The Gay-Wedding Cake Fight Isn’t About Religious Freedom—It’s About Sex

The slippery-slope argument goes something like this: If Masterpiece Cakeshop, and its owner, Jack Phillips, can refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, what’s to stop him from refusing to bake a wedding cake for two Jews, or an interracial couple, or anyone else for that matter?

There are good reasons to make that argument—I’ve made it myself on many occasions, and it may carry the day when the Supreme Court hears the case next week.

But ultimately, it misses the point: that it’s not Jews or people of color or anyone else who are the targets of these “religious freedom” claims. It’s women and LGBT people. Because at the end of the day, these “religious freedom” claims aren’t about religious freedom. They’re about the Culture War. They’re about sex.

First, if Phillips and his ilk were consistent, they would have plenty of sinful people to turn away from their businesses. In Matthew 5:32, for example, Jesus forbids divorce and says that remarriage is the same as adultery. So why isn’t Phillips turning away the remarried?

Here’s another example. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, one of the seven so-called clobber verses (out of 31,102 in the Bible) that talk about homosexuality, Paul states that “neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Whoever Paul is talking about here—it’s almost certainly not all gay men, and definitely not lesbians, but even if it were—they are placed on the same level as thieves, slanderers, and swindlers. No better and no worse.

And yet, I’m unaware of a single case in which a service provider sought the right to refuse service to a slanderer on the basis of a religious belief. Why?


Nor has Phillips asserted a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Hindu wedding, even though most evangelical Christians believe Hinduism to be a form of idolatry—which is forbidden over 100 times in the Bible, on penalty of death.

In other words, these “religious freedom” claimants are being highly selective about when their conscience compels them to discriminate. Of all of the sins in Scripture, it seems that only those involving sex and gender—contraception, abortion, LGBT people—are the only ones which trigger such claims.

Quite a coincidence, is it not?

Obviously, it is not. These “religious freedom” claims are extensions of the five-decade old Culture War. They are front-line issues in politicized Christianity, not Christianity itself, and are stand-ins for a cultural clash that runs deeper than any individual claim.

The Culture War is a battle about sex, but it is really a battle about what country we are living in: either a Christian nation, with right-wing Christianity as its moral bedrock, or a diverse, secular nation, in which religious claims are respected, but not used as a trump card over the civil rights of others.

After all, the reason I’ve scare-quoted “religious freedom” here is that these kinds of claims are really quite novel. For two centuries, the First Amendment was primarily a shield held up by persecuted religious minorities—Jehovah’s Witnesses, Native Americans—against governmental interference in their religious practice. No third parties were involved; these minorities wanted to practice their religion and be left alone.

To be sure, this history is still marred by Christian domination. The First Amendment didn’t stop Mormon polygamy from being banned, and it didn’t stop the government from seizing lands held to be sacred by Native Americans. It was often used against Catholics as well.

But in principle, the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment was a shield protecting minority religions from government interference.

Only in the last 20 years has it been used as a sword, allowing a religious individual to discriminate against someone else. In cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop or 2014’s Hobby Lobby, it’s not just the government and the practitioner. It’s the government, the practitioner, and the person the practitioner is harming. That is a crucial, and unprecedented, difference: Today’s “religious freedom” claimants want to abridge the rights of others.

And it’s not a coincidence. Poll data shows that when you scratch a “religious freedom” claimant, what you find underneath is someone who really wants to ban abortion, overturn same-sex marriage, and bring back anti-sodomy laws. These organizations—the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Becket Fund, Liberty Counsel—are fundamentally insincere. They’re not defending our “First Freedom.” They’re fighting the Culture War.

Now, having followed this issue for many years, I know that millions of conservative Christians sincerely believe their religion to be under attack. But the data doesn’t lie. Ultimately, Christian conservatives don’t just want to be left alone to practice their religion in peace. Ultimately, they want to impose their religious beliefs on others. They want to win the Culture War and ban the stuff they don’t like.

That’s why the slippery-slope argument is off point. We shouldn’t be asking “what’s to stop this person from turning away Jews?” We should be asking “why is it that the only people this person wants to turn away are women and gays?” Because that’s what reveals this campaign for what it is.

Now, two important caveats.

First—and this is a historical point I wish we could all keep in mind—this kind of religious freedom claim was, in fact, used against African Americans during the 1960s and 1970s. Bob Jones University, for example, argued that it had a First Amendment right to refuse admission to black students (and, later, to segregate them in special housing).

And on a local level, “religious freedom” was offered as a pretext by restauranteurs and hoteliers to deny service to blacks. God separated the races on different continents, evangelicals said in the 1950s, and we must not interfere with His plan.

The Bob Jones case went all the way to the Supreme Court—the university lost, and lost their tax-exempt status—and historian Randall Balmer has shown that it, not Roe v. Wade, was the chief motivation behind the formation of the “New Christian Right,” the term political scientists use to describe the Christian political movement that was born in the 1970s. (Prior to the Sexual Revolution, most evangelicals thought that Christians should stay out of the dirty business of politics. Times have changed.)

