortion in some parts of America. I seem to recall y'all shifted from banning the practice to trying to shut down all the clinics instead. Might not be able to take the right away but you can sure make it hell for a woman to exercise those rights.
If those Muslims ran a cake shop and offered a service to the public where they will design cakes for special occasions, I would expect them to offer that service to the public. Otherwise they should publically announce the exceptions and reasons for them. If discrimination is illegal and so they can't publically make those exceptions known, they should either not offer the service at all, or offer it to everyone.
The people that run a business can be religious, and there's nothing wrong with that. Their business itself is NOT religious, and it doesn't get to make exceptions based on its religious leanings accordingly. Except, you know, the Vatican or something. That's definitely a religious institution.
As for your specific example with the Muslims: yes, if they offer that service and don't explicitly say 'we will not do x or y for z reasons'. That is not an unreasonable expectation for a company trading in the public domain. On the other hand, I don't think many people would consider it unreasonable for them to say 'we will not create custom cakes that disparage our religion and would please ask the public to respect that everyone who works at this establishment is a Muslim'.
And why should someone's religion be held on a higher pedastal than my own personal moral code, that I value higher than any supposed divine's opinion on the matter? I don't see people lining up to say how I get to special plead on what services I offer and who I get to serve in my place of business. It's only religious people who say 'my god says x so I shouldn't have to do y because I'm special because I believe in god'. And unlike an awful lot of religious people in your politics, I can comfortably say I'm not a hypocrite, preaching one thing out of one side of my mouth and doing the exact opposite with a smile.
|
I'm curious how the anti gay baker or those backing him would feel if he had to go to the ER but was denied service by a muslim or hindu or atheist or satanist doctor because they refuse to serve christians because of their deeply held beliefs? Or if the one plumber in town refused to unclog his drain because he is deeply offended by christians?
|
On March 25 2018 01:35 hunts wrote:
I'm curious how the anti gay baker or those backing him would feel if he had to go to the ER but was denied service by a muslim or hindu or atheist or satanist doctor because they refuse to serve christians because of their deeply held beliefs? Or if the one plumber in town refused to unclog his drain because he is deeply offended by christians?
In before the "just get another doctor or plumber" post.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 25 2018 00:54 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 19:24 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
How can you argue that it is not discrimination when you literally just wrote that they deny a particular service that they offer to gay people because they are gay? That is literally what discrimination is. They want the liberty to discriminate against gay people by denying them a particular service. Because they're gay. If they were not gay, the service would be available to them.
And all of that ignores the argument that marriage doesn't have to be religious and can be entirely secular. I don't know if this is the case in America, but in the UK churches need a license from the state to perform a marriage. They don't need a licence to perform Sunday mass, however.
So much this. I do personally have quite a chip on my shoulder about religion, but despite my pessimism it still amazes what goes to court / becomes an issue. How was denying someone a service you offer on the basis of sexuality ever on the cards, how did cake-shop owners or whatever have you ever think to do that, or that it was acceptable? It's not denying the rights of the religious, it's denying them the special privilege to discriminate. Like that special privilege they have to not paying taxes despite the strong involvement in politics that has emerged. The majority of US citizens are christian, and even so the religion is ridiculously over-represented in US politicians, there is seriously no risk they are going to get persecuted in a hurry. Having a belief doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate against gay people. Imagine if an inter-racial couple was denied service for the same reason, there'd be hell to pay and rightly so.Especially with the current republican platform, religion has massively overstepped its boundaries in US politics, and shouldn't expect the diplomatic shielding it often enjoys in the public eye. If you want to be involved in politics and power, expect to be checked upon. Show nested quote +On March 25 2018 00:20 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 10:00 NewSunshine wrote:On March 24 2018 09:52 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:31 NewSunshine wrote:
The reason the religion thing has experienced such friction is because it's a business, not someone's personal relationship or venture. Serving a gay person/couple who is just going about their business isn't doing anything to persecute you as a religious person, they're simply offering money in exchange for a service. I find it hard to buy the idea that refusing to serve gay people on the premise of your religion's backward view on gay people is anything but discrimination. Their money is the same as anyone else's, and who they choose to love is their business.
