I think you need to pick a lane.
Either Christian bakers are in no danger of being shut down or all Christian bakers should be shut down.
Which lane are you choosing?
That was a description of an argument given for keeping Black people enslaved. I’ve seen versions of that – generally leaving out the enslavement part – being given quite recently.
In any case, here it’s a hypothetical; and the assumption is specifically that the group is a racial/ethnic group, not a group of people with any specific medical condition (though I will note that there’s a whole lot of variation in the effects of Down’s.).
If that sounds bigoted to you, then you don’t require animus as part of your definition of the word “bigoted.”
And presumably they think you’re oblivious to that argument having been made about specific groups because you said
This is a discussion about Christian attitudes to same-sex marriage, not Christian hypocrisy.
Either Christian bakers are being shut down and you are Ok with that or they are not being shut down. You have argued both sides. Which side should I engage with?
Well, no. Homophobes may lose their jobs, and possibly incur financial penalties. Most religious people wouldn’t be affected by it at all.
Yeah … there’s really nothing new under the sun – particularly for those whose understanding of US history goes back even a very few generations:
[a very quick read]
This may very well be part of what a large swath of 'Muricans really means when they talk of “Making America Great Again,” but it’s utterly repugnant.
“Economic hardship” (along with religion) was used as an existential defense of Slavery (and segregation) in the US, too.
So @Kevlaw 's little tease of a Slippery Slope argument utterly falls flat – particularly as a way to couch an inherently bigoted argument as something pecuniary instead.
This is selective quoting and disingenuous. I said that I can’t imagine such a scenario because, as far as I know, there are no differences in intellectual capacity between ethnic groups.
Your attempt to frame my words to imply the opposite is dishonest.
It’s also worth nothing that every time a fish breaks wind in the Indian Ocean, an American Christian is being persecuted.
Just ask them.
And now we are back, full circle. If you define all arguments against same-sex marriage as homophobic, then all arguments against same-sex marriage will be homophobic.
I’m not sure why this is relevant to this discussion.
It may be the case that a person doing that is not bigoted, but they are catering to bigots, so still taking a bigoted position.
Personally, I find someone who caters to bigotry for personal gain to be far worse than a bigot.
Then feel free to focus on the other parts of my post.
So, you are not making an argument that there are religious reasons to oppose SSM?
Okay then, I think that we are done.
I think that you have defined it already, did you forget your own cite?
I’m making exactly this argument. I can explain it again if you are not clear.
Getting back to the OP, I don’t see how there could be a “non-bigoted” reason to oppose SSM, because it’s circular - nowadays, society basically defines such sentiment as bigotry. We’ve defined it in such a way that you can’t oppose SSM without being considered bigoted.
To borrow a German(?) expression, it would be like asking, “How can I wash my back without getting myself wet?” Well, you can’t - washing, by definition, entails applying water to something.
The definition I shared said nothing about imposing a belief on others. I think you made this up.
SSM IS legal. You are invoking a slippery slope argument that has already been proven to be false.
About the only people who could possibly lose their jobs over this would be bigots who refuse to comply with the law, like the county clerk in Kentucky that refused to do her job and provide marriage licenses to SS couples.
But that’s like complaining that if we let black people eat at the white lunch counter, then racist servers who refuse to serve them may lose their jobs. In other words, simply catering to the bigots.
No big loss there.
What’s your definition of bigotry? And why does it differ from the one in the dictionaries?
If they were good Catholics, they would refuse to provide service to divorcees as well.
Are you arguing that people are not losing their jobs or that they are losing their jobs and that’s ok with you?
It’s not clear from what you said.