your argument is basically based on "Rachel Dolesomething is black", she isn't. a white man marrying that woman would not be doing an interracial marriage.
the fact that straight gay marrying each other is illegal isn't relevant, the bakers didn't decide not to do the cake based on the law.
DomeWing333's example is actually exactly the same as yours. Two white people can have an interracial wedding for the same reason that two s… moretraight people could have a gay wedding. The only way two straight people could have a gay wedding is if they pretended to be gay. Likewise, it's possible for white people to change their skin pigmentation and pretend to be black.
As I said above, two straight people can have a gay wedding, but if they were really straight and weren't gay or bisexual, then the act of entering into a gay marriage would be fraudulent, making the marriage an illegal one. You can't make a legal defense out of an illegal act.
The Civil Rights Act only covers cases where the people involved are discriminated against because of something that they really are, honestly, and legally. Fraud isn't covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You're contradicting yourself. You said earlier that you weren't talking about the lesbian couple, but were talking about two men who were denied a cake recently.
The law does define possibilities if you're trying to defend against that law. If you're trying to make a defense against the argument that something violated someone's civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then you have to bring up an argument that it didn't violate the civil rights under that act. Any argument other than that which would work against the law that you're defending against wouldn't hold water.
Not baking a cake for two straight men who are getting married by gay marriage is not a violation of civil rights as the act of two straight men getting married is an illegal act as they entered a gay marriage under false pretenses, and fraud is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
the cake was ordered in june 2013, so no, it was illegal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054866/Anti-gay-bakers-face-paying-135-… more000-lesbian-couple-refused-wedding-cake-Christian-couple-raised-100-000-eight-hours-fundraising-page.html
a law does not define the realm of practical possibilities, the fact that straights gay marrying each other is somehow illegal does not undermine the fact that the owners' main issue was the marriage, not the individuals' sexual orientations, the fact that straight getting discriminated while trying to marry each other does not fall under discrimination acts is irrelevant. it just means that they wouldn't have gotten sued had they refused a cake to straight men marrying each other, my argument was that they'd have refused a cake to 2 straight men marrying each other, for the same reason they refused a cake to 2 gay women marrying each other: the marrige.
again, the problem wasn't that they were … [view original content]
It's a difference that has no bearing on the analogy. The key point is that in both cases, the customer being denied service would not be de… morenied service in other situations. If the man in your example were marrying a woman, he would get a cake. And if the man in my example were marrying a white woman, he would also get a cake.
Your argument was that this means that it was the nature of the marriage that the baker was discriminating against, not the sex and race of the customers themselves. But the reason why the baker is against the marriage is because of the sex and race of the other individual in the marriage. The man in your example is being denied a cake because his partner is a man. The man in my example is being denied a cake because his partner is black. Sex and race-based discrimination is still taking place, so the Civil Rights Act still applies.
And the straight men who marry straight men aren't gay. It's fraud in both instances.
The bakers didn't decide to bake a cake based on their religion, just as people who deny interracial marriages do so based on their religion. There have been multiple cases that have been tried in the United States over the years regarding the civil rights act and freedom of religion. Every case found that freedom of religion does not allow someone to use their religion as a means to violate the anti-discrimination laws of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
your argument is basically based on "Rachel Dolesomething is black", she isn't. a white man marrying that woman would not be doing an interr… moreacial marriage.
the fact that straight gay marrying each other is illegal isn't relevant, the bakers didn't decide not to do the cake based on the law.
no, i'm talking about the oregon bakery called melissa's something something that in june 2013 denied a wedding cake to a lesbian couple, i never said the opposite, i just asked clarification earlier because both the OP and who i was talking to seemed to have confused information.
Not baking a cake for two straight men who are getting married by gay marriage is not a violation of civil rights
this has absolutely nothing to do with the example. my argument is that if 2 very straight men (or women) had asked for a gay marriage cake, the bakers would've refused them not because it's illegal, but for the exact same reasons they denied it to the lesbian couple.
You're contradicting yourself. You said earlier that you weren't talking about the lesbian couple, but were talking about two men who were … moredenied a cake recently.
