Having a society that allows open, sanctioned discrimination has never been good. Can you name one that was? Therefor, if people want to discriminate, ie, harm society, well I don’t really actually care about what they want. Why should I? They are acting in a harmful manner.
Why? You have to go to the next town if:
-
your town does not offer a particular service
-
another town offers a better version of a particular service
-
if the only business in town who performs a particular service is run by a dishonest asshole and you do not want to give him a dime of business
And there are probably other reason. So what is it about cakes that you having to go to another town is just beyond the pale?!
Because in a country founded largely on religious freedom, people should be able to live according to their deeply help religious beliefs. Do you really not understand that?
Once again, how is baking a cake going against anyone’s conscience? If you’re a baker, baking cakes is what you do. Why in the world does it matter what your customers want to use that cake for?
This religious liberty/conscience thing is all a very thinly veiled disguise for people who don’t like gays. Like I said before, unless this baker also refuses to provide cakes for weddings of divorced people (or, horrors, people who serve shrimp at the reception or wear tuxes made of mixed fabrics!) I can’t begin to take your cries of “conscience” seriously.
It’s a cake. They’re not asking you to move in with them.
Nonsense. People have no right to not feel offended. People really need to grow a thicker skin rather than try to have the state come in and force people to make believe they like them. The power of the state should be used to protect people from having to go against their religious conviction, not force them to do so. What you want is the Bizzaro USA. That’s on the other side of the galaxy, down the aisle to your right.
They’re being forced to be part of a rite that goes against their religion. I think you get that and are just introducing a No True Scotsman Fallacy.
One can continue to live according to their deeply held religious beliefs. It just may not be possible to do that while running a business providing goods and services to the public at large. Perhaps the monastic life would be more up one’s alley?
Do you really not understand that?
Nothing about cakes in particular.
It’s forcing minorities to wade through a minefield of businesses that may or may not serve them with the only benefit being ‘bigots are more free’
Should we regulate discriminating businesses must post their policy out front so I don’t have to waste my time going there, going in, spending 30 minutes on an order only to be told we don’t serve your kind here? I think businesses wasting my time due to my minority status would be a limitation on my freedoms.
This isn’t a new fangled concept. We haven’t allowed businesses to discriminate for over 50 years now. I see no compelling argument to change this.
Baking a cake is part of the rite now?
Okay, but still … we know Jesus’ opinion of divorce. He’s against it. Yet the Bible holds no recorded word from Him about gay marriage. Shouldn’t these bakers and photographers and florists be refusing to work with divorced folks? Marriages of people with out-of-wedlock children? Why is it just “the gays”?
Didn’t I ask you to name a society that practiced open sanctioned discrimination that was also a successful productive society? Provide examples of this and I will be glad to talk with you about whether or not people “have no right to not be offended”.
I see no problem with this. Their religious ideals are not rooted in reality.
Then they shouldn’t be baking cakes for anyone outside of their specific sect. After all, the reason there’s hundreds of Protestant sects ( and the Catholic church) is because someone disagreed with some portion of the belief system and wanted out.
Yes. I don’t think that “systemic discrimination practiced in this country within living memory” would be sustainable given the internet. Not anymore than it’s still possible to slip thru the legal oversight that exists.
Being forced to do so on the grounds of bigotry. That kinda makes a difference.
I find it difficult to believe that there is anyone who can’t tell the difference between “There isn’t an Arby’s in this town, so I’ll have to drive a few miles to the nearest one,” and “The Arby’s in this town refuses to allow Jews inside their doors.” And yet here you are, pretending the two cases are exactly the same.
Okay. I’m not seeing it, but I’m open to being convinced. How do you figure?
We are talking about “systemic discrimination”, right? Systemic meaning “built into and spread throughout the system”. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before we take this any further.
Sure.
This is what I’m saying. If a protestant wants to only sell cakes to other protestants, they should be allowed to. Sure it is assholish and a bad business model. But people should be allowed to be bad businessmen if they want to.
Dude, we’ve already agreed that open, sanctioned discrimination is allowed in the United States. We’ve given several examples. We could give plenty of others. Car insurance companies charging men more than women, affirmative action, and the minimum age of 35 for presidential candidates, to name a few.
There never has been, and can never be, a society without discrimination. No matter how much anyone grandstands on their hatred of discrimination, they’re still in favor of it in some circumstances.
Is that really the best example you can muster? I’d be willing to have a debate about whether or not men should be charged more for insurance than women. I think you are purposefully overlooking the obvious. I’m saying a society like America in the 1950’s or a “modern” Muslim country like Turkey or Egypt. I bet that both Turkey and Egypt would be a horrible place for a homosexual to live.
Well, there will be, it will just take us longer to get there when people like you are defending the so called “rights” of bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes and xenophobes.