Box Turtle Bulletin

Brilliant, timothy. I will want to borrow it.

Remember, imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism.*

*St. Oscar Levant

Ben in oakland

I will add something here, Timothy.

I am in favor of non-discrimination laws. I am also in favor of not employing them except in the most egregious of cases.

That being said, I will have no problem with not employing non-discrimination laws as long as the perps are willing to post in all relevant and prominent places who they will discriminate against, and why.

Failure to so post means that we have, by definition, an egregious case.

Timothy Kincaid

Ben, that’s a compromise I’d be willing to take.

Bose in Phoenix AZ

That strikes me as taking the Bible pretty literally! Excellent, Timothy.

I’m still dumbfounded that GOPers, who claim to be the business experts, aren’t coaching bakers, florists and the like to be competent business people. Competence includes defining your target market and carrying that through your branding, ads, signage and website. Competent business people have conversations regularly in which they explain why they might not be a customer’s best option, or even keep referral lists of local competitors who are likely to be a better fit. Effective business folks conduct themselves calmly and compassionately with potential customers they dislike or are uncomfortable with. Doing all of that might not eliminate 100% of the orders they’d prefer to avoid, but it’ll be pretty darned close.

And, whaddyaknow… being a decent person is also the Biblical approach.

Richard Rush

Ben said, “. . . I will have no problem with not employing non-discrimination laws as long as the perps are willing to post in all relevant and prominent places who they will discriminate against, and why.”

I agree.

If I were writing the law, I’d stipulate that a business’ discrimination policy be posted outside the entrance as well as inside – because no one should have to enter to learn that they will not be served. That would be difficult for the business owners to accept because part of their goal is to personally throw their Christian “principles” into the faces of gay people. As Ben has noted in the past, there are multiple ways to turn down business without divulging the true motive, but that wouldn’t be satisfying enough for these Christians.

Also, for the discrimination to be legal, I’d stipulate that the discrimination policy must have been posted X number of days prior to discriminating, and must remain posted for X number of days after discriminating. I’m thinking at least 30 days before and after.

There is more to this posting idea than simply informing potential customers if they will be discriminated against. A business with lofty Christian “principles” should be willing to inform all of their customers who they will not serve.

Michael in Muncie

I agree wholeheartedly. It’s just a shame that our society feeds on drama, drama, drama.

I propose a simple solution to the whole mess:

A business should keep a file of business cards from their competitors. After all, the photographers and cake-bakers and florists all know each other. If a cake-baker doesn’t feel comfortable making a cake for a same-sex wedding, he should just pull out the card file and recommend the guy down the street.

Solution simple. Drama gone. Everyone happy.

Priya Lynn

“If a cake-baker doesnâ€™t feel comfortable making a cake for a same-sex wedding, he should just pull out the card file and recommend the guy down the street.”.

Let’s not pretend there is always a “guy down the street”.

Rob Tisinai

Thanks, Timothy, this matters. It’s the kind of contribution that takes the conversation to the next level. It allows us to take our opponents’ views seriously, while asking them to take their own views seriously.

Neil

Theology isn’t science. You can argue any number of positions on a given topic. It’s been said may times, the Bible is like a mirror. The reader can find their own ideas reflected back to them.

A Christian with a live and let live attitude will quote Matthew 5. A Christian demanding social conformity will quote Jesus talking about marriage being between a man and a woman. There’s no conclusion to the debate.

Apparently, it’s not the mere baking of a cake or “forced to go one mile”, handing over their coat or lending of something that is the issue for the objectors, for such actions by the objector would not per se be a sin. Instead, it’s that they think that they’re being forced to participate in or condone sin, namely what they believe are illicit sex acts. And notably, there’s no Bible quote of Jesus ever saying “If anyone asks you to participate in or condone an illicit sex act, go with them for two illicit sex acts.” (Of course, if they were actually -forced- to participate in an illicit sex act or two or three, I’m told that it would not be a sin for them, because it would have to be voluntary act to be a sin.) Anyway, while the offered twist on the Bible quote is cute, I’m told by the objectors that it’s not valid with regard to their objections. And so if we want to “take our opponentsâ€™ views seriously”, we must consider that too.

One small note, in regard to “what would Jesus say to Baronelle Stutzman and the other Christian bakers,” I think Baronelle Stutzman is a florist, not a baker.

Lucrece

I just don’t understand gay people who are so vehement about throwing their dollars at people who given the chance would turn them away? Why would you want the state to compel them to be enriched by your money? They don’t deserve your money to begin with.

Eric Payne

Lucrece,

Here in Georgia, during the Indiana RFRA brouhaha, an even more stringent RFRA was being debated on the floor of the state legislature.

A local news outlet did a remote segment in a remote Georgia county which had four florists and two bakeries. They interviewed the owners of all six establishments. While only two of them agreed to an on-camera interview (a woman and her son, owners of one of the florists), all six businesses stated they would not serve a gay couple.

Now, Georgia has a lot of counties. But it’s not California or New York; even here in Metro Atlanta, if that RFRA had been approved and signed into law, it could have become problematic for Georgia’s gay citizenry. There was one photographer interviewed by another news outlet who stated he had no objections to two men marrying, but if he showed up at a venue, and found out he’d been hired to shoot a gay wedding, he’d leave.