On the other hand, while I wouldn't be sad if it came to a court decision, I'm also all for that couple simply taking their business elsewhere, and letting the court of public opinion deal with a cake-maker that refuses to acknowledge gay rights. But maybe they didn't have the luxury of choice. Either way, I don't think it's a wise decision to let anyone freely deny service to gay people under the vague blanket of religious protection. It would be, how you say, a slippery slope. I find that universal rejection of ones civil rights just because it applies to all aspects of their lives is foolhardy. You can believe what you want about religion as long as you never intend to work a job and have it influence your life. No. Absolutely not. There’s a trade off involved, since it makes no sense for an ER nurse to refuse service to some religion, or for an artist in business for himself to be forced to create a morally reprehensible piece. That’s the trade-off that people like you are so careful to ignore. In fact, he relentlessly acknowledged anyone’s rights to buy any product he made in his store, save for one custom service of art not yet made. It sounds like you’re preferring alternative facts to govern your argument, instead of plainly dealing in freedom of conscience objections not covered by your simplistic interpretations. It sounds like you’d be stunned to hear the Supreme Court even took the case, not even acknowledging how controversial are these lines. You can have your rights, as long as you leave those at the door of your business. Sheesh. Their right in this case is the ability to deny the rights of people who just want to be treated the same, so yes, I'm hesitant to just buy into it because it was written in a religious text. If I was a cakemaker, I wouldn't deny you a custom service for your religious beliefs, even if I disagreed vehemently with the idea of being religious, because it has nothing to do with you paying me for a service. Forget cakes, lets go with your hospital example. Were I doctor or nurse, I wouldn't dare deny you service because of your religion, nor would I deny you service because you were gay or transgender. Why would I even think of doing that? This person is ill/injured and needs my services, what they are in their personal lives is none of my concern. Yes, it is strictly business if you ask me. I really question how well people here can put themselves into the shoes of business owners with strong religious beliefs. A wedding is a traditionally religious event. Just buying a premade cake is not. That’s why writing on a cake “God smiles on this event” would be a form of compelled speech for them. I don’t think hospital care has such a big hold on religion. But even then, religious objectors (ob-gyn) routinely refuse to do abortions and are granted that exemption. That example is more in keeping with a small list of things someone won’t do, versus refusing anything at the door (which they did not do, may i remind you). Thing is, back when interracial marriage was an issue and anti-miscegenation laws were a thing, Christians made all the same arguments against it that they make against gay marriage today. A conservative of the 1960s would have argued that forcing a Christian backer to write on a wedding cake for an interracial marriage "God smiles on this event," would be compelled speech. Part of the reason liberals don't really have any patience for this freedom to discriminate nonsense is because this country has already had this entire argument from start to finish, and then conservatives changed a couple of nouns and started the whole thing over again. Also, Danglars, would you say that a baker has a right to ask an individual who they do not know the sexual orientation of to clarify their orientation or deny service if they don't answer on the basis of "they might be gay"?
A conservative of the 1960s would've been opposed to miscegenation laws? Oh, please. You don't have to paint your opposition as a bunch of historical racists in order to make a point about the laws.
If this is a custom piece of art conveying a message, it's at whatever point of the process that the business learns that it violates their religious conscience. This is the case of a ceremony, for Christians with heavy religious impact, that would celebrate a gay marriage with a cake containing the same message .
A wedding cake expresses an inherent message that is that the union is a marriage and is to be celebrated, and that message violates Mr. Phillips's religious convictions.
Closing statement of the lawyer representing the baker.
|
On March 25 2018 01:35 hunts wrote:
I'm curious how the anti gay baker or those backing him would feel if he had to go to the ER but was denied service by a muslim or hindu or atheist or satanist doctor because they refuse to serve christians because of their deeply held beliefs? Or if the one plumber in town refused to unclog his drain because he is deeply offended by christians?
I was thinking the same until i considered Belisarius' post. It's a question of personal endorsement. A trash collector shouldn't be allowed to skip houses based on the owner's protected classes. Doctors should be able to refuse to perform abortions because the process is antithesis to their ideals. The distinction is in whether the act is seen as a personal endorsement of the idea. Your example aligns itself more with the trash collector.
The sticking point of the cake case seems to be whether creating a plain white cake is considered a personal endorsement. I would argue it's not.
Edit - actually, i'm not sure the abortion example is very good. It seems less like a 1st amendment decision and more of a conscientious objector kind of thing. Perhaps a better would be belisarious' own; an artist being asked to create something opposed to his own protected values.
