homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Supreme Court & the case of the SSM wedding cake (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Supreme Court & the case of the SSM wedding cake
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You're also completely wrong on the part of your post that is actually germane to the discussion.

Because here in the real world, if a customer of a bookshop ordered "Mein Kampf" and was instead sold "The Communist Manifesto", the bookseller's claim that this was the exact same thing the customer had ordered would not wash.

You seem to be yet another person who can't grasp the difference between "what I sell" and "who I sell it to". There simply is no such thing as a gay wedding cake. It's a wedding cake. The process of making it is utterly unchanged. The only thing that has changed is the customer. Trying to compare that to two books with different titles and different texts is just woolly thinking.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Current discrimination law makes somewhat questionable comparisons between issues of 'sexuality' and of race.

Would you prefer to consider parallels between religion (another protected category in most anti-discrimination laws) and sexual orientation? Religion seems to be even more malleable than sexual orientation (it seems easier to switch religions than it does to switch orientations), and yet very few people complain how it's questionable to "compare" religion to race in anti-discrimination law.
Actually religion presents considerable difficulties to anti-discrimination law. Most of the world's religions have been of a broadly 'established/national' variety which is not easy to offer toleration to. Look at the obvious problems of 'tolerating' bodies like IS, or the RCC with its Inquisitions, or the Anglicans who used to persecute Baptists and other Christians.

Anabaptists kinda expect persecution and difficulties; by the fact that we don't want to be the government as other religions do we are in many ways easier to tolerate; but we aren't exactly demanding tolerance as a right. More a case of we will obey God rather than man and if you don't like that at least we submit to martyrdom rather than raise an army and fight you....

And of course we aren't in the business of persecuting those who do 'gay sex'. But yeah, we think we have a right to disagree with them and they don't have any right to be put somehow beyond criticism.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by orfeo
quote:
Trying to compare that to two books with different titles and different texts is just woolly thinking.
Actually quite a few of the cakes asked for have had thoroughly propagandist slogans which make them not quite your standard wedding cake. Yet the physical ingredients were the same. If you recognise that the text of a book makes a difference despite the common physical ingredients of paper, ink, etc., then so too can the 'text' of a cake or the distinctive decorations that might be asked for in a 'gay' wedding cake.

Note that I don't see a problem in men loving men or women loving women; even when it is to the point of two men having a love 'greater than the love of women - see, eg., David and Jonathan. And hey, we are physical beings, there will be physical attraction and some physical expression of the relationship

On the other hand, as Jesus reminded us in Mark 10, God made humans male and female and that's what Christian marriage is about. And male with female can become 'one flesh' as a couple through complementary anatomy and also through procreation. Male with male and female with female simply cannot do sex as God intended - and shouldn't try to do what is in effect, simply a parody.

May I remind you that despite lots of sneering an ally of yours on a previous thread STILL hasn't come up with a credible 'other interpretation' of Jesus' words there; and indeed was apparently forced instead to say Jesus was 'mistaken'. Which means that (a) it looks like she had to accept that I interpreted Jesus' words correctly, and (b) she clearly very much thinks she knows better than Jesus and is an arrogant....

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo
quote:
Trying to compare that to two books with different titles and different texts is just woolly thinking.
Actually quite a few of the cakes asked for have had thoroughly propagandist slogans which make them not quite your standard wedding cake.
Actually does that have anything to do with what I said?

Let me supply the answer. No.

I am perfectly happy for people to have a debate about whether slogans across cakes make a difference. But I'm quite clear in my own mind that what I'm interested in is perfectly ordinary wedding cakes, birthday cakes, whatever kind of cake it is it is exactly the same kind of cake that a heterosexual would order.

As far as I'm concerned, raising cakes with unusual slogans on them is a deliberate attempt, made with great frequency, to muddy the waters and distract away from the great majority of cases. Because right now LGBT people are still having to fight to get that kind of ordinary cake served to them. We can worry about militant propagandist cakes after we've FINALLY dealt with mundane, live in the suburbs, do the grocery shopping with everybody else, not trying to make a fuss just wanting to be treated the same way as everybody else cakes.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
an ally of yours

1. I don't know what the hell that means. I don't have allies on here. I don't go around planning what to say on the Ship in concert with other people.

2. No, you may not remind me, because I've made clear I'm really not interested in discussing the theology of sexuality with you. You have your view. It will never change. There is no point in further discussion on this point, so please stop trying to engage me in further discussion. I honestly did not read the rest of your paragraphs on this. After the first paragraph on cakes I scanned only just enough to see that the next several paragraphs were about the topic I said I wasn't going to bother with. But the idea that I had an "ally" jumped out.

[ 10. December 2017, 00:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

On the other hand, as Jesus reminded us in Mark 10,

Mark 10 is about divorce. Only the homophobic looking for an excuse believe otherwise. And those Christians who wish to ignore Jesus' prohibition against divorce.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Golden Key, your posts show no sign that you've read what Orfeo and I have been saying. A shopkeeper can decide what will be sold in that shop and what won't be sold. What the shopkeeper cannot decide is to whom the goods on offer to one will not be sold to another. if the refusal amounts to what is banned discrimination. So a baker who sells cakes with slogans iced onto it must be prepared to sell such a cake to a person who walks in the door if the basis of the refusal is a contravention of the local anti-discrimination law. If a baker does not sell iced slogan cakes to anyone, the law would not require a sale of an iced slogan cake to the aryan supremacist you have invented. It may not be a contravention if the refusal is because the slogan is one offensive to the baker and the basis of that is not a breach of local laws (I doubt it would be here for example). What would be wrong would be if the basis of the refusal were that the aryan supremacist was gay, that discrimination being contrary to the law.

BTW, the aryan supremacist example strikes me as being close to counting the number of angels dancing on a needle point.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Miss Amanda-

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So let's say someone wearing a noticeable Nazi symbol comes into the bakery, and orders a cake that says "Aryan Nations Church Rocks!" Does the baker have to do it?

In Mormon Utah years ago (I think it's different now), you could order an alcoholic beverage in a restaurant but the restaurant could not ask you if you'd like one or even advertise that they were available. And the mixer and alcohol would be brought to the table in separate containers for the patron to mix.

So what about the baker handing the customer a pastry tube and saying, "Here, write your own [something inaudible muttered under the breath] slogan on it."

Yup. Or IMHO a simpler way, because a lot of people would have trouble writing frosting with a tube and having it look nice: sell those pakaged, pre-made cake-top letters. Have both individual letters and whole alphabets. The customer can put those on the cake at home. And the bakery staff don't have to know what the cake ultimately says.

Or find a separate store that sells baking supplies, like cake letters, refer the customer there, and act like you're imparting special knowledge. "Listen: I don't carry letter kits here; but if you go to the Cook's Club store, two blocks over, they have professional supplies. Just what your cake needs."

Alternatively, ask if they've got 3-D printer that can handle frosting. [Smile] Some people do use them for food products.

Interesting drinks in Utah. Did they get away with it? I wonder if they had to have an alcohol license, or if Utah has them?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gee D--

But we're also working out possibilities and exceptions, which people do in deciding what they think of a law.

The Aryan example was very specifically the "Aryan Nations Church", which does exist. (And there's more than one.) Because that puts it within a religious framework, which is probably what they intend, because it gives them some protection.

So would it be religious discrimination if the Jewish baker refused to make a cake for them? Or agreed to make a cake, but refused to put the slogan on it?

For me, this process is like examining a car you might buy. Accidents? Check CarFax. Look for body filler. Brakes? Decent? Quality paint? Engine in good shape?

Or the way some luggage companies test their products--e.g., dropping them from a great height.

Plus...I don't usually think seriously about creating a law to handle something, or invoking a law to handle something. If I wanted some kind of special cake, like the Ship's logo and "SOF"; and "SOF" meant something deeply offensive in the baker's first language and religion; and therefore the baker considered me a horrible person; and the baker wouldn't believe me, and kicked me out of the store...I *personally* would go somewhere else for the cake, ask a friend to make it, or make it myself. (Likely muttering about the baker.) Then think about starting a cake business specifically for Shipmates.

And I hate people-messes. I want everyone to get along as well as possible. So I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to do that here, particularly in this SSM cake case. Is there a way for the same-sex couple to have the beautiful cake they want; for the baker to take little offense at doing something s/he believes will violate their faith; and for everyone to retain their dignity?

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And I hate people-messes.

That's fine, but we wouldn't actually need a legal system if people-messes didn't exist.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually quite a few of the cakes asked for have had thoroughly propagandist slogans which make them not quite your standard wedding cake. Yet the physical ingredients were the same.

