Sullivan makes good points about how gay community is blowing it

[kenny]

Cliff Notes: Now that gays are more tolerated some are becoming intolerant.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html

 

[kenny]

He has a point, but I'm not in 100% agreement with Sullivan's article.

What if the Christian baking artist refused to make a cake for a black couple, an Asian couple, or an interracial couple, or a couple to old to have children (some theists profess God's purpose for marriage is breeding, so gays should be excluded).
Few would condone the baker's right to discriminate against these groups, yet passionately support his right to discriminate against gays.

That means seeing blacks and Asians as second class citizens is fading away, but seeing gays as fully equal will take more time.
Not cool.

I guess that's why the US SC is addressing this "gay cake" case.
If they vote in favor of discrimination by Christians I expect this will come up again in the future when more bigots have died off and are replaced by the next generation of voters ... who, overall, are more equality-minded.
IOW, in the long run equality will prevail.

I guess this all comes down to, "Is not tolerating intolerance intolerance?"
Of course we should not tolerate everything.
We shouldn't tolerate murders murdering, so I guess the next logical question is, "Is being gay bad?"
If so it should not be tolerated.
If not, it should be not just tolerated but accepted.

BTW, if gays offend a religion that religion is messed up and needs to change with the times, just like religions now allow women to expose their ankles, vote, and no longer stone their children - well that may still by groovy to some religions in some countries.

 

[arkieb1]

Aussie society having just passed laws that gay marriage is legal here, is about to have the same debate next year. All the far right Christians claim that they do not have to serve the LGBT community exercising their so call "rights" via their religious beliefs. Some members of our parliament want to pass laws to protect the rights of these individuals.

Me, I call BS on this. If you are in the service industry I believe you are there to serve everyone equally regardless of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. And if they can serve people who are obvious A-holes (ie rude demanding customers) they should serve everyone. I think they must be violating a number of discrimination laws to even be noticing let alone reacting to the sexual preferences of couples, if they are gay IMHO it's none of the bakers, etc business.

There has been a case here recently where a Christian school discovered one of their male art teachers was gay and promptly sacked him. He is a practising Christian and gay. Obviously the church in many places has not evolved enough to cope with this dual concept.

 

[kenny]

Aussie society having just passed laws that gay marriage is legal here, is about to have the same debate next year. All the far right Christians claim that they do not have to serve the LGBT community exercising their so call "rights" via their religious beliefs. Some members of our parliament want to pass laws to protect the rights of these individuals.

Of course Oz must have laws to "protect the rights" of Christians who don't want to serve Aboriginals.
Same thing, right?

What's behind this curtain? ... Superiority to those yucky people.

 

[jordyonbass]

I have never understood why the Christian far-right want those protections in place when I feel they aren't necessary; I figure if they wave the banner that they refuse to serve the LGBT community high enough, then the community is going to flip them the bird and go elsewhere with their money - just like any group would if you didn't want to do business with them.

Maybe I am too free-market with my thinking here...

 

[Calliecake]

When this story was first being reported all I could think was Jesus would bake the cake for the couple. Love is love.

Kenny, This angers me as well. Please keep in mind the same people who are up in arms about having to baking a cake for a gay couple are the same people voting for a pedophile. Our whole country is messed up.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don't know. If some Nazi or KKK person walked in and wanted me to write things on a cake that were against my beliefs, I am not sure I would want to be forced to do so. It wouldn't mean that I hated the person at all. It would mean that I wouldn't want to contribute my art to something that was against my belief system.

Replied before reading....pretty much agree.

 

[kenny]

I don't know. If some Nazi or KKK person walked in and wanted me to write things on a cake that were against my beliefs, I am not sure I would want to be forced to do so. It wouldn't mean that I hated the person at all. It would mean that I wouldn't want to contribute my art to something that was against my belief system.

Replied before reading....pretty much agree.

But KKK and Nazi are bad.
Gay is not bad.

But thanks for the insult of equating gays with Nazi and the KKK.

Reminds me of when I told my mother I was gay.
She replied, "Well I still love you. If you murdered someone I'd still love you."
**edited by moderator, please do not generalize religions based on one person or comment**

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Kenny, (rolling eyes not working). Doesn't matter if they are "bad" or not. Either we have the freedom to refuse jobs based on conscience or not. From what I had read, the baker had served gay customers for any other type of cake. His religion teaches marriage is for a man and a woman and historically as the article said, that has been a part of many world religions for thousands of years. He doesn't hate anyone as far as I could tell. He just doesn't want to make the wedding cakes. He doesn't make Halloween cakes, either. You're picking on Christians here, but I am sure you realize there are religions that give the death penalty for those who are gay. That is something really horrific and worth protesting. There are lots of bakers. If he wouldn't make my Halloween cake, I'd just go to another baker.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, (rolling eyes not working). Doesn't matter if they are "bad" or not. Either we have the freedom to refuse jobs based on conscience or not. From what I had read, the baker had served gay customers for any other type of cake. His religion teaches marriage is for a man and a woman and historically as the article said, that has been a part of many world religions for thousands of years. He doesn't hate anyone as far as I could tell. He just doesn't want to make the wedding cakes. He doesn't make Halloween cakes, either. You're picking on Christians here, but I am sure you realize there are religions that give the death penalty for those who are gay. That is something really horrific and worth protesting. There are lots of bakers. If he wouldn't make my Halloween cake, I'd just go to another baker.

Rolling eyes?
Thanks.
That says a lot.

What if his religion taught that marriage is only between people of the same race?

What you don't get is that you are defending bigotry.
His view being from religion does not make it not bigotry.
You people have done this for centuries and it's got to stop.

Such is the brainwashed religious mind.

Equality will eventually win.
You people will lose.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You people have done this for centuries and it's got to stop.
Such is the brainwashed religious mind.

I'd likely make your cake, Kenny. But I don't appreciate your bigotry, either.

 

[Calliecake]

I really can't believe what I just read.

 

[arkieb1]

Of course Oz must have laws to "protect the rights" of Christians who don't want to serve Aboriginals.
Same thing, right?

What's behind this curtain? ... Superiority to those yucky people.

Don't get me started on how Australian society fails so many Aboriginal people..... Actually we have a long history of Christians trying to convert/protect Aboriginal people and under the name or broader umbrella of Christianity implementing laws like removing Aboriginal children (stolen generation), but that's an entirely different topic.

I don't think it is just superiority, fear of what they perceive as "the other," stupidity, ingrained beliefs these are all things that come to mind. The only positive thing I can see is that we have far less Christians and far right wing conservatives overall here (our country wasn't founded on religious freedom it was a dumping ground for British convicts) so in theory % wise we have less narrow minded bigots here than in the US. Probably doesn't matter which society you put under a microscope, intolerant people who ostracise everyone except themselves will no doubt always exist.

 

[pearlsngems]

"You people"

 

[PintoBean]

You know what scares me? What if a baker legitimately cannot fit a wedding cake for a gay couple into their schedule, and the couple sues the baker and digs into their personal beliefs and points to their background including being raised by a religion that doesn't condone gay marriages? We are quite a litigious bunch in the US and even if the case gets thrown out the baker could go out of business between attorney fees and their reputation being tarnished in the community.

My wandering brain lololol...

 

[Matata]

Business owners can't legally discriminate, based on their religious beliefs, against a person of a particular race, religion, or sex yet they can hide behind their religious beliefs to discriminate against a HUMAN BEING because that person has sex with a same sex partner. And yet believers continue to insist that their religions don't teach intolerance, hate, divisiveness. Liars, cowards, sheeple. That's what people become when they follow dogma that stagnates their free will and intellect.

When service is denied on the basis of a customer being gay, a business owner is saying that the gay person is less than, not equal to, a walking breathing sin, Shaitan in the flesh.

When a HUMAN BEING walks into a business and requests service, service should be rendered regardless of the business owners dogma. The business owner has the right to state that providing the service is distressing and provide explanation and can even ask that the customer go elsewhere. Who knows, perhaps a constructive dialog and teachable moment will ensue and both parties will come away more enlightened. That's a better approach imho than refusing service.

 

[Calliecake]

@arkieb1 Trust me, your head would spin if you lived here right now. Many feel they are morally superior while hiding behind a bible.

