Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

And yet you objected to the Sweet Cakes by Melissa situation which occurred before the SCOTUS ruling.They were actually performing a civil commitment ceremony.God didn't call it marriage.
The Government didn't call it marriage. The government didn't require Aaron and Melissa Klein to treat it as a legitimate marriage.So what was the problem there?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If it was a wedding cake for one of their birthdays, would that have been a problem? An odd request, for sure - perhaps some kind of inside joke. Would it have been sanctioning a gay marriage, though?

No. He's making a perfectly valid point and citing a specific case and his particular issue with it. The very thing I have been asking of you for some time. This case was not a wedding cake but one with a specific message supporting same sex marriage. The key issue in the defence in this case was that they would not have baked a cake with the same message on it had the patron been a straight advocate of same-sex marriage.So I agree that this case can be legitimately questioned.The wedding cake issue is more clear because the cakes are exactly the same. It's what the intend to do with it that's the problem. And what they intend to do with it is tied intimately with their sexual orientation. As Scalia said - a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. It would only be a problem if they sold pork/beef - just not to people like you. It's not discrimination at all to not sell a product. I don't sell pork either. That's not discriminatory. I don't sell wedding cakes for that matter.

I asked to clarify your meaning. It's the same subject. The purchasing of a wedding cake. See? You went ahead and cleared up something for me. Thank you. I thought it best to ask for clarification rather than leaping into a counter argument with you under a misapprehension as to your position.So if the gay people called it a wedding does that make it a problem? Or does it only explain why the bakers thought there was a problem?Same sex marriage wasn't legal in Oregon at the time, so if the issue here is that they mistakenly thought it was for a same sex marriage when in fact it was a perfectly acceptable same sex commitment ceremony - then might it have been the polite thing to do to clarify this point before refusing service?

It's been painfully obvious that you won't either give general guidelines on what the correct strategic approach is or point to specific cases that are problematic. I figured the former would be much more difficult to argue than the latter, but if you want to try you are welcome to do so.I should note that I did at least in one post (Message 303), not addressed to you, discuss a specific case, and you commented on my post regarding that specific case in a manner that was strongly suggestive that you disagreed with the action taken that case (Message 308)You also commented about certain actions we don't even have any evidence ever happened such as when cited the problems that likely would follow from the 'gay activists' deliberately 'targeting' certain bakers so they could be sued.And finally, you raised and are now discussing, the Belfast Ashers case. And that is what I've been trying to talk to you about. Do you have a response to MLK's retort to this general line of questioning:

quote:

---

{The} moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods" Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

---

Can you show that more harm than good is likely to follow? Can you show that this probability outweighs the need for justice? Do you disagree that justice delayed {indefinitely} is justice denied? Do you have anything other than the question? Can I not turn the question back on you and ask 'Is asking the question without adding any substance doing more harm than good?' You weren't subjected to a torrent of abuse from me. You were criticised for questioning the actions but not following that up with any substance. It's not that you questioned them. It's that you Just Questioned them, and nothing more. I'm not saying you were 'JAQing off', but it looks to be a close cousin. Possibly differentiated by its intentions, but the potential for similar consequences of introducing FUD remains. And thus the questions must be themselves questioned. Are they legitimate? Do the concerns voiced in them have any substance? Etc. Because he said exactly what the issue was that concerned him, cited a specific case where that problem arose, and the unintended consequences that might follow and exactly how and why he thinks those consequences might follow.I disagree with him, but I do agree that there are valid concerns to discuss with that case. There are certainly some good arguments both ways - I think Tatchell's argument fails in that there is no protected class of people who can be identified by wanting a picture of Mohammed, or who deny the holocaust and so on.I do think there would be a valid case if a Muslim baker that did custom cakes refused a cake with a Star of David on it, as that would be refusing on the grounds of religious identity. But I think that same Muslim should be allowed to refuse to bake 'Allah is a wanker' without discriminating against a particular group.It's a fairly nuanced argument though, and in my opinion where there is doubt, the benefit of the doubt should go towards the protected class. The phrase you mentioned earlier was bayoneting the wounded? I think that applies aptly in that situation. It's the queer that are the wounded in this case however - and there are some people who will try to find any loophole to bayonet them with.Did Ashers deliberately try this? I doubt it, but again - the benefit of the doubt should go to the protected class. There have been, and would be without the protections more discriminations against gays by homophobes than against homophobes by gays (where 'gay' and 'homophobe' are used loosely for brevity). Even if we concur that Ashers were the victims of an individual injustice, if the sum total effect is the reduction of injustice this might be...justifiable.The age of consent for sex springs to mind, perhaps because of Milo's recent scandal. While one 14 year old may be in a better position to consent to have sex with a 28 year old than another 16 year old - we tend to err on the side that the 14 year old cannot consent. A pragmatic decision that may not always be right, but is right often enough to protect the maximum amount of people from exploitation.Northern Ireland has had certain recent 'troubles', as you well know, with religious/political divisions and these laws were an attempt to stop those divisions harming others.But it's a good corner case, Tatchell makes a decent presentation of a grey area. Why would you say that? Do you think that because I identify as queer that I must necessarily give Tatchell's opinion more weight? That seems quite prejudicial of you to think, doesn't it? It isn't who Tatchell is that means I am concurring he has a point. It's how he made his point that gives it the weight I gave it. It's quite the opposite from a general 'Taking action against bakers might be a problem', but 'This is specifically one way in which taking certain actions can result in setting a precedent that is unsustainable', along with a detailed explanation.abe:
You do in fact believe that rather prejudiced belief, as you have explicitly stated in Message 455:

quote:

---

They're conflicted. They use the argument that unless I agree with everything they say, I'm part of the problem. But when it's one of them saying it, it's ok.

​

It's the outsider/insider thing. The general assertion is that an outsider has no right to comment unless it's in support. Different rules for insiders

---

Besides, I had already read some of the court documents before I read Tatchell's opinion (unsurprisingly - I am interested in legal matters generally and gay rights particularly) and had seen the case the defence brought and I agreed with some of their points. I swung about for a while on my opinion with regards to it, thinking along some of the same lines as Tatchell expresses, but ultimately I agreed with the decision. I haven't protested otherwise. I completely agree that it's possible to do these things. The issue I have been pushing back to you on is that while yes, you might be right, do you have any evidence to support that in the particular case of same-sex couples and wedding services that is in fact a real risk that is either manifesting or a reasonable prospect of manifesting? Do you have anything more than Betteridge style questions and weasel words like 'might'?Merely questioning (as in questioning alone, with no argument or support of any kind to go along with it) something can harm a cause, even as you support it - see MLK's letter for his reasonable argument as to this. Without support, without any reason it is at best a useless gesture, at worst it can raise the consciousness of others to also baselessly question things eroding cultural/social support for 'the cause' that you have concerns regarding.I approached this as if your contribution was the neutral case and tried to elicit details from you. You seemed unwilling to do it. When I pointed out that with the same amount of evidence you have given, I could turn the question back on you, you became apparently fixated on the notion that I was calling you part of the problem.I acknowledge Tatchell raises some valid points, even as I ultimately disagree with him, - and you raise the 'question' that insinuates that this might be because of the messenger not the message evidencing some kind of prejudice on my part? This is abject silliness.Just admit you have no argument of your own with regards particularly to the wedding cake issue, that you have no evidence of gay activists targeting bakers, that there is no more reason to suppose these actions are doing more harm than good than there is to suppose they are doing more good than harm. Or provide the evidence, provide the reasons. Is this not a reasonable request/criticism? You make the claims, you raise the questions - is it so petty of me to ask you questions in return and have some kind of expectation of a response?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You did sneak in a difference here. In most cases that I've seen it is the business owners that are refusing, not merely employees.

OK, now I know. Can we agree that your former statement:

quote:

---

It's GAY MARRIAGE that's the problem because of the SCOTUS RULING that requires me to treat it as legitimate which the Bible says I cannot.

---

Is a red herring? It's nothing to do with the SCOTUS RULING and everything to do with what words people, not just the government. choose to use, right?

But it's the effect that matters, not the thought. If the effect of your discriminating against a theological position is discriminating against a person, that's a problem.Thus a Muslim funeral director that denies service for a Christian funeral on the grounds that God cannot be a man in their theological view, that still results in a Christian being denied service. And that's a problem. If Islam became the majority religion, would you want this precedent being set? I'm happy to concede to that.But you should also concede that rights often come into conflict with one another and primacy has to be established. The right for a cult that sacrifices virgins for religious reasons has to be denied in favour of the rights of the virgins to not be sacrificed for instance.Likewise I think it reasonable that the right to equal access to services takes primacy over the rights to deny those services for religious reasons. But...that's what we have. And that's what you are objecting to. What are you thinking of here? How would you envisage these legal provisions protecting gays? What should be consequence to those that ignored those laws do you think?

