Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[Dr. Arch]

In my opinion the goverment should only regulate things that can not  be regulated by the free market and this is one thing I believe that can be regulated by free market 

Meanwhile, if it fails to do so, you have a plethora of groups in society being denied services and discriminated against, in the name of the free market, of course. It baffles me how people can support something like this just to hold onto their stringent takes on an ideological stance, unless they really don't care, which may be the case.

[Dr. Arch]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

[Dr. Arch]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

[Dr. Arch]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

The bakers are trying to impose their views on anyone, they just want to be left alone.

While, as a Christian, I sympathize with your concerns, this argument is like saying that segregationists just wanted to be left alone.

I don't think so, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gay costumers, they simply refuse to make a cake for a wedding where people of the same gender are getting married.

Gender and sex are different things.

Not in any meaningful way.

What an empty and lazy response. Clearly, they are because they are different terms to describe different concepts. I suggest you look up some definitions and examples.

There are two biological sexes male and female, and each biological sex has a corresponding gender.  And gender is colloquially used as a synonym for sex.

Gender as different from sex is only useful in linguistics.  For instance, Latin, German, and Russian have three genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), while Spanish and Portuguese only have masculine and feminine.  Other languages have no grammatical gender.

There are far more grammatical genders than just those three, and those span further than the few languages listed there. However, grammatical gender is not the same as social gender.

Social gender is assigned by society according to sex and expectations, yes, but practically nobody behaves on the extremes of masculinity and femininity. Gender exists on a continuum and is not absolute (e.g. you can usually say that someone is more masculine or feminine than someone else. Counter actively, there can also be the case when you can't tell a person's gender at all because it doesn't fall under your binary understanding of society's traditional conception of gender).

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

Not getting your preferred cake of choice =/= Jim Crow.

Sigh... Are you done whacking that straw man? I'm saying in the bolded parts that it can and (given U.S. history) will get to that point in certain places because of "religious liberty;" one of the same reasons that were used to push forward Jim Crow laws. If you don't get that, then there's no breaking through. You are attempting to rationalize yourself out of the point.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

Not getting your preferred cake of choice =/= Jim Crow.

Sigh... Are you done whacking that straw man? I'm saying in the bolded parts that it can and (given U.S. history) will get to that point in certain places because of "religious liberty;" one of the same reasons that were used to push forward Jim Crow laws. If you don't get that, then there's no breaking through. You are attempting to rationalize yourself out of the point.

You asked me about Jim Crow and therefore equated the two. You presented the straw man ad factum first. Idk why you think the situations are at all similar in their severity.

Are you reading? I said that it can develop INTO those kinds of situations in bold, given enough time and political space. I mentioned the laws, not because they were the same in severity, but because the same reasoning are being brought up to sustain them. You made the connection based on a rhetorical question, and you still make the connection even after I explicate.

[Dr. Arch]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Listen, I've treated you respectfully, and I expect the same from you. I'm not about to engage in some high school melodramatic exchange of ad hominems. Calling a comparison stupid because you lack depth in the subject, and the comparison actually being stupid for reasons that you enumerate are very different things.

Sure, it starts with a cake, which appears to be inane, but then another business owner of a more vital service decides not to provide that service for the same reasons as well, say, car tow services. Eventually, you have people feeling empowered enough to take it to the next level. So on, so forth. If you let stupidity like this roam free, it'll eventually get to the point where it gets out of control.

I don't want to have to worry about getting services somewhere because my very existence offends someone's religious sensibilities. The same kind of crap argument was used in all other forms of discriminatory actions in the history of the U.S. Stop with the apologist acts and minimization. We've seen enough of it.

Not getting your preferred cake of choice =/= Jim Crow.

Sigh... Are you done whacking that straw man? I'm saying in the bolded parts that it can and (given U.S. history) will get to that point in certain places because of "religious liberty;" one of the same reasons that were used to push forward Jim Crow laws. If you don't get that, then there's no breaking through. You are attempting to rationalize yourself out of the point.

You asked me about Jim Crow and therefore equated the two. You presented the straw man ad factum first. Idk why you think the situations are at all similar in their severity.

Are you reading? I said that it can develop INTO those kinds of situations in bold, given enough time and political space. I mentioned the laws, not because they were the same in severity, but because the same reasoning are being brought up to sustain them. You made the connection based on a rhetorical question, and you still make the connection even after I explicate.

That doesn't even make sense. America is getting less homophobic and not more when looking at opinion polls on LGBT acceptance and gay marriage.

You are commiting the slippery slope fallacy.

Yes, in general, it may be. But there are people in isolated areas who, as described above by Steve, would still be target of this. Why would we ignore them? Why enable these people to concede some small award for feeling uncomfortable while denying the LGBT community their basic dignity?

Let's say it doesn't continue into other services, and it stops there. How is it okay to let this be legal and not let other kinds of discrimination continue against people based on their immutable characteristics? No matter how you slice it, whether it continues into other services or not, the basic question sustains.

And, IF it does continue, I'm not about to be one of those people who turned a blind eye when it was barely beginning, and it could've been stopped in its tracks.