This was done to death and dead horses were beaten, etc., on this board a couple of years ago. I’m not sure who you’re asking, though, since iiandyiiii specifically mentioned not writing certain messages.
I think that’s where the law has come down: if you open your doors to the public …
Bakers bake and sell cakes. They have to sell those cakes to everybody.
Photographers take pictures at weddings. They have to photograph weddings.
Bakers don’t have to write hate speech on cakes.
Photographers don’t have to stick around to take pictures of the newlyweds bumping uglies in the hotel room.
Those promote hatred and harm to others. BLM, Rainbow, LGBQT rights do not.
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on what should be required and what should not be, but it’s not really relevant to this thread.
@Velocity, it seems to me that there have been excellent arguments put forth as to why bigotry is bigotry. What are you thoughts after reading through it?
Well, in the general sense, I think everyone does that. They have a belief and then find justification for it.
But they aren’t defending bigotry (IMO), they are defending their right to do as they wish. I happen to agree except in the rare events that there are no other options.
I think Kearsen1 has a point, that you do not have enough information to be able to say that in every case. I don’t think your evidence is sufficient.
You’d have more of a point if the baker who refused to provide a cake for a same-sex marriage then turned around and provided a cake for a divorce celebration party, or an orgy. That would be more of an apples-to-apples comparison, as opposed to refusing to support an event, action, or behavior that they don’t agree with vs. refusing service to a person who does (or is) something they don’t agree with.
You’re getting away from the point of this thread. Whether they can do as they wish is a legal issue, and has nothing to do with this thread. This thread is whether their genuine religious belief justifies their bigotry.
I say it doesn’t, since they are not bigoted against other people who you’d think would also be sinners or abominations or whatever. What do you think? Do you think if someone has a sincere religious belief that gay people are bad or whatever, that isn’t bigotry? Or that it excuses their bigotry?
ETA: Thudlow_Boink, I’m not really interested in discussing that bakery case. It’s not really on point. In the general case, while I cannot know what’s in every religious person’s head, I don’t see nearly as much anti-fornicator bigotry, anti-divorcee bigotry as I see anti-gay bigotry in society. It’s clear to me that the bigotry comes first.
But it is the exact same conclusion. You are saying that any justification that aligns with (what you see as bigotry), is wrong.
I am telling you that may not be the case because you simply do not know the reasoning.
I agree that I can’t read their minds. That’s an excellent point and totally blows away all of my arguments.
Or, maybe, I can see what their actions are, and regardless of their mental state, the result is lots of bigotry against one class of sinners (gay people) and almost none against other classes (divorcees, fornicators). I’m not saying that any justification that aligns with bigotry is wrong. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter what the justification is, and the bigotry is bigotry.
And, if they are using their religious beliefs to justify it, then they are hypocrites as well, since anyone who claims to be so Christian that they can’t serve gay people should read their Book a little better – gay people play a very small role compared to other sinners like fornicators, adulterers, divorcees, people who work on the Sabbath, and so on and so forth.
Then surely you can find another example of the bigotry in action, because the cake baker isn’t cutting the custard.
Yes bigotry is always bigotry, except when it doesn’t start off as bigotry …
When ‘to do as they wish’ is to act as a bigot, then they most certainly are defending bigotry. Inventing convoluted arguments doesn’t change that they want to bully people weaker than them.
Uh what?
Who was bullying who?
The cake baker who didn’t want the business of the guy trying to cancel the baker and take them to court and force him to do something against his religion (and even if it wasn’t, so what?)
There were other bakers willing to provide the service.
He should get out of the business if that’s his concern. Everyone is a sinner according to The Bible he professes to follow. Some just as egregious, if not more so, that homosexuality.
I disagree with you, iiandyiiii, running_coach, and DavidNRockies as to whether a baker’s refusal to create and sell a custom wedding cake to a homosexual couple is necessarily motivated by bigotry first, with religion only serving as an excuse. Even in the absence of specific message or decorations the baker disagrees with.
I don’t intend on debating this disagreement in this topic. Even if the baker was motivated by religion alone, I think the religion which has the effect of discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of their homosexuality is inherently bigoted. And so the baker who claims that religion forces him to be a bigot is himself a bigot for following a bigoted religion.
~Max
Some are hypocrites, but not all. I think some would just rightly and sincerely distinguish between serving sinners and helping sinners to sin.
The cake baker who was violating the law by discriminating against customers was the one bullying a minority. Deciding that you will refuse service to minorities is most certainly bullying behavior, whether it’s a lunch counter refusing to serve blacks or a baker refusing to serve gays.
If the cake baker didn’t want to do business with the general public, then he should not have operated a bakery that purported to be open to business with the general public. All of the religious posturing is just self-contradictory nonsense, as has already been shown, so is irrelevant.
People are always translating things into other things, so that’s not really in question.
However, the big translation events were when Luther translated it into the common languages of the time, and when King James created the book that most people think of when they think of the Bible.
I assume that there is no one alive who was around when these rather influential events in biblical history happened.
It can also be used for people who believe in good things and like to use religion as their inspiration.
The bible is the ultimate Rorschach test.
And one of the problems is that there are those who think that, as an “Other”, you shouldn’t have the same rights, including sometimes even the right to exist.
“Sure, it’s fine for the pagans to worship their false idols and engage in their depraved practices. And it’s fine for us to go wipe them out.” Keep in mind that a substantial portion of the Old Testament is their written record of them committing genocide against those who did not believe as they did.
Absolutely.
If the baker is that worried about being punished by their god for baking a cake for a gay couple, then some due diligence should be in order.
If you go to a minister in many denominations, they will ask you about your sexual history, both with eachother and with others, before they agree to marry you.
If I were a God Fearing baker, I’d have a form to fill out, ensuring that I was not sanctifying the union of adulterers or fornicators.
I don’t see how baking a cake for a gay couple would be helping them to sin. They don’t need a cake, they don’t even need to be married, in order to have the type of sex that is apparently frowned upon by the baker’s god.
Yes, everyone is I guess (I don’t really know I’m not religious but I know I am a sinner)
They just don’t want to be complicit in someone else’s sins. I can agree with that.
Or in my case, forced to provide a service for someone I don’t wish to provide a service for, for any reason.
Except, as I stated earlier, if there are no other options.
Then he shouldn’t be serving the public.
You have that exactly backwards. the guy took him to court because the baker refused his business. The way you word it makes it sound as though the taking to court part had anything to do with his decision. Also, I don’t think that your use of the word “cancel” there is actually correct, at all.
yep, and that’s what they told black people when they were turned away from public accommodations as well.
See, here’s the thing. If you choose to sell to the public, then you sell to the public. If you want to be bigotted, and choose who you will serve, then don’t open a public accommodation.
I’m a pretty damn good cook and baker, and I have catered a couple of my friends’ weddings. However, I do not advertise that I do this, and don’t actually make any money from it. If someone asked me to do it, I could turn it down for any reason I chose, even if it were purely discriminatory against a protected class.
However, if I were to try to make a living out of it, and open my culinary doors to the public, then no, I am no longer allowed to make those sorts of discriminations against my clientele.