I don’t know. The WWE executives are known to be extremely right wing as well as many of the upper level wrestlers, yet every year they support Komen and the wrestlers wear supporting clothing or gear. I’ve never heard any of them complain about this and I rather expect it wouldn’t go well if one of them said they did NOT support efforts to reduce breast cancer. It isn’t a partisan position or effort.
And I say this as someone who doesn’t particularly care for the Komen org because of some of their business and fund raising practices. But hey, if I’m on TV and my boss wants me to wear the pink ribbon, I’m all for it.
If they asked me to wear something in support of an actual political opinion that I didn’t agree with, I’d tell them to fuck off.
Myself, I think same sex marriage should be legal, and gay couples should live long and loving lives together, and have weddings as fabulous as they want.
However, I have big problems with forcing someone in a bakery with sincere religious objections to homosexuality to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
It would be different if that bakery person refused to sell a box of cookies to a gay person. That would be the same as refusing to sell cookies to someone of a different race.
But forcing a person with a religious objection to homosexuality to bake a gay wedding cake would be like forcing a person with a religious objection to nationalism to salute the flag.
As has been mentioned, there is a difference between tolerance and support.
If you claim to be offering services to the public, you have to offer them to the actual public. If you want to deny service to blacks, or gays, or whatever because your religion requires you to be a bigot, you can’t run a business open to the public and get the benefits thereof, and if you refuse to follow the laws on serving the public then you likely don’t actually qualify for a business license in the location where you’re trying to run a business. How ‘sincere’ their hatred and bigotry is doesn’t bother me at all, and it’s even sillier when the ‘sincere’ objection is based on picking a single rule out of a list of while ignoring the rest of the list and ignoring that Jesus himself said the rules don’t apply anymore. If these guys were actually ‘sincere’, they’d also refuse service to people wearing poly-cotton blends.
If someone ran a service where you could hire them to salute various flags but they refused to do so for a LGBT flag or the flag of any non-white country, I’m fine with forcing them to either salute all flags or close up shop. Forcing someone who claims to sell goods and services to the public to actually provide those goods and services to the public is not remotely like forcing someone to salute the flag.
Very big difference between Public Accommodation laws (you have to serve everyone) and enforced patriotism, which is already covered and outlawed by a 1943 Supreme Court decision.
Would you have the same support for a baker with sincerely held religious beliefs about miscegenation?
There are conservatives that are using this ruling as cover to extend it to racial discrimination as well.
That analogy only works if that person is someone who voluntarily signed up for the US armed forces, with the knowledge that he would have to salute the flag, and then objecting to it. Or even boy scouts, or any other organization where showing “proper” respect for the flag and nation are part of the principles that you know going in.
Yes, and treating a gay customer the same way that you would treat any other customer is the definition of tolerance. Support would be showing up at the wedding and giving a speech in support of the marriage.
The way I look at it is, what if it’s not something I agree with, but something I disagree with. Would I still support the decision? If a Grand Poobah Whatsit of the KKK walked into my bakery and said he wanted a cake to celebrate the ‘Nearly Unbearable Awesomeness of being a White Dude.’ I think that it’s pretty reasonable for me to tell him to screw off. I wouldn’t want the government telling me that I have to produce a cake for his event. I don’t care if that could be construed as discriminatory toward white supremacists or whether his behavior is nature or nurture or any other question. I just don’t want it to be said that the cake at the ‘Aryan Pride Day’ celebration was made by Senoy. To me, that sounds reasonable. I think the line for me is are you refusing to serve because of who they are or because of what they are doing? If the former, it’s discrimination. If the latter, I’m inclined to allow it. If the cake shop owner refused to sell them a birthday cake because they were gay, I would say that’s discrimination. If he refused to sell them a ‘Happy Adolf Hitler’s Birthday’ Cake because he doesn’t want to support Adolf Hitler’s birthday, that seems fine to me.
And that is fine, if he doesn’t want to sell wedding cakes, then he doesn’t have to sell wedding cakes.
There are limits to what he can be required to write or design, and he doesn’t need to write anything that he finds objectionable on it. But he does need to sell it. If the KKK wants a cake to celebrate something horrendous, then you should make them that cake (assuming that they are claiming a protected status). You don’t have to write anything on it that supports that horrendousness, though.
If someone asks you why you made them that cake, then you explain that the law states that you had to.
Now, you can refuse to make a cake for reasons that are not related to protected status. If someone comes in and is rude or aggressive, then you can refuse them service for that. If they don’t have money to pay, you can certainly refuse service for that. Hell, if someone wants a birthday cake for their 8 year old, and that 8 year old bullied your kid, you can refuse service for that.
Plenty of reasons why you can refuse service to individuals for individual reasons. What you cannot do is refuse to service a protected group of people.
I think that there is a fundamental difference between a same-sex and an opposite-sex wedding. That’s why I brought up the ‘Adolf Hitler’s birthday’ cake. I think that it’s an undue infringement of my rights to say that I have to stop baking all birthday cakes if I want to refuse to do an ‘Adolf Hitler’s birthday’ cake. There’s a fundamental difference between a birthday party and an ‘Adolf Hitler’s birthday’ party.