The law does define possibilities if you're trying to defend against that law. If you're trying to make a defense against the argument that something violated someone's civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then you have to bring up an argument that it didn't violate the civil rights under that act. Any argument other than that which would work against the law that you're defending against wouldn't hold water.
Not baking a cake for two straight men who are getting married by gay marriage is not a violation of civil rights as the act of two straight men getting married is an illegal act as they entered a gay marriage under false pretenses, and fraud is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And the straight men who marry straight men aren't gay. It's fraud in both instances.
The bakers didn't decide to bake a cake based on t… moreheir religion, just as people who deny interracial marriages do so based on their religion. There have been multiple cases that have been tried in the United States over the years regarding the civil rights act and freedom of religion. Every case found that freedom of religion does not allow someone to use their religion as a means to violate the anti-discrimination laws of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now that I know exactly what case you are talking about, Cakes By Melissa refused service to them because they are opposed to same sex unions because of their religion. Same sex unions have been legal in Oregon since 2008. Since it's legal, denying service is against the equal protection clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That guarantees equal protection to everyone. Cakes by Melissa used their religion to deny service, and the fact is they can't do that.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the example. my argument is that if 2 very straight men (or women) had asked for a gay marriage cake, the bakers would've refused them not because it's illegal, but for the exact same reasons they denied it to the lesbian couple.
That argument doesn't hold water, as I pointed out, two straight people can't enter into a gay marriage without committing marriage fraud. Marriage fraud automatically leads to an annulment, which makes the marriage null and void, which means, in the eyes of the law, the marriage never existed. Therefore, you're arguing over something that legally can't exist.
The simple fact is that Cakes by Melissa denied equal protection of their customers based on religion, which is illegal. Twisting it into some kind of mess of illegality doesn't change the fact that equal protection was not provided. There's no getting around that.
no, i'm talking about the oregon bakery called melissa's something something that in june 2013 denied a wedding cake to a lesbian couple, i … morenever said the opposite, i just asked clarification earlier because both the OP and who i was talking to seemed to have confused information.
Not baking a cake for two straight men who are getting married by gay marriage is not a violation of civil rights
this has absolutely nothing to do with the example. my argument is that if 2 very straight men (or women) had asked for a gay marriage cake, the bakers would've refused them not because it's illegal, but for the exact same reasons they denied it to the lesbian couple.
Alright, this is annoying. I'll be updating this as I watch:
First off, he disabled the like bar, also probably made the comments be forced into being accepted by him. Therefore already lost a lot of my trust in them.
He says Evolution is impossible. Pretty much made me fall out of my chair from the stupidity.
Planets. Ooh, alright, let's talk about planets. There are SEVERAL parameters for life to exist including the first two. We have found, DOZENS of planets that can support life. Also, you do all know that our moon gets hit by a large number of asteroids and so does Earth except the asteroids burn up in our atmosphere most of the time.
He constantly says Evolution requires more faith than believing in a God. That is...just...Wow. He refuses to acknowledge the several recorded tests done to prove evolution, each one which offered great evidence.
He is seriously pissing me off. He also uses the fact that we haven't come in contact with Alien species at all, as proof. The fact that he is missing is that our technology we use today, we only created years ago. The many ages we went through to even get to this spot too use thousands of years. It is not proof for god if alien species like our own are still in time periods where contact is nearly impossible.
His "flipping a coin" metaphor is wrong. Is it possible for it to come up heads that many times? Yes. It is most likely not going to happen though, as our universe was most likely not to happen or even in the way it did, but it could happen like our universe could and did happen.
Only 12 minutes in and I wish we didn't exist.
Says God is responsible for time because space. No sense...At all. You see, if instead of Heavens, if he said Space...We would find that stupid.
Atoms can't be precise because fuck science, am I right?
"Worlds best clock makers can't make clocks precisely"...You know, because they don't use hazardous materials in the construction of those clocks unlike the more precise ones. Sorry if I don't want to wear a nuclear reactor so I can be to an interview on time.
"Are these highly precise clocks came by chance?" No, we fucking made them by using the materials around us.
Uses a clock metaphor to contradict living things. For fucks sake.
