• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

<snip>
In fact it is because it isn't just a cake - it is a wedding cake. It is a part of a celebration of a union of two people. If baker believes that he cannot in good conscience take part in that celebration, well it's not your right to force him or her to do so anyway simply because you disagree.
<snip>

Seemingly unrelated but as I read cpwill's words I realised something, I find it funny - opinions may vary.

Using cpwill's argument to the effect that a baker may be seen as "taking part" in an action he finds objectionable, therefore he/she refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, one could say that a gun salesperson who sells a weapon to a shady buyer is thereby participating willingly in any criminal action the gun buyer instigates.
 
This passage above all the others is indicative of your undertanding of rights.

Naturally. Rights are negative, not positive in nature. That's why the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights dictate that the State shall not be used to inhibit our liberty, they are negative rights.

If I were to have ten Christian ministers, with churches and congergations in the community, to testify in court on my behalf that Christianity does not foster or advocate disrimination against anyone for any reason...would that help or hurt my case against religious dicrimination?

:shrug: neither. Christian denominations disagree with each other on homosexuality, and all have equal right to exercise their faith; whether or not you think it is discrimination.

There is [and will be shown by the US Supreme court that there is] a difference in of one's religious convitions[which are protected] and religious belief meant to discriminate[which are not protected].

Oh, so you are free to believe what you like so long as you do not attempt to live in it?

Well, flip it. Let us say that I get law passed that while you are free to believe in left-leaning causes, you have to vote for conservatives. You're free to believe whatever you believe, it's your exercise of your beliefs that isn't protected.

Now, does that make sense to you?


No. You do not have the right to force someone to violate their religious faith simply because you do not agree with it, or feel that it's effects are "mean".
 
Last edited:
Seemingly unrelated but as I read cpwill's words I realised something, I find it funny - opinions may vary.

Using cpwill's argument to the effect that a baker may be seen as "taking part" in an action he finds objectionable, therefore he/she refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, one could say that a gun salesperson who sells a weapon to a shady buyer is thereby participating willingly in any criminal action the gun buyer instigates.

That is incorrect, unless the purchaser of the gun makes clear that he intends to use the weapon for criminal action.
 
The ones who got 'pissy' about it were the Gays. Instead of calling the owners idiots and going to another bakery, which most people would do when insulted, they got a fit and made themselves look even more petty and ridiculous. I still support Gay rights but, damn, the Gay militants are getting tiresome.

As George Will put it, they are sore winners. Rather reinforcing my point that the stated goals do not fully align with the actual ones.
 
As George Will put it, they are sore winners. Rather reinforcing my point that the stated goals do not fully align with the actual ones.

Yeah. Instead of suing bakers over civil rights issues, those dang negroes gays should just go where they're wanted.
 
It was a stupid, unnecessary bill, put up by the idjit legislators who listen to the talibornagains at the Center for Arizona Policy. We have some real theocratic idiots in our legislature, and they have been exposed...

I am so happy that the people of AZ spoke up, the businesses spoke up, and the community leaders, left and right spoke up, and got this abomination killed.
 
And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple. That is just as ridiculous as making a claim that a person's religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple or an older couple. If that is a conflict for their convictions, then they need to find either a new job or a new way of doing business (perhaps referrals only). Businesses open to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws. And in this case they are treating people differently based on their relative genders.

I do wonder though why people get so pissy about such things. It would have been interesting to see someone turn down my grandparents for a cake because they wanted it to say something like "50 years Chuck and Bill" on it and it was either ordered over the phone or by only my grandfather or perhaps one of us younger ones.

Just for the record, from a Christian perspective, objections to gay marriage (or second marriages) are not the equivalent to the other things you cite. The Bible is particularly clear on gay and 2nd marriages.... there is no biblical basis for any of the other things you cite, especially anything against the Jewish people.... actually quite the opposite.

I do believe certain types of businesses should be able to exempt out of things they find immoral. The Catholic church and others are trying to do so regarding the mandate to include contraception in health care. We have long had a policy of exempting any consideration for medicaid or other government funding of abortion. The precedent for moral objections already exists. Somewhat similar, churches are allowed to discriminate on matters of religion when hiring.

That all said, its pretty had to articulate effective legislation around such.
 
Yeah. Instead of suing bakers over civil rights issues, those dang negroes gays should just go where they're wanted.

It's not a civil rights violation if someone doesn't want to participate in your wedding, and the comparisons to Jim Crow are ridiculous. Jim Crow was state enforced on the businesses, who could be punished if they served blacks.
 
It was a stupid, unnecessary bill, put up by the idjit legislators who listen to the talibornagains at the Center for Arizona Policy. We have some real theocratic idiots in our legislature, and they have been exposed...

