Debate Now Tolerance, Political Correctness, and Liberty

[Valerie]

...

It still is wrong to punish people for their Christian convictions as much as it is to punish them because they support gay marriage. But nobody should have to participate in ANY CAPACITY in a Christian event they disapprove of and nobody should have to participate IN ANY CAPACITY in any other event they disapprove of. When we can be legally forced in ANY CAPACITY to participate or contribute to an activity or event that we disapprove of or when we can be legally materially or physically punished for expressing an opinion, we have no rights. Anybody with enough clout or power can control everybody else.

who is punishing whom, and how..?

do you expect the government to protect you from the consequences of your free expression?

imo you are mixing up ideas and clouding a few separate issues...

ftr, the "sociopolitical bullies" you speak of here, like those who demanded consequences for paula dean, duck dude, don imus, nba owner sterling, trump, etc, are not even in the same ball park as public accommodation laws... (ie the bakery story).

 

[Dante]

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

The most notorious baker (what a turn of phrase ) was never asked to participate in the wedding in question. They were no asked to cater the event, to cut the cake, or even to wear the appropriate attire of guests or workers of the caterer.

So the question really is, how would they have been attending and in what role?

They would have had to deliver the cake to the event and almost certainly would have had to do some assembly and final finishing touches at the event. And their truck would be parked outside the event advertising that they were party to the event. Nobody should be forced to do that for an event they believe to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. The Christian bakers should not be forced to do that. The gay baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist event. The black baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a KKK event. Etc. Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale.

"Party to the event?" You equate a gay baker being offended by Westboro Church with Christians offended by gays getting married? The Christian Westboro people hate and condemn the gay baker. They would assault the baker's very being and personhood. What equivalent offense would the other Christian have with the gay couple?

"Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale." - your words.

No one should "be forced to provide a special product or service" - again, your words

A baker decorates a cake. A baker puts specialized decorations on every single wedding cake, unless one wants one without the decoration. Wedding cakes are special products.

Delivering a cake to the wedding of a gay couple could never be construed as being a 'special' service.

You keep defending the so-called right of any person of faith to deny products or services to the wedding of a gay coupe just because they claim to believe weddings of gay couples to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. Without a legal justification of this type of discrimination in the public square you'd be supporting anarchy.

Any claim of supporting 'liberty' is always a hard sell. Your arguments so far have failed to provide a defense of any 'liberty', and just using the term liberty without defining the specific liberty in question is an exercise in futility.

 

[Dante]

They didn't sue the baker.

The gay couple did not sue the Christian baker? But Foxfyre says they did. Who is correct here? Both of you cannot be.

 

[Coyote]

.

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

But there is no difference. Does his business provide cakes for weddings?

If so, then it shouldn't matter who the participants are.

Do we go back to the old days of refusing service to certain classes of people in the name of "tolerence"? That's the elephant in the room.... As of now, the "right" to discriminate against gays for religious reasons is still seeing as largely "acceptable" where as few would condone the same right of discrimmination against a race or a religion or an ethnic group. Allowing a person to discrimminate (in practice, not by giving opinions) you have to allow all the rest. In the name of tolerence.

It did not and does not matter who the participants are.
It does matter what the event or activity is.

Why is it so hard for some to separate those two things as the different things that they are?

The event is a WEDDING. The only difference is the participants. So...either he provides for all weddings, regardless of participants or none. Once he is starting to discrimminate against certain weddings based on the participants then how is it any different from any other kind of discrimmination and how far should tolerance extend?

 

[Ravi]

They didn't sue the baker.

The gay couple did not sue the Christian baker? But Foxfyre says they did. Who is correct here? Both of you cannot be.

They didn't sue. They reported it to the city because it was a violation of PA law.

 

[Foxfyre]

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

The most notorious baker (what a turn of phrase ) was never asked to participate in the wedding in question. They were no asked to cater the event, to cut the cake, or even to wear the appropriate attire of guests or workers of the caterer.

So the question really is, how would they have been attending and in what role?