THERMODYNAMICS! HAHAHAHAHAHH
Good job knowing your periodic table. He obviously didn't take high school science classes to learn about the creation of elements and the way to make new elements from the previous ones.
For fucks sake...Matter didn't come into existence we used previous matter to create new ones. These exist but are naturally formed by the creation of stars. Did this guy even take high school science classes?
Uses a previous incorrect statement to attempt to disprove evolution.
Matter can not come into existence by itself...Well...What about God? Where did he come from?
Any rational person would realize you're using large words in an attempt to confuse less intelligent or more ignorant or gullible viewers of believing in your bullshit.
I would also like to mention a point I skipped before. Some how, this guy assumes everything at the beginning...War...Famine...Disease...Weren't around before the bible. Some how he believes, the Bible, which pretty much says to kill anyone different than you, will create a perfect existence. He also somehow believes his religion is some how more truthful than the hundreds of other religions created before.
20 minutes in. Kill me.
Less and less energy is available? No, we move the energy into something else. A ball rolling down a hill? The potential gravitational energy is turned into kinetic energy.
Some how this law forgets stars. Stars, lose energy until certain points in their life when the energy spikes up and sometimes creates something new.
"The Heavens"...Can't say Space, can you?
Pinnacle? Hahahah, we are far from the pinnacle of existence.
Bruh, they haven't been debunked though.
Terrible logic? Great leaps of faith? Bruh, you think a man in space created the earth in seven days.
After listening to this for 25 minutes I would believe the donkey is some people's closest relatives.
The tornado comparison. HAHAHHAHHAH
Why am I still listening to this shit?
IT'S OVER, IT'S FINALLY OVER! This convinced me more than ever, there is a God, because my suffering after watching that horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE video, is finally over. Seriously though, this is shitty logic. I wasted 30 minutes.
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be a gay marriage at all, since no one in the example is gay. You can't have a gay marriage if someone isn't gay, just as you can't have an interracial marriage if someone isn't of another race.
You can have a marriage where someone is pretending to be something they're not, but that doesn't actually make their marriage something it's not. This is even more the case for the straight example, as while the interracial marriage would stop being called so in name when it was discovered that the two people were of the same race, but would still be a valid marriage as long as both people still want to stay married, the gay marriage would not only be stopped being called so in name once it's discovered that they weren't gay, it would be automatically annulled as it was a legal contract illegally entered by fraudulent means.
When a marriage is annulled, that means it is made null and void, which means, in the eyes of the law, it never existed. Therefore, because two people who are straight rather than gay or bisexual can't enter a gay marriage without committing marriage fraud, and since marriage fraud automatically leads to an annulment, you're arguing over something that legally can't exist.
And the straight men who marry straight men aren't gay. It's fraud in both instances.
but in my case, it'd still be a gay marriage, on the rachel case, it wouldn't be an interracial marriage.
that's the whole point of the example
However, another legal argument could be made depending on what exactly the baker actually knew about the sexual orientation of the customer. If the baker saw two men ordering a wedding cake together, assumed they were homosexual, and refused them a cake based on that, then it would be discrimination based on sexual orientation, regardless of the actual sexual orientation of the two men. Just like a baker who refuses to serve a Sikh individual because he mistakenly believes that the individual was Muslim would still be guilty of religious discrimination against Muslims even though the customer that was refused wasn't actually Muslim.
DomeWing333 is right. The fact of the matter is that these instances are a denial of equal protection under the law based on the store owner's religion, and it's been ruled in court to not be legal to do that.
The Supreme Court made a ruling to this effect in 1983 in Bob Jones University vs. United States. The court found that “on occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct”, which means that the United States government has the right to enforce laws in regards to discrimination, even discrimination which is done under the guise of freedom of religion. If you deny anyone the right to service, even under the guise of the discrimination being based on your religion, that's the crime. It doesn't matter the semantics of who is involved.
Not according to that particular legal argument.
However, another legal argument could be made depending on what exactly the baker actual… morely knew about the sexual orientation of the customer. If the baker saw two men ordering a wedding cake together, assumed they were homosexual, and refused them a cake based on that, then it would be discrimination based on sexual orientation, regardless of the actual sexual orientation of the two men. Just like a baker who refuses to serve a Sikh individual because he mistakenly believes that the individual was Muslim would still be guilty of religious discrimination against Muslims even though the customer that was refused wasn't actually Muslim.
