View Full Version : Gay Marriage
kirakonstantin
07-06-2015, 07:08 PM
Let's also not forget about those Christians who minister to sex workers non-judgmental and help them access services. Let's not forget about those Christians who voted for same sex marriage and performed wedding ceremonies gratis, for couples who were afraid that their marriage license would be taken away. Let's not forget about those Christians who lobbied for same sex couples to be able to adopt.
Let's definitely not forget about them, because stripping anyone of their rights affects EVERYONE in that class.
eagle2
07-06-2015, 08:59 PM
Let's also not forget about those Christians who minister to sex workers non-judgmental and help them access services. Let's not forget about those Christians who voted for same sex marriage and performed wedding ceremonies gratis, for couples who were afraid that their marriage license would be taken away. Let's not forget about those Christians who lobbied for same sex couples to be able to adopt.
Let's definitely not forget about them, because stripping anyone of their rights affects EVERYONE in that class.
I'm not condemning all Christians. Only the ones who want to force their beliefs on everyone else, whether it's banning same-sex marriage or closing down all strip clubs. There are many Christians I respect and admire. I just don't want anyone forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
audritwo
07-06-2015, 09:14 PM
Please let's not get into a religious/political discussion on this.
YAY FOR GAY MARRIAGE! THIS IS AWESOME! FOCUS ON THAT! YAY!
Not gonna lied, I cried when I saw it on the news!
HoolaTwister
07-06-2015, 09:22 PM
I'm not condemning all Christians. Only the ones who want to force their beliefs on everyone else, whether it's banning same-sex marriage or closing down all strip clubs. There are many Christians I respect and admire. I just don't want anyone forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
Yet....you want to force someone to make a gay wedding cake despite their personal beliefs. Yup, makes sense.
As a bisexual woman I'm elated by the Supreme Court ruling yet very sad some in our community are becoming/have become everything we have always been against.
eagle2
07-06-2015, 09:33 PM
If you have such a big problem with a baker being required to treat gay couples the same as everyone else, then you should talk to the Supreme Court justices. I had no say in the matter.
eagle2
07-06-2015, 09:41 PM
I'm Jewish and if I were to ever get married, I know I would not like it if one baker after another refused to bake a wedding cake for me because it's "against their religion" to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding.
HoolaTwister
07-06-2015, 10:10 PM
I'm Jewish and if I were to ever get married, I know I would not like it if one baker after another refused to bake a wedding cake for me because it's "against their religion" to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding.
Ha, well I've experienced a Hasidic Jew completely ignoring me in a store and refusing to serve me because I was holding hands with my girlfriend. I've had the same thing happen in Chinatown when me and my black friend were browsing in a store and were actually refused service. So no, Christians are not the only ones who discriminate.
HoolaTwister
07-06-2015, 10:13 PM
I'm Jewish and if I were to ever get married, I know I would not like it if one baker after another refused to bake a wedding cake for me because it's "against their religion" to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding.
How would you feel if a Palestinian went into a Jewish bakery and demanded a "Free Palestine" cake?
eagle2
07-06-2015, 10:20 PM
If I was the baker, I would bake it for them.
eagle2
07-06-2015, 10:21 PM
Ha, well I've experienced a Hasidic Jew completely ignoring me in a store and refusing to serve me because I was holding hands with my girlfriend. I've had the same thing happen in Chinatown when me and my black friend were browsing in a store and were actually refused service. So no, Christians are not the only ones who discriminate.
I'm just as much opposed to Jews who refuse to serve gays as I am to Christians who do that.
kirakonstantin
07-06-2015, 10:26 PM
I'm not condemning all Christians. Only the ones who want to force their beliefs on everyone else, whether it's banning same-sex marriage or closing down all strip clubs. There are many Christians I respect and admire. I just don't want anyone forcing their beliefs on me or anyone else.
What you're not understanding is that this is EXACTLY what you're doing. It's creating a hierarchy in protected classes, where none should exist.
Your comments about Christians limiting access to contraception and who lobby to shut down strip clubs has nothing to do with same sex marriage and only serves to poison the conversation. You know that your audience is mostly young, female dancers and this is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to skew the conversation in your favor using a strawman argument. And even finishing it with the classic "I can't be anti Christian, because I have Christian friends."
