Ok well please accept my somewhat embarrassed apology that I said you were callous. Your explanation above, combined with ZPG Zealot has changed my mind. Well, I haven’t changed it 100% but you’ve both given me a lot to think about, that ultimately, in the total big picture it will work best to try and get along instead of making things more confrontational.
So what? People are allowed to hate and condemn things. So what? Or do you now want to puckish thought crime. Perhaps you should consult the pre-cogs.
In UnicornLand, sure. Otherwise, he owes you no such thing. If you really want your one day with no drama, just go to someone who ants to make you the cake. You’re bringing the drama upon yourself.
Ha! So he needs to act as lovingly as you and try to force people to do things against their moral conscience. That’s beautiful. He should check his religious views when he leaves home just so you can have a pretty day. I’m not sure if this displays more of a detestation of religious views or and astounding ignorance of they work for some people. Of course, “both” is also an option.
You really don’t understand that you’re not the one who gets to make judgements about what one feels morally comfortable doing. That’s pretty astounding.
How can I say this? Hmmm… JUST GO TO ANOTHER FUCKING BAKERY! One that wants your business and will do their best to make you a really nice cake. Kinda obvious, I know, but evidently not obvious enough.
We all have days that are really special to us. And what most people do is make sure that everything goes nice on smoothly on that day. Why the fuck would anyone taint the day they’re planning for by building ugly drama into it?
Baffling it is. But we’ve already learned that it’s not about the cake, maybe we’ll learn now that it’s not really about the day either. Yeah, that’s where I have my money.
Well said.
Well, you certainly don’t have any problem hating or condemning. But what did Jesus say:
Love your neighbor
Forgive
Be Meek
Be Humble
Loan money to those who will not repay, anyone can loan money to a friend
Forgive
Turn the other cheek
Do not be the first to cast the stone
Be nice to those who are mean to you, anyone can be nice to their friend
Love your neighbor
Give your coat
Can you please give me chapter and verse where Jesus said “People are allowed to hate and condemn things.”
Any christian who ignores the list above and instead digs into Leviticus is nothing but a hypocrite, a liar, a fraud and a charlatan.
Damn Straight I am!!! And so is everyone else. The only difference is I can back mine up with logic and fact. There is nothing logical or factually wrong about being gay. It harms no one. The only people harmed are the mentalities of homophobic people. Being uncomfortable with homosexuality is OK. Clinging to it is not. Quit using the dictates of a god whom you ignore to justify your bad attitude.
Yeah, I too think that is for the best.
Jesus made people able to experience a full range of emotions. And he tried to change people’s hearts but doing many of things you list. Though you are hostile to religion, do you really think that the best way to win hearts and minds is to force people to do things against their conscience? I’d say it’s much more likely to have the opposite effect. But if it’s more important to you to just be pissy and try to force people to do things, you go right ahead.
But I am not arguing anything from a religious basis. You don’t seem to be able to grasp that. I argue for religious freedom though, as I’ve mentioned many times on these boards, I do not practice any religion myself.
The fact is that this country was founded largely on religious freedom. The fact that you glom onto a phrase said by Jefferson in a private letter and completely misunderstand what he meant by it is not a mistake that others are obligated to also make.
:rolleyes: Newsflash: Christians all fall short of the ideals Jesus put forth. They would be the first to admit it. I guess it’s beneficial to you to not have any bar to measure your actions against ,so you can hate (religion) and wrap everything statement of disagreement you make in fetid condescension.
Sorry, chum. As impressed as I might be by your tough guy talk, you do NOT get to dictate peoples moral convictions. It’s really, really odd that you can’t comprehend this very simple fact. If you don’t think people should be able to decide for themselves what moral compass to follow—religious or not—move to Saudi Arabia.
Again, you do not seem to not what you are talking about. Nor understand the arguments I’ve been made, none of which have been religious in nature. Your kneejerk hostility is blinding you. I’ve argued from a standpoint of religious freedom, which is a secular concept, and from one of psychology of the creative process.
Wow, so really, you’re just spending month after month after month defending other peoples right to be bigoted, close minded and hateful. (There is a chance I am wrong about that, see below).
So? Religious freedom =/= permission to be a jerk. Yeah, technically, this is the USA and people do have the freedom of speech. I repeat, so what? I can call a fat person fat fat fat hey fat head right to their face but why do it???
Why?
Well, if their moral convictions are rooted in hatred and bigotry and hypocrisy and shallowness then in fact it is my moral duty to stop them. Failing to do so would mean that morals no longer exist. One thing that is funny though, you spend month after month after month preaching “live and let live”, well, what about letting me “live and let live”, why are you not extending me the same privilege to hate and condemn that you extend to them?