I don't mean to be enemies here either, Golden. My job is to help spread the word of God.
I'm no biblical scholar, but if I wanted to spread the good word, I would skip right to the brotherhood and charity. No online bickering about intelligent design required.
I guess you won't listen to my recommendations, if you actually get around to it, i'd like feedback.
I don't mean to be enemies here eith… moreer, Golden. My job is to help spread the word of God.
So i apologize in advance for anything i might have done.
But please listen to the recommendations, i'll even link you every part of the 1-5 videos if you want, but they are long, but are worth it. If you are an open minded person, it will be a life changing experience.
I'm disappointed, @Kenny/Lee. You talked a big game about respecting homosexuals, but the facade is starting to drop. Your assertions about the LGBT community are born of ignorance and fear.
But in all fairness, the couple are the one's who threw the first punch.
As I stated, the bakery owners, just like all business owners, hav… moree the right to choose whom they'll business with, and whom they will not do business with.
Just like an employer has the right to ask certain things of his employees, as he is the one paying their salary.
In any case, out of respect for the owners' faith, which is protected under the first amendment, they should have been gracious about the owners refusing to do business with them, and should have looked for someone who was willing to do business with them.
I personally interpret their attitude as: "You're not gonna do business with us?
Okay, we're gonna show you!
And once we make an example of you, others will know never to cross us again."
That's just my take away!
Some homosexuals, and I'm not saying all of them are like this, but some seem like they want to almost force their lifestyle on… [view original content]
No, it's not an "anti-Christian cake" (whatever that means), but is for a ceremony that the Christian bakers are morally opposed to. My conc… moreern was that a gay bakery would likewise have to bake a cake for a ceremony that they might be morally opposed to, such as an anti-gay celebration. And that is apparently the case, which does make me feel less good about the law.
So if you refuse pay for your car's fix after you discover that it was fixed by a black mechanic, that wouldn't be racist because the car isn't a person? wat
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be a gay marriage at all, since no one in the example is gay. You can't have a gay marriage if someone isn't g… moreay, just as you can't have an interracial marriage if someone isn't of another race.
You can have a marriage where someone is pretending to be something they're not, but that doesn't actually make their marriage something it's not. This is even more the case for the straight example, as while the interracial marriage would stop being called so in name when it was discovered that the two people were of the same race, but would still be a valid marriage as long as both people still want to stay married, the gay marriage would not only be stopped being called so in name once it's discovered that they weren't gay, it would be automatically annulled as it was a legal contract illegally entered by fraudulent means.
When a marriage is annulled, that means it is made null and void, which means, in the eyes… [view original content]
your first link is about people being refused all service (not just service specific to a certain ritual) because they were black, the second is about an university that completely excluded black applicants, those are both examples that are different from the case at hand.
this is not about semantics, this is about precision, "the bakery discriminated on them because they were gay" is not yet proven.
DomeWing333 is right. The fact of the matter is that these instances are a denial of equal protection under the law based on the store owne… morer's religion, and it's been ruled in court to not be legal to do that.
The Supreme Court made a ruling to this effect in 1983 in Bob Jones University vs. United States. The court found that “on occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct”, which means that the United States government has the right to enforce laws in regards to discrimination, even discrimination which is done under the guise of freedom of religion. If you deny anyone the right to service, even under the guise of the discrimination being based on your religion, that's the crime. It doesn't matter the semantics of who is involved.
Not according to that particular legal argument.
However, another legal argument could be made depending on what exactly the baker actual… morely knew about the sexual orientation of the customer. If the baker saw two men ordering a wedding cake together, assumed they were homosexual, and refused them a cake based on that, then it would be discrimination based on sexual orientation, regardless of the actual sexual orientation of the two men. Just like a baker who refuses to serve a Sikh individual because he mistakenly believes that the individual was Muslim would still be guilty of religious discrimination against Muslims even though the customer that was refused wasn't actually Muslim.
