Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]
When Authoritarians wave rainbow flags: The right to gay cake
Comments
-
CPTM wrote:Isn't it their property and so their right to allow whoever they want onto it?
It's a bloody cake the baker should of made it and moved on instead of acting all high and mighty and blatantly discriminating against the person0 -
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.
I do have sympathy for them, it must be terrible. But expressing acting on their desires means forcing themselves on someone that can't give consent.
Again. Gay people are consensual adults. Nothing illegal about it. So why the debate about whether they can marry. They are seeking equality.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
-
I do have sympathy for them, it must be terrible. But expressing acting on their desires means forcing themselves on someone that can't give consent.
Again. Gay people are consensual adults. Nothing illegal about it. So why the debate about whether they can marry. They are seeking equality.
Because, rightly or wrongly, it's a matter of public interest that concerns the Government. A lot are against it. Did the constitution need to be changed?There are certain benefits from marriage.
I'm against <snip - dont be abusive> adopting kids for instance, I'm not sure that should be bulldozed down people's throats. I'm neutral on gay marriage, and therefore I didn't vote on it.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »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.
I agree with this. My point being, choice alone isn't enough to warrant a decision from being bulldozed through, if it was, there'd be no limits to what we'd have to endure.0 -
Advertisement
-
Surely the bakery could have cancelled the order by saying Eric and Ernie are a copyright issue?
That way they could have avoided all the hassle about discrimination etc.
In a similar way to pubs refusing customers because of how they are dressed etc. As long as you don't openly refuse based on any of the categories defined you would probably be ok?0 -
I agree with this. My point being, choice alone isn't enough to warrant a decision from being bulldozed through, if it was, there'd be no limits to what we'd have to endure.
Where society allows one thing for a certain group of people, but disallows it for another group, it is important that society is able to justify that on a rational, sensible, equitable and indeed consistent basis. It is not a question of respecting 'choices' in any and every context -- from the choice to dye one's hair a certain colour to the choice to sexually abuse a minor. It is a question of society being able to apply the vitally important principle of equality on a rational and equitable basis.
So, where the motion is put to society to legally recognise that a gay couple can get married, the question is not about respecting the choice to be in a homosexual marriage --- it is about asking whether it is rational, equitable and consistent to allow heterosexual people to get married, but not homosexual people. If the answer is no, then we have an issue of inequality.
Conversely, if a motion is ever put to society to legally recognise that an adult can partake in sexual activity with a minor, the same principle applies. It is not about assessing one's choice to wish to exercise their paedophilia, it is about society asking whether it would be rational and equitable to legalise it. Clearly, in this instance, it would be utterly insane and a direct threat to the wellbeing of Irish children.
It is therefore not a question of tying ourselves to respect and give legal recognition to every imaginable choice a human being makes, it is simply a question of weighing up the social harm caused by a given choice.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »Where society allows one thing for a certain group of people, but disallows it for another group, it is important that society is able to justify that on a rational, sensible, equitable and indeed consistent basis. It is not a question of respecting 'choices' in any and every context -- from the choice to dye one's hair a certain colour to the choice to sexually abuse a minor. It is a question of society being able to apply the vitally important principle of equality on a rational and equitable basis.
So, where the motion is put to society to legally recognise that a gay couple can get married, the question is not about respecting the choice to be in a homosexual marriage --- it is about asking whether it is rational, equitable and consistent to allow heterosexual people to get married, but not homosexual people. If the answer is no, then we have an issue of inequality.
Conversely, if a motion is ever put to society to legally recognise that an adult can partake in sexual activity with a minor, the same principle applies. It is not about assessing one's choice to wish to exercise their paedophilia, it is about society asking whether it would be rational and equitable to legalise it. Clearly, in this instance, it would be utterly insane and a direct threat to the wellbeing of Irish children.
It is therefore not a question of tying ourselves to respect and give legal recognition to every imaginable choice a human being makes, it is simply a question of weighing up the social harm caused by a given choice.
Points accepted.
What about the issue of gays adopting children? Should they be allowed? Is it a 'political issue' ?0 -
-
Points accepted.