Seriously man, forget all the pages and pages of back and forth on this topic. It boils down to one and only one variable:
You are championing the cause of hateful people to be hateful. Why, are you doing that? Why is letting people be hateful so important to you? ZPG Zealot, Iggy, and Valgard are saying, or at least what I am taking away from what they are saying, is “hey Robert, don’t engage with these people, it’s not worth it. Walk away, calm down, take a deep breath and try not to say anything really rude on your way out of the door.”
You seem to be saying different. If I have you wrong on this, tell me, I will take your word for it. You seem to be saying “Robert, let them be hateful, accept it, walk away without any judgement at all. Don’t you dare look down on them.”
Am I mad and blinded by my own anger such that I have misread what you said, or, are you actually saying: “Robert accept them and don’t look down on them”. (As opposed to walk away for the greater good.)
Then it’s a totally irrelevant point, because it bears zero relationship to what we’re really talking about in this thread.
No one is trying to make anyone compose art that they don’t want to compose. We’re talking about discrimination in the workplace. I have already mentioned how an artist can avoid painting pictures of blacks if that’s what he wishes: he paints whatever the fuck he wants, and puts the pictures up in a gallery somewhere for sale.
Your “point” doesn’t exist in this thread.
Where in the OP is this thread limited to workplace discrimination?
Because people actually have that right. I don’t want people to be bigoted, close minded or hateful, but I also don’t want the use the power of the state to tell them what they can think.
Okay. Can you see that what you might be view as being a jerk might not be viewed as such from others involved. I think that people who play loud music in their cars are being jerks. But I know they don’t see it that way. Now I’m glad you don’t go out of your way to call fat people fat to their face. But I don’t see a religious owner of a bakery doing that. Odds are they simply show up every day at work looking to make cakes. Then one day they have to choose between making the cake and going against their religious convictions. And, most likely, they look for the the most polite way to extricate themselves from that m oral dilemma. If they got in your face and started yelling, “Get out of here faggot, faggot, faggot”, then yes, they would be being hateful jerks.
Well, if you feel it’s your moral duty to do so, some action is certainly permissible. But “stop” them? I’d submit that it all depends how you want to go about doing that. Killing them would stop them, but I’m sure you’re not advocating that. I would say a better way to look at it is to that feel a moral compunction persuade them to change. and then you have to decide for yourself how aggressive you want to be in that. Surely you see a world of difference between someone who politely tries to tell you you’d be happier yogin to another bakery and a Fred Phelps type confrontation. I’d say that whatever course you choose would be one that wouldn’t turn you into a bigger jerk than the people you disagree with, right?
I don’t know what you mean by this. I’m all for wanting you to live and let live. But I personally think that when you seek to use the state to force people to do things against their religious convictions, you’re going out of your way to ruin someone else’s life. Now if that person had a cure for cancer and was the only one who had it, and he turned you away because of your sexual orientation, I’d be on your side. But it’s a fucking cake. There are plenty of people who’d be thrilled to make one for you. Why insist on loving yourself into a relationship that is the most contentious as opposed to the least contentious? And for a cake as important as a wedding cake, why would you even want someone hostile to homosexuality within 100 feet of it? If I were selecting a baker for a wedding cake, or flower arranging, or wedding photography, if I got the slightest negative vibe from the person at all, I’d quickly go find someone else. I would want someone who I felt was really eager to do the job, who I had a good report with. I’d be very protective of my special day.
That’s not how I define what I’m doing. I look at my participation here as sticking up for religious freedom, which the constitution and law gives all of us. And which I feel is a very good thing to have in a society. You seem to want to dispense with that. I find that position very offensive, unAmerican, and unwise. So, I speak against it.
No, I agree with you said here about what the others you mention want. But what is the difference in what you just said people like Ziggy are advocating and this part of what you ascribe to me: "“Robert, let them be hateful, accept it, walk away”? None, right? As far as judging them or looking down on them, go right ahead.
If you do what Ziggy (and I) advocate that, the problem gets ratcheted down from 100 to about 3. You go to another bakery who wants to make you a cake and everyone goes on with their lives. Doing that is generally a very good thing for all involved. You can look down on them all you want. I’m sure you look down on Fred Phelps, and probably every single person on these boards agrees with you. And they wouldn’t really mind if you wanted to demonize them, as he goes out of his way to be hateful and confrontational. But to demonize someone who simply has religious convictions different then yours and doesn’t want to do something that goes against them and is otherwise polite and wishes you no harm? You begin to cede the moral high ground.
I think you should accept that there are good people who have religious convictions that you don’t agree with. I think you should seek the least contentious way to enjoy your wedding day rather than the most. You’re certainly free to look down on them, but it’s still probably very wise to walk away for the greater good.