Same sex unions have been legal in Oregon since 2008
same sex marriage was illegal at the time the cake was ordered, every article i've found statd it was a "wedding cake", not a "civil union/domestic partnership cake", wedding.
the fact isn't that they can't, the fact is that they would have received the same treatment as the homosexual couple, and again, it's an example, absolutely nothing to do with any "mess of illegality" you started talking about. we're not talking about the eyes of the law, we're talking about the eyes of the bakers, because if we're here to decide what they discriminated upon, their point of view is what's important.
this isn't a matter of semantics, if discriminating upon an event and discriminating upon 2 people were the same, you wouldn't even be discussing this.
Now that I know exactly what case you are talking about, Cakes By Melissa refused service to them because they are opposed to same sex union… mores because of their religion. Same sex unions have been legal in Oregon since 2008. Since it's legal, denying service is against the equal protection clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That guarantees equal protection to everyone. Cakes by Melissa used their religion to deny service, and the fact is they can't do that.
There have been many instances of people trying to use freedom of religion to deny equal protection. Judges have ruled that freedom of religion does not allow people to deny equal protection under the law.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the example. my argument is that if 2 very straight men (or women) had asked for a gay marriage cake, the bakers would've refused them not because it's illegal, but for the exact same reasons they denied it to the lesbian couple.
… [view original content]
Except that the swastika is associated with nazism, which caused the genocide of 6 million jews. The gay couple didn't order a cake with a hate speech/extremist symbol written on it.
Except that the swastika is associated with nazism, which caused the genocide of 6 million jews. The gay couple didn't order a cake with a hate speech/extremist symbol written on it.
how about a super muslim craftsman refusing to fix a christian cross (one of those with a little half naked guy on it)?
or a super muslim painting company refusing to paint a giant picture of muhammad on some guy's wall.
If you read the articles again, they specifically stated that they wouldn't sell the wedding cake because they don't support same sex unions based on their religion. On top of the Civil Rights Act, there was also the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which was a law that protects gays and lesbians using public venues.
They refused to bake a cake because of their religion. The nature of the cake is not the point. It could have been a giant Cookie Monster cake for all that matters. If they were denied the cake simply because a business stated that selling a product would go against their religious beliefs, the business can't do that. Denying service based on religion has been illegal in the United States since Bob Jones University vs United States in 1983, since the Supreme Court found that the United States had the rights to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legislation, even if the person making the discrimination was doing so under the claim that it was against their religion.
The federal commission ruled that sexual orientation is covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, therefore the same rulings that were made in regards to the Civil Rights Act in regards to black people apply to gay rights as well.
Same sex unions have been legal in Oregon since 2008
same sex marriage was illegal at the time the cake was ordered, every article i… more've found statd it was a "wedding cake", not a "civil union/domestic partnership cake", wedding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon
the fact isn't that they can't, the fact is that they would have received the same treatment as the homosexual couple, and again, it's an example, absolutely nothing to do with any "mess of illegality" you started talking about. we're not talking about the eyes of the law, we're talking about the eyes of the bakers, because if we're here to decide what they discriminated upon, their point of view is what's important.
this isn't a matter of semantics, if discriminating upon an event and discriminating upon 2 people were the same, you wouldn't even be discussing this.
They aren't different at all. Both are in regards to civil rights, and both are covered in the United States under the exact same legislation. It doesn't matter if someone is black or gay. People can't violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by claiming that they are doing so based on their religion in the United States, based on Bob Jones University vs. United States. The federal commission ruled that sexual orientation is covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, therefore the same rulings that were made in regards to the Civil Rights Act in regards to black people apply to gay rights as well.
your first link is about people being refused all service (not just service specific to a certain ritual) because they were black, the secon… mored is about an university that completely excluded black applicants, those are both examples that are different from the case at hand.
this is not about semantics, this is about precision, "the bakery discriminated on them because they were gay" is not yet proven.
Imagine the good forces we could have had develop our cultural and political history. It's disappointing to be honest. I guess it's all part of the journey, but it's about time to grow out of this phase.
If someone enters into a gay marriage when they are not gay, the only reason why that person would be doing so (as you pointed out above in your hypothetical scenario) is for benefits, which is marriage fraud. Even conservative politicians agree on that.
