Which comes first: Freedom of Religion or Civil Rights?

[Bowser]

I will take it... I will take it...

The answer to the OP's question is that civil rights come first. After that, your religion can do all it wants.

But isn't religion a fundamental right, too?

 

[Balerion]

But isn't religion a fundamental right, too?

Yes, but the right to oppress isn't.

 

[Syne]

It doesn't have to be segregation, it has to be a refusal of service based on incidental qualities. And it is.

Then why have you completely failed to show how it is segregation? Perhaps you should just admit that segregation is a poor analogy.

And I have shown that this argument is fallacious because 1) a person is still being denied service, and 2) they are still being denied a service based on their sexual orientation; it doesn't matter that they are allowed access to some services regardless of their sexual orientation, because they are denied access to another precisely because of it. Just like a black person in the 1960s deep south had access to the bus, just not some of the seats. The argument you present here suggests that the southern black man was not being discriminated against because not all services were refused. I sincerely doubt you'd agree with that, so I suggest rethinking your position.

Again, anyone would be denied that specific service, regardless of their affiliation with any particular group. It is disparate treatment that defines discrimination. There is no preferential treatment of any group or individual over any other. It is unreasonable to compel a business to provide a service it does not offer. And you continue to make the segregation comparison you have yet to establish. That comparison would require that the lesbian was refused something that others would not be refused. That is not the case here. Or are you claiming that all marriages are equal, even though they are not even universally considered so under law?

And no, none of your thinly-veiled ad hominems comparing my position to racism are likely to change my position. I would hazard that a black man would find your comparison of a lesbian wedding cake to racial segregation highly insulting and marginalizing.

Again, you aren't fooling anyone. The point of saying the law was "solely on the basis of sexual orientation" was obviously an ill-considered attempt to argue that it doesn't apply to something like refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. But even if that isn't what you're saying, the claim that because they were allowed one service but not another means they weren't discriminated against for their orientation is blatantly fallacious. Imagine a woman being allowed to eat at a particular restaurant, but being told she couldn't eat at the counter with the male patrons. Your argument is that because she is allowed in the restaurant, her denial of a seat at the counter necessarily has nothing to do with her gender. But this, as I've explained several times, a fallacy. This argument has no more merit than the idea that freedom of oppression is an inalienable right or gay wedding cakes are a menu item. Three big swings and misses there, Syne.

Hey, you can argue your own straw men all you like, but it really amounts to nothing but a distraction. And again with the tired and as yet unestablished segregation comparison. You seem to have just found one example of discrimination and conflated it with any other.

No it isn't, because the moral implication is directly tied to their sexuality. Denying a gay couple a cake because they're going to use it to smother puppies is fine, but refusing them service because they're going to have a gay wedding isn't. That's the law.

No, the law is not that explicit, again, considering that how marriage is defined is not universally agree upon, even under law.

Well, I suppose you never know which way a judge is going to go, but the idea that this is somehow different than other examples of discrimination is a false distinction, and one I've debunked repeatedly. So no, I don't need to cite court precedent, I simply need to cite the law. But if you want to cite some decisions to support this distinction, feel free.

If you "never know which way a judge is going to go" then you cannot "cite the law", as judges interpret the law (which determines how it is enforced). This case has not yet been heard, so you are only evading my request for a precedent by shifting the burden to what you know does not exist.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said earlier that purchasing of a blood diamond is a tacit acceptance of the practice. But buying a blood diamond doesn't contribute to the extraction of that particular diamond anymore than allowing a gay wedding anniversary celebration at your restaurant contributes to the wedding that already happened. Clearly your point was that purchasing a blood diamond shows acceptance of the practice in general, and the example of a wedding anniversary fits perfectly.

Wow, what bullshit. Do you even know what a blood diamond is? Buying a blood diamond funds the violent conflict in the region it was mined. If it did not then there would be no motivation for mining the one you bought, where people are press-ganged into labor. Refusing to buy a blood diamond actually deprives funding from the violent conflict, whereas refusing a gay anniversary celebration does absolutely nothing to counteract the gay wedding.

I did not say "shows acceptance", I said "contributes to", so another straw man. There is no tacit acceptance in allowing a celebration of what has already happened.

Another false distinction. Both public transport and businesses like a bakery are considered in the law to be public accommodations. In fact, Title II of the federal Civil Rights Act is entitled "INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION"

Yes, I get it. You wish to doggedly deny the fact that such service was not proffered.