What about the issue of gays adopting children? Should they be allowed? Is it a 'political issue' ?
Not sure if this is a stray off-topic, but I think the issue of homosexual couples adopting children should simply be measured along the same lines as heterosexuals adopting children -- i.e. that the key is that the adoptive parents give the child the love, care and support he/she needs to lead a happy and healthy childhood. If a child receives these, regardless of the gender of his/her parents, then surely this is all that matters.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well it is off topic, but the whole thread is gone off topic too.
I disagree. Children could be a laughing stock in school etc, so I'd def be voting against that in a referendum situation.0 -
Well it is off topic, but the whole thread is gone off topic too.
I disagree. Children could be a laughing stock in school etc, so I'd def be voting against that in a referendum situation.
If you were to vote against it on the basis that the children would allegedly be a laughing stock at school, then that is to suggest that social progress and equality should be at the mercy of the immaturity of children. Furthermore, if I have kids and one of them comes back and tells me that Jimmy has two dads, I'll explain to my son that not all families have a mother and father and there is nothing wrong with that. Ultimately, children look up to their parents and are heavily influenced by them -- if parents teach their children that there is nothing wrong with having gay parents then the children of gay parents have nothing to fear in that regard.
Children are cruel. We cannot really ever stop bullying or mockery outright. That does not mean that we should be morally enslaved by it though.0 -
Well it is off topic, but the whole thread is gone off topic too.
I disagree. Children could be a laughing stock in school etc, so I'd def be voting against that in a referendum situation.
You won't get to vote on it in a referendum luckily. Same sex couples can already adopt. Same sex couples can have children already too, nothing to stop married lesbian using a sperm donor.
I'm delighted people like you no longer get to make the rules.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
They probably could have wriggled out of the situation is some way like that. But thats not the way of the religious fundamentalist. Its all about "standing up for your beliefs".brightspark wrote: »Surely the bakery could have cancelled the order by saying Eric and Ernie are a copyright issue?
That way they could have avoided all the hassle about discrimination etc.
In a similar way to pubs refusing customers because of how they are dressed etc. As long as you don't openly refuse based on any of the categories defined you would probably be ok?
They were baited, and they fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.0 -
It's a bloody cake the baker should of made it and moved on instead of acting all high and mighty and blatantly discriminating against the person
On the flip side, the baker could have explained to the customer that they felt very uncomfortable about baking the cake because of his religious sensibilities, and the customer might have then decided to go to any one of the many other bakeries who would be happy to get the business.
Sure there was discrimination here, but very low level, and only causing minor inconvenience. The response was disproportionate.
I know a lady who does massage - 'healing oils', that kind of stuff - in her own home. She's a pensioner who's clients are all women, mainly friends or people who been referred to her by close friends. She won't accept men as clients, I'm not sure why; I think she's just uncomfortable with the idea.
Does anyone have the phone number for the equality agency?0 -
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.
I understand how laws like this, or ones to combat Nazism in Germany came about but that only explains their failure to protect their freedoms.
Fear isn't a justifcation for removing freedoms. People just give up at a certain point.
It's reasonable, on a human level, but it's still wrong.Its only when they support one political or religious message but not another, that they run into trouble.
I very much doubt that. There are some special cases which are given a different set of rules.
I doubt a judge would uphold a complaint made against someone refusing to bake a cake saying "Homoepathy is Bollocks", "Harmonicas are ****" or "I Don't Like Brown People".
The concept of tolerance is being extended beyond that and into the dictating of morality.
It's bald faced authoritarianism and I wish people would have the courage of their convictions to accept that that's what it is.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.
Marriage is just a thing we invented. If, for example, its entire purpose is to promote procreation, then there's no particular reason why it should apply to homosexual relationships.
If its about having a formalised system for determining next of kin or what have you, then it could be stripped of its tax considerations and other elements that have no particular reason to be there.
In it's current form though, it cannot be seen as a given. It's not just a simple contract tying two people together with few ramifications.
In the meantime, I support marriage equality. You can't make marriage more wrong so you may as well give homosexuals access to it for no other reason than empathy, but that is a political opinion, despite any attempt to declare that it isn't, axiomatically.
