The supreme court has extended the bridge. They haven’t changed how the law works.
Yes, of course we have been. Has ANYONE said that people should be able to discriminate against gays in a state where they are a protected class?
Has ANYONE said that freedom of religion trumps protected class status? Of course not. The RFRA does not apply to the states. I THINK we all acknowledge that.
Rare or not, you can object to the Republican voting for Republicans on election day without being bigoted against Republicans.
I can think of a couple of bakers who hold that position.
Anti-discrimination laws don’t actually depend on bigotry, but upon unequal access to hiring, housing, commerce, and so on.
Yes, I, as a hypothetical store-owner, might be entirely rational in my opposition to Republicans, without there being an ounce of bigotry in my viewpoint. I’m still not allowed to refuse to serve them.
(Actually, fact-check? Is “political party” a protected class in any U.S. state? I had thought it was, but now I can’t find a clear answer.)
Anyway, the point of my hypothetical is that a store-owner can’t use the customer’s behavior as an excuse. (“I’m not discriminating against gays, only against people who engage in same-sex sex. If a heterosexual wanted to buy goods in my store, but he had once had sex with someone of his own sex, I’d tell him no, too.”)
This loophole would make the laws impossible to enforce.
(As it is, some anti-discrimination cases have had to have been based on statistical deduction. Not all racism, in, say, housing, is overt. A racist landlord is likely to be smart enough not to say, “I’m not renting to you because you’re black.” He will come up with other excuses. But when the EEOC notes that these excuses apply to 97% of his black applicants, but only 4% of his non-black applicants, the case is strong enough to take before a judge.)
In this thread. Come on.
Bu the baker is not denying service to the gay couple based on what they did or who they are. The baker would be happy to keep selling cupcakes to the gay couple after they got married, they just don’t want to be involved in the wedding. Can you see the difference? Can you see how their religious objection is to the event and not to the person?
If I think black people should be relegated to the back of the bus, is my problem with the person, or is it with the “event” of a black person sitting in the front of a bus?
Like Miller, no, I don’t see how the difference is of any value. By using this “workaround,” the equal rights laws could all trivially be bypassed.
And, as also has been noted, selling a cake to someone is not “participating in the event” where the cake is consumed. The wedding photographer is not “participating” in the wedding. The caterer is not “participating.” These guys do not have any moral reason to refuse to provide goods to people.
The only people who actually are participating are there entirely voluntarily.
What next? The banker refuses to allow the gay couple to withdraw money from their checking account, because they’ll use it to buy a bed upon which they will have sex, so he’s “participating” in their sex act?
The law you are talking about allowed black people to sit in the front of the bus as long as there weren’t any white people that needed those seats. That was a LAW. The government cannot discriminate, and here the law may not discriminate between gay and straight couples in issuing marriage licenses.
If you had a bus line that had a policy that they would only seat black people at the back of the bus then I would ask what sincerer religious objection you had to having black people sitting in the front of the bus. What religious theory would justify letting black people sit in the front of the bus but only if a white person didn’t need the seat.
So what is your sincere religious objection to black people sitting in the front of the bus?
Justice is blind but its not stupid. But perhaps you are right and its splitting hairs. I just don’t think that its as clear cut as everyone seems to think. People seem to think in some cases that because the government can’t do it then neither can a private citizen.
If I was a caterer that was perfectly happy to cater dinner parties of people who happen to be Republicans but refused to cater an event that was Republican would I be discriminating against the people who were throwing the event or against Republicanism?
These people disagree and their disagreement is reasonable.
That’s called conversion and would result in the banker going to jail. The baker owes nothing to the gay couple.
I think 50 years from now all these people will be embarrassed and pretend they never held an anti-gay sentiment in their life but this is neither a viable or a particularly helpful way of changing things at this point. All you’re doing is making them look more like victims when before they were clearly the bigoted oppressors.
You didn’t answer the question. Is someone who objects to letting black people sit at the front of the bus objecting to the person, or to the “event” of a black person sitting at the front of the bus?
What do you believe is reasonable about it?
What would be the difference between the baker who refuses a wedding cake for a same sex marriage and a banker who refuses to provide a loan for a house to a same sex couple and an employer who will not hire a homosexual in order to avoid providing insurance for a same sex couple or an adoption worker who will refuse to provide assistance to a same sex couple looking to adopt?
What is the logic behind their purported argument?
Refusing to marry someone of the same sex? That is fine.
Beyond that, there appears to be only personal disfavor rather than logic.
Miller, you’ve got to be kidding. You want to take the word “event” from my argument, define it away from the ceremony of marriage and claim that every moment in time scan be defined as an “event”. 
Please. This is pathetically weak. I simply demonstrate that you are are reaching—desperately.
Well, yes, every moment in time can be defined as an event. That’s why your (and Damuri’s) defense is so meaningless. There’s absolutely no difference between calling a marriage ceremony an event, and calling eating at a lunch counter an event. If one can be excused from accusations of bigotry by saying it’s the “event” of marriage you object to, and not the person, why could someone not make the exact same excuse when it comes to segregated water fountains, redlined real estate, or not letting women vote? Why does the logic you’re using apply to weddings, but not those other things?
The logic is that the disfavor goes to the event, not toward the individual. Why is it okay to refuse to marry someone, but not okay to to otherwise be part of the ceremony?
I see that a reasonable argument can be made as to what constitutes a “wedding”. Miller and you I think want it to be defined narrowly as the ceremony/exchanging of vows. But that does not seem to agree with what what most people view as their “wedding”. If Carl says, “I was at Joe and Karen’s wedding”, that VERY likely means that they were at the celebration, the reception, with cake and dancing, etc. It most likely does NOT mean that they were in the church and then went home while everyone else went to the reception.
No. Your off by a few parsecs.
First, do you really not understand that while every moment in time can be defined as an event, that those are quite different from “events” when we talk about things like a wedding, a birthday party, a funeral, a SuperBowl Party, and election, Christmas Dinner?
Secondly, do you not see that some events have religious connections and other do not? Getting on the bus to go to work, uh, no.
Question: An interfaith couple are getting married: one is a Jew, the other a Catholic. They have an idea for some of the flower arrangements, they want some to be in the shaper of a Star of David and other to be in the shape of a Catholic Cross. Okay, Selma, the Jewish bride-to-begoes to a florist she really likes, who unbeknownst to her, is a devout Jew, and has religious objection to Jewish woman marrying non-Jewish men. Should he be forced to create the flower arrangements?
Is he wanting to refuse to participate because of the arrangement of flowers, or because of the arrangement of marriage?
Sure, they’re different. How are they different in a way that’s significant to your argument? Again, the point I’m arguing against is the idea that what these bakers object to is the event, not the person. There’s nothing inherent in that argument that requires the event be special or momentous. There’s no reason, as far as I can see, that the argument could not be applied to any sort of event, regardless of size or import.
It’s an article of my faith that the superiority of the white race over the black race was ordained by God, and that attempts at so-called “equality” are an affront to the natural order placed upon us by the almighty. But it’s not that I have anything against black people, you understand - I just object to the practice of treating them like they’re as good as white people. You can tell that I’m okay with black people, because I let them ride on my bus. But only at the back, so they don’t take up all the good seats that belong to their betters. Any black person that insists on sitting at the front of my bus is violating my religious freedoms.
What argument do you have against that, that does not apply in equal measure to arguments against marriage?
He’s refusing because he has a moral/religious problem with interfaith marriage. The specific arrangement just dials up his moral dilemma.