As noted earlier, Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins weren't looking for "quite a few . . . cakes", they only wanted one. No design details were discussed. Mr. Phillips simply issued a blanket refusal to provide any cake for a same-sex marriage celebration. It's almost the Platonic ideal of the gay wedding cake issue, since there were no explicitly homosexual cake design elements discussed, only the identities of the purchasers.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you recognise that the text of a book makes a difference despite the common physical ingredients of paper, ink, etc., then so too can the 'text' of a cake or the distinctive decorations that might be asked for in a 'gay' wedding cake.

So if the couple had selected an image from Mr. Phillips' "photo album of custom-designed cakes" and said "make us one like that", what would have made the cake 'gay', as opposed to the original cake pictured in the album which was supposedly 'straight'?

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
May I remind you that despite lots of sneering an ally of yours on a previous thread STILL hasn't come up with a credible 'other interpretation' of Jesus' words there; and indeed was apparently forced instead to say Jesus was 'mistaken'. Which means that (a) it looks like she had to accept that I interpreted Jesus' words correctly, and (b) she clearly very much thinks she knows better than Jesus and is an arrogant....

Why is the U.S. Supreme Court obligated to read your interpretation of Jesus' words into American law?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

So would it be religious discrimination if the Jewish baker refused to make a cake for them? Or agreed to make a cake, but refused to put the slogan on it?
products--e.g., dropping them from a great height.

And I hate people-messes. I want everyone to get along as well as possible. So I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to do that here, particularly in this SSM cake case. Is there a way for the same-sex couple to have the beautiful cake they want; for the baker to take little offense at doing something s/he believes will violate their faith; and for everyone to retain their dignity?

As to the first paragraph above, I suspect that a court would find that their so-called religion was simply an attempt to take advantage of the anti-discrimination law applicable there and that there was no real religious discrimination.

The second paragraph I've set out: the way for the baker to take little offense is to accept that the customers are entitled to the slogan on their cake, slogan-icing being a product he sells. Otherwise I don't really understand it.

And like Orfeo, I do have a pretty good idea how laws are formed.

[ 10. December 2017, 10:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
May I remind you that despite lots of sneering an ally of yours...

May I remind you of which board you are on? It's not Hell. Therefore Commandment 3 is in full effect - even when you try to smear somebody without naming names. Especially when you try to wield the ad-hominem as part of a larger logical fallacy.

Incidentally, he's a brief list of fallacies for you to review should you consider yourself interested in continued participation in the logic-requiring boards of the Ship.

-RooK
Vaguely Host-like Marshmallowy Authority Figure

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually quite a few of the cakes asked for have had thoroughly propagandist slogans which make them not quite your standard wedding cake. Yet the physical ingredients were the same.

As noted earlier, Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins weren't looking for "quite a few . . . cakes", they only wanted one. No design details were discussed. Mr. Phillips simply issued a blanket refusal to provide any cake for a same-sex marriage celebration. It's almost the Platonic ideal of the gay wedding cake issue, since there were no explicitly homosexual cake design elements discussed, only the identities of the purchasers.
In this case I was dealing with orfeo's oversimplified view that there is 'no difference' between a 'gay' wedding cake and a 'straight' wedding cake because 'the ingredients' are the same - and making the point that as the 'text' makes a difference to a book despite identical ingredients, the 'text' of a cake could also make a difference.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If you recognise that the text of a book makes a difference despite the common physical ingredients of paper, ink, etc., then so too can the 'text' of a cake or the distinctive decorations that might be asked for in a 'gay' wedding cake.

So if the couple had selected an image from Mr. Phillips' "photo album of custom-designed cakes" and said "make us one like that", what would have made the cake 'gay', as opposed to the original cake pictured in the album which was supposedly 'straight'?[/QUOTE]

Possibly nothing - as I said, I was responding there to orfeo and not to that wider issue.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
May I remind you that despite lots of sneering an ally of yours on a previous thread STILL hasn't come up with a credible 'other interpretation' of Jesus' words there; and indeed was apparently forced instead to say Jesus was 'mistaken'. Which means that (a) it looks like she had to accept that I interpreted Jesus' words correctly, and (b) she clearly very much thinks she knows better than Jesus and is an arrogant....

Why is the U.S. Supreme Court obligated to read your interpretation of Jesus' words into American law? [/QUOTE]

The US Supreme court is not obligated to read my interpretation of Jesus' words into American law. But orfeo should perhaps note that when this issue was previously raised my interpretation eventually went unchallenged by one of the Ship's more vehement pro-gay persons, who was unable to provide 'other interpretations'.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And I hate people-messes.

That's fine, but we wouldn't actually need a legal system if people-messes didn't exist.
In short, lawyers are a result of the Fall.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Real life example, happened just a few days ago to me.

I am a librarian. A patron asked for a hold (meaning, to get the book from another branch of the library for him because we dn't have it) on Mein Kampf.

As someone who, although not Jewish, did lose family in the Holocaust, and who has, due to my Jewish-sounding last name, experienced a fair amount of anti-semiteism in my life, do I have the right to refuse to place the hold for him?

Clearly not. I placed the hold, and further more, by coincidence, I was the staff member who checked it out to him when it came in. Much to my disgust, but I did it.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
an ally of yours

1. I don't know what the hell that means. I don't have allies on here. I don't go around planning what to say on the Ship in concert with other people.
(snip)

But the idea that I had an "ally" jumped out.

Sorry, I guess 'co-belligerent', a person independently fighting the same cause, might have been a better choice of words. But you and person in question did a pretty good impression of 'double-teaming' at the time....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

On the other hand, as Jesus reminded us in Mark 10,

Mark 10 is about divorce. Only the homophobic looking for an excuse believe otherwise. And those Christians who wish to ignore Jesus' prohibition against divorce.
Yes, Jesus' words in Mark 10 were triggered by a question about divorce. But it is pretty clear that he chose to answer the question about divorce by going a step back along the 'logic of the situation' and answering in terms of "What is marriage about?" And the very first thing he says is that God made humans 'male and female' for a relationship of becoming 'one flesh' in a way that only male with female actually can, because male with male and female with female don't have the complementary anatomy.

Putting it that way is a pretty emphatic statement that sex and marriage are for male and female.

I get why you want to restrict the issue to divorce only - but to do so is to ignore the basic structure and logic of Jesus' argument.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Rook
quote:
May I remind you of which board you are on? It's not Hell.
Sorry. Maybe I've been confused by the number of times - well, let's say I thought I was being quite gentle compared to some of the sheer nastiness that has been thrown at me in Purg and DH with no Hostly intervention to moderate it....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Putting it that way is a pretty emphatic statement that sex and marriage are for male and female.

Yes, your opinion is an emphatic statement that sex and marriage are for male and female.

But that's not what the Bible says. You're reading things into the text that you want to be there, and you're over-reaching.

Certainly, Jesus was addressing marriage (and specifically divorce), but in the context of heterosexual marriage. If you want to take it further than that, then you're going to have look elsewhere.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:

Putting it that way is a pretty emphatic statement that sex and marriage are for male and female.

Funny how some Christians switch their approach to Biblical justification to whatever mode suits them most for each argument. It is equally logical to justify homosexual sex and marriage because Jesus didn't specifically argue against them.

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry. Maybe I've been confused by the number of times - well, let's say I thought I was being quite gentle compared to some of the sheer nastiness that has been thrown at me in Purg and DH with no Hostly intervention to moderate it....

You position has been addressed, though I would say with no more nastiness than it represents.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Like it or not, "I am white, he is black" is not quite the same kind of issue as "he feels an urge to do sex up another man's shithole".

False characterization!

"I am white; he is black" is **EXACTLY** the same as "I am by nature sexually attracted to women; he is by nature sexually attracted to men." Where he prefers to stick his prong is another matter entirely.

"I am white; he is black" is EXACTLY the same as "I have blue eyes and my friend here has brown eyes" - that is, a simple statement of fact with no moral implication either in terms of fault for being that way or of that fact leading to people with such differences doing different things.

When you start talking about 'sexual attraction' it's pretty clear you're talking about something that isn't just a fact but leads to specific behaviour - in this case men doing sex together or women doing sex together. And that raises the thought that you left out a third option in your alternatives...
quote:
"I am by nature sexually attracted to women; he is by nature sexually attracted to men; and this third guy is by nature sexually attracted to children (indeed if the third man is one Ian Brady, sexually attracted to torturing and killing children."
Are you sure that once sexual attraction is mentioned it is really 'exactly the same'??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
"I am by nature sexually attracted to women; he is by nature sexually attracted to men; and this third guy is by nature sexually attracted to children (indeed if the third man is one Ian Brady, sexually attracted to torturing and killing children."
Are you sure that once sexual attraction is mentioned it is really 'exactly the same'??
And we have a winner of the "How long will it take until someone compares homosexuality to pedophelia?" contest! And what prizes do we have for our winning contestant, Ed?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And he wonders why his posts do not attract sweetness and light... [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry, I guess 'co-belligerent'

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry. Maybe I've been confused by the number of times - well, let's say I thought I was being quite gentle compared to some of the sheer nastiness that has been thrown at me in Purg and DH with no Hostly intervention to moderate it....

Steve, it is clear that you have strong opinions about this. And when strongly-held opinions are challenged, it can feel personal. It is the risk of vigorous debate, and the reason why we are so overt about signaling caution in that realm with our house rules.

However, people's feelings are not something we can moderate - we only moderate what people actually post. What you actually posted was a violation of a Commandment AFTER it was pointed out to you by a motherfucking¹ ADMIN.

As to the weak-ass attempt to justify yourself with the "eye-for-an-eye" they-did-it-first, I should point out that our Commandments also do not rely on interpretive appeals to arbitrary religious authorities. If you actually do have a concrete example of you being personally attacked, please let me know.

Except you'll have to do it by email, for at least the next couple weeks. Because you are suspended.

-RooK
ADMIN

¹ This is literally as well as metaphorically true, and all biblically sanctioned to the best of my knowledge.

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicolemr--

Well done. [Cool] Perhaps he'll get bored, or decide the author was a very sick man.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543

 - Posted      Profile for Planeta Plicata   Email Planeta Plicata   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually quite a few of the cakes asked for have had thoroughly propagandist slogans which make them not quite your standard wedding cake. Yet the physical ingredients were the same.

As noted earlier, Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins weren't looking for "quite a few . . . cakes", they only wanted one. No design details were discussed. Mr. Phillips simply issued a blanket refusal to provide any cake for a same-sex marriage celebration. It's almost the Platonic ideal of the gay wedding cake issue, since there were no explicitly homosexual cake design elements discussed, only the identities of the purchasers.
During the last election, I went to a Bernie Sanders campaign rally at which Vampire Weekend performed. Everything on the setlist had been previously released; there weren't any custom songs or messages. Was their decision to play at that campaign rally "speech" in the First Amendment sense?

(To forestall a potential objection, I'm not asking whether their decision to perform was a violation of any anti-discrimination laws or suggesting that supporters of a particular politician constitute a protected class. I'm asking whether their performance was speech in the first place, despite the lack of custom content.)

[ 11. December 2017, 04:06: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]

Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Arabella Purity Winterbottom

Trumpeting hope
# 3434

 - Posted      Profile for Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Email Arabella Purity Winterbottom   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I worked as a family therapist with very challenging young people and their families for nine years. I am a lesbian, although not many people guess it to look at me. During that time I had a number of cases where the parents were card-carrying anti-gay fundamentalist Christians. I did not routinely come out to my families, preferring them not to be distracted by my life rather than focussing on theirs.

The memory that sticks in my mind was turning up to visit a family in the evening. Mum answered the door, but Dad was nowhere to be seen. Mum said, "Oh he'll be here in a minute, he's just making sure he's recording a programme on praying the gays away." She said this blithely, without realising that I was wishing I could run for the hills and vomit. I worked with that family for another 12 weeks - it eventually came to an end because good Christian Dad was seen beating his 3-year-old daughter by the care and protection social worker.

If I can stick out intense 2 hour family therapy sessions 3 times a week with people who really truly hate gay people, then I would have to call those who can't bring themselves to bake a cake "snowflakes". You do the job you are paid to do. You don't pick and choose.

--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal

Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicolemr, I agree that as a librarian you had no choice but to obtain the book. How are you to know why he wants it? He could easily have needed it as he'd been assigned an essay which involved reading just as much as for more sinister reasons..

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I understand it, in the UK the law is this:

If I'm a baker with a book of photos of cakes, one of which has 3 tiers, is white and says "David and Joanne" on top, if someone comes in and says "Please can I order the three tier white one but with "David and Joseph" on top?", I can say:

"I don't personally believe that David and Joseph can be married. However, I am happy to make that cake with that inscription for you" - and then make and sell the cake. Being able to express my view politely is freedom of speech; agreeing to sell an effectively identical product to someone regardless of their sexuality is a requirement of the law.

