by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,1872,1882,1892,1902,1912,1922,193. . .2,5072,508»

New sequoyah wrote:The specific instance referenced (the cake bakers) didn't treat anyone differently.

...

Except the whole not serving gay people until a court forced them to?

Spode Humbled Minions wrote:If your deeply held religious convictions involve systemically trying to force a specific group of people out of society?

*Y E S*

Quebecshire wrote:But you didn't ask a question about a specific instance.

If you refuse to do something for someone because they're gay, you're discriminating against them, which is bigotry.

Again, the instance in reference, the cake bakers were not discriminating against their customers "because they're gay".

New sequoyah wrote:Again, the instance in reference, the cake bakers were not discriminating against their customers "because they're gay".

But we aren't talking about that specific instance. In general, if you treat someone differently because they are gay (or because your religion leads you to have backwards beliefs like that), then it is bigoted.

New sequoyah wrote:Again, the instance in reference, the cake bakers were not discriminating against their customers "because they're gay".

Then... What was it about?

New sequoyah

Spode Humbled Minions wrote:Except the whole not serving gay people until a court forced them to?

Factually not true.
Quote: "Phillips, who had provided cakes for gay customers in other circumstances, argued that making a cake for a same-sex wedding would be an endorsement of the marriage and a violation of his beliefs." [https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/june/jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html]

If I remember correctly, the baker in this case also didn't make wedding cakes for heterosexuals who were divorced.

Quebecshire wrote:In general, if you treat someone differently because they are gay,[...] then it is bigoted.

Sure, pretty much a fill-in-the-blank statement there.

However, requiring someone to actively participate or celebrate in something they fundamentally have a conviction against is also bigoted.

New sequoyah wrote:Factually not true.
Quote: "Phillips, who had provided cakes for gay customers in other circumstances, argued that making a cake for a same-sex wedding would be an endorsement of the marriage and a violation of his beliefs." [https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/june/jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html]

If I remember correctly, the baker in this case also didn't make wedding cakes for heterosexuals who were divorced.
Sure, pretty much a fill-in-the-blank statement there.

However, requiring someone to actively participate or celebrate in something they fundamentally have a conviction against is also bigoted.

So he refused to make a wedding cake... because they were gay?

New sequoyah

New sequoyah wrote:

If I remember correctly, the baker in this case also didn't make wedding cakes for heterosexuals who were divorced.

"Phillips has said in the past that he not only has declined same-sex union cakes, but he also declines other types of cakes that go against his beliefs, including cakes for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages." [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/colo-baker-sued-a-third-time-for-refusal-to-make-cake-signifying-gender-transition-17456]

Quebecshire wrote:So he refused to make a wedding cake... because they were gay?

Are you purposefully being difficult?

Culture of Life, Priest vallon, Clear Bay, and Lagrodia

Spode Humbled Minions wrote:I think the issue most people have with this line of reasoning is that it's been used to promote quite a bit of bigotry. Like refusing to provide a service (like, for instance, the whole wedding cake debacle) for a specific sexuality because of 'disapproval of their lifestyle', or trying to bar LGBTQ people from employment because of 'disapproval of their lifestyle'.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I don't "condemn anyone for having those feelings" about LGBTQ people, but if that means you act on those feelings, well, it's "the indulgence of them that I disapprove of".

Depends on your definition of bigotry. Were those Christian bakers denying service because of who the (prospective) customers were, or because of what they were requesting? The first would be bigotry; the second, however, is what I see. Take Jack Phillips as an example: if memory serves, there are some types of cakes that he will not make for anybody, including Halloween cakes (because he, like some other Christians, believes it to be pagan and ungodly). But the cakes he is willing to make, he will make for everybody, regardless of who they are. That doesn't fit Merriam-Webster's definition of "bigot": "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Anyone who refused services to a homosexual couple because they were homosexual would indeed be a bigot. But that isn't seen here.

As for denying employment to those who identify as "LGBTQIA++", the question is: is this status relevant to the job? For example, Islam has historically been very intolerant of homosexuality, which could be punished in many ways, up to and including execution. Indeed, many Islamic countries do execute homosexual people. Would it be bigotry for a mosque to refuse to hire a homosexual person, or just an expression of religious belief (since the position would be explicitly religious)? But if homosexuality wasn't relevant to the job description, refusing employment on those grounds would indeed be bigotry. For example, Chick-Fil-A (believe it or not!) does not discriminate against homosexual people in any way, either as customers or employees. Why? Because it's not relevant to a fast-food job.

Culture of Life, Clear Bay, and New waldensia

New sequoyah wrote:"Phillips has said in the past that he not only has declined same-sex union cakes, but he also declines other types of cakes that go against his beliefs, including cakes for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages." [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/colo-baker-sued-a-third-time-for-refusal-to-make-cake-signifying-gender-transition-17456]

Are you purposefully being difficult?