Forcing businesses to either service events that conflict with their religious beliefs or face bankruptcy and the loss of their business is more than forcing beliefs.
We'd all be sympathetic with a gay owned bakery refusing to bake a cake for a "sanctity of marriage rally and we'd be fine with them turning it down. Turn it around the other way and that hierarchy becomes painfully clear.
eagle2
07-06-2015, 10:28 PM
Should a business be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans or Jews if it was against their religion?
kirakonstantin
07-06-2015, 10:35 PM
Should a business be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans or Jews if it was against their religion?
Two strawman fallacies here. The first being that the businesses have no problem with homosexual customers but are not willing to sell products for same sex weddings. Also, show me one legally recognized religion that openly espouses racism as a tenet of their belief.
If you can't argue with out using logical fallacies, you have no argument.
Melonie
07-06-2015, 10:40 PM
Forcing businesses to either service events that conflict with their religious beliefs or face bankruptcy and the loss of their business is more than forcing beliefs.
^^^ This was my intended point when I mentioned the first amendment's ( supposed ) protection of the free exercise of religion. The 'modern' question, of course, is whether the legal 'privelege' of being allowed to operate a business by the gov't now requires the business owner to 'leave his personal religious convictions' at the door. The recent court decisions in this regard, and recent enforcement actions by the gov't, have been contradictory to say the least.
eagle2
07-06-2015, 10:43 PM
Two strawman fallacies here. The first being that the businesses have no problem with homosexual customers but are not willing to sell products for same sex weddings. Also, show me one legally recognized religion that openly espouses racism as a tenet of their belief.
If you can't argue with out using logical fallacies, you have no argument.
No, they're not straw-man fallacies or logical fallacies. You're just saying that to avoid answering my question. All religions are"legally recognized" in the United States, based on the First Amendment. There are people who are racist, based on their religious beliefs. There are also people who are anti-semitic based on their religious beliefs. Now please answer my question. Should a business be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans or Jews if it is against their religion?
HoolaTwister
07-06-2015, 10:46 PM
Kirakonstantin, let's get gay married ;)
kirakonstantin
07-06-2015, 10:49 PM
No, they're not straw-man fallacies or logical fallacies. You're just saying that to avoid answering my question. All religions are"legally recognized" in the United States, based on the First Amendment. There are people who are racist, based on their religious beliefs. There are also people who are anti-semitic based on their religious beliefs. Now please answer my question. Should a business be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans or Jews if it was against their religion?
No, no, no. Not all religions are legally recognized. http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_rel.htm. You can't just decide that you're a Fonzarelite one day to excuse why you're entitled to something.
You're pitching up a strawman, because there is no legally recognized religious organization in the US that includes racism as one of its tenants.
This is about Christianity and same sex marriage.
Melonie
07-06-2015, 10:52 PM
^^^ also some religions are apparently more 'legally recognized' than others ... examples Amish are exempt from SSI tax, and some US courts have allowed decisions based on tenets of Muslim Sharia law.
kirakonstantin
07-06-2015, 10:59 PM
Kirakonstantin, let's get gay married ;)
I'm down with one condition...
I'm baking the fucking cake!
kirakonstantin
07-06-2015, 11:01 PM
^^^ also some religions are apparently more 'legally recognized' than others ... examples Amish are exempt from SSI tax, and some US courts have allowed decisions based on tenets of Muslim Sharia law.
Amish is not a religion. The Amish are a culture who practice the Mennonite religion.
Melonie
07-06-2015, 11:07 PM
^^^ you are semantically correct. But the US gov't uses the term Amish when referring to exemption forms for SSI, the ACA, etc.
However, a Mennonite owned furniture business was recently refused an exemption from having to pay for ACA compliant contraception benefits for their employees ... which circles back to my point about the religious convictions of business owners now being forced to be 'left at the door' as a condition of operating said business.
kirakonstantin
07-06-2015, 11:17 PM
^^^ you are semantically correct. But the US gov't uses the term Amish when referring to exemption forms for SSI, the ACA, etc.
It's slightly more than semantic. While Amish are Mennonites, not all Mennonites are Amish. It's also not just Mennonites who are exempted from paying Social Security taxes.
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3821/Are-members-of-religious-groups-exempt-from-paying-Social-Security-taxes
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/amish-who/
Not posting this to be argumentative, but rather an educational post as these religions and cultures and not well known. It's always good to learn something.
