This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, February 22, 2013

=o)


142 comments:

Johnny Rico said...

Both parties have the capability to solve the immigration problem. They don't however; have the compunction to do so. For the same reason we no longer employ the ultra effective tactic of carpet-bombing to win wars, we also don’t deport illegal aliens found within our country’s borders. Back in the day, we killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to defeat Germany and Japan. We also utilized large scale immigration round-ups to deport illegal aliens. Eisenhower was one of the last to do this under the program known as “Operation Wetback” (Google it, I’m telling the truth). Now we used so-called smart bomb technology and precision strikes to keep the wars going for years. On the immigration front, ICE claims they do interior immigration enforcement by going after criminal aliens. Criminal aliens are a tiny percentage of illegal aliens, but it’s enough to fool the general public into thinking there is actually immigration enforcement in this country.
During the modern era we live in, we no longer win wars and we have an immigration problem. Tell me, how is it this country has 8% unemployment for 5 years straight with 40 million gainfully employed illegal aliens among us? Does something seem wrong with that or is it just me? The fiscal cliff negotiations our liberal politicians were babbling about a couple months back took place because of this very subject – employed aliens and unemployed Americans.
You see, had we went over the fiscal cliff it meant the end of unemployment benefits to American citizens. American citizens, faced with not feeding their families, would’ve turned on illegal aliens for jobs. And hence the immigration would’ve been taken care of by the masses. The local country club near my home is an example. The club employs illegal aliens to keep the course looking good; a job that was done by American citizens in the not too distant past. Had we went over the fiscal cliff a couple months ago, Americans would’ve been demanding the deportation of those very illegal aliens. There was not even a passing mention of this during the fiscal cliff talks: the politicians didn’t want you to know the REAL reason they were willing to compromise on the fiscal cliff. Fast forward to sequestration. If some government employees have their pay cut, it won’t affect illegal aliens a bit. This is why we see no compromise during sequestration like we did during fiscal cliff talks.
Illegal aliens don’t care about hunting or your gun rights. They’ve been so brainwashed by socialism that they will never see your side of things. In fact, they have no problem demanding you see THEIR side. It’s a lose lose situation we’re in. We either deport them, in addition to the excellent tactic of employer sanctions, or we lose. How will you feel about uneducated, unpatriotic, socialist illegal aliens and their children voting your gun rights away in the near future? It’s going to happen, bet on it.

guy faulkes said...

I would have worded this differently. Instead of calling it aright to choose abortion, I would have called it what it is: the legal ability to murder unborn babies.

Anonymous said...

A baby is defined as being born already so the the language should be fetuses. And murder is defined as taking the life of another person - which is legally defined as after a fetus has passed through the birth canal and is a living being(common law)so call it terminate. There - that is better - the legal ability to terminate fetuses. Isn't that also the definition for abortion?

guy faulkes said...

No. A fetus is a baby. End of story.

ba·by
[bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural ba·bies, adjective, verb, ba·bied, ba·by·ing.
noun
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.

Anonymous said...

Guy - since I found several definitions that did not include the term fetus - such as Merriam Webster (the definition of definitions) it is NOT the end of story. You just happened to find a definition that fits your beliefs - not the beliefs of others or all. I am fine with the different definitions and beliefs and you can keep your laws applying to your beliefs and others can have their laws apply to their beliefs. Such arrogance to say it is "end of story".

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous you wrote- "A baby is defined as being born already so the the language should be fetuses."

I have never heard a woman describe what she is carrying in her womb as a fetus. The term "baby" is normal. "Feel the baby move" or "feel the fetus move".
"I am with child" or "I am with fetus". And on and on...

Anonymous said...

Sark - What people normally say and the legal definition are two entirely different things. For instance gay couples will often refer to their partner as husband or wife - but by NC law, they cannot be legally married or in any other domestic legal union.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- I never hear a gay man call his gay partner his wife. I never hear a gay woman call her gay partner her husband. And i know many. I am sure it will change, BUT the "baby" moniker is as old as the hills. You are trying to change it, and you refer to the "legal" definition because you want the courts to tell us how to talk and how to think. The word is "baby" because it is a baby. "She lost her baby" or "She lost her fetus". "Eh don't take it so hard, it's just a fetus," said Anonymous.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- Just a reminder--- "A baby is defined as being born already so the the language should be fetuses.

NewGuy said...

If a human fetus is not a baby, then what is it? A possession? A vegetable? Mineral? or some kind of human other than animal.

Abortion rights supporters follow the George Orwell "newspeak" formula. Too hard to convince people that it's all right to abort your baby" No problem, just deny it's a baby - that seems to be enough to lighten the guilt for the baby murderers?

And, as far as "legal definitions"...as was said in previous discussions here....a person charged with murdering a pregnant woman in NC can (and is) charged with a double homicide. Not a "fetucide"....a homicide!

Anonymous said...

Sark, A gay man will call his gay partner husband and a gay woman will call her gay partner wife - monikers which go against the legal language of the new NC constitution. I am not sure what your post was supposed to indicate. I want the courts to protect individual rights - not tell us how to talk or think - and not tell those that believe that life begins at birth that they will be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term - That would be the courts forcing something beyond talking or thinking but actually doing. I would never diminish the impact of an abortion or losing a baby preterm - it is a horrible circumstance either way. I have been appalled lately at the news stories of kids less than 2 years old being abused TO DEATH by their parents. they might have thought they wanted kids - but that quickly changed. Now what about the ones who know they don't want kids? Forcing them to have them is the worst idea ever.

guy faulkes said...

If they knew they did not want kids, why did they allow a pregnancy to occur? Preventing them from murdering their own child is not the worst idea in the world.

Have you ever head of adoption?

Abusing a child to death either by abortion or other means when the child is two years old is murder and should be dealt with accordingly.

Nobody said...

Nonnymouse,
I was amazed at how inhuman your first post on this thread sounded. I honestly thought you would walk away from this discussion after that -- seriously, reread it. So cold and callous. By your definition, if I violently stabbed a woman in her ninth month of pregnancy the day before her scheduled inducement causing the death of her "fetus," by your definition I could only be charged with assault, not murder, correct?

Guy, you hit on a great point. The discussion here should focus on personal responsibility, not the product of irresponsible behavior. People should be responsible in the behavior thereby eliminating the need for abortions. I'm not such a prude as to claim all people should abstain, but given the wonderful world of free-Obama everything and the tireless work of Sandra Fluke, anyone can get birth control. The problem is that liberals wish to remove the consequences of bad decisions, thereby allowing people to continue to make more and more bad decisions. Conservatives simply want people to be more responsible.

Nobody said...

Also, nonnymouse's definition of human life as only beginning after passing through the birth canal is wrong on two levels: 1) in c-section births, the "fetus" never passes through the birth canal so by her completely imaginary definition, anyone born by c-section is never a person; and 2) Roe v. Wade itself allows for the state to regulate abortion when the "fetus" reaches sustainability outside the womb. At that point, the state must balance the rights of the mother with the right to life of the fetus (that whole, "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing -- sometimes we gloss right over the first one). Here's a quote from a summary on Roe v. Wade at Cornell Law:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

Anonymous said...

Nobody, I am very aware of the viability clause of roe vs wade - no need to try and educate me. I feel abortion is the greatest form of personal responsibility here. Yes, I have heard of adoption and all kids don't get adopted now - think of the thousands that would influx the system. You must also not be aware that birth control does not work 100% of the time so unwanted pregnancies can occur despite personal responsible actions. I did not define human life - I pulled that directly from another source. I agree with the viability principal. As a progressive I want freedoms for living people - not court mandated 9 month sentences handed down when a condom fails.

Nobody said...

Nonny,
Perhaps you were aware of the viability clause, but in your posts here you were very careful not to mention it. So you agree that while Roe does currently protect abortion in the early stages of a pregnancy, governments may restrict/outlaw abortion when the fetus reaches the ability to survive on its own (late-term abortions). How does this compare to the other statements you have made here that would lead anyone reading to believe you support a woman's right to abort her baby at any time prior to actual birth? Will you now distance yourself from the definition you yourself posted "from another source?" Why then post it?

Sarkazein said...

You have to give Anonymous credit here. There is an admission that abortion is a matter of convenience.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- You must admit that comparing a 9 month sentence where you don't even have to go to jail to being equal to the death sentence (abortion) is way over the top.

Nobody said...

I know I'm posting too much tonight, but this statement intrigues me:

"As a progressive I want freedoms for living people"

Would that be ALL people, or just people with whom you agree or who think as you do? You've referenced gay marriage here, and we've had this discussion before (especially if you are HM, as I suspect). As a religious person, do I have the right to personally object to gay marriage? Legal gay marriage forces acceptance of something religious persons might find objectionable. While I am perfectly willing to tolerate and would never persecute homosexuals, I do not wish to be forced to accept that which I find morally wrong. Am I allowed to my have my religious opinion, no matter how wrong YOU might think it to be? Would you tell a Muslim the same thing?

guy faulkes said...

Has anyone seen the cartoon in which a person is saying "God why have you not sent us a cure for cancer, war, and starvation?" and the answer from On High is "I did, but you aborted them."

Wolf's Head said...

Thank God for abortions and homosexuality.

Without them we would be neck deep in lefties.

