RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:22:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

First of all, there's nobody saying this was a gay baker. And her personal views on gay marriage have not been made public by her either way.

She thought it was a prank call, and hung up on the pastor. That isn't the same as willingly taking a public stand on a hot button issue.

First of all it is a video, ergo she could not have hung up on him.
Second he went to that specific one to make a point so it must have been know.
Third none of that matter, she refused service because she didn't agree with him, it is exactly the thing you have spent this entire thread whining about if it is a gay person turned away for a specific order. Face it good for the goose, good for the gander.


Did you actually watch the video? No. So let me explain.

The pastor was not at the bakery, but using a cell phone to call the bakery. The video was of him making the call, and illegally recording the conversation, according to Florida statutes. He violated Florida law again by making the recording public.

The part of the video I could get to run showed the inside of the bakery.




JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:22:42 PM)

I personally believe that shop owners should be able to refuse to carry inventory that would be against their religions, say a same-sex wedding cake topper. That is not the same as discrimination, any more than a Kosher deli refusing to serve ham.




JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:27:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

First of all, there's nobody saying this was a gay baker. And her personal views on gay marriage have not been made public by her either way.

She thought it was a prank call, and hung up on the pastor. That isn't the same as willingly taking a public stand on a hot button issue.

First of all it is a video, ergo she could not have hung up on him.
Second he went to that specific one to make a point so it must have been know.
Third none of that matter, she refused service because she didn't agree with him, it is exactly the thing you have spent this entire thread whining about if it is a gay person turned away for a specific order. Face it good for the goose, good for the gander.


Did you actually watch the video? No. So let me explain.

The pastor was not at the bakery, but using a cell phone to call the bakery. The video was of him making the call, and illegally recording the conversation, according to Florida statutes. He violated Florida law again by making the recording public.

The part of the video I could get to run showed the inside of the bakery.


Then we're obviously not watching the same video. Perhaps you're seeing news footage?

This page has the actual phone call. http://m.wftv.com/news/news/local/longwood-business-owner-threatened-after-refusing-/nkmZc/




DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:27:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I personally believe that shop owners should be able to refuse to carry inventory that would be against their religions, say a same-sex wedding cake topper. That is not the same as discrimination.



That would be a good idea but you can bet your bottom dollar that will happen and the shop owner will still find themselves answering (I didn't say losing. I said answering) discrimination charges.



Michael




Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:27:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The part of the video I could get to run showed the inside of the bakery.

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-former-pastor-calls-cut-the-cake-posts-video/vDNCGC/

K.





JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:30:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I personally believe that shop owners should be able to refuse to carry inventory that would be against their religions, say a same-sex wedding cake topper. That is not the same as discrimination.



That would be a good idea but you can bet your bottom dollar that will happen and the shop owner will still find themselves answering (I didn't say losing. I said answering) discrimination charges.



Michael



I think that at some point, the courts are going to have to decide this issue anyway. But only a few times.




BamaD -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:49:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I personally believe that shop owners should be able to refuse to carry inventory that would be against their religions, say a same-sex wedding cake topper. That is not the same as discrimination, any more than a Kosher deli refusing to serve ham.

So you agree that a baker who didn't want to do gay marriages wouldn't have double groom and double bride toppers in stock so couldn't do it right anyway and would should be covered by common sense.




Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 10:51:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I personally believe that shop owners should be able to refuse to carry inventory that would be against their religions, say a same-sex wedding cake topper. That is not the same as discrimination, any more than a Kosher deli refusing to serve ham.

If they sell wedding cakes with toppers, but refuse to stock same-sex toppers, why wouldn't that be discriminatory?

K.




JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 11:05:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I personally believe that shop owners should be able to refuse to carry inventory that would be against their religions, say a same-sex wedding cake topper. That is not the same as discrimination, any more than a Kosher deli refusing to serve ham.

So you agree that a baker who didn't want to do gay marriages wouldn't have double groom and double bride toppers in stock so couldn't do it right anyway and would should be covered by common sense.


'Right away'? Baking the cake shouldn't be an issue. Decorating it with anything that wouldn't be objectionable shouldn't be an issue. Either way, I'm sure an order for a custom cake would need to be given and paid for well in advance.

At that point, the bakery owner would need to inform the customer that a same-sex cake topper is not available at that shop. The customer can then choose to go elsewhere, or to buy the topper elsewhere, and put it on the cake themselves.

Can you take your own ham to a Kosher deli and have them make you a sandwich? Probably not. But you can still buy the rye bread.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/3/2015 11:40:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Can you take your own ham to a Kosher deli and have them make you a sandwich? Probably not. But you can still buy the rye bread.