|
On March 25 2018 01:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2018 00:31 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 18:59 iamthedave wrote:On March 24 2018 09:19 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On March 24 2018 07:43 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 03:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 23 2018 22:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2018 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 23 2018 22:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:If all trump is doing by firing everyone and placing Bolton as head of NSA to knock Stormy Daniels off the news cycle. it hasn't worked. Her 60 Minutes Interview is this Sunday night, and he lawyer tweeted this. https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/977015170231885825 On one hand, "let there be tapes". On the other, no one wants to hear/see Trump getting it on. ps. Considering all the shit Trump has done and his known previous affairs. Why even worry about this? There is no real reason to assume this will do anything to his approval numbers or his supporters. Guilty pleasure. I’d love to know what’s going on in the heads of the countless devot christians who voted for him and keep supporting him. At one point, his conduct will end up hurting him, i believe. People’s ability to contradict themselves is always surprising but it’s not infinite. Meanwhike, getting my popcorns ready. That Stormy Daniel woman must be having the time of her life. Looks like being in the spotlight is what she enjoys, and it looks like she would love to make as much damage as she can... I'm kind of hoping that it's video evidence of Trump implying physical violence against her at some point after he was inaugurated or something. Also, Evangelicals really, really don't care about character unless it's a useful avenue of attack on a Democrat. With Trump, it's all about ending abortion, protecting their ability to discriminate against gays, lesbians, trans, etc., and stacking the court. Pay particular attention to the sentence I emphasized near the end. Trump could be holding daily orgies in the Oval Office and they would let it slide as long as he continues to nominate young idealogues for lifetime court appointments. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pledged to defend religious liberty, stand up for unborn life and appoint conservative jurists to the Supreme Court and federal appeals courts. And he has done exactly what he promised. The pro-abortion lobby NARAL complains that Trump has been “relentless” on these fronts, declaring his administration “the worst . . . that we’ve ever seen.” That is more important to most Christian conservatives than what the president may have done with a porn actress more than 10 years ago.
Trump’s election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama’s solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that “religious beliefs . . . have to be changed” — perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.
The impact would have been immediate, as the court prepares to decide two cases crucial to religious liberty. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs. In National Institute of Family Life Advocates v. Becerra, the court will decide whether the state of California can compel pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise access to abortion to their clients, in violation of their conscience. Those cases are being heard not by five liberals, but five conservatives, including Justice Neil M.Gorsuch — because Trump kept his promise to “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
The president is moving at record pace to fill the federal appeals courts with young conservative judges who will protect life and religious freedom for decades. He also fulfilled his promise to defend the Little Sisters from government bullying, by expanding the religious and conscience exemption to the Obamacare contraception mandate to cover both nonprofit and for-profit organizations. www.washingtonpost.com You highlight the trouble in calling these issues. For you, it’s about “protecting their ability to discriminate against gays.” For me, it’s about religious liberty, and if I were to punch up the emotion to your level, it would be to “force religious people to violate their conscience by government fiat.” This is very important in cases like the Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they will readily sell premade cakes, but will not custom build a celebratory message for a gay wedding. I think the entire lack of nuance here underlies the point: you’ve given up compromise, and the religious must go to people that aren’t activists against their rights. I’ll take a Trump that is personally abhorrent simply because he’s not crusading to force school districts to put anatomical males into female locker rooms. I can actually put my input in the local school district. Or make universities apply reduced standards for conviction and expulsion for rape accusations under Title IX. It’s definitely a disconnect, and I don’t know how much of that is willful malice against religion, against due process, and against state rights and local control. The only thing that makes sense is that some of the latter is in the mix. Forcing nuns to fully subsidize contraception is one of the stupider results from the black-and-white approach. The religious right in America aren't exactly the posterboys for compromise, though, are they? The push/pull here is pretty obvious; the government doesn't want to violate religious liberty, but a lot of people think 'religious liberty' is equal to 'discriminate against gay people', which is something the government also doesn't want. Both sides think their side should win out, for whatever reason. Your argument for going with Trump is fine, provided you accept that Evangelicals have given up the moral high ground. You cannot make the argument 'I'm supporting Trump while condemning Trump'; the conscientious thing to do would surely have been not to vote if Hilary really is as bad as your side claims, and Trump... well, Trump absolutely is as bad as everyone thinks he is and most of your side - including yourself - know it. When gay people are mostly campaigning to be treated like everyone else and Christians are campaigning to treat them like they're different, there's no easy solution. Long-term, though, the gays are likely to win out. As are trans people, actually, but that will take quite a long time since I don't think many people even know what a trans person really is yet, let alone understand them. The opposite is in fact true. The crusaders against any common sense religious liberty accommodations are rejected in favor of zero-compromise “discrimination” framings. Your rights are meaningless, because I choose to interpret your religion as merely an excuse for discrimination. And, well, it’s saddening but a lot of people have adopted that mean-spirited attitude against the religious faithful. It’s totally counter-factual too—if the real goal was discrimination, they would refuse other services to gay couples. Instead, companies