New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

The baker is happy to serve the people a doughnut or any baked good if it does not include a ceremony to which they object on religious grounds.

 

it's the sexual orientation of the people participating in the ceremony that is being objected to, not the ceremony itself.

 

zzz

 

And its STILL, the sexual orientation of the people participating in the ceremony that is being objected to, not the ceremony itself. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

 

I purposefully did not respond to you. Please stop stalking me. This is getting creepy.

I am looking for people capable of more than one or two sentence responses and repeating themselves ad nauseam. You are not one of those people. Lets agree to move on.

 

You are still responding, And its STILL, the sexual orientation of the people participating in the ceremony that is being objected to, not the ceremony itself. No matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

 

I would take that a step further: No justification is required other than "I do not want to perform this act."

 

I love Thai food and rap music. Does this make me a racist???

 

Well as my avatar suggest I played music all my life and learned to carry this around

 

So what? It's the ceremony to which the baker objected and if you knew anything about it you would know that. The people were regular customers of his standard on the shelve products, it was not about them.

 

If the ceremony had been one of their birthdays he would have made them a special cake. Were it their coming out as homosexual and celebrating that he would not have. Can you not make the intellectual distinction?

 

Nope, bigotry is bigotry. And again you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

Through out everything that you said here you demonstrate that you do not once try and put yourself in their shoes. To try and understand their POV. For instance when you say "Homosexuality is not a sin" that is YOUR own opinion. Many to this day still believe that it is. Indeed it is still illegal and cause for the death penalty or prison in MANY countries still. Of course that wouldn't fly in the US. But many in the US still believe that it is a sin. You and I do not. But many do. Additionally it is not up to you to decide what parts of the bible that they observe and which parts they don't. They make that choice. And for them it is just as valid as you willing to break a law if you felt it was necessary....such as speeding to get a loved one to a hospital as fast as possible.

Also as far as I have seen this web designer is not refusing to serve gay people. They just want to be able to refuse promotion of gay websites by not making them their selves. That is a distinction which your posts ignores. To use your analogy of soaps... They're still willing to sell soap to gay people. But they want to refuse to make soaps that depict gay themes. There is a difference.

 

I would say that the web designer went out of his way to create a political issue. If he were smart he would have refused the business claiming that he is booked up with no room in his schedule. Then he should have recommended another source. I have a hard time believing that it was a religious issue. The designers behavior belies that.

 

No there is'int.

 

So you can't make that intellectual distinction.............gotcha

Neither are discriminating against the people they are discriminating against the act in which they are being asked to engage, the product they are being asked to produce..............that intellectual distinction you seem to miss.
I expect the SCOTUS to also rule in favor of the web designer her also as you cannot force someone to support someone else's speech or activities or to use their innate talents to produce something to which they have personal moral objections. I find the idea of doing so quite deplorable.

 

To use an analogy you guys are familiar with, just like a gun is an inanimate object and can't do anything on its own, the same holds true for a ceremony.

 

Yes, there is. Doesn't matter to reality if you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

Bad analogy. A gun is a thing. A ceremony is a social construct. One is physical. The other is not.

 

That makes it even better. A social construct can't even exist without people, it's merely an idea

 

Not sure how that makes it better? You may have to explain how that helps your argument. Because frankly it does the opposite. It's quite common, and even expected in most cases, for people to discriminate based on social constructs. Also called ideology.

 

They're discriminating against the participants.

 

Your strawman analogy is non-sensible try actually responding to what I posted.

 

Nope. They're discriminating against the ceremony. That is evidenced by the fact that they do not wish to make anything for the ceremony but will still help the "participants" with anything else not involved in the ceremony. If they were discriminating against the participants then they would not serve the participants in any capacity.

 

Even assuming your right, they can't do that either.