Comments
your argument is basically based on "Rachel Dolesomething is black", she isn't. a white man marrying that woman would not be doing an interracial marriage.
the fact that straight gay marrying each other is illegal isn't relevant, the bakers didn't decide not to do the cake based on the law.
You're contradicting yourself. You said earlier that you weren't talking about the lesbian couple, but were talking about two men who were denied a cake recently.
The law does define possibilities if you're trying to defend against that law. If you're trying to make a defense against the argument that something violated someone's civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then you have to bring up an argument that it didn't violate the civil rights under that act. Any argument other than that which would work against the law that you're defending against wouldn't hold water.
Not baking a cake for two straight men who are getting married by gay marriage is not a violation of civil rights as the act of two straight men getting married is an illegal act as they entered a gay marriage under false pretenses, and fraud is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
so it's not discrimination based on sexual orientation then?
And the straight men who marry straight men aren't gay. It's fraud in both instances.
The bakers didn't decide to bake a cake based on their religion, just as people who deny interracial marriages do so based on their religion. There have been multiple cases that have been tried in the United States over the years regarding the civil rights act and freedom of religion. Every case found that freedom of religion does not allow someone to use their religion as a means to violate the anti-discrimination laws of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
no, i'm talking about the oregon bakery called melissa's something something that in june 2013 denied a wedding cake to a lesbian couple, i never said the opposite, i just asked clarification earlier because both the OP and who i was talking to seemed to have confused information.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the example. my argument is that if 2 very straight men (or women) had asked for a gay marriage cake, the bakers would've refused them not because it's illegal, but for the exact same reasons they denied it to the lesbian couple.
but in my case, it'd still be a gay marriage, on the rachel case, it wouldn't be an interracial marriage.
that's the whole point of the example
Now that I know exactly what case you are talking about, Cakes By Melissa refused service to them because they are opposed to same sex unions because of their religion. Same sex unions have been legal in Oregon since 2008. Since it's legal, denying service is against the equal protection clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That guarantees equal protection to everyone. Cakes by Melissa used their religion to deny service, and the fact is they can't do that.
There have been many instances of people trying to use freedom of religion to deny equal protection. Judges have ruled that freedom of religion does not allow people to deny equal protection under the law.
That argument doesn't hold water, as I pointed out, two straight people can't enter into a gay marriage without committing marriage fraud. Marriage fraud automatically leads to an annulment, which makes the marriage null and void, which means, in the eyes of the law, the marriage never existed. Therefore, you're arguing over something that legally can't exist.
The simple fact is that Cakes by Melissa denied equal protection of their customers based on religion, which is illegal. Twisting it into some kind of mess of illegality doesn't change the fact that equal protection was not provided. There's no getting around that.
Alright, this is annoying. I'll be updating this as I watch:
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be a gay marriage at all, since no one in the example is gay. You can't have a gay marriage if someone isn't gay, just as you can't have an interracial marriage if someone isn't of another race.
You can have a marriage where someone is pretending to be something they're not, but that doesn't actually make their marriage something it's not. This is even more the case for the straight example, as while the interracial marriage would stop being called so in name when it was discovered that the two people were of the same race, but would still be a valid marriage as long as both people still want to stay married, the gay marriage would not only be stopped being called so in name once it's discovered that they weren't gay, it would be automatically annulled as it was a legal contract illegally entered by fraudulent means.
When a marriage is annulled, that means it is made null and void, which means, in the eyes of the law, it never existed. Therefore, because two people who are straight rather than gay or bisexual can't enter a gay marriage without committing marriage fraud, and since marriage fraud automatically leads to an annulment, you're arguing over something that legally can't exist.
Want to hear a joke?
Religion.
Not according to that particular legal argument.
However, another legal argument could be made depending on what exactly the baker actually knew about the sexual orientation of the customer. If the baker saw two men ordering a wedding cake together, assumed they were homosexual, and refused them a cake based on that, then it would be discrimination based on sexual orientation, regardless of the actual sexual orientation of the two men. Just like a baker who refuses to serve a Sikh individual because he mistakenly believes that the individual was Muslim would still be guilty of religious discrimination against Muslims even though the customer that was refused wasn't actually Muslim.