like Masterpiece Cakeshop serve all customers of any religion and creed the full extent of services not involving their custom religious ceremony artistic creations. I don’t really think you understood my post based on the remainder of what you’ve written. Christians will accept someone that doesn’t campaign so vociferously against their civil rights if that’s the current trend. The indifference of a morally repugnant individual is preferential to these moral busybodies that agitate against personal liberty. It’s that people in agreement with your point of view have made themselves so odious in lawmaking that they’ve made a great many alternatives easily acceptable. You would have to be wilfully blind not to be aware that Christian lawmakers love to trample on civil liberties. Need I remind you that Mike Pence very recently said 'we will see the end of abortion in our time'? There are plenty of Christians in America who - if they had their way - would strip the rights from a lot of different vulnerable groups based on 'religious' reasoning. Didn't Roy Moore specifically say he felt gays deserve no rights? Christians are the definition of moral busybodies, poking their noses into other people's lives and bedrooms and telling them to live their lives in a way the religious deem 'more moral'. It's not a 'mean-spirited attitude' its acknowledgement of a truth that religious people choose to conveniently ignore. Did you read that article about how black Christians are leaving evangelical churches in increasingly large numbers? How can you argue that it is not discrimination when you literally just wrote that they deny a particular service that they offer to gay people because they are gay? That is literally what discrimination is. They want the liberty to discriminate against gay people by denying them a particular service. Because they're gay. If they were not gay, the service would be available to them. And all of that ignores the argument that marriage doesn't have to be religious and can be entirely secular. I don't know if this is the case in America, but in the UK churches need a license from the state to perform a marriage. They don't need a licence to perform Sunday mass, however. We already have less abortion restrictions than Europe does. Like, America is way more radical than Europe on this issue. It sounds like Christian lawmakers are a pretty sorry lot on that issue. Frankly, people that think fetal viability is the correct dividing line on abortion should join the more supported end of the movement. Remember, a developing baby should not be absolutely deprived of any rights, or at least I think that he second after birth does not suddenly entitle him or her to an abundance of rights whereas the second before he or she lacked any to speak of. They do not put a sign up at the door saying they refuse to serve gays. The whole store is open to them. It was this expressive service, deserving of first amendment protections, that was denied. It’s an intimate part of their speech rights (and protections against compelled speech) with a traditionally religious ceremony. I’d say the same about Hindu bakers and custom cake services for Christian weddings, and Muslims (I take it they’re forced to write “Mohammed was a false prophet” in your rubric). There’s no point in casting a marriage as secular when the history of the biggest religions in America made it a distinctly religious event. That’s ignoring history to engage in make-believe about conflicts in religious conscience. I really don’t think that’s a useful pretense. But of course, get married in a truly secular wedding and pick an atheist baker if that’s your choice. I consider marriage an obsolete idea that doesn't reflect modern relationships or the pressures upon them, and have no intention of any marriage of any sort at any point in my life. It's too often a cage of misery for one or even both partners that strangles them in legalities and compulsions. But factually, marriage is heavily secular; pretty much forever, marriage has only been possible when permitted by the state. You can take the religion out of marriage and there's still a marriage happening. You can't take the religion out of Sunday Mass. People confuse the fact that throughout history religious people have been getting married to be the same as marriage being a de facto religious occasion, when it isn't. If it were the state would have no part in it, and certainly couldn't revoke a church's marriage license or, even, annul a marriage without the chuch's consent, which it can. In a society where everyone is religious, only religious people are getting married. That doesn't make marriage a religious ceremony.
It's interesting that you think this way. But you're really treating your own thoughts like your private religion. Iamthedave thinks it's secular enough and it's an obsolete institution, so he's going to restrict your civil rights to comport with his particular interpretation. That's very similar to forcing your religion on others ... you ought to believe what I believe, not whatever your beliefs are, leave me to practice according to my conscience.
For final conclusions on that point, consider what happened when the Vatican tried to tell the King of England that a holy marriage couldn't be annulled save under the terms they set, and the King said 'Umm... no.' And who won in that debate? 'Twas not religion.
You know better than I, I suspect, how hard your religious lawmakers have tried to restrict abortions, and have mostly been put down by the court. Nonetheless, your claim that America's laws are lax doesn't hold much water, given the torturous extremes women have to go to to get a legal abortion in some parts of America. I seem to recall y'all shifted from banning the practice to trying to shut down all the clinics instead. Might not be able to take the right away but you can sure make it hell for a woman to exercise those rights.
If those Muslims ran a cake shop and offered a service to the public where they will design cakes for special occasions, I would expect them to offer that service to the public. Otherwise they should publically announce the exceptions and reasons for them. If discrimination is illegal and so they can't publically make those exceptions known, they should either not offer the service at all, or offer it to everyone.
See this is the slippery slope. You're also making Muslims unable to follow the tenets of their religion and stay in business. Basically, making art is for one religion that the state approves, and you can't create it based on non-state-approved religious beliefs. Because then your religious conscience might not be as liberal as the state conscience. The state doesn't consider it a religious ceremony, therefore you can't have any religious objections. I'm glad there's still nonprofits defending these civil rights from
The people that run a business can be religious, and there's nothing wrong with that. Their business itself is NOT religious, and it doesn't get to make exceptions based on its religious leanings accordingly. Except, you know, the Vatican or something. That's definitely a religious institution.