Again, you accuse me of semantics immediately before losing yourself in those of your own making, and sounding idiotic to boot. Who said "a moral implication [could] request service"? Seems only a straw man appeal to ridicule, compounding fallacies.

I can understand why you think what I said absurd and idiotic. After all, I'm repeating your own words back to you. For example:

It was not the person being denied. It was the moral implication.

I'll wait for your apology.

No, this is just a case of you being thick. Instead of admitting your "moral implication cannot request service" was attacking a very lame straw man, you try to pretend that what I said somehow implied that piece of idiocy. I said the moral implication was denied, i.e. they refused to take part in what they considered morally questionable. How exactly do you twist that to imply a "moral implication cannot request service"?

If I thought you had any intellectual honesty, I would be the one expecting an apology.

Based on their sexuality. You're creating false distinctions here with no basis in law.

Based on moral conviction, regardless of the sexual orientation of who made the request. What is incidental here is that the lesbian getting wed was the one making the request, but that does not change the request nor the response to it.

Why would I do that? That's not what happened here. The refusal of service was not regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc.. It was specifically because of the sexual orientation of the customer.

That is what happened here. You just keep evading the fact that any heterosexual customer seeking to buy a cake for a gay wedding would be equally refused.

You're swimming in logical fallacies. By your logic, the bakery could argue that because prayer is not specific to any particular religion, it is a legally sound reason to refuse service. Obviously, the key here is that polygamy is a part of the couple's faith, and therefore not a valid reason to refuse service. Just because a particular practice is shared by multiple faiths doesn't mean the refusal of service based on that practice is any less religious discrimination.

Wow, projecting fallacies only to obscure your own immediate fallacy, i.e. a straw man. Who is morally opposed to prayer in general, and what could that possibly have to do with any cake? And perhaps you missed where I included the possibility of secular polygamy, making the refusal not isolated to any one group, even a non-polygamist buying such a cake.

 

[Asguard]

Look, it's no difference between saying you can't buy a birthday cake if your a girl because we won't write a girls name on a cake, it's discimination and its illegal and so it should be, the KKK can't use religion as an excuse for there bigotry, neither can these twits. Deal with it

 

[Balerion]

Look, it's no difference between saying you can't buy a birthday cake if your a girl because we won't write a girls name on a cake, it's discimination and its illegal and so it should be, the KKK can't use religion as an excuse for there bigotry, neither can these twits. Deal with it

That's pretty much it, and, honestly, there's no point in discussing it further. I've made my points, and neither Bowser nor Syne have effectively countered them, instead relying on circular logic, semantics, and outright lies to retain the semblance of an argument. It's over. Let it go.

 

[Syne]

Look, it's no difference between saying you can't buy a birthday cake if your a girl because we won't write a girls name on a cake, it's discimination and its illegal and so it should be, the KKK can't use religion as an excuse for there bigotry, neither can these twits. Deal with it

That's pretty much it, and, honestly, there's no point in discussing it further. I've made my points, and neither Bowser nor Syne have effectively countered them, instead relying on circular logic, semantics, and outright lies to retain the semblance of an argument. It's over. Let it go.

And where is the moral issue in writing a girl's name? Yet again, very poor analogy. Why not compare a very similar case?

A Muslim Barber in Ontario, Canada, was sued by a woman after he refused to cut her hair saying his religion does not allow him to touch women, according to media reports. -http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/16/249931.html​

The similarity here is that a barber typically does not expect female clientele, any more than this bakery expected marriage to be redefined to include same-sex couples. Any salon can give a man's haircut, as many men go to salons instead of barbers, so this one illustrates a bit more of an agenda. The essence of the problem is the arbitrary redefinition of familiar terms. People redefining words with long-standing meaning to suit their own agenda (which is generally called moving the goalposts or equivocation).

A barber (from the Latin barba, "beard") is a person whose occupation is mainly to cut, dress, groom, style and shave males' hair. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber


In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to opposite sex couples or two persons of opposite gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage​

In both cases, arbitrary redefinitions are being exploited, which are not universally accepted, even under the law. Even Oregon, which has the sexual orientation anti-discrimination law, does not recognize same-sex marriage:

The state of Oregon does not recognize same-sex marriage. Since 2004 the Oregon Constitution has stated: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon​

So even state law backs this bakery's decision to refuse to recognize, much less contribute to, such a wedding. So not illegal.


And as usual, as soon as Balerion senses he is up against the proverbial ropes, he throws in the towel, only without the integrity to admit to doing so. If you must ignore people/arguments to maintain your sense of right then your intellectual honesty is highly questionable.

 

[aaqucnaona]

HA HA HA

Love the false premise that underlies your "theory" how about you start by proving that the non religious are amoral. Lets see, I work in the health and disability sector and in my free time I volunteer for St John Ambulance Service. So how EXACTLY am I immoral?

You peddle this crap the way Michael peddles his anti government idocy and its just as wrong

When did I say that the non religious are amoral? Irreligion by itself is [being essentially a null hypothesis] amoral, but most non-religious are some variant of secular humanists too, so they tend to be MORE moral than many religious people. I myself am an agnostic atheist and secular humanist. And you are probably more moral than quite a few vatican priests, what with Crimen Sollicitationis and that crap.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I was with you up until the last sentence. Secular society drives the kind of moral change we see in society today. "All men are created equal" was the basis for much of the progress made in civil rights over the last century, and while the phrasing is quasi-religious, it isn't rooted in actual religious doctrine, and is therefore a secular ideal. My goodness, religious freedom itself is a secular concept; where does it exist without secular influence?

I agree that religious freedom is a key element of such a society, but I don't agree that it's an either-or proposition. The right to practice your religion in a way that oppresses or discriminates against another is not part of the deal, precisely because freedom of religion includes--and is largely founded on--the right to not be subjected to injustice by another religious institution. So the idea that one should be allowed to refuse service to someone based on religious reasons is fundamentally flawed, it goes against the very spirit of the concept of religious freedom.

I agree. However, what I mean is that the idea [of secular humanism] that "we are all people, all equal members of a single species, and as far as we know, this is it. All we have is each other, so we might as well dedicate our lives to increasing the happiness of all." That sort of reverse nihilism is less persuasive that "Being good is what the most supreme being wants of you." Thats what I mean. For us, the difference is not massive, what with first world civil technologies meaning we dont know discomfort, anxiety or hunger anywhere near what, for example, an Iraqi or Nigerian might know. For them, the reverse nihilism would be extremely unpersuasive, yet the future for the secular lies there in terms of expansion and dispersal of ideals.

 

[Syne]

Nothing but crickets.

 

[Asguard]

When did I say that the non religious are amoral? Irreligion by itself is [being essentially a null hypothesis] amoral, but most non-religious are some variant of secular humanists too, so they tend to be MORE moral than many religious people. I myself am an agnostic atheist and secular humanist. And you are probably more moral than quite a few vatican priests, what with Crimen Sollicitationis and that crap.

My appology, I missunderstood your point

What I THOUGHT you were getting at is religion in politics is nessary (confused you with another poster too sorry who keeps pushing that the irreligious are immoral by default), which its not, in fact a good society religion should NEVER enter elections at all. Its just as irrelivent to an election what god someone does or doesn't belive in as what football team one does or doesnt follow or what gender\sex there partner\s is etc

 

[Balerion]

I agree. However, what I mean is that the idea [of secular humanism] that "we are all people, all equal members of a single species, and as far as we know, this is it. All we have is each other, so we might as well dedicate our lives to increasing the happiness of all." That sort of reverse nihilism is less persuasive that "Being good is what the most supreme being wants of you." Thats what I mean. For us, the difference is not massive, what with first world civil technologies meaning we dont know discomfort, anxiety or hunger anywhere near what, for example, an Iraqi or Nigerian might know. For them, the reverse nihilism would be extremely unpersuasive, yet the future for the secular lies there in terms of expansion and dispersal of ideals.

I wouldn't say that secular humanism is less persuasive than religion, merely that the means of dissemination of its ideals are not authoritarian. "Because Dawkins said so," isn't in the vocabulary of a secular humanist trying to make an argument for why people should treat each other well, whereas religious morality is almost exclusively an argument from authority. On that note, I don't think it's true that secularism is inherently a first-world ideal. I mean, it's not like people who kill each other for food or pocket change in third-world countries are upholding the values of their personal god, so it's not as if religion is the sole motivator in places where secularism doesn't have influence. But, in places where people fall back on faith rather than something like humanism, I think it's only because you're likely to find a church or a mosque or a temple in the neighborhood, or missionaries visiting. What you don't see are people trying to evangelize secular humanism. So I think in that sense it's more a matter of not hearing the message than the message being weaker.

