The homophobic thread :>

[Mr.B]

"I guess a good test of the business owners intentions would be to see whether or not they would sell a plain old birthday cake to a gay person as opposed to a wedding cake that's to be used as part of a gay marriage."

I don't think there would be any problem there. As it was pointed out earlier, I don't believe the whole story of the baker's refusal was told; only the part that the "gays" told. If the "gay" couple came in demanding a 'special' cake, the baker should have the right to refuse; whereas if they had simply bought a cake, we wouldn't be talking about them right now. It's a story that got blown well out of proportion by the liberal media and the ACLU....the baker saw his rights flushed down the toilet.

[JTA]

While I'm in this thread, let me ask this.
Whether any of you believe in Creationism or Evolution.....why do you think a Creator, or a natural process of evolution, would create or cause to evolve, a male and female of each species? You think maybe there was a reason for that? Even in hermaphroditic species, there is still a means of reproduction, whereas a male of any species cannot conceive and give birth. (I know about sea horses) Therefore homosexuality is a result of the curse of sin.

Some individuals go on to reproduce, others don't. Those who reproduce pass on their genes to the next generation. In the past I suppose it was the more able that did so while the weak perished.

Homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, so their genes aren't passed on. I don't agree that homosexuality is a choice. Maybe it is if you're attracted to both sexes, but for me anyway it was never a choice. I just started finding the ladies attractive when I approached my teens. Never made the decision to, it just sort of happened. No one could ever make me become attracted to dudes. No sir.

From the purely secular standpoint of evolution/nature, I don't think homosexuality violates any natural order anymore than being born sterile does. Homosexuals simply won't reproduce and pass on their genes. They, like those born sterile, are simply genetic dead ends.

[O Really]

"I guess a good test of the business owners intentions would be to see whether or not they would sell a plain old birthday cake to a gay person as opposed to a wedding cake that's to be used as part of a gay marriage."

I don't think there would be any problem there. As it was pointed out earlier, I don't believe the whole story of the baker's refusal was told; only the part that the "gays" told. If the "gay" couple came in demanding a 'special' cake, the baker should have the right to refuse; whereas if they had simply bought a cake, we wouldn't be talking about them right now. It's a story that got blown well out of proportion by the liberal media and the ACLU....the baker saw his rights flushed down the toilet.

I think I've mentioned this several times before, with no response. If the guy didn't want to make them a cake, why didn't he just say, "I'm sorry, I'm all booked up. Maybe the shop down the street can help you." Why was he compelled to make a big deal out of refusing to make the gay guys a cake?

[O Really]

"I don't know what you might do, but I'd certainly support your scream of discrimination (which it would be) and the ACLU would also be happy to help you. Discrimination against you is as despicable (and illegal) as discrimination against anyone else. Why would you accept it and just say "oh well."?

I wouldn't ask the ACLU for a dog biscuit if I was starving.

Why would I, or should I scream "discrimination"? I would simply be doing what those "gay" people are doing....vying for attention.

It's so much easier to walk away and shop elsewhere without making a spectacle of them or myself. I would be a better person for it.

That's because you don't know what the ACLU actually defends.

And why would you scream "discrimination"? Because it's there. If you tolerate it against yourself, you'll tolerate or support it against others. That's positively anti-American. Of course it's easier to walk away. But it would have been easier for those guys in Greensboro to eat somewhere other than Woolworths. It would have been easier for Rosa Parks to stay in the back of the bus. It would have been easier for my dad not to get sprayed by the Birmingham fire department. What's easy is not always what's right - and attracting attention isn't always bad, nor does ignoring a wrong make one a better person.

[Mr.B]

"If the guy didn't want to make them a cake, why didn't he just say, "I'm sorry, I'm all booked up. Maybe the shop down the street can help you." Why was he compelled to make a big deal out of refusing to make the gay guys a cake?"
How do we know he didn't? Who said he "made a big deal of it"? Who's picture was plastered all over the media? Who really "compelled" who to do what?
Like I said, all we heard was the homosexual's side of the story and their gloating over taking the baker to court.

"And why would you scream "discrimination"? Because it's there."
I see a car coming down the street.....I'm going to run in front of it "because it's there....."

"If you tolerate it against yourself, you'll tolerate or support it against others. That's positively anti-American."
So what you're saying is, to be a good American, I should run and cry to a lawyer every time somebody crosses me?