So he refused to make a wedding cake... because they were gay? Yes, he did, since you won't say it. Just because he refuses other people doesn't change that he refused it because of a backwards and bigoted belief.

Phydios wrote:Would it be bigotry for a mosque to refuse to hire a homosexual person, or just an expression of religious belief

Both, it doesn't have to be just one or the other

New sequoyah wrote:Factually not true.
Quote: "Phillips, who had provided cakes for gay customers in other circumstances, argued that making a cake for a same-sex wedding would be an endorsement of the marriage and a violation of his beliefs." [https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/june/jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html]

If I remember correctly, the baker in this case also didn't make wedding cakes for heterosexuals who were divorced.
Sure, pretty much a fill-in-the-blank statement there.

However, requiring someone to actively participate or celebrate in something they fundamentally have a conviction against is also bigoted.

Factually not true.
Quote: "Phillips, who had provided cakes for African American customers in other circumstances, argued that making a cake for a interracial wedding would be an endorsement of miscegenation and a violation of his beliefs." [https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/june/jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html]

If I remember correctly, the baker in this case also didn't make wedding cakes for whites who were divorced.
Sure, pretty much a fill-in-the-blank statement there.

However, requiring someone to actively participate or celebrate in something they fundamentally have a conviction against is also bigoted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, it's the world's worst MadLib, thanks Waldy

Lagrodia

Quebecshire wrote:So he refused to make a wedding cake... because they were gay?

No. Already answered this.

Lagrodia

New waldensia wrote:No. Already answered this.

But he literally did.

Quebecshire wrote:But he literally did.

Nope. See the references I posted previously.

Lagrodia

New waldensia wrote:Nope. See the references I posted previously.

Just because he uses religious beliefs as an excuse to deny gay people a cake doesn't mean anything

He denied it to an engaged couple because they were gay

Quebecshire wrote:Just because he uses religious beliefs as an excuse to deny gay people a cake doesn't mean anything

He denied it to an engaged couple because they were gay

No you don't understand it wasn't because they were gay, it was because they were gay and they wanted a wedding cake.

Wait.

Quebecshire wrote:He denied it to an engaged couple because they were gay

He did not deny it because they were gay. He declined to perform his personal art occupation for an activity he has a religious conviction against. There is a significant difference. Activity versus individual.

Continuing this is just going in circles, so I'm going to conclude participating.

New waldensia wrote:He did not deny it because they were gay. He declined to perform his personal art occupation for an activity he has a religious conviction against. There is a significant difference. Activity versus individual.

And what was that activity Waldy? Was it getting married... well, he made other wedding cakes, didn't he? So what caused the change in mind? What factor of their marriage did he not like, Waldy?

New waldensia wrote:He did not deny it because they were gay. He declined to perform his personal art occupation for an activity he has a religious conviction against. There is a significant difference. Activity versus individual.

Because he refused to do that "personal art occupation" (literally making a cake) for some people and not other people on the basis of their sexuality?

--
New waldensia, if you think homophobia flies in our region, why don't you try posting this nonsense in customs and see where it gets you.

Quebecshire wrote:Both, it doesn't have to be just one or the other

If you believe that Islamic religious belief is bigoted, then this conversation can go no farther. But be careful- you wouldn't want to be called an Islamophobe for your claim that Islamic beliefs are bigoted.

Lagrodia

Phydios wrote:If you believe that Islamic religious belief is bigoted, then this conversation can go no farther. But be careful- you wouldn't want to be called an Islamophobe for your claim that Islamic beliefs are bigoted.

You're just the king of the strawmen aren't you

Phydios wrote:If you believe that Islamic religious belief is bigoted, then this conversation can go no farther. But be careful- you wouldn't want to be called an Islamophobe for your claim that Islamic beliefs are bigoted.

That's some real boomer 'understan' the threat' level of nonsense. There are portions of Islamic beliefs which are bigoted, there are portions of Christian beliefs that are bigoted. The thing is, being a Christian isn't a commitment to bigotry, and neither is being a Muslim. And I don't see anyone yelling islamophobia yet.

Maybe that's because I refrain from posting Islamophobic crinj

United massachusetts

This is getting out of hand. For a brief cool down time, I have disabled embassy posting privileges. They will be re-enabled soon, but I encourage everyone to collectively take a deep breath and step back.

This is an embassy on an online browser game.

EDIT: Discussions about gay rights are vital and important -- they deserve to be had. Having said that, y'all are engaging in some serious personal attacks. And not just on LCN's side.

The patrimony of saint peter

The patrimony of saint peter

You lot have had enough time to get your stuff together I assume. I'm gonna come in and remove this heathen commie influence. I've been following the discord group for a while. I am saddened. We will get this place in shape in no time, though, don't worry. I am on a warpath.

«12. . .2,1872,1882,1892,1902,1912,1922,193. . .2,5072,508»

Advertisement