subrosaDom
Posts: 724
Joined: 2/16/2014
Status: offline
|
I'm saying that to be opposed to gay marriage is not discriminatory. I happen to be in favor of gay marriage myself. Other people, including some gays, may oppose it. (In fact, I don't believe in state-sanctioned marriage at all. If you want to get married as a whatever-you-are, more power to you. That's between you and yours. There ought to be no tax bias or anything, one way or the other. If you don't like your church's beliefs regarding marriage, it's a free country -- find another church, try to change the one you belong to, or abandon all religion). To say someone who holds a heartfelt belief that gay marriage is wrong and then to penalize them for what's in their mind and to FORCE them to violate their religious beliefs is a violation of the 1st Amendment, an amendment under which you may call them discriminatory and others may call them anything else. The gay couple was free to, among other things, not patronize the bakery, tell all their gay friends not to patronize, even to picket it. But how about live-and-let live when there is absolutely nothing to suggest the bakery owners had any hate for gays? In fact, to the contrary, they were happy to make them anything except a wedding cake, because of a personally held belief. Just like Jenny McCarthy might refuse to give me an autograph because I tell her anti-vaccine stance is moronic and actually killing children (a hell of a lot worse than the bakery's owners) -- still, that's her right to refuse me, assuming I was celebrity-obsessed enough to want hers. I have no more "right" to a Jenny McCarthy autograph than a gay couple has to a marriage cake from a privately held bakery.
As for your example, if I think Jews are going to hell because they don't believe Christ is the Messiah and I think I'm going there too by serving anyone who doesn't believe similarly, then, no I don't think they should sue either. Take their and their friends' business elsewhere. Obviously, such a bakery wouldn't last long in NY, anyhow. You can't criminalize stupidity or ignorance. But if they didn't serve Jews, but they served Buddhists, well then I'd conclude that instead of being irrational, that they hated Jews. There's a difference. We libertarians don't think the courts should be used to adjudicate personal beliefs, even if those beliefs are wrong and don't harm people. So, yes, given the plethora of other bakeries around and given the fact that the bakery happily made anything else except a wedding cake, I don't think hate had anything to do with it, and I believe the actions taken against the bakery were spiteful. I also think they picked easy targets. When they go into an Islamic bakery and make the same demands, perhaps I'd have more respect for them. But they'd never go there because they wouldn't go near anyone who actually believed homosexuals deserve the death penalty. The Christians were easy-pickins. Count me as singularly unimpressed.
Most Jim Crow laws were put in place by unions trying to protect white jobs -- one reason they were supported by Democrats at the time. Notice I said: Jim Crow laws. Institutionalized racism. Meaning if I wanted to serve to blacks, I was violating the gummint's law. Not acting privately. This is one reason, though not the only one, that the South also did very poorly economically. Denied a labor pool of blacks, they had to rely on a much smaller labor pool of whites, including plenty of unqualified whites whose jobs in a free market would be been taken by qualified blacks. So if I personally want to discriminate against someone without trying to get a law enacted, then yes, I say let the chips fall where they may. That includes picketing the bigot. Once you try to get a law enacted, then you want the government to institutionalize racism -- another reason all tax and other laws should be gender neutral and lifestyle neutral.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gauge
quote:
ORIGINAL: subrosaDom
Similarly, gays have not helped their cause by going after private bakeries who happily serve gay customers but for their own religious reasons (I'm an atheist, so I'd have made the cake) feel it's a violation of their personal beliefs to make a wedding cake, not because they hate gays, but because they don't support gay marriage specifically. Yet gays went to court over this and essentially destroyed their business. That is absolutely nothing but spiteful.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that because the gay couple that sued the bakery because they chose to not bake a cake for their wedding is not discriminatory? It equates to "We will not serve colored folk in here because of their skin" and I bet some of those businesses suffered during the Civil Rights movement. I bet that same Christian bakery had no problem making wedding cakes for a Jewish couple, but Jews do not believe that Christ was the messiah and that goes against what the Christians believe, so it would be OK not to serve them too if the bakery objected to that based on religious reasons? Was it spiteful for the gay couple to sue the bakery or were the gay couple making a statement and because of the fact that the owners were bigots that public opinion was swayed against the bakery? Why would a bakery be fine serving gays at any time but when they ask for a wedding cake suddenly that business will not take their money because marriage is sacred before god? No matter how you wrap this turd, it is still a bigoted turd.
|
RE: Hobby Lobby: An Inconvenient Omission - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread