When Authoritarians wave rainbow flags: The right to gay cake

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

How would I know they were a hooligan unless they acted like a hooligan first? I'm unlikely to sit beside someone singing racist songs or being violent on a train. That's not bias, that's judging a person on their actions.

It's discriminatory for some or it's called taking preemptive action by others. I happen to fall into the latter category.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

It's discriminatory for some or it's called taking preemptive action by others. I happen to fall into the latter category.

That's delusional at best. You don't even have the courage to own your own bigotry.

oscarBravo

Rightwing wrote: »

Travellers have a tendency for violence. What % of them do I don't know, nor do I want to find out at my expense. Maybe you and a few other pc dogooders would like them as neighbours, but I certainly wouldn't.

"I'm not a racist, but I don't know what percentage of black people have a tendency for violence, nor do I want to find out at my expense, so I wouldn't like to have them as neighbours."

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

That's delusional at best. You don't even have the courage to own your own bigotry.

This points to someone losing the argument. Do you know what that even means?

oscarBravo wrote: »

"I'm not a racist, but I don't know what percentage of black people have a tendency for violence, nor do I want to find out at my expense, so I wouldn't like to have them as neighbours."

You may not be a racist, but you certainly are a deviant, for going off on tangents.

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

This points to someone losing the argument. Do you know what that even means?



You may not be a racist, but you certainly are a deviant, for going off on tangents.

What means?

Gbear

I think Brian is the one, while trotting out various flavours of the phrase "apples and oranges", who's making the false analogy, just as the judge in this case did.

I don't believe in any discrimiantion legislation. There's no logical basis on which to do it. It's all purely arbitrary and subject to the whims of the government.
Trusting the government to be the ones to determine what is and isn't offensive or what does and doesn't constitute discrimination strikes me as utterly insane when it was illegal to be a homosexual up until very recently in Ireland and long after most of the population decided it was grand.

However, even if we take the concept that immutable characteristics are protected from being the subject of discrimination, which is supposedly what many people support, that clearly isn't the issue in this case.
Being gay cannot be changed. It isn't a choice.
As such, that cannot be the basis on which one is discriminated against. For the purposes of this argument, that's fine.

Supporting gay marriage is not any more of an immutable characteristic than any other belief. It's not who you are. It's what you believe.

Whether it's good or bad, or whether it's popular or unpopular isn't the issue.
For all you folks out there who don't understand how analogies work, those aren't the comparisons being drawn when you compare it to other beliefs, whether they're anti-semitism or who's the bestest football team.

There's no more logical basis to ban someone from opposing a gay marriage-related message on a cake than there is to ban them from refusing to say "Stoke City Rulez".

It's such an obvious case of intellectual dishonesty from people who really are just happy to silence someone whose views they don't like. Just because an opinion is virtuous, doesn't make enforcing it by law any less authoritarian.

Using the dictates of the government to decide what is and isn't true, offensive or arbitrarily discriminatory is a double edged sword. You'd think those moaning about Donald "Alternative Facts" Trump would be able to see the issues raised from such legistlation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

I haven't followed this case, but it seems most peculiar.

I wouldn't go to a place where I felt my business wasn't welcomed, who would stay in a hotel where they weren't welcomed for instance?

What are these homosexuals up to, eh?

They were welcomed. They had been served previously without issue. It was the message that the owners had the problem with not the people.

Mancomb Seepgood

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As evil as Jim Crow laws were,at least black people knew where they stood. They often found it extremely difficult to find accommodation even outside of the southern states where legal segregation existed. Obviously it varied from place to place - though discrimination seems to have been particularly bad in western states. The point is that white citizens didn't exactly rush to boycott racist establishments in solidarity with their fellow countrymen.Change required legislation.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

George Orwell probably wouldn't have agreed actually.

Being free to express views and being free to use those views to discriminate by action against someone are completely different IMO.

People are quite free to express their bias, but when they insist that civil liberties are reduced for certain groups they are impinging on that groups rights.