They would have had to deliver the cake to the event and almost certainly would have had to do some assembly and final finishing touches at the event. And their truck would be parked outside the event advertising that they were party to the event. Nobody should be forced to do that for an event they believe to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. The Christian bakers should not be forced to do that. The gay baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist event. The black baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a KKK event. Etc. Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale.

"Party to the event?" You equate a gay baker being offended by Westboro Church with Christians offended by gays getting married? The Christian Westboro people hate and condemn the gay baker. They would assault the baker's very being and personhood. What equivalent offense would the other Christian have with the gay couple?

"Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale." - your words.

No one should "be forced to provide a special product or service" - again, your words

A baker decorates a cake. A baker puts specialized decorations on every single wedding cake, unless one wants one without the decoration. Wedding cakes are special products.

Delivering a cake to the wedding of a gay couple could never be construed as being a 'special' service.

You keep defending the so-called right of any person of faith to deny products or services to the wedding of a gay coupe just because they claim to believe weddings of gay couples to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. Without a legal justification of this type of discrimination in the public square you'd be supporting anarchy.

Any claim of supporting 'liberty' is always a hard sell. Your arguments so far have failed to provide a defense of any 'liberty', and just using the term liberty without defining the specific liberty in question is an exercise in futility.

I'm not equating anything with anything. I am stating a principle that should apply in all circumstances that everybody should be able to decline with impunity participation in ANY EVENT OR ACTIVITY OF ANY KIND that he/she chooses not to participate in.

 

[Coyote]

They were sued for discrimination of gay people because they would not participate in the gay people's wedding.

Coyote and others say that is discriminating against gays despite the fact that the gay people had been regular and appreciated customers of the bakery for a long time.

I say that refusal to participate in an activity or event is NOT discriminating against people for what or who they are. It is discriminating against an event or activity that the person cannot condone or does not wish to attend. And THAT choice all people should be able to make with impunity whether they are straight/gay/black/white/polka dot or whatever.

They were not required to participate - only to provide a product or service - the same as they would for any other wedding.

It's irrelevent that they were reglular and appreciated customers - in fact, that makes it worse because that might have led them to believe this baker would be a good choice for the cake.

It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriage was against the law and even when that law was changed it took much longer for a cultural shift in certain areas. One of the arguments used to bolster miscegenation laws was religious so, arguably they should be allowed to refuse to provide a product for an interracial wedding. Is that their right? And, what is the right of the person who, upon going to a business - expects the same level of service as any other customer?

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

But there is no difference. Does his business provide cakes for weddings?

If so, then it shouldn't matter who the participants are.

Do we go back to the old days of refusing service to certain classes of people in the name of "tolerence"? That's the elephant in the room.... As of now, the "right" to discriminate against gays for religious reasons is still seeing as largely "acceptable" where as few would condone the same right of discrimmination against a race or a religion or an ethnic group. Allowing a person to discrimminate (in practice, not by giving opinions) you have to allow all the rest. In the name of tolerence.

It did not and does not matter who the participants are.
It does matter what the event or activity is.

Why is it so hard for some to separate those two things as the different things that they are?

The event is a WEDDING. The only difference is the participants. So...either he provides for all weddings, regardless of participants or none. Once he is starting to discrimminate against certain weddings based on the participants then how is it any different from any other kind of discrimmination and how far should tolerance extend?

Why? Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays? Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight? I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.

THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.

You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.

 

[Dante]

The baker was being asked to participate in a wedding of a gay couple and was later sued because they would not participate in the wedding?

They were sued for discrimination of gay people because they would not participate in the gay people's wedding.

Coyote and others say that is discriminating against gays despite the fact that the gay people had been regular and appreciated customers of the bakery for a long time.

I say that refusal to participate in an activity or event is NOT discriminating against people for what or who they are. It is discriminating against an event or activity that the person cannot condone or does not wish to attend. And THAT choice all people should be able to make with impunity whether they are straight/gay/black/white/polka dot or whatever.

Ravi is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

An argument analogous to yours would be saying: Christians who beat slaves they owned were not cruel to their slaves, because unlike other slave holders who beat their slaves indiscriminately, the Christian slave holders were kind on days the slaves behaved.

