Ugh. . . We still talkin about cakes?
diehard03 said:Quote:
I'm not splitting hairs. Your claim is akin to the original definition of 'obscene' from Justice Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I know it when I see it." This is not a legally or philosophically prudent argument and is entirely arbitrary. Rather than being a matter of immutable rights which can be argued or proven, it's simply a matter of reducing an entire relationship to a single moment (which isn't representative of their history at all). The principal is solely at the disposal of whoever controls the judiciary at a given time. That should be a warning to you that you're not debating the merit of an inalienable right.
It's not at all. I am not claiming any arbitrary definition of anything. What I am saying is that prior relationship has no bearing on the offense. If a woman willingly sleeps with a man 200 times, but doesn't give consent to the 201st - is it not rape (if he forces her the 201st time)? You're trying to say that's not discrimination that they denied the custom cake because they bought other stuff there that wasn't a custom cake. How silly is that.Quote:
This response also fails to be consistent as if anyone should be forced to provide service it should be priests / preachers. If we're worried about market restrictions, who would perform their ceremony in podunk east or west Texas? Surely that would be a greater threat to the fettered regulated market that we're arguing about than a wedding cake which can readily be bought off the shelf at a grocery store if one is truly a right for a wedding. If the practice of a religion isn't worth protecting then why protect religious freedom? Why protect a pastor? What's special about him practicing his belief system that these people don't have? Is it simply earning a paycheck for your practice, professional Christians or Jews don't have to do such things? I'm not sure I follow your argument here.
I guess I don't understand the confusion. A pastor/priest is active participant in the wedding. The wedding cannot proceed without them. Furthermore, the nature of the role of the pastor/priest is one that does affirm/approve/whatever the relationship. The baker does not. They literally just provide a custom decorated piece of food.Quote:
There is no right to purchasing power or being able to purchase at every store under the sun. You again ignore the rights of the sellers to practice religion. Why is that? There are two parties to these transactions, not one.
I guess I'll put the burden on you: Why should someone else purchasing power be reduced for your religion? Why do you want more discrimination to exist? How is the entirety of your religious practice thwarted by baking a cake?