(Meant to be facetious but you get the point)

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous wrote- " I would never diminish the impact of an abortion or losing a baby preterm...

Anonymous said...

Nobody,

This is easy. That would be all people. I believe you have every right to personally object to gay marriage and if it offends your beliefs, you should not be forced into a gay marriage. Right now, if a gay person wants to be married in this state, they will be forced to marry someone perhaps not of their choosing. Legal gay marriage does not force acceptance - you don't have to accept anything for yourself personally. You are allowed to have your religious opinion - just as others should have theirs. If one's religious opinions is that gay marriage is acceptable - are YOU saying they should not have their opinion? Having an opinion and accepting something are far different from hate and discrimination. You ARE allowed to have an opinion - you are not allowed to discriminate based on that opinion. Used to be that blacks were deemed "less than" and not accepted into white society. Now a baker refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple - that is discrimination - it does not mean he has to accept the marriage - it is not his call - to refuse service to a gay couple is the same as refusing service to a black person. The baker does not have to condone the marriage anymore than if he knew the heterosexual couple and thought they were a horrible match - he cant and should not discriminate. Once again if your not gay - don't have a gay marriage. You will not be forced into one. I would tell a muslim that they are very entitled to their religious opinion as long as it does not impose on the religious freedom of others. Freedom is the key word here. You are not allowed to impose your religious beliefs on others as others house not be allowed to impose their beliefs on you. Gay marriage will never be imposed on you personally. Your religious objection to others marriage - gay or not should be irrelevant. Your opinion of abortion should never be allowed to be imposed on others - just like others should not impose their opinion on you. What if the government started initiating forced abortions - would that be right? how is that any more right than forcing a woman to not have an abortion?

Anonymous said...

Sark,

I am very accurate in my word usage - so your attempted point is negligible. I am very aware that when a fetus is wanted and a birth is expected - the common term for it is baby. And when that is lost it is a tragedy. My usage of the word baby was correct in this case.

NewGuy said...

Anon said:
"What if the government started initiating forced abortions - would that be right? how is that any more right than forcing a woman to not have an abortion?"


Is that a serious question? Or do you really not recognize the differences? Would you say that the government forcing someone to murder their parents when they reach a certain age would be the same as forcing them NOT to murder their parents?

Outlawing the murder of unborn babies would NOT be the same as forcing people to murder unborn babies.

But, you know that.....

Don't you?

guy faulkes said...

Very good point, NewGuy. This also illustrates how abortion could be considered a hate crime against unborn babies. Use your example and replace parents with a racial or religious minority.

Nobody said...

Nonny (HM),

So you did see where I referenced the Oregon baker a few weeks back. Didn't want to touch that one then, huh? Gay marriage isn't just about equal rights, it's the camel's nose. It is about forcing others, through legal channels, to accept something that goes against their religious beliefs. It is about eventually delegitimizing and ostracizing people with religious beliefs and ultimately destroying their right to hold those beliefs. I posed the question when I originally posted a link to the Oregon baker story -- why couldn't the lesbian couple respect the religious beliefs of the baker? Why not say, "I respect your right to, due to personal religious beliefs, oppose our homosexual marriage and we'll find someone else to bake our cake." Why file a complaint with the state and perhaps have the baker pay a $50,000 fine? Because it's about more than toleration, it's about acceptance. Google Oregon baker lesbian couple and you'll see articles referencing "Homophobic Baker." Not, "Baker With Sincere Religious Beliefs." Today it's a baker, tomorrow my Baptist church may face a lawsuit for discrimination when we refuse to allow a gay couple to get married in our sanctuary. Your and others' attempt to compare race and sexual orientation is ludicrous. They are not the same and to equate them simply does not work (for reasons I've posted here before). Most gay rights organization are titled "GLBT" - Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgendered. Should a bisexual be allowed to marry one man AND one woman based on their sexual orientation? Then, should a polygamist be allowed to marry 5 women? 10 women? Keep assaulting traditional morals and society -- look where it's gotten us since the '60's.

Nobody said...

From an article on the Oregon Baker:

The Oregon Attorney General is investigating Aaron Klein, the owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Klein reportedly refused to make a wedding cake for two lesbians.

Klein, who is a Christian, told the couple that he would not sell them a cake based on his religious beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

“I believe marriage is a religious institution between a man and woman as stated in the Bible,” Klein told the Portland Oregonian. “When someone tells me that their definition is something different, I strongly disagree. I don’t think I should be penalized for that.”

One of the women filed a complaint alleging that his actions violated the Oregon Equality Act. If the baker is found guilty, he could face $50,000 in fines.

Religious beliefs don’t outweigh state law, attorney Matthew Ellis told the Portland Tribune.

“They have the right to refuse service, so long as it’s not based on race, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability,” he told the newspaper.

Klein said the bakery is a family-owned business. Their website includes a Bible passage from the New Testament — John 3:16.

“I apologized for wasting their time and said we don’t do same-sex marriages,” he told television station KATU. “I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn’t mean to make anybody upset, (it’s) just something I believe in very strongly.”

Klein told Fox 12 he ”should not be compelled to violate my conscience,”

“If I’m told I have to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, I feel that I’m violating my beliefs,” he told Fox. “I don’t think I should have to do that.”

Klein said he’s got no problem serving gay customers – but he draws the line at creating wedding cakes for gay nuptials.

He told Fox 12 his faith in Christ outweighs state law — and if push came to shove – he would be willing to lose his business and face whatever penalties they state might levy.

“I’d rather stand up for what I believe in and what I feel is right and get totally annihilated when it comes in the end than to bow down to this and say ‘go ahead,’” he said. “Because that sets the standard for the next one, the next one, and the next one.”

“If I have to be to, I guess, be penalized for my beliefs, then I guess, well, that’ll be what it is,” he told the television station. “My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it.”

Anonymous said...

This is not about belief or acceptance - it is about imposing a belief on someone else. You rail against the idea that peopel want to impose same sex marriage on you and how it goes against your belief system. yet you have no problem IMPOSING you belief system on those that believe gay marriage is OK. It is Hypocrisy at its finest. The only way for all parties to be OK is it have laws that let people live by their own personal beliefs. Right now the original concept of marrige is IMPOSED (restricted and forced by law) unto those that believe differently. The government, by allowing same sex marriage to exist, is not forcing people to marry a person of the same sex. It does require that you not act on hate or discriminate against those that believe differently. All the baker had to do was bake a cake and deliver it. The couple was not asking him to marry someone of the same sex - simply offer his wares to them just the same as the next. The comparison to discrimination against blacks is dead on and no different. you saying different does not change that. It does not change the impact on the person being discriminated against.

guy faulkes said...

What belief is being imposed? There are other contracts that accomplish the same thing as a marriage contract without the religious connotations. No harm, no foul. This is a non issue.

I did not make a comparison between blacks or any other race and gay marriage as it does not apply due to the above statement. The valid comparison is that if you feel it is acceptable to kill and unborn baby because you do not feel it is a person, you would logically support those that would feel the same way about any other minority.

Nice try at misrepresentation, but you win no cigar, HM..

NewGuy said...

Oh! Get over it! If you live in a society you are always going to have society impose it's "beliefs" on you. Try driving 80MPH on 421 and you will quickly see how their "belief" in a 55MPH speed limit can be "imposed" on you. Try smoking in a restaurant in Boone and let me know how that works out.

There is no question about society's rights to "impose beliefs" on other people. What is open to debate is the extent to which it should be allowed. Our constitution (hopefully) prevents government from imposing certain "beliefs" and guarantees certain rights to it's citizens. In spite of that, we are constantly subjected to liberals attempting to impose their beliefs that our rights to keep and bear arms should be restricted to only those "arms" which they approve of.

You don't seem to have any problem in imposing your belief that a baker should be forced to bake a cake which he clearly does not want to bake.

Anonymous said...

By the way I would never suggest that churches could be made to perform ceremonies that violate their religious principals. There is a huge difference between baking a cake and performing a religious ceremony. I believe Massachusetts allows gay marriage and exempts churches from being forced to perform gay marriages - seems to work just fine.

Jus' Sayin' said...

I don't think I want to eat that cake when he finishes it!

Nobody said...

So if I stated I would not oppose gay marriage, but demanded the right to refuse to accept it in my business decisions (providing service, etc.) or personal associations (1st Amendment protects right to peaceably assembly with those we wish and NOT those we do not), you would be okay with that? Allow me to act on my religious beliefs as long as I do not persecute? There are plenty of people who will provide services for gays -- the Oregon baker story ends with some celebrity chef making a big show in providing the happy lesbians with a cake AND lots of media attention. The baker is simply saying that providing a good for the specific purpose of a gay marriage constitutes being forced, by law to accept and support that marriage. How can you see this any differently? Riddle me this (and just answer yes or no -- don't weasle out): Can a gay man perform the act of sex with a woman, yes or no? At that time, is he straight? Can a black man stop being black and be white for a length of time? Sexual orientation is, in essence, based on an action (the act of sex and who one is attracted to) where race is not. Apples and oranges.

Nobody said...

Guy,
I agree with your point that from a legal point this is a non-issue since contracts can accomplish the same things. This simply bolsters my argument that the gay marriage debate is about more than simple rights, it is about forced acceptance. Changing the religious beliefs of others by deriding and delegitimizing those views. It will eventually get to the point that a person opposed to gay marriage will be viewed the same as racists -- HM is already preparing that road, consciously or not (my bet is consciously). If she has her way, I and others with religious views will not be allowed to express them or live by them.