I think the Christian baker was discriminating by refusing to provide a product and service to the gay couple. The baker was not being asked to 'participate' in the wedding, yet you keep claiming the opposite. Can you explain HOW they would have been participating in the actual wedding?

 

[Derideo_Te]

It takes so little to respect a person's personal convictions that it is wrong to put swastikas on a cupcake or set up the floral displays at a Westboro Baptist reunion or participate in a gay wedding if that is something the person believes to be ethically or morally wrong.

Therein lies the core fallacy of the OP wanting a "new law".

This "new law" would be based entirely upon what someone BELIEVES.

Per the 1st Amendment Congress shall pass no laws endorsing religion therefore what the OP wants in this "new law" is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

And before the OP tries to remind everyone that "existing laws" are excluded it is pertinent to point out that what the OP wants for this "new law" would entail passing a Constitutional Amendment that would effectively repeal the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of religion.

Is that what the OP actually wants? To overturn the basic principle of separation of church and state and transform the government of We the People from being secular into a theocracy?

It would be beneficial for this thread for the OP to clarify her intentions in this regard.

 

[Nosmo King]

Check all statements that you believe to be true:

1. 1. Pro choice people should be able to obtain a safe, legal abortion.
2. 2. Pro life people should be able to prohibit at least some abortion.
3. 3. Minorities should be protected from racially charged language.
4. 4. Americans with equal rights need no special protections.
5. 5. Gay people should be entitled to equal rights under the law.
6. 6. Nobody should have to participate in activities they oppose.
7. 7. All American school children should be taught mandatory science.
8. 8. Local citizens should choose the science (and other) curriculum.
9. 9. Women should not be subject to misogynistic language.
10. 10. Women are as tough as men re impact of language

I'm not sure that #2 allows for 'tolerance'. Prohibiting a legal medical procedure that someone else wants to endure simply because you disagree with it does not display tolerance at all.

I think EVERYONE should be protected from racially charged language as such language serves no noble purpose.

Americans ALWAYS need protection. That's what law enforcement is all about. And remember, it's the unpopular who need protection. The popular simply have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Gay people are American citizens. Why should they be excluded from the same rights and opportunities as every other American citizen?

#6 is a loaded question. I'm sure it refers to a small group of merchants who feel as if their 'religion' has dictated that it's just fine to discriminate against homosexuals. Point of fact: these merchants do not 'participate' in the wedding. They provide services that are available to every other client. This is commerce, and commerce does not require any mercantile imperator.

I'm not clear on what you mean by 'mandatory science', but Genesis ain't science and should not be presented as such. Teach Genesis and other creation myths in a philosophy class, but keep it out of the science curriculum.

 

[Coyote]

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

They didn't sue the baker.

.

Nobody has said that anybody should not have to make, decorate, or sell goods to gay couples. Nobody has actually been accused of doing that. Even the notorious baker used as illustration routinely sold products to the same gay couple who later would sue him.

There is a difference between providing a product or service that you provide to everybody, black/white/gay/straight/polka dot or whatever, and being forced to participate in an event or activity that you believe to be wrong, unethical, immoral, or whatever.

But there is no difference. Does his business provide cakes for weddings?

If so, then it shouldn't matter who the participants are.

Do we go back to the old days of refusing service to certain classes of people in the name of "tolerence"? That's the elephant in the room.... As of now, the "right" to discriminate against gays for religious reasons is still seeing as largely "acceptable" where as few would condone the same right of discrimmination against a race or a religion or an ethnic group. Allowing a person to discrimminate (in practice, not by giving opinions) you have to allow all the rest. In the name of tolerence.

It did not and does not matter who the participants are.
It does matter what the event or activity is.

Why is it so hard for some to separate those two things as the different things that they are?

The event is a WEDDING. The only difference is the participants. So...either he provides for all weddings, regardless of participants or none. Once he is starting to discrimminate against certain weddings based on the participants then how is it any different from any other kind of discrimmination and how far should tolerance extend?

Why? Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays? Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight? I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.

THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.

You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.

