Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 370 of 1484 (802664)
03-19-2017 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Rrhain
03-19-2017 3:52 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
Nobody is expecting you to take up arms.
But they are expecting you to stop being part of the problem.
Which is exactly the point you and Modulous are missing. You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause but have the audacity to suggest that maybe other ways of pursuing it are now possible.
It's just another way of saying 'you're not like us so shut up.'

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 3:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 5:45 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 378 of 1484 (802675)
03-19-2017 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Rrhain
03-19-2017 4:24 AM


Rrhain writes:
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?
I see that like Modulous you have a hair trigger when the word 'prejudice' is used against you. So much so that you both instantly reacted to it out of the context it was used in. You either didn't read, or read and ignored - in classic Faith fashion - the fact that I was responding specifically to Modulous's multiple personally abusive and ill-willed attack on me.
Modulous writes:
Or maybe realize I don't care what you do with it, because, you know - fuck you [...] And again, for effect: Fuck you..[...] No the problem is that you say you are, but you clearly aren't.[...] Clearly you don't get it. I doubt there is much hope you will any time soon. In some way, I hope you don't get it - because it'll probably only happen as a result of an injustice being carried out against you or - more likely, a loved one.
It's possible to be supportive of your cause but have some different ideas about how it might be pursued. It would be nice to be not sworn at, threatened, and abused for daring to mention that people can be different.
Maybe you've heard that said before about something else?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 4:24 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 6:14 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 397 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2017 10:27 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 402 of 1484 (802715)
03-19-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Rrhain
03-19-2017 5:45 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
If you think suing someone for violation of anti-discrimination laws is "alienating," you aren't a friend.
And if you think that's what I'm saying you're not reading/thinking. You're editing out every nuance and turning everything I say around so that you can be righteously angry.
I'm not saying never sue, I'm saying that sometimes it's a better idea not to. Not a particularly difficult concept I thought.
There's no point me reading the rest of your post until you can grasp that.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 5:45 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 691 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 3:06 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 403 of 1484 (802716)
03-19-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Modulous
03-19-2017 10:27 AM


Modulous writes:
Why are you making this personal?
I don't know Chuck could it be because, amongst other inane rants where you refuse to consider that I might not be saying what you think I'm saying, dismissing my attempt to explain to you that I too have personal experience with LGBT people close to me, you say this?
Modulous writes:
Or maybe realize I don't care what you do with it, because, you know - fuck you [...] And again, for effect: Fuck you..[...] No the problem is that you say you are, but you clearly aren't.[...] Clearly you don't get it. I doubt there is much hope you will any time soon.
So forget about me, this isn't about me [...]Awww, did someone saying 'fuck you' upset you?
Don't be silly, nothing you can say can possibly upset me, you quite plainly haven't the first clue about me. Get over yourself, you're just another angry guy on an internet forum with a chip on your shoulder. But I do find your attempts to do so interesting, given the context of what we're discussing.
Read what I write not what you'd obviously prefer me to have written - I'm not saying that people should never sue, I'm saying that it's not always necessary and might be counterproductive in the long run. But I'm pretty sick of saying this now.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2017 10:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2017 3:26 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 693 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 3:45 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 410 of 1484 (802723)
03-19-2017 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Modulous
03-19-2017 3:26 PM


Re: Modulous' Luther King
Modulous writes:
Each time I ask, you avoid answering.
I don't avoid answering, I just ignore what you're saying because you've said it half a dozen times and I understood it the first time. I'm not arguing about particular cases which by and large I don't have a problem with. In this case I didn't get passed the bit I quoted. You might want to think about why.
A good start would be by reading what I say without presupposing anything stupid about whether I'm 'part of the problem' or not and getting all shouty.
I draw your attention to the bits where I feel the need to repeat myself in the hope that you might finally get a general rather than particular point.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2017 3:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2017 5:34 PM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 422 of 1484 (802738)
03-19-2017 7:15 PM