NewGuy said...



The Supreme Court will here the Defense Of Marriage Act case in March....

From the Heritage Foundation article:

excerpt: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law passed Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. It is the subject of a court challenge that the Supreme Court will hear on March 27. Last Friday, the Obama Justice Department filed a brief with the high court stating the Administration’s position that DOMA is unconstitutional."


and, to a point made by reader "nobody": "What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages."




See more here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/25/obama-administration-vs-the-law-on-same-sex-marriage/

Anonymous said...

I'll ask the question again. How is it OK to force your opinion that gay marriage is wrong on the religious population that believes gay marriage is OK and you say that making gay marriage legal is forcing their religious beliefs on you and that is not OK. That is hypocritical. The most ridiculous statement: Can a gay man perform the act of sex with a woman, yes or no? At that time, is he straight? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! the ability to have sex does not dictate sexual orientation - preposterous. You can have sex with a horse - does that make you a horse? The baker was not asked participate in the wedding or make a religious statement (and when I talk about beliefs - I mean religious beliefs and their violations - a speed limit is not a belief - another stupid comparison). Making a cake is not a religious act - it is a business service. Your comparison would suggest that any business can deny anyone of their services for any religious reason - clearly discrimination. The ironic thing is I wonder how many here have experienced discrimination. When someone goes into a business and that business denies service to that person because "-------" (insert anything they cannot help - race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) it is discrimination and it is illegal because it is destructive to society as a whole. Finally:At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. Recognize - yes, affirm, no. To recognize that gay marriages would be legal and the entities would be legally considered the same - nothing to say that the baker would have to "affirm" anything - he simply cant discriminate. He can still whole heartedly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and live by that belief. Baking a cake does not constitute affirmation.

Guy - I have proved that contracts do not, in fact, have the same outcome as marriage in this state. You think it would be easier to change tax laws, I think it would be easier to change marriage laws - either way IT IS NOT THE SAME despite your lies and insistence that it is. you continue to sya it is and then turn around and say chaneg the tax laws - if it is the same the tax laws would not need changing - therefore it is not. I bet you wont acknowledge that.

guy faulkes said...

No, HM, you have not proven what you claim except for the fact it is your opinion.

There are other laws that you need to address about inequalities that have nothing to do with marriage or being gay. If the tax code is unfair, your problem is with the tax code, not the definition of marriage or of other contracts.

I will never understand why liberals always want to control people instead of trying to change the laws that are actually causing a problem. A marriage contract and other contracts that accomplish the same thing are one thing. Tax code is another.

Anonymous said...

Guy - so you admit that the tax code is unfair but you insist that contracts have the same outcome as a marriage. Then why are tax codes unfair? If they treat all parties equally, this would be a non issue. Your statement is, in fact, currently wrong and will be until the tax codes are changed to be fair.

guy faulkes said...

HM

Certainly the tax code is unfair. That was not the discussion. The discussion was whether the government could stipulate the type of contract you had to inter into or recognize. The tax code is concerned with the type of contract, not people.

You do not have a leg to stand on.

Maybe we will get a better tax code by doing away with income tax in North Carolina and going to a fair tax nationally.

As you did not address the issue, I assume you have capitulated on the abortion issue. The gay marriage issue was only brought up as an illustration of how language is used to try to prove discrimination exists where there is none.

NewGuy said...

Guy, you really can't have an honest discussion or serious debate with HM. She adapts new interpretations of words to suit her purposes and will change those interpretations when they don't support her arguments.

For example...if society declares that 55MPH is the maximum speed one can drive on a state hiway, that is permissible because it's not a "belief".

But...if society says a law should be passed to prevent abortions and stop the slaughter of unborn babies, then that is NOT permissible because that IS a belief.

BUT....if our society for over 200 years had recognized marriage as "between a man and a woman", then society should pass legislation requiring it to recognize that marriage doesn't have to be between a man and a woman...well, that's ok because even though it's a "belief", it's one that HM supports and she doesnt see it as forcing her beliefs on others but takes the opposite view that failing to legislate according to HER beliefs is tantamount to forcing YOUR beliefs on her.

It's a trip down the rabbit hole...

NewGuy said...

anonymous said....
"When someone goes into a business and that business denies service to that person because "-------" (insert anything they cannot help - race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) it is discrimination and it is illegal because it is destructive to society as a whole."

Anon...could you perhaps tell us which federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation?

Anonymous said...

The first comment by Anonymous where she changes the language to state the legal ability to terminate fetuses reminds me of Nazis changing of terminology of Jews. If you dehumanize, you can justify the most horrible actions.

Nobody said...

HM,
You miss the point, not surprisingly. Sexual orientation is, by definition, based on the gender of the person or people you have sex with and are attracted to. People who have sex with animals are zoophilliacs, a sexual orientation based on who (what?) people are attracted to. The point I was trying to make is a gay person can suspend their orientation, whereas a person cannot suspend their race. Please tell me that's clear enough even for your ideologically impaired mind. Hey, since zoophilia is a real thing, do you support the right of someone to marry their pet? You completely glossed over my best question -- should a bisexual be allowed to marry a man AND a woman? Please answer this one if nothing else. Personally, I don't care who people sleep with, have relationships with, wish to call their partner or anything else, but by your own admission, legally recognized marriage WOULD force acceptance of gay marriage by me and others in business and other aspects, so you've been forced, through this discussion, to walk back things you've said before. You've said that gay marriage wouldn't have any impact on religiously minded individuals. The Oregon baker story has you changing your tune.

Anonymous said...

One at a time – 1) Guy – your statement was that There are other contracts that accomplish the same thing as a marriage contract without the religious connotations. Because of tax laws being unfair your statement if factual incorrect – end of story and discussion. 2) I have not capitulated on the abortion issue but the discussion is the same: it is unfair to force people into something they do not want to do based on beliefs. I notice how no one addressed how it is hypocritical to scream that gay marriage is being forced upon them and that is not fair when the traditional marriage is being forced on those that believe differently and somehow that is fair. – Hypocrites without a response. If you don’t believe life begins at conception you should not be forced to carry a fetus full term. If you do believe life begins at conception I strongly suggest you not get an abortion – the choice is now yours based on your own beliefs and conservatives want to change that. If you believe that gay marriage is wrong – no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. If you believe gay marriage is OK and in line with your religious beliefs, the current law prohibits the exercising of those beliefs. The point is simple – do not impose your belief system on others.
New Guy – 1) I am up for an honest discussion that has some reason. Speed limits are not about beliefs and the comment is just stupid – no further discussion. See above for abortion and gay marriage issue that actually are about individual beliefs that should be protected. 2) I did not indicate federal law or state law as plenty of states now have similar laws. If the laws around discrimination are not in place – they should be. Are we actually going to have a discussion where you guys will argue that discrimination against some is OK – just not the ones currently protected by federal law? – once again – stupid comment.

Anonymous said...

Anon, no one is changing the terminology of living beings. See the discussion on belief system above. Comparing abortion to the holocaust is disgraceful – shame on you.
Nobody – What a ridiculous idea. Gay people cannot suspend their natural orientation on a moment by moment basis – you are probably one of the idiots that believe sexual orientation is a choice. Just because a gay man has sex with a woman – does not make him “ungay” for that brief period of time. It just means he was capable of having a boner. I am not missing the point at all. Discrimination is discrimination – no matter what. It all hurts. If you think the gay couple just trying to buy a cake weren’t hurt you have no comprehension of empathy and are obtuse as to why they might file the law suit in the first place.
The question of marrying more than one person at a time (gender and sexuality are irrelevant) has been discussed ad nauseum. I believe society should have the discussion as many religions and cultures view it as acceptable within their belief system. Rules around taxes and rules to prevent abuse that is prevalent among these cultures would have to be in place.
Legally recognized gay marriage would force you to acknowledge only that it exists and not discriminate based on it and not force you live by that belief. The baker just had to bake a freaking cake. He decided to make a religious statement forcing his belief on the customers by not supplying his service to them. He was not asked to join the ceremony – just bake a freaking cake. As my religious vies differ from say muslims – would it be acceptable to tell a muslim person my services should not be provided to them based on my beliefs? What if I had the cure for cancer in my shop and I decreed that because my views differ from baptists or tea partiers that they would be excluded from my drugs? The point is the same – the service provided is not a religious service (i.e. performing a ceremony) so to deny service is an act of intolerance and discrimination.
The final point is that our laws should be set up so that people can live according to their own beliefs and beliefs should not be forced upon them. Straight marriage should not be forced upon those that believe differently - pregnancy should not be forced on those that believe life begins at birth.

guy faulkes said...

' pregnancy should not be forced on those that believe life begins at birth."

And so murder is being condoned. It is no different than those that considered Jews not to be human and killed millions of them.

Contracts that do the same thing invalidate the argument for gay marriage. If other laws do not treat the contracts the same way, change those laws.

Nobody said...

This discussion is at an end -- HM's comments demonstrate she is becoming overly emotional on these issues (like most liberals). Her posts are now laced with "stupid," "idiot" and "ridiculous" proving that one is not allowed to disagree with her. What a weasle answer:

"The question of marrying more than one person at a time (gender and sexuality are irrelevant) has been discussed ad nauseum. I believe society should have the discussion as many religions and cultures view it as acceptable within their belief system."