I’d also suggest that try to temper your hostility toward religion. Like I said, I’m not religious, but I have no animosity toward it. I’ve lived in both the Bible Belt and in that den of iniquity called San Francisco ;), and they both have their pros and cons. I’d also suggest that you think about the not on of forcing a person to apply his creative talents to a thing that runs counter to the feel he has for the thing. I wouldn’t want force a Christian sculptor to create an installation for Planned Parenthood, nor would I want to force an Atheist sculptor to create an installation to be placed on the grounds of Oral Roberts University.
Sure you are. If I don’t want to make a SS wedding cake, some people in this thread want to force me to do so. That’s crystal clear. Perhaps you meant to post in a different thread?
No, that’s not what we’re talking about. Look up the phrase.
That’s one option. You seem to think that someone should have to choose between living in accord with his religious convictions or his livelihood. I don’t. Hence the discussion. I hope that clears things up for you.
Well, it does now, doesn’t it?
What is actually unAmerican is refusing to serve some Americans and not others.
During a discussion group on civil rights, one of my students raised an interesting perspective which I expanded on a little to create some critical thinking.
A couple of days ago (not sure exactly when), Jeb Bush tried to placate both sides of the debate by saying a business should not be allowed to discriminate, but should have the right to not participate.
Some of the students immediately identified this as a civil rights issue, because it would involve individuals such as caterers, performers, etc… IF the definition of participate is actively be at the wedding.
The general consensus was that the participation exemption would be discriminatory.
But, then the issue was raised in a different context and I must admit it gave me some pause.
I devised the following scenarios, based on the student’s statement, for the others to ponder.
The scenario was catering.
Religion is a protected class, much like we are beginning to see sexual identity becoming a protected class.
So, if you own a catering business and the Westboro Baptist church approaches you for your services, should you have to cater their event? You routinely take jobs where you serve people “in the field” such as construction workers, outside parties and events. You have even catered political rallies and in one case, you catered a union picket.So you normally do this service.
The WBs want you to cater their protest (a legal one) where they are going to stand in front of the courthouse and mock all GLBTI couples trying to get married for 7 straight days. Their expressed goal is to mock them and drive them away from the courthouse. They have also used legal means to identify other gay individuals who are in the closet and they are going to use this protest to “out” these individuals and hold them up for ridicule because they belief these individuals are the “hidden gay agenda brigade” and must be exposed before they can influence public policy again.
You will wear the same uniform you always wear for your company when doing this. You will not be required to hold any signs, chant anything, but you will be preparing food on site and refilling coffee and drinks for the people at the protest. So you will be interacting with them and in the main group of protesters.
Do you have to cater the protest?
There is one thing I am not quite clear on in this whole debate. Does that baker have a problem with the cake or with his customer?
If it is the cake, i.E. if a “gay” wedding cake is *different *from the baker’s usual fare in any significant way and he is saying that for religious reasons he does not want to craft such a cake, then I am fine with that. He is being asked to do a specific kind of work and he does not want to. Nobody should have the right to force him.
If on the other hand the cake is just a normal wedding cake and the reason the baker refuses to make it is that he disagrees with his customer’s way of life, then I am not ok with that. How his customers live their lives is none of the baker’s business and he should not have the right to refuse service on that basis. If you give him that right, it will not stop at a wedding cake. Minorities will not have the same freedom to live their lives as the majority does, and frankly that does not strike me as a very American concept. (But then I am not American, so what do I know?)
Based on the last two posts by Hiker and Lucky Mike, I thought I’d repost this from a a couple of pages ago:
Hypothetical: John and Joe are getting married. And they want a cake from the bakery down the street that they go to every week. They know the owner and sit in their often having coffee and croissants. Joe and John have a dear friend, Susan (happily married to a man) who helps people pull off weddings. She arranges for the venue, decorates it, does the flowers, etc. As a gift to her dear friend John and Joe, she tells them, “I’m going to take care of everything.” They’re thrilled. She has exquisite taste and they trust whatever she will do.
Okay, so when it comes to the cake, she goes to the bakery that she knows Joe and John like. She talks to the owner, explains that she’s a wedding planner and they discuss the cake. "They talk about the height, number of tiers, type of cake, icing, color, etc. They agree at a huge 6-tier cake that is going to cost $5,000! All is good, then the baker asks, “And what would you like the cake to say?” She replies, “Happy Wedding Day Joe & John”. The baker pauses uncomfortably and says, apologetically, that he is a devout Christian and wouldn’t feel good about making a cake for an even that goes against his deeply help religious convictions, and regretfully, has to decline the very lucrative job.