I think this is right (I also think that it would be really sad if a baker did feel the need to express their opinion to someone like that).

Supposing one of the pictures in the book is of a baptism cake - white, with a baby figure on, and the caption "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" A customer comes in and says "Can I have the one with the baby on, but can you pipe the message "You were not a person until you stuck your head out from between my legs"."

In that scenario, I think I could say I don't want to make the cake - I would not be discriminating on grounds of any protected characteristic. But.... should I grit my teeth and do it, as nicolemr did when ordering and selling Mein Kampf?

I don't think it would have any effect on my immortal soul, but OTOH, I wouldn't enjoy doing it, or be proud of the finished cake.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most people do not enjoy their jobs all of the time. See Arabella's post, above. Enjoying your job is not a requirement: producing a cake to the same high standard as you would normally do, is.

(btw [Overused] to Arabella for a fine example of professionalism)

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Most people do not enjoy their jobs all of the time. See Arabella's post, above. Enjoying your job is not a requirement: producing a cake to the same high standard as you would normally do, is.

(btw [Overused] to Arabella for a fine example of professionalism)

Agreed.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
I'm asking whether their performance was speech in the first place, despite the lack of custom content.)

They likely viewed their choice to perform as speech. But it is not inherent in the act of being a band for hire.
The claim of the baker to be an artist is irrelevant. He is providing a service that does not require art. That is less than secondary to the purpose of what he has chosen to do, regardless of his view of it.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Nicolemr, I agree that as a librarian you had no choice but to obtain the book. How are you to know why he wants it? He could easily have needed it as he'd been assigned an essay which involved reading just as much as for more sinister reasons..

I studied WW2 for exams and Mein Kampf was on the recommended reading list. It's a historical document relevant to the period.

None of the class made it to the end. I gave up around page 20.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753

 - Posted      Profile for jbohn   Author's homepage   Email jbohn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:


None of the class made it to the end. I gave up around page 20.

Even if one could stomach the content, the amazingly bad writing is enough to put you off slogging through...

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, I dunno - people bought 'Fifty Shades of Grey'. Not that I've read it, just seen quotes from it.

I had to catalogue a copy of 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' once. Mercifully this only involved reading the title page, but I still felt like I should have been handling it with tongs... and as with 'Mein Kampf' it is a historical document, there are good reasons for it to be in a library collection.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The relationship between merit and success is, at best, vague.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One for the SOF quotes file! [Overused]

--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.

Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lB--

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
I'm asking whether their performance was speech in the first place, despite the lack of custom content.)

They likely viewed their choice to perform as speech. But it is not inherent in the act of being a band for hire.
The claim of the baker to be an artist is irrelevant. He is providing a service that does not require art. That is less than secondary to the purpose of what he has chosen to do, regardless of his view of it.

...except for that tricky First Amendment thing we have over here, about free speech. It's often appealed to, in order to protect artistic expression. That's what the baker's advocates are doing before the Supremes. (The first day, at least. Haven't read a transcript since then.)

I don't know if it's been used before to keep the artist from doing something they don't want to do, as opposed to not having to take down art they've already made.

The law is usually used to prevent censorship, and this is about allowing *self*-censorship.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The whole notion that there's any speech of the baker involved is something I've previously expressed my disbelief in.

If I order a cake saying "Happy Birthday Mum", clearly this is my wish for my mother. The baker has probably never met my mother.

But what do I know. I don't practise my analysis in a courtroom.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah - the bakers (also florists, photographers etc.) are arguing that it is their "speech" so they can try to import freedom of speech protections, but I agree that there's no sense in which me icing the words that you dictate becomes my "speech".

If I went into a baker's shop and tried to order a cake reading "orfeo is a massive $offensive_epithet and I hope he $bad_outcome" then I think we'd agree that the baker is free to refuse to do that. Not because it is his "speech" but because it's patently offensive and he can refuse to have any part of it. Similarly, bakers are free to refuse to ice Nazi flags on cakes, and probably most would.

That is the standard that the bakers want to apply to making cakes for gay couples. It really has nothing to do with speech per se at all - it's that they don't want to have any part in a same-sex marriage. And the law says that they may not choose to do that - they are free to discriminate against arseholes and Nazis, but are explicitly not free to discriminate against gay people, and if a gay man wants to buy a cake for his wedding, there are good odds that it will be a wedding to another man.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And the law says that they may not choose to do that - they are free to discriminate against arseholes and Nazis, but are explicitly not free to discriminate against gay people, and if a gay man wants to buy a cake for his wedding, there are good odds that it will be a wedding to another man.