Typical liberal -- typing all this instead of a simple yes or no. Should a bisexual be allowed to marry a man AND a woman? It is, after all, their sexual orientation. TAKE A STAND! You have on everything else.

Finally before I bow out, you don't appreciate the fact that in producing a wedding cake, the baker would be asked to most likely place two female figurines on top of the cake, write two women's names, etc. He would be intimately involved in that cake and would be forced to do things that go against his religious beliefs. Your comparison to this and a life saving drug is "ridiculous." The lesbians won't die if they do not receive their cake from that particular baker. WHY NOT, OUT OF RESPECT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DID THEY NOT JUST GO AND PAY SOMEONE ELSE TO BAKE THEIR CAKE??? Take their business elsewhere -- I'm sure another baker would be happy to take their money. Because there is NO respect from people like them and you for the religious conscious of others. It IS about forced acceptance and ultimately, ostracizing people with those religious beliefs.

NewGuy said...

I agree with Nobody on the futility of further discussion with HM. Her position is an emotional one and is not defensible with facts. What she is saying, as Guy pointed out, is that she supports a woman's "right" to abort a child as long as that woman's "belief" is that the baby is not a baby. Or, in her words " If you don’t believe life begins at conception you should not be forced to carry a fetus full term."

As Guy points out, this is the same argument used to keep blacks in slavery and for the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews. If they didn't "believe" Blacks and Jews were human, then they shouldn't be prevented from enslaving or murdering them.

Oh well, as someone wiser than me once remarked..."You can't use logic to dissuade a person from an opinion that they didn't use logic to reach"

Anonymous said...

Everyone is allowed to disagree with me. What is unacceptable is forcing your opinion on others by way of law. To suggest that the baker is intimately connected to a cake is ludicrous - and he might have been the best cake maker in the area - but that's right- lesbians aren't entitled to the best cakes - let them have second rate because after all, they are less than others. No one will force you into a gay marriage and no one will force you to have an abortion - you want to force you definition of marriage on everyone (soon to be overturned)and force someone to carry a pregnancy to term based on your opinion that life begins at conception. I notice how no one addressed how it is hypocritical to scream that gay marriage is being forced upon them and that is not fair when the traditional marriage is being forced on those that believe differently and somehow that is fair. – Hypocrites without a response. I don't understand why you scream about the value of life in the womb but devalue a life lived by denigrating gay people. I guess just another hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

So you support FORCING the baker to do something he doesn't want to do?

Anonymous said...

If the head of the KKK has a the only shoe shop in town is it OK to FORCE the shoe shop owner to sell shoes to a black person? What is the difference?

Anonymous said...

It doesn't bother me if the baker sells the cake or the shoe shop owner sells the shoes or not. They don't have a monopoly on either one. Turning down business only hurts them.

Anonymous said...

Like nobody asked, should a bisexual be allowed to marry both a man and a woman. You're a hypocrite if you don't say yes. You're denying someone the right to live according to the sexual orientation their born with.

Anonymous said...

From my perspective - yes.
What about your hypocritical approaches?

Anonymous said...

A good read from Heritage on defending traditional marriage and the dangers of redefining marriage:

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/11/the-wisdom-of-upholding-tradition

guy faulkes said...

Should the baker sell a cake to the gay couple? Absolutely.

Should the baker have to put anything on the cake that is against his religious beliefs? Absolutely not.

You are talking about two different issues.

Anonymous said...

Here's another article -- this whole discussion has got me reading more on it --

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/2/marriage-and-politics

Anonymous said...

Guy - I am shocked that you actually have said something that makes sense and does not support the extreme far right approach of the majority on this sight - I agree with your approach - the baker should make the freaking cake and get over himself. If he does not want to put a couple of figurines on top - so be it. The couple can custom order them off the internet. Finally a reasoned and rational approach. Thanks for putting away the pitchfork.

guy faulkes said...

All of my posts have been reasoned. I wish I could even remotely say the same about yours. I see you did not address the fact you were comparing apples and oranges or that the issue was about whiter he should have been forced to put the figurines on the cake, not about him selling it.

If you agree with my statement on addressing this problem, then how can you disagree with the statements on contracts and addressing laws that treat contracts differently instead of trying to force people into something that they oppose for religious reasons?

Anonymous said...

Funny, I can say the same that all of my posts have been rational and reasoned as well - though none here will admit it. Regarding contracts, my main point is that you continue to insist that contracts will provide the same treatment for gay couples as marriage will. Given the current state and tax laws, that is simply not a factual statement. Yes, if you provide the caveat that these laws can be changed such that the contract can, in the future provide the same benefits - but it simply does not now. The issue is about discrimination and treatment. People grow up dreaming of being married - not being "contracted". To force people to not enjoy the same rights as all just because they want to marry someone of the same sex is just hurtful discrimination. Imagine if the lesbian couple in the story has been planning this dream wedding and everyone insists this particular baker makes bar none the best wedding cake so they just assume they will use him. then when they go to order the cake he says - SORRY - no gays allowed to eat my cake. Imagine how hurt they might feel. The baking of a cake is just that - cooking. A wedding ceremony is intensely personal and for many, the single most important day of their life. to deny anyone the right to have that day just because of the flap between their legs is just wrong. By the way no one has answered my question: I notice how no one addressed how it is hypocritical to scream that gay marriage is being forced upon them and that is not fair when the traditional marriage is being forced on those that believe differently and somehow that is fair.

Anonymous said...

Guy et al,

On the gay marriage issue, I have explained why contracts are not the same - despite guys insistence that it is the same. Since no one will listen to me (one of the problems with monikers on this site and one of the reason you've lost a lot of spirited debaters)- listen to history. Our country struggled with slavery and then freed the slaves - but blacks were still treated differently and then we adopted the great "separate but equal" doctrine. The problem was it was never truly equal and the separate part allowed for discrimination and hatred and violence to continue. History proved the "separate but equal" idea, though well intentioned, to be problematic and harmful so it no longer exists. Assuming contracts could provide the same benefits as marriage - this separate but equal treatment indicates to society that gays are not the same and this difference festers in hate and discrimination - and bullying and violence. Your insistence that gays don't' need to get married due to contract or should not get married as they are different than the traditional definition propagates hate. I have heard that no one hear hates gays (I am not sure about that but I believe it to be true of some). The problem is that advocating separate but equal policies regarding gays propagates hate and violence. Separate but Equal no longer stands as a policy for blacks for a reason. People are different - period - be it something they control or not something they choose or not - does not matter. Separate but equal fails and harms society.

guy faulkes said...

HM, you have given your opinion that the marriage contract and other contracts are not the same. The wording of the contracts proves you wrong. This is why you have changed no one's mind.

You miss the point on every example. This has to be deliberate as you indicated I was correct on one example and incorrect on an identical situation. Nobody is that obtuse.

You keep trying to equate contracts with people. They are not the same. Your argument is invalid in that you want to control people, not the laws effecting contracts.

I will say one thing for you. You never quit with your repeat the lie tactics.

Anonymous said...

Some quotes from the articles linked above, since no one seems interested in reading:

We can't move one inch toward an answer simply by appealing to equality. Every marriage policy draws lines, leaving out some types of relationships. Equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing. But we cannot know which lines are arbitrary without answering two questions: What is marriage, and why does it matter for policy?

Thus, in their statement "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," more than 300 "LGBT and allied" scholars and advocates -- including such prominent figures as Gloria Steinem and NYU law professor Kenji Yoshino -- call for legally recognizing sexual relationships involving more than two partners. Professor Elizabeth Brake, of the University of Calgary, argues that justice requires using legal recognition to correct for "past discrimination against . . . polygamists and care networks."

Conservative scaremongering? No. Same-sex marriage activist Victoria Brownworth, like other candid revisionists, says that redefinition "almost certainly will weaken the institution of marriage," and she welcomes that result.

A piece in The Advocate, a gay-interest newsmagazine, supports our point still more candidly: Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of "traditional marriage." . . . What if -- for once -- the sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter marriage as we know it? And would that be such a bad thing?

These articles are great summaries of the conservative reasons for defending traditional marriage -- everyone -- including liberal anonymous -- should read them if the topic interests them.

Anonymous said...

So Guy,

One last time - you say "you insist marriage contract and other contracts are not the same. The wording of the contracts proves you wrong." The marriage contract and other contracts are the same - right? By your standards it is OK for blacks to have separate water fountains and bathrooms - separate but equal right? As long as they both are a source to get water and use the bathroom - what difference does it make. I think it is you that continues to miss the point. I never equated contracts with people and i have never lied.

Anonymous said...

HM on May 15:

"Religion would not have been impacted if the amendment had failed. It would not have been "imposed" on in any way."

HM (Anonymous) Feb 26

"All the baker HAD to do was bake a cake and deliver it."

Now you claim for yourself the right to determine what actions constitute a violation of someone else's religious conscious? Maybe we should all bow down to you.

Anonymous said...

The legal acceptance of same-sex marriage is about obtaining the same legal rights and privileges granted to legal male - female marriage.

This acceptance is what the homosexual community want. They want it to be accepted as normal, as legal, and I, for one, cannot accept that as normal or legal.