Should the baker be sued? Could he be sued? By whom? The client, Susan, is a heterosexual woman. He is not saying he won’t bake a cake for her, just not for a particular flavor of event.
Hypothetical 2: Susan is getting divorced from her husband who has been cheating on her. She’s tired of his shit and wants, files for divorce and wants to celebrate her new-found freedom. She is going to throw a huge bash for all her friends. She wants a great big wedding-typ cake and wants it to read. “Happy Divorce Day. Good riddance to the asshole!” But the baker, a devout Christian is against the concept of divorce and again, apologetically declines the job.
Should he be sued? Could he be sued? On what grounds?
From a religious conviction standpoint, is there any difference between his convictions against divorce and SS marriage?
I basically agree with this. And in the case in the courts, the owners of the bakery knowingly served the lesbian couple throughout the year with zero problem. They drew the line at the wedding cake. I wonder what they would have done if there were a freezer with pre-made cakes. Maybe even one with “Happy Wedding” or something similarly generic. From what I’ve read of the case they would have sold that cake, but I’m not positive. I do think that they should have sold that cake.
I think the “participation” line is an interesting one. But I’d view making a cake for a wedding as participating. The hours that go into it and the artistry require active participation. The generic wedding cake I mentioned in my previous post doesn’t really fall into that category. The work has already been done, and their is nothing about it that conflicts with the baker’s religious convictions.
I’ll answer the last question first, because to me it is the easiest: No, there is no such difference. The baker refuses the cake for more or less the same reason.
If I go back to what I wrote earlier, the question comes down to whether the Inscription “Happy Wedding Day Joe & John” represents a significant difference. That is difficult to decide, but I would be fine with letting the baker refuse the inscription. You have to find a balance between the rights of the baker and those of Joe and John, and in this case having to write the inscription themselves (or have Susan do it) would not place too much of a burden on them.
IANAL, I will say that, but all the lawyers that I know I have told me, you can be sued for anything in this world. So, with respect, I will rephrase your question to a philosophical one. Is it a violation of civil rights in these two hypotheticals? I will leave your question about law to the experts.
In both of these cases, the person is being asked to produce something they normally would and they are not being asked publicly to take a stance on the issue (i.e. participate).
So, in the first scenario, yes I think it is a violation of civil rights to not bake the cake IF GLBTI is a protected class in that district. The baker routinely bakes cakes and routinely writes names on them and routinely writes wedding based words on them. The juxtaposition of two male, or two female, may give them pause persoanlly, but they would be happy to write the names in and of themselves in every other scenario. They would be hard pressed to ever prove they have refused to write the word “John” and “Joe” previously and that they would refuse to write those words on a cake for every person.
The second, they are being asked to write the word “asshole”. In this case, they could likely make a strong case they will not write that word for anyone. But IF, they had done so previously, I still do not think it rises to a civil rights issue because divorce is not a protected class. They are simply refusing business to a person.
So, protected class matters IMHO as does the strength of the case the person makes for not taking the business. If, for example, a cake maker explicitly states they will never make any wedding cakes (i.e. decorating them for wedding nuptial messages), for anyone, then i do not think it is a violation if they refuse to decorate the cake for a gay, lesbian or hetero couple. On the other hand, if they refuse to sell the cake in and of itself, not decorated, they cannot do so because the person is gay or lesbian. It is when they refuse to make a wedding cake BECAUSE a person is a member of a protected class, it becomes a problem.
Oh, and for the record, in the scenario I constructed for the class, I intentionally took religion out of the argument for the person who is the caterer.
I wanted to examine it from the perspective of “sincerely held beliefs” which has been trumpeted as the way some folks think they can discriminate. It is, of course, a veiled reference at religion, but they are intentionally using the vaguer words to evade being for a particular religion. They are advocating “freedom of conscience” in the effort to veil their request to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.
(emphasis mine)
I find it interesting that you felt the need to use the word “publicly” here. Why? Do you think that one’s religious convictions matter only with public displays? That’s odd in the extreme. And if you remove the word “publicly”, and view this as the act of conscience that religion is, I think you’re whole position fails for lack of foundation. Would you agree?
Also, while you point to a protected class, you seem to ignore the right of religious freedom. Am I missing something. For me, I see both the right of the protected class AND the right for one to conduct themselves in a way that aligns with their religious convictions. I think this is one of those cases where we are faced with competing rights. And the simplest, less intrusive, lightest touch solution is to protect the religious right and to expect the gay couple to simply go to another bakery.
I find this very weak reasoning. Words have meaning, particularly in context. Based on what you offer here a baker could be forced to write anything on a cake if it can be shown that he has used the letters in the alphabet needed. “Asshole”, “Jesus is a fraud”, etc.