It absolutey is not enough for homosexuality to be innate.
We're not just talking about being a homosexual. We're talking about the actions of homosexuals.
Lots of things are innate but are not tolerated by society.
Psychopathy, paedophilia and a host of other innate traits have some form of discrimination associated with them on the basis that they do harm.
It's primarily the actions themselves that are judged on so they are what have to be considered, as with any other person.
Who you aren't isn't terribly important. What you do is.
You can, correctly in my view, argue that homosexuality is harmless in practice - either in terms of homosexual relationships, marriage, adoption or whatever, but that's not something that's a fact. It's just an opinion and it depends on your values and what you consider constitutes "harm".
If you have a problem with this line of thinking having an influence on law, well so do I, but with alcohol and drug restrictions and in many other areas, the government has taken it upon itself to arbitrarily decide what citizens are allowed to do and everything is fair game, including homosexuality.
If you want to decouple these freedoms from the rule of law then you can't on the other hand, decide the government can make arbitrary moral decisions about what is and isn't discriminatory just because they're on the other side of the debate.
Either that, or accept that you're an authoritarian and fundamentally your moral system works the same way as those on the "other side" - you don't believe in freedom, but in the imposition of virtue.
That's the core of the argument. It isn't the merits of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, of how virtuous you are (you probably are quite virtuous), but how willing you are to impose your views on others.
It doesn't matter what those views are. It's that you're willing to impose them.The fact that people see homosexuality as something to be tolerated or accepted is a problem. Mainly caused by religion.
I see everything as something to be tolerated. I would see a society where people must respect each other and their individual rights and that has to go both ways.
You can't force people to like things, even if it makes no sense not to. You can force them to tolerate each others' existence.
Societally you can have your own views about people who merely tolerate homosexuals instead of treating them normally, but the state shouldn't be taking a moral stance on the issue.
They're supervising the playground to stop us pulling each others' hair. They're not supposed to be forcing us to be friends.0 -
Marriage is just a thing we invented. If, for example, its entire purpose is to promote procreation, then there's no particular reason why it should apply to homosexual relationships.
If its about having a formalised system for determining next of kin or what have you, then it could be stripped of its tax considerations and other elements that have no particular reason to be there.
Agreed, marriage is something we have invented.
How I view this again. Marriage as a social construct is accepted. Denying a section, based on sexuality, the right to participate in this construct is discrimination. We have agreed, as a society, that homosexuality is legal and permissible. If both homosexuality and marriage are permissible under the law, then marriage equality is a given. It's only through applying other arbitrary constraints such as religion that people find reasons to object to gay marriage. It's not a matter of tolerance or intolerance, it's a matter of equality under the law.In it's current form though, it cannot be seen as a given. It's not just a simple contract tying two people together with few ramifications.
In the meantime, I support marriage equality. You can't make marriage more wrong so you may as well give homosexuals access to it for no other reason than empathy, but that is a political opinion, despite any attempt to declare that it isn't, axiomatically.
I fail to see why granting a section of society, the activities of which are completely legal, equality should be a political issues. It's no more a political issue than women voting.It absolutey is not enough for homosexuality to be innate.
We're not just talking about being a homosexual. We're talking about the actions of homosexuals.
Lots of things are innate but are not tolerated by society.
Psychopathy, paedophilia and a host of other innate traits have some form of discrimination associated with them on the basis that they do harm.
It's primarily the actions themselves that are judged on so they are what have to be considered, as with any other person.
Who you aren't isn't terribly important. What you do is.
You can, correctly in my view, argue that homosexuality is harmless in practice - either in terms of homosexual relationships, marriage, adoption or whatever, but that's not something that's a fact. It's just an opinion and it depends on your values and what you consider constitutes "harm".
If you have a problem with this line of thinking having an influence on law, well so do I, but with alcohol and drug restrictions and in many other areas, the government has taken it upon itself to arbitrarily decide what citizens are allowed to do and everything is fair game, including homosexuality.
If you want to decouple these freedoms from the rule of law then you can't on the other hand, decide the government can make arbitrary moral decisions about what is and isn't discriminatory just because they're on the other side of the debate.