Anonymous said...

One last comment -- the Oregon baker says he has no problem serving gay customers he just doesn't want the product of his business or personal efforts to be used in an event he religiously opposes, namely a gay wedding. Liberal anonymous' claims that he refuses to serve gay customers at all are wrong. So are the comparisons to separate but equal, since no one could visually identify a gay customer when they walk through the door as they would an African American or Hispanic American.

"Klein said the bakery is a family-owned business. Their website includes a Bible passage from the New Testament — John 3:16.

“I apologized for wasting their time and said we don’t do same-sex marriages,” he told television station KATU. “I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn’t mean to make anybody upset, (it’s) just something I believe in very strongly.”

Klein told Fox 12 he ”should not be compelled to violate my conscience,”

“If I’m told I have to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, I feel that I’m violating my beliefs,” he told Fox. “I don’t think I should have to do that.”

Klein said he’s got no problem serving gay customers – but he draws the line at creating wedding cakes for gay nuptials."

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/baker-faces-investigation-for-refusing-to-make-gay-wedding-cake.html

Anonymous said...

Guy seems to be the only one reasonable enough to say making cake should not be a problem - the baker should not have to stock a woman - woman cake top decoration (in fact no one is talking about products to stock) At issue is whether or not he should bake a cake - his business. He would not be forced to attend the ceremony and commit the couple to his God or pray to his God for them to have a happy marriage - or he was not asked to marry a man. He was asked to do his job. Baking a cake or singing a song of love or playing the violin is a profession beyond personal religious beliefs. In the great tradition of hate/discrimination he could have simply indicated that he would not be able to help them as he was fully booked past the date of the wedding. Instead, he had to make it an issue and try to shame the couple by stating that what they were doing was wrong somehow. Here is the catch - what they were doing was not wrong in the eyes of their God or in the eyes of the law. Gay marriage was only wrong based on the personal beliefs of this baker - and only wrong for him to marry another man. For him to impose his beliefs on others is where HE was wrong.

guy faulkes said...

As I understand it, he refused to sell it for something that was against his religious beliefs. He said that he served gay people, so I would have sold them the cake. I would not have decorated it.

All that aside,this leads to the question of why it is more wrong for the baker to not sell something for a ceremony against his religious beliefs than it is for the people holding the ceremony to violate his religious beliefs by using his product in a ceremony that would do so. It looks to me like you could measure the stick from either end and wind up at the same place.

Therefore, this is also a non issue. Neither side is more right than the other.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous wrote- " For him to impose his beliefs on others is where HE was wrong."

You are so upside down. He is not imposing his beliefs on anyone. He is practicing his own beliefs. You want the courts to make it illegal to practice one's own beliefs. He is discriminating against no one. Just as if he refused to decorate a cake with Satan swapping spit with Obama.

Anonymous said...

Sark,

Right side up buddy - baking a cake is not practicing his religion. If he was practicing his beliefs he would not marry another man and it would be about his wedding service - the lesbian couple is practicing their own beliefs by getting married - i.e. the wedding ceremony itself is the religious service - the cake is a business commodity. Ironically, I want the courts to uphold everyone's ability to practice their own beliefs. The bakers and the lesbian couples. His belief system indicates it is wrong for him to marry a man an, therefore, I want the courts to uphold the fact that he can live his personal life by that personal belief. The lesbian couples belief system is that gay marriage is OK. I want the courts to uphold that they can have a normal wedding in a Church that believes the same with a all the amenities that comes with a wedding. The baker is discriminating - period. NC has set a dangerous precedent that might make the fear based slippery slope approaches come true. NC has deemed it is OK for the majority to impose its beliefs on the entire population. What happens if we get a muslim majority in this state? This precedent means I might get to see everyone at Ramadan! No one has answered my question (and i believe I know why):How is it OK to force your opinion that gay marriage is wrong on the religious population that believes gay marriage is OK and you say that making gay marriage legal is forcing their religious beliefs on you and that is not OK. That is hypocritical.

Sarkazein said...

I hate to continue dragging this dead horse around, but the gays can go to another baker, bake their own, decorate their own. That would be their choice. You want the baker to have no choice.
Let us say a couple comes to the baker and wants a cake decorated to celebrate the couple's abortion of their baby. Will you force the baker to design an aborted baby's remains scattered on top of the cake?
Will you have the Sheriff, by order of the court, fine the baker until he submits.

Anonymous said...

If it were a black man and a white woman who came into the shop and he said his beliefs would not allow him to make the cake - would that be OK? Many Arian Nation supporters who would say their beliefs system is so strong as to constitute a religious belief. What is the difference?

If the one and only caterer in the home town of the National Organization for Marriage was contacted to cater their annual gathering and they proclaimed that because their God believes gay marriage is Ok they refused and it cost the organization 4 times as much to use someone from out of town - is that OK - how is that different?

The act of catering (or cake baking) is not a religious sacrament. This is about a religious/political statement being made at the expense of a lesbian couple.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, would you please choose a user name and begin using it? You are giving the rest of us anonymous posters a bad name.

Thank you.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- If the baker was a Redskins fan and a customer wanted a Dallas Cowboys cake, if the baker didn't want to decorate it should that not be his own choice? Should the court tell he must get his mind right.

Forget the race stuff, gay is not a race, or even a gender.

Most abortion advocates have such a strong belief system, shouldn't bakers be required to decorate Happy Abortion cakes?

Sarkazein said...

"The act of catering (or cake baking) is not a religious sacrament."- Anonymous

If it was, your kind wouldn't want him to be allowed to bake in public. No restaurants or cafeterias would be allowed on government property. School kids would all have to bring their own lunch to school which, of course, would cause all poor kids to starve to death.

Sarkazein said...

There are porn cakes shaped like a penis. If the baker doesn't want to bake a penis or butt cheeks or bosom cake, should the court force him?

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- If your Arian Nation, or KKK, Occupy Wall Street, or ACORN group wanted a cake decorated to celebrate their organizations, should the baker be required to submit?

My apologies to the blog if I am just repeating what others have written (especially about the porn and abortion cakes). I did not go back ad read all the previous comments on this thread.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- Is it only religious beliefs people shouldn't be allowed to express?

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- The law does not require a baker to keep in stock decorations that reflect race. He is not required to have sombreros or Asian featured brides and grooms with pointy hats. Why do you think only gay people should have special rights? Why should only gay people force others to submit to the gay community? Is gay the master race to you? (since you think gay is a race)

Sarkazein said...

Somebody stop me

Anonymous said...

Mark Twain
“Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

Anonymous said...

Should a christian vocalist be required to attend and sing at a gay marriage? HM argued last year that legal gay marriage would not affect people who opposed it for religious reasons. Now, christians will have to do all sorts of things or face discrination prosecutions. This is exactly what a lot of people meant when they argued that they would be forced to accept it. I would bet my last dollar the baker was set up. It fits the pattern of radical liberals. They probably saw the bible verse on the bakers website and went there expecting to be turned away so they could file a complaint and get attention.

Anonymous said...

The tone of the baker in the article is not confrontational as hm suggests. She would like to have us believe the baker is making a statement. Sounds to me like he is just living by his beliefs and two lesbians walked in and demanded that he do something against his conscious. And hm gets to tell all of us what our religious conscious is and should allow. Do you have a little red book for us, too?

Sarkazein said...

If the two lesbians are liberals, they are basking in their victimhood status.


"I am greatly misunderstood by politically correct idiots".

Brigitte Bardot


Anonymous said...

Through the minutia I noticed nobody answered my question about hypocrisy. Sark, the baker probably has a pamphlet or sign or something indicating his wares that includes wedding cakes. It probably includes wedding cakes birthday cakes but doesn't include Satan cakes or penis cakes. The baker certainly cant provide something he doesn't offer. As he provides wedding cakes to deny a wedding cake to someone for discriminatory reasons is simply wrong. Thank you for proving my point.

Anonymous said...

BTW the anon name is doing just fine.

Anonymous said...

Lets see he offers wedding cakes - but only to certain people. That is the very definition of discrimination. Sark I suggest you shut up while you can.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous- He doesn't offer gay wedding cakes. He doesn't offer first cousin wedding cakes or bi-sexual wedding cakes or bigamy wedding cakes with one groom statue and six bride statues. Did you really think you had a point?

Sarkazein said...

To add, he doesn't offer porn cakes or abortion cakes either or homosexual wedding cakes or cupcakes. Should he be forced to and why only for the special gay people?

Anonymous said...

And to take the cake as it were- Sark takes the low road of calling all liberal victims resorting to name calling and generalities. Sark also implies that the Baker was somehow expressing a religious belief by denying service when expressing a religious belief consists of saying "I believe marriage is between a man and woman - but thank you for your order"

Anonymous said...

I also never suggested that gay was a race but a fearmonger like Sark likes to take things to an extreme.

Anonymous said...

Sark, Answer my question and you might get some respect from me and others.

Anonymous said...

Please somebody stop me.

guy faulkes said...

As we are asking for questions to be answered, Anonymous, how about answering this one.

"All that aside,this leads to the question of why it is more wrong for the baker to not sell something for a ceremony against his religious beliefs than it is for the people holding the ceremony to violate his religious beliefs by using his product in a ceremony that would do so? It looks to me like you could measure the stick from either end and wind up at the same place.

