It's about heterosexual unions, which is the natural source of children, that principle is what the benefits honor. Other funds are available for other situations anyway.
I'm just as annoyed by people who parade around their sexuality as if it's some kind of a virtue just as much as you are. But lets not conflate that to mean that it's a trait exhibited by all homosexuals, or heterosexuals, for that matter. What difference does it make if little Johnny has two mom's who love him and care for his needs? What's little Johnny's natural alternative if his biological father or mother are junkies, are pederasts, are abusers? All because it's "natural?" I don't understand that argument.
Surrogacy isn't "natural." Adoption isn't "natural" in a biological sense. Incidentally, Ebola is natural. And so is Tetanus. And cancer. It isn't natural for human beings to fly in the air in metal tubes with synthetic wings that are fueled by decaying organic matter either.... but we still do it.
You speak of nature in honorific terms, but nature is the ultimate neutral force in this world. It doesn't give a shit about our agendas or ideologies... it just is what it is.
Nature doesn't de facto = good.
Nature is..... just...... natural. And that's it. It's going to do what it does regardless of our religious convictions, or socio-political beliefs, or our deepest, time-honored traditions.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
the logical problem is that gayness is not a natural inborn category as being black or female is, it's primarily a behavior or an inclination. I know the argument is that people just seem to be born gay, but we're all "born with" whatever sins are dominant in us so that doesn't prove there is a category of homosexuality that is just natural.
If it is possible for a human being to be born with anatomically male and female parts, then why is it impossible to think that people can be born homosexual? Transsexuals are born that way, did nothing to cause it, and really have no recourse to change it. It just happened when they were forming in the womb. Why is that so difficult to imagine for homosexuals?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
There are no known physical components to homosexuality, they are either males or females like the rest of us, it's entirely an emotional/mental/psychological condition. That is also the case with transsexuals. The only physical sexual anomaly is hermaphroditism and that is very rare and that doesn't even necessarily have an emotional component. As I said I understand the compelling feelings involved -- but they are feelings, not the body itself. And again, we all have urges that are called sin that can also be quite compelling. Most sins I'm sure you wouldn't want to give civil rights status.
So then lets assume there is no biological foundation for it. How is it any different than a preference? Like being attracted to brunettes over blondes? Maybe that's biological, maybe that's sociological, maybe a little of both. Does it matter?
So homosexuality is a sin in the bible. No dispute there. But aren't they the one's who are going to have to deal with the consequences? Why be so invested in it?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
You would really equate homosexual desire with such things as preference for blondes or brunettes? Oh come on!.
If it's not biological, as you suggest, then it is entirely preferential. Is there a third option? I don't believe there is. You either were consigned to a life of homosexuality or you chose it. No?
We really should also worry about the amount of sin a society tolerates and western societies have been legally permitting all kinds of sins for decades that were formerly not permitted, easy divorce being one, which is a violation of God's law, multiple marriages, cohabitation of unmarrieds, freedom of speech granted to pornography, and of course the murder of the unborn.
The bible very clearly states that God himself is in control and puts people in charge whom he elects for his own purposes. He chose the Pharaoh. He chose Pontious Pilate. He chose Saddam Hussein. He chose Barack Obama. He chose Kim Jong Un. He chose Donald Trump, if you believe the Scriptures, that is.
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." -- Romans 13:1
It says sin is like a pit one dug for himself. Maybe a Christian should be more concerned about their own life being in check than worrying about others IF you truly believe that God is in control. A secular person has to be concerned about all kinds of things because there's no Master at the helm, in their mind.
Here's what I've noticed about certain religious convictions... ISIS being an awesome example. They love to quote from the Qur'an as they're exacting their "righteous vengeance" in the name of Allah. But what are they saying inadvertently about Allah -- about how inept and feckless they must believe him to be, that he needs the help of mere mortals to exact his righteous and indignant wrath on His behalf? What an unbelievable lack of faith. Oh, ye of little faith!!!
My point is, don't you think God is grand enough to be God without your intervention? If homosexuals are going to burn for eternity, they don't need our help in facilitating the burning, just like God is powerful enough to bring them to the Truth without our intervention.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Unless the Supreme Court decides to protect Christian wedding-related businesses from being sued and prosecuted for refusing to serve gay weddings they will have to go out of business or pay fines and so on. As I said, some freedom of religion. You can skip all the pedantic stuff about freedom of religion applying across the board because it's this particular Christian branch that's going to suffer because we oppose gay marriage on biblical grounds and won't compromise. If there are other religions with a similar position that run wedding based businesses that could get challenged, then we aren't alone, but at the moment we seem to be alone and you really didn't say anything that applies to the reality of the situation.
Assuming we are discussing the baker who recently was ruled in his favor by SCOTUS, I agree with their decision. I've offered just such a scenario in past discussions on EvC and always knew that one day a court case like this would come out. It was simply an inevitability, if you ask me.
