gay sorry 'bout the tag before

Funnily enough a similar incident happened between a gay couple wanting to get married and a salon owned by a Muslims. I wonder who won the leftist Oppression Olympics there.

StevenCrowder actually did a video on that, he acted gay and went to Muslim bakeries. Didn't go very well

hypocrissy

Did he try to have the Muslim bakeries prosecuted?

No cause it was an experiment, not actually wanting a gay wedding cake. But it would be interesting to see someone who was actually gay try to go to a Muslim bakery and make them make a cake for them

True. I'd also like to know what happened in the engaged gay couple vs Muslim Salon owners scenario.

Who’s to say they knew going into it that they were Christian?

Because they drove an hour to get there and passed many non Christian bakeries.

While I don't think every gay couple did I am certain some did. Let me double-check that.

Hello again lol What you said could be interpreted in different ways, so before anyone takes your words out of context, let me clarify; I was not saying we Christians aren't supposed to serve gay people, and the Bible does not say that. It does say we are not to support sinful things, and I was talking about providing cakes for gay weddings; under other circumstances there's nothing wrong with Christian bakers serving gay customers like anyone else.

Also; why are these gay couple going to a bakery they know is a Christian bakery when they know of Christian teachings on homosexuality?

That is true. I think it's a case-by-case situation. Some do it for your reason (the Christian bakers may not refuse) and others do it for the reason I said (abusing discrimination laws to make trouble for Christians/religious people and Christians happened to be the target). I was trying to draw attention to the latter idea because that seems to get swept under the rug.

How does one define a "bad law"?

Just like the laws that force (for one) Christian bakers to cater for gay weddings under pain of being criminally charged if they refuse. That is a good definition yet it inspires further questions "how does one define what's fair and what's not?" "What counts as oppression?" It's not oppression, for example, to keep a murderer locked away against their will or that defamation is not protected by free speech laws. While I don't personally agree with gay marriage, I would not try to force gay couples to stop being married (the most I would do is vote against it in a democratic election). Every group is unfairly discriminated against at some point or another, the idea of protected classes does not solve the problem and is discriminatory in and of itself. There is a difference between gay marriage being illegal and Jim Crow laws - I consider gay marriage to be like legalizing incestuous marriage.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." This is the definition of freedom of religion. Does that scenario I described above sound like freedom of religion? Especially when double standards favoring Muslims and the non-religious get trotted out increasingly often.

Actually the example you cite is part of freedom of religion. Public school teachers can't proselytize to students, but neither can they try to make them apostatize. The intent there is so the government can't control people's views on religion, neither by converting them to a religion or enforcing state atheism.

What kind of answer is that? My questions was "What counts as oppression?" I know the standard has to come from somewhere, we're just in disagreement over who has ultimate authority over that.

Comparing incestuous marriage to interracial marriage is not a 1-to-1 situation. For one, there are no birth defects originating specifically from children being produced from mixed-race unions, while there are birth defects originating from incest. So by that logic, I hope you're not saying that incest should be legal as well?

Another thing behind it is that homosexuality is proven to be an aberration even using a scientific, evolutionary perspective. From that perspective, part of the cause has been attributed to a birth defect either where part of the brain doesn't develop properly or a hormone imbalance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Homosexuals rarely reproduce (and even then, they still need someone of the opposite sex to facilitate it), so it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective. Having said that, the choice to act on the urges is still within the person's control (abstinence is a thing), and therein lies the morality of actions. For me, I consider homosexual desires to be between autism and schizophrenia; an aberration but one a person may be able to manage themselves and not something to attack them over. Acting on those urges on the other hand, I compare to an autistic or schizophrenic person committing a violent crime (which needs to be addressed, even if it originated from something that isn't in the person's control)

Marriage is not a human right, as I explained in a previous comment; pre-teen children cannot and should not be married, would you call that inequality? So comparing the prohibition of gay marriage to Jim Crow Laws (which denied many rights and enforced segregation - none of which effect gay people not being allowed to marry, which is akin to the law prohibiting under 18's from drinking alcoholic drinks) is a false analogy.

Before I address your case, let me ask; are your fingers sore? because you seem to love cherry picking, given how you do so much of it. You take small snippets of what I wrote that you think you can debunk and only address those - one paragraph per quote mined - while ignoring the rest. You only addressed around a quarter of what I wrote. This is just one of many ways you show how hollow your arguments on this subject are. For all that you claim you're against all religions, it's interesting you haven't done much research on Islam but you seem like you've tried to go over the history of Christians with a fine-toothed comb, then cherry-picked things done by some Christians (the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Trials) then use that to tar the idea with the same brush - a "Hitler Ate Sugar" type fallacy.