To start with a dog fight is illegal and brutal. But aside from that - you providing a product to my dog fight (let's say it's legal) is like supplying any other event.

If you traditionally supply picnic lunches to dogfights but you refuse to supply picnic lunches to fights that are run by women because women running dogfights violates your religious beliefs you are discrimminating because they are women. No one is asking you to participate in the dog fight.

 

[Coyote]

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

The most notorious baker (what a turn of phrase ) was never asked to participate in the wedding in question. They were no asked to cater the event, to cut the cake, or even to wear the appropriate attire of guests or workers of the caterer.

So the question really is, how would they have been attending and in what role?

They would have had to deliver the cake to the event and almost certainly would have had to do some assembly and final finishing touches at the event. And their truck would be parked outside the event advertising that they were party to the event. Nobody should be forced to do that for an event they believe to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. The Christian bakers should not be forced to do that. The gay baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist event. The black baker should not be forced to provide a special product or service for a KKK event. Etc. Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale.

"Party to the event?" You equate a gay baker being offended by Westboro Church with Christians offended by gays getting married? The Christian Westboro people hate and condemn the gay baker. They would assault the baker's very being and personhood. What equivalent offense would the other Christian have with the gay couple?

"Participation or contribution for an event is a very different thing than selling products or services you normally have for sale." - your words.

No one should "be forced to provide a special product or service" - again, your words

A baker decorates a cake. A baker puts specialized decorations on every single wedding cake, unless one wants one without the decoration. Wedding cakes are special products.

Delivering a cake to the wedding of a gay couple could never be construed as being a 'special' service.

You keep defending the so-called right of any person of faith to deny products or services to the wedding of a gay coupe just because they claim to believe weddings of gay couples to be wrong, immoral, unethical, etc. Without a legal justification of this type of discrimination in the public square you'd be supporting anarchy.

Any claim of supporting 'liberty' is always a hard sell. Your arguments so far have failed to provide a defense of any 'liberty', and just using the term liberty without defining the specific liberty in question is an exercise in futility.

I'm not equating anything with anything. I am stating a principle that should apply in all circumstances that everybody should be able to decline with impunity participation in ANY EVENT OR ACTIVITY OF ANY KIND that he/she chooses not to participate in.

That takes us back to the dark ages then doesn't it? What about the rights of people who enter an establishment expecting to be served the same as any other customer - do they have rights?

 

[Carla_Danger]

LOL, naw. It's just dinner time across the land and then prime time TV is firing up. We'll all be back at it tomorrow for sure, but I'm going to join the real world here for awhile now. Have appreciated your input though sakinago.

Damn my girls out if town so I'm

Ok - I'll attempt to not chop it up, but answering one point at a time is the way I think and the most natural way for me to respond.

What you describe as "organized efforts to destroy the reputation and livelihood, to materially and physically punish people who dare to express politically incorrect points of view" seems to be perfectly valid expressions of free speech. Boycotts, protests - all are legitimate. Now you add that it is for daring to "express politically incorrect points of view" yet those same reprehensible behaviors are also directed at Planned Parenthood for daring to conduct legal abortions (a politically incorrect point of view in the eyes of some).

You say "Anybody has a right to ask anybody to provide a product or service, but they should never have a right to demand that somebody participate in an activity or event that the somebody finds offensive or unethical or immoral"...which on the surface I agree with. But then I go back to the example I provided earlier - that of racial segregation and the fact that a large number of people in certain areas found integration to be "offensive, unethical or immoral". That's the reality of the position you're taking - in order to protect one person's rights in this matter, you are going to impact another person's rights. When and under what conditions does that become "ok" to do?

What if a community decides they want to organize a segregated society - is that "liberty"? I'm using race as an example because enough time has lapsed to be more objective about it than gay issues.

some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

It does something to people? It's really between a woman and her doctor.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I agree (I think, if I understand it right) - if a person wants your product with swastika's or your product with a gay decoration - I think you would be within your rights to refuse - in fact, to refuse to do any sort of decoration you felt inappropriate. That's different from refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - ie refusing to serve gay customers or altering your normal business procedures because they are gay. That I don't agree with.

