Right, he changed his mind, in the realization that the things that he was saying was actually harmful to people. I don’t believe that he ever intended to say anything hateful, but those who heard him say that he didn’t believe that their love was worthy of the same considerations that a man and a woman’s love is probably felt more than a little hurt by those statements.
I don’t think he said it out of hate, but out of ignorance.
Of course, at this point, there is less excuse for that now. If someone says, “Well, 10 years ago, Obama said…”, then they know better, and they are justifying their current hate speech by pointing out that someone said something like it in the past.
That was actually inspired by senoy’s “I think that there is a fundamental difference between a same-sex and an opposite-sex wedding.” as I wanted to get your opinion on that as well. But, I was surprised, as I was thinking that you would actually say that that was not hate speech, so I dropped that line.
I do not think that Obama said what he did out of hate, but that does not mean that what he said was not hateful, and if it is repeated by others, with the “justification” that Obama said it 10 years ago, then I do consider it to be hate speech.
Why do you think that? Gay marriage is the law of the land. I think a lot of people that may have thought as Obama did, are either indifferent because it is no longer illegal and there’s nothing they can do about it, or changed their minds for a myriad of reasons, or still think that way, for the same reason Obama thought that.
What’s changed? It’s legal now, and everything’s okay. No human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… or mass hysteria! That’s great, but I don’t think that means that a person has shifted from “ignorant” to “hateful” over the last few years if they still think that.
Ignorance is excusable when the information is not widespread. When the information is widespread, if you hang onto ignorance, you are doing it because you want to hold onto that ignorance.
Perfectly clear. Allow me the counterpoint: if you are offering a service to the public, you are required to offer it to all members of the public, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexuality. If your religious “values” preclude you from treating your customers equally, you need to find a different line of work.
Bullshit. If you called him up and asked if he had cakes for sale, do you think he would answer, “No, but if you wish to commission an edible piece of art I would be happy to look at a few of your sketches and discuss the possibilities.”?
Those aren’t exclusive categories. If you sell your paintings, your paintings are a product. If you open a store front, and offer to paint the portrait of anyone who walks in the door, you’re selling your skills as an artist as a device. Which means you can’t open a store where you paint portraits for people, and get to say, “Sorry, I don’t paint black people.” If you make the choice to commoditize your art, you don’t get to complain when its treated the same as any other commodity.
Yes, because I have an imagination and can think of alternate possibilities where things like that could happen. I wonder how much court time could have been avoided through history if law makers spent an extra half hour contemplating alternatives when they were making laws?
I have a basic human right not to be forced to support your cause in pursuit of an activity that is of interest to me.
And my point exactly. You took how I worded my posts as an assumption on how I felt on this particular issue (IYMK, I am for everyone having equal rights. I am against anyone being a ‘protected’ group. Satisfy the former and there is no need for the latter, imo). If I am capable of playing soccer at a level that the national team wants me to play for them, then that is what I want to focus on. I don’t want to be distracted by someone asking me questions where I can easily put my foot in my mouth and end up being branded a bigot because I didn’t know the 10th letter after LGBTxxx… or some other lame-assed reason. I am quite capable of making a fool of myself in areas that I do hold some expertise in that I don’t need the extra pressure of commenting publicly, or finding excuses not to, in areas I am not.
They didn’t ask for a cake for sale. They demanded a piece of artwork with their message, not the artist’s message. They could have found another artist who would create the message they wanted, but it was not for them; it was to compel speech. If you want a cake, you buy a cake. If you want the cake to be decorated exactly the way you want it, you commission it. Homosexual bakers have the right to decline a cake decorated with Romans 1:26-27. Christians should have the right to decline to decorate a cake with two grooms or two brides. To compel an artist to create an artwork that contradicts his beliefs is tyranny.
It’s not about selling a painting, it’s CREATING a new painting with someone else’s message.
What gives anyone the right to decide who is allowed to create art and who isn’t? Artists who create art that people don’t like should go out of business. That should be the role of the free market, but now it is the role of SJWs and unelected, unaccountable government agencies.
IMO, cake sellers and similar business owners should be required to sell their goods to anyone regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender ID, etc.
But should they be required to make any imagery or words in decoration requested? I don’t think the law should require that. What do you think?
No. Only Christians are forced to create art for whichever tyrant walks through the door. Plenty of others have refused without having to go to SCOTUS to defend their right to free expression.
THANK YOU! I can only guess that people who make these arguments are not artists and have never been in the situation. I can honestly say I have not (I have been an artist and I am a musician) but we have had to give up what could be a lucrative business (music for weddings) because we cannot go through the nightmare of SJW tyranny.