You said if I used the lack of birth defects argument on someone who disapproved of interracial marriage it wouldn't convince them - at the same time I was using similar arguments on the subject of gay marriage. I also brought up why it'd be bad for most or all of the population to be homosexual to further explain my stance. Third, the problem is that the term human right gets thrown around a lot by certain people with a political agenda trying to disguise so it will gain more acceptance (such as with gay marriage).

When you tried to justify that anti-religious stereotype, I found irony thick enough to almost choke on it; people like you love to claim there's a lack of evidence supporting religion (and you usually just mean Christianity not all religions), then you put forward this idea with no evidence and expect it to be taken seriously. I presented my evidence and sources; the verified studies that backed my position in links that you could read, and I explained about how IVF works, which you didn't acknolwedge.

You've also demonstrated why that stereotype is wrong. For one, you ignored the scientific studies I presented. Two, you say many religious people you know, but you're prejudiced and I suspect you'd avoid associating with people who challenge that (you mostly speak to me to try and attack an pro-Christian argument or criticism of atheism that I present).

I think I know how this'll go; I say something pro-Christian or criticize atheism, you - sometimes Vagabond_Souffle too - come and attack it with mostly illogical arguments, I debunk them, you quote-mine me (VS trolls), that fails, you leave, rinse & repeat. So why do this?

The oppression lies in punishing Christian bakers if they don't provide the service, which they refuse to provide because of their beliefs. I'm not appealing to those who oppose interracial unions, I'm explaining why that's a false analogy (I'm glad you're not endorsing incestuous marriage #theslipperyslopeisreal ). Interesting that you say if I used similar arguments on people who oppose interracial marriage it wouldn't work, since you're putting yourself on a similar keel with those whose view is born of prejudice and/or ignorance.

You cite the theory that what causes homosexuality may be connected to another set of genes that confer a strong survival advantage, but you don't post any evidence (no links, books or names of scientists who came up with it) so your argument rings hollow. Even if that theory was true, it's not homosexuality itself that's advantageous. I have the science on my side and you chose to ignore it; ironic since anti-religious people like yourself tend to stereotype religious people like myself as being "anti-science" or "science-deniers".

I meant if most or all of the population was homosexual, it'd put the population at risk. Also, I never said they weren't capable of having children only that they seldom do. That bit about in-vitro and similar procedures still proves my point. I said gay people still need something from someone of the opposite sex to produce a baby; for in-vitro, the gay couple still needs either a man’s sperm or a woman’s uterus.

I wasn't calling homosexuality a mental illness. In hindsight, the schizophrenia comparison wasn't apt, so I retract that and say like problems arising from autism it can be worked around. The urge isn't sin, acting on it is. I'm not saying beat up gay people, call them names etc... I'm saying address it by pointing out the wrongness not forcing the person to stop or harming them. Also, bisexuals wouldn't have to abstain, they're still attracted to the opposite sex too.

I explained why it's not a human right, like the right to vote; people claim voting’s a human right but children, illegal immigrants and convicted felons can't vote. By the way, your "they can't bear children" point also applies to gay couples unless they bring in another person. We're not talking about all laws effecting LBGT people, just gay marriage, so you misrepresent me there.

In the Old Testament, Leviticus 20:13 reads, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." But Jesus son of God says to show only love and kindness, even unto your enemies. The Old Testament is there for reference.

t wasn't about just serving them. The guy would have had no problem with that. It was about being asked to put his time and labor into making a custom cake for them, essentially showing his support for something that goes against his beliefs.

Muslim bakeries won't do it and don't get in trouble, why should this guy?

Well there's a difference between selling them a cake off the shelf, already made, and being asked to put effort into custom work. Example, if you were a baker, you'd probably have no problem selling nazis a cake off the shelf, especially if you didn't know they were nazis, but you'd probably refuse to bake them a big nazi flag cake.

And as for your example, I've been on the receiving end of that myself. I had a Hindu girlfriend, but her father refused to allow her to continue dating me. I was pissed at him, of course, and thought he was a bad person at the time, out of my own anger. But he was normally a good person, and ultimately he was just looking out for his own daughter, despite how misguided he may, or may not, have been. He knew what kind of difficulties mixed race couples go through, and we were mid-teens.

