Gay Marriage? Not in this Bakery!

[DonIago]

As much as I wish people were more tolerant about same-sex couples and marriage as business owners they do have the right to refuse service to people or at the very least only take on certain clients.

It's a disgusting act on their part, sure, but they're hardly acting outside the bounds of law.

Actually, if it's illegal to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, then they don't have the right to refuse these particular people. At least not unless they're willing to deal with the consequences that entails.

And exactly how is refusing to provide service for gays any different from refusing service to Chinese, or Jews, or any other minority, and can you imagine how well -that- would go over?

 

[Amaris]

Umm, J. Allen, I've dealt withyou enough to in the past to know how strongly and how personally you feel about this topic - but could you please tell me WHERE I made any statement "denigrating gay people"?

No, I'm not going back and making lists. Investing a few moments in a response is all you will get from me. In the past when you've done this I've made many lists, and I'm not doing it anymore.

 

[Rincewiend]

[However, I suggest you look up the websites "Free Republic" and "The Redding Posts" and search for this topic (I don't kno how to post a link, btw). There are some EXTREMELY well written, and thoroughly vetted articles on why this is so NOT a settled issue, despite the claims of advocates.

And before anyone play the sleight of hand that because at least one of these sites has a link to a "religious" organization, it cannot be trusted, I challenge anyone to dismiss the science on it's merits. Because, after all, good science is value-neutral, right?

So, no, not a settled issue.

Free Republic is filled with racists and bigots so i wouldn't trust anything posted on there...

 

[Kommander]

First, it is interesting to note that the Wikipedia article Kommander posted the link for itself suggests that homosexuality is currently considered to be a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors.

You emphasized "environmental factors" as though it is different from genetic and hormonal factors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the context of the conversation it seems like you meant to imply that environmental factors are meant to imply choice and free-will. Environment and choice are not the same. In fact, environment has a strong affect on brain development. Environmental conditioning is no more changeable through force of will alone than are genetic or hormonal factors.

Also, the environmental factors aren't things like "children that have gay parents" (which, most children raised by gay parents are heterosexual.

One example covered in my Human Sexuality is the Exotic Becomes Erotic theory which presents a correlation between whether children associate with primarily same- or opposite-sex peers and sexual orientation. However, it can not be determined if this correlation is a cause that contributes to sexual orientation or if it is an effect based on other causes.

 

[iguana_tonante]

First, I DO want to apologizefor the "depraved rantings" comment, as I realized that can be construed provocatively.

However, I suggest you look up the websites "Free Republic" and "The Redding Posts"

 

[RJDiogenes]

However, I am sorry to inform you, RJDiogenes, but there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest it is not a settled issue.

First, it is interesting to note that the Wikipedia article Kommander posted the link for itself suggests that homosexuality is currently considered to be a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors.

You mean both nature and nurture are involved? Just like with everything else? How horrid.

As for the tinfoil-hatted websites, we can also find similar venues that promote racism and Creationism. It doesn't matter. In the real world, all of these are settled issues.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I'm not even sure it matters what the cause of homosexuality is or even it's "reversible" in some ways. Hypothetically let's assume it is a choice - so what? Undeniably some men are happier "partnering up" with other men and some women with women, why can't you just let them be happy? And what's the harm in giving them equal protection and benefits under the law to hetero couples? I don't understand who's getting hurt by that. I just can't wrap my mind around why some people spend so much time, energy and money on making other people miserable without there being and discernable benefit to themselves. You can't even say anti-gay activists are selfish, because differently from for example rich people who want to get rid of Social Security or white people railing against immigration, they have absolutely nothing to gain from hurting homosexuals as far as I can see. It's completely irrational.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm not even sure it matters what the cause of homosexuality is or even it's "reversible" in some ways. Hypothetically let's assume it is a choice - so what? Undeniably some men are happier "partnering up" with other men and some women with women, why can't you just let them be happy? And what's the harm in giving them equal protection and benefits under the law to hetero couples? I don't understand who's getting hurt by that. I just can't wrap my mind around why some people spend so much time, energy and money on making other people miserable without there being and discernable benefit to themselves. You can't even say anti-gay activists are selfish, because differently from for example rich people who want to get rid of Social Security or white people railing against immigration, they have absolutely nothing to gain from hurting homosexuals as far as I can see. It's completely irrational.