Therefore, this is also a non issue. Neither side is more right than the other."

Do the rights of the parties cancel out?

Anonymous said...

Actually, the hypocrisy issue is addressed in the articles linked above, not that you actually read them.

Anonymous said...

What's the point, anymore. The supreme court will rule on this. Of couse, if they uphold DOMA, the same people that cheered the obamacare ruling will scream about what a horrible court it is.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous Shut Up Happily Married asks-"No one has answered my question (and i believe I know why):How is it OK to force your opinion that gay marriage is wrong on the religious population that believes gay marriage is OK and you say that making gay marriage legal is forcing their religious beliefs on you and that is not OK."

Your question, if this is the one you are asking about, makes little sense. But I will answer it as I am guessing what it is. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I am not trying to force an opinion on you, it is a fact of life. It is you who are trying to change that fact. It is your belief that same-sex marriage is the same as marriage. I don't care if you believe it or not, it is a definable fact. It is you who wants to change that fact. In your opinion you think that fact should be changed (one man one woman). If I don't agree to your emotional desire to change this fact, you want the courts to force me and the baker to accept the change. You constantly repeat the "no one is forcing you to have a gay marriage...", no one said you were. It is a false argument.

You have in fact used race civil rights as a comparison to homosexual "rights". Rights are individual rights, not group rights. All individuals have a right to marry and are governed by the same laws or codes (not a close relative, not an animal, not multiples, not another person of the same sex, not a minor) All of us are governed by the same laws. You want a special group to have special laws.

A man's beliefs don't have to be only religious beliefs.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous Shut Up Happily Married wrote-"Sark also implies that the Baker was somehow expressing a religious belief by denying service when expressing a religious belief consists of saying "I believe marriage is between a man and woman - but thank you for your order"

I guess you could cut and paste the comment you are assigning to me...
I believe it was the baker who said it had something to do with his religious beliefs. In the liberal victimhood world, is he not allowed to speak that?

Anonymous said...

Guy - Do the rights of the parties cancel out? The baker does not have a right to discriminate - but the couple do have a right not to be discriminated against - so no they do not cancel out. The baker has every right to his belief and opinion - baking a cake does not violate either. He even has a right to express his opinion. If he sells wedding cakes as a matter of business, then he does not have the right to exclude the sale of a wedding cake to certain individuals based on his beliefs system. As marriage is traditionally for family and procreation, could he deny a 90 year old couple a wedding cake because they do fit the traditional definition? Is that not simply age discrimination? If the baker is so string in his belief system that every act of commerce is a religious statement (he does not get to pick and choose) then he needs to limit his wares to christian based cakes and describe his business as such - no Halloween cupcakes or valentines day baked goods etc. etc. In other words, if he can bake a cake for other non religious events, then he should be able to bake a cake for without is compromising his religious integrity.

Anonymous said...

Sark,

Firstly let me apologize for telling you to shut up - that is disrespectful and I am sorry. That being said your answer to my question just solved everything! The baker should have no problem selling a wedding cake to the lesbian couple because gay marriage does not exist! I am not sure what all the hoopla is about. If everyone had this knowledge this makes it all a non issue. Thank you so much for clearing that up! I would suggest you contact that baker to let him in on this secret so he does not face anymore fines. If another gay couple asks for a cake he can simply sell it to them and say "I am not sure what this is for because gay marriage does not exist - enjoy the cake for whatever reason!"

Anonymous said...

Anon, I read one of the articles despite my hesitation as the heritage foundation has been designated as a hate group. It did not answer the question - it only bolstered the argument that man-woman marriage is right and gay marriage is wrong. If you can find an answer to the actual question in the articles, please copy and paste it for all of our edification. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Sark,

I am actually truly saddened by your response to my question. You basically nullified the question by stating that gay marriage does not exist so the question is a non question. In reality nine states already recognize same sex marriage - so I might suggest it does truly exist. I am saddened by the fact that in the ultimate approach to discrimination around someone else's belief system, you don't simply say your belief system is wrong you say it cant exist at all. I only wish that were true of yours. Not of your religious belief system that you live by but the belief system that says it is OK to disparage and nullify others belief system and OK to force your belief system on others.

Anonymous said...

Heritage has been designated as a hate group??? By who, liberals who hate them? I'm actually surprised you read any of it (if you actually did). I figured you would refuse to since Heritage is conservative, which to a liberal IS a hate group. The point of the articles is that marriage is more than just an expression of individual rights -- it is a social institution with specific purposes. Ideally, when two people get married, they give up their selfish desires in orderto create a family unit. Children are the most important function of the family. Tons of research shows that children do best in a home with their mother and father, not mother alone or father alone or parent step-parent. You probably won't like it since todays culture sees families as old fashioned, divorce as liberating and children as social experiments capable of enduring anything. Conservatives have tried to talk about the importance of family and the need for people to be responsible but get ridiculed for it. The articles discuss this if you read them and the gay marriage is part of this. Marriage has been under assault since the sexual revolution with terrible social results and the quotes copied above refer to this. Look up the article titled Dan Quayle was Right to read more (appeared in the Atlantic). Lastly, if you are nearly as open minded as you claim you would not close your mind to conservative sources. Why come here to argue with conservatives with your mind made up? Why demand answers you know you will reject? And why do liberals spend so much time trying to destroy traditional values in the name of selfishness?

Anonymous said...

Anon,
Please post a citation regarding your allegation that Heritage Foundation has been designated a hate group. Who did this, when and what was the justification? Otherwise, don't throw out baseless accusations in an attempt to cast doubt on a source.

From Heritage said...

From the Hate Group, The Heritage Foundation:

The U.S. Supreme Court decides next week whether to hear challenges to laws defining marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman. It does so after two different electoral outcomes. In May, North Carolinians voted to amend their state constitution to protect the conjugal definition of marriage, a definition that 41 states retain. But on Nov. 6, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state endorsed a revisionist view of marriage as the union of any two adults.
How should the Supreme Court decide? How should voters?
We can't move one inch toward an answer simply by appealing to equality. Every marriage policy draws lines, leaving out some types of relationships. Equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing. But we cannot know which lines are arbitrary without answering two questions: What is marriage, and why does it matter for policy?
The conjugal and revisionist views are two rival answers; neither is morally neutral. Each is supported by some religious and secular worldviews but rejected by others. Nothing in the Constitution bans or favors either. The Supreme Court therefore has no basis to impose either view of marriage. So voters must decide: Which view is right?
As we argue in our book "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense," marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds; but also—and distinctively—a bodily union made possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity. Hence marriage is inherently extended and enriched by procreation and family life and objectively calls for similarly all-encompassing commitment, permanent and exclusive.
In short, marriage unites a man and woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.
These insights require no particular theology. Ancient thinkers untouched by Judaism or Christianity—including Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes and Plutarch—also distinguished conjugal unions from all others. Nor did animus against any group produce this conclusion, which arose everywhere quite apart from debates about same-sex unions. The conjugal view best fits our social practices and judgments about what marriage is.
After all, if two men can marry, or two women, then what sets marriage apart from other bonds must be emotional intensity or priority. But nothing about emotional union requires it to be permanent. Or limited to two. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive. Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Yet as most people see, bonds that lack these features aren't marriages.

From Heritage said...

P.2
Far from being "slippery slope" predictions, these points show that the revisionist view gets marriage wrong: It conflates marriage and companionship, an obviously broader category. That conflation has consequences. Marriage law shapes behavior by promoting a vision of what marriage is and requires. Redefinition will deepen the social distortion of marriage—and consequent harms—begun by policies such as "no-fault" divorce. As marital norms make less sense, adherence to them erodes.
Conservative scaremongering? No. Same-sex marriage activist Victoria Brownworth, like other candid revisionists, says that redefinition "almost certainly will weaken the institution of marriage," and she welcomes that result.
Yet weakening marital norms will hurt children and spouses, especially the poorest. Rewriting the parenting ideal will also undermine in our mores and practice the special value of biological mothers and fathers. By marking support for the conjugal view as bigotry, it will curb freedoms of religion and conscience. Redefinition will do all this in the name of a basic error about what marriage is.
Some bonds remain unrecognized, and some people unmarried, under any marriage policy. If simply sharing a home creates certain needs, we can and should meet them outside civil marriage.
Moreover, if we reject the revisionist's bare equation of marriage with companionship—and the equation of marriage licenses with all-purpose personal approval—we'll see that conjugal marriage laws deprive no one of companionship or its joys, and mark no one as less worthy of fulfillment. (Indeed, using marriage law to express social inclusion might further marginalize whoever remains single.)
True compassion means extending authentic community to everyone, especially the marginalized, while using marriage law for the social goal that it serves best: to ensure that children know the committed love of the mother and father whose union brought them into being. Indeed, only that goal justifies regulating such intimate bonds in the first place.

From Heritage said...