While this is probably the most logical thing I've seen you post on this thread, it still falls a little short. Here's how:

For at least thirty years (of my personal knowledge), businesses usually don't make a habit of encouraging customers to bring their own supplies. Oh, it happens. There are many places that can't get a liquor license that encourage customers to bring their own (A lot also charge a "decanting" or "corking" fee. I've even seen "gentleman's clubs" that have lost their liquor licenses, charging $3 per bottle for beer that a customer brings in).

Businesses don't make as much money when customers "bring their own". As I hinted at, thirty years ago, I helped to run an Amoco gas station with a four bay service area. We were embroiled with the oil company because, at the time, Amoco sold their oil to K-Mart at such a ridiculously low price that customers could buy the oil, retail and it would be cheaper than the price we paid from Amoco. Not much meat on the bone for money to be made, there!

That's all well and good for the backyard gear head that likes DIY, but we had 10 - 20 customers that would show up with five quarts for an oil change special we were running and would want us to discount the service for their five quarts of oil (which, remember: cost us more than what they were paying).

It's not a horrible idea but even that is fraught with issues with which someone from the SotPO (Society of the Perpetually Offended {with a nod to Kirata}) will eventually take exception and then, we're off to the races, again.

As you say: this needs to be adjudicated and it is very interesting because it is a situation where the rights of two groups are in direct conflict with neither side being "right" or "wrong", as long as you ask a neutral observer.

It's another good reason for government to get out of the "marriage" business and just issue everyone (gay, straight, polyamorous, whatever) a civil certificate of marriage. With that separation, there would be a clearer distinction of what's a religious practice and therefore off limits to force someone to do.

The example, here being: If I'm a practicing Catholic baker and someone comes into my shop, asking for a same-sex wedding cake or a Bar Mitzvah cake or whatever, I would be able to say: "I'm sorry. My religion forbids me to participate in any religious ceremony other than those of my faith (which would be true of a Catholic)."



Michael

ETA: I was just thinking about this and, actually, the analogy fails, from the start. You do realize there's "Kosher Rye" and "Rye" breads. Right?

I don't think I've been in a Kosher deli that doesn't sell Kosher Rye. Why would they:

A) Allow non-Kosher food into their establishment

B) Allow you to bring in a product that they sell?



M.P.C.




JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 12:24:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Can you take your own ham to a Kosher deli and have them make you a sandwich? Probably not. But you can still buy the rye bread.



While this is probably the most logical thing I've seen you post on this thread, it still falls a little short. Here's how:

For at least thirty years (of my personal knowledge), businesses usually don't make a habit of encouraging customers to bring their own supplies. Oh, it happens. There are many places that can't get a liquor license that encourage customers to bring their own (A lot also charge a "decanting" or "corking" fee. I've even seen "gentleman's clubs" that have lost their liquor licenses, charging $3 per bottle for beer that a customer brings in).

Businesses don't make as much money when customers "bring their own". As I hinted at, thirty years ago, I helped to run an Amoco gas station with a four bay service area. We were embroiled with the oil company because, at the time, Amoco sold their oil to K-Mart at such a ridiculously low price that customers could buy the oil, retail and it would be cheaper than the price we paid from Amoco. Not much meat on the bone for money to be made, there!

That's all well and good for the backyard gear head that likes DIY, but we had 10 - 20 customers that would show up with five quarts for oil change special and want us to discount the service for their five quarts of oil (which, remember: cost us more than what they were paying).

It's not a horrible idea but even that is fraught with issues with which someone from the SotPO (Society of the Perpetually Offended {with a nod to Kirata}) will eventually take exception and then, we're off to the races, again.

As you say: this needs to be adjudicated and it is very interesting because it is a situation where the rights of two groups are in direct conflict with neither side being "right" or "wrong", as long as you ask a neutral observer.

It's another good reason for government to get out of the "marriage" business and just issue everyone (gay, straight, polyamorous, whatever) a civil certificate of marriage. With that separation, there would be a clearer distinction of what's a religious practice and therefore off limits to force someone to do.

The example, here being: If I'm a practicing Catholic baker and someone comes into my shop, asking for a same-sex wedding cake or a Bar Mitzvah cake or whatever, I would be able to say: "I'm sorry. My religion forbids me to participate in any religious ceremony other than those of my faith (which would be true of a Catholic)."



Michael



I won't pretend to understand Catholicism and it's doctrines. I was raised Southern Baptist, with a lot of PTL Club on the tv. So Tammy Faye Bakker had a more profound impact on my religious beliefs than any of the Popes, although I really like the new guy so far.

I think that if your religion specifically demands that you not participate in outside religious ceremonies, then you should not go into a business where that would ever be an issue.

And I would seek word from a clergy member to define 'participation'.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 12:31:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

And I would seek word from a clergy member to define 'participation'.



The assumption that I didn't, when I was a practicing Catholic, is ludicrous.