As for your specific example with the Muslims: yes, if they offer that service and don't explicitly say 'we will not do x or y for z reasons'. That is not an unreasonable expectation for a company trading in the public domain. On the other hand, I don't think many people would consider it unreasonable for them to say 'we will not create custom cakes that disparage our religion and would please ask the public to respect that everyone who works at this establishment is a Muslim'.
And why should someone's religion be held on a higher pedastal than my own personal moral code, that I value higher than any supposed divine's opinion on the matter? I don't see people lining up to say how I get to special plead on what services I offer and who I get to serve in my place of business. It's only religious people who say 'my god says x so I shouldn't have to do y because I'm special because I believe in god'. And unlike an awful lot of religious people in your politics, I can comfortably say I'm not a hypocrite, preaching one thing out of one side of my mouth and doing the exact opposite with a smile.
No. The people that run a business have to leave all their religious liberties under the first amendment at the door. You can advocate for increased restrictions compared to not operating a business, but all this compelled speech just for seeking to earn a living also in accordance to your religion? Ugh. You operate your business containing custom expressive speech, and I'll operate mine. Sell your regular premade products in a listing to all takers, and save the custom art for messages that jive with your beliefs. This is getting pretty insane.
|
On March 25 2018 02:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2018 00:54 Kyadytim wrote:On March 24 2018 19:24 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
How can you argue that it is not discrimination when you literally just wrote that they deny a particular service that they offer to gay people because they are gay? That is literally what discrimination is. They want the liberty to discriminate against gay people by denying them a particular service. Because they're gay. If they were not gay, the service would be available to them.
And all of that ignores the argument that marriage doesn't have to be religious and can be entirely secular. I don't know if this is the case in America, but in the UK churches need a license from the state to perform a marriage. They don't need a licence to perform Sunday mass, however.
So much this. I do personally have quite a chip on my shoulder about religion, but despite my pessimism it still amazes what goes to court / becomes an issue. How was denying someone a service you offer on the basis of sexuality ever on the cards, how did cake-shop owners or whatever have you ever think to do that, or that it was acceptable? It's not denying the rights of the religious, it's denying them the special privilege to discriminate. Like that special privilege they have to not paying taxes despite the strong involvement in politics that has emerged. The majority of US citizens are christian, and even so the religion is ridiculously over-represented in US politicians, there is seriously no risk they are going to get persecuted in a hurry. Having a belief doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate against gay people. Imagine if an inter-racial couple was denied service for the same reason, there'd be hell to pay and rightly so.Especially with the current republican platform, religion has massively overstepped its boundaries in US politics, and shouldn't expect the diplomatic shielding it often enjoys in the public eye. If you want to be involved in politics and power, expect to be checked upon. On March 25 2018 00:20 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 10:00 NewSunshine wrote:On March 24 2018 09:52 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:31 NewSunshine wrote:
The reason the religion thing has experienced such friction is because it's a business, not someone's personal relationship or venture. Serving a gay person/couple who is just going about their business isn't doing anything to persecute you as a religious person, they're simply offering money in exchange for a service. I find it hard to buy the idea that refusing to serve gay people on the premise of your religion's backward view on gay people is anything but discrimination. Their money is the same as anyone else's, and who they choose to love is their business.
