Gay Marriage

42 posts in this topic

Posted

That's like saying:

"I think doctors should be allowed to not serve patients based on things like gender and orientation" etc. or like "moving companies should be able to decline service based on things like the customer's sexual identiy"

 

If you aren't prepared to offer marriages indiscriminately, then get outta the business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Eh, the law isn't entirely clear on that.

 

In one case, a bakery refused to write gay, anti-bible quotes on a cake. They were sued for discrimination, but won the case, due to their policy of not writing any kind of derogatory/hate speech on any cake, regardless. 

 

In another case, a bakery was commissioned to make a cake for a gay wedding. The owner refused, so the gay couple sued the bakery and won. In this instance, the court ruled that the bakery did not have sufficient evidence to suggest they were refusing for any other reason than to be discriminatory. 

 

Interestingly, both bakeries were sued due to potentially violating "religious beliefs." I find that odd, as I don't know of any western religion that says anything about gay marriage. 

 

I don't believe anyone, regardless, should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. If I don't want to make a gay cake, you should never have the right to force me to make a gay cake. Just as if I were to commission you to make a cake with anti-gay writing, I wouldn't expect you to make it. Same principle with marrying gay couples, especially when it comes to church marriages by a priest/minister.

SilverAlchemic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

I don't believe anyone, regardless, should be forced to do anything they don't want to do. If I don't want to make a gay cake, you should never have the right to force me to make a gay cake. Just as if I were to commission you to make a cake with anti-gay writing, I wouldn't expect you to make it. Same principle with marrying gay couples, especially when it comes to church marriages by a priest/minister.

Yeah its like, I go to work but i shouldn't be FORCED to accept a customer's money and I shouldn't be FORCED to deliver their food. Like, jeeze it's not like it's my JOB to do my job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A church isn't a business though. A church could totally refuse to not host the wedding. Refusing a marriage at a courthouse wouldn't fly though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah its like, I go to work but i shouldn't be FORCED to accept a customer's money and I shouldn't be FORCED to deliver their food. Like, jeeze it's not like it's my JOB to do my job. 

If I own a business, it's my business. I don't want anyone, government, person, etc. telling me who I HAVE to serve. That's ridiculous. I don't have to do anything. I could refuse service to everyone and run my business into the ground if I want to. Most business owners are fairly intelligent. They know how to handle money, and they know who they want to serve. If they don't want to serve you as a customer, leave. Don't give them your money. They will change, or they will continue if enough people support them. If enough people fight against them, they will change or die. That's how capitalism works. 

SilverAlchemic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

@LL yeah a church isn't a business, I just think the whole thing is rediculous. But i mean, churches usually are soooooo...

@chase that's not how businesses are legally allowed to run in most states, and definitely not how they should ideally be run. Imagine a pediatrician who runs their own clinic (or office or whatever) who refuses to treat a child based on their or their parent's sexual identity? That's totally 100% puppyed up. Both legally and morally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's about sending a message, whether you agree with it or not. Is it in the business' best interests to turn people away? Depends if they're in the position to make that decision firstly. Maybe sending the message means more than having the money from the customer. 

 

You can say the same thing about a person protesting and holding up signs. Like, is that in their best interest? They made the decision to do so, so sure. 

SilverAlchemic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

thats like, not the same at all.

 

If i walked into a grocery store, and they refuse me based on my orientation, race, religion, gender or sexual identity, then that's puppyed up. That's not just a puppyed up message, that's straight up discrimination. If I see someone at a protest or rally, then whatever, that's their choice. But when you are a BUSINESS, you DON'T and SHOULDN'T get to choose who you serve.

 

People are so ignorant in thinking that "freedom" only works one way. If your "freedom" is to take away other people's "freedoms" then it's not freedom! Even free speech has it's limits. Like hate speech isn't just a phrase, it's a legal concept as well.

 

For reals we, as a nation, have been over this already. This is what you are supporting when you say business owners should be able to choose who they serve. 

WeWashForWhitePeople.jpg

Even if your issue is specifically with queer people, allowing ANY discrimination allows ALL discrimination!

Edited by PizzaGirl 420 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You do get to choose who you serve though


Like Chase said, if you say "we have the right to refuse service to anyone", then that's legit. But if you just straight up say "No, you're gay, get out" then that's discrimination based on orientation. It cannot happen in a government office/public institution, either. 

 

 

I made a post about this the other day, actually. Americans confuse consumerism and freedom all the time. You don't have a right to buy whatever you want, nor is a business obligated to serve you*. You aren't infringing upon someone's freedom by refusing them service of your private business.  It might be a dick move in many peoples' eyes, but it's legit. I think it's pretty lazy and embarrassing when Americans equate being refused the opportunity to buy and consume with oppression. Like, that's sad in my opinion. They're so out of touch with what "freedom" even means that they think it applies to consumerism, too. 

 

 

It's not as if one bakery single-handedly stripped the gay couples ability to have a cake. They aren't taking away their "freedom" to have a cake. They can literally walk down the street and get another cake at literally any other bakery. For every one bakery that refuses to make a gay wedding cake, there are thousands of others that are more than willing. Take your business elsewhere. As a business, they will have to deal with the consequences, whether that means bad publicity, good publicity, and/or the lack of business. 