I am so happy that the people of AZ spoke up, the businesses spoke up, and the community leaders, left and right spoke up, and got this abomination killed.

Well you don't often get open celebration of the power of monied interests over that of the people and their representatives, but there you go.
 
That all said, its pretty had to articulate effective legislation around such.

Which is precisely why no attempt should be made. This is best handled in the realm that gay activist Johnathan Rauch approvingly describes as hidden law.

...A soft communitarian is a person who maintains a deep respect for what I call "hidden law": the norms, conventions, implicit bargains, and folk wisdoms that organize social expectations, regulate everyday behavior, and manage interpersonal conflicts. Until recently, for example, hidden law regulated assisted suicide, and it did so with an almost miraculous finesse. Doctors helped people to die, and they often did so without the express consent of anybody. The decision was made by patients and doctors and families in an irregular fashion, and, crucially, everyone pretended that no decision had ever been made. No one had been murdered; no one had committed suicide; and so no one faced prosecution or perdition.

Hidden law is exceptionally resilient, until it is dragged into politics and pummeled by legalistic reformers, at which point it can give way all at once. The showboating narcissist Jack Kevorkian dragged assisted suicide into the open and insisted that it be legalized (and televised). At that point, the deal was off. No one could pretend assisted suicide wasn't happening. Activists framed state right-to-die initiatives, senators sponsored bills banning assisted suicide, and courts began issuing an unending series of deeply confused rulings. Soon decisions about assisted suicide will be made by buzzing mobs of lawyers and courts and ethics committees, with prosecutors helpfully hovering nearby, rather than by patients and doctors and families. And the final indignity will be that the lawyers and courts and committee people will congratulate themselves on having at last created a rational process where before there were no rules at all, only chaos and darkness and barbarism. And then, having replaced an effective and intuitive and flexible social mechanism with a maladroit and mystifying and brittle one, they will march on like Sherman's army to demolish such other institutions of hidden law as they encounter....
 
And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple. That is just as ridiculous as making a claim that a person's religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple or an older couple. If that is a conflict for their convictions, then they need to find either a new job or a new way of doing business (perhaps referrals only). Businesses open to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws. And in this case they are treating people differently based on their relative genders.

Just for the record, from a Christian perspective, objections to gay marriage (or second marriages) are not the equivalent to the other things you cite. The Bible is particularly clear on gay and 2nd marriages.... there is no biblical basis for any of the other things you cite, especially anything against the Jewish people.... actually quite the opposite.


I'm not trying to be offensive here so please take this in the vain it is intended.

Just for the record the Christian perspective was often used to justify discrimination based on race and interracial relationships.

Loving v. Virginia, referring to the trial Judge's opinion uphold the discriminatory law which the SCOTUS overturned:

"He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.​

Bob Jones University v. United States (which included the merged case of Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States):

"The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May, 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, [n5] but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race.

<<SNIP>>

"Since its incorporation in 1963, Goldsboro Christian Schools has maintained a racially discriminatory admissions policy based upon its interpretation of the Bible. [n6] Goldsboro has for the most part accepted only Caucasians. On occasion, however, the school has accepted children from racially mixed marriages in which one of the parents is Caucasian."​




We look back on it now 2-3 generations later and understand that their Biblical interpretations do not warrant discrimination, but the fact is many in the past did believe it was permissible to discriminate because they believed it was Biblical.


>>>>
 
:shrug: given that the wedding for dogs was a joke, probably, yes. I wouldn't mind (for example) supporting a fun-time event like that, just as I wouldn't mind supporting a wedding that took place in a theatre production, but for me to support a gay wedding would be making an implicit statement of principles on the question of marriage that I do not agree with.

It is wrong to force people to violate their religious ideals. :shrug: The freedom of conscience is important enough that it is enshrined in our First Amendment - it is one of our founding ideals. You don't get to strip it away simply because you find other peoples' beliefs bizarre or offensive.



Sure. And you don't really want equal rights for gays. You just want to punish Christians whom you dislike for the way in which they treated your mother. The "equal rights" thing is just an excuse.


See how dumb it sounds when you don't even give people credit for believing what they say plainly and clearly that they believe?

Then it would be wrong for someone to be forced to provide cake for a mixed race wedding or an interfaith wedding or even a certain faith wedding because those things could violate a person's religious beliefs. You do not get to dictate which beliefs are acceptable and which aren't when it comes to following laws. You do not get to treat one person's beliefs (who happen to agree with yours) as special and another's as illegal discrimination just because you think that one should be respected and the other shouldn't. That is why we do not allow for religious exemptions when it comes to these laws because it basically negates the laws, which cause harm to society.
 