However, a Mennonite owned furniture business was recently refused an exemption from having to pay for ACA compliant contraception benefits for their employees ... which circles back to my point about the religious convictions of business owners now being forced to be 'left at the door' as a condition of operating said business.
You mean Conestoga Wood, the Mennonite cabinet company? They were involved in the same case as Hobby Lobby and the Court found in their favor.
http://mennoworld.org/2014/06/30/news/supreme-court-rules-for-conestoga/
Dirty Ernie
07-07-2015, 12:19 AM
I'm an atheist and an ally, but, IMHO, I still see a need for the state legislatures to try to create some sort of balance here. This isn't like a 7-11 refusing to sell a pack of gum to a gay couple. Making a wedding cake, playing music, performing a ceremony, all contain an element of personal, artistic creation. These things are not products to be sold, but services to be performed. Personal services contracts require two agreeing parties. There needs to be some accommodation and understanding from both sides and to recognize this slight, but important difference.
Melonie
07-07-2015, 03:40 AM
You mean Conestoga Wood, the Mennonite cabinet company? They were involved in the same case as Hobby Lobby and the Court found in their favor.
Precisely. This was the basis for my earlier point that recent court decisions have been controversial ... and would appear to depend more on who the 'aggrieved' party is rather than the equal application of a common underlying principle.
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 03:44 AM
Precisely. This was the basis for my earlier point that recent court decisions have been controversial ... and would appear to depend more on who the 'aggrieved' party is rather than the equal application of an underlying principle.
You said: "However, a Mennonite owned furniture business was recently refused an exemption from having to pay for ACA compliant contraception benefits for their employees ... which circles back to my point about the religious convictions of business owners now being forced to be 'left at the door' as a condition of operating said business."
Do you have any idea what you're even talking about? Conestoga Wood won. They didn't have to leave their religious convictions at the door.
I'm kind of starting to wonder about you...
Melonie
07-07-2015, 03:53 AM
my reference was to this earlier post ...
^^^ apparently it now depends on who the business owners are and who the plaintiffs are ... see
I quit trying to make logical sense out of many of these rulings / changes a decade ago !!!
Yes, Conestoga Wood won their case, and were granted the exemption the were seeking by the supreme court after lower courts had refused the exemption. The principle the SC employed to come to their decision was that the free exercise of religion by the Mennonite business owners took precedence over the 'aggrieved' non-Mennonite employees. This would appear to be in direct contradiction to the gay wedding cake decision, where the free exercise of religion by a Christian bakery owner did NOT take precedence over an 'aggrieved' gay customer.
However, the gay wedding cake decisions / law enforcement efforts may yet be reversed ...
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 03:57 AM
Seriously. First you said that they lost and their religious convictions had to be "left at the door." They you agreed that they won.
And you still can't understand that Conestoga Wood was argued in Federal Court, while Sweet Cakes was argued in State Court. Which are two completely different jurisdictions, with a completely different set of laws to work with.
Melonie
07-07-2015, 04:34 AM
^^^ yes this is precisely the point. Different courts are reaching different decisions ... decisions which appear to contradict the equal application of any common legal thread ... and, instead, as an earlier poster referred to it, only appear to share a common thread that the 'winner' was a member of a 'protected class'. Perhaps one of the gay wedding cake cases will make it to the US supreme court, at which point we'll see if the judges choose to apply similar legal principles to those used to arrive at their Conestoga decision.
And just to be crystal clear, state level court decisions ruled against the 'religious' rights of both the Mennonite furniture company and the Christian bakery. The US Supreme court overturned state court decisions and ruled that the Mennonite furniture company's owners' religious convictions were sufficiently important to allow them to avoid paying for contraceptive health benefits for company employees because doing so violated said religious convictions. This contradicted the state court decisions which all took the position that the business owner's religious convictions had to be 'left at the door' thus forcing the business owner to provide 'equal treatment' to their employees.
State court decisions regarding gay wedding cake cases took a similar position that, despite the business owner's religious convictions, 'equal treatment' had to be provided to gay customers. If the US Supreme Court were to apply the same legal reasoning to a future gay wedding cake case as they did for the Mennonite furniture company decision, logic would require all of those state court gay wedding cake rulings to be reversed !!!
As I posted earlier, I stopped trying to make logical sense out of such court decisions a decade ago !
