Donald Trump

"

LostForm wrote:

Making a cake for a gay guy even though you don't agree with them being gay is very different than being a kosher bakery and being forced by the government to make cakes with non-kosher ingredients. That would be an example of going against your religion, where as not doing something for somebody you don't agree with maybe not so much, making that cake for a gay wedding does not somehow make you gay married.

Let's be clear, Christians (actual Christians) don't hate homosexuals. They believe marriage is a holy covenant between man, woman, and God. There are other arguments regarding the destruction of the household, slippery slope, etc, but we'll focus on marriage.

In the case of the cake baker, it isn't that he hates the gay couple. He doesn't want to, because of his faith, be part of a practice that goes against his religious beliefs. This is different than having a sign out front saying "Not serving cupcakes to gay people." Same goes with a sudden pressure on pastors to be an officiant at a same-sex wedding. There are PLENTY of pastors that would be okay with this, (hell, why do they even want a pastor?) so to force all pastors to go against their own religious doctrine is tyrannical and anti-Constitutional. And I wouldn't expect any religious person whether it be Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists, etc., to do anything that goes against their faith.

Keep the government out of the churches as we have kept the churches out of the government. It's simple. The government has no authority to inhibit the practice of religion. Period.

"

comm_il_vec wrote:

"

LostForm wrote:

Making a cake for a gay guy even though you don't agree with them being gay is very different than being a kosher bakery and being forced by the government to make cakes with non-kosher ingredients. That would be an example of going against your religion, where as not doing something for somebody you don't agree with maybe not so much, making that cake for a gay wedding does not somehow make you gay married.

Let's be clear, Christians (actual Christians) don't hate homosexuals. They believe marriage is a holy covenant between man, woman, and God. There are other arguments regarding the destruction of the household, slippery slope, etc, but we'll focus on marriage.

In the case of the cake baker, it isn't that he hates the gay couple. He doesn't want to, because of his faith, be part of a practice that goes against his religious beliefs. This is different than having a sign out front saying "Not serving cupcakes to gay people." Same goes with a sudden pressure on pastors to be an officiant at a same-sex wedding. There are PLENTY of pastors that would be okay with this, (hell, why do they even want a pastor?) so to force all pastors to go against their own religious doctrine is tyrannical and anti-Constitutional. And I wouldn't expect any religious person whether it be Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists, etc., to do anything that goes against their faith.

Keep the government out of the churches as we have kept the churches out of the government. It's simple. The government has no authority to inhibit the practice of religion. Period.

but he is making a cake , not doing 'be part of a practice that goes against his religious beliefs'. he makes cakes in this example, a cake is being requested. if he doesn't make penis cakes, and a penis cake is being requested, he can say no, and it doesn't even have to be religious reasons. but the item being ordered falls squarely in the area of service, there is nothing inherent to the preparation of the cake that makes them break religious beliefs. So they are using the rationale that they don't agree with that persons lifestyle or minority opinion to deny service, it is crossing a definite threshold. Whether that threshold is the threshold of persecution, I don't know, but there is definitely a clear jump from personal to interpersonal there.

my response is if your personal religion does not allow gay marriage, don't get gay married. ez.

also, being an officiate of a wedding is very different than baking a cake, or even catering (and having to set up and break down) for a wedding. (this is even demonstrated by law)

A baker shouldn't need any excuse to not make a cake for someone, provided they haven't yet received payment for it. It could be a good reason - "I don't make penis cakes," "I needed to go to the hospital," "the customer's payment method isn't one I'm comfortable with" - or it can be an idiotic reason - "the customer is gay," "the world ends tomorrow," "God said don't work on Sundays." In listing those reasons, I was the one deciding which reasons were good and which were shit. But it's not up to me. Everyone is entitled to their own rationale for their own behavior, until and unless it becomes force or fraud.

Something horrible is happening to the word "discriminate." What the word meant, should mean, was intended to mean is: to notice a significant difference. This implies a difference in treatment. However, it used to be used to say things like "babies can discriminate between colors at a young age" or "I can usually discriminate between poker players with real hands and those who are merely bluffing."

Discrimination means observing and acting on one's observations.

To discriminate on someone because of their race is, indeed, stupid and impractical. A business owner who discriminates against the public for traits which don't effect their viability as customers risks losing business; an employer who discriminates against candidates for traits which don't effect their viability as employees risks losing tangent.