I have to buck the trend here — I do agree with non-discrimination laws, and they are obviously still necessary. They actually have two aspects (probably more, but I want to deal with two right now): They’re a corrective: they were formulated to deal with past discrimination, mostly racial, and more often then not, egregious. They’re really rationally based: in employment, housing and public accommodations, the emphasis is on avoiding discrimination on irrelevant characteristics — if you can do the job, if you can pay the rent and maintain the property, if you can pay for the goods or services, that’s what matters. And flip that “libertarian” streak a little bit: why should someone like Baronelle Stutzman be able to impose her beliefs on her customers by deciding who and under what circumstances she will sell her product on the basis of characteristics that have nothing to do with the transaction?

Non-discrimination is part of the social contract at this point — we’re trying to make a society in which everyone is treated equally, and that means equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations. That’s the deal you sign on to.

I find myself again and again falling back on one basic question when discussing these sorts of things: Why do people form societies? Why do we come together in groups? Yes, it seems to be hard-wired, but there’s a reason for that. What is it? I suspect it’s not so every emotionally stunted jerk can put him- or herself ahead of everyone else.

Ben in oakland

ET, we are never going to reach the people who are irretrievably poisoned by the their bigotry, hate, stupidity, or religious belief. That’s why I use the word irretrievably.

But I do think that there still remains a “movable middle.” For me, then, the point is not to change the unchangeable. but other people, reading the debate, may well be so moved. I know, because a few have told me that I have moved them.

So, by presenting Timothy’s argument, we can accomplish more. I know right now there is someone to who. I will try it on.

customartist

Timothy,

Please forgive the snark preemptively?

If a Photographer is in the business of going on-location, then they must go on-location to gay weddings.

If this is your interpretation of “Libertarianism”, then you must prefer said Libertarianism to Public Accommodation. Will you apply this to Medical Services as well?…or have you some legitimate justification for parting with your Libertarianism in CERTAIN cases?

True Libertarianism is such so long as it does not overlap onto, and thereby infringing upon OTHERS’ Liberties – get it? Personally, I LIKE public accommodation.

*Please answer*
Would you also prefer absolute Libertarianism over allowing African Americans to eat at [the Woolworth’s or any] lunch counter? ___________

Priya Lynn

ET said “Apparently, itâ€™s not the mere baking of a cake or â€œforced to go one mileâ€, handing over their coat or lending of something that is the issue for the objectors, for such actions by the objector would not per se be a sin. Instead, itâ€™s that they think that theyâ€™re being forced to participate in or condone sin, namely what they believe are illicit sex acts. And notably, thereâ€™s no Bible quote of Jesus ever saying â€œIf anyone asks you to participate in or condone an illicit sex act, go with them for two illicit sex acts.â€ “.

But the quote Timothy posted clearly says to participate in a sin – “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person…”. So, it necessarily follows from that quote if someone asks you to participate in a same sex wedding then participate in two same sex weddings. And providing flowers for a same sex wedding is in no way participating in a sex act.

Priya Lynn

And you can provide a cake for a same sex wedding and still not condone same sex sex.

Timothy Kincaid

customartist,

as I stated above, we have had this debate many times. I’ve expressed my opinions and will not be rehashing them now.

ET,

As Priya Lynn pointed out, this scriptural passage specifically address what to do if you think the person is evil (which surely must include doing things that you think are immoral).

Secondly, scripture is invariable regarding Jesus’ view about looking at others’ sin. Many many times he changes the focus back to your own sin, not the mote in someone else’s eye.

And as for illicit sex, when the cake bakers brought the woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus, he asked which of them were without sin. If you’ve never sinned then stone her, but otherwise put down the stone and get back to the kitchen as you have a cake to bake.

Soren456

I support Hunter’s point of view, and statement.

Gene in L.A.

Timothy, in the spirit of helpfulness, without commenting on the topic at hand, “elicit” is a verb meaning to draw forth or bring out. “Illicit” is the adjective meaning morally or legally wrong. I hope this will elicit a favorable response from you.

Priya Lynn

Yes, Hunter nailed it.

Timothy Kincaid

Thanks Gene. I fixed it.

Priya and Timothy, the quoted scriptural passage does NOT “specifically address what to do if you think the person is evil”. It lists a few actions (i.e. turn the other cheek, hand over your shirt and coat, go two miles, give and do not turn away), none of which are themselves sins, for a few vague situations only. For example, the instruction “do not resist an evil person” does not say, and most people do not interpret the passage to mean, “if an evil person asks you to murder someone, go ahead and murder two people,” or “if someone asks you to participate in sin, go ahead and commit two sins”. The question is what level of cooperation with evil is permissible and under what circumstances, and the passage is far from specific. For example, if a drunk person asks to borrow your car or someone asks to borrow your car so that he can use it to commit murder or rob a bank, does Jesus “clearly” or “specifically” instruct in Matthew 5 to handover your car to that person in those circumstances? The answer is no.

Likewise, it does NOT “necessarily follow from that quote if someone asks you to participate in a same sex wedding then participate in two same sex weddings”. Instead, some people are going to look at participation in a same-sex wedding along the lines of handing over your car to a drunk, murderer or bank robber.