So what is the difference? The baker isn't refusing his normal products or services to anybody. In the most notorious case, the baker had been selling baked good to the gay couple for some time, knowing they were gay. And he didn't refuse to bake a cake for them because they were gay. He refused to participate in a gay wedding that he could not condone. It is the difference between discriminating against somebody because of who they are and choosing what activities or events we will condone.

I have no problem seeing that difference. I don't know why it seems so difficult for so many to grasp, or maybe most just pretend they don't see it so they will be justified in punishing Christian values they disapprove of?

Unless I misunderstood - the baker refused to provide a cake to a wedding because it was a same sex wedding yet he provided cakes to other weddings. That is discrimminating against who they are if the same service is provided to heterosexual couples.

No. It is not discriminating against who they are. It is choosing not to participate in an event that they disapprove of.

I might go to movies with you or shopping with you or attend a sporting event with you. But the day you ask me to go to a dog fight with you, I will decline. That is not discriminating against you. it is discriminating against an event which I cannot condone.

They aren't participating. They aren't part of the wedding party. They aren't guests. They are providing a product - just like stationers do, or caterers, or the restaraunt that hosts the meal, the company that provides a wedding dress, etc. You have every right to go to a dog fight (except unlike a gay wedding, it's illegal) - but assuming it was legal - I'd have every right to refuse. However, if you wanted a picnic lunch and my business provided it - do I have the right to refuse to make you a lunch?

That is not really a good example though because going to a dog fight is an activity. A wedding is an event - if you provide services to a wedding as your business then the wedding is the event. If you decide you will not provide a cake for an interracial wedding because of what the couple is - not the fact that it is a wedding but because of the participants - then that is discrimminating against who they are.

Their name is associated with the event. Their delivery truck is parked outside the event. The product or service they provide is part of that event. That is participating. And none of us should be forced to participate in something we have moral, ethical, or religious convictions against.

No it's not.

 

[Foxfyre]

The baker was being asked to participate in a wedding of a gay couple and was later sued because they would not participate in the wedding?

They were sued for discrimination of gay people because they would not participate in the gay people's wedding.

Coyote and others say that is discriminating against gays despite the fact that the gay people had been regular and appreciated customers of the bakery for a long time.

I say that refusal to participate in an activity or event is NOT discriminating against people for what or who they are. It is discriminating against an event or activity that the person cannot condone or does not wish to attend. And THAT choice all people should be able to make with impunity whether they are straight/gay/black/white/polka dot or whatever.

Ravi is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

An argument analogous to yours would be saying: Christians who beat slaves they owned were not cruel to their slaves, because unlike other slave holders who beat their slaves indiscriminately, the Christian slave holders were kind on days the slaves behaved.

I think the Christian baker was discriminating by refusing to provide a product and service to the gay couple. The baker was not being asked to 'participate' in the wedding, yet you keep claiming the opposite. Can you explain HOW they would have been participating in the actual wedding?

Beating slaves forces somebody else, namely the slaves, to unwillingly participate in an activity. What I am advocating is what should be seen as an unalienable right to choose what activities or events we wish to attend, participate in, or contribute to. That asks absolutely nothing--no participation or contribution from anybody else--and affects nobody else in any material or physical way.

 

[Dante]

Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays?

Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight?

I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.

THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.

You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.

The Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church buy goods and services every day. They buy goods to use in their hate-filled events.

Suppose the family of a dead war veteran who's funeral was being disrupted by the Christians had a store, and in that store on the day of the funeral in question, an employee denied a product or service to the Westboro Church Christians. Do you think any rational person would call that a case of discrimination against Christians or a sect of Christianity?

 

[Coyote]

The baker was being asked to participate in a wedding of a gay couple and was later sued because they would not participate in the wedding?

They were sued for discrimination of gay people because they would not participate in the gay people's wedding.

Coyote and others say that is discriminating against gays despite the fact that the gay people had been regular and appreciated customers of the bakery for a long time.

I say that refusal to participate in an activity or event is NOT discriminating against people for what or who they are. It is discriminating against an event or activity that the person cannot condone or does not wish to attend. And THAT choice all people should be able to make with impunity whether they are straight/gay/black/white/polka dot or whatever.

Ravi is claiming the gay couple did not sue the Christian baker, but putting that aside...

An argument analogous to yours would be saying: Christians who beat slaves they owned were not cruel to their slaves, because unlike other slave holders who beat their slaves indiscriminately, the Christian slave holders were kind on days the slaves behaved.

I think the Christian baker was discriminating by refusing to provide a product and service to the gay couple. The baker was not being asked to 'participate' in the wedding, yet you keep claiming the opposite. Can you explain HOW they would have been participating in the actual wedding?

Beating slaves forces somebody else, namely the slaves, to unwillingly participate in an activity. What I am advocating is what should be seen as an unalienable right to choose what activities or events we wish to attend, participate in, or contribute to. That asks absolutely nothing--no participation or contribution from anybody else--and affects nobody else in any material or physical way.

As an individual - yes, I totally agree. But as a business? No.

 

[Foxfyre]

Damn my girls out if town so I'm
some holes coyote, one is segregation was law. And yes if people choose to segregate themselves, they have every right to do so, on their own property. And no one has the right to not be offended. And people should maintain the right to consciousness, and the right to refuse service. I will stand up for the gay baker who won't bake a cake for Westboro baptist church just like I stand up for the Oregon baker being fined 150,000 by the government. Clear violation of the first

Again - I'll go back to the example I gave from Condaleeza's biography - if enough choose to discriminate then that impacts the rights and freedoms of the person they are discriminating against. At the same time - Foxie is saying those people don't have the right to protest in return.

I am saying that if people can be materially and physically punished for nothing more than expressing their opinions and convictions, then there is no freedom of speech. The sociopolitical bullies are given power to control what we are allowed to think or speak or express. In my view that is evil, wrong, unjustifiable. And in my opinion we all should speak out against it.

Protest away if somebody is doing something illegal or unethical--punish people for what they DO that harms people who have no defense against it. Not for what they think or say or believe.

So that's where you draw the line? If it's legal, nobody is allowed to publicly disagree? I guess that would really put the brakes on anti-abortion protests.

Again abortion is an ACTION--it does something to people. It kills babies and many believe negatively affects the mother. So that is a different debate than somebody expressing their opinion or belief or conviction about abortion.

We have to separate what people DO from what people say, think, believe, express. Those are two entirely different things.

It does something to people? It's really between a woman and her doctor.

A Planned Parenthood abortion usually doesn't include or involve a woman's doctor. And there is a third person involved in the process--the baby. But we will not adopt the merits or lack thereof of abortion in this thread. There are hundreds of threads out there to debate the merits of abortion. Planned Parenthood is strictly an example of the difference between boycotting something that people DO as opposed to what people think, say, express, believe.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should I not have the right to choose to provide products and services for the gay wedding and decline providing products and services to the Westboro Baptist event bashing gays?

Why should I not have the right to provide products and services for your tailgate party but refuse to provide products and services for your organized dog fight?

I am not discriminating against gays or Baptists or you in any respect. I am refusing to participate in an event or activity that I cannot or choose not to participate.

THAT should be anybody's right to do for any reason.

You say being forced to provide an 'offensive' product for an activity or be present at an event is not participation or contribution. I respectfully disagree and we'll just have to disagree on that.

The Christians of the Westboro Baptist Church buy goods and services every day. They buy goods to use in their hate-filled events.

Suppose the family of a dead war veteran who's funeral was being disrupted by the Christians had a store, and in that store on the day of the funeral in question, an employee denied a product or service to the Westboro Church Christians. Do you think any rational person would call that a case of discrimination against Christians or a sect of Christianity?

I don't think a business should deny Westboro Baptists who came into the store to buy a product or service normally offered by the business. But certainly if the businessman did not wish to provide a special product or service for a Westboro Baptist anti-gay event, he should be able to exercise his choice with impunity. And no, that would not be discriminating against Christians or any Westboro Baptist member. It would be choosing not to participate in an event or activity.