There's a reason why I didn't take the bait.

Post #386,839 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 10:26:46 AM Reply	There's a reason why I didn't take the bait. Race != sexual orientation. Good try, though. I'd say active participation in an event is endorsement of that event. Like baking the wedding cake, supplying floral arrangements or taking wedding pictures. Even as the courts rule otherwise, at least one Justice was given pause. Justice Richard C. Bosson concurred with the majority opinion, but uneasily. ÂThe Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,Â he wrote. ÂThey only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.Â Instead, they Âare compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.Â ÂThough the rule of law requires it,Â Justice Bosson wrote, Âthe result is sobering.Â http://www.nytimes.c...eremony.html?_r=0
Post #386,840 by drook 2/25/14 10:44:58 AM Reply	Why? How is race different from sexual orientation? You tried to walk back from "abnormal" to "atypical". By most accounts about 10% of the population is homosexual. (Though in fairness gender isn't a binary position, but let's simplify.) American Indians make up less than 1% of the population of the U.S. That's pretty atypical. Can I refuse service to them? But back to my original question: define "active participation". * Officiating * Taking pictures * Playing the organ * Renting the facility * Delivering the cake * Baking the cake * Selling flour to the cake shop * Milling wheat into flour for the cake shop * Growing wheat to be milled into flour What exactly constitutes "active participation"? Before you say that's ridiculous, do you really believe that if you got your way, deep in the bible belt "the gay bakery" wouldn't find it hard to buy supplies? And remember that every time someone asks a direct question and you answer something else it reinforces the appearance that you have your answer and you're fishing for a justification. -- Drew
Post #386,843 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 11:24:12 AM Reply	10%? Update your stats. It's more like 1.7% Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. In total, the study suggests that approximately 9 million Americans Â roughly the population of New Jersey Â identify as LGBT. Among adults who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay); http://williamsinsti...-and-transgender/ I gave you three examples. I'd also include officiating (obviously) and playing the organ from your list. I didn't try to "walk back" from anything. I tried clarifying what I meant (I had this very same problem with the word "deviates" before). I think in the Deep South if the "gay bakery" found it difficult to buy supplies there are more than ample legal remedies for that. Again, I'm not advocating the refusal of service wholesale, only the refusal of services which provide at least a tacit statement of approval of a particular event: what I've called (probably inappropriately) "active participation." I'm still not taking the race-baiting question. As concerns your American Indian question, suppose you own a bakery and they want a cake depicting Custer's slaughter at the Little Big Horn which they need for a celebration of Custer's death. Do I think you have a right to refuse to supply such a cake? Yes, I do. I've tried to be as direct here as I could. That good enough?
Post #386,849 by drook 2/25/14 12:09:40 PM Reply	Another half-step back Endorsement -> active participation -> at least a tacit statement of approval What are the criteria? I think in the Deep South if the "gay bakery" found it difficult to buy supplies there are more than ample legal remedies for that. Those are precisely the remedies you want to eliminate. In the example cases the couples didn't ask for explicitly offensive cakes. They asked for the same cakes/flowers as other people get. As AScott already pointed out, civil rights law does not address the nature of the product or service being denied, only the status of those to whom it's being denied. -- Drew
Post #386,870 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:54:05 PM Reply	Bzzzzt. Wrong. Those are precisely the remedies you want to eliminate. No, I've no opposition to laws preventing the wholesale denial of services. In the example cases the couples didn't ask for explicitly offensive cakes. That's the whole point, isn't it? The cakes were explicitly offensive in nature to the bakers. As such, I believe they ought to have the right not to be coerced into making them anyway. You believe they should have no such right. We're okay (I think) to agree to disagree on this point. I'll even grant that the law is with you on this point. I won't, however, agree that the law is just. ;0)
Post #386,850 by malraux 2/25/14 12:22:40 PM Reply	Try again. As concerns your American Indian question, suppose you own a bakery and they want a cake depicting Custer's slaughter at the Little Big Horn which they need for a celebration of Custer's death. The bakery in question didn't bother to find out what was on the cake before refusing service. I don't buy that businesses providing materials are participating in the ceremony, either. There is a qualitative difference between someone singing in the choir and someone who won't even be there. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #386,853 by Another Scott 2/25/14 12:40:33 PM Reply	Good catch. Well said.
Post #386,857 by mmoffitt 2/25/14 1:01:53 PM Reply	They did, however, determine what the cake represented and that was the basis of their objection. So, you aren't participating in a Klan rally (or endorsing it) if all you did was build the cross knowing the purpose the Klansmen had for asking you to build it, right? If part of my textile business involves the manufacture of armbands with swastikas I am not condoning or working in a way that furthers the cause of Nazism either, I suppose. I think there is a closer relation to the builders of a ceremony's props to the ceremonies themselves than you're willing to admit. But, that's okay. We can disagree about that.
Post #386,883 by malraux 2/25/14 3:55:20 PM Reply	Already covered that. determine what the cake represented and that was the basis of their objection. They also said they wouldn't make a cake for a gay civil union or a gay "commitment ceremony", so the actual objection was the "gay", not the "marriage". Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!