No, in fact you don’t.
It isn’t possible to have sincere religious objections to someone else’s homosexuality. Not in a country that recognizes freedom of religion.
You have objections, but they aren’t sincere.
Wait - are you saying that if the USWNT ***didn’t ***put LGBT patches on its uniforms it would be “reflecting discreditable and shameful values?”
I want to make sure I am understanding correctly before I proceed further.
You should focus on an objective reading of what I wrote instead of fishing for ridiculous “gotchas”. What I said was a direct response to Uzi over here when he asked “Should the national team not reflect the national reality rather than working to change it?”. And as I said over there, a sports team with a high public profile that so many youth look up to absolutely has a moral obligation to be a little better than some of the seedier aspects of “national reality”, to be a little more enlightened and forward thinking and aspire to higher standards, to be a role model for the kids. How specifically they do that is up to them, and that’s why the majority of sports teams and individual pro athletes are often involved in community projects, childrens’ causes, LGBT rights, and many other issues. We still live in a society rife with misogyny, racism, child abuse, and homophobia, and there’s a special opprobrium deserved by major sports teams – the ones with millions of devoted young fans who see them as their ideal – that don’t manage to see a responsibility to rise above that.
There’s a specious argument being presented over and over here, the one that says making a wedding cake for a gay couple might violate a Christian baker’s religion.
Where in the Bible does it say making food for outsiders is not permitted?
It’s either First or Two Caterers . . . I think.
CMC fnord!
Hmmmm. I had forgotten.
I knew the law about the bathrooms was in First John and Second John. 
Here we go again. Use your browser’s Zoom option to read my post. Pay attention to the words I write, rather than the thoughts you’d impute for convenience to your narrative.
I strongly support women’s freedom of choice. At the same time, I understand that some Americans strongly believe abortion is murder. Strong beliefs are as American as apple pie. What do you want to do? Lobotomize everyone with different opinions from yours?
I support gays’ right to marry, though many Americans are strongly opposed. The way to progress as a nation is through mutual respect, to let people retain their religious beliefs however stupid. If stupid people were barred from expressing their opinions America would be a pretty quiet place.
I do want America to move forward and become a more progressive society. This will be a gradual, perhaps painfully slow, process. Where I differ from liberal Dopers is:
I’m not sure the best path forward is to scream at the top of our lungs (so loudly we can’t even make out what each other is saying) and tell each other how stupid we all are.
I don’t approve of bigoted homophobes. And I don’t think I’ll need a cite to prove that when I’m in a bad mood I can post angry rants at SDMB more vitriolic than most. :eek: I don’t limit my rants to homophobes … I’m happy to rant against people who’ve bought into lies about Social Security financing! 
But in my soberer moods I understand this ranting is recreation and often counter-productive. And [please double-zoom to read the next sentence]
It is this hatred by liberals against the stupid people that led to the election of Donald Trump.
Many Trump voters have said, almost in so many words, that their votes were intended just as a poke-in-the-eye against the liberals who kept screaming about how stupid and bigoted Americans are. (Was it Abe Lincoln who said “Jesus must have loved the stupid people — look how many he made.” ?)
And let me ask those who think gay marriage is a natural right a simple question: What about a three-way marriage? How many of those claiming that my right to marry another male is obvious, would also support my right to be a bigamist? Why is one “right” clear and the other not?
This is not a purely hypothetical question. One of my closest male friends married his male lover(*). A few years later they sent out new wedding invitations: the Two were becoming Three! (These were both private wedding ceremonies decades before gay marriage was legal.)
-
- Astoundingly, many of our mutual friends who, like me, had known the guy for 16 years were surprised to learn he was gay! I’d picked up on it — and not cared — from something he said the very first day we met. (And people call me socially inept and unaware!)
Well then isn’t it handy that what they are doing matches what you think is taking a more enlightened world view. Just because an activity I am a part of grants me a forum to spout on all sorts of things doesn’t mean I should use it or deny those who don’t want to be part of that spouting from participating in that activity.
Most are missing the plot here, this isn’t about a business denying someone a wedding cake because they are gay, this is about a business denying someone a wedding cake because they aren’t interested in supporting a businesses’s causes that have no relation to the provisioning of wedding cakes.
I remember being asked at checkout of my local supermarket back in Canada if I wanted to make a donation of a dollar to some cause (I don’t remember the cause, save the homeless unwed whales or similar nonsense). Should the business be allowed to refuse me service if I politely say ‘No’?