So it’s not as though the slippery slope isn’t true. It was true quite recently, in fact. The modern “religious freedom” movement was born in segregation.

It’s also true that, when pressed, “religious freedom” activists admit that the slippery slope is accurate in principle. In one memorable exchange from 2014, Congressman Jerrold Nadler asked the Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver why, under the laws Staver favored—which have now become law in 22 states—a wedding photographer couldn’t refuse service to Jews.

After trying to weasel out of the question—“I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to,” he stammered—Staver admitted that, yes, “She would have an issue there—a violation potential in that case.”

So, in principle, the slippery-slope argument is spot-on, and, as mentioned earlier, it may well be decisive at the Supreme Court. For the rule of law to mean something, people can’t pick which laws they wish to obey.

Yet I want to conclude with Staver’s initial response: “I think it wouldn’t be something she wouldn’t object to.” That may well be true. Anti-Semitism has surged during the Trump administration, but probably Staver’s clients—including the Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, now a hero of the New Christian Right—wouldn’t turn Jews away. That’s not what they’re worried about.

No—what they’re worried about are women and gays; sex and gender; the Culture War and the Christian Nation. And they want to win. Don’t let claims of “religious freedom” fool you.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gay-wedding-cake-fight-isnt-about-religious-freedomits-about-sex

What two or more consenting ADULTS do in their bedrooms should be of no concern to anyone else on earth.

Didge wrote:These “religious freedom” claims are extensions of the five-decade old Culture War. They are front-line issues in politicized Christianity, not Christianity itself, and are stand-ins for a cultural clash that runs deeper than any individual claim.

The Culture War is a battle about sex, but it is really a battle about what country we are living in: either a Christian nation, with right-wing Christianity as its moral bedrock, or a diverse, secular nation, in which religious claims are respected, but not used as a trump card over the civil rights of others.Obviously, it is not. These “religious freedom” claims are extensions of the five-decade old Culture War. They are front-line issues in politicized Christianity, not Christianity itself, and are stand-ins for a cultural clash that runs deeper than any individual claim.

The Culture War is a battle about sex, but it is really a battle about what country we are living in: either a Christian nation, with right-wing Christianity as its moral bedrock, or a diverse, secular nation, in which religious claims are respected, but not used as a trump card over the civil rights of others.

I'm with you. The religious issue is a diversion into supposedly legitimate First Amendment grounds, in order to maintain a form of discrimination that has become outlawed.

But how do you debunk the argument without showing that it's a pretext? It is, after all, put forward as the first line of defense. You've got to break down the walls, so to speak, before moving on to make the case for the cultural argument.

The Supreme Court's recent decision allowing a religious ban on travel is a good start. Apparently there are some grounds for denying the religious argument. That means the freedom/establishment clauses in the DS Constitution are not absolute. If we can breath life into that spark, we can take on the both religious clauses of the First Amendment to the DS Constitution.

Lurker wrote:What two or more consenting ADULTS do in their bedrooms should be of no concern to anyone else on earth.

Yes... as I've aways said on here...


Which also means that everyone else has the right not to have to acknowledge/respect/cater for/or even know about, any of the strange/weird/unusual/unnatural/abnormal 'activities' that some others get up to privately in their bedrooms...


It's no business but your own... so stop trying to force everyone else to be concerned about it... and if cake maker doesn't want to do a cake that includes/promotes any number of these 'private bedroom activity' themes, that are none of his concern, and he should be free from being forced to be concerned about, then he should be well within his rights to say 'no' to...!!!

I agree with that Tommy !

It's about freedom of association. Unfortunately too many people on the left and the right try to make it about religion.

Freedom means being free to serve whom you like, without the government using it's monopoly of force to make you do something you don't want to.

A Jew should never be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. If an atheist wants to exclude Christians from his place of business, so be it.

Maddog wrote:It's about freedom of association. Unfortunately too many people on the left and the right try to make it about religion.

Freedom means being free to serve whom you like, without the government using it's monopoly of force to make you do something you don't want to.

A Jew should never be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. If an atheist wants to exclude Christians from his place of business, so be it.    

Nope! That's where you rugged individualists always take a wrong turn.

A gay person, a Christian, an Asian person, a Jewish person, an atheist, a Nazi ... walk into a bar. Where was I going with this?

Oh yeah. They should all have the same right to access any goods and services advertised (even through something so simple as an "open" sign) as being offered to the general public. If not, you create separate classes of citizenship.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's about freedom of association. Unfortunately too many people on the left and the right try to make it about religion.

Freedom means being free to serve whom you like, without the government using it's monopoly of force to make you do something you don't want to.

A Jew should never be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. If an atheist wants to exclude Christians from his place of business, so be it.    

Nope! That's where you rugged individualists always take a wrong turn.

A gay person, a Christian, an Asian person, a Jewish person, an atheist, a Nazi ... walk into a bar. Where was I going with this?

Oh yeah. They should all have the same right to access any goods and services advertised (even through something so simple as an "open" sign) as being offered to the general public. If not, you create separate classes of citizenship.