 

[Balerion]

My appology, I missunderstood your point

What I THOUGHT you were getting at is religion in politics is nessary (confused you with another poster too sorry who keeps pushing that the irreligious are immoral by default), which its not, in fact a good society religion should NEVER enter elections at all. Its just as irrelivent to an election what god someone does or doesn't belive in as what football team one does or doesnt follow or what gender\sex there partner\s is etc

Well, I agree with everything except the irrelevance of what football team one follows. And even then, I'd pretty much agree unless the candidate is a Jets fan, because f*ck them.

 

[Asguard]

Well, I agree with everything except the irrelevance of what football team one follows. And even then, I'd pretty much agree unless the candidate is a Jets fan, because f*ck them.

yea voting for a collingwood suporter would be a hard decision for me, if they have that bad a judgment in there team how can we trust them with the country

 

[Syne]

Wow. Great example of quelling cognitive dissonance. When confronted with facts that contradict your view, just refuse to address those facts in favor of a mutual reinforcement of your view.

 

[Balerion]

Wow. Great example of quelling cognitive dissonance. When confronted with facts that contradict your view, just refuse to address those facts in favor of a mutual reinforcement of your view.

This is akin to losing every round of a 12-round fight and then complaining that your opponent doesn't want to go three more. I defeated your points. I have no desire in defeating sixteen different semantic variations of those same points until you've finally grown bored of losing. I've moved on, you should do the same.

 

[Syne]

This is akin to losing every round of a 12-round fight and then complaining that your opponent doesn't want to go three more. I defeated your points. I have no desire in defeating sixteen different semantic variations of those same points until you've finally grown bored of losing. I've moved on, you should do the same.

Claiming a premature victory. Yet another method to quell cognitive dissonance. It is telling though that you feel the need to make such vacuous claims. Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

Notice that your claim of having defeated my points is demonstrably untrue, simply because you have yet to address the fact that Oregon does not recognize gay marriage, nor how you reconcile that fact with your opinion that the actions of the bakery were "illegal".

 

[Balerion]

Claiming a premature victory. Yet another method to quell cognitive dissonance. It is telling though that you feel the need to make such vacuous claims. Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

I didn't call it a victory, I simply stated a fact. Every point you raised was defeated.

Notice that your claim of having defeated my points is demonstrably untrue, simply because you have yet to address the fact that Oregon does not recognize gay marriage, nor how you reconcile that fact with your opinion that the actions of the bakery were "illegal".

Why would I have to do either of those things? Oregon's anti-discrimination laws stand irrespective of gay marriage's legal status, so there's nothing to reconcile.

 

[Syne]

I didn't call it a victory, I simply stated a fact. Every point you raised was defeated.

Merely a semantic difference, and not a fact.

Why would I have to do either of those things? Oregon's anti-discrimination laws stand irrespective of gay marriage's legal status, so there's nothing to reconcile.

If state law does not recognize gay marriage then why would it be illegal for the bakery to refuse to recognize an order for a gay wedding cake? As defined by state law, no such service or product is recognized to exist, as a "gay wedding" is not legally recognized and a "gay wedding cake" is, by extension, an incoherent order.

In essence, the bakery actually refused to be an accomplice to a technically illegal act, i.e. an illegal marriage. Are you arguing that running a business now precludes one from avoiding crime? Might as well, as you have already claimed a business owner cannot make moral choices.

 

[Balerion]

Merely a semantic difference, and not a fact.

Fine, if you want to call it a victory, then it's a victory.

If state law does not recognize gay marriage then why would it be illegal for the bakery to refuse to recognize an order for a gay wedding cake? As defined by state law, no such service or product is recognized to exist, as a "gay wedding" is not legally recognized and a "gay wedding cake" is, by extension, an incoherent order.

No, this is you getting lost in semantics again. Just because something isn't legally recognized doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My birthday is not legally recognized, yet no one would say that my birthday doesn't exist.
Nor is a wedding merely a legal institution. You can have a wedding without any sort of legal presence, you just won't be official in the eyes of the government. And above all, they were asking for a wedding cake, not a gay wedding cake. A gay wedding cake isn't a thing, just as the guests won't be sitting in gay chairs at gay tables. The cake's presence at a gay wedding doesn't make it gay, just like my presence at a gay wedding doesn't make me gay. I'm not the gay best man, I'm simply the best man. The main course isn't gay fish or gay steak.

The only attribute of the customer relevant to the refusal of service was their sexuality, hence the bakery is breaking the law.

In essence, the bakery actually refused to be an accomplice to a technically illegal act, i.e. an illegal marriage. Are you arguing that running a business now precludes one from avoiding crime? Might as well, as you have already claimed a business owner cannot make moral choices.