I would liken the wedding cake issue to weddings with minors. It is possible (though I don’t think that it’s gone to court) that girls can still be married at 12 in Massachusetts. If I were a baker and a 65 year old man came in and said that he wanted a wedding cake for his marriage to a 12 year old girl, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for me to say ‘Nope, not happening, get your pedophile wedding cake from some other establishment my good man.’
Well, if you’re a democrat politician, it’s basically political suicide to say you’re anti gay marriage nowadays, and even many Republicans are backing off that.
I don’t see what’s wrong with saying whatever you want on the internet, as long as it isn’t a call to violence. I’m not against gay marriage personally, but I don’t consider being against gay marriage as “hate speech.” You’ll catch flak from a lot of people if you say you’re against it, because roughly 60% of people in the US support it, but you’re going to get a lot of flack if you hold a strong opinion on a lot of controversial subjects. Say whatever you want, but expect consequences (which in this case is going to range from polite disagreement to nigh-hysteria from some people).
And I don’t see what is wrong with taking offense at what you say on the internet, pointing out what you say to the internet to others, and using what you say on the internet to organize and vote against you.
You still have freedom of speech, but you don’t get freedom from reaction.
Prior to about 2012, it was completely acceptable for anybody of any party to say they thought marriage was between a man and a woman, now, it’s the opposite. You simply cannot do it as a democratic politician (you’re essentially “forced”), and honestly I think you’re whistling by the graveyard if you do it as a Republican, and should probably just shut up about it.
what about the players who just want to play soccer? Or the fans who want to just watch soccer? Neither of which want to be subjected to your particular 'objectively" better world view at that point in time.
Hey, I’d meet the president just to say I shook hands with an orangutan. You make it seem that no one voted for that buffoon including people on a football team. in other words, I’d bet some of those players would have liked to do so as well.
it’s ‘duty’ is to play soccer to the best of its ability, anything else is an arbitrary choice by someone potentially being forced on others who may only want to, in this case, just play soccer.
And that would be the basis of your discrimination. In your opinion, they should not be treated the same.
Unfortunately for you, the law says that they are.
Is being a nazi a protected class? Unless it is, then you are free to discriminate against someone wanting a hitler cake. I don’t know about the KKK, I think that they have enough claim that they have sincerely held religious beliefs in the inferiority of other races that refusing to make a cake for them may be discriminating against them based on their religion. However, you don’t have to write anything on the cake itself that you would not write for anyone else.
I don’t agree with this either. If the law actually states that (and I don’t think it does, but whatever), then you would be illegally discriminating against them because you don’t like their legal marriage. You can use the same excuse to refuse to make a cake for a mixed race wedding, “Nope, not happening, get your miscegenation wedding cake from some other establishment my good man.” or a wedding of minorities, or really any other group that you just don’t want to see treated equally.
The solution, if you don’t like SSM, or underage marriage, or whatever, is to talk to your congress people, see if you can get them to change the law. Not punish people that are following the law because you have chosen that they are not good enough to be treated equally.
Being against getting gay married is certainly not hate speech.
However, saying that other people should not enjoy the same rights as you do, due to them having a characteristic that you find offensive, is in fact hate speech.
No, just as you, if you don’t want to, don’t have to invite that nice gay couple over to your BBQ. Churches are not place of public accommodation, they are private clubs that enjoy a tax free status, they are free to discriminate all the want. You can even refuse to allow homeosexuals to even attend your services. You can segregate yourselves and not allow black people as well. You don’t even have to allow marriage of mixed ethnic couples.
What prevents those folks from just ignoring everything outside of the game? If you just want to watch (or play) the game, nobody is stopping you from keeping your attention at that level. Nobody is forcing you to pay attention to what anyone else is saying or to what a patch on the players uniforms says. Why must everyone shut up so that these hypothetical people can watch the game. What’s stopping them from doing that now?
So, every politician that, when asked their opinion on gay marriage, said they believed “marriage was between a man and a woman” (i.e. not gay couples) was professing hate speech? Barack Obama was professing hate speech?
I would go so far as to say he was wrong in his thinking. as were (and still many) Americans, but “hate speech”? That’s a bit much.
This is incorrect as stated, the singular entity the Philadelphia Eagles as a team accepted Trump’s invitation and was planning to attend, but Trump cancelled the event.
This may just be a grammatical quibble, as many (but far from all) individual Eagles did decline the invitation; the sentence would have been correct if phrased in the plural as referring to those individual players.
Well, yeah. Many of them realized it, and stopped making such statements, but others refused to. Just because it was common does not mean that it was not hateful.
There are still those who claim that calling for racial segregation isn’t hate speech, it is just explaining that there is fundamental difference between a white man and a black man. They probably even strongly and sincerely hold that belief.
Well, okay. If a hate speech exception is ever put into the 1A (if that happens), I highly doubt expressing your opinion on gay marriage on religious grounds will cross that line, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
If they are in a position to effect gay rights by changing or maintaining current laws, and make it sound as if they intend to do just that, then they are professing hate speech.