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's about freedom of association. Unfortunately too many people on the left and the right try to make it about religion.

Freedom means being free to serve whom you like, without the government using it's monopoly of force to make you do something you don't want to.

A Jew should never be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. If an atheist wants to exclude Christians from his place of business, so be it.    

Nope! That's where you rugged individualists always take a wrong turn.

A gay person, a Christian, an Asian person, a Jewish person, an atheist, a Nazi ... walk into a bar. Where was I going with this?

Oh yeah. They should all have the same right to access any goods and services advertised (even through something so simple as an "open" sign) as being offered to the general public. If not, you create separate classes of citizenship.

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.  

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.      

Yeah but it’s against the law in some states. And if they want to be so idiotic, then goodbye tax breaks.

It’s not about religion, it’s not about sex, it’s about goddamn Civil Rights.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.  

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.      

Yeah but it’s against the law in some states. And if they want to be so idiotic, then goodbye tax breaks.

It’s not about religion, it’s not about sex, it’s about goddamn Civil Rights.

I'm a firm believer in letting people show their true colors and let everyone else decide. I don't think we need the government forcing grownups to play with each other. The government already allows you to discriminate against people for some reasons, but not for others. They are creating different classes of people for purely political reasons. Give people the freedom to work this out on their own. They can't do any worse than the authorities.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Yeah but it’s against the law in some states. And if they want to be so idiotic, then goodbye tax breaks.

It’s not about religion, it’s not about sex, it’s about goddamn Civil Rights.

I'm a firm believer in letting people show their true colors and let everyone else decide. I don't think we need the government forcing grownups to play with each other. The government already allows you to discriminate against people for some reasons, but not for others. They are creating different classes of people for purely political reasons. Give people the freedom to work this out on their own. They can't do any worse than the authorities.  

And the same for abortion.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm a firm believer in letting people show their true colors and let everyone else decide. I don't think we need the government forcing grownups to play with each other. The government already allows you to discriminate against people for some reasons, but not for others. They are creating different classes of people for purely political reasons. Give people the freedom to work this out on their own. They can't do any worse than the authorities.  

And the same for abortion.

I have given up on abortion. I just don't care anymore. But the view point of some on this issue would be that the unborn is not given the chance to work anything out. Harming that entity is a violation of the NAP.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's about freedom of association. Unfortunately too many people on the left and the right try to make it about religion.

Freedom means being free to serve whom you like, without the government using it's monopoly of force to make you do something you don't want to.

A Jew should never be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. If an atheist wants to exclude Christians from his place of business, so be it.    

Nope! That's where you rugged individualists always take a wrong turn.

A gay person, a Christian, an Asian person, a Jewish person, an atheist, a Nazi ... walk into a bar. Where was I going with this?

Oh yeah. They should all have the same right to access any goods and services advertised (even through something so simple as an "open" sign) as being offered to the general public. If not, you create separate classes of citizenship.

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

You have it the wrong way the Customers freedoms trumps the business freedom.
the customer has the right to access any goods and services advertised as the rest of the general public.
the business's (not a person in this legal transaction) 'right' to refuse service is conditional on anti discrimination laws AND comes secondary to the rights of a human person.
Otherwise you go back to the bad old days of business with signs like "no negros or irish allowed"

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And the same for abortion.

I have given up on abortion. I just don't care anymore. But the view point of some on this issue would be that the unborn is not given the chance to work anything out. Harming that entity is a violation of the NAP.

But we already have sanctioned and unsanction taking of life.

When the reality is that unborn entity, cannot survive without the host and the host should not be forced into carrying something that it does not want.

That is what it boils down to.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.  

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.      

Its one thing to deny people based on them being rude, but its another to deny someone based on what they believe or what they do or who they are.

That means anyone could then refuse to serve any former criminals, Politicians, Zionists, Muslims, Republicans, Jews, Blacks, whites, women, Police, men etc.

If you have a buisness, it falls under the parameter of not discriminating anyone within that buisness, which include customers. If not that business should face heavy fines and even closure.

The reality is as seen, that this is a culture war and religion is being used poorly as a tool, in order for some to allow themselves to discriminate. When in reality they do not often adhere themselves to bibilical commands or deny others that would be classed as sinners. They are specificially targeting some here, based on sexual practices/relationships. Of which many hetrosexuals themselves engage in.

As soon as you open up the door to allowing discrimination, you are then allowing anyone to discriminate. When the simple way to deter this is to make it part of a licence for buisness. That they have no right to deny service to a customer. If a customer is rude or threatening. Then call the Police to remove them from the premises. If they discriminate against people. If they continually flout the rules governed by that liecence. Then they could lose that licence.