Similarly, as to “providing flowers for a same sex wedding is in no way participating in a sex act” and “you can provide a cake for a same sex wedding and still not condone same sex sex”, those are both are subjective opinions, not clearly or specifically directed by the Matthew 5 passage. Even the term “wedding” is not clear as to meaning. Like any word or symbol (including a cake or flowers), it can mean different things to different people under different circumstances.or And for some people, “wedding” apparently means a sex act in some way or another.

As to the story in John 8 of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus did not tell anyone to go along with adultery or to celebrate adultery with a cake or flowers. Jesus specifically told the woman “go and sin no more”, not “go and sin some more”. He didn’t condemn her to death for her act of adultery and he called upon the crowd to also not condemn her to death. Bakers and florists aren’t condemning customers to death by telling them no, or necessarily focusing on someone else’s sin to the exclusion of their own. Such bakers and florists are reportedly concerned about their own sin, which they apparently believe they’d be committing if they accepted the business.

Priya Lynn

ET, baking a cake for a same sex wedding is not remotely in the same category as murder. While it would be a stretch to say the passages emplores a person to go along with murder, its perfectly in keeping with the “Do not resist an evil person…” preamble to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. Obviously the passage wasn’t intended to say only do those things specifically mentioned in it.

I think even extremely few anti-gay christians would look at baking a cake for a same sex wedding as handing your car over to a drunk, murderer, or bank robber.

To any reasonable person baking two cakes for a same sex wedding would be exactly the sort of thing the passage was referring to.

It is not a subjective opinion that providing flowers for a same sex wedding is not participating in a sex act or that one can provide a cake for a same sex wedding and not condone gay sex – those are indisputable facts. The idea that a wedding is a sex act is utter nonsense. A wedding is no more a sex act than buying a car is washing a car – two entirely distinct actions. And obviously if there were laws in place preventing bakers from discriminating against gay couples many anti-gay bakers would bake a cake for a gay wedding and still not condone gay sex – there is no denying that one can provide a cake for a gay wedding and not condone gay sex.

You are simply undeniably wrong and unreasonable.

Gene in L.A.

ET, I would counter that what too many people think of merely from hearing the words “gay” or “lesbian” is what they imagine gay and lesbian people do with each other. This is their problem and should not bear on whether they have the right to refuse gay and lesbian people the service they’re in business to provide. Extend this refusal of cakes and flowers to filling prescriptions or providing medical or police or fire service and it quickly becomes nonsensical.

Timothy Kincaid

ET,

Riiiiiiiight. Jesus meant slaps, shirts, coats, and walking miles but he most definitely didn’t mean flowers or cakes or pizza. No sirree, those are totally different.

But He did sort of cover everything with “Give to the one who asks you”, didn’t he?

They asked for cake and flowers. So tell your anonymous friends to give.

Or stop pretending that they care in the slightest what Jesus had to say about the matter.

Priya, it doesn’t have to be murder to be wrong. I offered the example of murder to point out the fact that that the passage is not specific or clear as to all forms of “evil” or cooperation with evil.

What you claim to be “indisputable facts” are your subjective opinions which are widely disputed by many people. For many people, a “wedding” is a celebration of “marriage”, which they believe to be the God-instituted context for the expression of sexual love between the partners, a context which such religious belief holds to be fundamental to and intrinsically inseparable from “marriage”. Such religious belief can easily be found written in black and white in the publicly available teachings of various religions. For such believers, to celebrate a wedding / marriage would be to celebrate the giving of the partners to each other for sexual love.

Perhaps to you, a “wedding” and “marriage” is something else. But when you go to a baker or florist to whom it means a celebration of a sex act, then that is what is to them, regardless of what it is to you.

Priya Lynn

ET, what some people see as a god-instituted context for the sexual expression of love between partners can in no way be considered the same thing as sex itself, so, no matte how often you claim it is subjective, it is an indisputable fact that providing flowers for a wedding is not the same as participating in a sex act. The law often refers to the “reasonable person standard” and no reasonable person considers a wedding a sex act which is exactly what you’re claiming.

We agree the passage isn’t specific but murder is qualitatively different from same sex sex, even if one considers the latter a sin. While it is reasonable to assume the quote of Jesus isn’t suggesting participating in a murder it is in no way reasonable to assume it does not refer to a great deal lesser of a “wrondoing” such as given in the list of the Jesus quote. Baking two cakes for a wedding is consistent with the specific list in the quote, murder is not and therefore you’re attempting to exclude cake baking because murder is excluded is not reasonable

I am certain precious few deeply religious people consider a wedding a celebration of a sex act. Once again, your assertions aren’t reasonable and I have no doubt aren’t reasonable to even most religious people.

Timothy, no, “give to the one who asks you” does not “cover everything” in that it is neither clear nor specific and obviously doesn’t mean give anyone whatever they want regardless of any other concerns. Give what and in what circumstances? For free? At what price and terms? It doesn’t say. For example, I already raised the case of someone asking for your car. To some, the wedding issue is just about being being asked for a cake or flowers at the everyday sale price, but to the religious objectors, they see it as asking them to sin, to give their consent or blessing to sin, to sell their soul to the devil.

