New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[Ice_nine]

A dude in an armchair? That is no dude, that is Andy Warhol!

 You must have caught on by now to the fact that I'm a simpleton who is ignorant of art. Especially modern art. But also art in general.

 

Did you notice the etymology when you looked it up?  It is derived from the Latin word for eyebrow.  So one is literally saying a person is full of eyebrows if one calls him supercilious.  I think this is a great word.

 

I learned it from my high school english teacher. He was a homosexual. He was also shorter than I am. True story.

[Perigrina]

lol

 

Here you might like this guy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/tony-perkins-gay-boxcars-_n_5473738.html

 

It is not a far-fetched position.  Catholics are already widely demonized as "haters" and "bigots".  This sort of demonization is the first step toward full out persecution.  It lays the ground work for people to rationalize acts of injustice and violence.  

[KnightofChrist]

Well Id like to point out that there is a difference between carrying cakes or meat balls and owning a store where you sell them to the public.

I also hope that you wouldnt carry cakes to any of the events you listed because Im not sure why youd be there in the first place.

If a baker refused to serve just a strip club, let alone the other examples in the list, and based that refusal on a religious moral objection things would be different. Even though the objection would be very much like the objection to serve a gay wedding, not wanting to give support to a pratice that God teaches is immoral, even when it is consensual and practiced by adults. It is very doubtful that a baker would be forced against his will to serve a strip club. It is also very doubtful that a baker would then be forced to take sensitivity training for refusing to serve a strip club.

[KnightofChrist]

Also...

http://youtu.be/DxswCufA4y8

[KnightofChrist]

And...

http://youtu.be/0r6HbLy4cd4

[Not The Philosopher]

So boring.

 

Hey it's that guy

[NotreDame]

Let's turn it up to...

 

PAGE ELEVEN!!!!!!

 

[Lilllabettt]

Well Id like to point out that there is a difference between carrying cakes or meat balls and owning a store where you sell them to the public. 

 

I also hope that you wouldnt carry cakes to any of the events you listed because Im not sure why youd be there in the first place.

 

 

Let me rephrase.

 

If I owned a bakery or a meatball shop I would not sell or deliver my delicious items to people who intended to use them at:

 

gay weddings

strip clubs

planned parenthood fundraisers

black panther celebrations 

rallies of the communist party

6 year old Adolph's Nazi-themed birthday bash

 

I don't care if Adolph cries. I don't. He makes me cry, being a 6 year old Nazi and all. So we're even.

[Lilllabettt]

 

I also hope that you wouldnt carry cakes to any of the events you listed because Im not sure why youd be there in the first place.

 

 

 

I know ... its so weird right? Like why would people who know a baker is Catholic and opposed to gay marriage, strip clubs, Nazis, communists and so on, ask that baker to make them a cake for a gay wedding, strip club thing, etc.? why'd they pick them out all special? Hmmm? What could the motive possibly be?

[Benedictus]

If a baker wanted to refuse service to people getting married outside the Church, the baker would face no legal penalties.  It would be considered a legitimate exercise of freedom of conscience. (and a bad business model) 

They could. It depends on the local laws regarding supply of goods and services and how they set up the busniess to operate. Deciding to restrict the business on what it produces and sells is practical. Businesses can also decide to restrict remit of operations on a general scale, such as to supply cakes to only certain hotels or businesses. Supply to only certain churches would probably also be included. But the business would need to have good reasons for only working with certain churches, to aviod claims of secondary racial or religious discrimination etc. Those factors can't be the key reason for excluding a wider remit of work, the same applies to hotels and so on. 
Similarly it shouldn't operate primarily to exclude a certain democraphic of person, such as skin colour, sex, sexual orientation or some other clause. There is scope for secondary exclusion due to necessity, such as a business that works with women who have been abuses. It would have to be reasonable and justified to exlude men, be it from working there or being offered a similar service. The rules are probably less strict for non profits.
 