Matata, I just read that physiologists have argued whether for some faith now includes a healthy dose of self interest that is masquerading as morality.

@Pinto Bean I'm sure there have been times when a baker would have to refuse making a wedding cake due to committing to another or multiple weddings taking place on the same day. It happens all the time with venues and churches. The baker in the article took a stand and said he would not bake the cake due to religious conscience.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

For me the question would be, does the baker make wedding cakes at all? It appears that he does. That said, he uses the fact he doesn't make Haloween cakes due to his religious belief, which is fine. What the baker can do to equalize it not to be discriminating is to not make wedding cakes at all. Then we have equality in his bakery. No discrimination.

I think Andrew Sullivan was asking was this really necessary to bring to court?. I have voiced my opinion before on here about another case which also went to court. I think they should have found another baker. There are many good ones around. I think it is completely un- necessary for this to go to a high court.

Annette

PS I think the baker will lose, or stop making wedding cakes.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

"You people"

He lost me at this statement. A very poor choice of wording here maybe said out of frustration but divisive nonetheless.

 

[Matata]

I think they should have found another baker. There are many good ones around. I think it is completely un- necessary for this to go to a high court.

It's not just about a cake. It's also about the county clerks who refuse to issue marriage certificates; doctors who deny medical care; adoption agencies who refuse potential LBGT adopters; pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions all based on their religious dogma. It's about a belief system that tries to deny a person's humanity and a person's right to equal treatment. It's about fear, hate, lack of compassion.

How do you think you would feel if you were a lesbian and your partner had a medical emergency that the on-call doctor would not treat and you had to wait for another to show up; what if you had to go to multiple bakeries to find someone to make your wedding cake; what would you feel if you wanted to adopt a child and were denied because of who you loved?

Federal law barring discrimination of this sort evens the playing field for everyone. Business owners can donate money they make from violating their beliefs; they can absolve themselves through the knowledge that federal law requires them to provide a service they would not otherwise choose to provide. There are many ways people can reconcile their religious dogma with their actions required by law. They do it now everyday in hundreds of ways that does not involve the LGBT community.

 

[Matata]

"You people"

He lost me at this statement. A very poor choice of wording here maybe said out of frustration but divisive nonetheless.

If he would have said "christians" or named any other religion, the mods would have amended his reply further for picking on a particular religion so give the guy a break.

 

[arkieb1]

Whilst changing laws is great on paper in my country it doesn't stop people discriminating against Indigenous Australians on a daily basis, it doesn't protect all LGBT children in schools, or no doubt black Americans getting targeted and discriminated against in some parts of the US because of the colour of their skin. There are plenty of racist, sexist, homophobic halfwits in my country who don't hide behind a bible as well. You can change laws, you can sue people it still doesn't change ingrained belief systems, or magically make some people in our society more tolerant of others.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

If he would have said "christians" or named any other religion, the mods would have amended his reply further for picking on a particular religion so give the guy a break.

No, this is not personal and I'm not picking on him, he could have said religious believers or something to that effect but he didn't. He chose "you people" and for someone who consistently suggests that believers have a superiority complex he is with that choice of words looking rather hypocritical IMO.

ETA: I just wanted to add that had I used the term "you people" to refer to the LGBT community I doubt highly that anyone would respond to say I should be given a break.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Matata,
Of course I wouldn't want anyone to be denied medical care or have their pharmacy deny a prescription. I would prefer to see these issues in court over a cake. You can make it a symbol of anything you wish. To me, its just a cake.

Annette

 

[Matata]

There are plenty of racist, sexist, homophobic halfwits in my country who don't hide behind a bible as well. You can change laws, you can sue people it still doesn't change ingrained belief systems, or magically make some people in our society more tolerant of others.

True, but laws constrain what people can legally do when it comes to employment and providing services and provides recourse to those whose rights are violated. I don't care if they keep their ingrained belief systems and remain intolerant as long as they do not negatively impact a HUMAN BEING'S basic rights.