Timothy Kincaid

ET,

Here’s what I have observed: every single one of these cake bakers will bake cakes for other faith weddings, for divorcee weddings, for clearly-inappropriate-couple weddings, for adulterous couples, for swingers, for couples who don’t engage in sex, for ANY couples… other than gay couples.

Why?

Because your claim that a there are bakers and florists who consider weddings to be celebrations of a sex act is absurd. As is the notion that they see themselves as morally bound to approve of the couple and their sex life. They don’t. Ever. They see that as “private” and none of their business… unless the couple is gay.

Here’s the problem: when you present a premise that is absurd on its face, and then insist that it’s true, you lose credibility.

Timothy Kincaid

ET,

I get it. You disagree with Jesus.

Priya Lynn

“Hereâ€™s the problem: when you present a premise that is absurd on its face, and then insist that itâ€™s true, you lose credibility.”.

Hear Hear – exactly.

CPT_Doom

One addition to Timothy’s scheme – if a business that has previously posted the categories of customers it won’t serve proceeds to serve anyone from those categories, their legal right to discriminate immediately ends, so the Catholic school that hires a divorced Protestant cannot refuse to hire a gay person for the same job.

Priya, reasonable people can disagree. However, your claims as to what is “indisputable fact” indicate to me that you are not thinking reasonably. Participation or cooperation in evil is a broad topic involving such distinctions as formal, implicit, Immediate, mediate, remote, material, direct, indirect, danger of scandal, etc. One can, in some degree or another, participate / cooperate in a sex act in many ways beyond actually having sex yourself, including, according to some, by baking a wedding cake or arranging wedding flowers, or attending the wedding, etc. Some forms of participation / cooperation in evil can be permissible and others not. Much of it, if not all of it, is subjective.

Likewise, the degree to which murder and sodomy, for example, are religiously different depends on the religion and the subjective interpretation. Many consider homosexual acts to be acts of grave depravity that cannot be approved of under any circumstances. And there are many people who insist that murder (the sin of Abel) and sodomy (the sin of the Sodomites) are two of four “sins that cry to heaven”. Other people claim that sodomy or homosexual acts was not the sin of the Sodomites. Again, it’s subjective interpretation.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that an individual’s religious belief or conscience can be decided by majority vote. Clearly, the objectors who are willing to be martyred for their personal belief do not subscribe to mob rule.

NancyP

You are all MISSING THE POINT. This isn’t about wedding cakes or flower arrangements. The laws have been written more broadly than that, to allow for employment, housing, and ALL services discrimination between private parties (corporations are considered as persons here).

It is a lot easier to imagine corporations and small businesses using religious objection to hiring qualified women “because their place is in the home”, or firing women who get pregnant, or firing unmarried women who use birth control.

Timothy Kincaid

ET,

No, we really do get it. You disagree with what Jesus said.

Timothy, I don’t know how a baker or florist would generally know that a wedding is for a “divorcee”, “adulterous couples” or “swingers”, as it’s generally not disclosed to the baker or florist or asked to be expressed on the cake with writing and choice of plastic figurines. Further, many religions including Catholicism permit weddings of persons who had a previous marriage annulled. Likewise, a marriage between a man and a woman “who don’t engage in sex” is also permitted in Christianity, with Mary and Joseph as a classic example. As to “other faith weddings” between a man and a woman, most every marriage in the Bible, including the marriage of Mary and Joseph that is widely celebrated by Christians, was not Christian.

Timothy Kincaid

ET,

Trust me, we get it. We genuinely get it. You disagree with Jesus.

I will say I can feel for you.

It must truly suck to call yourself a Christian and disagree with so much of what Christ had to say.

ZRAinSWVA

“I donâ€™t know how a baker or florist would generally know that a wedding is for a â€œdivorceeâ€, â€œadulterous couplesâ€ or â€œswingersâ€, as itâ€™s generally not disclosed to the baker or florist”

Really. If the baker or florist is going to be ‘pure’ in their application of their religious discrimination, is it not incumbent on them to question their potential clients as to their virtues or else risk participation in solemnizing a sinful activity? No, by your own admission they don’t do that. They willingly ‘take the chance’ that the services they provide won’t {shudder} be associated with sin. And that’s okay?

No, that’s hypocrisy.

Timothy, actually, I wouldn’t know what it feels like “to call yourself a Christian and disagree with so much of what Christ had to say.” But thank you for telling me what it’s like.

ZRAinSWVA, it’s a good question but the partners-to-be don’t have to be angels before marriage. They can be the town tramps. They also haven’t taken their vows before their marriage. And if they subsequently fail to keep their vows, that doesn’t invalidate the marriage.

Soren and Priya: Thanks for the support. On aspect of anti-discrimination laws vs. the “libertarian” position that’s never mentioned specifically: they’re meant to correct a power imbalance that can be broadly stated as those with resources dealing with those without. That’s really the basis of all civil rights issues.