Catholics may reach different conclusions when they apply moral principles to the question.  However, those who conclude that it is wrong to sell a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding will be punished by law for acting on their convictions.

 

It's immoral to sell a cake :hmmm: I think the cake is merely the tool the person uses to manifest what's in their heart, and it doesn't seem good. The business can find ways to provide a service without drawing on secondary issues i.e they don't need to process the order themselves if they have other staff. Is it OK for the same business to refuse to sell the couple bread on a daily basis as well after the marriage? It's not just about the wedding cake is it? Do staff have the freedom to serve or refuse customers contrary to the views of the businesss owners on such matters? There have been cases, defended by Christians, where they are employees's and refuse to serve people on religious grounds contrary to the employers wishes. Of course these arise after they get fired. Should their religious freedoms come before the business in those situations?

[Benedictus]

I know ... its so weird right? Like why would people who know a baker is Catholic and opposed to gay marriage, strip clubs, Nazis, communists and so on, ask that baker to make them a cake for a gay wedding, strip club thing, etc.? why'd they pick them out all special? Hmmm? What could the motive possibly be?

 

Why would they know what the bakers specific religious views are? Unless they're telepathic as well. I'd guess most fallout comes after a business refuses a request and outlines it's reasons, probably in a less than diplomatic fashion.

[Perigrina]

There are definately historical examples, even biblical ones, of racial and ethnic discrimination. In some parts of India the Catholic churches still sit people according to caste system. Until recent history most churches treated black and ethnic minority people like second class. They have since 'moved on', but you are making points to support business owners discriminate against LGBT people in the same way they used to do so with Black people in years past. Your logic therefore also proposes that noone is discriminated against if a business owner has religious beliefs which prevent him providing a cake for a mixed race couple getting married.

 

 

 

You are giving examples of racial and ethnic discrimination being part of a culture and thus being expressed by religious people within in the culture.  This is not the same as a religion explicitly teaching racial and ethnic discrimination. These are examples of people failing to live up to the ideals of their religion, not an exercise of religious freedom.

 

What group is being discriminated against if a person does not provide a cake for a mixed race wedding?  This is not a prejudice against a group; it is a disagreement with a practice.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't restrict belief to a religious system. Why do that? But there definately is sectarian religious discrimination around e.g Muslims shop owners refusing to serve Jews. There are also definately cases of religious people refusing to serve women living, or dressed, in ways they disagree with.
A person's belief and action aren't more justified because it's supported, or opposed, by a religious system!  If someone believes something and acts upon it for themselves, according to conscience, then your point seems to follow that if they have a business, or are employed, then their beliefs should trump first place in any operations of that business.

 

Lots of businesses have a dress code.  Have you heard of "no shirt, no shoes,no service"?  Have you heard of restaurants that require men to wear a tie? Do you consider these a violation of the customers' rights?  Or is it only bad when the dress restrictions are based on religious beliefs?

 

A Muslim business refusing to serve Jews would only be exercising religious freedom if their religion taught not to serve Jews.  Religion-based discrimination is not such an exercise.

 

 

You seem to place no regard for the community, the place of law or the customers exposed to that business. I think rights and freedoms of each person are balanced and fair when there is a conflict.
One person's views cannot veto or trump the rights and freedoms of others in a relational context. Similarly, if one holds freedom of religion as being central then they shouldn't try to stop same sex marriages, in church or not, when a religion agrees with it or the local congregation, with the power to do so, agrees to them. If freedom of religion is so central then why do so many people, relying on it to discriminate, not afford equal freedom to others with opposing views?

 

 

You are going beyond saying that people have a right to have a same-sex wedding.  You are taking the position that they have a right to force people who believe it is wrong to personally support it.  How is that balanced and fair? 
 