P.3
True compassion means extending authentic community to everyone, especially the marginalized, while using marriage law for the social goal that it serves best: to ensure that children know the committed love of the mother and father whose union brought them into being. Indeed, only that goal justifies regulating such intimate bonds in the first place.
Just as compassion for those attracted to the same sex doesn't require redefining marriage, neither does preserving the conjugal view mean blaming them for its erosion. What separated the various goods that conjugal marriage joins—sex, commitment, family life—was a sexual revolution among opposite-sex partners, with harmful rises in extramarital sex and nonmarital childbearing, pornography and easy divorce.
Only when sex and marriage were seen mainly as means to emotional satisfaction and expression did a more thorough and explicit redefinition of marriage become thinkable—for the first time in human history. The current debate just confronts us with the choice to entrench these trends—or to begin reversing them.
That debate certainly isn't about legalizing (or criminalizing) anything. In all 50 states, two men or women may have a wedding and share a life. Their employers and religious communities may recognize their unions. At issue here is whether government will effectively coerce other actors in the public square to do the same.
Also at issue is government expansion. Marital norms serve children, spouses, and hence our whole economy, especially the poor. Family breakdown thrusts the state into roles for which it is ill-suited: provider and discipliner to the orphaned and neglected, and arbiter of custody and paternity disputes.
For all these reasons, conservatives would be ill-advised to abandon support for conjugal marriage even if it hadn't won more support than Mitt Romney in every state where marriage was on the ballot.
They certainly shouldn't be duped into surrender by the circular argument that they've already lost. The ash-heap of history is filled with "inevitabilities." Conservatives—triumphant against once-unstoppable social tides like Marxism—should know this best. "History" has no mind. The future isn't fixed. It's chosen. The Supreme Court should let the people choose; and we should choose marriage, conjugal marriage.

Mr. Girgis is a Yale law student and doctoral student in philosophy at Princeton. Mr. Anderson is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. George is professor of jurisprudence at Princeton and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. Their book, "What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense," will be published in December by Encounter Books.

guy faulkes said...

So Anonymous, you are saying the couple has the right to discriminate against the baker;s religious beliefs. Does he not also have the right not to be discriminated against? what gives you the ability to make this decision?

If something is for sake, then anyone should have the right to buy i,t but if something is against a person;s religious beliefs, that person should not be forced to allow his product to be used to contribute to this action. The rights cancel each other, therefore it is a non issue because they are offsetting fouls.

Anonymous said...

Yes or No? Should a professional wedding singer, who is also religiously opposed to gay marriage, be made to perform at a gay marriage if the couple decided they wanted them to?

NewGuy said...

Hate Group - Any group or organization that disagrees with the liberal agenda. Anybody can start their own "Hate Group" list...most prominent is probably the list of over 1000 organizations listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center which includes just about any group that supports "traditional values".

According to the SPLC, the Family Research Council, like any group that supports traditional marriage, is a "hate group".

Oppose abortion? You are a 'hater' and must be called out.

It's a good gimmick....another way liberals demonize their opponents by labeling them in a manner that the naive, low information voters accept as legitimate.

Sarkazein said...

The courts and the legislature may pass or rule on laws changing the culture and traditions. They can still be wrong. It is the traditions, marriage between a man and a woman being an important one, that make the fabric of our society.

Sarkazein said...

Legislatures have passed laws and programs, while well-meaning, that have eroded self-reliance and respect for life. Courts have upheld these laws and programs... that doesn't make it right.

Anonymous Happily Married 4:08 PM- You have missed my point entirely.

Anonymous said...

Guy - the couple has not at all discriminated against the bakers religious beliefs. All they asked him to do was what his chosen profession provides - bake a cake. They did not ask him to pray to his god or bless their marriage or perform a religious ceremony. He has to mix a better in a bowl and put it in an oven. To claim that discriminates against his religious beliefs is ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

Anon - a case could be made that because of participation in the ceremony itself, a singer should not be forced to sing - just as a church should not be forced to marry a lesbian couple. I think people a lot smarter than I should has out those finer points (I am not one to decide anything - I am just voicing an opinion Guy). The cake from the baker IS NOT EVEN USED IN THE CEREMONY. It is a proper at a reception afterward! The baker has no case. The singer has at least somewhat of an argument. Once again, in the great tradition of hate/discrimination the singer should simply respond - I apologize i am booked that day - no issue. I wonder, would the singer be afraid of getting gay cooties? If the singer is not performing the service - it should not be a big deal IMHO.

Anonymous said...

The heritage articles answer nothing about the question:I'll ask the question again. How is it OK to force your opinion that gay marriage is wrong on the religious population that believes gay marriage is OK and you say that making gay marriage legal is forcing their religious beliefs on you and that is not OK. That is hypocritical.

The articles only provide reasons why traditional marriage should be the only type allowed., No one here has answered the question because you cant - period.

Anonymous said...

Sark,

I have not missed your point at all. You firmly believe that traditional marriage is the only way for society to function and maintain any sense of morality (the fabric as it were). I asked the question about the baker refusing to serve the 90 year old couple. Even the heritage foundation specifies marriage is predominantly about physical relationship and children. Would this not be a justifiable reason (according to your reasoning) for the baker to refuse service to the old couple - anything that does not fit the traditional views and purposes of marriage? Sark , my problem with your view is that I think it is wrong. I know many gay couples that are better for this community that the straight couples. I know many gay couples who are better parents of adopted children than some straight couples. To somehow indicate they do not count as a family is hate. Moving beyond tradition is not necessarily wrong - slavery was a tradition for thousands of years. I also firmly believe that traditional marriage will not "suffer" if a few gay couples get married. Society is not going to see some overwhelming defection to gay relationships. It will simply mean that a few couples might be treated equally (at least under the law until anyone over the current age of 40 dies).

Anonymous said...

Supporting traditional values does not constitute hate. Forcing those values on people that might feel or think different is hate. Preach it and live it - show it is the best way and some will follow. Don't try to force it on everyone and act sanctimonious when you are labeled as a hate group.

Sarkazein said...

"I wonder, would the singer be afraid of getting gay cooties?"- Anonymous Happily Married

Your problem with understanding others points of view regarding same sex marriage is you have prejudice and you have misconceptions. Until you can get past your deep seated misconceptions, you will continue to argue emotionally on this subject.

Anonymous said...

Let's sum up:

Conservatives believe that anyone can enter into any relationship they want. Gay? Fine. Multi-partner? Fine. Sex with animals? Fine. Go for it. We may think it's wrong, we may shake our heads, we probably will pray for you. We not forcing our beliefs on you -- we'll let you live your life as you choose -- this was in the article, but you obviously lack understanding. We are not hypocritical but do draw the line at redefining marriage to suit you because we see that it is a thinly veiled disguise to FORCE acceptance of gay marriage on society and people who object for religious reasons. Christian who operates a business? You MUST provide your good or service for an event you find morally offensive or face punishment. You may not realize it, but you've been walked into admissions you probably didn't intend to in the beginning.

Your view:

You contend gay marriage will not impact people opposed to it, but have stated:
-if you have a business, you no longer have the freedom of religious conscious to refuse service in a gay wedding (you probably don't personally know many religious people, so you don't understand);
-you belittle the Oregon baker and his motivations. I guess you're God because you know the minds of others and you belittle his occupation ("just had to bake a freakin' cake);
-you waffle on the wedding singer question, leaving open the possibility that a person might be forced to perform (or lie to get out of it -- I guess you have no qualms about being dishonest, either, and what happens if it's discovered someone lied to avoid performing at a gay wedding...discrimination?!?);
-you have been forced into admitting that multi-partner marriages should be legal, even though most normal people believe marriage is a monogamous relationship; if your husband wanted another partner, would that be okay or would it no longer seem like a "marriage?" How could anyone call such a situation a marriage? But if it's legal, we all do.

You are an insufferable person who is incapable of understanding an opposing viewpoint because you think you are so superior to others. Your posts drip with the tone of a person suffering from a superiority complex. I am not hypocritical. I will let anyone live their lives however they want. But when they come to my door DEMANDING that I accept their lifestyle, I will stand up. I knew legal gay marriage (like in Oregon) would force others to accept it, and if a person cannot live their conscious in their profession (baker), they are being forced to accept and change their beliefs. I'm not a gay hater. I lost a close gay relative to AIDS in the 1980s, so I have a different perspective than some others. It is so obvious that you are prejudiced against religious people and that you truly do not understand them. We might as well be foreigners to you.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to everyone but HM if my last post was over thetop -- I am fed up with having someone who doesn't know me insinuate I'm a hate filled hypocrit.

Sarkazein said...

"I asked the question about the baker refusing to serve the 90 year old couple."- Anonymous Happily Married

He didn't.

guy faulkes said...

If they use his product for purpose that he dues not approve of for religious reasons, they have worse than discriminated against him, Anonymous. They have used his own work to desecrate his beliefs. They could have easily got a cake form someone such as me that did not care and the world would keep turning with no problem.

If anything they are more guilty than the baker for not selling his product to anyone that wants it. He had a valid reason.

Anonymous said...

Anon,

I understand that your upset but you are still wrong on many counts - right on some others. For both you and Sark, I fully understand your views - even more so than you understand mine. The big difference between us is that I want laws to allow people to live as they individually believe - that means everyone. I want you to be able to live your life according to your personal beliefs. That does not mean you ahve to accept someone in a gay marriage - it does mean you cant discriminate against them. Products are used in many ways that violate their makers religious values all the time. I am opposed to my tax dollars being used for war - that does not seem to stop it. Are my rights being violated. Insufferability works both ways as no one here has any idea what it feels like to be discriminated against. If you did - you might change your tune. Discrimination is never right - no matter what your personal religious view is. the funny thing about this is you sheep are only up in arms because the religious right told you to be. Christians took no offense to abortion until Jerry Falwell said it was wrong in the 1970's. Why is it that Christians aren't up in arms about cakes being made for Jewish celebrations. Jews don't even believe Christ exists - why is that not offensive? As I said you pick and choose. You are right - being dishonest is not a solution. You might not hate but you are all hypocrites as no one has been able to answer my question - How is it OK to force your opinion that gay marriage is wrong on the religious population that believes gay marriage is OK and you say that making gay marriage legal is forcing their religious beliefs on you and that is not OK.