That depends on the jurisdiction. There's no federal statute forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation. There's one in Colorado, where Masterpiece Cakes is based. One could, theoretically, start the Arizona Association of Homophobic Bakers and have all your members put up "No Fags" signs. Most bakers who live in jurisdictions where this would be legally permissible do not do this, even though we know that a good number of them have this policy. It seems like they want to do their hating "on the down-low", banning gay customers (whose business they don't want) from their shops but not losing the patronage of gay-friendly straight customers (whose business they do want) who would be offended by that policy if they knew it existed.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gee D--

Sorry for the delay. I had a response ready a few days ago; but I've been sick for several days, and realized the response was a mess. I'm trying again.

Respectfully, I think wires somehow got crossed.

--That seemed to start here, continuing a discussion someone started about a Jewish baker. I raised some questions that you seemed to see as solely frivolous. They weren't, and I explained why.

-- You said I seemed not to be listening to you or orfeo. I may have been focused on on other ideas from others' posts, but there was no insult intended.

--I explained what I and IMHO other posters were doing--basically, testing out the possible law. I said that because you seemed to be against it.

--But you informed me that both you and orfeo know how laws are made. TBH, I have trouble keeping track of Shipmates' personal info. I know orfeo's work is connected to the Australian legislature. Maybe you're a lawyer?

In any case, my posts weren't about either of you or your stated ideas, except where I answered you. Other people raised some ideas that interested me, and I went with them.

--You said you didn't understand what I was getting at with concern for the baker feeling offended, and that would be solved by the baker simply accepting the law. (Paraphrase.) Actually, I explained in the post you were answering that I basically wanted everything to work out ok for everyone. I think you're going with "if there's a law, you follow it".

If the baker feels hard done by, emotional pressure will build up, and possibly spread to others. If the baker feels respected (if disappointed), that pressure may be defused, which is good for everyone involved *and* the community.

I'm feeling worse, so I'm going to sign off.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is this the cake thread?

Because California just made a ruling arguing that cakes are not like tyres.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is this the cake thread?

Because California just made a ruling arguing that cakes are not like tyres.

Yes. What the court decided was that the baker could not refuse to sell bread rolls etc or other standard item. However, she could refuse to decorate a cake in a particular manner if that affected her religious beliefs. Tyres are a standard item and so there could be no refusal to sell them to a gay couple, presumably even if they were to be used on the car in which they would drive to their honeymoon. It's not entirely easy to understand.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What the court decided was that the baker could not refuse to sell bread rolls etc or other standard item. However, she could refuse to decorate a cake in a particular manner if that affected her religious beliefs. Tyres are a standard item and so there could be no refusal to sell them to a gay couple, presumably even if they were to be used on the car in which they would drive to their honeymoon. It's not entirely easy to understand.

Yes, it seems a bit muddled. On the one hand the opinion states:

quote:
No vendor may refuse to sell their public goods, or services (not fundamentally founded upon speech) based upon their perception of the gender identification of their customer, even upon religious grounds.
But on the other it argues (with itself):

quote:
The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.
Which only makes sense if baking (a "service") is "fundamentally founded upon speech", something which is not inherently obvious. Nor is it obvious why the baking involved in a wedding cake is "speech" but the baking of other pastries, breads, etc. is not. This seems like a case of the court trying to have its cake and eat it too.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would be totes up for the rights of cake bakers, registrars et. al. if I saw any evidence that they refused to bake cakes or register people who had ditched their wives for a younger model. I've never seen a law case based on that. No, it's always gay people they object to. It's almost like it's homophobia rather than Christian principle.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I would be totes up for the rights of cake bakers, registrars et. al. if I saw any evidence that they refused to bake cakes or register people who had ditched their wives for a younger model. I've never seen a law case based on that.

"Adultery status" isn't usually a protected class in anti-discrimination law, unlike race, religion, or sexual orientation.

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
No, it's always gay people they object to. It's almost like it's homophobia rather than Christian principle.

I'm pretty sure homophobia is a Christian principle, at least in current practice. Similar to the way racism was a Christian principle in the U.S. prior to 1983.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools