until money is exchanged the cake belongs to the bakery.
the bakery can do whatever they wish with the cake, even to the point of refusing to sell it, for whatever reason.
Which comes first: Freedom of Religion or Civil Rights?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
the bakery can do whatever they wish with the cake, even to the point of refusing to sell it, for whatever reason.
Way to pull one out of your ass, Syne. I mean, seriously. There is absolutely zero legal basis for that statement. When a person is refused service, the only question of legal import is why the service was refused. In this case, service was refused because the customer was gay. That's it. There's nothing more to the story. It doesn't matter if they're holding a polygamous wedding or a gay one, the legal status of the union is irrelevant. The event is still real, the customer is still real, and the basis for refusing service is not legally valid.
Legally, it has no significance. But again, this is just a red herring. It ultimately doesn't matter what its legal status is.
I have to explain cakes to you again? Seriously, man?
A wedding cake is a real thing. It has attributes that make it different from other cakes. A gay wedding cake doesn't exist, because it does not have attributes inherent to it that make it different from a "straight" wedding cake. Just as there's no such thing as a "black" wedding cake, or an "Asian" wedding cake. A wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake.
You said that the bakery was refuse to be "an accomplice," and employed the straw man of me saying the bakery isn't allowed to avoid participating in crimes. At best, you were equivocating on the term "illegal" so as to make gay marriage as "dangerous" a proposition as actually participating in a crime. Honestly, you should have just let me believe you were ignorant, because ignorance is forgivable. This kind of sleazy tactic isn't.
Do I even need to address the question? Gay marriage isn't a crime, so there's no comparing it to something that the bakery could get in trouble for.
Aside from being terribly insulting, it's irrelevant. The legal standing of their marriage is irrelevant.
I'm finished with this. I'm starting to think you're only continuing this argument so you have an excuse to exercise some of these insults to gay marriage, such as calling it a farce, and likening it to children playing make-believe. I'm done reading your bigoted bullshit.
Incorrect. By that logic, none of the current anti-discrimination laws would have any power, since refusing service necessarily means money hasn't been exchanged.
If you operate a business that accommodates the public, you have certain obligations. End of story.
I would guess freedom of religion comes first, which is how the USA formed. The pilgrims escaped religious prosecution and a few centuries later the Constitution was drafted. The reason is, religion assumes a higher power, which is higher than humans. This assumption creates a perception of human rights that go beyond the charisma of leaders and power special interests groups.
If there were no religious rights, before civil rights, then man would be called the top dog. This means those in power and their special interests and lobbyists groups, are the biggest dogs, and would periodically throw a bone intended to promote their own interests under the guise of civil rights. The Church of England was run by the King who promoted his own secular agenda. This is why the Pilgrims had to escape. The bone he threw was only for those who would kick back to the king and his church. It was not universal rights.
For example, the blacks in America have civil rights by law, but the demographics, tend to suffer. The manmade civil right bone is needed to maintain a 90% black voter block for the democratic party. The trick is to throw a bone that does not lead to a permanent solution, and then you make them think the other side is trying to take their bone. The blacks don't leave the plantation. They are not slaves but stay on the plantation like they are still slaves.
In terms of religion, the religion approach would not be about maintaining a voter block, since God is higher than even that. Instead, it would be about do onto others and turn the other cheek. We are all under one law and have choices in life. This is not conducive to maintaining the 90% voter block because it diffuses the division that is need to fence in the plantation.
Civil rights, to religion, means we all have the same rights. To secular this means rights are variable with your group getting the better deal. For example, quotas result in innocent people loosing out based on racial standards and not character flaws. This is man is higher. If God was higher this would be called racists. Quotas are not for all but only for the democratic voter base.
Relative to homosexuality, the gospel of man at the top will use homosexual civil rights bones to get another voter block. The trick, again, is to create division, by pointing out differences as to who will get the special treatment. One way that works is to constantly wave that which grosses out people, in their face, so they react. Then you call this predictable cause and effect reaction, homophobia, to define the battle lines.
Religion would say love your enemy and learn to coexist. The homosexuals, under religious rights, would try not to provoke, by not constantly waiving private parts in everyone's face, due to the predictable cause and effect.
In other words, if someone was gay, but nobody knew it, they would be accepted based on the content of their character. This is a universal standard since it is based on the individual not a group. But once the homosexual distinction is pointed out and placed on center stage, it create a cause and effect trigger than is guaranteed to divide. There is no individuals but two sides. Why divide?
If you look at ethnic diversity and religion, a wide range of ethnicities have the same religion, like Christianity. Religion is what makes them all have something in common, as a starting point for integration and universal rights. Secular and liberalism (of man) promotes ethnic dissociation, which is the schema of dividing, so they can addict a voter block with bones. Religious rights is counter productive to the needs of manmade rights since it diffuses the games used to divide culture into dependent voters.
If there were no religious rights, before civil rights, then man would be called the top dog. This means those in power and their special interests and lobbyists groups, are the biggest dogs, and would periodically throw a bone intended to promote their own interests under the guise of civil rights. The Church of England was run by the King who promoted his own secular agenda. This is why the Pilgrims had to escape. The bone he threw was only for those who would kick back to the king and his church. It was not universal rights.
For example, the blacks in America have civil rights by law, but the demographics, tend to suffer. The manmade civil right bone is needed to maintain a 90% black voter block for the democratic party. The trick is to throw a bone that does not lead to a permanent solution, and then you make them think the other side is trying to take their bone. The blacks don't leave the plantation. They are not slaves but stay on the plantation like they are still slaves.
In terms of religion, the religion approach would not be about maintaining a voter block, since God is higher than even that. Instead, it would be about do onto others and turn the other cheek. We are all under one law and have choices in life. This is not conducive to maintaining the 90% voter block because it diffuses the division that is need to fence in the plantation.
Civil rights, to religion, means we all have the same rights. To secular this means rights are variable with your group getting the better deal. For example, quotas result in innocent people loosing out based on racial standards and not character flaws. This is man is higher. If God was higher this would be called racists. Quotas are not for all but only for the democratic voter base.
Relative to homosexuality, the gospel of man at the top will use homosexual civil rights bones to get another voter block. The trick, again, is to create division, by pointing out differences as to who will get the special treatment. One way that works is to constantly wave that which grosses out people, in their face, so they react. Then you call this predictable cause and effect reaction, homophobia, to define the battle lines.
Religion would say love your enemy and learn to coexist. The homosexuals, under religious rights, would try not to provoke, by not constantly waiving private parts in everyone's face, due to the predictable cause and effect.
In other words, if someone was gay, but nobody knew it, they would be accepted based on the content of their character. This is a universal standard since it is based on the individual not a group. But once the homosexual distinction is pointed out and placed on center stage, it create a cause and effect trigger than is guaranteed to divide. There is no individuals but two sides. Why divide?
If you look at ethnic diversity and religion, a wide range of ethnicities have the same religion, like Christianity. Religion is what makes them all have something in common, as a starting point for integration and universal rights. Secular and liberalism (of man) promotes ethnic dissociation, which is the schema of dividing, so they can addict a voter block with bones. Religious rights is counter productive to the needs of manmade rights since it diffuses the games used to divide culture into dependent voters.
Exactly, there is zero legal basis for compelling a business owner to recognize something the law does not.
Just keep repeating that in the hopes that your proclamations eventually make it true. A specific service was refused. A service that would have been refused any customer, minority or not, leaving all other services equally available, even to a lesbian. That is the definition of equality. You are just making up a "basis for refusing service" that seems to serve an agenda and is not objectively supportable by facts in the real world.
It does if you expect to enforce a business owner's recognition where the law does not.
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses
A wedding is a ceremony to initiate a "social union or legal contract ... that establishes rights and obligations". You cannot establish enforceable rights and obligations apart from the law, so by definition, marriage is a legal matter. So "wedding" is defined by the law, regardless of what you would like. In Oregon, any ceremony for same-sex couples cannot be the initiation of a marriage, hence not a wedding.
Aside from bride and groom figures on top, a wedding cake is only a very ornate cake. What definitely makes it a wedding cake is its use in a wedding (the reason for applying the typical bride and groom figures that inherently distinguish it as a wedding cake, as well as a "straight" wedding cake). There are actually Asian themed wedding cakes and black bride and groom cake toppers as well, so yes, there are inherent attributes that can distinguish all of these.
So again, if "gay" is not a valid distinction then neither is "wedding", and by Oregon law, which defines marriage, these two distinctions are not compatible.
Wow, you seem to have intentionally left anything out of your quote of my post that would have precluded you from making this straw man. Namely:
"Illegal is not necessarily a crime (a word I used as a bit of rhetoric), but it is definitely prohibited to issue a same-sex marriage license."
I never said anything about the bakery getting in trouble for providing a wedding cake to a gay couple, nor did I imply it. You need to learn to distinguish your own inference from what is actually implied. But that would not serve as the fallacious appeal to ridicule you seem to have intended.
Without legal ratification, this so-called "marriage" is nothing more than an unenforceable promise or even just a public profession of feelings. It serves only as display. It is a farce, as it is a legally "empty ... proceeding, or situation".
You simply like to call people bigots who can manage to be objective about an issue you are obviously invested in.