Quite interesting statement by Peter Tatchel who's a long term campaigner for LGBT rights in the UK. Probably best known for the direct action campaign group Outrage! He's pretty much the spokesman for LGBT in the UK.
He says he's changed his mind about our very own cake problem.
The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any lawful message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.
In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.
I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why | Peter Tatchell | The Guardian
I guess he's now part of 'the problem.'
I was also wondering whether I could demand pork from a Jewish butcher or beef from a Hindu. But of course I wouldn't dream of asking for them or even thinking that it was a problem that they don't. I'd go to them for their own culture's food that I can't get elsewhere. Maybe the problem is that our fake Christian bakers don't have a culture with sufficiently differentiated food to prevent us from making a mistake of asking for something that they feel they can't provide?
Am I able to demand a service that Jews or Hindus don't provide because of their religious beliefs? The answer is no because they don't provide pork or beef to anyone. They're therefore only guilty of total discrimination not partial.
Going back to this dreadful cake business that is now talismanic, even though I disagree with their reason for not baking the bloody cake for an LGBT wedding, like Tatchel, I find myself having some sympathy for their position.
The Delormes are members of a local Baptist church and since its founding have endeavored to run their bakery according to their Christian beliefs, including a long-standing policy to turn away any business that mighty conflict with their religious beliefs.
The bakery won’t make any tobacco- or alcohol-related cakes, for example, and no risqu cakes of any kind.
We feel like if we are going to be putting our name on something, we want it to encourage Godly values, Edie said. This does not mean that they will not serve gay customers, but merely that they will not make a cake celebrating a ceremony they believe is sinful.

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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2017 7:47 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 1:57 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 440 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2017 2:25 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 449 of 1484 (802768)
03-20-2017 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by NoNukes
03-20-2017 2:25 AM


NoNukes writes:
They're therefore only guilty of total discrimination not partial.
In what way is this discrimination at all. How is what you describe different from a pizza parlor deciding not to serve gyro sandwiches?
Sure that's why I said this
Am I able to demand a service that Jews or Hindus don't provide because of their religious beliefs? The answer is no because they don't provide pork or beef to anyone.
But there is a distinction in that they don't sell what they don't sell because of a religious belief - not a purely random thing like gyro sandwich, whatever that is. If we wanted to be utterly pigheaded and idiotic we could say that allowing a Jewish butcher to not serve pork because of his belief system in a majority Christian culture is indirect discrimination against Christians. But a Christian would look a total fool for demanding pork from a Jewish butcher. And that's my point. Why do we not think the same about a gay couple asking for a wedding cake with icing sugar models of Charles and Fred on it instead of Charles and Freda from a fundie Christian?
There's also the problem that if I as a straight man had asked for a cake for a gay wedding I too would have been refused. The claim then seems to be nearer the non-pork butcher - it's not who they're selling the product to that matters, it's what the product means to the seller. They deny all comers indiscriminately.
There is one other important distinction I would make. A Christian bakery appears to be a bakery run by Christians rather than a bakery that caters to Christians, so the issue is not one of choice of cuisine but a choice of whom to serve.
Ditto with the butcher. He's refusing to serve pork eaters which the law has decided is not a protected group. Or if not decided, then never imagined - for good reason - that they needed to be protected.
One reason for that is that no-ones feels harmed by it. If you need pork, go next door. Why would you even think to ask a Jewish butcher for pork? You wouldn't unless you made a mistake, were ignorant of the belief or were out to make a point.
I don't know, but I suspect that the majority of the cake-based incidents happened by mistake. Had they known that the baker had such beliefs they wouldn't have asked for the service. The argument is then one of principal, someone feels hurt by the refusal and it all gets very heated.
Would the problem go away if all fundie bakers put a crucifix in the window or would that actract the activists still wishing to make their points?
Very fine distinctions are now being drawn betwen a wedding cake for a gay wedding that might just be a normal looking wedding cake and a cakes for a wedding with a gay sounding message on it. The only distinction I can find that makes internal sense of this Alice in Wonderland world of religioun is whether the baker knows the purpose to which the cake is being put. If he does he can't make or sell it.
It seems that society is able to allow diversity of opinion and belief in some spheres but not others. The most obvious to me being circumcision being allowed by jews but not by mulslims - albeit with radically different harm quotients.
Sorry, this got a bit rambling.
My main point is still that we risk becoming an increasingly intolerant society if such severe offence is taken on such trivial issues - such as where to buy a cake - such that it ends up in high courts across the globe and reported in international media. To my mind, highly principled stand-offs should be avoided if at all possible. In liberal cultures we need to be careful of such things.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2017 2:25 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 5:38 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 450 of 1484 (802769)
03-20-2017 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by Modulous
03-19-2017 7:47 PM


Modulous writes:
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.
Well hopefully by now you'll have noticed that I'm not discussing individual cases?
Individual cases will be decided on their individual merits and it seems to me that all attempts by the cake bakers to defend against the charges will fail in law. As they did with the case Tatchel changed his mind on. Not selling a cake with a supportive gay message or for a gay wedding is discrimination according to the decisions made so far.
The more general question of whether it's right to bring these prosecutions at all is what I'm interested in discussing.
I'm now finding it interesting that in simply bringing up the question, I'm regarded as the enemy and subjected to a torrent of abuse. While Tatchel's own contrary views, held wrong in law, are apparently valid and pefectly ok. Presumably he was right both when he railed against the baker's refusal and when he changed his mind and supported them? Intellectually sound arguments in both directions? (Personally I think so.)
But could it be that the messenger matters more than the message? I dread to mention it again, maybe a little bit of a blind spot? You know, the 'p' word?
Despite your protestations, it's pefectly possible to question or disagree with some actions and still be supportive of the cause. It seems that Tatchell understands this.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Modulous, posted 03-19-2017 7:47 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2017 3:32 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 452 of 1484 (802771)
03-20-2017 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by PaulK
03-20-2017 5:38 AM


Seems to me that you're skating over the big difference between "I don't sell that" and "I don't sell that to your kind"
No, I do recognise and accept the difference. But the not-selling bit is based on a profoundly held - if bonkers - religious belief, which our societies have accepted as ok. We live with their bonkers beliefs because we say they have a right to hold them and we can get our pork elsewhere, and no-one is harmed etc etc etc
We also have to accept that if I, as a straight man, asked for a cake with a support gay marriage' message or for one that I said was intended to be used at a gay marriage, it would not be provided (under Faith's rules of engagement.) They could fairly argue that they wouldn't sell that cake to anyone, it doesn't matter whether they're gay or not. Just like the pork.
The courts come to a different conclusion - direct or indirect discrimination as charged.
My interest in these arguments isn't in their rights and wrongs as individual cases but that we are becoming very intolerant of diversity and whether this intollerance is a good or bad thing.
Just to muddy the waters even more. Here in the UK there are various issues now around Muslim cultures that we tolerated comfortably in the passed that are now surfacing. Perhaps these things should have been confronted far sooner - in the way Modulous and Rrhain are defending now for LGBT rights.
But I don't feel comfortable in a world where many minority groups seems to be in either attack or defense mode over seemingly minor issues. It feels like our minorities are on permanently edge.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 5:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 6:46 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 460 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 8:15 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 499 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2017 4:15 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 455 of 1484 (802776)
03-20-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Phat
03-20-2017 6:46 AM


Re: Opting Out Is Not An Option
Phat writes:
Perhaps you feel uncomfortable bearing the responsibility to side with other people's fight.
No it's not that. I'm a pretty robust person, I'm very happy to join any fight I feel is right.
They may look at it as you having to be either for the fight or against the fight...opting out is not an option.
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 - though insiders too can get it rough, particularly between rank and file and activist. But hey-ho, that's life.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 6:46 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 7:11 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 461 of 1484 (802788)
03-20-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by PaulK
03-20-2017 8:15 AM