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 12:02 PM
Anti discrimination laws are different than ACA laws. State Superior Court is different than the Supreme Court. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
Neither case is about who has rights and who doesn't. It's a decision about whether the Defendant violated a law. While religion was then justification for both actions, the actions were both different and fell under the scope of different statutes. The birth control case was also extremely specific in its reasoning for denying medical coverage for certain types birth control. Condoms, diaphragms and birth control pills are covered. Two types of IUD and two types of morning after pills weren't, because the businesses believe that those methods of birth control facilitate abortion, which is against their belief system. They're also not preventing their employees from accessing it, but just refusing to pay for it.
The same sex wedding lawsuits are a completely different kettle of fish, with completely different legislation to work with. The ACA does not require that a business cover every medical expense an employee has. Anti discrimination laws require all businesses to offer equal service to all customers. What's going to get extremely interesting is the fact that it's nearly impossible for all businesses to accommodate every customer. Observant Jews do not have equal service at a barbecue restaurant, where the main offering on the menu is pork, for example. In fact, an observant Jew, depending on how strictly they follow kosher law, may have difficulty finding anything suitable at most restaurants, given that kosher law is very specific about how meat is processed, as well as the cleanliness of the cooking utensils and preparation surfaces.
So, this begs the question: what constitutes equal service and how far does a business have to go to accommodate a specific customer?
I'm not surprised that appeals are in the works and I also won't be surprised if occupational exposure is brought up. Wedding vendors are often placed in positions where they not only sell a product, but attend the event in question. While we can force equal service, it's questionable whether we can force a business owner to expose themselves to something they may find objectionable. As this is a hot button issue, I wonder whether the issue of lost business due to seemingly tacit approval will come up. If a photographer has a long standing business relationship with a church, the revaluation that the photographer is also photographing same sex weddings could destroy that business relationship.
These are interesting times, to be sure, but neither one of these rulings are particularly confusing or befuddling.
Melonie
07-07-2015, 12:44 PM
^^^ I take your point, at least in part. Viewed from a slightly different angle, though, the Supreme Court's Conestoga ruling depended on a judgment that, even if the deeply religious employer wasn't required to provide contraceptives, the affected employees would still be able to avail themselves of contraceptives via other sources. That argument could easily be repeated in cases of gay wedding cakes, i.e. there will always be other wedding vendors who are very willing to accommodate gay wedding needs.
Agreed that all of these rulings seem to make some sort of sense if viewed in a vacuum. But the bottom line seems to be that there does not appear to be any established legal doctrine that can be uniformly applied across all of these cases, thus state versus federal court rulings would appear to conflict in fundamental ways. Certainly, neither you nor I are going to be able to settle these issues.
Again, if a gay wedding cake case does make it to the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court follows the same legal doctrine they followed in the Conestoga case, the state court rulings and state gov't enforcement actions regarding gay wedding cake 'violators' could all fall by the wayside. But reaching that decision would also require that the Supreme Court rule against a 'protected group' i.e. gay wedding cake customers, and in favor of religious Christian bakery owners. Such a future SC case should be interesting to say the least.
I also agree with you that there are many potential 'slippery slope' side issues which have yet to rear their ugly heads. Your point about tacit approval and it's impact on pre-existing business relationships thus business profits is a very real possibility. I can think of a few more possibilities. But all of those would ultimately hinge on the SC either establishing a uniform legal doctrine regarding 1st amendment protections for religious business owners, or establishing a de-facto uniform result that the 'protected group' will always be victorious via the SC 'finding' enough valid ( if incongruous ) legal reasons to make that possible in each individual case. Until the SC makes such a decision, the only thing which is 'certain' is that state gov't fines are bankrupting some bakeries.
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 01:37 PM
The Conestoga ruling had nothing to do with providing contraceptives, but who is paying for it. Much like coverage for infertility services or elective proceedures, employer funded health care does not need to cover every possible medical desire of every single employee. Case in point: I've broken my nose and need rhinoplasty to fix the bone issues and deviated septum. My insurance policy does not cover cosmetic surgery, the typical category that rhinoplasty is associated with. In order to get a rhinoplasty done, I either have to prove medical necessity or pay for it myself. Same here. The women either need to choose a covered method of birth control or pay for it out of pocket.
