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?

---

Rape is a great analogy: the woman represents the baker being told to make the cake. On a more serious note, the prior business dealings discredit claims of discrimination because there is clearly a non-discriminatory pattern that has been established. The customers have for quite some time had an equal relationship with all other clients. The baker perceives this as a different service requiring their own complicity, likely because to deny that is to deny that a wedding reception is connected to a wedding (it's not a bunch of people that are bored getting together to eat cake, it is part of a celebration of a union). To accuse me of being silly while denying such a relationship is willfully ignorant. If it's not connected to the wedding what the hell's the big deal for a custom cake and why can't they get an off the shelf one?

If the cake is non-essential why do they have to bake it? Why are they being punished? That's the whole point, two gay baptists would actually be denied a service they need to get married in the sliver but pastors are exempt, meanwhile something you consider to be a commodity warranted a $100K+ fine. That should be a warning bell saying this is all messed up. There are no rights being defended here, only infringed.

It also calls into question how freedom of religion is being protected if it can't be exercised. Thus far your only response is to serve as judge and jury for what is a reasonable exercise of their faith (much like RA at the beginning of this thread). Why do pastors get to freely exercise their religious beliefs but parishioners don't? You're arguing that people can't live out their beliefs because you pserosnally disagree with how they apply them.

There's no burden on me. I haven't made any claims about unfettered access to free markets and the right to have unabridged purchasing power. I simply am not denying that there are two parties to every transaction when sorting out rights.