Yeah, even if it is a "choice" (and the evidence says it is not), it shouldn't matter. Religion is a choice--that's still given ample protection.

 

[Trekker4747]

Actually, if it's illegal to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, then they don't have the right to refuse these particular people. At least not unless they're willing to deal with the consequences that entails.

And exactly how is refusing to provide service for gays any different from refusing service to Chinese, or Jews, or any other minority, and can you imagine how well -that- would go over?

Well, see that's the thing. The relationship between a client and a service provider is different than the relationship between a customer and a business.

The engaged couple is, essentially, interviewing this person for a job (to bake them a cake). That person is turning them down for the job.

This is a subtle, be it slight, difference than going into a store and being told to get out because of one's lifestyle.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the bakery and what they did here -at the very least it's bad business- but in my eyes she has that right to not take a job. What's happening here is, essentially, saying a person doesn't have the right to say he doesn't want to work for someone because they're black.

In such a case would the prospective employer have the right to sue or get mad at the potential hire for not working there?

To be honest here, I'm not entirely sure how to draw the line or define the difference here between, say, going to a bakery and hiring a baker to make an elaborate multi-hundred dollar cake and, say, going to your local grocery store bakery and getting them to make you a far cheaper cake.

In such a case there I'd argue the grocery store can't refuse service due to federal laws.

Maybe it's due to the differences between a grocery store which is purely "open to everyone business" with a diverse range of services and products and, say, a private bakery that takes on clients rather than just has customers. Maybe there's a dollar amount, quality of the service or professionals involved... I dunno.

But I'd argue there is a difference between an ordinary business and a professional baker/cake decorator.

 

[Pingfah]

Yes, it is proven scientifically that homosexuality is natural and not harmful. For homosexuality to be immoral, it would have to be harmful. As for existentially, who cares?

So, yes, it's settled.

Morality is not limited to harmful vs. non harmful.

Of course it is. Why would I consider something immoral if it's not harmful?

The "problem" (for lack of a better word) with morality is that it's subjective based on the person involved. What one finds moral or acceptable another may find immoral or repugnant. This is because people don't agree on what the source of morality should be. Without being united on who/what determines what is good and what is bad, everyone's viewpoint will be out of sync.

This is totally different than the clear cut, black and white nature of harmful vs. not harmful.

The problem is exactly that: An arbitrary definition of morality based on fear and hatred.

I don't think it is helpful to argue about what is or isn't moral. Focusing on that drags the argument down to a semantic level, i.e. "what does moral mean? Does it mean different things to different people?". You end up lost in an argument over a word, which solves nothing. Evidently it is subjective because you can't get a consistent definition from one person to the next, certainly not all biblical morality is not based upon whether harm is done, and biblical morality is all that matters to many people.

The real answer IMO is, it doesn't matter what "moral" means, all that matters are the objective results of actions. "Who does this affect? How does this affect them?". Morality is something people who live their lives by an ancient book need to worry about, not the rest of us in reality.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Actually, if it's illegal to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, then they don't have the right to refuse these particular people. At least not unless they're willing to deal with the consequences that entails.

And exactly how is refusing to provide service for gays any different from refusing service to Chinese, or Jews, or any other minority, and can you imagine how well -that- would go over?

Well, see that's the thing. The relationship between a client and a service provider is different than the relationship between a customer and a business.

The engaged couple is, essentially, interviewing this person for a job (to bake them a cake). That person is turning them down for the job.

This is a subtle, be it slight, difference than going into a store and being told to get out because of one's lifestyle.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the bakery and what they did here -at the very least it's bad business- but in my eyes she has that right to not take a job. What's happening here is, essentially, saying a person doesn't have the right to say he doesn't want to work for someone because they're black.