Participation would be anything other than observing. ie; If a Baptist friend invited me to read a passage of scripture, at their wedding, even if I could bring my own Douay-Rheims, by doing anything more than observing, I'm participating. If I join in with any of the prayers (even if they seem similar. Even the "Our Father" is different), I'm participating. If I shout an "Amen!", even when the Pastor makes a great point, completely in line with Catholic Dogma, I'm participating.



Michael




DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 12:33:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I think that if your religion specifically demands that you not participate in outside religious ceremonies, then you should not go into a business where that would ever be an issue.



... Aaaaand now, we're back on track with: "If you can't think like the rest of us, you have no right to make a living and earn your family's daily bread."

Soooo ... people that aren't "right thinkers" are restricted from earning a living as:

Florists
Bakers
Some clergy positions
Limousine chauffeurs
Formal wear rental
Formal wear retail
Restauranteurs (who cater)(a "family business" for me)
Greeting Card selling/manufacturing
Photography (a "family business" for me, also)
Videography (The natural extension of photography)
Any work in Hollywood or TV production
Hoteliers

I'm sure I missed a few out ...

There's the tolerance I've come to expect from the left!



Michael




JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 12:46:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I think that if your religion specifically demands that you not participate in outside religious ceremonies, then you should not go into a business where that would ever be an issue.



... Aaaaand now, we're back on track with: "If you can't think like the rest of us, you have no right to make a living and earn your family's daily bread."

There's the tolerance I've come to expect from the left!



Michael



Don't twist my words, because that's neither what I said nor what was intended.

On a personal level, each of us has the highest responsibility to protect our own religious beliefs.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 12:56:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Don't twist my words, because that's neither what I said nor what was intended.

On a personal level, each of us has the highest responsibility to protect our own religious beliefs.



I didn't twist your words a bit but let's see if I can help:

"Football's a manly sport. Sometimes, we get a little rough and throw words around that we wouldn't throw around, out amongst the public. If homosexuals can't deal with that, maybe they shouldn't play football."

Thirty years ago, most would have accepted that statement. I disagreed then and I disagree now.

Let's try another (one with which I am intimately familiar):

"Homosexuals, serving in the military would break down unit cohesion and morale. If you're homosexual and don't want to 'keep it to yourself', you shouldn't join."

Sounding a bit familiar?

Whether we're speaking about religion or personal beliefs, the fact is that the left is trying to force people to worship at their altar. The more I think about it, I haven't heard any deeply religious people moaning and gnashing teeth at having to serve with homosexuals. Could it be that some people just have a fucking agenda with which they're not willing to part for purely political purposes? How does it feel to be their puppet/mouthpiece?



Michael




lovmuffin -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 1:03:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I think that if your religion specifically demands that you not participate in outside religious ceremonies, then you should not go into a business where that would ever be an issue.



... Aaaaand now, we're back on track with: "If you can't think like the rest of us, you have no right to make a living and earn your family's daily bread."

There's the tolerance I've come to expect from the left!



Michael



Don't twist my words, because that's neither what I said nor what was intended.

On a personal level, each of us has the highest responsibility to protect our own religious beliefs.


I'm not seeing any twisting. The businesses DS listed might have a religious issue catering to certain things. You clearly stated, and I quote "then you should not go into a business where that (religious conflict) would ever be an issue."




JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 1:15:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

And I would seek word from a clergy member to define 'participation'.



The assumption that I didn't, when I was a practicing Catholic, is ludicrous.

Participation would be anything other than observing. ie; If a Baptist friend invited me to read a passage of scripture, at their wedding, even if I could bring my own Douay-Rheims, by doing anything more than observing, I'm participating. If I join in with any of the prayers (even if they seem similar. Even the "Our Father" is different), I'm participating. If I shout an "Amen!", even when the Pastor makes a great point, completely in line with Catholic Dogma, I'm participating.



Michael



I would agree with these examples as participation.

But I don't see anything about catering the reception.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 1:26:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I would agree with these examples as participation.

But I don't see anything about catering the reception.



Is it a wedding reception?

You know, this whole argument (to my mind) springs from an intolerance of another sort.

For years, we've heard: "We want equal rights. We want to be able to visit loved ones in the ICU as family members. We want survivor's rights on rent control. We want insurance benefits. We just want our equal rights!"

That's a fair enough statement and I agree, 150%.

When some people floated the idea of "civil unions", the dialog changed: "Why can't we call it marriage? We want what you have!" Well, guess what? Like it or not, same sex couples will NEVER have everything that heterosexual couples have.

At this juncture, some (myself included) said: "Okay. Why don't we kill two birds with one stone and make all unions, for the sake of law/the government, civil unions? Everyone; gay, straight, whatever. Your rights are going to be guaranteed by virtue of EVERYONE having a civil union, in the eyes of the law. This way, we can give 'Marriage' back to the churches."