PaulK writes:
But that is still not a straightforward equivalence. The Jewish butcher does not stock pork to sell. If the bakers advertise that they ice the customer's choice if message then they are taking a risk if they refuse to ice a message for discriminatory reasons. Refusing to provide an advertised service is quite obviously distinct from refusing to stock particular items.
Yes, yes, I know.
I'm just trying to point out how torturous and convoluted a process this is. Both forms of failure to supply are on religious grounds, both apply to all customers who ask. One is called discrimintaion, the other isn't.
The only difference is the multi-purpose useage for a cake.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 8:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 8:55 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 8:56 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 507 of 1484 (802850)
03-20-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Modulous
03-20-2017 3:32 PM


Modulous writes:
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.
Correct.
Do you have a response to MLK's retort to this general line of questioning:
Yes, it's dumb. And wrong.
Can you show that more harm than good is likely to follow?
No.
You weren't subjected to a torrent of abuse from me.
Well I've quoted what you said, it's there for all to see. Fuck you" x2 not enough to qualify?
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
I think it would be perfectly natural for you to agree with people you identify with. You're no more imune from bias than anyone else.
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'?
No.
You appear to have a problem with speculative questions and uncertainty. I'm a big fan of evidence but unless we're looking backwards, usually there isn't any. I'm interested in discussing likely future outcomes and it seems to me that there are risks here.
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?
You know what discussion and argument is? It's not writing a dissertation for peer review or writing an essay for your professor. It's not my problem if my replies frustrate you because they don't conform to your personal evidential standards. In daily life 'what ifs' are important.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2017 3:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2017 5:17 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 522 of 1484 (802872)
03-21-2017 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by NoNukes
03-20-2017 4:15 PM


NoNukes writes:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2017 4:15 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by Faith, posted 03-21-2017 10:58 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 523 of 1484 (802873)
03-21-2017 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 504 by Modulous
03-20-2017 4:37 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Modulous writes:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2017 4:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 3:17 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 549 of 1484 (802914)
03-21-2017 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 544 by Modulous
03-21-2017 3:17 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Modulous writes:
1) 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.
You have avoided my point. The case against the Christian bakers is lost. They will lose every case they attempt to defend. They are in the wrong as far as the law is concerned. I'm not, and never have been, making legal points. I asked you whether you feel that gays may have a duty - in this case moral - to not put otherwise decent people in this predicament if it can be avoided?
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.
This is disingenuous. The radical gay community have used many tactics to get their message across - do I need to churn out Kirk & Madsen? And again it's not the point. I've no reason to believe that the couple of cases I've seen were anything but genuine. The question is whether the correct moral choice was made by suing? A right to sue is not an obligation to sue.
I am saying that if you can't provide the service equally, don't provide the service at all.
And I'm questioning whether that kind of blanket statement is an example of unnecessary intolerance to a minority which in all other ways may be harmless.
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?
The evidence is that they would also not sell the cake to me, a straight guy, knowing that it had a gay message or was going to be used at a gay wedding. They can not therefore be discriminating against gay people by not selling me a cake - except in very indurect route. They would also serve LGBT people with ordinary cakes. It's therefore the cake - or rather what the cake represents - not me or LGBT people themselves that they object to.
And not being a protected minority, I couldn't bring the case. (Unless there's some proxy clause somewhere I could exploit.)
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 know you're desperate to stick to specific cases, but I'm trying to move from the particular to the general. Discussing ideas not just cases.
I don't see what is intolerant about reporting a violation of trading regulations.
Yes, I can see that you can't see it.
I think reporting problems to an independent board is taking the high ground.
Sounds like breaking a butterfly on the wheel to me. Or at least it could be. For out-and-out, in-your-face bigots it's probably not.
I'm asking for discretion and some consideration for the other side's feeling too - is all.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 544 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 3:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 550 by Modulous, posted 03-21-2017 5:39 PM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024