Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Aruntraveller]

Surely Spud must have thought of that before advising relocation from Scotland to sun-drenched areas such as, say, Wetherby.   

Vitamin pills are probably the work of the devil.

[Outrider]

Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?

Nice attempt at a dodge, but you're well aware of the difference between the biological and commonplace usage of race, here.

2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.

How?  Are people discriminate against not for being black, but for 'acting upon their blackness'?

A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman.

Then he probably shouldn't have same-sex sex; why does his delusion, though, impose a restriction on anyone else?

Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved.

Which equally applies to someone who stupidly thinks that there's an issue with a black man and a white woman having sex.

Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is.

Do you not?  And when you live in a locale where this sort of stupidity is rife, what then?  What if there isn't another florist, or baker, or doctor, or abortion provider, or undertaker...

I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.

Turning people away based on their nature is intrinsically hateful.

You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude?

You might, if you were a fucking moron.

The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.

The marriage vow isn't inherently anything; the marriage vow is whatever the culture in which it's made has decided to collectively agree to it being.

So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.

Providing a cake for a wedding is not 'participating' in same-sex marriage, it's selling a cake. On that basis bigots shouldn't have to pay taxes because some of that money might go to pay for registrars who register gay weddings, or nurses who keep husbands and wives alive without asking important questions like 'are you or have you ever been in a perfectly acceptable relationship that might make a twat foam at the mouth'.

O.

[Spud]

Nice attempt at a dodge, but you're well aware of the difference between the biological and commonplace usage of race, here.

How?  Are people discriminate against not for being black, but for 'acting upon their blackness'?

Then he probably shouldn't have same-sex sex; why does his delusion, though, impose a restriction on anyone else?

Which equally applies to someone who stupidly thinks that there's an issue with a black man and a white woman having sex.

Do you not?  And when you live in a locale where this sort of stupidity is rife, what then?  What if there isn't another florist, or baker, or doctor, or abortion provider, or undertaker...

Turning people away based on their nature is intrinsically hateful.

You might, if you were a fucking moron.

The marriage vow isn't inherently anything; the marriage vow is whatever the culture in which it's made has decided to collectively agree to it being.

Providing a cake for a wedding is not 'participating' in same-sex marriage, it's selling a cake. On that basis bigots shouldn't have to pay taxes because some of that money might go to pay for registrars who register gay weddings, or nurses who keep husbands and wives alive without asking important questions like 'are you or have you ever been in a perfectly acceptable relationship that might make a twat foam at the mouth'.

O.

Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.

[Nearly Sane]

Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.

No, he wants them to do their job and not be a bunch of homophobic bigots like you.

[Gordon]

Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.

All your 'points' are spurious ones: if you are a baker then you bake what the customer wants cake-wise irrespective of your personal opinions, else don't be a baker.

[Aruntraveller]

You want to make them redundant.

Nope. They want to make themselves redundant.

You haven't yet answered my question about reciprocal arrangements.

If Christians have the right to decide who to serve on the basis of their sincerely held beliefs (prejudices) then you must allow it for everybody else.

My sincerely held beliefs are as valid as yours. If you think they are not, how do we decide? Who judges? And who judges the judge?

[Roses]

Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.

You points aren't worth making as they are homophobic and very nasty. I know I have said it many times, but it would be great if that guy, Jesus, had a gay sexual relationship with the specific disciple the gospels state he loved. If it was possible to prove that was a fact, the look on the faces of anti-gay Christians would be wonderful to behold, LOL!

[Outrider]

Well and truly missing all my points, except possibly the last one. But regarding that, there are situations where a trader could be asked to participate directly, such as photographers, wedding venues, catering companies etc. You want to make them redundant.

If, as a photographer, you think you're taking part in the wedding then you've missed your brief.  If, as a caterer, you think you're taking part in a wedding then you've misunderstood the nature of the relationship, which might explain why you think it's your place to object.  If, as a member of society, you think it's your place to deny people access to a perfectly normal everyday activity that you offer for money because you have an issue, then you have identified the wrong issue.

I don't want to make them redundant, I want to make them grow up and accept that not everyone thinks the same as they do, but that's ok.

As to 'missing your points'...

1 - you attempted a sophistric 'bait and switch' by conflating two different uses of race, and I pointed this out rather than leave you with the impression that you actually had made a valid point.

2 - you tried the now old-hat move of 'be gay but don't do gay', like that's somehow an acceptable differentiation, and you suggested that it was the difference between racism and homophobia: yet black history is replete with examples of their culture - the 'doing' black rather than being black - being oppressed: accepted beauty standards, acceptable workplace hairstyles, rock and roll being castigated as the Devil's music.  Homophobia is still catching up to racism, we haven't got to the part where it's overwhelmingly just the statistical, institutional residue that's affecting people with the odd smattering of actively malicious bigotry, it's still very much in the mainstream for gay people.

You then tried to suggest that not baking a cake was the moral equivalent of conscientious objection, which frankly is insulting to pretty much everyone involved not least the innumerable conscientious objectors who put their own lives on the line in various medical services rather than put other people's lives on the line by taking up arms.  They made their issues solely their's, and still played their part for the greater good.

Then I showed you how directly comparable your 'gay objection' was to 'miscegenation objection', which you neatly avoided addressing.

Then you tried to make the 'but there are other florists' argument, which is freely admitting that there should be a burden on gay people that isn't on others to suit your bigotry - it's your bigotry, it's your issue, it's your problem, it's for you to deal with not them.

Then you misunderstood the nature of the concept of marriage, and I corrected you on that.

So if you can show me which point of yours I missed, I'll be more than happy to clarify.

O.

[Spud]

Hello Out,

Yes, a photographer at a wedding is a part of that ceremony, as is anyone else present. That's my opinion.
A person grows up when he learns to reject the wrong and choose the right. At times, this can mean giving up a profession.
Your point about race:  even if we can compare same sex attraction to racial characteristics, and thus allow same sex marriage, some people believe that sexual activity is  morally wrong for a same sex couple.
Your point 2. You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.
Regarding not baking a cake: whatever you call it, it's a moral choice that trader has to make, and now that the law requires him to be immoral, all such traders can only fold up their businesses. Well perhaps they will in future start to do this without fighting it out in court, and that might be a better way to be a conscientious objector.
Re: there are other florists... Ok there again the best solution may be for the florist to resign.
As someone who's experienced giving up a profession due to external pressures I can say it sometimes has to be done.
As to the nature of marriage, well some people define it as the formation of a new family unit. Again, the only realistic option when the law redefines that is to steer clear.

[Aruntraveller]

You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.

And I wonder why that is?

Could it be anything to do with societal disapproval, disapproval from their family, their friends, in some cases their church, in some cases the fear still engendered by threats to their physical well being by thugs who think it's fun to beat up gay people ?

Add all that together and there is no wonder that gay people have significantly more mental health issues than the general population and that they then get into a position where they say "I'd rather not be gay".

But that is not a free choice you are talking about. That is a choice forced on them by ignorant, prejudiced, stupid bigots.

[Roses]

Hello Out,

Yes, a photographer at a wedding is a part of that ceremony, as is anyone else present. That's my opinion.
A person grows up when he learns to reject the wrong and choose the right. At times, this can mean giving up a profession.
Your point about race:  even if we can compare same sex attraction to racial characteristics, and thus allow same sex marriage, some people believe that sexual activity is  morally wrong for a same sex couple.
Your point 2. You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.
Regarding not baking a cake: whatever you call it, it's a moral choice that trader has to make, and now that the law requires him to be immoral, all such traders can only fold up their businesses. Well perhaps they will in future start to do this without fighting it out in court, and that might be a better way to be a conscientious objector.
Re: there are other florists... Ok there again the best solution may be for the florist to resign.
As someone who's experienced giving up a profession due to external pressures I can say it sometimes has to be done.
As to the nature of marriage, well some people define it as the formation of a new family unit. Again, the only realistic option when the law redefines that is to steer clear.

You are a hateful person,  I hope you don't have children your sick bigotry would not have been a good influence at all.

[SteveH]

You are a hateful person,  I hope you don't have children your sick bigotry would not have been a good influence at all.

And that is a hateful post. For all your vaunted tolerance, you are a pretty intolerant person.

[Outrider]

Yes, a photographer at a wedding is a part of that ceremony, as is anyone else present. That's my opinion.
A person grows up when he learns to reject the wrong and choose the right. At times, this can mean giving up a profession.

So we shouldn't put murderers in prison because it means they have to give up their profession in order to learn that they were wrong?

Your point about race:  even if we can compare same sex attraction to racial characteristics, and thus allow same sex marriage, some people believe that sexual activity is  morally wrong for a same sex couple.

Their moral stance, though, is their issue, and should only impose restrictions on their behaviour.  I don't get to say that stupidity is immoral, and therefore everyone should be banned from churches and homeopathy; I can, in our current society, make a case that one or both of those is sufficiently harmful that I think our society should prohibit it, and if enough people agree then we update our collective social contract to make it illegal.

Tellingly we've done that with discrimination on the grounds of race, sexuality, age, disability, gender identity, religious belief and sex; what we haven't done is impose it on having other people do things you don't like.

Your point 2. You forget that there are same sex attracted people who want to walk away from the homosexual lifestyle. You talk about be gay but don't do gay as if that's not an option.

I don't forget, it's just they aren't relevant to the discussion.  It's not for you to impose limitations on people who aren't causing anyone any harm, it's for them to determine if they are happy with their life choices.  If they come to you and ask for help or an opinion, give it freely; if they come to you for a cake because you're a baker shut the fuck up and make them a damned cake.

Regarding not baking a cake: whatever you call it, it's a moral choice that trader has to make, and now that the law requires him to be immoral, all such traders can only fold up their businesses.

Nobody is asking them to be immoral; they're being asked to bake a cake, which they're perfectly happy to do the rest of the time.  Nobody's asking them to support the concept of gay marriage; if it comes up in a referendum, they can vote however they want.  They're being asked, given that they've pitched to the world that they're bakers, to bake a cake.

Well perhaps they will in future start to do this without fighting it out in court, and that might be a better way to be a conscientious objector. Re: there are other florists... Ok there again the best solution may be for the florist to resign.

If you don't like the rules, you can either pitch to change them (we live in a democracy, of sorts, after all) or you can try to emigrate to a society which cleaves more closely to your beliefs for now - I hear Iran is nice,this time of year.
 

As someone who's experienced giving up a profession due to external pressures I can say it sometimes has to be done.

Is it 'external pressure'?  That 'pressure' presumably was on other people, who didn't have the issue - maybe it was 'internal' pressure brought about by your particular stance?

As to the nature of marriage, well some people define it as the formation of a new family unit.

If your definition goes beyond what the law sets, then you're perfectly at liberty to hold to that definition for you, for others in your club who choose to adopt the same definition.  You don't get to decide that for other people, though.

Again, the only realistic option when the law redefines that is to steer clear.

Or to accept that other people have other positions and it's not your place to try to enforce your particular choices on other people.

O.

[Roses]

And that is a hateful post. For all your vaunted tolerance, you are a pretty intolerant person.

I don't tolerate anti-gay cretins, they are evil. It would appear that you are supportive of anti-gay bigots, which doesn't do you any credit.

[SteveH]

I don't tolerate anti-gay cretins, they are evil. It would appear that you are supportive of anti-gay bigots, which doesn't do you any credit.

What I think when I see yet another of your predictable posts.

[jeremyp]

if you are a baker then you bake what the customer wants cake-wise irrespective of your personal opinions, else don't be a baker.

I would disagree with that. If free speech means anything it includes the right not to speak. A baker who strongly disagrees with a message they are asked to incorporate in their goods has the right - or should have the right - to refuse the business. I see no reason why  a baker should be forced to make a cake in the shape of a swastika, for example.

There is a distinction between refusing to bake a cake because of the message it incorporates and refusing to bake a cake because of who is asking you to bake it.

[Outrider]

I would disagree with that. If free speech means anything it includes the right not to speak. A baker who strongly disagrees with a message they are asked to incorporate in their goods has the right - or should have the right - to refuse the business. I see no reason why  a baker should be forced to make a cake in the shape of a swastika, for example.

Refusing to bake a cake in the shape of a swastika already has protections under the hate speech clauses of the regulations; as to whether it's a free speech issue, as the baker you aren't saying anything, the person putting the order is saying it.

There is a distinction between refusing to bake a cake because of the message it incorporates and refusing to bake a cake because of who is asking you to bake it.

Arguably, in some circumstances, but even if there was a free speech issue here, the right to free speech is butting up against the right to be free of discrimination.

O.

[Owlswing]

And that is a hateful post. For all your vaunted tolerance, you are a pretty intolerant person.

As is this one of yours!

Read the posts on this thread and this post puts you in the very small minority!

[Owlswing]

What I think when I see yet another of your predictable posts.

As do I when I see one like this from you! Your reaction was totally predictable.

And I notice a total lack of similar comments made about posts by NS and Trent and others of the same opinion as LR.

[Roses]

It makes Steve's day to have a go at me about something or other!

[Owlswing]

It makes Steve's day to have a go at me about something or other!

I had noticed

[Roses]

I was totally shocked the other day when looking at an American forum on which I used to post a few years ago, to see someone who claims to be an ever so holy 'Christian' making the sort of comments about Black people, which would have made the evil Hitler proud.   Basically he was saying that god intended all people to be white and Blacks were an aberration  of nature!   If a god and Jesus are in the ether somewhere and decent entities, I hope they would condemn people like that and refuse them entry to heaven, if it exists.

[SteveH]

I was totally shocked the other day when looking at an American forum on which I used to post a few years ago, to see someone who claims to be an ever so holy 'Christian' making the sort of comments about Black people, which would have made the evil Hitler proud.   Basically he was saying that god intended all people to be white and Blacks were an aberration  of nature!   If a god and Jesus are in the ether somewhere and decent entities, I hope they would condemn people like that and refuse them entry to heaven, if it exists.

I think you'll find that God and Jesus believe in repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. Who gets into heaven is none of your or my business.

[Roses]

I think you'll find that God and Jesus believe in repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. Who gets into heaven is none of your or my business.

Your belief with no evidence to support it. It is one's business if they do exist and only allow into heaven people of the unpleasant 'born again' dogma, however evil they have been in life, whilst good unbelievers will wind up in hell.

[jeremyp]

Arguably, in some circumstances, but even if there was a free speech issue here, the right to free speech is butting up against the right to be free of discrimination.

Nobody has the right to be free of discrimination. We routinely discriminate and are discriminated against in all kinds of ways. Certain groups of people are protected against discrimination based on their membership of that group but that doesn't mean we can't discriminate against them in there ways. I can't discriminate against a gay job candidate because they are gay, but I can discriminate against a gay job candidate because they are not qualified.

Refusing to bake a cake because of the message it conveys is not the same as refusing to bake a cake because of the sexuality of the customer.