Gay marriage is a perfect example. Religious people are perfectly entitled to speak their mind on the issue. But they cannot interfere in a material way.

Brian?

Gbear wrote: »

I think Brian is the one, while trotting out various flavours of the phrase "apples and oranges", who's making the false analogy, just as the judge in this case did.

I don't believe in any discrimiantion legislation. There's no logical basis on which to do it. It's all purely arbitrary and subject to the whims of the government.
Trusting the government to be the ones to determine what is and isn't offensive or what does and doesn't constitute discrimination strikes me as utterly insane when it was illegal to be a homosexual up until very recently in Ireland and long after most of the population decided it was grand.

However, even if we take the concept that immutable characteristics are protected from being the subject of discrimination, which is supposedly what many people support, that clearly isn't the issue in this case.
Being gay cannot be changed. It isn't a choice.
As such, that cannot be the basis on which one is discriminated against. For the purposes of this argument, that's fine.

Supporting gay marriage is not any more of an immutable characteristic than any other belief. It's not who you are. It's what you believe.

Whether it's good or bad, or whether it's popular or unpopular isn't the issue.
For all you folks out there who don't understand how analogies work, those aren't the comparisons being drawn when you compare it to other beliefs, whether they're anti-semitism or who's the bestest football team.

Supporting gay marriage and supporting a team or religion are completely different. Apples and golf balls my friend.

One does not choose to be gay. Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. It's not choosing a team, it's a desire for equality. No one is claiming gay marriage is better than straight.

I still despair that religion gets such a pass on critical analysis. You chose your imaginary friend, you don't get to discriminate against people based on it. I don't care if you're Muslim, Christian, Jew or Taoist.

sydthebeat

You are free to hold views of bigotry and discrimination. That is legal, there is no thought police.

You are not free to express these views in a commercial transaction. That is illegal.

Proper order too.

Gbear

Brian? wrote: »

Supporting gay marriage and supporting a team or religion are completely different. Apples and golf balls my friend.

One does not choose to be gay. Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. It's not choosing a team, it's a desire for equality. No one is claiming gay marriage is better than straight.

I still despair that religion gets such a pass on critical analysis. You chose your imaginary friend, you don't get to discriminate against people based on it. I don't care if you're Muslim, Christian, Jew or Taoist.

Your second sentence begins as a non-sequitur to the first and carries on into making a statement that has nothing to do with my argument.

Your last sentence indicates you don't know what the argument is about and you're milling about with insinuations rather than addressing the point.

Let's start again.

Tolerating Homosexuality =/= gay marriage or support thereof.

The basis on which you're claiming discrimination is that homosexuality is immutable and, regardless of what one feels about it, one can't discriminate on that basis. Great.
That's a fairly watertight position from an internal logic standpoint.

Support of gay marriage is not immutable.
At the most basic level, your opinion on gay marriage is equivalent to all your other opinions.
There's no right or wrong. It's not a question of fact.

You have to come up with a compelling reason why your opinion should be enshrined in the law and you're not allowed to beg the question to do so.

Claims relating to how virtuous equal rights are isn't relevant.

Claims about people's motives for wanting to oppose your defnition of discrimation aren't relevant.

There needs to be something intrinsic to support of homosexual marriage that makes it qualitatively different from other ideas (eg, not supporting homosexual marriage) and there needs to be a compelling reason for the state to force people to go against their own values to not just allow it to exist, but actively support it in their places of business.

Your position is one where you're trying to blur the edges between protecting people and protecting ideas, because you think the ideas are good and the people opposing them are often assholes.

(Just in case there's any confusion, or someone thinks I'm "defending the right to be bigoted" for selfish reasons, I'm fully supportive of same-sex marriage, or at least of all people having the same rights to get into a partnership with any other consenting adult, and I'm not religious).

recedite

Gbear wrote: »

Your position is one where you're trying to blur the edges between protecting people and protecting ideas, because you think the ideas are good and the people opposing them are often assholes.

This case is actually all about protecting peoples aganst discrimination due to their political ideas. Its not about discrimination against LGBT people, contrary to what most people think.

The guy who asked for the cake never said he was gay. He wanted to promote a political message; that of promoting gay marriage equality.

In the judgement it was reported that the judge suggested McArthur "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" if he wanted to stay out of trouble in future.

Of course that is not the case in other parts of the UK or in ROI, so the outcome of that case only applies in NI. The reason for that is that they have unique laws in NI which protect people against discrimination for their political ideas as well as against the usual religious and gender discrimination. That is a result of the unique history of conflict in NI.

Some may say that protecting political ideas and messages is going too far in terms of equality legislation. IMO extending protection against discrimination for your political ideas is probably a good thing, bearing in mind that the cake shop is free to put up a sign outside the shop saying "no political or religious slogans" and can then quite legally refuse to make a cake promoting gay marriage.
Its only when they support one political or religious message but not another, that they run into trouble.

Brian?

Gbear wrote: »

Your second sentence begins as a non-sequitur to the first and carries on into making a statement that has nothing to do with my argument.

Your last sentence indicates you don't know what the argument is about and you're milling about with insinuations rather than addressing the point.

Let's start again.

Tolerating Homosexuality =/= gay marriage or support thereof.

The basis on which you're claiming discrimination is that homosexuality is immutable and, regardless of what one feels about it, one can't discriminate on that basis. Great.
That's a fairly watertight position from an internal logic standpoint.

Support of gay marriage is not immutable.
At the most basic level, your opinion on gay marriage is equivalent to all your other opinions.
There's no right or wrong. It's not a question of fact.

You have to come up with a compelling reason why your opinion should be enshrined in the law and you're not allowed to beg the question to do so.

Claims relating to how virtuous equal rights are isn't relevant.

Claims about people's motives for wanting to oppose your defnition of discrimation aren't relevant.

There needs to be something intrinsic to support of homosexual marriage that makes it qualitatively different from other ideas (eg, not supporting homosexual marriage) and there needs to be a compelling reason for the state to force people to go against their own values to not just allow it to exist, but actively support it in their places of business.

Your position is one where you're trying to blur the edges between protecting people and protecting ideas, because you think the ideas are good and the people opposing them are often assholes.

(Just in case there's any confusion, or someone thinks I'm "defending the right to be bigoted" for selfish reasons, I'm fully supportive of same-sex marriage, or at least of all people having the same rights to get into a partnership with any other consenting adult, and I'm not religious).

Homosexuality is not something to be tolerated or accepted. It simply is. You seem determined to miss that point.

If one agrees that homosexuality is not a choice, then marriage equality is a given.

The fact that people see homosexuality as something to be tolerated or accepted is a problem. Mainly caused by religion.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

This case is actually all about protecting peoples aganst discrimination due to their political ideas. Its not about discrimination against LGBT people, contrary to what most people think.

The guy who asked for the cake never said he was gay. He wanted to promote a political message; that of promoting gay marriage equality.

In the judgement it was reported that the judge suggested McArthur "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" if he wanted to stay out of trouble in future.

Of course that is not the case in other parts of the UK or in ROI, so the outcome of that case only applies in NI. The reason for that is that they have unique laws in NI which protect people against discrimination for their political ideas as well as against the usual religious and gender discrimination. That is a result of the unique history of conflict in NI.

Some may say that protecting political ideas and messages is going too far in terms of equality legislation. IMO extending protection against discrimination for your political ideas is probably a good thing, bearing in mind that the cake shop is free to put up a sign outside the shop saying "no political or religious slogans" and can then quite legally refuse to make a cake promoting gay marriage.
Its only when they support one political or religious message but not another, that they run into trouble.

Why is gay marriage a political issue? Answer me that.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

Homosexuality is not something to be tolerated or accepted. It simply is. You seem determined to miss that point.

If one agrees that homosexuality is not a choice, then marriage equality is a given.

The fact that people see homosexuality as something to be tolerated or accepted is a problem. Mainly caused by religion.