 

I support marriage equality, but that doesn't mean I confuse my stance with an objective one. 

 

 

 

*Historically, I think that only happens when like, railroads are required to run despite strikes. But anyway...

Edited by L.L. Bean's Menswear (see edit history)
SilverAlchemic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

yeah,maybe that makes sense. My problem, personally, isn't with bakeries. It's more of what that idea and concept could and probably will allow. I hear many horror stories of EMTs putting a person in their ambulance and then finding out the person is trans* and then refusing to aid them. The people die in their custody cause of their bigotry. You might be right, legally. I may have been looking at this the wrong way. I just fear for other people's safety. Especially with these recent reports of black people dying in police custody. It's a scary world out there dude. Cakes are one thing, but what this leads to is much more.... But i guess they said the same thing about marriage equality lol (slippery slope is sooooo slippery)

 

Can you understand where im coming from? does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Let me say it this way. If a trans person was dying, bleeding on the side of the road and asked for my help, I would help them. The transexuality has nothing to do with their current dilemma, and it also has no bearing on whether I will help them.

If you asked me to bake a cake with pro gay marriage slogans/quotes on it, I wouldn't. Though I honestly wouldn't ask me to bake you a cake regardless because I'm terrible at baking.

I would defend a trans person being physically assaulted. Again, sexuality has no bearing on whether I will help you. But I don't support your choices. I believe you should be free to make them, as I am free to make mine, but there are limits to everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Imagine a pediatrician who runs their own clinic (or office or whatever) who refuses to treat a child based on their or their parent's sexual identity? That's totally 100% puppyed up. Both legally and morally.

 

False equivalency though. You can't compare the provision of a service to the commissioning of art. If you consider ordering a cake to be like commissioning artwork that is, which I can understand. It's a different kind of business to selling goods or providing services. It's a bit of both, and it's more personal to the provider than someone who sells apples, or helps people in need (your doctor isn't going to be annoyed with you when you're disappointed that you had to lose the leg "this isn't what I asked for at all!").

 

I do agree that it's discrimination though, and that it's not okay to not want to bake someone a cake based on their sexuality, but I still think that the baker should be allowed the option to refuse. As much as the baker is disrespecting the customer, it also seems disrespectful to make the baker do something they don't want to do. It's a different, more personal kind of service. 

 

That said, I'm unsure if forcing bakeries to accommodate for gay people is a good or a bad thing, overall. What kind of moral do you perpetuate by letting them get away with discrimination? That it's okay to refuse to serve gay people? And by forcing people to accommodate, what do you say then? That it's not okay. Thinking of it in terms of how children will view it is more important to me than how the people involved will see it.

 

Maybe years ago we might have had this same conversation. "They should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for black people. I personally wouldn't. I wouldn't let one get beaten up in the street, but I won't say I agree with their way of life." How awful would that be? We're far enough away from systematic segregation now that we can see how wrong that point of view is. We're still fresh out of allowing gay people to marry, and the religious opposition is still so strong that we actually allow ourselves to sympathise with the people doing the discriminating.

 

It's a grey area, but I think it'll become more black and white as time goes on. People should just fight it out for a while I guess. Allow artistic freedom until enough people get sued. I dunno. I don't know what's correct. I'll let the continuing pattern of events decide that.

 

I think it's important to keep the idea that people should have the right to have their own opinion and act as they see fit. Times will change to adapt to the majority, and people should continue to call people out for their bullshit like this. More people will see that it's unfair, and eventually the opposition will cave in and start accommodating, or fade out of the business altogether, making way for the new norm.

 

It would be bad if people said "You have to bake a cake and you're NOT allowed to complain" or "They are not baking you a cake and you're NOT allowed to complain." Everyone should have the right to complain, all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Black people can't stop being black. You can choose not to have gay sex. Also being black isn't considered a sin in Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yeah, I know I'm making another false equivalency here by comparing racism, which I guess is general ideological opposition, to homophobia, which is usually motivated by religious opposition or just straight up physical revulsion. Not that I'm saying you're necessarily homophobic, because I don't think you are. In your worldview it's a pretty pure-hearted sentiment.

 

I don't have religious faith, so I can't really argue with you on equal terms about homosexuality. I'd be wasting both our time if I tried. I also don't really care about changing your point of view anyway, because I think you're a good guy. I'm comfortable just believing you're wrong, as long as you're comfortable believing that I'm wrong. Instead we can look at each other with a mixture of mutual respect and pity. Although from my point of view I wouldn't pity you, but I kind of imagine it'd be upsetting for true believers to see people acting in a way that you believe will get us exiled from Heaven, or whatever you'd call it.

 

On that point though, how do you feel about good people who do sinful things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 You can choose not to have gay sex

The difference in our choices is that you choose to be a dick, while I just choose to have them in me occasionally. Maybe we could meet up and trade roles sometime? 

Cascade likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.