Either that, or accept that you're an authoritarian and fundamentally your moral system works the same way as those on the "other side" - you don't believe in freedom, but in the imposition of virtue.
That's the core of the argument. It isn't the merits of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, of how virtuous you are (you probably are quite virtuous), but how willing you are to impose your views on others.
It doesn't matter what those views are. It's that you're willing to impose them.
I see everything as something to be tolerated. I would see a society where people must respect each other and their individual rights and that has to go both ways.
You can't force people to like things, even if it makes no sense not to. You can force them to tolerate each others' existence.
Societally you can have your own views about people who merely tolerate homosexuals instead of treating them normally, but the state shouldn't be taking a moral stance on the issue.
They're supervising the playground to stop us pulling each others' hair. They're not supposed to be forcing us to be friends.
I don't want any enforcement of belief. I just don't see why those beliefs should be allowed to impact on the rights of others. People are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but given that it is legal that shouldn't mean they can deny rights to those they disagree with.
It has nothing to do with the state taking a moral stance. Anything other than granting homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is discriminatory.
Again. If marriage is legal and being homosexual is legal. Homosexuals being married should be legal.
The comparison with pedophilia doesn't hold true. Acting on ones desires as a pedophile are illegal.
It is not authoritarian to believe that society should be equitable based on a set of agreed criteria. "The State" as a separate entity to the people don't make these decisions.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
The irony IMO, is that a so called religious baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple. What happened to tolerance, love thy neighbour and all that stuff the religious people are supposed to be guided by, the basic fundamentals. Religious beliefs are just an excuse, its just plain old bigotry.0
-
Have they gone into a Muslim Barber shop and demanded a male Muslim barber cut the hair of a female?0
-
I don't want any enforcement of belief. I just don't see why those beliefs should be allowed to impact on the rights of others.
The rights of others do not include the right to take away an individuals right to the control of their labor, even if willed by the collective voice of majority. The tyranny of the majority is a type of authoritarianism.The irony IMO, is that a so called religious baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple. What happened to tolerance, love thy neighbour and all that stuff the religious people are supposed to be guided by, the basic fundamentals. Religious beliefs are just an excuse, its just plain old bigotry.
Even if it was plain old bigotry, the baker still had the right to choose who they baked cakes for. It doesn't particularly matter if your beliefs are religious or not. What matters is they are beliefs, the expression of ones conscience. A person shouldn't be forced to violate their own conscience if it doesn't harm or infringe on another person's life or liberties.There is a fundamental disagreement between that we'll never reconcile. You see the state as a separate entity to the people who are help down by the machinery of said state, it needs to be minimised and eliminated.
The State doesn't need to be eliminated. We need the state. Nobody can argue that government is never the answer, but it's important to remember that the state is a coercion machine, and will always give people the temptation to enforce the arbitrary whims of a dictator or the majority, when provided with a lot of centralized power0 -
Advertisement
-
There is a fundamental disagreement between that we'll never reconcile. You see the state as a separate entity to the people who are help down by the machinery of said state, it needs to be minimised and eliminated.
I see the state in the same way currently. But I believe that by increasing mass participation in the decisions of government and devolving legislation power to the people or committees of people the state can dissolve out of existence and simply exist as a egalitarian collective.
How does my egalitarian society deal with discrimination? I actually don't know. But I agree that coercive force is not the answer.
If you were a true anarchist, which you claim to be, then why would you back the state in this case?0 -
Would you support a Muslim doctor who refuses to operate on specific gender due to religious beliefs? Or a Jewish veterinary who would refuse to treat pigs because they are not halal? How about a customer facing supervisor who refused to shake hands with females and only males? A swim instructor who insisted only having women in full burkas? A shop that only let females in, never any male? Or only let female in if they are there with a man? A care hire company insisting only male drivers are allowed? Female circumcision to be done by Irish Catholic doctors on children?
All of the above can be claimed on religious grounds as well so I hope you're all for supporting that as well.
