Christians the most persecuted group in world for second year

9,583 Views | 210 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by AGC
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 11:06a, 1/12/17
AG
diehard03 said:
Quote:
I asked what harm you were referring to. You have yet to expound on it and are now avoiding it by making assumptions about my intent.

Our government does not uphold "unfettered access to the free market" as a right. It routinely restricts access (age restrictions for various products like alcohol, cigarettes, etc.) and markets (prostitution, drugs, slavery).

The government justifies these restrictions by presumably demonstrating harm. So please do the same yourself and tell us all what harm is done by not designing a completely custom wedding cake for a gay marriage. I don't think you can.

No, I think you're being intentionally obtuse about the harm. What person thinks discrimination is a good thing? Do I really have to explain to you that a person who is refused service at a business for nothing of merit is harmed?

Your examples of access restriction are rather odd too. It's not that some some 17 year olds can smoke. The topic we are referring to here is the restriction of a certain people group to access to the market.


If the harm is so obvious it should be easy to explain. As they regularly bought from that baker for years, a claim of discrimination requires substantially more than what you're offering since they were never "refused service" with the exception of one product: a highly custom piece designed to celebrate something the bakers found immoral.

I think your second sentence is more telling though: your premise is that one's religious beliefs are not of merit. You seem to ignore the rights of the seller completely, yet our government recognizes that sellers have rights (for example deed restrictions are allowed). What about this wedding cake makes it so important that the rights of the seller and religious freedom must be trampled?

Martin made a reply that you should have addressed: how did this baker's refusal for a custom wedding cake represent "restriction of a certain group of people to access the market." What market were they completely shut out of?
Reply Quote
4
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:20a, 1/12/17
Quote:
So the answer is no.

When you are creating for someone else, you absolutely have to consider the person's needs, tastes, desires, aesthetics blablablablablabla and combine it with your style and skills to create something made by you for someone else.

You can not separate the work from the client and the context of the event taking place/end use. If you didn't it might as well be off the rack.

That is specifically why we ask for custom things and pay a premium for their work.

I actually have, but my experience has no bearing on the discussion. We don't need a lecture on the creative process. You have made the point that once you get to custom (ie, not he same thing for everyone), it allow for discrimination. I am not sure how still.

I would understand if you would say "I'm not making a dress with dick patterns on it, regardless of your sexual orientation". We aren't talking about this case. We are talking about the case where you would make a beautiful dress for a straight girl but not a gay one.
Reply Quote
1
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 11:22a, 1/12/17
Nope, we are talking about you wouldn't make a dress to be used by a drag queen at a drag show.
Footwear specifically made for a stripper to wear at work.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:34a, 1/12/17

Quote:
If the harm is so obvious it should be easy to explain. As they regularly bought from that baker for years, a claim of discrimination requires substantially more than what you're offering since they were never "refused service" with the exception of one product: a highly custom piece designed to celebrate something the bakers found immoral.

You're splitting hairs now. It's irrelevant that they bought from there for years. They were still denied a service because they were gay. You're just trying to find a way this isn't discrimination and grasping at everything.


Quote:
I think your second sentence is more telling though: your premise is that one's religious beliefs are not of merit. You seem to ignore the rights of the seller completely, yet our government recognizes that sellers have rights (for example deed restrictions are allowed). What about this wedding cake makes it so important that the rights of the seller and religious freedom must be trampled?
No, I think that religious beliefs are definitely of merit. For instance, I am not for forcing pastors to marry people. I am not in favor of forcing jews to serve pork. You bringing up examples that restrict rights to everyone. There aren't deed restriction that only apply to white people, for instance.

It's not about the cake. It's about whether we allow discrimination based on sexual orientation or not.


Quote:
Martin made a reply that you should have addressed: how did this baker's refusal for a custom wedding cake represent "restriction of a certain group of people to access the market." What market were they completely shut out of?


You are making my definition more narrow that intended. They don't need to be completely shut out to be worth of discussion. There's no reason why their market should be decreased and their purchasing power decreased because of discrimination.

You can use the line of "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" if you want.
Reply Quote
1
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:38a, 1/12/17
Quote:
Nope, we are talking about you wouldn't make a dress to be used by a drag queen at a drag show.

Footwear specifically made for a stripper to wear at work.

These aren't artistic license issues though. These are moral/religious.