I'm asking you what you think, aren't I?I've already given you my solution - avoid businesses you can't in good conscience carry out within the confines of the law.I asked you what a law to protect the gays should look like. I am serious like a heart attack on resolving this problem. Perhaps you could join me rather than dismissing me everytime I try to engage you in a discussion?

Cogent. See? That wasn't so hard to admit was it? We could have moved past this question a long time ago if you'd have done it sooner. Correct. I have no problems with questions or uncertainty. I have a problem with the fact it took you so long to admit you got nothing but questions. But since you have no evidence for your questions again I ask the same question: Might your questions result in more harm than good? Yeah, it's were two people go back and forth with ideas and explore an issue, sometimes on opposite sides of an issue. It isn't asking a hypothetical question and then repeating it over and over again as someone tries to talk to you. But only if you approach them with honesty. By admitting the hypotheticals have no evidential basis for instance. At which point I can say 'Why should I care?' Let's remember that you started with a little more than hypotheticals, so I'd like to also point out that questioning your questions has produced the result that you've backed off some of your earlier points:

quote:

---

Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.

---

quote:

---

Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.

---

quote:

---

LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.

---

No evidence of any targeting or gays looking for a fight. Concession accepted.

quote:

---

Just pick your fights shrewdly otherwise you risk being seen not being normal, nice etc.

---

No evidence of any unshrewd fights being picked. Concession accepted.

quote:

---

There is a difference between saying 'never do this' and 'do this more strategically'.

---

No evidence what would be 'more strategic' so meaningless management speak as I originally claimed 'Do good things, but more optimally'. Concession accepted.

quote:

---

if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector.

---

No evidence that this is in fact true. Concession accepted. Not that this is not a hypothetical what if. This this is a 'if this then this' statement. So if you are backing off ino the world of 'what ifs' then concession is accepted.

quote:

---

it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes

---

Nothing supporting your belief of likelihood. Concession accepted.So why should I take your question or your concerns seriously?What ifs are important, if they are discussed. Their merits and likelihoods can or are explored. Just shooting the shit is at best useless, at worst harmful. There is literally no way it can help.So if you want to discuss, how about we turn to the Ashers case. I raised some reasons why I thought that ultimately the decision was correctly found - (though I should say I'm not necessarily on board with all of the courts arguments in favour of the decision). What do you make of them? This is a debate forum - It is perfectly legitimate in this medium to point out you have no evidence, no supporting arguments and to criticize this fact. Said the Creationist to the scientist.