ET, Timothy, Priya, et al.: Digging below the surface a little bit on the scriptural support or lack of it for the bakers/florists/photographers not wanting to “condone” sin: It doesn’t really matter what scripture says or who they provide their services to, because a) you can always find something in scripture to justify what you wanted to do anyway, and b) their reading of scripture is filtered through their own prejudices. The key point is not whether they are consistent in whether or not they provide their services to “sinners”, the key point is that gays are “icky”, which has nothing to do with their religious beliefs — those are just the window dressing.

jay

i am sorry to say ..but if you are taking money for any service …you just plain cannot discriminate period.. NOW if you are in buisness ..and are only doing buisness by the barter system or if you have your own $ system ..then this open to disscussion. otherwise there really is no reason to debate this issue

jerry

No matter how pretty someone tries to dress up discrimination it still boils down to one simple thing.

Anyone who supports discrimination is saying the some people are inferior and deserve to be punished. In the examples discussed we are talking about a baker, florist and photographer refusing to serve gay couples for wedding events. Yet these same “principled” people have no problem taking our money for anything else.

In fact they take our money when we pay taxes that support all of the services they need to run their businesses. Streets, water, sewer, police, fire and EMT. I shouldn’t have to pay for that.

So when a business discriminates the sensible solution is to deny them a license to operate.

The US Constitution clearly prohibits all government agencies from showing favor to religion. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that teachers can not force their private beliefs on students in public schools. For a city or county official to authorize a license for a business discriminating on the basis of any religion violates the First Amendment. I also think RPG would have second thoughts about this reading but they would be second thoughts. I do not believe she would reject it out of hand.

Mark F.

I have no desire to force people to provide wedding services either, but the claim that these people are, just now, the victims of gross religious persecution (after they have had no trouble providing services for all other weddings), shows this is all about anti-gay animus. Nothing more. Their claims that merely selling a cake to a gay person is a horrible violation of their religious freedom is insulting to the intelligence.

Mark F, if they’re like Ms. Stutzman, they sell to gay people, but not for a gay wedding. And my guess is that if a man were to ask her, “I’m a heterosexual man who has been fornicating with a woman for one year now, will you create floral arrangements to celebrate my heterosexual fornicating relationship?”, she wouldn’t do it. Likewise if a man asked, “Will you arrange flowers to celebrate my wife’s abortion?” Would the court force her in those cases too, claiming it’s discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? And would you claim she has anti-straight animus?

Timothy Kincaid

ET,

How to know when you are completely and entirely wrong: when you make up absurd and irrelevant “what ifs” to try and muddy the waters.

Timothy, how to know when you”re wrong: whenever you post.

Mark F.

Here’s an idea for “Christian” cake bakers who don’t want to serve “teh gay.” Just announce that all proceeds from gay wedding cakes are going to NOM. I guarantee you’ll never have to do a gay wedding cake, and you won’t be breaking any law.

Michigan-Adam

Timothy,

I’m curious how far and in what ways your libertarian streak extends to civil rights legislation (e.g., the civil rights act of 1964 or other anti discrimination laws). You mention above that you’ve already debated it and so I don’t want to rehash it here but for my own edification would you link to a post or a few in which you’ve had that conversation. Cheers.

For the record I’m in favor of anti-discrimination laws but not hate crime laws. I managed to puzzle a lot of people while in law school as the gay guy arguing against hate crime laws.

Timothy Kincaid

Michigan-Adam,

Welcome to Box Turtle Bulletin. We’re glad to have your views even if (or maybe especially when) they puzzle a lot of people.

At this point I’d have to do word searches to try and find where we have had debates over the extent of non-discrimination laws. And I don’t want to rehash debates that I’ve had with regulars… or we’d end up doing little else.

But my ‘quick answer’ is this: I’d prefer that people have the right to live in accordance with their beliefs and that includes racism, bigotry, and all other forms of stupidity. BUT, if there are going to be laws that forbid discrimination, it is absurd not to include one demographic that is regularly subjected to discrimination.

In other words, I don’t like non-discrimination laws. But I dislike those that include some people but leave out the LGBT community even more.

As for hate crimes laws, I favor tracking but I do not favor enhanced sentencing based on the ideology of the perpetrator.

And, yes, we have debated that here as well.

April 11th, 2015

Timothy:

I don’t want to re-open any debates, but it occurs to me that hate crimes can legitimately be seen as a form of terrorism, in that they’re not solely directed at individuals but at groups. I don’t know if you’ve considered that, or if it might change your thinking on the subject, but I think it’s worth mentioning.

Priya Lynn

April 11th, 2015

That’s my position as well Hunter.

Timothy Kincaid

April 11th, 2015

Hunter,

Yes, I’ve heard that position. It’s a good argument.

Michigan-Adam

Timothy,

Thanks for the response. I can understand your inclination. I have (in certain directions) a libertarian streak in me.

With respect to anti-discrimination law however the issue I have is that rarely is it simply a matter of an individual acting in accordance with their beliefs. History teaches us that inevitably various forms of discriminatory collusion develop. And moreover, you have government called upon to enforce the discrimination.

So, for example, here in Michigan you find in the tony suburb of Grosse Pointe, just north of Detroit, restrictive covenants in nearly all of the deeds prohibiting sale of the property to jews or blacks. (I’m Jewish.) Back before the civil rights era courts would enforce those covenants. If you tried to sell your house to Jew or an African American, your neighbors could sue (and win) to prevent the sale from going through. Now, courts don’t recognize such restrictive covenants as a valid property right. Courts will no longer enforce that sort of property right. Quite literally, when this change took place, property rights were lost.