I don't think it is right to force people with sincerely held religious convictions to marry a homosexual couple if it conflicts with their beliefs. But there are limitations to that -- namely, in this instance, that the baker was not declining all services to the couple on account that they were gay. His stipulation was that he would not make a wedding cake but offered similar services in place of that. Now, had he refused them service outright on account of their homosexuality, the ruling would have been much different.
I am hugely in favor of private businesses exercising their right to refuse service, BUT if you are serving the general public, you cannot outright discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on... and I also agree with that, that such protections are in place.
So with that, if you owned a store would you openly not serve gay people on account of their sexual orientation and just pay the fines? It's also more than fines, we're talking civil litigation. You could be sued for tens of thousands of dollars for civil rights violations.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
A similar thing was an important point in Ginsburg and Sotomayer's dissent in Masterpiece Cakeshop. They pointed out that not only did Philips refuse the request before any discussion about what text would be put onto the cake, but in Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertisements none of the wedding cakes have any text or figures or anything that would indicate any kind of marriage.
Their point is that without any visible identification about what kind of wedding the cake would go to, the cake itself cannot be considered any kind of message, and so requiring Phillips to create such a cake for a same sex couple in accordance to the state's anti-discrimination laws do not constitute a violation of Phillips' First Amendment rights.
The whole case was just so infantile, really. On the gay marriage side, so they discriminated against you? Then why on earth would you willingly want to give them your hard-earned money? Oh, because they saw an opportunity to sue the shop... that's the real reason.
And on Masterpiece's side... last time I checked, money is still green whether its coming from straight or gay patrons. Quit your whining, make/sell cakes, and move on with life... It's like Chik-Fil-A losing half of their revenue to make some kind of political statement. STFU and just sell the chicken!
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
For the second time, the Supreme Court refuse to rule on an appeal by bakers of wedding cakes against their states' anti-discrimination laws.
As we recall, reading above in this thread, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that a baker's religious rights were violated because members of the adjudicating body acted like assholes. But they never ruled on the direct question on where bakers can be compelled to provide service to gay couples' weddings.
Since then, appeals courts have continue to uphold states' anti-discrimination laws. In this second case, a baker in Oregon similarly was fined for violating the state's anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has refuse to hear the case, so the lower courts' judgement against the baker will stand.
Its a tough case, as they pointed out in their ruling that they “must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market” and was reiterated in Obergfell v Hodges that their decision “inevitably requires this court to decide whether that newly recognized marriage right can be wielded not only as a shield in defense of same-sex unions but also ” as in this case ” a sword to attack others for adhering to traditional religious beliefs about marriage.”
I think the Court recognizes that no matter which way they decide that somebody is going to feel alienated or infringed upon. Of course, if I was gay and wanted to be married I certainly wouldn't want to give my money to a shop that doesn't recognize me or my marriage as valid. On the other hand, money is still green... what do I care if the cake says Adam and Steve versus Adam and Eve as long as they are paying customers?
Three times the same shop has gone to court... seems obvious that groups are more than happy to use them as a guinea pig if it advances an agenda while other groups are more than happy to offer free legal services if it advances their agenda.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
the First Amendment was never intended to make religious belief a carte blanche.
True, but it also never intended for gay marriage to be recognized at all. So we have to look at the spirit of what is intended and try to apply them to modern times.
I doubt that anyone on the Court wants to overturn precedent and open a massive can of worms. And overturning the lower court’s decision would do that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Conservatives were all against hearing it because they didn’t want to be placeD in the position of affirming that decision.
So you mentioned that what does it matter if the other party isn't really injured. Obviously, what would it hurt the baker to make a cake with two men's name on it? Is he irreparably harmed by such an act? No, it just goes against his sincerely held beliefs. On the other hand, doesn't that same argument apply in reverse? Is that the only baker in 500 square miles? Can they not go to another bakery who would love to have their business? Obviously so... No one is in fact injured so much as they are offended.
We aren't talking about cakes so much as we are talking about principles. Can the law force a Christian man to bake a cake that goes against his beliefs in his own store? The right of a private business to refuse service has always been honored, except when it comes to civil rights issues. Yes, the business is private, but it is designed to be open to the free market. The government will challenge you if you decide to refuse service on the basis of being this or being that. The thing about this case was that the baker reportedly offered alternatives and did not outright refuse business. He just said he wasn't going to make that specific cake.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
What a lame argument. It was never even considered. Like slavery and women voting. So I guess you want to go back to complete original and intent? Black powder for you.
I guess you missed the point where I literally prefaced it that we need to view the intent and then to apply it to modern times.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Married to another dude gay dude here. I fully support christian bakers to be able to refuse service to gays anytime anywhere. To me, freedom of speech and religion is much more important than my feelings.
Well, I certainly commend you on the ability to look at something with great objectivity. That is an amazing and commendable trait. On the surface level, I agree with you. Its his shop, his beliefs, and in general the right to refuse service is intact. Kind of like an Uber driver. At the end of the day, its his vehicle and he can decide whether or not to cancel the ride.
