Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family, a prominent conservative Christian group based in Colorado Springs, said he was worried that Christians would be subjected to “prejudice and persecution” if they stood against same-sex marriage. He suggested that a variety of issues were likely to be litigated, including whether the ruling would force Christian universities to house same-sex couples in dorms for married students and whether cake makers and florists would have to work same-sex weddings.
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Bear Bibeault wrote:I've heard the argument that "If Bakery A doesn't want to serve you, just go to Bakery B". And while that might seem persuasive, it doesn't scale. What if Bakery B also won't serve? What if Bakery A is the only bakery in a small town? What if Grocery Store A also decides not to serve? And the Hair Salon? Well, then we're right back to separate water fountains.
Bear Bibeault wrote:If their religion prevents them from doing their jobs, then they need to find jobs where their "closely held beliefs" does not interfere with their duties.
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
chris webster wrote:This bakery issue has already been through the courts in the UK
chris webster wrote:Personally, I think somebody in the wedding cake business who doesn't want to make cakes for gay weddings is probably in the wrong business for their religious convictions. You don't meet too many Muslim or Jewish pork butchers, after all.
chris webster wrote:On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a cake for a gay wedding, I might be a little cautious about buying it from these people - you could get a nasty surprise (anybody remember the chocolate pie from "The Help"?)...
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
chris webster wrote:This bakery issue has already been through the courts in the UK
Wow. It's an actual thing.
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
Bear Bibeault wrote:Separate but equal just doesn't work; that's been extensively demonstrated in the past.
As soon as you say "This class of people can't use these facilities, but that's ok, there are other facilities they can use", your argument becomes invalid.
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Separate but equal just doesn't work; that's been extensively demonstrated in the past.
As soon as you say "This class of people can't use these facilities, but that's ok, there are other facilities they can use", your argument becomes invalid.
Ahmed Bin S wrote: However, refusing to put a slogan on a cake isn't denying someone a service.
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Ahmed Bin S wrote: If a Christian couple find gay marriage abhorrent, then they have a right to refuse to make slogans supporting gay marriage.
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Ahmed Bin S wrote:
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Separate but equal just doesn't work; that's been extensively demonstrated in the past.
As soon as you say "This class of people can't use these facilities, but that's ok, there are other facilities they can use", your argument becomes invalid.
But that isn't my argument. Maybe we are talking about different cake incidents, I am talking about the one in the UK:
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
Ahmed Bin S wrote: If a Christian couple find gay marriage abhorrent, then they have a right to refuse to make slogans supporting gay marriage.
Do they That's the point of this thread. I don't think do have the right to refuse. They do have the right to chose a different occupation if they don't want to do it.
Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
Sure it is. The bakery makes cakes and puts frosting text on them. That's part of their business.
In your examples, #1 is hate speech so they can refuse on those grounds. #2 is a gray area because one could claim it is about something else (thin argument I know.) #3 isn't a protected category of people so up to the bakery.
We have laws that protect class #4. So it is different.
Bear Bibeault wrote:
The point is that they do not have the right to offer different levels of service to different classes. That's the very definition of discrimination.
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Yes, I was talking about the US "Sweet Cakes" incident. The UK case is different because it involves wording, and therefore speech. I'd say that is a completely different topic than the OP asked about.
Ahmed Bin S wrote:
Ok, so take away the faggots from "Gays are evil faggots" to leave "Gays are evil" - this isn't hate speech now, this is someone's belief.
So if 3) is up to the bakery, then the bakery is denying someone a service based on their political belief, and is therefore discriminating.
Bear Bibeault wrote:[
No, still hate speech.
Ahmed Bin S wrote:Anyway, going back to my original point, saying "Gays are evil" is NOT a criminal offence.
It is a belief of someone. Now I might find this belief abhorrent, but I, nor you, nor Jeanne, nor anyone else in the world, has the right to deny a person to express that belief of theirs.
Therefore, a person putting the message "gays are evil" on a cake isn't breaking the law.
So, again, my question is, why is it ok for someone to discriminate against someone else when you find the slogan offensive (gay bakery discriminating against Christian fundamentalist)
Either you should believe that everyone has the right to refuse to put a slogan on a cake or you believe no one has the right to refuse to put a slogan on a cake.
Bear Bibeault wrote:
But again, the whole hate speech topic is a red herring. The incidents are not about someone being sued for refusing to print hate speech.
Bear Bibeault wrote:I never said that it was. But no court is going to consider someone refusing to print hate speech, however it is defined, as discrimination; it falls into a special class, again, depending upon jurisdiction
Bear Bibeault wrote:
No one said any of these things.
But again, the whole hate speech topic is a red herring. The incidents are not about someone being sued for refusing to print hate speech.
Bear Bibeault wrote:
False dichotomy fallacy.
Henry Wong wrote:
On the other hand, there is protection against discrimination, when you provide a service for one group and not another. There is nothing about the cake for the gay couple that would be different than any other couple. It is clearly discrimination against a protect group.
Ahmed Bin S wrote:I say everyone has the right to refuse putting a slogan on a cake if they find it offensive.
Ahmed Bin S wrote: I think if you (not you personally!) get up in arms about something as trivial like this, then you should go and live in a poor
country where people have no jobs and are not even guaranteed a meal a day, and maybe then you will realise just what a first world problem getting upset over something like this is.
[OCP 21 book] | [OCP 17 book] | [OCP 11 book] | [OCA 8 book] [OCP 8 book] [Practice tests book] [Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions] [Book Promos]
Other Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Ahmed Bin S wrote:
Therefore, if you follow the "discrimination argument", a gay bakery should have no right to refuse a Christian fundamentalist from getting a cake with that slogan.
Ahmed Bin S wrote:
Therefore, if you follow the "discrimination argument", a gay bakery should have no right to refuse a Christian fundamentalist from getting a cake with that slogan.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Paul Clapham wrote:So far so good... business owners now have that right. Next step: Employees should have that right. Expect to see Muslim cashiers refusing to check pork products through their tills. And why not? Employers shouldn't be interfering with the religious rights of their employees.
Ahmed Bin S wrote:No company that sells pork products would employ a Muslim as a cashier unless the Muslim agreed to check pork products through the tills.
But to a large extent people's actions are determined by their beliefs.Paul Clapham wrote:[. . . None of this stuff is because of beliefs. . . . All of this stuff is about actions. . . .
Campbell Ritchie wrote:
But to a large extent people's actions are determined by their beliefs.Paul Clapham wrote:[. . . None of this stuff is because of beliefs. . . . All of this stuff is about actions. . . .
Ahmed Bin S wrote:I don't think they now have the right, they have always had the right - if a Holocaust denier went to a Jewish printing company here in the UK and asked for leaflets to be printed denying the Holocaust happened (legal in the UK), the Jewish business would have the right to refuse.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Paul Clapham wrote:It seems to me that this "rights" business is about power relationships...
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Brian Tkatch wrote:
Ultimately, this whole marriage thing is absurd. Marriage in the Western World is a Judeo-Xian invention, which the government recognized for convenience. Since it has been found to be discriminatory, the government should simply stop recognizing it.
"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." -- Ted Nelson
Did you see how Paul cut 87% off of his electric heat bill with 82 watts of micro heaters? |