"But it would have been easier for those guys in Greensboro to eat somewhere other than Woolworths"
Boy howdy!...can you imagine what would have happened if they went in holding hands and announced they were getting married to each other?
Seriously though, you're again grasping straws. Theirs was a racial discrimination issue, not a perversion issue.

"- and attracting attention isn't always bad, nor does ignoring a wrong make one a better person."
It takes a better man to walk away, rather than stand and look for a fight.
I applaud Rosa Parks and the Greensboro bunch, all men were created equal, homosexuality is a perversion, a result of the curse of sin.

[Mr.B]

OK....so I'm a "bigot"; so what now?

I have no argument against race. My "argument" is my religious belief against human perversion.
Your argument is that my religious beliefs are of no issue.....
Welcome to the Bigots Club.

[O Really]

You can define homosexuality as a "perversion" only if you believe it's voluntary, not a part of a person's genetics. On the other hand, religion is by anyone's definition voluntary. But if one's religion is "of issue" and it's voluntary, why is one's sexual orientation a "perversion" and also not of issue even if it were voluntary? And what does either of them have to do with a citizen's rights under the law?

[O Really]

It's a story that got blown well out of proportion by the liberal media and the ACLU....the baker saw his rights flushed down the toilet.

How so? Colorado law, long before this instance, made discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. He never had any rights to discrimination in the first place. Now, you may think he should be able to discriminate based on his religious beliefs, but that's a different matter. The law was clear - he violated it. Not directly related, but what other laws do you think should be ignored by those affected as well as the liberal media and the ACLU? Animal cruelty? Leaving the baby in the hot car? Petty theft in the grocery? Sign on City Hall saying "No Christians Allowed"? What is your point at which you'd say "Enough - even I will fight this time"?

[O Really]

I was wrong - Mr.B is right that if this bill becomes law in AZ, that Wal-Mart could refuse to serve Musliims. The bill defines "person" as "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization."

It further states...
- The person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief (50 years since CRA'64 it's still very difficult to prove a given action was motivated by discrimination, which is why a lot of cases get decided on statistics or disparate impact. What a mess this one would be, and what a boon for plaintiff attorneys)

- The person's religious belief is sincerely held (but no standards whatsoever to determine that)

- The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs ("substantially burden" in a financial situation is pretty easy; in regard to the "exercise of ...religious beliefs" it would be practically impossible.)

The bill is laughable, even if one believed in its concept.

[Mr.B]

waah..waah..waah....Dang, you two are whiners......and cry-babies.

Personally, I don't care how the homosexual issue turns out. I'll not be living long enough to see the entire world turned into a hellish pit of perversion.
Since you two are so vocal about "gay" rights, why don't you appoint yourself ambassadors to Uganda and browbeat their president over their anti-gay bill?
I'm sure he would love to hear your well-informed and politically-correct opinions...with your whining, I'm certain he'll have a change of heart.

I know where I stand, I'm happy with it, y'all deal with it. 'nuff said.

[O Really]

I don't think anybody is trying, nor certainly expects, to change your mind or viewpoint, Mr.B. But it would be nice if you would hold up your end of the conversation with more fact and less fluff. Uganda, seriously? What possible relationship is there to US law? That's why we keep telling you that we're discussing civil rights, not homosexuality. Those rights don't exist in Uganda.

BTW, why is "politically correct" so frequently used as a derogatory term? It's just another term for "polite," or "considerate of others." Seems like those are attributes you'd admire, being the "Southern Gentleman" you are and all that.

[Bungalow Bill]

I doubt four or five percent of the world's population will be able to turn
the planet into a hellish pit of perversion, even if that was their goal.
There are some fundis, perhaps a small number, for whom the new
Uganda law would be a wet dream come true. I don't recall all the
details, but weren't there some U.S. fundis who were over there
supporting such a law?

[O Really]

It's fun to play with the idea of how the newest demonstration of Arizona idiocy might be applied or enforced in the approximately 2 hours it would take for its first court overturn.

A "Sincerely held belief" by a member of the Church of Body Modification ( http://uscobm.com/ )might be that only those with holy piercings could eat in their restaurant. Now, most business owners are happy to serve anyone with money, and it's unlikely they would actually require piercings of customers. But under this law, they could. And, if they did, and the customer objected, would the state defend their religious rights (or rites)? What do you suppose might be considered a religion under this law? Would it have to be a mainstream type religion, or would the USCOBM be included? Would there be a minimum on the numbers of members to qualify? And really, does one actually have to belong to a church to have a "sincerely held belief" of a religious nature? If a discriminating shop owner claimed "religious belief", would s/he have to show s/he actually attends church? How about the conflict in AZ law regarding application of "Sharia Law" and the new rights of Muslims to act toward customers or others according to their "sincerely held belief?" A corporation is now a "person" under this law. How does a corporation have a "sincerely held belief"? Could one officer act on behalf of the corporation, or would they have to have a vote of stockholders to determine what their "sincerely held beliefs" are. Could they discriminate against themselves on majority vote? Could this corporation ("person") because of their "sincerely held beliefs" get around employment non-discrimination laws and boot out all non-believers? Refuse to rent to (insert name here)? Sure. Refuse to hire? Why not? What if a "person" suddenly develops a "sincerely held belief" because s/he wants to get rid of the gay guy who's been working there for years? In the law, there is no specification on how long one must have held the belief. "Yes, y'r Honor, I went to a revival last weekend and I wuz saved from having to keep this faggot on my payroll."

Damn, if this actually went through, I might have to get an AZ law license and join the 1%.

[bannination]

waah..waah..waah....Dang, you two are whiners......and cry-babies.

Personally, I don't care how the homosexual issue turns out. I'll not be living long enough to see the entire world turned into a hellish pit of perversion.
Since you two are so vocal about "gay" rights, why don't you appoint yourself ambassadors to Uganda and browbeat their president over their anti-gay bill?
I'm sure he would love to hear your well-informed and politically-correct opinions...with your whining, I'm certain he'll have a change of heart.

I know where I stand, I'm happy with it, y'all deal with it. 'nuff said.

Luckily the default position is not having to deal with it. You have to make special rules and laws about it to be the one "dealing" with it. Since you're on that side, you seem to be the one dealing with it, and handling it poorly at that.



Man, if only Jesus's followers, and any religion for that matter would just allow their god to do the judgement instead of themselves maybe they'd realize their god just doesn't give a fuck about those issues.

[JTA]

It's fun to play with the idea of how the newest demonstration of Arizona idiocy might be applied or enforced in the approximately 2 hours it would take for its first court overturn.

A "Sincerely held belief" by a member of the Church of Body Modification ( http://uscobm.com/ )might be that only those with holy piercings could eat in their restaurant. Now, most business owners are happy to serve anyone with money, and it's unlikely they would actually require piercings of customers. But under this law, they could. And, if they did, and the customer objected, would the state defend their religious rights (or rites)? What do you suppose might be considered a religion under this law? Would it have to be a mainstream type religion, or would the USCOBM be included? Would there be a minimum on the numbers of members to qualify? And really, does one actually have to belong to a church to have a "sincerely held belief" of a religious nature? If a discriminating shop owner claimed "religious belief", would s/he have to show s/he actually attends church? How about the conflict in AZ law regarding application of "Sharia Law" and the new rights of Muslims to act toward customers or others according to their "sincerely held belief?" A corporation is now a "person" under this law. How does a corporation have a "sincerely held belief"? Could one officer act on behalf of the corporation, or would they have to have a vote of stockholders to determine what their "sincerely held beliefs" are. Could they discriminate against themselves on majority vote? Could this corporation ("person") because of their "sincerely held beliefs" get around employment non-discrimination laws and boot out all non-believers? Refuse to rent to (insert name here)? Sure. Refuse to hire? Why not? What if a "person" suddenly develops a "sincerely held belief" because s/he wants to get rid of the gay guy who's been working there for years? In the law, there is no specification on how long one must have held the belief. "Yes, y'r Honor, I went to a revival last weekend and I wuz saved from having to keep this faggot on my payroll."

Damn, if this actually went through, I might have to get an AZ law license and join the 1%.

You make some good points, especially about where to draw the line in considering what's a valid religious excuse, and I think that's why this situation is going to be difficult to argue either way. A possible rebuttal is that the shop owner isn't outright denying service to a person because they're gay, they're simply refusing to make a cake that's going to be used in a ceremony which their religion strictly forbids, and by making said cake the shop owner may feel they're condoning something that is forbidden by their god. If the gay couple called the bakery and wanted to order a birthday cake (provided the bakery wasn't owned by Jehovahs Witnesses I guess) for their significant other and the owners refused because they don't want to cater to any homosexuals solely because they're gay, then I see that as a big problem because that's discrimination. As it stands people will argue it isn't discrimination against someone due to their sexual orientation, it's refusal to provide a product that's going to be used in a ceremony someone doesn't approve of.

If I was a satanist and called up a Christian bakery wanting to order a cake decked out in pentagrams, inverted crosses, and other satanic imagery I doubt the bakery would comply. If I was a satanist and wanted a barbie cake but told them for whatever reason I was going to use it at my Satanic mass, I doubt they'd want to comply because they may feel complicit. If I just wanted a barbie cake for my niece's Birthday they'd probably be cool with that. If the bakery denied service to me simply because I was black, white, hispanic, a woman, handicapped, gay, whatever, then that would be blatant discrimination and that shouldn't be allowed.

It's a gray area. I can see both arguments, and both seem lead to a slippery slope.

If I owned a bakery and a Nazi wanted a cake with swastikas and what not for Adolf Hitler's birthday I'd probably deny the request.

[O Really]

Got a little problem with your generally good analysis, JTA - sure, if a merchant has reason to believe a product will be use, for example, illegally, s/he isn't expect to sell it. You wouldn't be expected to sell duct tape, axe, large garbage bag, and shovel to someone you knew to be violent and made at his wife. But weddings aren't illegal, and other than what knowledge may be required to fill the order, the merchant has no business knowing the ultimate use of the product. Suppose merchants starting second-guessing their customer's motives and wouldn't sell groceries because the customer might donate them to an organization the merchant disapproved of. But back to the point - weddings aren't illegal, and sexual orientation is a protected category in some places (like Colorado where the original cake-bigot was), so by denying service based on what you think will be done with it, you're still discriminating based on sexual orientation because you're not turning down others who you think might get married.

[bannination]

I tried to think about it from Mr. B's point of view. What makes it fair and also serves his purpose of being able to discriminate?

Well, perhaps if every business that wishes to discriminate that is not a defacto monopoly (transit, I'm thinking of in particular). How about signage? This store cake store is Christian only, no blacks, gays, jews, chinese, muslims, etc.

Of course all the signage would have to be regulated for size and readability along with regulating the business to make sure they're displaying the appropriate signs for their particular discrimination. This is going to make signs huge and commercials long, and the list of government regulations grow, but this as a thought experiment might work.

In this case it's fair to the discriminee in that he doesn't have to go shop to shop to find one that will serve him, it's plainly displayed in any of their marketing material, and fair to the owner in that he doesn't have to serve <insert your discrimination here>

It's crazy, absurd, costs everyone a crap ton of money, but ....... that would appear at a glance to me (in my 5 minute shower) to be workable.

Thoughts?

Gay water fountains, gay water fountains, black water fountains.... it's all crazy.....

[O Really]

Nope. The sign still doesn't make it right. Can you see a sign saying "No Asians Hired Here."

[O Really]

Mr.B's logic problem isn't with his beliefs, it's with his understanding of law and a fundamentally flawed premise. He (and others) think that business owners actually do have a right to "refuse service to anyone." They don't, and haven't for decades. If you have a private organization (like Augusta National), you can discriminate to your heart's content - or at least as long as you're willing to put up with the public heat. But if you're open to the public, you're open to all the public equally. You can make your establishment more or less friendly to various groups by your decor, offerings, and primary clientele, but if Harry Milquetoast has the nerve to order a beer in the biker bar, they have to serve him.

[neoplacebo]

I tried to think about it from Mr. B's point of view. What makes it fair and also serves his purpose of being able to discriminate?

Well, perhaps if every business that wishes to discriminate that is not a defacto monopoly (transit, I'm thinking of in particular). How about signage? This store cake store is Christian only, no blacks, gays, jews, chinese, muslims, etc.

Of course all the signage would have to be regulated for size and readability along with regulating the business to make sure they're displaying the appropriate signs for their particular discrimination. This is going to make signs huge and commercials long, and the list of government regulations grow, but this as a thought experiment might work.

In this case it's fair to the discriminee in that he doesn't have to go shop to shop to find one that will serve him, it's plainly displayed in any of their marketing material, and fair to the owner in that he doesn't have to serve <insert your discrimination here>

It's crazy, absurd, costs everyone a crap ton of money, but ....... that would appear at a glance to me (in my 5 minute shower) to be workable.

Thoughts?

Gay water fountains, gay water fountains, black water fountains.... it's all crazy.....

Following Mr. B's line, it is analogous to primitive tribal types of segregated but not unaware of other tribes competing and killing each other. It's really a big step backward. The only apparent benefit of such an arrangement would be the victorious tribe being able to possess any food, weapons, women (or men), and the best home brew the other tribe could produce. Yeah, pretty much a big step back. And, well, religion has a history of holding things back so it shouldn't be any surprise that they're seizing on this latest assault on their ivory towers.