Now consider the case of the individual owner of a public business. The owner may say, “I won’t serve your kind here.” Perhaps the prospective patron leaves of their own accord. Or maybe they and their fellows sit at the lunch counter, refuse to leave, and demand service. Then the police are called. The government must decide if it wants to enforce the owner’s discrimination by removing the people.

The civil rights act and related laws embody our polity’s decision: no, we won’t have the government enforcing discrimination.

There is, of course, more to the anti-discrimination laws but to me those are the most salient issues: first, that discrimination is never really just the idiosyncratic beliefs of some baker. Discriminatory collusion always occurs without some counter force to impede it. And second, that much of the time allowing people to discriminate means sanctioning the government to enforce said discrimination.

I’m not willing to abide either of those things. Hence, I’m in favor of anti-discrimination law.

The reason I’m against hate crime laws is because in those cases you really do have someone acting individually (or in a small group etc) on idiosyncratic beliefs. And I don’t think that *individual* idiosyncratic beliefs (or motivations) should lead to greater punishment. (I don’t find the terrorism argument at all persuasive for reasons*, plus really we want to make more things be terrorism, really? really?!? Hi NSA.)

* reasons: various criminal law theory & philosophy reasons that are probably too boring to go into here.

enough already

Regarding the discussion between Timothy and ET, it’s a no-brainer:
Timothy is a follower of Jesus Christ.
ET is a defender of Christendom, as defined by Paul in his most frustrated and exasperated epistles.
The two perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Rob

Where I get lost in this whole thing is, at what point does the baker inject their morals into the cake? which ingredient carries it?

Yes, a cake is a part of a wedding ceremony. So are the chairs, the table clothes and the spoons. Does a person who makes chairs dictate how that chair is to be used? “I’ll make the chairs for your hotel, but I don’t want no gay asses sitting on them.” We would think that ridiculous. A chair is a chair, and is no more capable of having morals or objecting to being sat on than a rock.

It may be argued that the person making the cake is using their particular skill. So is the person making the chair or the spoon. It may not be the same type of skill, but it is a skill nonetheless.

So at what point do these inanimate objects become endowed with the ability to impose morality?

Priya Lynn

Great point Rob!

Rob —

Technically, and I think this reinforces your point, the cake is not part of the ceremony itself. It is part of the celebration after the vows are taken, so there is even less ground to the idea that the baker is “participating” in the wedding.

Unless, of course, like me, you adhere to a different definition of marriage: Marriage is the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household. Then it’s a question of which is the real “wedding” — the vows or the party? Or both?

Of course, you’re not going to find any Real Christian (TM) adhering to that definition, because, as it appears, they’re all firmly committed to the idea of human beings as no more than breeding stock.

Lord_Byron

As others have said I’d be perfectly fine with letting businesses discriminate, but only if they posted signs out front of who they will not serve. If you want to deny service to Gays or Blacks or Jews then fucking man up and admit it. As we have repeatedly seen these people are hypocrites. A clear example of this is what happened in court after Prop 8. I don’t entirely remember, but I believe NOM was trying to sue, like they have done in other states, in an attempt to keep the public donations list private. They argued that by having that list public people who donated against prop 8 have been discriminated against and lost business. So like all good hypocrites it’s wrong to discriminate against them, but when they do it to others it’s their god given right. I apologize for the following text if Boxturtle doesn’t allow image embedding.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Posted by Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian on Sunday, April 5, 2015

Hunter, for adherents to the man+woman definition of marriage, your “question of which is the real ‘wedding’ â€” the vows or the party” doesn’t even get to first base with regard to same-sex couples, for same-sex couples can never have a “real wedding” or marriage under the man+woman marriage definition, even if they might set up house together.

And under your proposed definition of “marriage”, the community’s “recognition of the establishment of a new household” would constitute cooperation/participation. In fact, without the community’s recognition, there could not be a “marriage” under your definition.

Rob, according to what various objectors have told me, it’s obviousky not the morality of the cake per se (apart perhaps from the “pro-gay” decorations and inscriptions in the icing) but the rightness/wrongness of the baker’s actions in providing the cake for the particular event, the actions of the baker being a form of support/cooperation/participation in the event and in the couple’s “lifestyle”‘ in some degree or another. And such concerns are not unique to providing cakes and flowers but extend also to providing chairs, hall space and anything else. And in fact, I’m told, there are people who have refused to provide hall space and chairs for same-sex “weddings”. Also, with regard to chairs used at a wedding, it’s not likely that the chair manufacturer created the chairs specifically for that particular event, whereas the baker will likely be baking and decorating the cake specifically for that event and with personal knowledge of that fact. And while the chair designer/manufacturer could well have engaged in a form of “exoression” in making the chairs, that expression likely did not involve anything close to writing “Happy Wedding Bob & Steve” and similar direct expressions of support which the baker might not want to express, which perhaps her “conscience” might forbid her to express, especially after her religious advisers have warned her that any “redefinition” of marriage is forbidden under possibility of eternal damnation.

” In fact, without the communityâ€™s recognition, there could not be a â€œmarriageâ€ under your definition.”