You want a buisness, then abide by the rules of being entittled to have a buisness in that land.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

that's what happened in Australia when that woman lost her job for suggesting its ok to vote no

you were happy with this freedom of association argument then.

what you're suggesting is that no one is allowed freedom of association is they use it to dissociate from gays

you're view is "like us or go to jail"

how very ISLAMIC STATE of you, they use the same principles, if you weren't gay you could go join them, but you are gay and they would just throw you off the top of a roof, so i wouldn't suggest it

saying that you dont need to go all the way to ISLAMIC STATE to act like a fascist, you can just call yourself gay and do it right here in blighty, just like you are already doing

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

You have it the wrong way the Customers freedoms trumps the business freedom.
the customer has the right to access any goods and services advertised as the rest of the general public.
the business's (not a person in this legal transaction) 'right' to refuse service is conditional on anti discrimination laws AND comes secondary to the rights of a human person.
Otherwise you go back to the bad old days of business with signs like "no negros or irish allowed"

no they dont automatically have the right to access the goods and services on offer.

any company can turn any costumer away. they do not HAVE to serve a person.

you couldn't be supporting this argument if a man walked into a gay baker and said "make me a cake with I HATE GAYS" written on it

@Smelly' :

That young woman down in Melbourne was a contract worker...

Her former employer chose not to renew her contract..

She's now free to go chase another contract somewhere else.

smelly-bandit wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

You have it the wrong way the Customers freedoms trumps the business freedom.
the customer has the right to access any goods and services advertised as the rest of the general public.
the business's (not a person in this legal transaction) 'right' to refuse service is conditional on anti discrimination laws AND comes secondary to the rights of a human person.
Otherwise you go back to the bad old days of business with signs like "no negros or irish allowed"

no they dont automatically have the right to access the goods and services on offer.

any company can turn any costumer away. they do not HAVE to serve a person.

you couldn't be supporting this argument if a man walked into a gay baker and said "make me a cake with I HATE GAYS" written on it

Which shows you do not understand the law.

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

@Smelly'  :

That young woman down in Melbourne was a contract worker...

Her former employer chose not to renew her contract..

She's now free to go chase another contract somewhere else.

that is irrelevant

the argument elizel supported in that thread was freedom of association.

the details of her contract were not the issue, the issue supported by elizel was the freedom to associate with whom you choose or in that specific case the freedom of the employer to disassociate with the employee

now he is realising that, oh shit!!!!! freedom of association also means that people can dissociate themselves from the LBGTXYZABCEGHHIJ community, and like magic he no longer supports freedom of association

its like the remainer hate mob,or the anti trump brigade, before brexit and the US elections they loved democracy, they couldn't get enough of it, when it went the other in both cases, suddenly democracy was just an optional extra that should only be supported when the answer is right

elizel is a hypocrite and a bigot, and has always been

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

@Smelly'  :

That young woman down in Melbourne was a contract worker...

Her former employer chose not to renew her contract..

She's now free to go chase another contract somewhere else.

that is irrelevant

the argument elizel supported in that thread was freedom of association.

the details of her contract were not the issue, the issue supported by elizel was the freedom to associate with whom you choose or in that specific case the freedom of the employer to disassociate with the employee

now he is realising that, oh shit!!!!! freedom of association also means that people can dissociate themselves from the LBGTXYZABCEGHHIJ community, and like magic he no longer supports freedom of association    

elizel is a hypocrite and  a bigot, and has always been  

No you basicaly are an imbicille.

You do not have to associate with people, but as a buisness, you cannot discriminate against a group of people.

Again

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

Making wedding cakes for only hetrosexuals, would be discrimination and prejudice. As its not consistant to all customers.

Has this sunken into that pea brain of yours yet?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Lurker wrote:What two or more consenting ADULTS do in their bedrooms should be of no concern to anyone else on earth.

Yes... as I've aways said on here...


Which also means that everyone else has the right not to have to acknowledge/respect/cater for/or even know about, any of the strange/weird/unusual/unnatural/abnormal 'activities' that some others get up to privately in their bedrooms...


It's no business but your own... so stop trying to force everyone else to be concerned about it... and if cake maker doesn't want to do a cake that includes/promotes any number of these 'private bedroom activity' themes, that are none of his concern, and he should be free from being forced to be concerned about, then he should be well within his rights to say 'no' to...!!!

lolol

but tommy if a straight couple went in and wanted a cake, the baker still wouldn't need to know about any of their weird/strange/unnatural/abnormal bedroom activities either

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

So hypothetically, if every cake show owner in the country decided they didn't want to associate with gay people, gay people would just have to deal with it?

So by default you are saying some citizens, by doimg nothing but loving another person, are rightfully treated unequally by others?

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.  

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.      

They aren't forced to serve anyone if they close their business. If they do have a business then they should treat all customers equally.

And while most would serve a gay couple, that isn't ths point. Allowing things as you would, it is theoretically possible that no gay couple could ever have a cake made from a cake shop, which I'm sure you agree would not be fair.

smelly-bandit wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

@Smelly'  :

That young woman down in Melbourne was a contract worker...

Her former employer chose not to renew her contract..