In such a case would the prospective employer have the right to sue or get mad at the potential hire for not working there?

To be honest here, I'm not entirely sure how to draw the line or define the difference here between, say, going to a bakery and hiring a baker to make an elaborate multi-hundred dollar cake and, say, going to your local grocery store bakery and getting them to make you a far cheaper cake.

In such a case there I'd argue the grocery store can't refuse service due to federal laws.

Maybe it's due to the differences between a grocery store which is purely "open to everyone business" with a diverse range of services and products and, say, a private bakery that takes on clients rather than just has customers. Maybe there's a dollar amount, quality of the service or professionals involved... I dunno.

But I'd argue there is a difference between an ordinary business and a professional baker/cake decorator.

I don't think this rationalization holds up. It's still a customer coming in and asking for someone to provide a service. While the business can refuse to provide that service for various reasons (such as the customer being an asshole), there are laws governing what those reasons can't be. Same with hiring, as far as that goes. A company can refuse to hire you for any number of reasons, as long as it isn't because of your gender, religion, race, or (in some states) sexual orientation.

The real stupidity is in admitting she didn't serve them because they're gay. Derp.

 

[Trekker4747]

Yes, but is there a law against someone taking a job due to those factors? Because that's what I see hiring a professional baker is, someone taking a job.

 

[Avon]

if its a conscious decision to be gay, surely all straight people would have to choose to be straight aswell?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, the default is bi? Or asexual?

Seriously, though, people are only trying to "prove" it's a choice, in order to affirm their own preconceived belief that God hates gays.

At least, as far as I can tell.

 

[Roger Wilco]

So, the default is bi? Or asexual?

Seriously, though, people are only trying to "prove" it's a choice, in order to affirm their own preconceived belief that God hates gays.

But then it would be logical to argue for criminalisation of homosexual acts too, which some anti-gay activists do, but most shy away from because it's so blatantly hostile and unfair.

 

[TheSeeker]

I've never really understood why the origins of someone's sexuality are important. Whether a person was born gay, raised gay, or chose to be gay, it shouldn't matter. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. Being gay doesn't harm a single person. Humans and animals have been engaging in homosexual activities for thousands of years. The notion that it is "wrong" or "immoral" is strictly an idea that somebody came up with and that a bunch of other people agreed with, but it's just an opinion.

Can we prove that homosexuality is the result of genetics? Maybe, maybe not.
Can we prove that homosexuality is wrong? Never.

I completely agree.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, the default is bi? Or asexual?

Seriously, though, people are only trying to "prove" it's a choice, in order to affirm their own preconceived belief that God hates gays.

But then it would be logical to argue for criminalisation of homosexual acts too, which some anti-gay activists do, but most shy away from because it's so blatantly hostile and unfair.

As I get older, I'm backing away from trying to understand how the irrationality in some people's minds ticks. When I was much younger, I found it interesting to try to figure it out. Now I see it as a waste of time. YMMV.

 

[Squiggy]

if its a conscious decision to be gay, surely all straight people would have to choose to be straight aswell?

I made the choice when I entered college.

I chose option B on my enrollment application.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yes, but is there a law against someone taking a job due to those factors? Because that's what I see hiring a professional baker is, someone taking a job.

It doesn't matter, because the professional baker is set up as a business, and businesses are bound by certain laws regarding how they can provide their services.

Your perspective is like saying that when you go to Subway, you're "hiring" their people to make your sandwich. That's silly.

Or, say it's a one-man deli shop. If he refuses to make you a sandwich, does that mean he refused to let you hire him?

It just doesn't make much sense. When you set up a business and offer your services to the public, that is absolutely nothing like an employer/employee relationship, from a legal standpoint. The obligations are completely different.

 

[Pingfah]

if its a conscious decision to be gay, surely all straight people would have to choose to be straight aswell?

In the minds of those who believe that homosexuality is a choice, being gay is an activity not a sexual orientation. Homosexual behaviour is just that, a behaviour, one caused by conscious and deliberate rejection of the heterosexuality that nature bestows upon everybody.

That's bollocks though, obviously.