That’s the whole point — the community recognition is the operative factor. (It’s not my “proposed” definition, it’s a definition arrived at empirically: in all observed cultures, through most of history, that’s what marriage has been (for those that recognize marriage — there are a couple that don’t). And as often as not, and probably more so for the lower classes, “benefit of clergy” has been optional.)

What do you think these church weddings with family and friends are? It’s the community witnessing the vows. The state issued marriage license? The institutional form of community recognition, where the state represents the community. That’s why you have to have witnesses to a wedding — that’s the community recognition.

As for the man-woman “definition,” sure, that’s been the case in most instances, because, let’s face it, most people are heterosexual. But to take that as *the* definition of marriage is nothing more than restating Catholic doctrine on how the universe is supposed to behave according to the bishops. Have you noticed that the universe doesn’t pay much attention to clerics?

Hunter, your proposed definition of “marriage” is not the operative definition of “marriage” of any state in the U.S.A., and it’s not the operative definition of “marriage” in the Christian community either. For example, according to the last Census, there were 118 million recognized households but only 60 million recognized married couples, and some married couples were without a household. Even a single person living alone can have a household, or more than one. Married couples can also live apart in separate households.

Attempts to empirically arrive at a definition of “marriage” “observed by all cultures” are stillborn. It doesn’t exist.

In regard to your question, “Have you noticed that the universe doesnâ€™t pay much attention to clerics?”, I don’t recall clerics claiming that the universe pays them much, if any, attention. But apparently, throughout history, much attention has been paid to clerics.

Timothy Kincaid

ET,

Be cautious when purporting to speak for the Christian community. You don’t.

Currently, in the United States, there are roughly 78 million Christian adherents.

Of those, several prominent denominations have recently made changes by which they allow same-sex marriages, including the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Congregational (UCC), and (de facto) Methodist churches. In total, these five make up about 18 million.

In addition, polls consistently show that half or more of Catholics support marriage equality.

This brings to nearly 40% the total of Christians in the US who disagree with you. And that’s just the active Christians.

Nathaniel

Timothy, I don’t think ET was suggesting all Christians reject same-sex marriage when he said “and itâ€™s not the operative definition of ‘marriage’ in the Christian community either.” Also, I am stunned that you have so vehemently lambasted ET for (as far as I can tell) merely offering an example of a mindset that would reject you exegesis. Whether their thinking is right or wrong, hypocritical or consistent, is beside the point. The truth is that no one argument will win over everybody. In that sense, Ben in Oakland has an admiral approach: offer this reasoning as an example for those who could be moved by it. Criticizing ET for being able to understand the mindset that would not be moved serves no purpose.

Timothy, if you’re not speaking for the Christian community (as you’ve — for your own reasons — cautioned me not to do), who anointed you to say who is or is not speaking for the Christian community? Or to say who the “Christian community” includes or excludes or what it believes? Or what Jesus really said or meant? Or what “marriage equality” means to the Christian community?

And who authorized you to speak for my position on “marriage equality”? You don’t even know what my position is on the subject or if I even hold one.

You talk of “adherents” when you refer to the Christian community, but the numbers you offered include many people who are arguably non-adherents, including people who reject the reported official teachings of their religion on the subject, and not to mention, your numbers don’t include people outside the U.S. But regardless, even when using your figures, your figures do NOT show that “nearly 40% the total of Christians in the US” disagree with me, that, as I’ve said, “the operative definition of ‘marriage’ in the Christian community” is not the recognition of a mere “household”.

Indeed, absent accepted proof that the operative definition of “marriage” for the Christian community can be changed or decided by popular opinion or by the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists and/or dissenting Catholics or whoever rather than God himself, what relevance does any poll or Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists and/or dissenting Catholics really have in telling us the Christian community’s operative definition of “marriage” anyway?

ET:

“Hunter, your proposed definition of â€œmarriageâ€ is not the operative definition of â€œmarriageâ€ of any state in the U.S.A., and itâ€™s not the operative definition of â€œmarriageâ€ in the Christian community either.”

Of course it is — it’s just not explicitly stated. As for your digression into the US census, what the census considers a household is not what an anthropologist considers a household, and once again, it’s the community recognition that is the key factor, not the existence of a household.

“. . . I donâ€™t recall clerics claiming that the universe pays them much, if any, attention.”

It’s called denial. They just get frustrated when it doesn’t pay them any attention, and then pretend that what’s actually happening is not happening. Why do you think so many “Christians” consider science to be the work of the Devil?

Hunter, a definition that fails to define is not a definition. Likewise, saying “household” is “what an anthropologist considers a household” doesn’t help for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there is reportedly no universally accepted definition of “household” among anthropologists, and for that matter, no agreement on who qualifies as an anthropologist. In fact, last I checked the dictionary, “anthropology” can mean “that part of Christian theology concerning the genesis, nature, and future of humans”. That definition aside, many a “professor of anthropology” of the secular variety has told me and countless other people that a “household” is often but not always tied together by “marriage”. The Census says likewise.

As to “scientists”, they also experience frustration when things don’t work out as expected, and for some time may “pretend that whatâ€™s actually happening is not happening.” Scientists are no less human than anyone else.

Eric Payne

ET,

Isn’t it amazing, the twisting and turning that’s done to justify marriage inequality.

The rights of citizenship in the United States, according to the Constitution, are to be enjoyed, equally by all.