This is extremely flawed logic.

What about a paedophile, that probably isn't a choice either, just because something isn't a choice doesn't mean that society should pander to them. Help them yes, pander to them, certainly not.

sydthebeat

Rightwing wrote: »

This is extremely flawed logic.

What about a paedophile, that probably isn't a choice either, just because something isn't a choice doesn't mean that society should pander to them. Help them yes, pander to them, certainly not.

One of the worst examples of whataboutery I've ever seen.

Rightwing

sydthebeat wrote: »

One of the worst examples of whataboutery I've ever seen.

On the contrary, it succinctly ridicules the point about 'choices', which is effectively null and void.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

Why is gay marriage a political issue? Answer me that.

It just is. You don't have to be gay to be part of a campaign that promotes state recognised SSM.

sydthebeat

Rightwing wrote: »

On the contrary, it succinctly ridicules the point about 'choices', which is effectively null and void.

Only if you see homosexuality as a perversion. Do you?

Rightwing

sydthebeat wrote: »

Only if you see homosexuality as a perversion. Do you?

Perhaps so.

Now, I don't have a problem with it from a religious perspective because I don't believe in any religion, nor do I find it morally wrong as it's 2+ people doing whatever they want to do. Whereas, I do have a problem with paedophiles or a gay man raping a normal person for instance.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

It just is. You don't have to be gay to be part of a campaign that promotes state recognised SSM.

Why is gay marriage a political issue?

Actually that's the wrong question. Why is marriage equality a political issue?

Brian?

Rightwing wrote: »

This is extremely flawed logic.

What about a paedophile, that probably isn't a choice either, just because something isn't a choice doesn't mean that society should pander to them. Help them yes, pander to them, certainly not.

The logic is rock solid. Society has a agreed that a homosexual relationship between 2 consenting adults is perfectly legal.

Society has agreed that a sexual relationship with minors is illegal.

Rightwing

Brian? wrote: »

The logic is rock solid. Society has a agreed that a homosexual relationship between 2 consenting adults is perfectly legal.

Society has agreed that a sexual relationship with minors is illegal.

But the tenet of your argument centres around choices, 'no choice'.

Do you have sympathy for a paedophile, given that they didn't choose to be a paedophile.

sydthebeat

Rightwing wrote: »

But the tenet of your argument centres around choices, 'no choice'.

Do you have sympathy for a paedophile, given that they didn't choose to be a paedophile.

More whataboutery.

Your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality and paedophilia in equal measure.

Do you?

Saying "perhaps" is not answering the question.

Rightwing

sydthebeat wrote: »

More whataboutery.

Your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality and paedophilia in equal measure.

Do you?

Saying "perhaps" is not answering the question.

You are regrettably descending into a chaotic state of mind now.

On the 2nd point, fair enough, I will change the 'perhaps' to yes.

sydthebeat

Rightwing wrote: »

You are regrettably descending into a chaotic state of mind now.

On the 2nd point, fair enough, I will change the 'perhaps' to yes.

Well if you consider homosexuality and paedophilia equal, then there is no point having a debate with you as I consider that a corrupt and perverted viewpoint, most probably based on Catholic theology.

ArthurDayne

Rightwing wrote: »

But the tenet of your argument centres around choices, 'no choice'.

Do you have sympathy for a paedophile, given that they didn't choose to be a paedophile.

Look, irrespective of 'choice', there is a clear fundamental (and to be honest, simple) difference between homosexuality and paedophilia. Paedophilia, whether of the heterosexual or homosexual variety, is a danger to society and there can be absolutely no doubt as regards the imperative need to prevent paedophiles from abusing children.

Homosexuality on the other hand is not in and of itself a social harm -- indeed it is just as harmless as heterosexuality when practised within the fundamental tenets of consent, responsibility and due regard for one's wellbeing and the wellbeing of others.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

Why is gay marriage a political issue?

Actually that's the wrong question. Why is marriage equality a political issue?

What is this, a philosophy class? :pac:
I already gave you the answer.