My personal views on religious freedom are based on the Catholic teaching on the subject.  This is not quite the same as the secular understanding.  I am not saying that the secular understanding is correct, but that many people who would claim to accept this understanding are not applying it to Catholics.  They are being inconsistent in their own beliefs.

[Perigrina]

They could. It depends on the local laws regarding supply of goods and services and how they set up the busniess to operate. Deciding to restrict the business on what it produces and sells is practical. Businesses can also decide to restrict remit of operations on a general scale, such as to supply cakes to only certain hotels or businesses. Supply to only certain churches would probably also be included. But the business would need to have good reasons for only working with certain churches, to aviod claims of secondary racial or religious discrimination etc. Those factors can't be the key reason for excluding a wider remit of work, the same applies to hotels and so on. 
Similarly it shouldn't operate primarily to exclude a certain democraphic of person, such as skin colour, sex, sexual orientation or some other clause. There is scope for secondary exclusion due to necessity, such as a business that works with women who have been abuses. It would have to be reasonable and justified to exlude men, be it from working there or being offered a similar service. The rules are probably less strict for non profits.
 

 

It's immoral to sell a cake :hmmm: I think the cake is merely the tool the person uses to manifest what's in their heart, and it doesn't seem good. The business can find ways to provide a service without drawing on secondary issues i.e they don't need to process the order themselves if they have other staff. Is it OK for the same business to refuse to sell the couple bread on a daily basis as well after the marriage? It's not just about the wedding cake is it? Do staff have the freedom to serve or refuse customers contrary to the views of the businesss owners on such matters? There have been cases, defended by Christians, where they are employees's and refuse to serve people on religious grounds contrary to the employers wishes. Of course these arise after they get fired. Should their religious freedoms come before the business in those situations?

 

If I were to refuse to sell a birthday cake to a homosexual person because he was homosexual that would be discrimination against a class of people. I think that this would be wrong.  If I were to refuse to sell a birthday cake to a homosexual person because he requested a topper of a nude man, that would not be discrimination against a class of people.  It is an objection to something specific about this cake.  Similarly, refusing to sell cakes for same-sex weddings is an objection to something specific, not discrimination against a class of people.

[CrossCuT]

Let me rephrase.

 

If I owned a bakery or a meatball shop I would not sell or deliver my delicious items to people who intended to use them at:

 

gay weddings

strip clubs

planned parenthood fundraisers

black panther celebrations 

rallies of the communist party

6 year old Adolph's Nazi-themed birthday bash

 

I don't care if Adolph cries. I don't. He makes me cry, being a 6 year old Nazi and all. So we're even.

Unfortunately you probably already sell your meatballs and cakes to people who are doing those things all the time. I think you should make a check box card of all the things you dont like and ask your customers to fill them out before buy anything so you can judge them on their agreeability to your sensibilities and thus turn them away. But I feel like your list could be better...You should add:

 

Evil Muslims

Divorced ppl

Murderers

Sex offenders

Unmarried ppl living in sin

Jerks

Fat people

Tree huggers

 

I know ... its so weird right? Like why would people who know a baker is Catholic and opposed to gay marriage, strip clubs, Nazis, communists and so on, ask that baker to make them a cake for a gay wedding, strip club thing, etc.? why'd they pick them out all special? Hmmm? What could the motive possibly be?

 

I feel like their motive would be in or around the purchase of cakes...just a guess.

[KnightofChrist]

If a baker refused to serve just a strip club, let alone the other examples in the list, and based that refusal on a religious moral objection things would be different. Even though the objection would be very much like the objection to serve a gay wedding, not wanting to give support to a pratice that God teaches is immoral, even when it is consensual and practiced by adults. It is very doubtful that a baker would be forced against his will to serve a strip club. It is also very doubtful that a baker would then be forced to take sensitivity training for refusing to serve a strip club.

 

I guess I'm to be ignored, that's ok. Still I doubt those advocating for what is basically slavery (of Christian business persons would get up in arms if a baker refused to serve a strip club.