On the other hand, while I wouldn't be sad if it came to a court decision, I'm also all for that couple simply taking their business elsewhere, and letting the court of public opinion deal with a cake-maker that refuses to acknowledge gay rights. But maybe they didn't have the luxury of choice. Either way, I don't think it's a wise decision to let anyone freely deny service to gay people under the vague blanket of religious protection. It would be, how you say, a slippery slope. I find that universal rejection of ones civil rights just because it applies to all aspects of their lives is foolhardy. You can believe what you want about religion as long as you never intend to work a job and have it influence your life. No. Absolutely not. There’s a trade off involved, since it makes no sense for an ER nurse to refuse service to some religion, or for an artist in business for himself to be forced to create a morally reprehensible piece. That’s the trade-off that people like you are so careful to ignore. In fact, he relentlessly acknowledged anyone’s rights to buy any product he made in his store, save for one custom service of art not yet made. It sounds like you’re preferring alternative facts to govern your argument, instead of plainly dealing in freedom of conscience objections not covered by your simplistic interpretations. It sounds like you’d be stunned to hear the Supreme Court even took the case, not even acknowledging how controversial are these lines. You can have your rights, as long as you leave those at the door of your business. Sheesh. Their right in this case is the ability to deny the rights of people who just want to be treated the same, so yes, I'm hesitant to just buy into it because it was written in a religious text. If I was a cakemaker, I wouldn't deny you a custom service for your religious beliefs, even if I disagreed vehemently with the idea of being religious, because it has nothing to do with you paying me for a service. Forget cakes, lets go with your hospital example. Were I doctor or nurse, I wouldn't dare deny you service because of your religion, nor would I deny you service because you were gay or transgender. Why would I even think of doing that? This person is ill/injured and needs my services, what they are in their personal lives is none of my concern. Yes, it is strictly business if you ask me. I really question how well people here can put themselves into the shoes of business owners with strong religious beliefs. A wedding is a traditionally religious event. Just buying a premade cake is not. That’s why writing on a cake “God smiles on this event” would be a form of compelled speech for them. I don’t think hospital care has such a big hold on religion. But even then, religious objectors (ob-gyn) routinely refuse to do abortions and are granted that exemption. That example is more in keeping with a small list of things someone won’t do, versus refusing anything at the door (which they did not do, may i remind you). Thing is, back when interracial marriage was an issue and anti-miscegenation laws were a thing, Christians made all the same arguments against it that they make against gay marriage today. A conservative of the 1960s would have argued that forcing a Christian backer to write on a wedding cake for an interracial marriage "God smiles on this event," would be compelled speech. Part of the reason liberals don't really have any patience for this freedom to discriminate nonsense is because this country has already had this entire argument from start to finish, and then conservatives changed a couple of nouns and started the whole thing over again. Also, Danglars, would you say that a baker has a right to ask an individual who they do not know the sexual orientation of to clarify their orientation or deny service if they don't answer on the basis of "they might be gay"? A conservative of the 1960s would've been opposed to miscegenation laws? Oh, please. You don't have to paint your opposition as a bunch of historical racists in order to make a point about the laws. If this is a custom piece of art conveying a message, it's at whatever point of the process that the business learns that it violates their religious conscience. This is the case of a ceremony, for Christians with heavy religious impact, that would celebrate a gay marriage with a cake containing the same message . Show nested quote +A wedding cake expresses an inherent message that is that the union is a marriage and is to be celebrated, and that message violates Mr. Phillips's religious convictions. Closing statement of the lawyer representing the baker.
....No, they would have been for the anti-miscegenation laws.
Also, I don't have to paint people anything. The historical people who used these arguments wore their bigotry quite proudly - it was white, and came with a hood. Of course, not every Christian arguing against interracial marriage was a member of the KKK, and not every Christian was against interracial marriage, but Christianity was unarguably used to justify discrimination against non-whites, marriage bans, and even slavery in the same fashion it is being used today to justify discrimination against gays, lesbians, and other minorities. In fact, you could probably find some people who were adults in the 1960s and have used the same arguments they used against intermarriage then against gay marriage today.
Christianity was used as a basis for banning interracial marriage in 1965 by a sitting judge in a decision.
www.encyclopediavirginia.org
Christianity was a basis for arguing the moral correctness of slavery in the 1850s, with an example of this book written by a reverend in 1852
books.google.com
In fact, people are still basing arguments for racism and against interracial marriage on Christianity today. You can read all the arguments from the early to mid 1900s in all of their disgusting glory, still being made in the modern day, here:
faithandheritage.com
I'm not painting my opponents as historical racists. They are the heirs of the historical racists, using the same arguments to justify their modern bigotry.
Rather that me not getting to paint my opponents as historical racists, it is you is not going to squeak by with pretending inconvenient history attached to the discrimination you're trying to call free speech doesn't exist.
|
A wedding cake expresses an inherent message that is that the union is a marriage and is to be celebrated, and that message violates Mr. Phillips's religious convictions.
He seems to be claiming that the cake is so closely linked with the wedding processes that it can't be separated out into a general case. This sounds like a difficult thing to prove. I know it's just personal anecdotes but i've been to weddings with no cakes as well as weddings with cupcakes. The fact that they aren't a necessity should prove that the linkage isn't as clear as he claims.