DomeWing333 is right. The fact of the matter is that these instances are a denial of equal protection under the law based on the store owner's religion, and it's been ruled in court to not be legal to do that.
The Supreme Court made a ruling to this effect in 1983 in Bob Jones University vs. United States. The court found that “on occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct”, which means that the United States government has the right to enforce laws in regards to discrimination, even discrimination which is done under the guise of freedom of religion. If you deny anyone the right to service, even under the guise of the discrimination being based on your religion, that's the crime. It doesn't matter the semantics of who is involved.
I'm no biblical scholar, but if I wanted to spread the good word, I would skip right to the brotherhood and charity. No online bickering about intelligent design required.
I'm disappointed, @Kenny/Lee. You talked a big game about respecting homosexuals, but the facade is starting to drop. Your assertions about the LGBT community are born of ignorance and fear.
You know what I meant... but yeah, I get what you're saying.
a slightly better example would be a jewish mechanic refusing to fix a red car with a giant swastika on its hood.
do you have a definition of what is or isn't gay(same sex) marriage?
your first link is about people being refused all service (not just service specific to a certain ritual) because they were black, the second is about an university that completely excluded black applicants, those are both examples that are different from the case at hand.
this is not about semantics, this is about precision, "the bakery discriminated on them because they were gay" is not yet proven.
a better example would be an evangelic baker refusing to make an islamic cake that is used for islamic rituals
if anyone takes this b8 im going to be ashamed to be on this forum
same sex marriage was illegal at the time the cake was ordered, every article i've found statd it was a "wedding cake", not a "civil union/domestic partnership cake", wedding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon
the fact isn't that they can't, the fact is that they would have received the same treatment as the homosexual couple, and again, it's an example, absolutely nothing to do with any "mess of illegality" you started talking about. we're not talking about the eyes of the law, we're talking about the eyes of the bakers, because if we're here to decide what they discriminated upon, their point of view is what's important.
this isn't a matter of semantics, if discriminating upon an event and discriminating upon 2 people were the same, you wouldn't even be discussing this.
Yeah, religion's pretty damn silly for an omnipresent force that's played a pivotal role in cultural and political development throughout history.
Except that the swastika is associated with nazism, which caused the genocide of 6 million jews. The gay couple didn't order a cake with a hate speech/extremist symbol written on it.
how about a super muslim craftsman refusing to fix a christian cross (one of those with a little half naked guy on it)?
or a super muslim painting company refusing to paint a giant picture of muhammad on some guy's wall.
Jesus?
If you read the articles again, they specifically stated that they wouldn't sell the wedding cake because they don't support same sex unions based on their religion. On top of the Civil Rights Act, there was also the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which was a law that protects gays and lesbians using public venues.
They refused to bake a cake because of their religion. The nature of the cake is not the point. It could have been a giant Cookie Monster cake for all that matters. If they were denied the cake simply because a business stated that selling a product would go against their religious beliefs, the business can't do that. Denying service based on religion has been illegal in the United States since Bob Jones University vs United States in 1983, since the Supreme Court found that the United States had the rights to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legislation, even if the person making the discrimination was doing so under the claim that it was against their religion.
The federal commission ruled that sexual orientation is covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, therefore the same rulings that were made in regards to the Civil Rights Act in regards to black people apply to gay rights as well.
They aren't different at all. Both are in regards to civil rights, and both are covered in the United States under the exact same legislation. It doesn't matter if someone is black or gay. People can't violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by claiming that they are doing so based on their religion in the United States, based on Bob Jones University vs. United States. The federal commission ruled that sexual orientation is covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, therefore the same rulings that were made in regards to the Civil Rights Act in regards to black people apply to gay rights as well.
Good thing he died 'bout 2,000 years ago
Good joke.
My turn:
The American political system.
Imagine the good forces we could have had develop our cultural and political history. It's disappointing to be honest. I guess it's all part of the journey, but it's about time to grow out of this phase.
If someone enters into a gay marriage when they are not gay, the only reason why that person would be doing so (as you pointed out above in your hypothetical scenario) is for benefits, which is marriage fraud. Even conservative politicians agree on that.