Yes, of course I would. If you're a Muslim doctor and you refuse to treat female patients, you'll probably have a had time finding a job in most places. It's important to to remember that you're decisions based on your personal beliefs may affect your life in a negative way. In a free society, you are free to make those decisions as long as you're not coercing or infringing on others liberties. .0 -
If you were a true anarchist, which you claim to be, then why would you back the state in this case?
I am not an anarchist. I believe the ideal society is stateless. That doesn't make me a "true anarchist". I most closely align with libertarian socialism. Why are you trying to score points?
I do not "back the state". I believe that discriminating against gay people is wrong.they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
-
The rights of others do not include the right to take away an individuals right to the control of their labor, even if willed by the collective voice of majority. The tyranny of the majority is a type of authoritarianism.
Even if it was plain old bigotry, the baker still had the right to choose who they baked cakes for. It doesn't particularly matter if your beliefs are religious or not. What matters is they are beliefs, the expression of ones conscience. A person shouldn't be forced to violate their own conscience if it doesn't harm or infringe on another person's life or liberties.
Applying that social construct is problematic though, as it could feasibly lead to a scenario whereby the mere fact that a group of businesses in an area have the same issues of 'conscience' on a certain matter would render their services effectively and unreasonably inaccessible to a strata of society.
What we regard as 'reasonable' treatment must be based on the grounds of rationality --- there must be a rational and reasonable basis for businesses to argue that in certain cases they are entitled to refuse service to certain people. Both reasonability and rationality are of course subjective terms -- open to interpretation. But many of the freedoms and liberties we enjoy today were borne out of the fact that, somewhere along the line, a particular unjust dogma was trumped by reason and rationality. So while we may not have universal consensus on what it is to be reasonable or rational in a certain context, society has thus far come a long, long way in eroding away racism, sectarianism and inequality (not to suggest that there isn't a lot more work to be done).
Reconciling the above to the context of a bakery refusing to print a cake promoting gay marriage is actually not that problematic. There is no rational basis for opposing gay marriage, and to oppose it is to oppose equal treatment for a strata of society (i.e. homosexual people) on a completely unreasonable basis. If businesses in conservative areas are allowed to deny service to people on irrational beliefs, then we as a society are going backwards.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13546
-
That sounds like an oxymoron.
Even a small amount of research would sort that notion out for you. It's far older than the current incarnation of Capitalist Libertarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialismthey/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Mod note:
Serious discussion please. This isnt a forum for cheap point scoring.
Apolgogies. I say it's an oxymoron not to score cheap points, but to highlight the contradiction of those two concepts. I don't believe socialism has the capacity to be liberal in most senses. Socialism requires a strong state in order to attempt public ownership of all production and resources. Once achieved in name, the state is meant to wither away; to be replaced with communist regime, where private ownership in banned. How is this final stage to be maintained, without a state apparatus to prevent those who deviate from it's doctrines and therefore undermine it? After all, a state is only an institution which has successfully claimed a monopoly on violence and coercion.
This last step of course is impossible, as individuals pursue their own self interest and the frame work of communism and socialism does not allow this. It is Authoritanian by definition, as human nature doesn't motive people to be endlessly philanthropic, as individuals pursue their own economic self interest.0 -
The rights of others do not include the right to take away an individuals right to the control of their labor, even if willed by the collective voice of majority. The tyranny of the majority is a type of authoritarianism.
Even if it was plain old bigotry, the baker still had the right to choose who they baked cakes for. It doesn't particularly matter if your beliefs are religious or not. What matters is they are beliefs, the expression of ones conscience. A person shouldn't be forced to violate their own conscience if it doesn't harm or infringe on another person's life or liberties.
The State doesn't need to be eliminated. We need the state. Nobody can argue that government is never the answer, but it's important to remember that the state is a coercion machine, and will always give people the temptation to enforce the arbitrary whims of a dictator or the majority, when provided with a lot of centralized power
I am sorry, but one should not be in business and then be offended by gay people asking to supply a cake.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, it was a person asking for a cake to be decorated with a pro-SSM message, and AFAIK that person was never identified as being gay. Subtle difference.I am sorry, but one should not be in business and then be offended by gay people asking to supply a cake.
But still he was offering to pay, as you point out.0
Advertisement