The only problem is that as we've seen with other cases from the past, lets use the right of white store owners to segregate blacks. Same premise: Its his store, his beliefs and he reserves the right to refuse service. But can he do that? Legally, no. I actually think a store should be able to since I believe the free market will correct their behavior without any government intervention necessary... but that aside...
The courts have decided before that when it comes to commerce you cannot exclude on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation and so on... And I get that argument too.
Of course, if I was the gay couple there's no way in hell I'm giving a cent to your store, I'm writing a terrible Yelp review, and I'm urging anyone in sight to boycott that store. If I'm the bakery's owner, I'm not turning down business or willing to alienate a segment of my potential business to make some kind of Chick-Fil-A message.
But I digress, as none of that is relevant... At some point we have to adjudicate for the people that will persist. As it stands, the Masterpiece case is not fully decided. The case was dismissed because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was found to be hostile towards Phillips. The big question is still out there for debate. Its a tough one.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
I think it's a close call - a difficult balance between rights - but freedom of conscience seems more important than a cake that can be sourced elsewhere.
Tricky line though, where does it stop?
Exactly, therein lies the problem. No matter which way the court decides, a conflict between inalienable rights will arise. So its imperative of the court to delineate between extremes to find sensible common ground that inherently seeks to protect both rights as much as possible and to figure out where that line is... what's a bridge too far? The Court must figure that out and set precedence. Tough job... glad that's not laid at my feet.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Except that this really isn't about "freedom of religion" - surely "freedom of religion" can't mean "freedom to pick and choose which laws you're going to obey"?
This is about what are the appropriate restrictions that can be placed on a business, especially one that is a "public accommodation".
For the sake of the argument, if a gay baker had a customer that came in wanting a cake that has a bible verse that is hostile towards homosexuality, would the baker be legally obligated to provide that to the customer? Private people can believe whatever they want. When it comes to commerce there's less wiggle room but still some, when it comes to government there's no wiggle room whatsoever.
So is the Christian who wants the bible verse on his cake being discriminated against for his Constitutionally protected beliefs if the gay baker refuses to accommodate that request? Shouldn't the gay baker be allowed to refuse service if it meaningfully conflicts with his personal beliefs?
As to the specifics of this particular case, Phillips (Masterpiece baker) was not refusing business. He stated that he could and would provide other accommodations. That distinguishes from a sign that says "Homosexuals not welcome," which would be an outright and incontestable civil rights violation.
So the question really becomes how far is a bridge too far? Obviously there always has to be a line drawn somewhere. If a Trump supporter came in to bake a cake disparaging Bernie Sanders, is the bakery obligated to accommodate, especially if providing that cake inherently could hurt the reputation of that store? Maybe that store are Bernie supporters. Maybe they aren't Bernie supporters but don't want to alienate segments of society that would hurt their bottom line.
Where is the line?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
But Ginsburg points out in her dissent that in Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertisements, the wedding cakes had no writing or no figures or anything at all that would indicate what kind of wedding the cake is intended for, and Phillips (the owner) refused to bake the wedding cake before there was any discussion about any decorations to be put on thecake. She points out, correctly in my opinion, that a cake by itself is not a message, and doesn't become one just because it's intended for a particular customer.
Lets not be obtuse... if a Klansman came in wanting swastika's (none of that is inherently illegal) are you suggesting that its "just a cake?" The decoration itself is meaningful... its not "just a cake." Can you compel a vendor to articulate something vile in his own shop?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Decorations are a tougher case, but unless the baker advertises that they will provide any decoration the customer asks for, it is generally accepted that there will be some limits.
If a customer part of a hunting club wanted the depiction of a dead deer on his cake came into a bakery owned by vegetarians, should the vegetarian be compelled to honor that request or should they reserve the right to say that it goes against their beliefs and that by doing so potentially harm's their business?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
The difference is the decoration. Before any talk of decoration the baker refused to take the order because, this is the important point, he did not want to provide any product intended to for use in a gay wedding. The business request was that the baker do the baker thing and provide a wedding cake. A generic off the shelf wedding cake suitable for any wedding was all that was requested. The baker refused because the customer was gay.
Where are you getting that information? The information I have seen is that Phillips offered other accommodations. His one stipulation was that he not bake a wedding cake in reference to the decorations.
quote:"Phillips appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. He argued that he’s not really discriminating against same-sex couples because he would have served Craig and Mullins any non-wedding goods that they asked for. His only issue is that from his perspective, baking the couple a wedding cake would force him to celebrate an act he’s opposed to ” and forcing him to do that, he argued, violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.
Likewise, the distinction was brought up by Justice Kennedy:
quote:"One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage”for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning”that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.
The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless."
If Phillips had said, "this store does not serve homosexuals" we wouldn't be having this conversation at it would be an incontrovertible civil rights violation of a protected class of people. Phillips offered his services, but stated that he would specifically not bake a cake supporting what he believes are contrary to his religious beliefs.
But lets come to a consensus. Would we agree that Phillips could be compelled to bake a nondescript cake with no decorations? Would he be protected from being forced to decorate it in a manner that conflicts with his religious beliefs? Where's the line?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
™ Version 4.2
(1)