That’s what the Constitution says — “all.”

There’s no equivocation. There’s no “out clause” for “Natural families,” or “God’s intent/law,” or “anthropology.”

Eric, I note that the Constitution had to be amended to say “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States […] nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” because prior to that amendment, it didn’t say that.

And I note that the Constitution also says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Likewise, that too was an amendment.

Even if it’s rather easy to agree on what the Constitution says in the sense that we can quote from it as it changes over time, the Constitution apparently provides that interpretation of what it says is subject to the “equivocation” and “twisting and turning” (your words, of course) of fallible judges and further amendment by the people. And I think that the objecting bakers and florists, not to mention also the persistent anti-abortionists, understand that.

Timothy Kincaid

Undoubtedly they also are aware that any federal amendment privileging anti-gay people over gay people has exactly zero chance of either passing Congress or ratification by the states.

That boat has sailed.

Timothy, i’m sure they’re aware that numerous forms of “anti-gay” discrimination are already legal under the U.S. Constitution. That boat has been sailing since the beginning.

It’s not yet been established whether a federal amendment is needed with regard to state marriage law. That boat is still at sea.

Chris McCoy

Please stop feeding the troll.

Eric Payne

ET —

You’re correct, but the bar to add amendments to the Constitution began incredibly high, as the population expands, and those who are eligible to vote register to vote, it becomes even more difficult to establish. Hell, we couldn’t even get an Equal Rights Amendment, for women only, passed n the “glory days” of the “feminist movement”… not to mention it taking almost 150 years before women were even permitted to vote.

More recently, when the marriage equality issue was more fresh, our Executive Branch supported a DOMA Amendment, but got shut down by the Congress. I don’t see that situation as changing.

ET —

“. . . a definition that fails to define is not a definition.”

Such as “marriage is the union of a man and a woman”? Which says nothing about marriage at all in any functional sense.

“. . . no agreement on who qualifies as an anthropologist.”

That’s nothing but laughable. No agreement among whom?

Households are usually but not always tied together by marriage: and your point? I wasn’t defining households.

As for your remarks about scientists, yes, they are human. Thomas Kuhn described the phenomenon in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” when he noted that one thing that’s necessary for a paradigm shift to be accepted is for the most stubborn of the old guard to die off. That in no way belies what I said about clerics and their relationship to the real universe. In fact, it has nothing to do with what I said about clerics.

You seem to be sliding off into tangents instead of responding to the points I made.

Eric Payne

Hunter —

The points you seem to believe are immaterial, as they have no basis on which to stand.

You may hypothesize on any construct of “family” you wish. In the United States, though, there are only two legal constructs of “family.”

The first is two persons, unrelated by blood, who enter into a civil marriage contract (and even the “unrelated by blood” is not absolute… it depends on the generational “closeness” of that kinship).

The second is a person, with or without spouse, and that persons’ children.

In the early 1980s, when I was an adult male, my scarlet-throated parents and I became completely estranged. I didn’t talk to them again until 2008, when I learned, through a cousin, my mother was dying of cancer. We had a few phone calls after that — and it turned out, by sheer luck, I was the last person to speak with her before she died. After that, my father and I reconciled. He died in 2010.

But for the 20+ years when there was absolutely no contact between us, they were still, legally, my family. If I were hospitalized and/or unable to make decisions for myself, it would have been only they who were empowered to do that for me. I may have — and did — surround myself with people for whom I cared and I considered to be “my family.”

But, legally, they weren’t.

Priya Lynn

“Please stop feeding the troll.”.

I second that.

Rob

Priya Lynn:

Let him eat cake. ;-)

Priya Lynn

LOL

Hunter, you asked, “Such as ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman’â€? Yes, that also fails to define. But as for something “in any functional sense”, courtesy of anthropology, perhaps you’ll enjoy the “definition” from the Royal Anthropological Institute’s 1951 edition of “Notes and Queries of Anthropology” which sought to define “marriage” as “the union of man and woman such that the children born from the woman are recognized as legitimate by the parents.”

As to your question, “No agreement among whom?”, that’s what I asked you. Who is “an anthropologist” in your claim “what the census considers a household is not what an anthropologist considers a household”? According to the American Anthropological Association, there are a number of “anthropologists” who work for the U.S. Census Bureau. Could it be that anthropologists sometimes use the Census definition or the corresponding everyday dictionary definition?

As to your question, “your point? I wasnâ€™t defining households,” the point is that without the definition of “household”, your proposed definition of “Marriage is the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household” is not defined. Your saying “itâ€™s the community recognition that is the key factor, not the existence of a household” does not change that.

As to clerics and your claims about their relationship to the universe, e.g. “Catholic doctrine on how the universe is supposed to behave according to the bishops,” I’ve checked and find no Catholic doctrine that claims the bishops control the universe or that bishops suppose that you’ll behave according to them. According to what I’ve been told, Catholic doctrine says you have free will and can (not necessarily ought) do whatever you want within the limits of your abilities. I doubt any Catholic bishop supposes you’ll do otherwise. Even as to what you ought to do, they say “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” Of course, they also speak of a duty to conform your conscience to Catholic teaching, but here again, they don’t suppose that you will.

Timothy Kincaid