Artistic freedom is "I wouldn't do that, gay or straight". I have yet to see how what you describe is artistic freedom. You are making a value judgment on it's use case, and that's not artist freedom.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:48a, 1/12/17
Hot Take: After reading a couple articles on the Oregon bakery issue that was fined 135K, I'd say the fine amount was excessive.
Reply Quote
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 11:58a, 1/12/17
I don't think you can disentangle them.

If the gay couple were throwing a birthday party, they would have made a birthday cake for the gay couple. The artistic expression of joy of another year of life looks and feels a lot different that a wedding cake,

I might make shoes for the stripper to wear, but I would not make her workwear.
Reply Quote
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 1:20p, 1/12/17
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:
If the harm is so obvious it should be easy to explain. As they regularly bought from that baker for years, a claim of discrimination requires substantially more than what you're offering since they were never "refused service" with the exception of one product: a highly custom piece designed to celebrate something the bakers found immoral.

You're splitting hairs now. It's irrelevant that they bought from there for years. They were still denied a service because they were gay. You're just trying to find a way this isn't discrimination and grasping at everything.


Quote:
I think your second sentence is more telling though: your premise is that one's religious beliefs are not of merit. You seem to ignore the rights of the seller completely, yet our government recognizes that sellers have rights (for example deed restrictions are allowed). What about this wedding cake makes it so important that the rights of the seller and religious freedom must be trampled?
No, I think that religious beliefs are definitely of merit. For instance, I am not for forcing pastors to marry people. I am not in favor of forcing jews to serve pork. You bringing up examples that restrict rights to everyone. There aren't deed restriction that only apply to white people, for instance.

It's not about the cake. It's about whether we allow discrimination based on sexual orientation or not.


Quote:
Martin made a reply that you should have addressed: how did this baker's refusal for a custom wedding cake represent "restriction of a certain group of people to access the market." What market were they completely shut out of?


You are making my definition more narrow that intended. They don't need to be completely shut out to be worth of discussion. There's no reason why their market should be decreased and their purchasing power decreased because of discrimination.

You can use the line of "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" if you want.


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.

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.

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.
Reply Quote
4
Automaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:44p, 1/12/17
For decades non Christians have been forced to serve Christians under threat of force from the state. I'd happily agree that Christians should be able to refuse service for any reason if they allow me the same freedom.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:44p, 1/12/17
Quote:
I don't think you can disentangle them.

If the gay couple were throwing a birthday party, they would have made a birthday cake for the gay couple. The artistic expression of joy of another year of life looks and feels a lot different that a wedding cake,

I might make shoes for the stripper to wear, but I would not make her workwear.

You still haven't make any sort case for the artistic freedom argument. I get the religious one. It's seems like you assume that a gay couple wants a flamboyantly gay cake that going against tact and decency.

I am not sure how you would differentiate in regards to the stripper. how would you know? And, if you hold that stance, it's upon you to find out. It would be hypocritical to throw up your arms and claim ignorance (I didn't know she would strip in those shoes!), yet be rigid to the homosexual.
Reply Quote
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:44p, 1/12/17
AG
Reply Quote
Jim Hogg is angry
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Automaton • 1:53p, 1/12/17
AG
Automaton said:
For decades non Christians have been forced to serve Christians under threat of force from the state. I'd happily agree that Christians should be able to refuse service for any reason if they allow me the same freedom.


Reply Quote
1 edit
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:07p, 1/12/17

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?
Reply Quote
1
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 2:12p, 1/12/17
diehard03 said:
Quote:
I don't think you can disentangle them.

If the gay couple were throwing a birthday party, they would have made a birthday cake for the gay couple. The artistic expression of joy of another year of life looks and feels a lot different that a wedding cake,

I might make shoes for the stripper to wear, but I would not make her workwear.

You still haven't make any sort case for the artistic freedom argument. I get the religious one. It's seems like you assume that a gay couple wants a flamboyantly gay cake that going against tact and decency.

I am not sure how you would differentiate in regards to the stripper. how would you know? And, if you hold that stance, it's upon you to find out. It would be hypocritical to throw up your arms and claim ignorance (I didn't know she would strip in those shoes!), yet be rigid to the homosexual.

No, I think they want a cake for a wedding. They need to know the number of wedding guests, the topper, the colors for the wedding, the grooms' allergies and taste, the event and the context of the event plays a direct role in the cake and how it is executed.
Reply Quote
1
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:19p, 1/12/17
Quote:
No, I think they want a cake for a wedding. They need to know the number of wedding guests, the topper, the colors for the wedding, the grooms' allergies and taste, the event and the context of the event plays a direct role in the cake and how it is executed.