It also seems like the argument could be used for just about anything there. Is it a wedding without flowers? Rings? I'm not seeing the personal endorsement here.
|
The activists on this march are lending too much credence to the narrative that this will end with popular magazines and rifles banned. I predict even more hardening of stances from the pro-gun rights side. Congress will still probably pass a bump stock ban. Even an inch past that will be a harder sell.
|
United States24565 Posts
I wasn't comfortable with trusting a tweet so I found the Huffington Post transcript of the speech:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/delaney-tarr-march-for-our-lives_us_5ab678d8e4b0decad04a5df7
At least the quote isn't being taken out of context in there but I agree, this is signaling that any new gun-related restrictions are stepping stones towards significantly more widespread bans. It's all or nothing. And by raising the stakes the speaker is also increasing the likelihood that 'nothing' will prevail for the foreseeable future.
|
On March 25 2018 03:06 micronesia wrote:I wasn't comfortable with trusting a tweet so I found the Huffington Post transcript of the speech: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/delaney-tarr-march-for-our-lives_us_5ab678d8e4b0decad04a5df7At least the quote isn't being taken out of context in there but I agree, this is signaling that any new gun-related restrictions are stepping stones towards significantly more widespread bans. It's all or nothing. And by raising the stakes the speaker is also increasing the likelihood that 'nothing' will prevail for the foreseeable future.
not surprising to have such an attitude given the speaker.
it's a pity that all sides can't just focus on actual sensible and rigorous solutions; but such is the world we live in, and part of the price of democracy.
|
On March 25 2018 02:47 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2018 02:09 Danglars wrote:On March 25 2018 00:54 Kyadytim wrote:On March 24 2018 19:24 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
How can you argue that it is not discrimination when you literally just wrote that they deny a particular service that they offer to gay people because they are gay? That is literally what discrimination is. They want the liberty to discriminate against gay people by denying them a particular service. Because they're gay. If they were not gay, the service would be available to them.
And all of that ignores the argument that marriage doesn't have to be religious and can be entirely secular. I don't know if this is the case in America, but in the UK churches need a license from the state to perform a marriage. They don't need a licence to perform Sunday mass, however.
So much this. I do personally have quite a chip on my shoulder about religion, but despite my pessimism it still amazes what goes to court / becomes an issue. How was denying someone a service you offer on the basis of sexuality ever on the cards, how did cake-shop owners or whatever have you ever think to do that, or that it was acceptable? It's not denying the rights of the religious, it's denying them the special privilege to discriminate. Like that special privilege they have to not paying taxes despite the strong involvement in politics that has emerged. The majority of US citizens are christian, and even so the religion is ridiculously over-represented in US politicians, there is seriously no risk they are going to get persecuted in a hurry. Having a belief doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate against gay people. Imagine if an inter-racial couple was denied service for the same reason, there'd be hell to pay and rightly so.Especially with the current republican platform, religion has massively overstepped its boundaries in US politics, and shouldn't expect the diplomatic shielding it often enjoys in the public eye. If you want to be involved in politics and power, expect to be checked upon. On March 25 2018 00:20 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 10:00 NewSunshine wrote:On March 24 2018 09:52 Danglars wrote:On March 24 2018 09:31 NewSunshine wrote:
The reason the religion thing has experienced such friction is because it's a business, not someone's personal relationship or venture. Serving a gay person/couple who is just going about their business isn't doing anything to persecute you as a religious person, they're simply offering money in exchange for a service. I find it hard to buy the idea that refusing to serve gay people on the premise of your religion's backward view on gay people is anything but discrimination. Their money is the same as anyone else's, and who they choose to love is their business.
On the other hand, while I wouldn't be sad if it came to a court decision, I'm also all for that couple simply taking their business elsewhere, and letting the court of public opinion deal with a cake-maker that refuses to acknowledge gay rights. But maybe they didn't have the luxury of choice. Either way, I don't think it's a wise decision to let anyone freely deny service to gay people under the vague blanket of religious protection. It would be, how you say, a slippery slope. I find that universal rejection of ones civil rights just because it applies to all aspects of their lives is foolhardy. You can believe what you want about religion as long as you never intend to work a job and have it influence your life. No. Absolutely not. There’s a trade off involved, since it makes no sense for an ER nurse to refuse service to some religion, or for an artist in business for himself to be forced to create a morally reprehensible piece. That’s the trade-off that people like you are so careful to ignore. In fact, he relentlessly acknowledged anyone’s rights to buy any product he made in his store, save for one custom service of art not yet made. It sounds like you’re preferring alternative facts to govern your argument, instead of plainly dealing in freedom of conscience objections not covered by your simplistic interpretations. It sounds like you’d be stunned to hear the Supreme Court even took the case, not even acknowledging how controversial are these lines. You can have your rights, as long as you leave those at the door of your business. Sheesh. Their right in this case is the ability to deny the rights of people who just want to be treated the same, so yes, I'm hesitant to just buy into it because it was written in a religious text. If I was a cakemaker, I wouldn't deny you a custom service for your religious beliefs, even if I disagreed vehemently with the idea of being religious, because