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.
If there is no actual discrimination against persons but only a specific request I don't see how you can justify making it a bigger thing than that.
Unlike a funeral denying a specific cake doesn't preclude the customer's having anything else in the bakery.
Thanks for conceding that it IS a violation of freedom of religion.
What you said about needing to establish primacy is what led me to assume you weren't interested in thinking about how to find a solution that would protect both parties. So I guess I got that wrong.
I'd also be for any legal provision that would protect gays against the painful encounters that they are suing about.
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
As long as the law says businesses can't refuse to serve a gay wedding there isn't much point in looking for a way to protect both. First something would have to be established along the lines of Tatchell's observations that discriminating against a particular request is not discriminating against persons.
Then what would I have in mind? I was hoping you or someone else might have an idea. All I think of is making sure everybody knows where everybody else stands. Some kind of information campaign. "Christians can't serve a gay wedding but you can have anything else you want." Brochures about the business explaining all that. Some businesses here put the fish symbol on their door which says they are Christians, but many don't like to do that becase it creates unreasonable expectations or something like that.
But again, I think first the law would have to change to take the Christian point of view into account.
Re: Faith in her own words. "it doesn't apply to us at all "
I can't read your long post and don't see any reason to make the effort. The last line is enough to tell me there's no point: there is no such thing as "ceremonial" fornication if you mean that by being ceremonial it is not a sin. That's ridiculous.
When you open a bakery to sell to the public at large then you have entered the secular world where you must follow secular laws. You can't select a subset of the public to sell to.
It is NOT "a subset of the public" not being served, it's a PARTICULAR SERVICE that is refused, like refusing to write "Same Sex Marriage is a Great Thing" on a cake.
And it is discriminating against Christians to force us to provide a service that violates our religious conscience. Which is what the law legalizing gay marriage does to businesses that serve weddings. I think Tatchell got it right in his opinion piece.
Totalitarianism is basically forcing people to conform to a particular belief system, political viewpoint, etc. Political Correctness is totalitarianism. Forcing a secular point of view on religious people is a form of totalitarianism. Defining business as secular in order to justify it is a political tool == or weapon. Totalitarianism isn't just an established social or governmental system, it's an attitude that justifies forcing conformity of thought on everybody whether that has yet been enforced at the point of a gun or not. The Left today follows Mother Communism in its tyrannical Political Correctness that viciously brands people as racist sexist homophobic xenophobic bigoted haters and all the rest of it without any justification whatever, to intimidate and control people and deprive them of free speech. Europe is in mental shackles thanks to PC. In America there are still a few of us left fighting it.
ABE: Islam is totalitarian: nobody who disagrees with Islam is free from persecution in some form or other wherever Islam rules, and their ultimate aim is to conform the entire world to Islam.
During the years when Roman Catholicism ruled Europe it was totalitarian, enforcing its doctrine on pain of torture and death. It is still totalitarian but doesn't at the moment have the power to enforce it. You can find statements on its books condemning all the freedoms America stands for.
Communism is of course totalitarian, famous for murdering dissidents and anybody who might criticize the powers that be or just not conform to the party line.
Totalitarianism is collectivist, anti-individualist, anti-freedom, conformist, tyrannical etc etc etc.
quote:
It is NOT "because of who they are," it's because of what the service represents.
Of course it is because of who they are. That is what it is all about.
quote:
And the Christians are ALSO hurt, punished for acting on their religious convictions.
Better to punish the guilty rather than the innocent. Acting out of "religious conviction" is not and cannot be carte blanche to ignore the law. Until you can come up with a principled way to determine when exceptions are made - that does not lead to obvious problems - the best solution is to give these poor people a better understanding of Christianity. Not that you cared enough about these "Christians" to even remember the laws involved until yesterday.
Here's an example: the comedian Tim Allen has been in the news for saying that the atmosphere these days is like the 30s in Germany. When I first saw the headline it was worded ambiguously enough to make me wonder if he was an anti-Trumper, since Trump is accused all the time these days of being a "fascist" although there isn't the slightest justification for that accusation -- it's just PC propaganda to stir up the public against him. It goes on all the time these days and of course lots of people believe it. Trump is in fact a true proponent of individual freedoms, that's why so many of us voted for him and continue to support him. The propaganda against Trump is in the same category as the effort to destroy Sessions by calling him a racist although he happens to have a sterling record of civil rights work. It's all typical totalitarian character assassination propaganda.