The ones who got 'pissy' about it were the Gays. Instead of calling the owners idiots and going to another bakery, which most people would do when insulted, they got a fit and made themselves look even more petty and ridiculous. I still support Gay rights but, damn, the Gay militants are getting tiresome.

The guy is the one who got pissy about it. It shouldn't matter. He in no way had to attend the event. He only had to sell them a cake for a party. Is the party the actual marriage? Pretty sure it isn't. It is a false claim of religious beliefs.
 
Then it would be wrong for someone to be forced to provide cake for a mixed race wedding or an interfaith wedding or even a certain faith wedding because those things could violate a person's religious beliefs.

If it did, then yes. It would be. For example, an orthodox jew may not want to support a marriage between a jew and a gentile. Or, a catholic may not want to support a marriage between a catholic and an athiest. Or a Episcopalian (or a gay person, or anyone, really) may not want to support the Westboro Baptist God Hates Fags convention.
 
The guy is the one who got pissy about it.

No, that baker simply didn't want to take the job. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to make their wedding about launching a website to punish someone else for having the effrontery to disagree with them. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to take advantage of the legal system to become bullies.
 
It's not a civil rights violation if someone doesn't want to participate in your wedding, and the comparisons to Jim Crow are ridiculous. Jim Crow was state enforced on the businesses, who could be punished if they served blacks.

No, Jim Crow laws ordered the white and not-white customers be separated.

And don't act like businesses were just poor victims of big government intrusion. Those signs stayed up way longer than the law required them to, and let's not forget why those laws existed in the first place. Government is not some evil collection of sentient buildings ****ing up your life. People wanted those laws. You can pretend a "no coloreds" sign isn't a civil rights issue if you want, I suppose.

No, that baker simply didn't want to take the job. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to make their wedding about launching a website to punish someone else for having the effrontery to disagree with them. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to take advantage of the legal system to become bullies.

If they have the right to be a bully, the customer has the right to bully back. Deal with it.

"Simply didn't want to take the job." No. He wanted to stick it to a gay couple because he despises them for being born different. There's nothing in his holy book that says he shouldn't bake a cake for homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
If it did, then yes. It would be. For example, an orthodox jew may not want to support a marriage between a jew and a gentile. Or, a catholic may not want to support a marriage between a catholic and an athiest. Or a Episcopalian (or a gay person, or anyone, really) may not want to support the Westboro Baptist God Hates Fags convention.

And yet we have stringent laws against such things. It is about applying the laws to everyone in similar situations. I believe that when a person decides to voluntarily own a business open to the public, they also agree to abide by standards of operating that the public has set down for them, including providing for the public unless they can show just cause, not simply a difference of belief, in not providing them service (i.e. the customer is a disruption, is rude, is a recognizable potential danger to others, etc.).
 
No, that baker simply didn't want to take the job. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to make their wedding about launching a website to punish someone else for having the effrontery to disagree with them. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to take advantage of the legal system to become bullies.

Then he should have simply said he couldn't take the job instead of giving them a reason why not. He was the one to insist that a mere party celebrating two people being together/making a commitment to each other was a violation of his religious convictions, while having a business, open to the public, that specifically provides goods/services for such things.
 
Then he should have simply said he couldn't take the job instead of giving them a reason why not.

My bet is that he tried to, and they insisted he provide them with a reason.

And yet we have stringent laws against such things.

No, we have laws against such things. They are no more or less stringent than any other. That being said, those laws, to the extent that they try to create a positive right to other peoples' labor or stuff in violation of their religious convictions, are wrong.
 
No, Jim Crow laws ordered the white and not-white customers be separated.

I live in Alabama and my family fought Jim Crow, publicly, when doing so got you pretty much shunned. My grandparents were part of the push to integrate the Methodist Church. I know what it was. For example, I know that it was a government effort to enforce segregation - that in fact originally business interests fought the imposition of Jim Crow, not out of any sense that it was evil, mind you, but because it cost them money. Jim Crow was imposed on business by the State. I will agree 100% that if the State starts to say that no one can sell (for example) wedding cakes to gay people, that that is a worthy comparison with Jim Crow laws. But leaving it up to the individual baker is not.

People wanted those laws.

that's right, they did. Just like people want higher minimum wage laws now, and all sorts of things that businesses don't.

If they have the right to be a bully, the customer has the right to bully back. Deal with it.

I am unaware that the bakery in question ever attempted to use force or coercion or the threat of either to control or punish the actions of the couple in question. Perhaps you can link to that.

"Simply didn't want to take the job." No. He wanted to stick it to a gay couple because he despises them for being born different.

You are imputing motivation that you literally have no chance of realistically knowing. All he did was not want to take the job. It is the couple in question who decided to bring the state down upon someone who upset them by disagreeing with them, to waste their time, efforts, and money in lawsuits sticking it to someone, not the baker.
 