She's now free to go chase another contract somewhere else.

that is irrelevant

the argument elizel supported in that thread was freedom of association.

the details of her contract were not the issue, the issue supported by elizel was the freedom to associate with whom you choose or in that specific case the freedom of the employer to disassociate with the employee

now he is realising that, oh shit!!!!! freedom of association also means that people can dissociate themselves from the LBGTXYZABCEGHHIJ community, and like magic he no longer supports freedom of association    

its like the remainer hate mob,or the anti trump brigade, before brexit and the US elections they loved democracy, they couldn't get enough of it, when it went the other in both cases, suddenly democracy was just an optional extra that should only be supported when the answer is right

elizel is a hypocrite and  a bigot, and has always been  

Only is your twisted view, no one else's.

You are conflating two issues, though I would just point out I never fell heavily on one side in that previous debate.

Of course, had someone refused her service based on her opposition to gay marriage, I'd be against that. But that wasn't what happened and the issues aren't the same.

Now get your nickers untwisted, gobshite.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.  

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.      

They aren't forced to serve anyone if they close their business. If they do have a business then they should treat all customers equally.

And while most would serve a gay couple, that isn't ths point. Allowing things as you would, it is theoretically possible that no gay couple could ever have a cake made from a cake shop, which I'm sure you agree would not be fair.

um, its not theoretically possible since cake shops are not exclusively owned by straight owners, there will be cake shops owned by gay owners

if they went into a cake shop owned by gays they could whatever cake they wanted

thats the beauty of a capitalist society, gays can choose who to support, if they want to support only other gay business owners then that is their prerogative.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

that is irrelevant

the argument elizel supported in that thread was freedom of association.

the details of her contract were not the issue, the issue supported by elizel was the freedom to associate with whom you choose or in that specific case the freedom of the employer to disassociate with the employee

now he is realising that, oh shit!!!!! freedom of association also means that people can dissociate themselves from the LBGTXYZABCEGHHIJ community, and like magic he no longer supports freedom of association    

its like the remainer hate mob,or the anti trump brigade, before brexit and the US elections they loved democracy, they couldn't get enough of it, when it went the other in both cases, suddenly democracy was just an optional extra that should only be supported when the answer is right

elizel is a hypocrite and  a bigot, and has always been  

Only is your twisted view, no one else's.

You are conflating two issues, though I would just point out I never fell heavily on one side in that previous debate.

Of course, had someone refused her service based on her opposition to gay marriage, I'd be against that. But that wasn't what happened and the issues aren't the same.

Now get your nickers untwisted, gobshite.

no im not conflating two issues, its the same issue - freedom of association and on that thread you supported the COMPANYS right to use freedom of association to fire the employee for her individual and private opinions ie they no longer wished to associate with her.

now you have realized that its a double edged sword and that if companies can fire employees for their personal opinions then companies should also be able to turn costumers away based on the same principle and your whining about how gays could be a victim of the very principle you supported.

even if you win you lose, all this will do is force companies to ask for all the details beforehand and then simply say "sorry we are fully booked" or give some other excuse as to why the order can be accepted

haven't you figured it out yet?? you cannot force people to tolerate and accept you, yeah you can ruin their lives and punish them, but all you will do is create more resentment.

you are unwilling to live and let live, for you its full compliance and conformity or face punishment.

that is what we call intolerance and bigotry

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.  

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.      

They aren't forced to serve anyone if they close their business. If they do have a business then they should treat all customers equally.

And while most would serve a gay couple, that isn't ths point. Allowing things as you would, it is theoretically possible that no gay couple could ever have a cake made from a cake shop, which I'm sure you agree would not be fair.

um, its not theoretically possible since cake shops are not exclusively owned by straight owners, there will be cake shops owned by gay owners

if they went into a cake shop owned by gays they could whatever cake they wanted

thats the beauty of a capitalist society, gays can choose who to support, if they want to support only other gay business owners then that is their prerogative.  

It's not a beauty at all. I don't tend to support businesses just because the owners are gay, smelly, perhaps that's a plus in your apartheid yearning mind but not mine.

And I doubt very much there are a wealth of cake shops owned by gay oeople out there.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

that is irrelevant

the argument elizel supported in that thread was freedom of association.

the details of her contract were not the issue, the issue supported by elizel was the freedom to associate with whom you choose or in that specific case the freedom of the employer to disassociate with the employee

now he is realising that, oh shit!!!!! freedom of association also means that people can dissociate themselves from the LBGTXYZABCEGHHIJ community, and like magic he no longer supports freedom of association    

its like the remainer hate mob,or the anti trump brigade, before brexit and the US elections they loved democracy, they couldn't get enough of it, when it went the other in both cases, suddenly democracy was just an optional extra that should only be supported when the answer is right

elizel is a hypocrite and  a bigot, and has always been  

Only is your twisted view, no one else's.

You are conflating two issues, though I would just point out I never fell heavily on one side in that previous debate.

Of course, had someone refused her service based on her opposition to gay marriage, I'd be against that. But that wasn't what happened and the issues aren't the same.

