|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If the gay couple is asking for a wedding cake in the shape of a dick, then sure... artistic reasons for declining that sale.
If the gay couple is asking for a wedding cake that looks and tastes much like any other wedding cake, then no artistic reasons for declining the sale, IMO.
A custom cake never looks like any other wedding cake. That's what makes it custom. You're asking an artist to make art celebrating something he doesn't want to celebrate. That's compelled speech. The supreme court outlawed compelled speech for good in the 40's I think. It's black and white here.
If he has a "Cakerator 5000" in his kitchen, and all he has to do is type in "Wedding Cake" before the machine spits out a generic, cookie-cutter creation. Then yes, he has to sell it to gay people.
Just like you can't refuse to sell things to Mormons or to Christians. You defending the rights of a Christian to deny service based on faith is equivalent to arguing that it's legal to deny Christians service based on their faith.
You're conflating two completely different things. You can't deny service to a Christian just because you're offended by leviticus. You can perform a science experiment for a catholic without compromising any of your morals. All they want is a science experiment. Religion doesn't even play into it. Hence, you're not allowed to discriminate like that.
The baker making a custom cake, a custom piece of art, an act of speech is completely different. In that case the baker is being asked to participate in something he morally objects to. I don't think it's offensive to draw mohammed, even flatteringly. A muslim painter would probably disagree. He shouldn't have to make that painting if he doesn't want to.
The notion that a gay couple marrying is an affront to anyone is total BS, anyway. The Bible mentions gayness maybe - MAYBE - 3 - 4 times, and at least one of those is in Leviticus. LEVITICUS! Go ahead and read some of the verses from leviticus and tell me any of that has any bearing on modern life. "Thou shalt not wear clothes of multiple fibers" or some shit is in there. Well... damn us all to hell for our cotton-polyester blends.
I'm not sure if you're being funny here, but if you're not then what you said is offensive and dangerous. Here you've decided for someone else what they are and aren't allowed to find offensive. And instead of supporting your argument, you just mocked Christianity. You don't have to like it dude, but people are free to believe what they want. You typed that bile literally one sentence after you talk about things that should be "unifying" us.
And you're doing something else I really don't like here....you are somehow drawing a line between gay wedding cake, and choke-slamming mohammed. You say "total BS" when it comes to the Baker's reservations. But surely you would allow the muslim painter to refuse to desecrate the prophet. So somewhere in there, you monkey-man, have decided where the threshold for "offensive" is.
You really shouldn't be doing that. And FOR SURE the government shouldn't be doing that. And that's really the point here. Who defines what is offensive? The answer to that question is: Exactly who you don't want defining what's offensive.
Whereas the Bible, in no uncertain terms, says that divorce is a sin against God like over 100 times. So when someone gets all frothy at the mouth over the Bible telling them gay is the bad, I can't take them seriously unless they're on a personal crusade to outlaw divorce.
If you haven't noticed, the really sincere christians are down on divorce too.
|
Reply With Quote