What it mostly comes down to, is intent. Though I know intent doesn't matter in the slightest to leftists, the fact is that the intent behind the actions is actually of the /utmost/ importance.

I'll confess I slipped a bit on my intent argument. It shouldn't be considered above everything else, but depending on circumstances, neither should it be ignored. The problem lies in defining those circumstances. If a white man kills a black man, you can't automatically claim his intent was racially motivated.

As for me saying intent doesn't matter in the slightest to the left, it was over the top, sure, but it wasn't completely false.

Well, the cake with a nazi symbol isn't actively harming anyone, nor is the act of buying or making a cake harmful, but ok, what if he had been asked to depict sexually explicit acts on the cake? (doesn't matter what kind, just explicit). Should he have the right to refuse because it offends his sensibilities or his religion? Because leftists are becoming extremely conservative these days over pornography and sexually explicit images, but it's not illegal.

Narrow it down even further. What if he were asked to simply bake a cake with a big old honkin' set of boobs on them, and he refused for religious reasons? (Nudity and lust being taboos, or something like that). What do you think, would leftists revile him for refusing based on religion? Or would they have no problem with his decision because depicting boobs like that is a clear case of "objectification of women"? (Getting back to "it's ok when WE do it" territory here)

It's hard to argue over whether he should have refused or not, because I'm a fence-sitter and see both sides of things. (I'm oddly well-defined by my astrology sign, Libra, even though I don't believe in that stuff). I'm not religious, and to me it's completely fine to bake a cake for a gay wedding. On the other hand, I don't believe anyone should be /forced/ to provide labor at the point of a gun.

"I don't like his choice, but I think his choice should be legally protected. But then Christians can't complain when businesses like YouTube or Twitter don't do business with them. The sword cuts both ways."

But then we get into anti-trust areas. The guy runs one of /countless/ bakeries, and people are free to choose any number of other bakeries to go to - many of which are no doubt superior to his - and shut him down with the power of their wallets.

It's not like he's been taking over all other bakeries, becoming "baker to the world", until everyone is completely dependent on him for their baked goods, and THEN decided to start denying service to certain people he disagreed with.

In terms of the big tech companies, on top of that, it's not like his suppliers are forcing him to deny services to people THEY don't like. (a la the Patreon - Paypal - Mastercard issue)

To make a silly analogy here (because you know I suck at them), how would you like it if you ran a pet shop that featured products for both cats and dogs, but everyone at Mastercard and Visa only liked cats, and told you to get rid of all your dog products or they would no longer process payments for you?

Sure, right now it's just "don't sell your products to this guy because he likes pitbulls" (or pugs, like CountDankula), but all too soon it can snowball to major financial institutions dictating how you can make or spend your own money.

What do you mean when you say "...businesses like YouTube or Twitter don't do business with (Christian)"? Also why single us out? If you mean what I think you mean, the complaints are about double standards; why should Christians get excluded for staying true to our beliefs but Muslims do the same for their beliefs and get a pass - double standards.

Christian conservatives are the ones complaining because they (I'm not sure I count as a conservative) are the ones being effected. The Christians bakers will serve gay customers, the only objection being raised is in regards to providing service for gay weddings.

It should apply to everyone equally, but as you and I can see it isn't being applied equally.

Also, on the boobcake thing, most feminists claim that /anything/ that depicts the anatomy of a woman is objectification of women. It's as bad to them as depicting Mohammed is to muslims.

I won't address the rest of your argument here because JakkFrost already covered that. All I will add is that "it's just expressing love" is not a valid excuse for three reasons.

One, if they were just trying to make trouble for the Christian bakers that's not loving nor is it related to their love for each other. Two, people can love unwholesome things (eg; an incestuous couple of a brother and sister or father and daughter could use the same excuse), so justifying something by claiming love is not a valid reason for everything and can be a coercive and illogical appeal to emotion. Three, sometimes when people say love they're getting it mixed up with desire and/or lust and it's not actually love (true love puts the loved person/being, animal or object first, desire is a feeling of wanting something - which can be part of love but isn't love in and of itself while lust is unlawful and/or sexual desire).

You're right about the wedding cake just being for love, I'm reiterating my leeriness over their reasons for choosing this particular baker.

I brought up the "it's above love" excuse to explain part of why I don't think it applies here by explaining why it doesn't always work.

Same-sex relationships can be about lust or love just like hetero relationships. I mentioned that to explain that when some people say love they're not really talking about love.

Where does it say they should?

Who do you mean when you say "they" and what do you mean when you say "should"?