Now get your nickers untwisted, gobshite.

no im not conflating two issues, its the same issue - freedom of association and on that thread you supported the COMPANYS right to use freedom of association to fire the employee for her individual and private opinions ie they no longer wished to associate with her.

now you have realized that its a double edged sword and that if companies can fire employees for their personal opinions then companies should also be able to turn costumers away based on the same principle and your whining about how gays could be a victim of the very principle you supported.

even if you win you lose, all this will do is force companies to ask for all the details beforehand and then simply say "sorry we are fully booked" or give some other excuse as to why the order can be accepted

haven't you figured it out yet?? you cannot force people to tolerate and accept you, yeah you can ruin their lives and punish them, but all you will do is create more resentment.

you are unwilling to live and let live, for you its full compliance and conformity or face punishment.

that is what we call intolerance and bigotry  

Wrong and boring. Not going through this again. Weren't you going to ignore me? Please do.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


um, its not theoretically possible since cake shops are not exclusively owned by straight owners, there will be cake shops owned by gay owners

if they went into a cake shop owned by gays they could whatever cake they wanted

thats the beauty of a capitalist society, gays can choose who to support, if they want to support only other gay business owners then that is their prerogative.  

It's not a beauty at all. I don't tend to support businesses just because the owners are gay, smelly, perhaps that's a plus in your apartheid yearning mind but not mine.

And I doubt very much there are a wealth of cake shops owned by gay oeople out there.

you're a militant elizel

given the choice of traveling five minutes down the road to a gay bakery that would make you any cake you wanted and traveling across the world to order a gay cake from a bakery if you knew they were staunchly conservative christian just to fuck them over, you'd travel

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

no im not conflating two issues, its the same issue - freedom of association and on that thread you supported the COMPANYS right to use freedom of association to fire the employee for her individual and private opinions ie they no longer wished to associate with her.

now you have realized that its a double edged sword and that if companies can fire employees for their personal opinions then companies should also be able to turn costumers away based on the same principle and your whining about how gays could be a victim of the very principle you supported.

even if you win you lose, all this will do is force companies to ask for all the details beforehand and then simply say "sorry we are fully booked" or give some other excuse as to why the order can be accepted

haven't you figured it out yet?? you cannot force people to tolerate and accept you, yeah you can ruin their lives and punish them, but all you will do is create more resentment.

you are unwilling to live and let live, for you its full compliance and conformity or face punishment.

that is what we call intolerance and bigotry  

Wrong and boring. Not going through this again. Weren't you going to ignore me? Please do.

not wrong

right

you are intolerant and proud of it, every post you make on this issue screams intolerance

put it this way, im more tolerant of Muslims than you are of Christians

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

that is irrelevant

the argument elizel supported in that thread was freedom of association.

the details of her contract were not the issue, the issue supported by elizel was the freedom to associate with whom you choose or in that specific case the freedom of the employer to disassociate with the employee

now he is realising that, oh shit!!!!! freedom of association also means that people can dissociate themselves from the LBGTXYZABCEGHHIJ community, and like magic he no longer supports freedom of association    

elizel is a hypocrite and  a bigot, and has always been  

No you basicaly are an imbicille.

You do not have to associate with people, but as a buisness, you cannot discriminate against a group of people.

Again

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

Making wedding cakes for only hetrosexuals, would be discrimination and prejudice. As its not consistant to all customers.

Has this sunken into that pea brain of yours yet?

Still no answer from the dummy I see

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

It's not a beauty at all. I don't tend to support businesses just because the owners are gay, smelly, perhaps that's a plus in your apartheid yearning mind but not mine.

And I doubt very much there are a wealth of cake shops owned by gay oeople out there.

you're a militant elizel

given the choice of traveling five minutes down the road to a gay bakery that would make you any cake you wanted and traveling across the world to order a gay cake from a bakery if you knew they were staunchly conservative christian just to fuck them over, you'd travel

 

Well Christians have been fucking over the world for centuries.

Espically priests and you bitch like a child, because now people are standing up to the oppression and prejudice caused by Christians? You seem to want to turn countries into Theocratic Christian versions of Islam

The irony

I have never heard such a pathetic argument, wheere you seem to think all Gays are militant.

Facts are facts, its you being the radical and militant Christian here, trying to back the right to be prejudice and discriminate.

Well contract laws protect people from, your prejudice, because Militant Christians like you for centuries got away with oppression and persecution of others.

You do not have to associate with people, but as a buisness, you cannot discriminate against a group of people.

Again

You can refuse a customer, as long as its not arbitrary or applying it to one group of people.

So you could refuse to serve anyone that wanted cakes that were based on hate and discrimination.

That would make it consistant to all customers

Making wedding cakes for only hetrosexuals, would be discrimination and prejudice. As its not consistant to all customers.