Seriously? Another person carrying a gun or spewing hatred of an entire group of people definitely affects me.
This is where it gets sticky. There’s a distinction between hate and bigotry/intolerance that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle.
Being bigoted/intolerant is more… passive (?) than outright hate. Hate is taking your bigotry and deliberately acting on it to harm those you’re bigoted against. It’s an active thing.
There are gray areas for sure, and it’s definitely not a binary system.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
This viewpoint always brings to mind this question.
Someone walks into your cake shop and orders a cake that simply says Happy Birthday. And they don’t offer any further information. Do you feel compelled to make sure they aren’t going to use that cake for a celebration that you find distasteful? Do they have any sort of legal obligation to be truthful with you if you do?
Someone walks into your cake shop and orders a wedding cake. They probably discuss all sorts of things like flavorings and colorings, but do any cake shops make it a practice to ask personal questions about the couple? If they do and the cake buyer lies, do you have any legal recourse?
Let’s say the gay couple buys a cake from the religious baker. The baker assumes the man and woman that walked into the shop together are the happy couple and doesn’t ask any other questions. But the cake is for a gay wedding and the cake was prominently featured on social media and the cake shop was mentioned.
Does the baker have any legal recourse agains the couple? Did they violate the baker’s freedom of religion?
Or is your freedom of religion only being violated if you KNOW you are making a cake for a gay couple. Seems kind of weird.
Now, the situation is moot if there is something about the CAKE that indicates that it may be for a gay couple. But it’s my understanding that’s not the case.
And, BTW, the Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler cake was a real thing, although it was not ordered for a celebration of the dictators birthday but for the birthday of a child of neo-Nazi parents. The child was named Adolf Hitler.
The incident indirectly resulted in the parents losing custody of their kids. And in exposing the rest of their crazy to the world.
He legally changed his name, so I guess his kid’s name is now Adolf Hitler Hitler.
Someone orders a cake over the phone and pays for it using a credit card, having the cake say “Congrats to the Happy Couple.” The uber Christian baker makes it, and it is picked up by a gay couple. Should he be allowed not to sell it to them?
According to the Colorado ruling, which said that the baker would have to sell a cake that was already made, but could not be compelled to make a new cake, he would have to sell it at that point.
The practical answer is that the legal framework for two-person marriage already exists and is not significantly changed by the genders of the two people involved being the same rather than different, whereas that framework cannot be mapped across to accommodate three or more individuals for a very large number of material reasons.
Now, if two people want to have an open marriage to include a third, fourth or fifth (or just be a polyamorous grouping without getting married) and the usual caveats apply (i.e. all participants are informed, consenting adults and not close relations), go for it. But if they want a three-way state-recognized marriage there’s a lot of legal work that needs to be done first.
I’m not sure why a lot of gay couples who are getting married don’t order cakes from this baker without telling him it’s for a gay wedding. Then, once the cake is picked up, blast over social media how the baker made a cake for a gay wedding.
Possibly because you have to be older than thirteen to get married.
No, I don’t think that’s it.
Awesome line, slightly undercut by the fact that in ~18 states that is not the case :eek:.
Should a business be able to refuse you service if you politely say “no” to their request for a charitable donation, you ask. Has that ever happened? No? Then your analogy is worthless. The things I’m talking about, like sports teams supporting LGBT rights, happen all the time. The ridiculous analogies you’re fantasizing about never happen. There must be a reason for that.
Maybe it’s because your analogies are worthless. Maybe it’s because questions of basic human rights are absolutely uncontroversial in a civilized society.
But one might suspect from your comment about how “I think” that this a more enlightened world view, as if it was some arbitrary opinion, and one might suspect from your snide comment about how this is just “spouting all sorts of things”, and from your even more snide comment about the “nonsense” of a charitable contribution, that your real problem is that you just don’t agree with the USWNT position on LGBT rights, much like the woman in question who found it too oppressive to wear the team jersey, but had no problem at all taking the drastic action of quitting the US national team. That seems like a very strange tradeoff to make for someone who isn’t really against LGBT equal rights, but is supposedly just espousing some higher principle. Sort of like someone quitting their high-profile job after their employer raises a rainbow flag on Gay Pride Day. It’s not that they have anything against gays, you understand, it’s just that they’d rather starve than work for a company like that. :rolleyes:
So, you get to tell someone what their religion is allowed to believe?