I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples. Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.
To me, it's not about not baking the cake.
That would have been so easy to get away with if they had just said: "No thank you, I'm tired and don't feel like baking a cake right now."
But they didn't. Instead, they took a stand and said that they could not perform the service because the patrons were gay.
I can see why people would want to squash that.
If they would have quietly been bigots then we wouldn't be talking about this.
Yeah, I'm not gonna read all your psycho-analysis bullshit. And correcting your misunderstandings of what I think is too laborsome.
I don't think anti-discrimination laws are totalitarian. I don't have a problem with anti-discrimination laws. I do think we could get along without them. And its the approach, or tactic, that is being employed that I am calling totalitarian, not the laws themselves.
As far as things I've said that are trivially shown to be false, you've spent way more time telling me what I think than getting around to actually proving anything, so I doubt it.
None of this is about personal sins, it's about the ordinance of marriage given by God. It isn't about people being gay, it's about marriage and God's definition of it.
Out of curiosity, could you point me to where God clearly defines what constitutes marriage in His opinion? That would be helpful, thanks.
Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
And Jesus quotes it where He's preaching against divorce:
Matthew 19:5-6 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Also in Mark 10:8
The Bible doesn't limit that to marriage, it works on whores too:
quote:1 Cor 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
Marriage is marriage, it is defined by God for all peoples in all times no matter what any other authority thinks about it. Gays CALL it "marriage," they refer to their "wedding," I've even been told by a gay guy about his male "wife" -- that is how THEY think about it so don't pull a semantic trick here.
You can't have it both ways, Faith. If it isn't a real marriage then people shouldn't have a problem servicing it.
If people get to have a problem servicing it, then it should be considered a real marriage.
But simultaneously saying it is not a real marriage and that people should get to have a problem servicing it looks bad.
Writing a message is the only objection that makes sense. One shouldn't be compelled to write things one doesn't believe.
But someone should be compelled to sell something they don't believe in? Genuine question, what is it about writing something, but not selling something, that makes it make sense to avoid compelling someone to do it?
If you look at selling the thing as providing a service to the public, and therefore must be provided without discrimination, then why not also include writing the thing as a service that must be provided without discrimination?
I'm asking in principle, I understand that speech is explicitly protected and selling isn't. But I'm not sure I really see the difference.
Would Jesus support same sex marriage? I don't know, the Bible writers didn't include any stories that tell us.
Look at what Jesus said about divorce:
quote:From Matthew 19:
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Jesus is saying that there are people who are born in a way, or have chosen to be, where they opt out of "godly" marriage, and that if they cannot accept the godly marriage then that is okay, the ones who can accept it are the ones who should.
I think that leaves room for allowing a secular marriage between gays.
But someone should be compelled to sell something they don't believe in?
I think maybe you meant to ask this differently, like whether someone should be compelled to sell to someone engaged in a practice they object to?
No. You think its okay to say the baker is wrong to refuse to sell a cake for a gay wedding, but it is also okay for a person to refuse to write something promoting homosexuality - speech is protected, selling services is not.
The question is what it is about speech, but not providing a service, that means speech ought to be protected but services not? Or, what is it about providing services that means they should not be protected in the way that speech is?
Also, if the service that you offer is a form of speech, does that change it? Or does it still count as speech and is therefore protected?
What if the service of baking a cake was determined to be a form of speech? Would that then mean that cake baking would be protected too?
Phrased more generally the question is whether there can be legitimate reasons for a business to select which members of the public it will serve and which it won't. With the exception of things like bars selling drinks to drunks or convenience stores selling cigarettes to minors, it's deemed discrimination and businesses aren't allowed to do that.
Also if we're talking about speech, then its protected and you shouldn't be compelled to do it, no? Like writing a particular message on a cake, that can be refused.
Plus there's freedom of speech - compelling someone to write something he finds abhorrent doesn't sound very free.
But neither does creating something that you find abhorrent. But speech is protected and providing services is not.
My question is what is the difference between speech and service providing such that one is protected and one isn't. Too, if the service is speech, then is it protected or not?
Once the Supreme Court rules on something, then it is reasonable to incorporate that into the calculation. But when you just make up hypotheticals you are on your own.
That's weird. Are we just automatons following the SC's protocols, or are we thinking humans talking about this stuff?
If the SC ruled that, would everyone just shrug and go: "Huh, I guess we were wrong, the bakers should be able to refuse this service."?
The Supreme Court at some future point could rule for or against any particular action being speech. In some cases the rulings about what is speech and what is not speech, (for example flag burning) are controversial. At this point, there is no ruling that baking a wedding cake is speech.
The questions were what you, personally, think it ought to be. I'm not seeing much of a line between writing a speach and designing a cake.