Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2)

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by chris155au, Jul 21, 2018.

  1. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All correct, but have you ever heard of someone using the expression of their sexuality as a defense for committing a crime?
     
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don’t really understand the question and I don’t see where you’re trying to lead this to. Maybe you could just get to the point? It might even turn out that I agree with you.
     
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My point is that there is no law which prevents a homosexual from living a homosexual lifestyle, and I don't believe that there ever should be such a law. I'm sure that you can agree with me on that.
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There’s no such thing as a “homosexual lifestyle”. Everyone has their own lifestyle and sexual orientation will generally only be relevant to a relatively small part of that. Even where it is relevant, the fundamentals of what people do will typically be the same regardless of sexual orientation; going on dates, having sex, forming romantic relationships, getting married etc.

    The specifics of the law obviously depend on jurisdiction. In most western nations, there will now be few laws directly referring to homosexuality or homosexuals (though there will be outliers such as restrictions on giving blood) but that doesn’t prevent laws (or the application of them) having an undue impact, such as restricting legal recognition of marriage to mixed-sex couples of course.

    Yet again, this applies to everyone though, not just related to homosexuality (for good or bad). We each have our individual lifestyles, beliefs and opinions, ways in which we want to live our lives and sometimes the law will make that difficult or impossible. In some cases that’ll be perfectly reasonable to prevent harm or disproportionate restrictions to others, in some cases it will be an unavoidable consequence of avoiding harm, in some cases it will be an unintended consequence which can be resolved or circumvented (though possibly with more effort on our part).

    This starts to take us back to the original topic, though only because that’s the way I’m leading it. I still don’t see the relevance of your approach to this separate topic.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no, you quite clearly are trolling this topic. It wouldn't be so obvious, if you didn't ask redundant questions on things that have been answered numerous times.

    Nobody is fooled.
     
  6. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure that gay people would agree with you. I'm sure that they would say that there is a part of their lifestyle which is unique to them as a minority group.

    It is this relatively small part which I am referring to. There is no law which prevents a homosexual from living this part of their lifestyle. This is good and I'm sure that you agree with me on that. Do you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  7. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever.

    There are plenty of Churches and Justice of the Peace and Wedding venues and bakers and photographers who have no problems whatsoever marrying a gay couple.
    Life goes on. In a few years this discussion will have all the relevance of discussing whether a wagon wheel maker will work on a gay person's Ferrari.
     
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Marrying same sex couples under God?

    What's your point?

    Wagon wheel maker?
     
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know plenty of gay people who agree. Some others might not but that would prove my point.

    The "part of" is one key factor missing from your initial statement but the idea is still flawed. Put simply, lifestyle is what you do but sexual orientation describes something you are. Two homosexual individuals could still have lifestyles with literally zero elements the same, just as two heterosexual individuals can.

    I totally agree that is a good concept. As I said, simply talking about "what the law does" is a little simplistic but I'll go with a "yes" if that's what you need to move on. :cool:
     
  10. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [QUOTE="HonestJoe, post: 1069385987, member: 51921"
    Yes, but in this specific aspect, that has potential to impact the lives of other people.[/QUOTE]

    Would you say that the life of this baker was impacted?
     
  11. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would you say that the life of this baker was impacted?
     
  12. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you keep asking questions I've already answered, often in the post you're actually quoting;

    "Yes, but in this specific aspect, that has potential to impact the lives of other people. Someone (or possibly both) is going to have to be restricted to an extent in such cases, unfortunate but literally unavoidable, hence "necessary evil"."
     
  13. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Were you not saying that the baker impacted the lives of the gay couple?
     
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Someone (or possibly both) is going to have to be restricted to an extent in such cases, unfortunate but literally unavoidable" :rolleyes:
     
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And if it was up to you, who would you restrict?
     
  16. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought I'd been perfectly clear already. Restricting anyone isn't the purpose, it's just an unavoidable consequence. The anti-discrimination laws apply to businesses and I see no justification for granting special exemptions to anyone so they're inevitably going to be the ones restricted. Of course, for the vast majority, that doesn't pose any kind of problem.
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And this is an acceptable consequence to you?
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Acceptable is something of a moot point since it’s unavoidable. Given that, and looking to the much wider picture, I think this is the least worst option available.
     
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The much "wider picture" being what?
     
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wider than this specific individual case? All the other businesses, all the anti-discrimination laws, all the other laws and regulations that apply to those businesses, all the other laws and regulations that apply to us in other contexts, more general discriminatory practices across society and the impacts and consequences they have on us all.
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are the impacts and consequences of a baker politely saying that they would rather not bake a cake for a gay wedding, really all that severe?
     
  22. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No more than the impacts and consequences of one bus driver telling a black woman that he’d rather she didn’t sit at the front. A single pebble can start an avalanche.

    Again, we’re not talking about a single case, we’re talking about a change in the law (or interpretation of it) opening up discrimination against anyone in a vast range of scenarios and contexts. It also opens up the possibility of systematic (even officially sanctioned) discrimination against particular groups so that they’re not being refused one service in one store but being refused many services across the board, maybe to the point that they’re forced out of a community entirely.

    This is the whole point of having anti-discrimination laws in the first place. That is exactly what happened, in living memory, to all sorts of different kinds of people. It still does happen elsewhere in the world. You can’t have this case ruling in favour of the baker without (re)opening that door and taking responsibility for the potential consequences.
     
  23. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Absolutely it is no MORE. But is it no LESS?

    Is this actually happening anywhere in the US?

    So the door has been opened with the case ruling in favour of the baker?
     
  24. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Potentially yes. That’s why the principle is exactly the same.

    I suspect it happens everywhere in the world to some extent. Social and legal acceptance of discrimination in some circumstances could clearly make this more likely and more significant.

    Not yet, because the current ruling was on a technicality, not an acceptance of any of his defence.
     
  25. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What other reason could the bus driver have had other than because the woman was black and therefore less of a person in their eyes?
     

Share This Page