What many posters here do not recognize it that to a baker, florist, calligrapher, photographer, videographer, or in my case, musician, what is being ordered is not a product, but art. None are refusing to sell products. People with religious beliefs that say marriage is between a man and a woman are refusing to create an artwork that makes a statement they believe is wrong.
If the current administration changed the requirements of the National Endowment for the Arts that recipients must include “Make America Great Again” in their artwork to receive grants, the art would would go bananas.
To require an artist to create an artwork with a message they don’t believe is compelled speech, which goes against our laws and traditions.
If the “artwork” is a general message that is sold to others many times in the past, then the “artist” isn’t being asked to create something they don’t want to create. The “artist” is refusing to sell to a particular protected group.
If a painter makes 1000 prints of a work, then refuses to sell any of the prints to a gay couple, would you approve?
No, but I do get to tell someone that they may not impose their religion on those who do not believe.
Not the same thing. A wedding cake is commissioned, one individual piece for one individual occasion. The couple could buy a generic wedding cake and put their own decorations on it, and then it would be a product. But requiring the baker to decorate the cake with a specific message is compelled speech.
What was the specific message that he found too horrendous to contemplate?
The thread has proven the OP more than (s)he wanted.
Indiferencie is not enough. Tolerance is not enough. Acceptance is not enough. Anything else than full, active endorsement is the only way. Any hesitation, any at all, makes you at best suspected of being ready to burn all gays at a moment’s notice. All in the name of openness and toleration.
Have you tried making a fort out of your bed covers, or hiding under your bed?
I think at some point, there could be. Some people actually do believe hate speech is violence, as strongly as you believe shooting is. I actually think it has some merit (it can cause physiologically measurable stress on the body), even if I don’t think it should merit infringing on the 1A.
I am not certain that your
“There is fundamental difference between a white man and a black man, and that is why they should not learn together, eat together, travel together, or live together.”
and Obama’s
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman”
are quite the same thing.
And if there ever is a federal hate speech law, I think it is quite possible they would be treated differently. This is hypothetical of course.
This does not follow from what anyone has said. Tolerance is actually enough, your strawman notwithstanding.
What you are pointing at are people that refuse to tolerate other people living their own private lives in a way that they disapprove of, and complaining that they are being persecuted because they are not allowed to treat those they desipsie with the contempt they feel they so richly deserve.
That is, unfortunately, a freedom that many have taken fro granted for so long, that it is simply accepted in their psyche that it is the right and proper thing to treat differences that you refuse to accept as not being worthy of dignity. That it hurts them that the world is changing, and that that sort of behavior is no longer as accepted as it used to be is not the same thing as the oppression and persecution that they have inflicted and wish to continue to inflict upon others.
There are those who feel that hate speech leads to violence, and as such, do not draw a firm distinction between the two, but you are acting as if they actually think that it is the same thing as getting shot with actual bullets.
I made no claim that they are the same thing. In fact, I would hold that they are not. I have no idea what your point is here, or what kind of argument you are trying to make.
There are speech laws about actual calls to violence, but no such laws about simply encouraging it. There already is a line that is much closer to the side of freedom of expression than safety of the public. If it were to be inched a bit in the direction of safety of marginalized groups that are the targets of hate speech, that wouldn’t impact the freedoms of anyone who is not trying to create division and violence in our society. You would not really even need to change 1A in order to strengthen hate speech laws, as speech is already limited in many reasonable ways that few find oppressive.
As much as you’ve tried to make an intelligent argument; so, no.
No, it’s not as strawman at least to what this thread is about. Here you’re a bigot always.
Hate gays and wants to kill them all. BIGOT
Don’t like gays. BIGOT
Don’t really care much about gays. BIGOT
Like gays but don’t make much fuss about that. BIGOT
Support gay marriage but don’t participate in public marches supporting it. BIGOT
Is happy to sell all sorts of things to gays except those which will make him publicly endorse something. BIGOT
Drive friends to gay pride march, buy them stuff for the march, take them home back, pay for their wedding, be the best man, pay for their honeymoon, but won’t wear rainbow pin. BIGOT.
The threshold for being a bigot is so low now. So even if you score 99% on the “Gay-friendliness” test, you’re still a bigot like someone that scores 1%.
I’m sure that not supporting that the law punish religions that don’t marry gays makes me Che Guevara-level bigot.
While I wouldn’t go as far as what Aiji de Gailina said, the mindset of “You are either with us or against us” (which is, ironically, similar to Bush’s infamous statement after 9/11) inevitably is going to have the effect of pushing some hesitant, undecided, or shy people away from a particular cause. If you tell fence-straddlers, “You can’t straddle the fence, you need to either be fully on one side or the other,” you will lose some would-be allies.