Well yes. But its the actual discrimination against person that we're talking about. Offering only partial services is still discrimination. Well what if the funeral director will help arrange flowers and other associated services but refuses to provide coffins. But only when it's Christian patrons that request? Well do you concede that rights do come into conflict and some kind or prioritisation is required for legal reasons. Thus the right to life supercedes the right to practice one's freedom if the two come into conflict where one's religion demands the taking of a life such as with human sacrifice? I disagree. If we can find a way to protect both that we are both happy with, we can join forces to ask our legislatures to craft a new law. It isn't necessarily discriminating against persons based on their membership of a particular group but it can be. For instance, refusing to sell guns to black people because you believe they are all thugs while also selling them hats, coats, fishing rods and so on - is discriminatory right? On the other hand, refusing to sell anybody an Uzi with the words 'death to white people' engraved on it should be acceptable.Refusing a request of a same-sex couple can be fine - but the reason should be 'we are too busy take on new orders' or 'we lack the skills for your particular request' or something. But blanket refusing all same-sex couples a particular service or good is just as discriminatory as doing it against Christians, Jews, women or black people. I don't think that'd work. It might save the embarrassment of being refused - but it'd still serve to undermine their equal access and diminishes their equality and freedom to participate in publicly available trade. If ALL businesses were to do this - it would of course be a big problem. And there are cases where in order to obtain certain services people have had to travel for long distances because of localised universal refusals. This does not seem like a decent society to live in and it is the kind of thing that could in theory be turned back on Christians which I'm sure you'd agree wouldn't be acceptable. It'd be annoying and unjust if you had to travel 200 miles once a month to pick a prescription just because you are a Christian, to give an extreme example, right? As a more likely one - imagine being unable to acquire a loan from a bank (that is happy to provide other services to you) because it's a Christian bank and they believe one should not practice usury against one's brother (Exodus 22:24, Leviticus 25:36) - but they'd give loans to atheists and Muslims without problem. Imagine if all your local banks felt this way - imagine if that pushed you to get loans from people you don't trust or you yourself have religious problems with. What then? The problem, of course, is that there are many 'Christian' points of view, and the government cannot adjudicate that one of them is the right one. One Christian might argue that serving black people certain goods is unChristian, a Jew might argue serving a Muslim certain things is unJewish, a Muslim might argue serving a woman certain things is unIslamic.Obviously taking into account every single religious viewpoint in who is allowed equal access to services is unworkable. A particularly despised social/ethnic group might find themselves driven out of an area or even unable to find service anywhere if it was thought to be religiously or philosophically unethical to serve them as a public business.So I think this angle ultimately can't work.If a Muslim believed selling clothes to women was unIslamic, but was happy to sell women's clothes to men (under the belief they were being bought for wives, sisters etc) would you be defending this? What if all clothes shops for 100 miles were Muslim? Would you think it fair that you had to move to a completely new area just because it upset the local Muslim sensibility?Laws have to be universal and secular, they can't just take your personal religious beliefs into account, the last thing you want is to give the government the power to determine whose religious beliefs should have power and weight in law. They might choose wrong, right?

No. Several points of clarification1) Nobody is demanding services from people that can't in all conscience supply them. They are, at most, demanding that if you are going to provide services you should do so equally. You can't decline sandwiches to black people, or cars to women. Even if you also serve coffee to black people or sell car seats to women.
2) You've already conceded that there isn't any known case or better yet, any particular tendency for the LGBT community to have known that the business can't in good conscience provide it.I am saying that if you can't provide the service equally, don't provide the service at all. The law in Oregon that protected Rachel and Laurel was passed in March 2007 and a transitional period of about 9 months was given. They were discriminated against 5 years after the transitional period. It's been ten years now. We're way beyond that time. Sweet Cakes by Melissa opened in May of 2007 according to my researchThat's not what the findings by the Bureau of Labor and Industries found after examining the evidence. It's not what I found after examining the evidence. You haven't supported the position that it is 'about the cake'. I don't think even the Kleins would agree it was merely about the cake. It was never about the cake. What evidence are you talking about? I have already explained in some detail why not just shrug it off. Short answer: humans are humans. Go look up my longer form answers if you need further clarification. They tried to shrug it off as best they could, although the Klein's did go to the media and publish their personal details which made it all the more difficult to do so given the familial problems this caused. And I have already said that they did go next door, so to speak. They didn't demand Sweet Cakes provide their wedding cake. I don't see what is intolerant about reporting a violation of trading regulations. Again I've already gone over this, why are you still asking these questions without including any apparent indication you are taking the answers already given into consideration? I think reporting problems to an independent board is taking the high ground. Continuing practices of that behaviour, which the Kleins loudly and proudly proclaimed they would, could result in further harm being done down later down the line. This isn't about 'the cause' as I've said. This isn't about a slight, as I've said. I'm not arguing it is necessary to 'prosecute' every case (where prosecute means, report trading violations to the applicable board). There have been 400,000 same-sex marriages in the US approximately. There have been a handful of these cases that I am aware of. I expect there has been a lot more violations out of those 400,000. Just because they have become the subject of international media discussions doesn't mean they are common, only interesting. Don't fall for the same selection bias that makes people think that terrorism is something to fear where swimming pools and asthma are not.