There isn't any uniform doctrine and it's that way for good reason. If there was a uniform doctrine that all wedding related businesses cannot refuse any same sex marriage customer, it would open up severe abuse and give rise to preferential treatment. If a photographer has a Bar Mitzvah booked and a same sex couple insists on service at the same time on the same day, the photographer would be forced to cancel a standing booking or face being sued. If a baker doesn't deal in cheesecake and a same sex couple demands a cheesecake, tge baker either needs to figure it out or close up shop. That's why these decisions and cases must be decided on specific facts and specific actions. There's going to be a general consensus as to what is legal and what isn't, but a baker who refuses to serve a verbally abusive customer, who happens to be asking for a same sex wedding cake, and a baker who refused service because the event was a same sex wedding are two different situations, despite the result being the same.
The Conestoga case and Sweet Cakes, or any other wedding vendor who's been sued, will never, ever be viewed under the same legal doctrine because anti discrimination laws and the affordable health care act are two completely, totally and fully different legal statutes that will never, ever, under any circumstances, be related to eachother. What does the affordable health care act say about anti discrimination? Nothing. What does the anti discrimination act say about who is legally responsible for payment of medical services? Nothing. What does the tax code say about agricultural health standards on commercial farms? Nothing. These things have nothing to do with one another, except the coincidence that Christianity was the stated reason for denial in both situations. If, in the birth control case, the employer had stated that the expense of the denied birth control methods was the reason that they were denied, would we be having the same discussion?
One particularly disturbing facet of this is an opinion from the New Mexico Supreme Court, in relation to a photographer who was sued and fined. Justice Bosson stated “more focused world of the marketplace . . . the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation. . . . In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.” That's incredibly fucking terrifying. I'll be very interested to see if this same doctrine is applied when (not if. We all know it's coming,) a religious organization is denied service from a gay bakery for refusing a cake for a "sanctity of marriage" event for a local church. Or a gay printer who refuses to print anti gay flyers for an evangelical organization. I'm expecting that it won't. There is now a hierarchy of protection under anti discrimination laws where some classes can discriminate and some classes can't.
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 03:35 PM
And, looks like I was right.
http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0122/Denver-baker-sued-for-refusing-to-write-anti-gay-slogans-on-cake
Shoebat is nuts, but the videos at the bottom are pretty interesting.
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/
eagle2
07-07-2015, 05:05 PM
No, no, no. Not all religions are legally recognized. http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_rel.htm. You can't just decide that you're a Fonzarelite one day to excuse why you're entitled to something.
Yes they are, unless they're engaged in some type of illegal activity, such as polygamy with underage children. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, which means government does not have to legally recognize a religion for it to be considered legitimate. Even adherents of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" are given rights related to their religion. In Oklahoma, an adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wore a colander on her head for her license photo because she said it was religious headgear.
https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/pastafarian.jpeg?w=770&h=433
http://kdvr.com/2014/09/08/woman-wears-colander-on-her-head-for-drivers-license-photo/
If government needs to legally recognize a religion for it to become legitimate, please specify when the government recognized the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a "legally recognized religion".
You're pitching up a strawman, because there is no legally recognized religious organization in the US that includes racism as one of its tenants.
This is about Christianity and same sex marriage.
Yes there are. Slavery and segregation are partially based on religion. There are numerous sects that believe in racial separation. The Christian Identity Movement is one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity#Racialism
Again, I'm asking you, why is it okay for a business to refuse to serve homosexuals based on the business owner's religious beliefs, but it's not okay for a business owner to refuse to serve African-Americans based on the owner's religious beliefs? Please answer my question, instead of repeating "strawman" again and again.
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 05:10 PM
I'll need a specific religion that holds the discrimination of African Americans as a major tenet of belief. Also a legal opinion on the legitimacy of Pastafarianism would be nice as well. Absence of legal challenge doesn't equal recognition or legal legitimacy.
eagle2
07-07-2015, 05:20 PM
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Government not legally recognizing a religion would be prohibiting the free exercise thereof. How much more specific does it need to be?
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 05:22 PM
I told a census taker that I was a Jedi once...
Again, please provide an example religion that holds the discrimination of African Americans as a major tenet of belief.
eagle2
07-07-2015, 05:34 PM
I already did. The Christian Identity movement is one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity#Racialism
Racialism, or race-based philosophy, is the core tenet of Christian Identity, and most CI adherents are White Nationalists or support racial segregation.
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 05:43 PM
So, the bastardized religious version of White Supremacy and most commonly practiced in prisons...
Now, as this is not a blanket refusal of service of homosexuals, but a refusal to participate in a specific type of event, which specific event are Christian Identists refusing to participate in?
eagle2
07-07-2015, 06:01 PM
Should businesses owned by members of the Christian Identity movement be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans, because it's against their religious beliefs to deal with them?
audritwo
07-07-2015, 06:06 PM
Remember when the mormons wouldn't let African-Americans in their congregassion. Then they got a lot of hate, and said JK NVM. It's okay that god blackened your skin for being neutral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSlbuli7HM
eagle2
07-07-2015, 06:12 PM
There isn't any uniform doctrine and it's that way for good reason. If there was a uniform doctrine that all wedding related businesses cannot refuse any same sex marriage customer, it would open up severe abuse and give rise to preferential treatment. If a photographer has a Bar Mitzvah booked and a same sex couple insists on service at the same time on the same day, the photographer would be forced to cancel a standing booking or face being sued. If a baker doesn't deal in cheesecake and a same sex couple demands a cheesecake, tge baker either needs to figure it out or close up shop.
Businesses are allowed to turn down requests for service if they're booked or if they don't provide that particular service or product. They're only not allowed to turn down a request for service because of the customer's sex, race, religion, and in some states sexual orientation. For example, if an African-American drives up to a hotel and asks for a room, the hotel can't turn him away because of the color of his skin, but they can turn him away if there aren't any vacancies. If a baker doesn't sell cheesecakes, he is not required to provide one if a same-sex couple goes to his bakery and asks for one. If he does sell cheesecakes and a gay couple asks for one, he can't refuse to sell them one if he lives in a state where it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 06:21 PM
Two words, and I promise they're not strawman argument.
False. Equivalence.
Christians or anyone else with strongly held religious beliefs are not running homosexuals out of their businesses, hurling insults at them or denying them any and all service, on a day to day basis. They are declining to participate in a same sex wedding. If a same sex couple wanted a birthday cake, none of these businesses would object to serving them. What these business owners are doing is declining to service certain occasions. Regardless of the fact that I completely, totally disagree with their belief, I will absolutely defend their right to have it and to express it.
As dancers, we object to dancing for certain customers. Some of us aren't fond of dancing for women. It's not sexist. We don't hate women. But rather, we don't feel comfortable performing a lap dance for a female customer. Is it discrimination? Perhaps. But I think every dancer here will defend her right to choose who to dance for. And will also defend her right to refuse to dance for a specific customer, under certain circumstances, such as drinking too much or smelling funky one day. How is that any different?
I get that you don't like Christians very much and I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not fond of being told no. But one of the things I was taught at a very young age is that you won't always get what you want, exactly the way you want it.
audritwo
07-07-2015, 06:29 PM
Two words, and I promise they're not strawman argument.
False. Equivalence.
Christians or anyone else with strongly held religious beliefs are not running homosexuals out of their businesses, hurling insults at them or denying them any and all service, on a day to day basis. They are declining to participate in a same sex wedding. If a same sex couple wanted a birthday cake, none of these businesses would object to serving them. What these business owners are doing is declining to service certain occasions. Regardless of the fact that I completely, totally disagree with their belief, I will absolutely defend their right to have it and to express it.
As dancers, we object to dancing for certain customers. Some of us aren't fond of dancing for women. It's not sexist. We don't hate women. But rather, we don't feel comfortable performing a lap dance for a female customer. Is it discrimination? Perhaps. But I think every dancer here will defend her right to choose who to dance for. And will also defend her right to refuse to dance for a specific customer, under certain circumstances, such as drinking too much or smelling funky one day. How is that any different?
I get that you don't like Christians very much and I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not fond of being told no. But one of the things I was taught at a very young age is that you won't always get what you want, exactly the way you want it.
Kirakonstantin, and why are they turning down a samesex wedding? They were very public why. IT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY.
Please don't try to candy coat bigotry. PLEASE!
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 06:30 PM
Businesses are allowed to turn down requests for service if they're booked or if they don't provide that particular service or product. They're only not allowed to turn down a request for service because of the customer's sex, race, religion, and in some states sexual orientation. For example, if an African-American drives up to a hotel and asks for a room, the hotel can't turn him away because of the color of his skin, but they can turn him away if there aren't any vacancies. If a baker doesn't sell cheesecakes, he is not required to provide one if a same-sex couple goes to his bakery and asks for one. If he does sell cheesecakes and a gay couple asks for one, he can't refuse to sell them one if he lives in a state where it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
And... taking things out of context. You're doing great with the local fallacies!
We were discussing the creation of a uniform doctrine where one class always wins a discrimination lawsuit. A response to Melonie's comment: But all of those would ultimately hinge on the SC either establishing a uniform legal doctrine regarding 1st amendment protections for religious business owners, or establishing a de-facto uniform result that the 'protected group' will always be victorious via the SC 'finding' enough valid ( if incongruous ) legal reasons to make that possible in each individual case.
Reading the entire thread helps, rather than cherrypicking.
kirakonstantin
07-07-2015, 06:33 PM
Kirakonstantin, and why are they turning down a samesex wedding? They were very public why. IT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE GAY.
Please don't try to candy coat bigotry. PLEASE!
It's because their religious beliefs are opposed. Preventing the expression of religious belief is just as bigoted as the behavior you're decrying.
Everybody needs to make accommodations for others, not just people who are higher on the discrimination totem pole.
audritwo
07-07-2015, 06:36 PM
God let's stop taking about hateful things and be happy! yay gay marriage! yay equality!
http://38.media.tumblr.com/f6cc5cb2a92169132187a326419b29ea/tumblr_nqkaq8yyQV1qg7g85o1_250.gif
Seriously, we should just ban religion being talked about on this board. It brings the worse out of everyone, and someone always gets banned. It's the same with politics. edit: want to add, I know it hasn't happened now, but it always does.
eagle2
07-07-2015, 06:37 PM
No, I don't like people who discriminate very much, whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist. I'm currently dating a Christian lady. Being opposed to discrimination has nothing to do with not being fond of being told no. My views are not out of the ordinary, as there was a huge public backlash when the state of Indiana tried to pass a law that would make it legal for businesses to refuse to serve gays if it goes against the business owner's religious belief.
Dancing for a drunk or disorderly customer can be unpleasant or even potentially harmful for a dancer. Baking a cake for a gay customer is exactly the same as baking a cake for a straight customer.
audritwo
07-07-2015, 06:47 PM
Seriously just look at all these happy people! They can now legally be with their partners and be recognized as a civil union NATIONWIDE! LET US FOCUS ON THIS!
http://www.dispatch.com/content/graphics/2013/06/27/gay-marriage.jpg
http://blogs.pjstar.com/eye/files/2013/03/gaymarriage3001.jpg
http://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/6/25/1309017619070/Male-friends-celebrate-as-007.jpg
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/436062/slide_436062_5713752_free.jpg
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/26/26-supreme-court-gay-marriage-celebration.w750.h560.2x.jpg
This is important!
eagle2
07-07-2015, 06:53 PM
And... taking things out of context. You're doing great with the local fallacies!
We were discussing the creation of a uniform doctrine where one class always wins a discrimination lawsuit. A response to Melonie's comment: But all of those would ultimately hinge on the SC either establishing a uniform legal doctrine regarding 1st amendment protections for religious business owners, or establishing a de-facto uniform result that the 'protected group' will always be victorious via the SC 'finding' enough valid ( if incongruous ) legal reasons to make that possible in each individual case.
Reading the entire thread helps, rather than cherrypicking.
No, the context of what you wrote did not change the meaning of what I responded to, nor is it a "strawman argument" to ask if it's okay to refuse to serve Jews or African-Americans based on religious beliefs. If a business refuses to serve a gay couple, the gay couple is harmed just as much as a Jewish or African-American would be if the business refused to serve them. Instead of responding to what I write, all you do is keep repeating "local fallacies" and "strawman argument".
It's because their religious beliefs are opposed. Preventing the expression of religious belief is just as bigoted as the behavior you're decrying.
Everybody needs to make accommodations for others, not just people who are higher on the discrimination totem pole.
Preventing the expression of evil religious beliefs is not bigotry. You don't get to claim "it's my religion" as an excuse for harming others. We need to make zero accommodations for bigots no matter what excuse they use.