But discriminating against customers who have previously been caught shoplifting is NOT wrong. Discriminating against candidates for a position with a history of embezzlement is NOT wrong.

Who are you to go to people and tell them which traits make viable customers and which don't, which traits make viable employees and which don't, and enforce your decisions under penalty of law?

There is very little respect anymore for private property or independence. It's like people want government to get all involved in things which are not their business, not because they're trying to protect their own interests, but in an irrational control-freak form of selflessness. They can't just let idiots be idiots, they can't just walk away, they have to meddle.

I didn't advocate for either the customer or the baker, but saying that baking a cake is being part of a homo sexual marriage is pretty far out there in terms of rationale. and again you are ignoring the very real persecution of tyranny of the majority.

On one hand it is ludicrous that the government would step in and say you will bake cakes for people you don't like.

On the other hand it is equally ludicrous to allow swaths of the country to become 'service deserts' or 'no go zones' for people of a persuasion due to rotary clubs setting a 'no service for "of that persuasion" policies required for membership' or other excommunication techniques, or even less officiated agreements, like the 'boys coming over for a visit cuz they saw you sell something to jeff'

this is a civil rights issue here, deep down, below this silly interaction.

"

LostForm wrote:

On one hand it is ludicrous that the government would step in and say you will bake cakes for people you don't like.

Yep.

"

LostForm wrote:

On the other hand it is equally ludicrous to allow swaths of the country to become 'service deserts' or 'no go zones' for people of a persuasion due to rotary clubs setting a 'no service for "of that persuasion" policies required for membership' or other excommunication techniques, or even less officiated agreements, like the 'boys coming over for a visit cuz they saw you sell something to jeff'

this is a civil rights issue here, deep down, below this silly interaction.

This isn't really a government issue, but a business issue. If there is a "service desert" and you're an entrepreneur, that's a prime business opportunity. Especially if it's the result of irrational, valueless discrimination. Fuck those bigots; make piles of money.

The only instance I can imagine where government intervention is necessary is if competing businesses attempt to destroy the less intolerant start-up through sabotage, vandalism, or harassment. But there are already laws on the books against that. It's just particularly important that those cases receive the appropriate law-enforcement attention.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If there is a "service desert" and you're an entrepreneur, that's a prime business opportunity. Especially if it's the result of irrational, valueless discrimination. Fuck those bigots; make piles of money.

The only instance I can imagine where government intervention is necessary is if competing businesses attempt to destroy the less intolerant start-up through sabotage, vandalism, or harassment. But there are already laws on the books against that. It's just particularly important that those cases receive the appropriate law-enforcement attention.

Problem (well, one problem) is, the US has been down that road. It didn't (and won't) work that way. If we're being ideologically pure, you're right of course. But pragmatism has to rule.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This isn't really a government issue, but a business issue. If there is a "service desert" and you're an entrepreneur, that's a prime business opportunity. Especially if it's the result of irrational, valueless discrimination. Fuck those bigots; make piles of money.

The problem with that is when many bussinesses discriminate at the same time. Just letting the market do their job works well if there is competition wanting to do the job, but it wouldn't work so well if almost all bussinesses think similarly. Antidiscrimination laws serve less to force people to bake cakes and more to discourage isolating groups of people from the rest of the community.

You need strong evidence for the existence of competition in all the country to say it would be enough. It doesn't help if a group is small enough to be ignorable.

Well, if you're referring to long-term ethnic oppression, then it's called the poverty cycle. Illogical discrimination against employment leads to poverty (and service desserts) which leads to poor education which leads to the next generation's more logical discrimination against employment. You get what I mean. Self-fulfilling prophecy after just one generation of sustained bigotry.

But that's kinda specific to inherited irrelevant traits.

Ethnic discrimination is a bummer though, it is kinda sad his it tends to perpetuate if there's no intervention.

at least 'service desert' is harder to maintain with internet and online ordering and drone delivery and all the other new-fangled nonsense that confounds isolation

which is one reason why I do not hesitate to say to this specific gay couple "suck it up sweeties". But the issue is one worth talking about and is further reaching than one bakery.

"

LostForm wrote:

at least 'service desert' is harder to maintain with internet and online ordering and drone delivery and all the other new-fangled nonsense that confounds isolation.

A great example of how information, technology and resources make a market behave more ideally.

PS: this New York Times talks about the integration problem for muslims (and how it puzzles the left), I think it should be interesting for everyone.