Thoughts, prayers, and hate

[Denny Crane]

That's what I'm asking, would they have the right? I've never heard of a lawsuit about a Christian/Muslim/etc. couple being turned away from a Muslim/Christian/etc. bakery.

Muslim bakers don't want to bake wedding cakes for gays, either.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Why should you force a Christian to participate in a Muslim ceremony?

They're not participating in a Muslim ceremony, they're baking a fucking cake. While I know nothing about Muslim ceremonies I very much doubt the baker gives away the bride.

If your business is to bake cakes then bake the fucking cake.

 

[Denny Crane]

They're not participating in a Muslim ceremony, they're baking a fucking cake. While I know nothing about Muslim ceremonies I very much doubt the baker gives away the bride.

If your business is to bake cakes then bake the fucking cake.

They view baking the cake, the symbols on the cake, etc., as participation. Who are you to decide if it is participation or not?

 

[Minstrel]

As far as I'm concerned, bakeries should deny service to liberals because they fuck up the country. See how that works?

You probably can open up a bakery and not make it available to Democrats (I don't know how you'd usefully define "liberals"). As far as I'm aware, neither Democrats nor Republicans are protected classes anywhere in the country.

Again, there's no law specifically prohibiting Nazis or KKK members from bakeries. Bakeries and businesses by default can discriminate. Just not against protected classes, which aren't selected arbitrarily. Protected classes are groups that have been unfairly and unreasonably disadvantaged in society and, if such prejudices were allowed to be normalized in society, would lead to those groups being marginalized. Blacks aren't the only ones who meet that (and the federally protected classes include much more than just black people).

The "agenda" is protecting groups who have experienced a society inimical to them, despite not being harmful to others.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

They view baking the cake, the symbols on the cake, etc., as participation. Who are you to decide if it is participation or not?

Like I said earlier in this thread, if they don't have the symbols in stock tell the customer that, offer to bake the cake without them and the customer can add whatever symbols they want. But refusing to do business with someone based on their religion is against what this country is about.

 

[Spud147]

They're not participating in a Muslim ceremony, they're baking a fucking cake. While I know nothing about Muslim ceremonies I very much doubt the baker gives away the bride.

If your business is to bake cakes then bake the fucking cake.

You'd think it would be that easy but obviously from this long thread it isn't! The reason I mention never seeing it is because (and Denny is getting what I'm asking) when you use the religious conviction argument to deny gay people services but don't use those convictions to deny another religion services the argument falls apart. It's has to be an all or nothing kind of deal to have any credibility as a real reason, see what I mean?

 

[Minstrel]

You'd think it would be that easy but obviously from this long thread it isn't! The reason I mention never seeing it is because (and Denny is getting what I'm asking) when you use the religious conviction argument to deny gay people services but don't use those convictions to deny another religion services the argument falls apart. It's has to be an all or nothing kind of deal to have any credibility as a real reason, see what I mean?

I see what you mean. But their response (and Denny's, apparently) would be, "Who are you to tell us how to practice our religion?" Once you start enshrining "religious reasons" as inviolate, you can pretty much use any standard you want.

I do wonder--Denny seems to agree that black people ("former negro slaves") should be a protected class. So what happens if someone doesn't want to serve black people "for religious reasons?" Who are you, Denny, to tell them how to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their religion?

 

[Spud147]

Like I said earlier in this thread, if they don't have the symbols in stock tell the customer that, offer to bake the cake without them and the customer can add whatever symbols they want. But refusing to do business with someone based on their religion is against what this country is about.

That's very reasonable and it would be easy for most of us to do that... but there's a lot of passion behind religious convictions and I can see why a business owner would feel their 1st amendment rights are being stepped on.

 

[crandc]

Still going on about persecuted Nazis. Please tell me how many people were murdered under the rainbow flag.

 

[Denny Crane]

You probably can open up a bakery and not make it available to Democrats (I don't know how you'd usefully define "liberals"). As far as I'm aware, neither Democrats nor Republicans are protected classes anywhere in the country.

Again, there's no law specifically prohibiting Nazis or KKK members from bakeries. Bakeries and businesses by default can discriminate. Just not against protected classes, which aren't selected arbitrarily. Protected classes are groups that have been unfairly and unreasonably disadvantaged in society and, if such prejudices were allowed to be normalized in society, would lead to those groups being marginalized. Blacks aren't the only ones who meet that (and the federally protected classes include much more than just black people).

The "agenda" is protecting groups who have experienced a society inimical to them, despite not being harmful to others.

You're inventing a right and denying the bakers their 1st amendment right to exercise their religion.

The bakeries do not discriminate. They bake cakes for gay people all the time. They don't want to bake "Wedding Cakes" for the same reason a Jewish bakery shouldn't be forced to make a wedding cake adorned with swastikas. That's the distinction.

Gays are not a protected group, but you keep making an argument as if they were.

The state already has laws against discrimination against gays for housing, hiring, etc. Forcing bakers to participate in a ceremony that's in opposition to their faith is over the top.

 

[Denny Crane]

Still going on about persecuted Nazis. Please tell me how many people were murdered under the rainbow flag.

Straw man, and not on topic.

I am asking about the legal requirements you want to impose on people of faith that is counter to their faith. I bring up whether a Jewish baker should have to bake a wedding cake for Nazis and you seem stupefied by it.

The question is meant to get you to realize either the hypocrisy of your demands or the consequences.

 

[Minstrel]

Gays are not a protected group, but you keep making an argument as if they were.

They are--you said it yourself here:

The state already has laws against discrimination against gays for housing, hiring, etc.

They just aren't a federally protected class. They're a protected class in many states.

Forcing bakers to participate in a ceremony that's in opposition to their faith is over the top.

We'll have to agree to disagree, both on whether it's "participation" and whether it's over the top.

 

[Denny Crane]

Like I said earlier in this thread, if they don't have the symbols in stock tell the customer that, offer to bake the cake without them and the customer can add whatever symbols they want. But refusing to do business with someone based on their religion is against what this country is about.

Freely exercising one's religion is what this country is about. Separation of Church and State, too. Yet you want to get the government involved in peoples' religious views.

 

[Denny Crane]

They are--you said it yourself here:



They just aren't a federally protected class. They're a protected class in many states.



We'll have to agree to disagree, both on whether it's "participation" and whether it's over the top.

NOT GAYS. An exception for employment only.

 

[Minstrel]

Gays are no more a protected class than women or the elderly. They're protected by the state housing laws, hiring laws, etc., too. But they're not protected classes.

Yes, you quoted the federal classifications. I already told you that they're not protected by federal law about protected classes. You should really just learn from what I tell you, it'll save you Wikipedia search time.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's very reasonable and it would be easy for most of us to do that... but there's a lot of passion behind religious convictions and I can see why a business owner would feel their 1st amendment rights are being stepped on.

Please understand that I revile the bakers who won't bake the cake, and religion in general.

I can see how a gay baker wouldn't want to make a wedding cake for people of religion who are bigots against gay people.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, you quoted the federal classifications. I already told you that they're not protected by federal law. You should really just learn from what I tell you, it'll save you Wikipedia search time.

Yet you keep wrongly bringing up the protected class thing. Wrongly. Get it?

 

[Spud147]

I know I'm going semi OT here but the subject is very interesting and it got me to thinking where you would or could draw the line.

What if you owned a Christian/Muslim book store and had a Satanist come in to buy Bibles/Korans? You know that they are going to be defiled... can you refuse services?

 

[Minstrel]

Yet you keep wrongly bringing up the protected class thing. Wrongly. Get it?

I never said they were federally classified as protected. I've said the opposite. Quite a few times. You just haven't been reading in your desire to ask about Nazis.

 

[Denny Crane]

I never said they were federally classified as protected. I've said the opposite. Quite a few times. You just haven't been reading in your desire to ask about Nazis.

I have been reading. Your reasoning is just poor and difficult to follow to any logical conclusion.

 

[Spud147]

Please understand that I revile the bakers who won't bake the cake, and religion in general.

I can see how a gay baker wouldn't want to make a wedding cake for people of religion who are bigots against gay people.

I get it Denny, I work with attorneys all day long... an objective legal argument has nothing to do with that person's personal convictions.

 

[Denny Crane]

I know I'm going semi OT here but the subject is very interesting and it got me to thinking where you would or could draw the line.

What if you owned a Christian/Muslim book store and had a Satanist come in to buy Bibles/Korans? You know that they are going to be defiled... can you refuse services?

I don't think you're being OT.

 

[Denny Crane]

I get it Denny, I work with attorneys all day long... an objective legal argument has nothing to do with that person's personal convictions.

The thing is, I think you can legislate that the bakers must serve gay people. But I also think the law has to treat people equally which does mean the Jewish bakers must bake cakes for the Nazis. There are both federal requirements for equal treatment under the law and 14th amendment requirement that the states must also. Gay people and the Nazis must be treated equally is my point.

I only ask if we're willing to accept the consequences.

 

[Minstrel]

I have been reading. Your reasoning is just poor and difficult to follow to any logical conclusion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I just think you're unhappy with gays being protected at the state level in many states. That's an opinion you're free to hold, but I'm glad that they are.

 

[Denny Crane]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I just think you're unhappy with gays being protected at the state level in many states. That's an opinion you're free to hold, but I'm glad that they are.

Where have I said I'm unhappy with gays being protected?

I've only said, repeatedly, that you shouldn't force people to violate their religious expression and that if you make a law it has to square with the equal protection clauses of the constitution and 14th.

 

[Spud147]

The thing is, I think you can legislate that the bakers must serve gay people. But I also think the law has to treat people equally which does mean the Jewish bakers must bake cakes for the Nazis. There are both federal requirements for equal treatment under the law and 14th amendment requirement that the states must also. Gay people and the Nazis must be treated equally is my point.

I only ask if we're willing to accept the consequences.

It got me really thinking when Sly basically said... it's just a cake, just bake it, it doesn't matter how it's used. Well, the Bible/Koran is just a book...

 

[Denny Crane]

It got me really thinking when Sly basically said... it's just a cake, just bake it, it doesn't matter how it's used. Well, the Bible/Koran is just a book...

If I were the baker, I'd bake the cake. I'd sell the book, too. But people of religion aren't Reasonable (they have Faith in the face of Reason), and they have well founded rights, too.

 

[Spud147]

The thing is, I think you can legislate that the bakers must serve gay people. But I also think the law has to treat people equally which does mean the Jewish bakers must bake cakes for the Nazis. There are both federal requirements for equal treatment under the law and 14th amendment requirement that the states must also. Gay people and the Nazis must be treated equally is my point.

I only ask if we're willing to accept the consequences.

Yup, I agree, it's an all or nothing thing.

 

[Minstrel]

Where have I said I'm unhappy with gays being protected?

Earlier in this thread you said they shouldn't be a protected class.

I've only said, repeatedly, that you shouldn't force people to violate their religious expression

We disagree on how broadly you draw "violating religious expression." Baking a cake that will be used in a wedding does not, to me or many others, constitute forcing people to violate their religious expression.

and that if you make a law it has to square with the equal protection clauses of the constitution and 14th.

We already have protected classes, both at the federal and state level. They are apparently Constitutional.

 

[Denny Crane]

Earlier in this thread you said they shouldn't be a protected class.



We disagree on how broadly you draw "violating religious expression." Baking a cake that will be used in a wedding does not, to me or many others, constitute forcing people to violate their religious expression.



We already have protected classes, both at the federal and state level. They are apparently Constitutional.

It's not up to you to decide for religious people what violates their religious expression. It's not up to many others, either. There's separation of church and state for good reason, and you can't pick and choose when to separate from church and when to have government regulate it.

I never claimed protected classes are unconstitutional. Just that gays are not a protected class. You abuse the term "protected class."