That wasn't good enough, either because there's an element on that side of the issue that wants to tear down anything that doesn't fit into their narrative. They want to destroy anything that doesn't fall in line with their ideology. It's very "tolerant", indeed.

There's only one side here who is being pressured to "compromise". Don't get me wrong. I understand the sentiment but I also understand the sentiment of a father who wants to kill the drunk driver that killed his child. That doesn't make the father (or the people fighting for "gay rights") right.



Michael




JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 1:46:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I would agree with these examples as participation.

But I don't see anything about catering the reception.



Is it a wedding reception?

You know, this whole argument (to my mind) springs from an intolerance of another sort.

For years, we've heard: "We want equal rights. We want to be able to visit loved ones in the ICU as family members. We want survivor's rights on rent control. We want insurance benefits. We just want our equal rights!"

That's a fair enough statement and I agree, 150%.

When some people floated the idea of "civil unions", the dialog changed: "Why can't we call it marriage? We want what you have!" Well, guess what? Like it or not, same sex couples will NEVER have everything that heterosexual couples have. At this juncture, some (myself included) said: "Okay. Why don't we kill two birds with one stone and make all unions, for the sake of law/the government, civil unions? Everyone; gay, straight, whatever. Your rights are going to be guaranteed by virtue of EVERYONE having a civil union, in the eyes of the law. This way, we can give 'Marriage' back to the churches."

That wasn't good enough, either because there's an element on that side of the issue that wants to tear down anything that doesn't fit into their narrative. They want to destroy anything that doesn't fall in line with their ideology. It's very "tolerant", indeed.

There's only one side here who is being pressured to "compromise". Don't get me wrong. I understand the sentiment but I also understand the sentiment of a father who wants to kill the drunk driver that killed his child. That doesn't make the father (or the people fighting for "gay rights") right.



Michael



I'm really just trying to understand. I see a difference in participating on a spiritual level, in prayer and such, than on a professional level with things that are completely separate from the ceremony. Again, I'm not Catholic, so I can't speak of your beliefs, and maybe there is no difference for you.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/4/2015 2:08:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I'm really just trying to understand. I see a difference in participating on a spiritual level, in prayer and such, than on a professional level with things that are completely separate from the ceremony. Again, I'm not Catholic, so I can't speak of your beliefs, and maybe there is no difference for you.



I want to say, again: I am no longer a practicing Catholic. In fact, I'm no longer Catholic, but I try not to violate anyone's sensibilities, as long as those sensibilities are reasonable.

In my example of civil unions vs. marriage, what's the issue? is it about legal equality or is it about destroying?

If we go back to the cake issue (just another outlier that the left glommed onto), a baker, refusing to bake you a cake is NOT denying you your right to a marriage. They're not even denying you your right to a wedding reception. They're not even denying you your right to have a cake, at your reception. They are refusing to participate in or facilitate an event with which they don't agree.

There's no other bakeries (You'd have to really live out in the boondocks for that to be true)? Here's an all-American idea: OPEN YOUR OWN! A true entrepreneur finds a dearth and services it.

I noticed that you didn't even bother trying to take a stab at my pro football idea or my military service idea? Could it be that I struck the mark a bit near? I think I did. Can you see how those statements are right in line with:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I think that if your religion specifically demands that you not participate in outside religious ceremonies, then you should not go into a business where that would ever be an issue.



Are you seeing the similarity? Go to another bakery that isn't owned by a "bigot". Why would you want to support bigotry, anyway? I do that, every day. On those rare occasions when I go to a bar, I ONLY go to bars that allow smoking. I REFUSE to deal with the Walgreen's that is closest to my house because the manager lied to me, once. As a result, I deal with all Walgreen's a lot less because there are other stores that service my needs.

To bring it back to the topic (sort of) how many gay people, raised in Catholic families, are still Catholic? Precious few, I'll wager. They have found another church that services their needs.

Which brings up another issue: Where does this end? How long before a same sex couples sues the Catholic church, demanding to be married and thereby, uses the government to impose their will on millions of Americans?

Why can't you just say: "Thank God gay people can get married. if bigot bakers don't want to serve me, I'll find non-bigoted bakers that will!" What the actual fuck?

Here's a great example that's a play on that: How about a bakery that takes out advertising that goes along the lines of "We despise the idea of same sex marriage but we will take that 'pink money' from anyone that wants to throw it at us"? Why the fuck would you do business with them? What's the point? Well, the point here is to FORCE someone to do something that YOU want them to do that will HURT them, in some way (not physically). Yep. That's tolerance!

On a personal note, JVoV: I would like to say something that I don't get a chance to say around here too often:

While you and I, obviously, disagree strenuously, you have managed to keep this debate civil, (mostly)on point and to leave ad hominem and intentional mis-characterization where they belong. Kudos to you!



Michael




Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625