Ben Carson: It was OK for me to do research on aborted fetuses

[BmorePat87]

(08-23-2015, 12:37 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: In my hypothetical, if they were gay and wanted a birthday cake they wouldn't object.  Therefore, they are discriminating against the wedding.  

But I asked "what if they did?" If they simply argue that they are against the birthday not the person, as you are suggesting they are doing with the wedding cake, would they be allowed to not make the cake?

Quote:Great.  Should be easy to highlight an example of when a 18th century private business was forced to serve someone.  

Laws evolve. We didn't have anti discrimination laws until well into the 20th century. The foundation of those laws come from nearly two centuries of the federal government regulating business. If you're interested in an early case that expanded upon the interstate commerce clause, check out Gibbons v Ogden.

Quote:Oh yeah, that's it.  Wouldn't be that the gay couple had an agenda and specifically targeted a faith-based baker, right?    

What was that you said earlier to Matt about just declaring things and putting emojis at the end of it? 85% of the country identifies with a religion. 

Quote:Who is being victimized? 

The person being illegally discriminated against?

Quote: the Christian baker that was sued and lost and in the future has to make things that they religiously and morally object to?

How does one morally object to gay weddings?

Quote:  And of course, all of this was done in the name of "tolerance", which is progressive speak for "our way or the highway".

"Hey, you guys have to stop discriminating. The law says you have to do business with everyone."

Sounds pretty reasonable. 

Quote:I was speaking in general, but if the shoe fits, wear that shit.  

Then would you care to challenge what I said?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 12:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except they would do wedding cakes for other weddings, right? So they are discriminating because the couple is gay.

You're reaching. 

So if I refused to make a Muslim a cake that showed a jet flying into the twin towers, I'm discriminating against him because he's a Muslim?

[BmorePat87]

(08-23-2015, 12:56 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You're reaching. 

So if I refused to make a Muslim a cake that showed a jet flying into the twin towers, I'm discriminating against him because he's a Muslim?

Would you refuse to make the cake if they were a Christian and wanted a Jet flying into the twin towers?

If "no", then you are objecting because they are Muslim.
if "yes", then you are objecting based on speech.


Unfortunately for your argument, this is not equivalent to saying that you would not make a wedding cake for someone because they are using it for a gay wedding, since you would make an identical cake for someone using it for a straight wedding. In that case, you are objecting because the wedding is for gay people. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 12:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Laws evolve. We didn't have anti discrimination laws until well into the 20th century. The foundation of those laws come from nearly two centuries of the federal government regulating business. If you're interested in an early case that expanded upon the interstate commerce clause, check out Gibbons v Ogden.

How does one morally object to gay weddings?

I'm well aware of Gibbons v Ogden, and I actually agree with the merits of their decision. 

The difference with this sort of situation IMO is the 1st amendment. 

As for how does one morally object to gay weddings, I would say that one way would be to not provide any services for a gay wedding, but apparently that's not acceptable. 

Gays get protection under the constitution, which is fine with me.  I think they should have the same rights as everyone else.  I'm all for it. 

I think that faith-based business deserves that same right and protection under the constitution. 

My brother in law manages a pizza place.  He was telling me that they stopped delivering to a bad neighborhood after 7:30pm.  Are the people in that neighborhood being discriminated against? 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-23-2015, 01:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Would you refuse to make the cake if they were a Christian and wanted a Jet flying into the twin towers?

If "no", then you are objecting because they are Muslim.
if "yes", then you are objecting based on speech.


Unfortunately for your argument, this is not equivalent to saying that you would not make a wedding cake for someone because they are using it for a gay wedding, since you would make an identical cake for someone using it for a straight wedding. In that case, you are objecting because the wedding is for gay people. 

I wouldn't make said cake regardless of who wanted it made.

Not discrimination.

[BmorePat87]

(08-23-2015, 01:05 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm well aware of Gibbons v Ogden, and I actually agree with the merits of their decision. 

The difference with this sort of situation IMO is the 1st amendment. 

As for how does one morally object to gay weddings, I would say that one way would be to not provide any services for a gay wedding, but apparently that's not acceptable. 

Gays get protection under the constitution, which is fine with me.  I think they should have the same rights as everyone else.  I'm all for it. 

I think that faith-based business deserves that same right and protection under the constitution. 

My brother in law manages a pizza place.  He was telling me that they stopped delivering to a bad neighborhood after 7:30pm.  Are the people in that neighborhood being discriminated against? 

As Matt said, the issue with challenging these laws with the 1st amendment is you have to prove a burden on practicing your religion. Does baking a cake really burden your free practice of your religion. You also chose to go into a business that compels you to serve all customers. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and atheists all have to follow these laws. They all also have the freedom to practice their religion, but you need to make a compelling argument as to how serving someone infringes on that right. 

As for my morality question, I was curious about how one justifies homophobia as an issue of morality. What is inherently immoral about a gay wedding?

Your brother in law is not discriminating. He still provides service to anyone who comes in, he just protects his employees and his profits by not delivering to certain areas. My favorite Chinese joint isn't discriminating by not delivering to someone outside their 10 mile radius. Both places accommodate by allowing customers to carry out. Likewise, a bakery can avoid a lawsuit by accommodating by making a cake and requiring the same sex couple to purchase their own topper and put it on the cake. That way, all they did was bake a cake. It's the same thing the bakery did when they refused to put anti gay hate speech on a cake. They offered to sell the man the supplies to write the words himself, after they baked the cake. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-23-2015, 01:06 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I wouldn't make said cake regardless of who wanted it made.

Not discrimination.

Agreed. 

However, refusing to make the same wedding cake for a gay wedding as you made for a straight wedding is discrimination. 

[fredtoast]

Anti-discrimination laws to not give favor to any one side against the other.

All people who own and run businesses are required to do the exact same things.

All customers have the same exact protection.

Neither side has any reason to complain because the laws treat everyone exactly the same with neither side getting any extra benefit.

The ONLY people who are crying are the ones who feel that THEIR side deserves some special treatment. Perfect example of the "entitlement mentality" that many religious people live by. They don't feel it is fair to treat everyone the same because the feel like they are entitled to special treatment.