Has this sunken into that pea brain of yours yet?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

no im not conflating two issues, its the same issue - freedom of association and on that thread you supported the COMPANYS right to use freedom of association to fire the employee for her individual and private opinions ie they no longer wished to associate with her.

now you have realized that its a double edged sword and that if companies can fire employees for their personal opinions then companies should also be able to turn costumers away based on the same principle and your whining about how gays could be a victim of the very principle you supported.

even if you win you lose, all this will do is force companies to ask for all the details beforehand and then simply say "sorry we are fully booked" or give some other excuse as to why the order can be accepted

haven't you figured it out yet?? you cannot force people to tolerate and accept you, yeah you can ruin their lives and punish them, but all you will do is create more resentment.

you are unwilling to live and let live, for you its full compliance and conformity or face punishment.

that is what we call intolerance and bigotry  

Wrong and boring. Not going through this again. Weren't you going to ignore me? Please do.

not wrong

right

you are intolerant and proud of it, every post you make on this issue screams intolerance

put it this way, im more tolerant of Muslims than you are of Christians

Only to you.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

not wrong

right

you are intolerant and proud of it, every post you make on this issue screams intolerance

put it this way, im more tolerant of Muslims than you are of Christians

Only to you.

Because I'm. The only one with the backbone to call you out on it

smelly-bandit wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

You have it the wrong way the Customers freedoms trumps the business freedom.
the customer has the right to access any goods and services advertised as the rest of the general public.
the business's (not a person in this legal transaction) 'right' to refuse service is conditional on anti discrimination laws AND comes secondary to the rights of a human person.
Otherwise you go back to the bad old days of business with signs like "no negros or irish allowed"

no they dont automatically have the right to access the goods and services on offer.

any company can turn any costumer away. they do not HAVE to serve a person.

you couldn't be supporting this argument if a man walked into a gay baker and said "make me a cake with I HATE GAYS" written on it

Anyone going to take this point?


This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And the same for abortion.

I have given up on abortion. I just don't care anymore. But the view point of some on this issue would be that the unborn is not given the chance to work anything out. Harming that entity is a violation of the NAP.

The unborn are minerals and chemicals in various stages of transition.  If someone wants to give a bolder or a liter of seawater citizenship, he belongs in a loony bin.  

The concept of life is a human convention, and there it must remain. Only those who have a birth certificate should speak up.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Freedom to associate with whom you choose is never a wrong turn. Using the government as your personal sledge hammer is however often a wrong turn.

If someone does not like how someone conducts business, they are free to spend their money elsewhere. And, I would encourage them to do so.

And, only the government cab create separate classes of citizens. A business owner cant do that.

You have it the wrong way the Customers freedoms trumps the business freedom.
the customer has the right to access any goods and services advertised as the rest of the general public.
the business's (not a person in this legal transaction) 'right' to refuse service is conditional on anti discrimination laws AND comes secondary to the rights of a human person.
Otherwise you go back to the bad old days of business with signs like "no negros or irish allowed"

I have nothing wrong, because it is my opinion. I know what the law states, which has no bearing on what I think is the moral way to handle the situation. I believe all exchanges should be voluntary on both sides. Force should only be used to protect people from harm.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, If every cake owner in the country was so stupid as to not serve a good paying customer, then that is possible. But because we know that most people are good people, and also like to make a profit, we know that that will never happen.  

And I never said it was right to deny service to anyone. It's just not right to force people to serve others.      

Its one thing to deny people based on them being rude, but its another to deny someone based on what they believe or what they do or who they are.

That means anyone could then refuse to serve any former criminals, Politicians, Zionists, Muslims, Republicans, Jews, Blacks, whites, women, Police, men etc.

If you have a buisness, it falls under the parameter of not discriminating anyone within that buisness, which include customers. If not that business should face heavy fines and even closure.

The reality is as seen, that this is a culture war and religion is being used poorly as a tool, in order for some to allow themselves to discriminate. When in reality they do not often adhere themselves to bibilical commands or deny others that would be classed as sinners. They are specificially targeting some here, based on sexual practices/relationships. Of which many hetrosexuals themselves engage in.

As soon as you open up the door to allowing discrimination, you are then allowing anyone to discriminate. When the simple way to deter this is to make it part of a licence for buisness. That they have no right to deny service to a customer. If a customer is rude or threatening. Then call the Police to remove them from the premises. If they discriminate against people. If they continually flout the rules governed by that liecence. Then they could lose that licence.

You want a buisness, then abide by the rules of being entittled to have a buisness in that land.

People discriminate every day. I have no issues with people choosing whom to serve and whom not to. I will choose to do business with you based on that. There are plenty of places I will not patronize because of their business practices. I suggest everyone else do the same.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I have given up on abortion. I just don't care anymore. But the view point of some on this issue would be that the unborn is not given the chance to work anything out. Harming that entity is a violation of the NAP.

The unborn are minerals and chemicals in various stages of transition.  If someone wants to give a bolder or a liter of seawater citizenship, he belongs in a loony bin.  

The concept of life is a human convention, and there it must remain.  Only those who have a birth certificate should speak up.

Run a stop sign and crash into a car driven by a pregnant woman and harm that fetus. You will soon learn that the unborn are considered more than minerals and chemicals. Less than the born, but far more than what you have described them as.

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


no they dont automatically have the right to access the goods and services on offer.

any company can turn any costumer away. they do not HAVE to serve a person.

you couldn't be supporting this argument if a man walked into a gay baker and said "make me a cake with I HATE GAYS" written on it

Anyone going to take this point?


