Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

NoNukes responds to me:

quote:

---

Didn't I already say that i was perfectly okay with suing and/or boycotting?

​

But I can understand that such a tactic might not achieve all that much if I tried it in Northwest Arkansas.

---

You do understand that your second sentence directly contradicts your first, yes?First, there are no protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in Arkansas. Thus, there is no recourse when it happens. That's why the incidents of gay couples going to establishments like bakers in places like Texas don't have any lawsuits happening: They aren't allowed to be filed because it is legal to discriminate against gay people there.But if the law does exist, if there are protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, exactly how does it "not achieve all that much" to actually use them?Once again, you're substituting your judgement for someone else's. You're not living their lives. You have no idea what they expect to accomplish by suing. For most of these people, they're not in it for the money. Remember, nobody puts their wedding on hold for years in order to settle a lawsuit...and they certainly don't expect to force the proprietor to serve them specifically.They're in it for another reason.And you don't get to tell them what it is or that it "doesn't achieve all that much."Nobody's expecting you to take up arms.You are being expected to not get in the way.

PaulK writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You seem to have not noticed that I dealt with that, too

---

That's because you didn't.

---

Except that I did. You know..that part where I specifically called her out by name? That's where I did.You did read my post before responding, didn't you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Remember, we can see your posts

---

I certainly do.

---

Then you should be careful about denying things you wrote.

quote:

---

You should also notice that my post is in a thread started by Faith to make the claim that "Gay Marriage is an assault in Christianity" and the first sentence describes her argument in the OP.

---

Yes, but I was responding to an internal point and then went on to discuss Faith.Do you not understand anything about rhetoric? My god, you just said that we can see the posts, and yet here you are pretending like we can't. Do you just really like to see posts repeated?Here's the entirety of your post (Message 145): And here's the entirety of my response (Message 151) You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made: I was generalizing out to the world at large. The attempts to point out that the so-called "Christian" message of doing good by your neighbors, respecting the laws of the country you are in, how being courteous and kind even to people whom you think to be the devil incarnate is not a sin, that's all been tried.And sometimes it works.But the government is not the one to give that lecture. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws.And in the case of Faith, who will no doubt see any attempt to tell her that she doesn't understand her claimed religion as an attack (and potentially rightly so), it hasn't worked. Thus, we need the law.

quote:

---

Which simply demonstrates another failure to read in context on your part.

---

And thus, we trivially prove this claim to be false.

quote:

---

As should be clear from my earlier posts the assertion that "...it is not considered..." applies to Faith's argument.

---

You seem to have forgotten again that we have your post, NoNukes. You see, I just quoted it above. Oh, it's in the ellipsis. Let me give the full quote: Emphasis added.So which is it, NoNukes? Was the "poor grounding in Christian doctrine" brought out in this discussion or was it not? If the "poor grounding in Christian doctrine" argument "is not considered."Try again.Here's a thought: Were you trying to say that "is not considered" is applicable to Faith or to those fighting against bigotry? Think about my response, because I deal with both aspects. Faith won't accept it (nor should she have to) and the people fighting have tried.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

You just can't help yourself can you? If you want to discuss this with me you're going to have to turn down the aggression and stop calling me - among other things - a liar. Try it, you might make more progress.

---

If you don't like being called out for your actions, stop engaging in those actions.You say you wish a "reasoned and reasonable discussion" and then immediately follow it by sneering you didn't read the post.Those two actions are in conflict, Tangle. People are complicated and can easily have contradictory feelings at different times, but let us not play dumb.If you want to have a "reasoned and reasonable discussion," you're going to have to turn down the attitude and start engaging.Try it.You might make more progress.

PaulK responds to me:

quote:

---

I certainly did.

---

Clearly, you didn't. Or, you wouldn't be saying just a bit down:

quote:

---

To repeat you STILL have not noticed that when I wrote

​

...That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.

​

I was referring to Faith's argument.

---

Because lookie here! Here's what I wrote:

quote:

---

Here's a thought: Were you trying to say that "is not considered" is applicable to Faith or to those fighting against bigotry? Think about my response, because I deal with both aspects. Faith won't accept it (nor should she have to) and the people fighting have tried.

---

So, trivially proven false.Do you like appearing as an obtuse idiot that can't admit his errors when they are pointed out? Because that is what you're doing.So now that we've both decided the other is a fool, what next? I can keep pointing out that you didn't notice that I responded about Faith's argument, but what good will that do? I can keep pointing out your mistake again and again, but since you won't admit to it, where do we go from here?it's your argument, NoNukes. If you think I've completely missed it, why don't you try restating it another way?Oh, lookie here! You tried!

quote:

---

Let me try rephrasing. One of the problems with Faith's argument is that she fails to consider that the business owners would be better off seeing that they do not have to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

---

And why do you think that is?Could it possibly be because, as she directly stated, she doesn't think they would be better off? Is not getting sued worth selling your soul to the devil? Because that's her opinion.And, as I directly stated in my response, she's entitled to it. It's only because of the specific religion she chose that we can even have an argument that she might not have the best grounding on Christian doctrine. What happens when we come along the next baker who refuses to provide service to a gay couple on the basis of religion and they aren't a Christian? What then?

quote:

---

Which would certainly be true if they were duped by the opponents of gay marriage into believing that they had a religious duty to discriminate.