My bet is that he tried to, and they insisted he provide them with a reason.

No, we have laws against such things. They are no more or less stringent than any other. That being said, those laws, to the extent that they try to create a positive right to other peoples' labor or stuff in violation of their religious convictions, are wrong.

Considering he said himself that it was his "policy" not to provide for same sex weddings, I doubt they needed to insist he give them a reason.

And we disagree on what the laws should be. I see it as important to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and is able to live in our country as free and well as they can that they are given a fair chance by those doing business with them without regard to their race, gender, religion, etc. barring them from service. The business owners choose to do business with the public, then they must also choose to do business with the whole public without regard to characteristics that have no impact on their business dealings from a reasonable person standpoint.

IF you have an issue doing business with one particular person for a reason that deals with that person, that is one thing, but if you refuse to do business with anyone that fits a particular type just because you feel you shouldn't have to or don't like those type of people without any way of showing how they harm you/your business (or have a recognizable potential to harm you/your business), then that harms society. We are not self-sufficient individuals as a whole within the US. I doubt this will change anytime soon without some major loss of lives occurring. That means that we are reliant on others who own any business being willing to do business with others regardless of their personal feelings against those groups of people.
 
Considering he said himself that it was his "policy" not to provide for same sex weddings, I doubt they needed to insist he give them a reason.

:shrug: unless we happen to have a transcript of the conversation itself, we don't know whether or not he volunteered or they asked. Either way is irrelevant, as what is at stake is whether or not he should be forced to violate his religious principles.

And we disagree on what the laws should be. I see it as important to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and is able to live in our country as free and well as they can that they are given a fair chance by those doing business with them without regard to their race, gender, religion, etc. barring them from service.

Whereas I would argue that individual liberty is more important than equality of result. We may indeed have come to an a priori disagreement here.

The business owners choose to do business with the public, then they must also choose to do business with the whole public without regard to characteristics that have no impact on their business dealings from a reasonable person standpoint.

Would you support the right of the Westboro Baptist Church folks to target gay printers and force them to make and sell signs reading "God Hates Fags"?

IF you have an issue doing business with one particular person for a reason that deals with that person, that is one thing, but if you refuse to do business with anyone that fits a particular type just because you feel you shouldn't have to or don't like those type of people

That is not what is at issue here. Had they gone their for (for example) any other product that the bakery offered, they would have purchased them without problem. This case was not about refusing to sell to a type of people, it was about refusing to take part in a particular ceremony.

That means that we are reliant on others who own any business being willing to do business with others regardless of their personal feelings against those groups of people.

That is true only in a monopoly situation. I would agree with forcing monopolies (the state, for example) to sell to any and all who come with the cash, with few reasonable exceptions (if, for example, the state sold guns at auction, I would agree with not selling them to felons, or if it sold cars at auction, not selling them to people who have court injunctions forbidding them to drive or people who are under the age of being able to drive) where interest can be demonstrated.

But there is no monopoly in cake-making. The couple in question was not reliant on this bakery to make them a wedding cake.
 
Then he should have simply said he couldn't take the job instead of giving them a reason why not.

Actually, on reflection, this is interesting. Dishonesty would have allowed him to escape censure.

It brings to mind the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was nominally signed to end discrimination against the disabled in the workforce, and instead ended up increasing discrimination against the disabled in the workforce, because it increased the risks associated with doing business with the disabled. If businesses have to live in fear that hiring or working for or with or contracting with homosexuals will increase their risk of suit due to a pattern of law that seeks aggressively to punish slights, real or imagined... I wonder if we will actually see an increase in RW discrimination against them. Hm.
 
The guy is the one who got pissy about it. It shouldn't matter. He in no way had to attend the event. He only had to sell them a cake for a party. Is the party the actual marriage? Pretty sure it isn't. It is a false claim of religious beliefs.

He "had" to sell a cake to them? He didn't want to sell them the cake celebrating marriage between members of the same sex, though they could have bought anything else from the shop.

The government is now telling people that they must sell goods they don't wish to sell, that they must buy goods they don't wish to buy, and make illegal foods that are commonplace among the American people. Don't see anything wrong with this?
 
He "had" to sell a cake to them? He didn't want to sell them the cake celebrating marriage between members of the same sex, though they could have bought anything else from the shop.

The government is now telling people that they must sell goods they don't wish to sell, that they must buy goods they don't wish to buy, and make illegal foods that are commonplace among the American people. Don't see anything wrong with this?

The government has said this for quite some time. It is actually a good portion of anti-discrimination laws. You must do business with people you may wish otherwise not to when you own a business open to the public. I see a bigger issue with someone putting their bias against others for something that shouldn't matter over their agreement to do business with others.
 
Back
Top Bottom