it has nothing to do with you paying me for a service. Forget cakes, lets go with your hospital example. Were I doctor or nurse, I wouldn't dare deny you service because of your religion, nor would I deny you service because you were gay or transgender. Why would I even think of doing that? This person is ill/injured and needs my services, what they are in their personal lives is none of my concern. Yes, it is strictly business if you ask me. I really question how well people here can put themselves into the shoes of business owners with strong religious beliefs. A wedding is a traditionally religious event. Just buying a premade cake is not. That’s why writing on a cake “God smiles on this event” would be a form of compelled speech for them. I don’t think hospital care has such a big hold on religion. But even then, religious objectors (ob-gyn) routinely refuse to do abortions and are granted that exemption. That example is more in keeping with a small list of things someone won’t do, versus refusing anything at the door (which they did not do, may i remind you). Thing is, back when interracial marriage was an issue and anti-miscegenation laws were a thing, Christians made all the same arguments against it that they make against gay marriage today. A conservative of the 1960s would have argued that forcing a Christian backer to write on a wedding cake for an interracial marriage "God smiles on this event," would be compelled speech. Part of the reason liberals don't really have any patience for this freedom to discriminate nonsense is because this country has already had this entire argument from start to finish, and then conservatives changed a couple of nouns and started the whole thing over again. Also, Danglars, would you say that a baker has a right to ask an individual who they do not know the sexual orientation of to clarify their orientation or deny service if they don't answer on the basis of "they might be gay"? A conservative of the 1960s would've been opposed to miscegenation laws? Oh, please. You don't have to paint your opposition as a bunch of historical racists in order to make a point about the laws. If this is a custom piece of art conveying a message, it's at whatever point of the process that the business learns that it violates their religious conscience. This is the case of a ceremony, for Christians with heavy religious impact, that would celebrate a gay marriage with a cake containing the same message . A wedding cake expresses an inherent message that is that the union is a marriage and is to be celebrated, and that message violates Mr. Phillips's religious convictions. Closing statement of the lawyer representing the baker. ....No, they would have been for the anti-miscegenation laws. Also, I don't have to paint people anything. The historical people who used these arguments wore their bigotry quite proudly - it was white, and came with a hood. Of course, not every Christian arguing against interracial marriage was a member of the KKK, and not every Christian was against interracial marriage, but Christianity was unarguably used to justify discrimination against non-whites, marriage bans, and even slavery in the same fashion it is being used today to justify discrimination against gays, lesbians, and other minorities. In fact, you could probably find some people who were adults in the 1960s and have used the same arguments they used against intermarriage then against gay marriage today. Christianity was used as a basis for banning interracial marriage in 1965 by a sitting judge in a decision. www.encyclopediavirginia.orgChristianity was a basis for arguing the moral correctness of slavery in the 1850s, with an example of this book written by a reverend in 1852 books.google.comIn fact, people are still basing arguments for racism and against interracial marriage on Christianity today. You can read all the arguments from the early to mid 1900s in all of their disgusting glory, still being made in the modern day, here: faithandheritage.comI'm not painting my opponents as historical racists. They are the heirs of the historical racists, using the same arguments to justify their modern bigotry. Rather that me not getting to paint my opponents as historical racists, it is you is not going to squeak by with pretending inconvenient history attached to the discrimination you're trying to call free speech doesn't exist.
Pointing out the existence of Christians that supported slavery does not justify your point. A great many Christians also were hardcore abolitionists arguing from the same Bible against the institution. The same applies to miscegenation. You're using historical abuse of religion to try and shoehorn the very clear religious objections to participating in a gay marriage ceremony, and it's bad faith from beginning to end. Since religion was abused in the past, today's examples must be considered abuse too? Give me a break.
The defendants are not heirs to historical racists, they're conscientious people attempting to follow their God with the least burden to society, which is why their gay customers kept coming back. Also in other cases, the business was first selected because of her good treatment of them, though she knew they were gay. It was expressly the ceremony that was opposed, and her unique artistry and participation in it that she thought would offend her God. Why peddle the thought that this is 1850s slavery and 1960s miscegenation laws when gay customers were happily served and enjoyed products in the past?
But twice now you've glazed over these unfortunate facts to focus on a discrimination angle that is totally unsupported. That is why I think you're not engaging with an understanding of both sides, but attempting to smear. For example: The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a Christian fundamentalist was not discriminated against when he asked for a custom cake with a Bible and scriptural passages condemning homosexuality and promoting Christ's redemption. He took it to the commission, but in that case the baker was found to be within his rights to refuse service.
Similarly, you could refuse a cake denigrating Islam. Basically, you can refuse to denounce same sex marriage, but you cannot refuse to promote same sex marriage. So, this is according to a very dark history of singling out Christian objectors for unique punishment, and not even applying the laws in a neutral manner. Personal liberty for some and not others. You're just creating a new kind of slavery in a post-slavery era. Let's leave that in history, Kyadytim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