Ok, for the sake of arguement you aren't religious. At what point do you refuse to make the cake for the gay couple? The only sample criteria you've given is tacky, and I've been in agreement with you that this doesn't constitute discrimination.

My point has always been that if there's no "tacky" element to your refusal, then artistic freedom makes little sense.
Reply Quote
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:56p, 1/12/17
I suppose that is just an argument about moral relativism. I don't care that these bakers are Christian. I don't care that they have a problem with homosexual marriage. I do care that they are being forced to work against their will. What do you call labor at gunpoint?

What if you were commissioned to make white robes. Nondescript, no hood, but you knew that they would be used for KKK meetings.

Do you have to take the commission? It's not tacky, white robes are used for choirs, bands, churches, and all sorts of things.

Or that designer lady who said she'd refuse to dress Melania Trump...Melania has dressed very classy for the duration of the campaign and since...she's not refusing on the grounds of tackiness but rather moral indignation.

If you disagree with homosexual marriage and you are helping with the celebration and employing your creative talents to transfer a traditional element to the event, on some level you are expressing joy, participating in, normalizing it and endorsing it. The baker should not be forced to do so. It is absolutely ludicrous that we think we should handcuff a person in such a way.

The judges who have ruled on issues like this have used the reasoning that this is not considered artistic expression. I disagree vehemently that photography, floral decoration, and baking are not artistic expression. You choose the baker, the photographer, the florist because you like the way they express their art. They in turn do their best to express your wishes through the lens of their talent.
Reply Quote
2
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:38p, 1/12/17


Quote:
I suppose that is just an argument about moral relativism. I don't care that these bakers are Christian. I don't care that they have a problem with homosexual marriage. I do care that they are being forced to work against their will. What do you call labor at gunpoint?

First you said it was religious ground and artistic grounds. Now you are in favor of carte blache discrimination? I guess you are for discrimination based on gender, color, etc?

I'd say that making a product you make for everyone else is a far cry from "labor at gunpoint".

Quote:
What if you were commissioned to make white robes. Nondescript, no hood, but you knew that they would be used for KKK meetings.

Do you have to take the commission? It's not tacky, white robes are used for choirs, bands, churches, and all sorts of things.

Or that designer lady who said she'd refuse to dress Melania Trump...Melania has dressed very classy for the duration of the campaign and since...she's not refusing on the grounds of tackiness but rather moral indignation.
I'm surprised it took so long to get to the KKK example. I wont blame you for not supporting them business-wise because you felt they hurt other people. Those are claims of merit. Simply being gay is not, and was even protected against via legislation (in Oregon or the baker)

Quote:
If you disagree with homosexual marriage and you are helping with the celebration and employing your creative talents to transfer a traditional element to the event, on some level you are expressing joy, participating in, normalizing it and endorsing it. The baker should not be forced to do so. It is absolutely ludicrous that we think we should handcuff a person in such a way.
That's a tough stance to hold...as you now are responsible to making sure that your clients don't do anything that might disagree with. Your order forms better have a 30 page questionnaire to make sure you're not unintentionally endorsing something you don't want to be.

This sounds like a case of a vendor/person overvaluing their own importance in a clients life.


Quote:
The judges who have ruled on issues like this have used the reasoning that this is not considered artistic expression. I disagree vehemently that photography, floral decoration, and baking are not artistic expression. You choose the baker, the photographer, the florist because you like the way they express their art. They in turn do their best to express your wishes through the lens of their talent.

I'd have to see the actual comments, but I don't think they saying that cake baking has no artistic expression to it. They are saying that if you use this as a reason, then you must be able to show how it deviates from your desired artistic wishes. You can say "I don't do yellow cakes". You can't say "because they are gay" and claim artistic expression.
Reply Quote
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:51p, 1/12/17
Quote:
First you said it was religious ground and artistic grounds. Now you are in favor of carte blache discrimination? I guess you are for discrimination based on gender, color, etc?

I'd say that making a product you make for everyone else is a far cry from "labor at gunpoint".

First, one does not have to endorse something to think that there shouldn't be legislation about it.
I loathe Taylor Swift's music but I don't want to make it illegal.

No, it's labor at gunpoint. The bakers chose not to make the cake; this was deemed illegal. How do you uphold laws? What happens if they refuse to pay the fine? The state will take their property away from them (with guns).

Any time you want to make a law, you should first say "should this be required at the point of a gun."