---

And there we are: It doesn't matter what religion they follow. The law in those states where people got sued is that you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. And no, there is no religious exemption to that regulation. Just as we didn't coddle people trying to claim a religious exemption to serving black people during the Civil Rights Era, we aren't going to coddle people trying to claim a religious exemption to serving gay people now.Of course, that still leaves the original problem: Is not getting sued worth selling your soul to the devil?Well, I provided a solution: Private contractor. They have much more freedom regarding who they will serve as clients. If a person's immortal soul is at stake, then don't open your business to the public.That is what Faith refuses to consider.There's another option. It's the one that the florist in Washington chose: Don't do weddings. She's still in business, but she no longer caters to weddings. You can't be "forced to validate" a gay wedding if you don't provide your services for weddings.And I say this because Faith shouldn't have to change her religious opinion. That's the point behind religious freedom: Stick to your beliefs. The regulations that we have regarding activity in the public square might require you to avoid certain parts of it if those beliefs are in conflict, but nobody is going to demand that you change them.And that's why in this thread I haven't really tried to discuss religious dogma with Faith.It's irrelevant. If she thinks selling something to a gay couple that will be used during a wedding is "validating" the wedding, more power to her. I'd like to know how since my opinion is that the only ones "validating" the wedding are the people getting married and the officiant. Everything else is just window dressing. It doesn't matter the religious background...I want to know the physical mechanics of how having a flower upon someone's jacket "validates" the wedding.She just needs to pay attention to how she's interacting with the public so that she doesn't break the law by stepping on other people's rights.I do think we both agree on that point, at least.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

just not willing to discuss it with someone who can't control his behaviour.

---

And yet, I'm still talking to you, so clearly I am willing to discuss it...even with people who can't control their behaviour.Drop the attitude, stop running away from rebuttals of your argument, try to pay attention to what other people are saying.You never know, you just might learn something. Or not. But you'll never know if you're forever running away.

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

I'm making a general point that a very major battle has been won

---

Really? What was won?When Loving v. Virginia was decided, did that mean there was fair housing?

quote:

---

it's a brilliant achievement, it would be a shame if it lost some of its import with the rest of society because of what you will object to me calling an over-reaction to petty bigotry - each one of which results in a national outrage polarising opinion and hardening views.

---

I see...so when Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967, it was "petty" to continue to fight for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act). It was "petty" to fight for busing as a means to desegregate schools (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 1971)? It was "petty" to fight for affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978)? It was "petty" to fight to revoke the tax exempt status of schools that practice racial discrimination (Bob Jones University v. The United States, 1983)?Heck, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. What is "petty" to fight for marriage rights in Loving v. Virginia?After all, it just "resulted in a national outrage polarizing opinion and hardening views." Are you seriously arguing that because bigots gotta bigot, people shouldn't actually fight for their rights? The only time we should stand up for ourselves is when nobody would be upset by doing so?What are these "petty" incidents you keep talking about? Who died and made you the arbiter of what was "petty"?What's the point of having an anti-discrimination law if you are "petty" for invoking it when required?

quote:

---

People are allowed to have opinions that differ from other people, or so I'm told.

---

Yep.And other people are allowed to have opinions on your opinion such as pointing out the inherent bigotry in said opinion.If you don't like having your opinions scrutinized, perhaps you should reconsider where you express them. Freedom of speech does not come with freedom from response or freedom from consequences.

PaulK runs away:

quote:

---

And you are wrong again. Obviously if you had realised that I WAS talking about Faith's argument (after being told repeatedly) you wouldn't have to ask.

---

And you are wrong again. Obviously, if you had realized that when I said the name, "Faith," I WAS talking about Faith (after being shown repeatedly), you wouldn't keep saying I wasn't.So, assuming you wish to continue, you can admit that you were wrong, that you were ridiculously obtuse, and apologize for all this silly time-wasting nonsense.See, I can sling it just as easily as you.

PaulK runs away:

quote:

---

I'm not running away.

---

And yet your tail is between your legs.

quote:

---

But really what can be said to a lying bully who thinks he gets to dictate what I meant ?

---

You mean you didn't write the things you wrote?If you didn't mean it what you wrote, why did you write it? If you think you've been misinterpreted, why don't you rephrase?Remember, everyone can see your posts. They can see me quoting you again and again. They can see you trying to pretend that you didn't write what you wrote.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

You and others keep talking about "baking a cake" as if this is about a small affair of the sort you'd make in your own kitchen.

---

As someone who has done this for a living, that's precisely what it is. You do understand that many bakers work out of their own kitchens, yes? The only need for industrial equipment is if your volume is such that you need to make that much that fast. All you need as an oven, a flat space to work, a turntable, and some skill with a pastry bag.There is no magic.

quote:

---

This is just a reminder that a wedding cake is a special custom creation that takes days to put together and costs a LOT of money.