Gay weddings are not illegal, you twit. What, you think there's some kind of gay wedding prohibition going on? Gay weddings simply are not recognized by the government. That's all. People can still hold gay wedding ceremonies, there are no laws against them.

And another straw man by you. Jesus you're desperate. I never said they couldn't make moral choices. You know damn well what I did say, so I'm not even going to bother repeating myself.

How many times do I have to squash your silly arguments before you realize you're beaten?

 

[Syne]

If state law does not recognize gay marriage then why would it be illegal for the bakery to refuse to recognize an order for a gay wedding cake? As defined by state law, no such service or product is recognized to exist, as a "gay wedding" is not legally recognized and a "gay wedding cake" is, by extension, an incoherent order.

No, this is you getting lost in semantics again.

It is getting tiresome how you like to preface what you are about to do yourself with a hypocritical accusation.

Just because something isn't legally recognized doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My birthday is not legally recognized, yet no one would say that my birthday doesn't exist.

Your birthday is an erroneous red herring, as it is legally recognized by your state-issued birth certificate. Quite aside from the straw man that I said anything did not existing, when I clearly said "recognized to exist".

Nor is a wedding merely a legal institution. You can have a wedding without any sort of legal presence, you just won't be official in the eyes of the government. And above all, they were asking for a wedding cake, not a gay wedding cake. A gay wedding cake isn't a thing, just as the guests won't be sitting in gay chairs at gay tables. The cake's presence at a gay wedding doesn't make it gay, just like my presence at a gay wedding doesn't make me gay. I'm not the gay best man, I'm simply the best man. The main course isn't gay fish or gay steak.

The only attribute of the customer relevant to the refusal of service was their sexuality, hence the bakery is breaking the law.

If state law does not recognize gay marriage then there are no grounds to enforce a business owner to do so. Like I said in the post you conveniently ignored, same-sex couples claiming to be married is nothing more than an arbitrary redefinition unless ratified by the law. Yes, you can have a "wedding ceremony", but without legal recognition it does not confer any benefits, privileges, legal responsibilities, nor contractual obligations. It has no more significance than children playing make-believe wedding.

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage​

But I will play along with your "a gay wedding cake isn't a thing" for a moment, just as devil's advocate. By this reasoning there is no such thing as even a wedding cake, as a cake at a wedding does not make it a wedding cake. Why then did this woman ask for a "wedding cake"? If "gay" is not a valid distinction then neither is "wedding". See, it is you playing semantics. You might as well be saying that just because someone is sexually attracted exclusively to the same sex it does not make them gay.

The bakery simply refused to recognize a gay marriage, in accord with state law. And you have consistently evaded the simple fact that discrimination based solely on sexuality would necessarily include all other services as well. The fact that one specific service was refused, and would be refused to anyone of any sexual orientation, minority or not, just does not register with you, as that would upset your whole self-righteous bias.

In essence, the bakery actually refused to be an accomplice to a technically illegal act, i.e. an illegal marriage. Are you arguing that running a business now precludes one from avoiding crime? Might as well, as you have already claimed a business owner cannot make moral choices.

Gay weddings are not illegal, you twit. What, you think there's some kind of gay wedding prohibition going on? Gay weddings simply are not recognized by the government. That's all. People can still hold gay wedding ceremonies, there are no laws against them.

And I clearly qualified that statement with "technically". "Not valid or legally recognized" is technically illegal.

Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal​

Illegal is not necessarily a crime (a word I used as a bit of rhetoric), but it is definitely prohibited to issue a same-sex marriage license.

On April 14, 2005, the Oregon State Supreme Court decided Li & Kennedy vs. State of Oregon, ruling that Multnomah County lacked the authority to remedy a perceived violation of the Oregon Constitution and that all marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples were void when issued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Oregon#Supreme_Court_review​

Since there obviously was no marriage license issued, the bakery merely refused to contribute to a farce. There is no law against such things, but there is also no grounds for enforcing a business to contribute in any way.

And another straw man by you. Jesus you're desperate. I never said they couldn't make moral choices. You know damn well what I did say, so I'm not even going to bother repeating myself.

How many times do I have to squash your silly arguments before you realize you're beaten?

Ah, poisoning the well and claiming a premature victory again. You said:

If you think providing a service to a homosexual couple is a prostitution of your personal convictions, then yes, you'd better put on your best hooker heels.

Anyway, the answer to your question is simple: if you operate a business that accommodates the public, you have to serve the public. "Personal conviction" notwithstanding.​

How is that not coercing a business owner to refrain from exercising their own moral judgment?