Well that depends on what you call a Christian. We know Faith has some pretty tight rules about what qualifies, and Catholics may not qualify under those terms. I'm not interested in that debate and it's not really pertinent.There is some group of people who have certain religious beliefs that they believe prohibit them from providing certain services. Faith calls them 'Christians', you think that's too broad. We can call them 'Bigots' or 'Chriso-Fascists' or 'Crapians' or 'First Adventist Baptists of the original Protestant Church according to the Mind of Faith and the law of God and Holy Word of Jesus'. It doesn't matter. The group exists and the question at hand is how to deal with the conflict their religious rights and the rights of equal access of gays presents - whatever label we choose to give them.This is reflected in what I said:

quote:

---

The problem, of course, is that there are many 'Christian' points of view, and the government cannot adjudicate that one of them is the right one. One Christian might argue that serving black people certain goods is unChristian, a Jew might argue serving a Muslim certain things is unJewish, a Muslim might argue serving a woman certain things is unIslamic.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I wasn't talking law, I was talking morality.It is immoral to discriminate against gays, blacks, women etc. Blacks do not have a duty to ensure service providers are not racist and then simply avoid that. Asking them to would not be the moral response. Suggesting they have a duty to do so, even less so. I've not denied this. You were asking a question that included a state of knowledge. I made two points, one directly at the question, one at the state of knowledge. There is no evidence that gay people have asked someone bake a cake or whatever with foreknowledge of refusal. I don't think it would be a particular problem if they did, to answer the question you seem to be hinting at. And I've already answered this question in my previous responses. Sometimes it might be, sometimes it might not be. Case by case basis. If you want to cite an actual case, or even discuss a particular hypothetical one, I'm all ears. There is no one answer to a question such as this, some legal cases can be overly litigious, exhibit some kind of animus in their motivation and so on, some don't. I've not seen any examples that raise to this kind of level to date with regards to bakers and wedding cakes and therefore I certainly don't see this as a general patternThere is no evidence that gays always sue in these situations, and evidence that in fact they don't.In general and in every case I know of in particular the answer is 'yes' it is moral, and 'no' that does not suggest any universal obligation to sue. And I'm saying 'no'. If you want to argue otherwise, feel free to. It's not the person paying for it being refused that is the intrinsic problem. After all, if I refused to sell something to someone because I had good reason to expect it was a gift for a black person, that'd still be an issue. It's not very indirect. A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. Just because you are not the gay people they are discriminating against it doesn't mean it isn't discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality.The effect is a suppression of services that are to the benefit of a protected class because of the membership of the benefactors in said protected class. To go back in history, this is just as bad as refusing to provide goods to 'nigger lovers' who are buying things for black people. A specific case is useful to highlight issues because humans aren't easily generalisable and there are few cases to generalise from, we may as well examine the specific cases. But if you insist on talking generally then I have to ask - do you have any evidence that in general the queer community doesn't just shrug it off? Without resorting to "in some particular cases some gays haven't" it seems there is no way you can know this, so the question is moot. The point being you never hear about the gays that do shrug off this kind of thing. That's one reason I warned against the perils of selection bias. Yes and I see by your brevity that you don't want to discuss your position in more detail. I've already given the details of my counterargument so that's the end of that line of discussion. Show evidence that discretion isn't employed and consideration of the other side's feeling isn't being given. In general.Take a look at my responses to Faith in this thread as an example of what me taking her feelings seriously looks like specifically. On the other hand here the consideration you have been paying:

quote:

---

deluded so-called Christians

---

quote:

---

right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off

---

quote:

---

closed-minded bigots

---

quote:

---

primitive prejudice

---

quote:

---

religious idiot

---

quote:

---

You either didn't read, or read and ignored - in classic Faith fashion

---

quote:

---

silly people

---

quote:

---

The Christians with their bonkers beliefs

---

quote:

---

you're talking to people who are on your side. People who hate these bigots at least as much as you do.

---

By asking for equal access to goods and services as straight people have? Doesn't sound like singling themselves out. Christians of various stripes have been provoking gays for a long time. They gays provocation is 'may I have access to your goods and services the same as a straight person would, please?' Even if that were true, gays have been there for years and years and were unprotected by laws in contradiction to western beliefs. The laws have been around for like a decade (Oregon passed its law in 2007 and gave businesses nearly a year to adopt - the shop that got sued for a six figure amount opened AFTER the law was passed). They've had plenty of time, they were given 9 months notice, many bakers manage to get by without doing wedding cakes. Your solution is for gays to give up their freedoms, dignity and equality. I think these outweigh the concerns of the bakers. Can you tell me why they shouldn't? I think any injustice for bakers is outweighed by the injustice being done to gays.Do you agree that your right to life overrides my right to kill you for religious reasons?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.