---

Just like every other cake such as these birthday cakes: And by the way: That image you chose of the black-and-white tiers with the flowers? That came up under "birthday cake." You will note that there's nothing about that cake that screams "wedding." Surely you aren't saying that graduated tier cakes can only be served at weddings, are you?Don't confuse the fact that *you* are incapable of creating such a cake with some sort of universal trait. That's why people go to bakers, Faith: They want something they can't make for themselves.The only reason the wedding cake would "cost a LOT of money" is because you may be serving more people and that the baker is overcharging you precisely because you said the w-word.

quote:

---

Even the most minimal wedding cake is a big deal.

---

Really? If you're only having a small ceremony of a dozen people, why on earth do you need a gigantic cake?Do you really think that this cake is a "big deal" to make? Again, just because *you* are content slapping together something from Duncan Hines for your birthday doesn't mean everybody else is. Some people throw huge birthday bashes and want really fancy cakes.Did you pay attention to the inauguration? They had a cake there. Well, Trump had a copy of Obama's inaugural cake, but it was a presentation piece. Is that not allowed? Only weddings get to have fancy cakes?Have you not heard of any of the baking reality shows and competitions? They make cakes for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with weddings from grand openings to celebrations of sports teams to birthdays to....Here's one Duff of Charm City Cakes did for New Year: That probably took a lot of work and more skill then you and I have put together. Does the fact that it is so difficult to do mean they can deny service to someone based off religious objections?Here's a birthday cake they made: Why would replacing the "50" at the top with a wedding topper make it a cake that a baker has the right to refuse to sell to someone?

quote:

---

The baker puts a LOT into such a creation. It's a huge investment of the baker's personality and time.

---

So why is a wedding cake, which is no different from any other cake that the baker would make, something that the baker gets to violate anti-discrimination law on?What is the difference between a wedding cake and any other cake?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

It becomes a problem when the baker is personally engaged in doing something for a gay wedding.

---

How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

New Cat's Eye runs away:

quote:

---

Yeah, I'm not gonna read all your psycho-analysis bullshit. And correcting your misunderstandings of what I think is too laborsome.

---

So when you wrote what you wrote, you didn't actually write it? When you directly said what I quoted you as saying, you didn't actually mean it?

quote:

---

I don't think anti-discrimination laws are totalitarian.

---

And yet you have been quoted as saying that directly.

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws.

---

And yet you have been quoted as saying that directly.

quote:

---

I do think we could get along without them.

---

Thus, contradicting your first two statements.

quote:

---

And its the approach, or tactic, that is being employed that I am calling totalitarian, not the laws themselves.

---

And yet you have been quoted as saying something else.But, let's assume you're walking it all back and want to start again. Exactly how is that being done?Remember, you got the lunch counter sit-in all wrong. So was that "totalitarian" to do?What's the point of having anti-discrimination law if it is "totalitarian" to request it be enforced?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

Gays have been served by Christian businesses regularly without a problem, until this law was passed that involve special orders that entail personal involvement for a gay wedding, which is strictly forbidden because of God's ordinance of marriage as for one man and one woman.

---

Blacks have been served by Christian businesses regularly without a problem, until this law was passed that involve special orders that entail personal involvement for an interracial wedding, which is strictly forbidden because of god's ordinance of marriage as to keep the races separate.Yeah...that sounds really racist, doesn't it?If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?Remember, Faith, up until court rulings like Loving v. Virginia, that was the argument against interracial marriage: It was "against god's ordinance."

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

A cake is trivia and always will be. I understand that it stands for more than the cake, and I understand that you feel that you've suffered for being what you are, and it's fun to mess with bigots - maybe once.
But if there are continued national outrages caused by minor issues it may become counterproductive.

---

Hmmm.... Is that what you would have told the lunch counter protests? I mean, it's just lunch, right? And after they did that sit-in at the one counter, they should have stopped right there because hey, they messed with the bigots once and there's no need to continue, right? So Rosa Parks was being "petty"?Yeah, phrased that way, it sounds awfully racist to tell blacks that their fights for integration for things like water fountains and restaurants and the frickin' bus were "counterproductive." But here you are, making that exact argument to gay people."But there are more important things!" As if there's only one thing that can be done at a time, you are the Keeper of the Sacred Schedule, and until we end the war in Syria, gay people are just going to have to wait.After all, you know what's important for everybody. How dare somebody contradict you about what they consider to be important.Nobody is expecting you to take up arms.But they are expecting you to stop being part of the problem.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

A wedding cake is not something you'd find on a supermarket shelf.

---

Yes, it is.You didn't think everybody who had a wedding spent hundreds of dollars on the cake, did you?A "wedding cake" is a cake that is served at a wedding. There is nothing specific about it. There aren't special ingredients that can only be used on a wedding cake lest it explode.Remember, Faith: I used to be a cake decorator. We did out-of-the-case cakes and custom jobs.There is no difference between the two except the timing: In the former, you do all the work first and then the customer comes to buy it. In the latter, the customer comes first and then you do all the work.The work itself is identical.

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice.

---

Thus proving that you're not on the side of gay folk.Hint: Who are you to tell gay people what "their own prejudice" is?