Anyway, the headline seemed to imply at least the possibility that Allen was a leftist criticizing the Nazi atmosphere created by the right. I did read the article and it became clear it was the Left he was criticizing for their violent objections to anyone who disagrees with them. THAT's what he meant about it being like the 30s these days. (And I would add the propaganda character assassination tactics to that observation myself. Very much Germany in the 30s, or the atmosphere in any totalitarian system.) I was thinking of doing a post on it as an example of fake news but Allen was making too much of a joke out of it, which took the steam out of such a project. The joking did at least make it possible for him to say it at all, however, so there's that plus to it. .
SO TODAY there is another headline about Tim Allen, this time criticizing him for comparing today's atmosphere with the Nazi era as an offense to the Jews:
The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect demanded an apology from actor Tim Allen after he compared life for Hollywood conservatives to living in "'30s Germany."
That era, of course, was when Adolf Hilter rose to power and the Nazis began their campaign of mass extermination of Jews and many others they deemed undesirable. The Anne Frank Center called Allen's comparison "deeply offensive" and said it "trivializes the horrors imposed on Jews in Nazi Germany."
PC controls people by guilt. It's hard to object to Jews feeling offended by comparisons with anything to do with the Holocaust because of course that was horrific beyond any kind of comparison we can come up with.
HOWEVER, it is nevertheless a species of PC tyranny to attack someone for making what is really a very apt comparison -- not on the scale of the Nazi era but very definitely the same species of phenomena. His point was that you can't say what you think in Hollywood, especially you can't even hint that you might think well of Donald Trump, just a teensy bit, without somebody being ferociously outraged at your offensive belief. And now a Jewish organization is also offended at him for daring to mention the atmosphere of intimidation that reminds him of Germany in the 30s.
Jokingly complaining about the atmosphere of totalitarian PC makes him a victim of it from another angle.
Again, PC makes it hard to complain about people being offended. I certainly would rather not be in the position of criticizing an organization dedicated to Anne Frank. And I'll probably get lambasted for it too. But if people don't point out the effect of PC in these things it's just going to roll over all of us in the end and we won't be able to say anything against any kind of tyranny that grows out of PC.
So we'll have to deny that there is any intimidation going on at all. That's how Europe is getting killed. You can't talk about the violence of the Muslim immigrants at all because that would make you racist, so the violence can get worse with nothing restraining it.'
So I'm hoping Allen will not apologize. He should agree that the Holocaust is on a different level and he meant no offense, but he has to be allowed to make such an apt comparison or we're all going under.
Perhaps, but you definition of intolerance appears to include tolerance for intolerance, which causes the conundrum you are expressing here.
If we tolerate something we are, by definition, putting up with or ignoring something we don't like - in this case having a cake refused. Or a photographer refusing his services at a gay wedding. Or a hotelier refusing a room. (For some reason I find the refusal of a room far more uncomfortable than a cake.)
Are the witholders of the service being more intolerant than those demanding of a service, knowing that they feel that their beliefs don't permit them to supply it? I think it's a fine balance.
The witholders are not demanding the wearing of a pink triangle, they're not refusing to speak to them or share a seat on a bus. They're not on the streets campaigning against them or spitting at them. They're just not selling them a cake. Not just any cake - they'll happily sell them an every-day normal cake - just not a wedding cake. That says that it's not you I have a problem with, it's my dumb belief about weddings. (That can be proven by the fact that they wouldn't sell me the cake either, nor could I sue them for refusal as I'm not in a protected class. Yet.)
A refusal to sell them a normal cake would be real discrimination - as would any of the other horrors above and that's what I think most people understand by it and would get me onto the streets in support of.
I accept that the cake etc is symbolic of deeper things - that's a given. But there are choices to be made here. The upset person can get the service elsewhere or sue. Suing will always win - in the UK at least, and it looks like the US too - because we have anti-discrimination laws that are by-and-large supported and enforced even when the discrimination is as indirect as this cake business. We as modern democratic societies have accepted that discrimination is a wrong in all its forms.
But I'm also worried about the rights and feelings of those that refuse the services. There's no reason that I know of to suppose that these people are neo-nazis persecuting gays in their spare time. I suspect they're just ordinary citizens just going about their business as they see fit and according to their own beliefs. Suddenly they find themselves confronted with choosing between their livelyhoods and their beliefs.
I do have some sympathy for that. (Though of course I disagree totally with their dumb beliefs.)
So tolerate the silly people and buy your cake next door, knowing that they're an anachronism that will eventualy disappear because the main battle has been won or sue them over trivia?
I can see the need to sue inorder to send the general message that discrimination will not be tolerated at any level, and because undoubtably sometimes real harm has been done. But more usually I suspect it's just a bloody cake - move on.