This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

I'll take it. I believe all transactions should be voluntary on both sides. No one should be forced to serve someone they done want to. A Jew should never be forced to bake a Nazi cake, even though Nazi cakes are perfectly legal.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The unborn are minerals and chemicals in various stages of transition.  If someone wants to give a bolder or a liter of seawater citizenship, he belongs in a loony bin.  

The concept of life is a human convention, and there it must remain.  Only those who have a birth certificate should speak up.

Run a stop sign and crash into a car driven by a pregnant woman and harm that fetus. You will soon learn that the unborn are considered more than minerals and chemicals. Less than the born, but far more than what you have described them as.

Yes, and the concept of law is another human invention. There are contradictions within and among all human conventions, I agree. To pit one side of a contradiction against the other side, is not progress...but obfuscation.

That is only to say that human ideas are flawed. To determine the existence of life is only to reify one metaphysical idea over another. Metaphysics (def: beyond reality) are by definition, mere guesses. Religion is a form of metaphysics, and you seen where that went.

I am not responsible for contradictions. They exist, so be it. But when it comes to arguing a person's personhood, and right to one's body, it is better to side with those with a birth certificate than those whose status is yet to be determined.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:


no they dont automatically have the right to access the goods and services on offer.

any company can turn any costumer away. they do not HAVE to serve a person.

you couldn't be supporting this argument if a man walked into a gay baker and said "make me a cake with I HATE GAYS" written on it

Anyone going to take this point?


This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

I'll take it. I believe all transactions should be voluntary on both sides. No one should be forced to serve someone they done want to. A Jew should never be forced to bake a Nazi cake, even though Nazi cakes are perfectly legal.    

You're on fire today Maddog! You're a refreshing change from some people who are stuck entirely on one side and refuse to see all angles.

I'm entirely glad you joined - even if we may not always agree.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Run a stop sign and crash into a car driven by a pregnant woman and harm that fetus. You will soon learn that the unborn are considered more than minerals and chemicals. Less than the born, but far more than what you have described them as.

Yes, and the concept of law is another human invention.  There are contradictions within and among all human conventions, I agree.  To pit one side of a contradiction against the other side, is not progress...but obfuscation.

That is only to say that human ideas are flawed.  To determine the existence of life is only to reify one metaphysical idea over another.  Metaphysics (def: beyond reality) are by definition, mere guesses.  Religion is a form of metaphysics, and you seen where that went.

I am not responsible for contradictions.  They exist, so be it.  But when it comes to arguing a person's personhood, and right to one's body, it is better to side with those with a birth certificate than those whose status is yet to be determined.

Atheists often believe that the unborn have more rights than minerals and chemicals, so I don't know what religion has to do with this.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'll take it. I believe all transactions should be voluntary on both sides. No one should be forced to serve someone they done want to. A Jew should never be forced to bake a Nazi cake, even though Nazi cakes are perfectly legal.    

You're on fire today Maddog! You're a refreshing change from some people who are stuck entirely on one side and refuse to see all angles.

I'm entirely glad you joined - even if we may not always agree.

I'm stuck on the side of liberty and freedom. Both sides of the aisle take turns defending and attacking those positions.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Anyone going to take this point?


This thread makes for interesting reading so far.

I'll take it. I believe all transactions should be voluntary on both sides. No one should be forced to serve someone they done want to. A Jew should never be forced to bake a Nazi cake, even though Nazi cakes are perfectly legal.    

she said take the point not piss on the raging fire mate

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, and the concept of law is another human invention.  There are contradictions within and among all human conventions, I agree.  To pit one side of a contradiction against the other side, is not progress...but obfuscation.

That is only to say that human ideas are flawed.  To determine the existence of life is only to reify one metaphysical idea over another.  Metaphysics (def: beyond reality) are by definition, mere guesses.  Religion is a form of metaphysics, and you seen where that went.

I am not responsible for contradictions.  They exist, so be it.  But when it comes to arguing a person's personhood, and right to one's body, it is better to side with those with a birth certificate than those whose status is yet to be determined.

Atheists often believe that the unborn have more rights than minerals and chemicals, so I don't know what religion has to do with this.  

Religion is a form of metaphysics. I don't believe in religion, so I guess I raised it to characterize the ethereal, tenuous nature of metaphysics. No one can prove the existence of an old man living in the clouds, who has command of magical skills and controls our lives. Similarly, no one can prove that life exists in the minerals and chemicals that comprise a nascent human being.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Atheists often believe that the unborn have more rights than minerals and chemicals, so I don't know what religion has to do with this.  

Religion is a form of metaphysics.  I don't believe in religion, so I guess I raised it to characterize the ethereal, tenuous nature of metaphysics.  No one can prove the existence of an old man living in the clouds, who has command of magical skills and controls our lives.  Similarly, no one can prove that life exists in the minerals and chemicals that comprise a nascent human being.

Is a puppy a life form in which life exists?