# Should the "vilification" argument ever work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570 "2015-06-26T22:38:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/161 "2015-07-06T17:20:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But, in the end, it IS a fucking cake, isn’t it. If I were getting married and someone didn’t want to bake me a cake, or do flower arrangements, or take pictures, I’d simply go to where they wanted my business. In fact, if I didn’t feel they were excited about the opportunity I’d go elsewhere. The same as I do with anyone I give business to. It’s a trade-off, as it was with the original Civil Rights bill (and associated legislation). Which is more important for the government to protect – equal access to various facilities/services/etc., or the ability of private businesses to discriminate against those they find distasteful? At various times in the US the legislature and/or courts have found that equal access, at least for certain groups (race/ethnicity, religion, etc.), is more important to protect. I think it’s reasonable to add sexual orientation to that grouping. I certainly don’t see any fundamental difference in, say, a bakery preferring not to bake a cake for an interracial wedding or for a gay wedding – opposition to both can be based in religion, and it can be based in bigotry (and often both). So to me, at least, they should be treated equally by law. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/162 "2015-07-06T17:26:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I really don’t think people have a right to not feel offended. Espeically when they choose to feel that way. While I think asking someone to act in a way that goes agains their religious convictions is not okay. I see the third quoted sentence as in direct contradiction to the first two. I have a feeling I see a stronger resemblance between the “offendedness” of someone who has been told their relationship doesn’t count and they aren’t fully citizens (or, in some cases, fully people) and the offendedness of someone who has to treat sinners like they have rights than you do. [QUOTE=magellan01] Again, there is no harm to a SS couple who is told that a bakery doesn’t want to bake them a cake. [/QUOTE] But there’s no harm to the baker from baking it either > [@DrFidelius](#): > > Sort of a kind of seperate but equal bake shop, eh? I’m pretty sure **magellan** would say it’s the same bake shop, but with a different name. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/163 "2015-07-06T17:45:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But, in the end, it IS a fucking cake, isn’t it. No, it isn’t, not in the slightest. Nobody cares about the cake. > [@](#): > > If I were getting married and someone didn’t want to bake me a cake, or do flower arrangements, or take pictures, I’d simply go to where they wanted my business. In fact, if I didn’t feel they were excited about the opportunity I’d go elsewhere. The same as I do with anyone I give business to. This isn’t about you. You haven’t been systematically discriminated against your whole life, you haven’t had to live in the closet, you haven’t had to fear openly being yourself due to backlash from friends and family. Nobody has been predicting the downfall of our society if you get to marry the person you love. For YOU, a baker who isn’t enthusiastic about your business is not an indictment of your marriage. For YOU the baker isn’t implying that you’re a filthy sodomite who deserves to be put to death (Thanks, Leviticus!) For YOU, the baker is just a bad baker. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/164 "2015-07-06T18:19:21Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > No, it isn’t, not in the slightest. Nobody cares about the cake. Well, maybe when you’re ordering the cake you should focus on the fucking cake! > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This isn’t about you. You haven’t been systematically discriminated against your whole life, you haven’t had to live in the closet, you haven’t had to fear openly being yourself due to backlash from friends and family. Nobody has been predicting the downfall of our society if you get to marry the person you love. > > For YOU, a baker who isn’t enthusiastic about your business is not an indictment of your marriage. For YOU the baker isn’t implying that you’re a filthy sodomite who deserves to be put to death (Thanks, Leviticus!) For YOU, the baker is just a bad baker. For me it would be about a baker who doesn’t agree with me on an issue important to me. Big fucking deal! Do you really think that if you use the state to force him to bake you the cake he is suddenly going to to change his religious convictions. Must everyone agree with you on everything? Regardless if their religion dictates differently? According to you, you want to use the power of the state to crush him until he kowtows to your belief system. That’s decidedly un-American to me. And also grandly intolerant. I’d say to stop looking at ways to be oh-so-offended by people. Is it really that big a deal to you if a a private citizen doesn’t want to bake you a cake? Why? The only difference I can fathom is that you want your turn to be the bully. “So, there!” And that’s pretty fucking pathetic. And hardly a reason to ruin someone’s life because you think there religious convictions are silly. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/165 "2015-07-06T18:28:03Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I see the third quoted sentence as in direct contradiction to the first two. I have a feeling I see a stronger resemblance between the “offendedness” of someone who has been told their relationship doesn’t count and they aren’t fully citizens (or, in some cases, fully people) and the offendedness of someone who has to treat sinners like they have rights than you do. Not in the same league. Being offend because someone doesn’t agree with your stance, or doesn’t agree with your lifestyle, or just doesn’t like you, is not the same as asking someone to act counter to their religious beliefs. That is foundational to the founding of this country, going back to the Pilgrims, the Constitution, and the way society has operated ever since. > [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > But there’s no harm to the baker from baking it either This is ridiculous. It has long been widely accepted that forcing someone to act counter to their religious convictions is one of the worst things that can be done. Hell, it’s even grounds for someone to not fight when we had a draft. I’m getting the strong impression that if you’re not hostile to religion, you think it a silly quaintness. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/166 "2015-07-06T18:30:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is ridiculous. It has long been widely accepted that forcing someone to act counter to their religious convictions is one of the worst things that can be done. Hell, it’s even grounds for someone to not fight when we had a draft. I’m getting the strong impression that if you’re not hostile to religion, you think it a silly quaintness. We’ve been doing this (at least, to the same degree as your scenario does) for decades – for those in business with religious objections to things like interracial or inter-religious marriages, the law requires them to serve such couples despite their religious objections. I’m sure they grumble about it, but to not do so, in my mind, would risk the return of Sundown Towns and similar phenomena. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/167 "2015-07-06T18:31:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > According to you, you want to use the power of the state to crush him until he kowtows to your belief system. I could care less what belief system he holds so long as he does not discriminate against me. > [@](#): > > That’s decidedly un-American to me. That because you continue to live in the past and fail to acknowledge the American Constitution in it’s current form. The concept of requiring public accommodations not to discriminate is not a new fangled idea. > [@](#): > > And also grandly intolerant. I’d say to stop looking at ways to be oh-so-offended by people. Is it really that big a deal to you if a a private citizen doesn’t want to bake you a cake? Why? Private citizens can discriminate all they want. Businesses open to the public can’t. If they want to be open to the public they play by the rules. > [@](#): > > The only difference I can fathom is that you want your turn to be the bully. Thankfully the laws are not limited to what you can fathom. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/168 "2015-07-06T18:31:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s a trade-off, as it was with the original Civil Rights bill (and associated legislation). Which is more important for the government to protect – equal access to various facilities/services/etc., or the ability of private businesses to discriminate against those they find distasteful? At various times in the US the legislature and/or courts have found that equal access, at least for certain groups (race/ethnicity, religion, etc.), is more important to protect. I think it’s reasonable to add sexual orientation to that grouping. I certainly don’t see any fundamental difference in, say, a bakery preferring not to bake a cake for an interracial wedding or for a gay wedding – opposition to both can be based in religion, and it can be based in bigotry (and often both). So to me, at least, they should be treated equally by law. Sorry. I don’t equate the race issue with the protections for religious convictions. And since I know you’re so eager to trust black people on black issues, I’m pretty sure they tend to agree with my position. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/169 "2015-07-06T18:40:00Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I could care less what belief system he holds so long as he does not discriminate against me. > That because you continue to live in the past and fail to acknowledge the American Constitution in it’s current form. The concept of requiring public accommodations not to discriminate is not a new fangled idea. > Private citizens can discriminate all they want. Businesses open to the public can’t. If they want to be open to the public they play by the rules. So, they can practice their religion on Sundays and say grace at night? How so very nice of you. But they can’t live their lives based on their convictions? It seems that you have virtually no understanding of what it means to leave a life that comports with one’s religious convictions. It’s not done only during the hours that YOU think they should be allowed to act in accordance with their conscience. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > And how about churches…should they be forced to perform ceremonies? If not, why not? Rent out halls for receptions? If not, why not? Allow the church to be used for a ceremony with a SSM-friendly non-denominational pastor? If not, why not? > > Thankfully the laws are not limited to what you can fathom. Unfortunately, you think this is an argument to what you replied to. Sorry, chum. You’ll have to try harder. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/170 "2015-07-06T18:42:17Z")
“But what about [Brentwood Photography](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/28/this-photographer-had-the-best-response-to-an-anti-same-sex-marriage-client/)? If the baker doesn’t get tho discriminate against same-sex couples, Lee doesn’t get to discriminate against same-sex marriage opponents.” I’m glad you asked that, strawman I created to make this point. Lee didn’t drop the client, the client chose to withdraw. Lee is perfectly willing to take wedding pictures for couples who oppose same-sex marriage as long as they’re willing to have him. Also, the baker isn’t refusing to bake a cake for people who support same-sex marriage in the abstract but for an actual same-sex wedding. Lee is certainly willing to photograph a different-sex wedding. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/171 "2015-07-06T18:45:34Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > “But what about [Brentwood Photography](http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/28/this-photographer-had-the-best-response-to-an-anti-same-sex-marriage-client/)? If the baker doesn’t get tho discriminate against same-sex couples, Lee doesn’t get to discriminate against same-sex marriage opponents.” > > I’m glad you asked that, strawman I created to make this point. Lee didn’t drop the client, the client chose to withdraw. Lee is perfectly willing to take wedding pictures for couples who oppose same-sex marriage as long as they’re willing to have him. Also, the baker isn’t refusing to bake a cake for people who support same-sex marriage in the abstract but for an actual same-sex wedding. Lee is certainly willing to photograph a different-sex wedding. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I have no problem what the photographer did. In fact, I’d say, “Well played!”. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what we were discussing. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/172 "2015-07-06T18:45:51Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, they can practice their religion on Sundays and say grace at night? How so very nice of you. But they can’t live their lives based on their convictions? It seems that you have virtually no understanding of what it means to leave a life that comports with one’s religious convictions. It’s not done only during the hours that YOU think they should be allowed to act in accordance with their conscience. > > Unfortunately, you think this is an argument to what you replied to. Sorry, chum. You’ll have to try harder. I need to try harder? Perhaps you should try harder to understand the quote function and not quote me as saying things I never did. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/173 "2015-07-06T18:46:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Sorry. I don’t equate the race issue with the protections for religious convictions. I know, but there are people who disagree with you, and who have genuine religious beliefs against interracial marriage. And the law says that they still must serve interracial couples. You might believe such religious beliefs are not “genuine”, but I don’t know how to make that differentiation, and I’m not sure if the government should either. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/174 "2015-07-06T18:50:28Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I need to try harder? Perhaps you should try harder to understand the quote function and not quote me as saying things I never did. Goodness gracious! I placed the quote bracket in the wrong place. I’m so sorry if I offended you by doing that!!! :eek: That said, let’s try this again, shall we: > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=boytyperanma] > Thankfully the laws are not limited to what you can fathom. Unfortunately, you think this is an argument to what you replied to. Sorry, chum. You’ll have to try harder. [/QUOTE] There you go, now give it your best. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/175 "2015-07-06T18:52:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Not in the same league. Being offend[ed] because someone doesn’t agree with your stance, or doesn’t agree with your lifestyle, or just doesn’t like you I think you are using “offended” as a sneer word. [QUOTE=magellan01] It has long been widely accepted that forcing someone to act counter to their religious convictions is one of the worst things that can be done. Hell, it’s even grounds for someone to not fight when we had a draft. I’m getting the strong impression that if you’re not hostile to religion, you think it a silly quaintness. [/QUOTE] Could be. It seems a pretty unjust deity who will send you to hell for my sinful ways. But why else would your religion require you to decline my custom? The analogy of the pharmacist refusing to dispense MAP came up in one of these threads, and while I’m not really willing to let them do that, I can see how they might fell it implicates them directly in the alleged sin. Similarly, if someone refuses to officiate at or solemnize a same-sex wedding, I can see the argument that they are directly involved (though I would think it is either the inclination or the sex act that is the sin, and the officiant is involved in neither of those). Baking a cake is not like that. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/176 "2015-07-06T18:54:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > According to you, you want to use the power of the state to crush him until he kowtows to your belief system. That’s decidedly un-American to me. And also grandly intolerant. I’d say to stop looking at ways to be oh-so-offended by people. Is it really that big a deal to you if a a private citizen doesn’t want to bake you a cake? Why? The only difference I can fathom is that you want your turn to be the bully. “So, there!” And that’s pretty fucking pathetic. And hardly a reason to ruin someone’s life because you think there religious convictions are silly. You seem to think individuals have the constitutional right to own businesses, and run them according to their religious beliefs. Well, they don’t. You may wish they did, but the law does not support your fantasy. When they break the law, they should be held accountable. Besides, it was their choice; if they want to practice their religion without compromise, let them do it in the privacy of their homes and churches. The Constitution does not give them the right to force it on the rest of us, or to discriminate in the marketplace, then whine about it when they suffer the consequences. Bigotry that hides behind a fig leaf of religious freedom should be rooted out, because it damages the legitimate religious freedom of those who can hold their own beliefs without discriminating against others who do not share them. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/177 "2015-07-06T18:59:43Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I think you are using “offended” as a sneer word. > > Could be. > > It seems a pretty unjust deity who will send you to hell for my sinful ways. But why else would your religion require you to decline my custom? > > The analogy of the pharmacist refusing to dispense MAP came up in one of these threads, and while I’m not really willing to let them do that, I can see how they might fell it implicates them directly in the alleged sin. Similarly, if someone refuses to officiate at or solemnize a same-sex wedding, I can see the argument that they are directly involved (though I would think it is either the inclination or the sex act that is the sin, and the officiant is involved in neither of those). Baking a cake is not like that. Okay, so what we’re down to is the degree that a reception and cake are part of the wedding in society’s eyes. I think that the vast number of people would feel that it’s all part of the same thing. There is the wedding, the photography, the celebration of the wedding (reception) and the social rites that go along with it: the speeches, the dad dancing with the bride, the cutting of the cake (“the bride cuts the cake, the bride cuts the cake…”), etc. Also, some of the bakeries in question have had zero problem selling their goods to the very same couples who are now suing them. So, I think it safe to say that the by far dominant view is that a wedding cake is, in fact, part of the wedding day celebration. Especially if you don’t put the figurines on top. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/178 "2015-07-06T19:02:38Z")
I agree with **magellan01** to the point that the opposition by bakers/photographers/etc. is (or should be assumed to be, if that’s how they so characterize it) opposition due to genuine religious beliefs, I just don’t see this as particularly relevant, considering that many other similar forms of discrimination are against the law even though some of this discrimination might be based on similarly genuine religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/179 "2015-07-06T19:09:57Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You seem to think individuals have the constitutional right to own businesses, and run them according to their religious beliefs. Well, they don’t. You may wish they did, but the law does not support your fantasy. When they break the law, they should be held accountable. Besides, it was their choice; if they want to practice their religion without compromise, let them do it in the privacy of their homes and churches. The Constitution does not give them the right to force it on the rest of us, or to discriminate in the marketplace, then whine about it when they suffer the consequences. Bigotry that hides behind a fig leaf of religious freedom should be rooted out, because it damages the legitimate religious freedom of those who can hold their own beliefs without discriminating against others who do not share them. While I agree with your last line, I think you have to admit that there are people for whom their beliefs concerning marriage are deeply and truly held based on their religion. I find it exceedingly odd that you think that a baker not wanting to bake a cake is , to paraphrase, “forcing their religion on the rest of us”. Yet, you(generic) using the power of the state to force him to bake the cake is not forcing your beliefs on him. That’s bizarre. You seem to have it exactly backwards. Most odd to me is the notion that you think that religious freedom is restricted to what people do in their homes and churches. Do you not understand that living a devout life does not comport with such restriction? I take it that you do and just don’t give a shit. In which case, you may want to get your hands on a primer talking about The Pilgrims. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570/180 "2015-07-06T19:12:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, some of the bakeries in question have had zero problem selling their goods to the very same couples who are now suing them. So, I think it safe to say that the by far dominant view is that a wedding cake is, in fact, part of the wedding day celebration. Especially if you don’t put the figurines on top. How mighty generous of them they are willing to sell to gay people so long as it isn’t for an important lifetime event. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vilification-argument-ever-work/723570.md?page=10)