This newest example of the situation I think might be more problematic for the baker. From the news story that was posted earlier in the thread, it made it sound like all the person wanted was for him to make a blue cake with a pink center, and he refused. It did not say anything about further decoration of the cake with pro trans wording or anything, just a blue cake with a pink center, which he refused to make after he found out that the buyer was trans.
This raises the question, then, does he refuse to bake ANY blue cake with a pink center? If the customer had not explicitly said that they intended to use this cake to celebrate their trans lifestyle, would he have still refused? If he wouldn't, if he only refused because he found out the customer was trans, then I can see him having legal issues over this one. Because then he's refusing to bake a cake that he otherwise would have, and that is more specifically prejudiced than just saying "I won't bake a cake that has pro gay wording on it" or whatever he said in the prior example.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Aug 17th, 2018 at 09:04 PM
No because that argument is basically one of those "YOU can't take action because it's a sin in my religion".
This is obviously going nowhere so I'll ask you the same questions I'm still waiting on Rob to answer. Would you prefer that the freedom of religion should just be done away completely? If not, what do think it should encompass?
Ergo you're opening the doors to "I can do whatever, cos my beliefs", that's insane. Freedom of religion has its limits, just like freedom of speech; for good reasons. Unless you think yelling "I have a bomb!" on an passenger jet should be protected under the 1st amendment? I doubt you do; you don't seem that irrational.
Not a proper comparison and here's why: The painter isn't refusing on something that is legally protected though. He would be refusing because the Phelps church are deplorable in their actions and beliefs, not because they're straight.
This guy is wishing he just opened up a pie shop instead.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
No I'm not because I'm not talking about protecting proactive actions, I'm talking about passive inaction.
Their religion is protected. If he's refusing to commission a painting because he finds their beliefs deplorable then he's discriminating based upon their religion.
Also, you never answered my questions about whether or not you want to do away with freedom of religion all together and if not what do you believe it should encompass?
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 17th, 2018 at 09:11 PM
This imaginary gay painter isn't saying no because of religion, he's saying no because the Phelps are deplorable in both beliefs and actions. Unless you think it's proper to crash the funerals of gay people and servicemen and gay servicemen with awful signs and rants?
Didn't see that. No, I don't think freedom of religion should be striped away, I like living in a country where one can practice their personal beliefs, but as noted, freedom of religion has limits, just like freedom of speech; for good reasons.
Take action in demanding you abide by health and safety regulations, correct, much like demanding you treat your customers fairly and ethically.
And there is no reason for freedom of religion to be done away with completely, provided it harms no one. I draw the line at when it comes at the detriment and mistreatment of others.
Allowing Freedom of Speech rights to extend to professional artistic expression, and by extension, how you choose to make your money, is not going to open the gates to allowing people to do what they want. You can refuse to "work" for someone because you violates your beliefs - religious or otherwise.
There are two sets, here, that you're referring to:
Set One: The Freedom to reject business based on beliefs - an inaction.
Set Two: The Freedom to do whatever you want because of beliefs - an action.
The first set is the one Darthgoober is referring to. And your conclusory point is the second set: two different sets. Permitting Set One does not Permit Set Two.
Their words and actions are based upon their religion, therefor refusing to serve them based on their excising their legally protected religious rights would constitute discriminating against a protected class according to to the precedent that you're arguing. He's refusing because he finds their religion deplorable. By choosing to serve the public, the guy forfeits his right to refuse service based upon a protected class like religion. By what you're saying now if the baker finds the actions of gays and trans to be deplorable then he should absolutely be able to refuse them service.
Alright then what are limits you believe there should be?
However, I definitely do not define "I got rejected by a Cake Chef to make me a custom cake because he is a Christian and believes my marriage is a sin" as either detriment or mistreatment. Hurt feelings don't count.
Actual detriment and mistreatment examples:
Detriment: You're beaten for being black (happened too many times throughout US History).
Mistreatment: bared from living in a house because you're black (actually happened and I'm glad people got sued for things like this).
Neither detriment nor mistreatment: getting your custom wedding cake idea rejected by a professional cake baker for whatever reason (the reason doesn't matter).
Not really, my whole point is in regards to forcing a person to do something they're morally against. I've differentiated between not taking an action and actively taking an action repeatedly. I don't support forcing anyone to do anything they're morally against for any reason. I'm vehemently against the draft for the strict reason that people who don't support war will inevitably be forced to fight for instance.
Disagreed, this imaginary painter also happens to be a Christian (Seventh-day Adventist) and he does not find Christianity deplorable, he finds the views and actions of the Phelps deplorable which has nothing to do with Christianity.
Already been stated by a few, as long as your religion doesn't impede of the rights and freedoms of others and/or breaks the law, practice what you like. I don't care.
Not all sects of Christianity are the same. Baptist and Catholics RADICALLY different for instance. You can't lump them all in together like that. A catholic refusing service to a baptist for being a baptist would still constitute religious discrimination.
What if the law itself is applied in such a way as to be oppressive of your religion? Do you support public bans on burkas for instance? I mean once it's been passed as a law you don't really think there's anything wrong with the situation, correct? Or should one's freedom of religion prevent the law from ever being passed in the first place?
mistreat
mɪsˈtriːt/
verb
treat (a person or animal) badly, cruelly, or unfairly.
Making a custom cake for a heterosexual wedding but refusing a custom cake for a homosexual wedding is to treat the latter unfairly. In principle, the extent of the impact on that person's wellbeing does not factor into it. Wellbeing that could easily be exacerbated if in the arguably unlikely but nonetheless possible event that the couple were unable to find anyone who would service their wedding at all.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Aug 17th, 2018 at 09:39 PM
Badly, cruely, and unfairly are extremely subjective statements. Larry Flint/SCOTUS already established that you can't limit the first amendment based upon taste...
Freedom of speech is a fallacy, to be honest, the only idiots moronic enough to buy into it are ****wit, popularist rightists and internet warriors. It's a joke, most places where internet warriors yell about the right to free speech are "private" forums. I could explain how free speech doesn't exist in the non virtual world also, but to be honest I can't be bothered.
We're just going to have to disagree on the reasons this imaginary painter is refusing the Phelps.
Depends on a case-to-case basis. eg If one's religion allows them to have sex with a nine year old I have no problem with laws stopping that because it's child abuse, harm is being done to someone else. But a law forbidding someone to wear a burka is stupid and purposely done to attack Islam, as wearing a burka harms no one. I'd also have a problem with a law that forbade Mormons from wearing their magical underwear; it's their choice, let them wear it.
Funny you bring that up, cos there's people here who cried rape over this baker since the start, but gleefully approve of a law that would ban burkas and that's solely a personal thing. Weird, no.
I think you'll find that treating one person worse than another based on something that they can neither dictate nor causes harm to others is objectively unethical and can only be justified via unprovable fantasies or bigoted delusions.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 17th, 2018 09:02 PM