And once again, they don't make that cake for everyone else. They make the cupcakes that are in their bakery for sale for $x a bit for everyone. They make cookies and whatnot for everyone by the dozen. They do not have consultations and tastings for the stuff that is on their sales floor. Custom work is not for everyone it is for one..that is what makes it custom.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 3:53p, 1/12/17
AG
Quote:
This sounds like a case of a vendor/person overvaluing their own importance in a clients life.

Really??? I don't think it was the baker that made the whole thing public and filed a lawsuit. Seems like this started out way more important to the client than it was to the baker
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:56p, 1/12/17
Quote:

That's a tough stance to hold...as you now are responsible to making sure that your clients don't do anything that might disagree with. Your order forms better have a 30 page questionnaire to make sure you're not unintentionally endorsing something you don't want to be.

This sounds like a case of a vendor/person overvaluing their own importance in a clients life.

And if a baker wanted to do that, (well they better make some great cakes) that should be totally within their rights. However, its not my job to make sure they have a consistent or thorough or precise ideology.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:02p, 1/12/17
Quote:
Really??? I don't think it was the baker that made the whole thing public and filed a lawsuit. Seems like this started out way more important to the client than it was to the baker

You misunderstand. Do you think that every business transaction carries the weight of "on some level you are expressing joy, participating in, normalizing and endorsing" the behavior of the other side?

My point is that if you feel that delivering a cake is all those things, then you overvalue your place in that clients life.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:03p, 1/12/17
Quote:
And if a baker wanted to do that, (well they better make some great cakes) that should be totally within their rights. However, its not my job to make sure they have a consistent or thorough or precise ideology.

No, then you're a hypocrit....picking and choosing on a whim what disgusts you and what you don't want to bother knowing.

Edit: You also have to accept the bigot label if you are not consistently applying the reason for your righteous indignation.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Automaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:05p, 1/12/17
Yet nobody cares about the govt gun forcing non Christians to serve Christians since the 1960s. Suddenly Christians find themselves on the other end of the gun and discover a feigned love of liberty.

Lets get rid of protected classes and let's start with religion.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:11p, 1/12/17

Quote:
First, one does not have to endorse something to think that there shouldn't be legislation about it.
I loathe Taylor Swift's music but I don't want to make it illegal.

No, it's labor at gunpoint. The bakers chose not to make the cake; this was deemed illegal. How do you uphold laws? What happens if they refuse to pay the fine? The state will take their property away from them (with guns).
Not wanting T. Swifts music legal means you are endorsing it as a valid music genre, even if you don't personally like it. Likewise, you are endorsing discrimination as a valid thing that you don't want illegal.

So, you're for everyone having the right to discriminate against you because you're a woman, even if you don't like it?


Quote:
And once again, they don't make that cake for everyone else. They make the cupcakes that are in their bakery for sale for $x a bit for everyone. They make cookies and whatnot for everyone by the dozen. They do not have consultations and tastings for the stuff that is on their sales floor. Custom work is not for everyone it is for one..that is what makes it custom.

You are choosing to focus on an element that doesn't matter. The offer the same product to everyone: a custom cake. They advertise that they sell custom cakes. That fact that each one is unique is irrelevant. Being custom doesn't come with the right to break laws.
Reply Quote
ramblin_ag02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Automaton • 4:12p, 1/12/17
AG
Quote:
My point is that if you feel that delivering a cake is all those things, then you overvalue your place in that clients life.

And yet the scenario as it played out showed that the baker severely underestimated their importance to the client.

Again, you can call it "just baking a cake" as much as you want. No one here, or the baker for that matter, cares if they come in a buy a premade cake. They are asking the baker to take on a specific contract for a specialized skilled service. Funny how you never hear about private lawyers being forced to accept cases they don't want. I wonder why that is? I see the situations as the same.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 4:12p, 1/12/17
diehard03 said:
Quote:
Really??? I don't think it was the baker that made the whole thing public and filed a lawsuit. Seems like this started out way more important to the client than it was to the baker

You misunderstand. Do you think that every business transaction carries the weight of "on some level you are expressing joy, participating in, normalizing and endorsing" the behavior of the other side?

My point is that if you feel that delivering a cake is all those things, then you overvalue your place in that clients life.

delivering a cake? you are undermining their vocation if you boil it down to just that.

And yes, if someone commissions me to work for them, I am only going to do so if to my knowledge I think that I can do so in a way that is ethical and God-pleasing.
Reply Quote
2
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 4:15p, 1/12/17
diehard03 said:
Quote:
And if a baker wanted to do that, (well they better make some great cakes) that should be totally within their rights. However, its not my job to make sure they have a consistent or thorough or precise ideology.