I save my intelligent arguments for people that are conversing intelligently.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such an extreme and overt admission that one is making a strawman argument. No, it’s quite obviously the case the no real non-straw not-imagined person ever said anything akin to “Drive friends to gay pride march, buy them stuff for the march, take them home back, pay for their wedding, be the best man, pay for their honeymoon, but won’t wear rainbow pin. BIGOT.” To even pretend that such a statement has been made is an open admission that your argument is predicated on deliberate delusion.
Of course, the reason for this delusion is clear - if you can’t paint tolerant people as being completely insane, they might have a point, and it might be reasonable to ask you to change your behavior. AND THAT CANNOT BE TOLERATED.
So, there’s no objection to MAGA requirements from you?
Living by my beliefs in public is forcing my beliefs on everyone else, but others requiring me to create an art work that endorses that which my faith forbids isn’t the same thing?
Very fancy handwaving there…but could you please answer the question?
Agreed.
Agreed.
Well, this depends a bit. If you wouldn’t beat someone for being gay, but wouldn’t lift a finger to stop someone else from doign so, you are not exactly showing much tolerance yourself.
Nah.
Nah.
Ah, here we are trying to tie into the threads about cakes and weddings. No one in the history of weddings ever has ever thought that the person paid to make the cake was doing so as an endorsement of the wedding until this came up as a way of excusing a desire to discriminate. No one says that the baker has to put out a sign that says, “This cake was made to proudly endorse this same sex marriage.” No one has ever put out a sign like that endorsing hetero marriages.
It is treating someone differently because of who they are that makes someone a bigot. So, yes, refusing to perform the same service that you would perform for someone else is the definition of discrimination based on an intolerance towards who they are.
Depends on why you won’t wear the rainbow pin. If it is because you don’t want people to get the wrong impression that you are for equality, then you may just be a bigot. If it is because it clashes with your fabulous outfit, maybe not so much.
The threshold for people complaining and whining their asses off because they are expected to treat people with dignity and respect is virtually 0% with people who are desperate to find a justification for making sure that those they despise are put in their place.
You should be aware of the excluded middle fallacy, as you are throwing out the entirety of the reality of human interaction with your binary pronouncement.
If someone makes a suggestion that you do something that is beneficial to tolerance and equality, that doesn’t mean that they are calling you a bigot. Though, if you throw this sort of petulant attitude in response, then everyone will realize that you are, which really makes your style of debate here virtue signalling to other bigots, making sure that they know that you are on their side.
It doesn’t, you can rest assured of that. Hopefully, that helps you sleep at night.
That comes down to politics at that point. You really are with us or against us, when it comes to voting. If both parties were friendly towards tolerance, then it would be a matter of how to go about it. As there is a party that has been hostile towards the ideas of equality, not just about sexual orientation, but about gender and race, choosing to support that party does put you in opposition to the people who are looking to increase equality for all.
Whether or not people of a different sexual orientation than yourself can get married, or have their gender preference respected is a pretty binary thing. If you are saying that people who are different than you should not be treated with the same dignity and respect that you would like to be treated with, then you have chosen a side. If you then try to claim that being asked to choose a side is what pushed you over, that is a false claim, as you had already made you choice long before.
Dial it back. If you want to have a dialogue, do so and cease the childishness.
[/moderating]
I asked if Obama’s “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” was hate speech. This statement is what a lot of people, to this day, believe. Not me, but a lot of people.
You said it was, and that’s why he stopped saying it. I am not so sure. I think it’s quite possible he stopped saying it because he simply changed his mind, or because it is too politically incorrect to say now. Not because it is “hate speech.”
You then followed up asking “Would you consider the statement, “There is fundamental difference between a white man and a black man, and that is why they should not learn together, eat together, travel together, or live together.” to be hate speech?”
I said that it was.
I then stated that I didn’t think those two statements were the same. You seem to agree. Perhaps there is no argument here, but I am not convinced that Obama’s statement was hate speech. Then or now.
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
I will not create art that is designed to celebrate a same-sex mating ritual, because unless the art clearly shows my opinion, it appears to show my approval. And my opinion is not what the customers want. Requiring me to create an artwork that appears to be an endorsement of a fake marriage is as detestable to me as making a MAGA painting would be to a Collectivist artist. To tell me my faith is illegitimate because it is unpopular goes against what this country was founded on.
Is that clear enough?
Yep-You either can’t, or won’t, answer the question as to what was the special design/message that the chef objected to.