Anonymous said...

Now that you have gotten me started let me explain the hate part. I have stated (obviously overlooked) that while many of you might not have hate in your heart - your actions perpetuate hate. That is the problem here. As long as you deem your belief system superior to others (by the way I have never indicated superiority - simply wanting all belief systems to be accepted and acknowledged equally - funny how my question cant be answered)then others will be considered "less than" and will be treated accordingly. Difference leads to bullying and violence. Gay kids kill themselves all the time because they feel unaccepted by society because gays are treated differently. Your explanation of not hating gays seem to fall on deaf ears as long as you support policies that actually treat them differently. That is where you are hypocritical and wheres you might not hate - you are perpetuating hate. I am not trying to redefine your particular marriage - so what do you care? Since i don't want a mutliple member marriage - that question is irrelevant. I still get to live as I choose and I believ - Isn't that great! I wish the same could be said for all.

Anonymous said...

I cant believe you accuse me of superiority. What makes your definition of marriage right - majority, tradition? I tell you what I will define marriage for me myself and I and you can keep your definition of marriage to yourself where it belongs. My approach is equality - it is your approach that is superiority.

Anonymous said...

"the funny thing about this is YOU SHEEP are only up in arms because the religious right told you to be."

Nice -- so I'm not thinking for myself? How do you know that? Superiority complex. You have convinced me to become active in this debate. I will seek to convince more people to oppose this issue in every way I can. I am done engaging you, a person who has such a low opinion of others. You are an idiot not worthy of my time, since you cannot truly see how this is about forced acceptance. I could ALMOST have supported gay marriage if there were caveats in the laws that protected individuals' rights of religious conscious. You have blocked that compromise. Nice work. I will not post on this again. I'm sure you will, because your superiority complex will require you to get in the last word.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify what I meant about possible supporting gay marriage -- if I saw ANY willingness on the part of people like you to say, "Hey, if you're opposed to this, we will not try to use the force of government to require you to do things you don't want to do, like bake a cake," then I could say okay. No! You demand that gays not only get the right to be married, but to then use the force of government to compel people to do things they do not want to do. That's what these lesbians in Oregon did. The baker sounded reasonable -- apologized. For his polite refusal, he faces $50,000 in fines. Are the lesbians living with an attitude of respect for others' beliefs? Are you? Absolutely not! So perhaps the hypocrite here is YOU!

Anonymous said...

Anon -
To bake a freaking cake is not a statement of disparagement for the bakers occupation it is a statement of the relative importance to the reception (not even of the actual religious ceremony - once again for those playing at home. the cake is a prop for the reception. The reception is not a religious ceremony). Seems like your just trying to find things to comment on. A baker is a great occupation - quit trying to put words in my mouth.

Sark,
The old couple question was a hypothetical to indicate that someone could justify any reason to refuse service to anyone - it is all discrimination. Funny how I am asked hypothetical (singer at a wedding)and am expected to answer them but you play dumb when I ask one of you.

guy faulkes said...

If you force someone to acknowledge what is primarily a religious contract even though there are other contracts available that accomplish the same thing, you make a lie out of your statements, Anonymous. You are indeed redefining the religious contract.

I do not know how to tell you this, but things are different. This does not mean better or worse, only different. It is only when people such as you try to make others conform to their opinions do problems arrive. A problem with your post is that your actions are no different than those you do not like in others.

Anonymous said...

Anon

If you read my comments, I did acquiesce on the issue of force. The baker sells his wares and to sell the same product to one person and not the other is simply discrimination. As his product is used in the reception and not part of a religious service - he has no right to refuse based on religious principal. In the hypothetical singer scenario, I indicated it might be reasonable that people cannot be forced to participate in a service that violates their religious beliefs. The discrimination laws forced a lot of people to provide services to black people even though they did not want to do them. Should all products come with a questionnaire: 1) Will this product ever be used in or in support of a gay marriage? 2) Will this product ever be used by anyone who has taken the lords' name in vane? 3) Since adultery is one of the ten commandments, will this product ever be used by an adulterer? etc etc etc, If you answered yes to any of these questions, please step away from the product and shop elsewhere - but hey Thanks for shopping!. You see how this can get ridiculous quickly. What if the questions were reversed and the Heritage foundation were trying to buy a new computer. If the shop owner is a lesbian can she ask if the computer is going to be used to take away rights for gay marriage - can she object to the heritage foundation people buying the computer as it is in direct conflict with her religious beliefs? This gets ridiculous real fast people and you never seem to know how to put the shoe on the other foot. You feel tradition and majority gives you some kind of shield.

It is plain and simply discrimination to refuse to sell a product that is not religiously based to claim religious opposition. You can fight this all you want, but the SCOTUS will overturn just as they did the mixed race marriage prohibitions.

NewGuy said...

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcUwv19w2aIpgH06LLgjrlH9JSerbjDR43uLJHMgrPmZrNTPmQOg

Anonymous said...

Guy - I am only redefining a religious contract for those who believe in the redefining. I am not redefining your marriage or Sarks marriage. Remember my way lets people live according to their own religious beliefs in term of religious activities (including marriage). It is called equality - not superiority. My beliefs are no better or worse than anyone's here. But I should be able to live my spiritual life independent of your restrictions as should everyone else.

Anonymous said...

and you won't have to accept gay marriage, except when and where i tell you you have to accept it -- lib anon

guy faulkes said...

So you contend you are not redefining a religious contract/ issue for the baker, Anonymous? Then what are you doing?

You do not have to redefine mine. I would have sold the cake with generic decorations. You certainly are redefining the baker's.

I am glad to see you admit your beliefs are no better than the baker's. Does this mean he has the right to follow his religious convictions?

Your problem is that you can see only one side of the argument. I see both. Might you be a bit prejudiced?

Reader said...

Nonny continues to use the word "ask". Isn't that the key word? We ask people things everyday. Some agree, some refuse. If our feelings are hurt when we are refused, we have to deal with it.

Anonymous said...

I still find it interesting how no one will answer my question: How is it OK to force your opinion that gay marriage is wrong on the religious population that believes gay marriage is OK and you say that making gay marriage legal is forcing their religious beliefs on you and that is not OK. I am not forcing the baker to enter into a gay marriage - I am not changing the marriage contract he has chosen to live by. I quite frankly don't care if he marries 3 men 2 women and a goat. That is his life. No one has to accept gay marriage personally. You do have to accept that it exists - and cannot be discriminated against. The two things are completely different - but you know that. The Baker's personal religious convictions are irrelevant. He was not asked to perform a religious ceremony or bless a union or pray to his God. At the end of the day, he still gets to practice his religious beliefs. And in this case- so does the lesbian couple. The baker did not have a religious contract with the lesbians - he had a commerce contract to simply deliver goods that, at the end of the day, is not even used in a religious ceremony. He simply took the opportunity to make a political/religious statement. He is certainly entitled to his personal opinions - that is not not the issue. Because he sells cakes, he cannot sell to one type of person and simply exclude - because of his opinion - another from purchasing his goods. That is discrimination. The final disposition of the product has nothing to do with the baker and would be no different if the cake were to be used as a prop in a porn scene. Baking a cake is not a religious conviction it is an act of commerce. If you actually considered my hypothetical questions these points might be more clear.

Anonymous said...

why are my posts being deleted?

guy faulkes said...

No one is forcing anything on those that want a gay union, Anonymous. They have the ability to achieve it. There is a saying that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

At least you have finally admitted you consider the baker;s religious beliefs irrelevant. Thanks for admitting your discriminatory view. This proves once again that your actions are no different than those you decry in others.

I do not care if they call it a marriage, however, some have very strong religious beliefs against it. As the same result can be achieved without calling it a marriage, I see no big deal.

My concern is over your hypocrisy of opposing discrimination if you do not agree with the viewpoint and practicing it when you want to support your view.

Anonymous said...

Guy - There is also a saying that the "separate but equal" policy approach failed miserably. Separate but equal does not work because it is never completely equal and it still segragates. Please explain how separate but equal will work with gay marriage when it failed so miserably with race.

And please do not out words in my mouth. The bakers religious beliefs are very important in his religious life and religious practice. His religious beliefs should have no bearing on an act of commerce. The same statement can be made of anyone. I have even explained how the cake is far from a religious issue as it is only a prop in a party after the fact - not used in a religious ceremony. So - sorry - no discrimination here.

guy faulkes said...

And exactly why should his religious beliefs have no bearing on an act of commerce if he is party to the act of commerce, Anonymous? Your discrimination is still showing as is your hypocrisy. You do not get to tell him what the proper course of action is as to what he believes in a religious context. You also do not get to tell him he has to violate those beliefs. The Supreme Court may or may not some day, but not you or me.