No, then you're a hypocrit....picking and choosing on a whim what disgusts you and what you don't want to bother knowing.

Edit: You also have to accept the bigot label if you are not consistently applying the reason for your righteous indignation.
You might have misread?

The baker would be the hypocrite...Its not my job to make sure that the baker is consistent.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:16p, 1/12/17
Quote:
And yet the scenario as it played out showed that the baker severely underestimated their importance to the client.

Again, you can call it "just baking a cake" as much as you want. No one here, or the baker for that matter, cares if they come in a buy a premade cake. They are asking the baker to take on a specific contract for a specialized skilled service. Funny how you never hear about private lawyers being forced to accept cases they don't want. I wonder why that is? I see the situations as the same.

Actually, I don't think the client thinks the baker is really that important...as a baker. What they did do is see someone trying to erode their legal protections and stood up to them. That's the only importance they play.

A lawyer, in that state, would not be able to deny a case from a gay couple on the sheer premise that they are gay.

You aren't making the points you think you are making.
Reply Quote
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Automaton • 4:17p, 1/12/17
Automaton said:
Yet nobody cares about the govt gun forcing non Christians to serve Christians since the 1960s. Suddenly Christians find themselves on the other end of the gun and discover a feigned love of liberty.

Lets get rid of protected classes and let's start with religion.

I'm a libertarian. If a muslim refuses to cater to me because I'm Christian, that's totally fine by me.

I think the best way to protect the Church is to keep the gov as far away from it as possible.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:19p, 1/12/17
Quote:
You might have misread?

The baker would be the hypocrite...Its not my job to make sure that the baker is consistent.

Sorry, you're taking multiple positions here in your arguments. On one hand, you are speaking a 3rd person, and others stating what you would do.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:24p, 1/12/17

Quote:
delivering a cake? you are undermining their vocation if you boil it down to just that.
This is what I mean by overvaluing. A wedding cake baker does nothing more than deliver a cake that pleases the customer. That's it. There is no more to that transaction.

Believe what you want to believe you are providing the customer to ensure you do the best work...but at the end of the day someones gives you money and you give them a cake.


Quote:
And yes, if someone commissions me to work for them, I am only going to do so if to my knowledge I think that I can do so in a way that is ethical and God-pleasing.

ok, so now you are applying these things to yourself. Dress making is an example. Say you find out that your client is not married and makes some off-the-cuff comment like "this is going to look good on my BFs floor!". Do you refuse to sell it to them?
Reply Quote
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 4:31p, 1/12/17
Personally, I wouldn't go back on an agreed upon contract for that reason. There wouldn't be much incentive for me to take future commissions from this person though.
Reply Quote
1
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:36p, 1/12/17
Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't go back on an agreed upon contract for that reason. There wouldn't be much incentive for me to take future commissions from this person though.

Fair enough. Thanks for responding.

What do you think your personal level of responsibility is to ensure that your dealing is up to those standards. It would be pretty easy, and more beneficial to you economically to avoid knowing anything about the client.
Reply Quote
swimmerbabe11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 4:46p, 1/12/17
Personally? Basics, I suppose. I'm not really confronted with this issue, so I haven't really thought up what my filter process would be.

I don't care how nosy other people are. I'm sure if that Cake Boss guy wanted to do a background check and morality survey and all sorts of stuff he'd still get clients.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:55p, 1/12/17
Quote:
Personally, I wouldn't go back on an agreed upon contract for that reason.

I was thinking about this more...I don't know that this is sufficient. First, you'll have outs in your contract. No sane contractor doesn't. Secondly, if you don't...I don't think one can violate one ethic using another. (ie, that your "not going back on your word" ethic trumps the moral ethic). It should force you into a greater responsibility to ensure that they don't come into conflict.

BTW, im not looking for your feedback on what other bakers should do. I am trying to discern whether the homosexuality topic is unfair adjudicated by the moral authorities here. It feels like it is not.

Quote:
Personally? Basics, I suppose. I'm not really confronted with this issue, so I haven't really thought up what my filter process would be.

I think that's kinda the point. People are quick to jump on the gay issue because it's more visible to them. They are more unwilling to discern other moral issues because they are harder to discern. It takes work to fairly apply the standards to others as you do homosexuals.


Quote:
I'm sure if that Cake Boss guy wanted to do a background check and morality survey and all sorts of stuff he'd still get clients.
Does this mean that you don't think you could? Isn't upholding the ethic greater than more business?
Reply Quote
2 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.