I make an open assertion that be totally intolerant of others feelings and beliefs regardless of circumstances isn't good for society in general. By all means sue the arse of the real bigots but maybe turn the cheek in the Christian way when the harm is slight and uninteded.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I've already given you my solution - avoid businesses you can't in good conscience carry out within the confines of the law.
I replied at length to your reply to me, then lost is as my battery failed. I haven't the heart to redo it. See my response to NoNukes later - it covers the ground I'm interested in.
But your response to Faith tweaked my interest.
Don't you think that the LGBT community also has a duty to avoid demanding services from those they know can't in all conscience supply them?
Of course accidental contact can't be avoided and at that point there are choices to be made - see the No Nukes response - but there's a transitional period here.
The Christians with their bonkers beliefs have been trading since before the legislation, the discrimination is low level and indirect - the evidence is that it's about the cake not the person. Why not just shrug and go next door? Why not show the tolerance that you wish to be shown? Take the high ground and wait for this generation of 'nice' bigots to decline naturally. Is it really necessary to prosecute every and all slights against the cause?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It is NOT "a subset of the public" not being served, it's a PARTICULAR SERVICE that is refused, like refusing to write "Same Sex Marriage is a Great Thing" on a cake.
This adds to my confusion over which situation you're talking about: writing on a cake or selling a cake. I'm sympathetic about the particular message requested for a cake, but refusing to sell a cake is a denial of service. Once you open a bakery to the public you can't do that. Or for another example, two gays are in a restaurant celebrating their first anniversary and request a mini-cake with a candle just like the mini-cake served at the next table for a heterosexual couple's first anniversary. They can't be refused because the restaurant is open to the public.
It's also inconsistent, as has been pointed out before, to sell other bakery items to gays but not wedding cakes. You quoted the Bible saying homosexuality is an abomination, so providing any service to gays should be abhorrent to Christians like yourself. It would be more consistent to object to having them in your bakery at all, though even more bigoted and discriminatory.
Totalitarianism is basically forcing people to conform to a particular belief system, political viewpoint, etc. Political Correctness is totalitarianism. Forcing a secular point of view on religious people is a form of totalitarianism.
You've defined totalitarianism correctly, but political correctness is not totalitarianism, and secular points of view are not being forced upon you. Everyone, including you, is still guaranteed the free practice of their religion as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Modulous introduced the concept of primacy to this thread. Where people of the various religions and no religion come together is the secular world, and while in the secular world you must follow secular norms and laws. The real problem for you isn't political correctness but that the secular norm you liked (gays are bad) has evolved to a norm you don't like (gays are just like us).
Re: Tim Allen, the latest victim of totalitarian PC
This adds to my confusion over which situation you're talking about: writing on a cake or selling a cake. I'm sympathetic about the particular message requested for a cake, but refusing to sell a cake is a denial of service.
This brings up a point I have been thinking about (but haven't had time to post) and maybe you or others could offer some feedback.
A custom made wedding cake seems to me to be an artistic creation... a form of expression, or a form of speech and as such it should be protected under the right to free speech. More specifically, no one should be forced to use their speech to support a position they don't agree with. I think we would all agree that if one was approached to give an oral speech that supports the validity of same sex marriage, they should not be compelled to do so. Also if someone was contracted to write or publish an article supporting same sex marriage in their public newsletter, they should have the right to refuse to do so. I would think this should apply to other forms of artistic expression as well, such as painting, photography, music, etc... If a wedding cake represents the artistic expression of the creator of that cake, is it not a form of speech very much like using words?
Or for another example, two gays are in a restaurant celebrating their first anniversary and request a mini-cake with a candle just like the mini-cake served at the next table for a heterosexual couple's first anniversary. They can't be refused because the restaurant is open to the public.
But that would be a standard "off the shelf" cake, not a custom, artistic creation. And providing that service should not violate the server's conscience since there is no "speech" involved. It should be little different than serving a steak. I agree that would be denial of service.
But where I see issues is that just about anything could be defined as 'artistic' in an attempt to deny service (such as the stock cakes mentioned above) and I would not be in favor of that. But I tend to agree with Tangle in Message 522 in that there are two sets of rights involved here and both sides should be respectful of the other's rights.
To be honest, I am not sure what I would do under those circumstances. I don't agree with same sex marriage, but I understand that not everyone feels the same way and I respect their right to have a different opinion and to choose a lifestyle that I disagree with. So, Idk, I think the whole thing is blown way out of proportion and both sides, in an attempt to preserve their rights and be true to their conscience have made it way too big a deal.
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
™ Version 4.2
(1)