 

[Maria D]

I am amazed that this case went to the Supreme Court. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't have, just amazed that it did. We had a cake at our wedding and it was completely unimportant to me. It was part of the whole venue package. We could have chosen from a few different options and I was like, what? It's wedding cake - white cake, white frosting, obviously. So - it's hard for me to imagine the importance of the cake on either side. The baker, seriously you can't just bake a freakin cake? What do you care what it's being used for? It's not like your making a cake in the shape of genitals for a bachelor party. The marrying couple, seriously you can't just find another baker?

I don't think this can be rightfully compared to county clerks, doctors, adoption agencies, etc. If you live in a specific county, that's the only clerk you can go to. Getting medical treatment or adopting a child is serious business. A cake is not.

What if a satanic couple came in and wanted a wedding cake with inverted pentagrams and moon crescents. Some might say that's not a fair comparison because satanists are "bad." But I've met a few from The Satanic Temple in Portland Maine and they seemed fine. Does the Christian baker have to make their wedding cake too?

As far as I understand this particular issue, the baker would have made anything else for this particular couple except for a wedding cake. If it had been my wedding and for whatever reason I just had to have the cake be from this baker, I probably would lied and said, OK then - just make me a cake that looks like X; it's for a <insert random celebration>. But since this case *did* make it to the SC it's obviously a lot more important than I give it credit for!

 

[arkieb1]

True, but laws constrain what people can legally do when it comes to employment and providing services and provides recourse to those whose rights are violated. I don't care if they keep their ingrained belief systems and remain intolerant as long as they do not negatively impact a HUMAN BEING'S basic rights.

I don't disagree with you but you and I both know that "when it comes to employment and providing services" to Indigenous Australians and black Americans and a number of other minority groups just because the laws say one thing, it doesn't change the fact that every single day they don't get jobs they apply to because of the colour of their skin, they can't rent a house or a unit in a certain place because of the colour of their skin, and so on. Should this happen? No, but does it? Yes, unfortunately it does.

We have a long history right up to present day of black deaths in custody. New laws here have done very little to change that.

 

[sonnyjane]

But KKK and Nazi are bad.
Gay is not bad.

But thanks for the insult of equating gays with Nazi and the KKK.

This is where things get super gray. You think the KKK is bad. I think the KKK is bad. KKK members don't think the KKK is bad.

You think it's fine to be gay. I think it's fine to be gay. Some people don't think it's fine to be gay.

So who is "right"? Where does right/wrong/good/bad get decided? If this conservative SCOTUS deems that it's ok for a business to discriminate against homosexuals, even though they've decided the LAW, it doesn't mean I think it's RIGHT, but it's what would be abided by...until key figures change and it's challenged again. And that's how this effed system works.

 

[Matata]

I don't disagree with you but you and I both know that "when it comes to employment and providing services" to Indigenous Australians and black Americans and a number of other minority groups just because the laws say one thing, it doesn't change the fact that every single day they don't get jobs they apply to because of the colour of their skin, they can't rent a house or a unit in a certain place because of the colour of their skin, and so on. Should this happen? No, but does it? Yes, unfortunately it does.

We have a long history right up to present day of black deaths in custody. New laws here have done very little to change that.

I know, I get it. What's the alternative? Give up? Anarchy?

 

[jaaron]

This is where things get super gray. You think the KKK is bad. I think the KKK is bad. KKK members don't think the KKK is bad.

You think it's fine to be gay. I think it's fine to be gay. Some people don't think it's fine to be gay.

So who is "right"? Where does right/wrong/good/bad get decided? If this conservative SCOTUS deems that it's ok for a business to discriminate against homosexuals, even though they've decided the LAW, it doesn't mean I think it's RIGHT, but it's what would be abided by...until key figures change and it's challenged again. And that's how this effed system works.

I don't think your analogies above are... analogous. Choosing to agree or disagree with the KKK is a belief system. In the US, at least, we are all free to choose to believe or not believe what we want. Being gay isn't a belief system that others have the right to agree or disagree with. It's an inherent trait, as are ethnicity and colour. Superimposing your belief system on someone to deny them a basic service or right is just flat out wrong. And, yeah, they could have gone to another bakery, but why should they have to?

I'm actually getting a little sick of the arguments that social change has to be slow to allow the larger society to adapt. Why should the victims of discrimination or oppression wait for the discriminators/oppressors to be ready to accept changes? Eff that.