Thursday, November 05, 2015
Suggestion for traditionalist wedding providers
If you are having a gay wedding, it seems to me that LAST thing you would want would be a photographer or a baker who really doesn't believe in gay marriage. That is, if I were a wedding service provider opposed to gay marriage but asked to do a gay wedding instead of just saying no, I might just point out to them that, based on my convictions, I have trouble seeing their wedding as something to celebrate, and that I would unrecommend myself as a wedding service provider. Now, a gay couple with any sense is going to head for the door. If they don't head for the door, then I am have to suspect that they are not looking for a wedding service provider, they are looking for someone to sue or shame as a bigot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Now, a gay couple with any sense
Does such an animal exist?
Just like those black men at the Woolworth lunch counter. The cook said he had trouble seeing them as fully human, so he couldn't guarantee their food would be healthy and wholesome. Now if those black guys had any sense, they'd head for the door. If they insist on getting service, then they're just trying to make trouble.
When I want a cake, I want a cake. I don't, expect, or demand, the approval of the person or business that makes the cake. I just want the stupid cake.
Why do you think that someone providing a good or service should be granted the right of judging others based on how they imagine their good or service might be construed?
Why do you think that businesses should be so nosy about the private affairs of those who buy their goods or service? Will the cake be used to harm another person? If not, why should cake buyers be granted some rights to push their beliefs on another person's?
Here's your basic problem; you can't imagine what it's like to be a minority. Your "problems" are all majority-problems; you assume that if someone can't find what they need from one source they can get it from another. But when you're in a minority, you very often don't have minority sources for basic goods and services. And if the majority isn't compelled to treat all people with a kind of blind fairness, you end up with some people being treated as second class and those in the majority thinking there really isn't a problem because from their privileged perspective everything seems accessible.
Ah.. the ol' "change the subject" gambit (about halfway down the thread).
So predictable.
planks length said...
Now, a gay couple with any sense
Does such an animal exist?
Dehumanizing people based on sexual orientation; is this really 2015, in the USA?
Victor,
"...I would unrecommend myself as a wedding service provider. Now, a gay couple with any sense is going to head for the door..."
Ok, but to add to what Cal already correctly pointed out regarding being a minority, what if there are no other service provider within reasonable distance? In big cities it might not be a problem, but the more rural the area the less likely it is that diversity in providers exist and, to the despair of gay couples, the more likely it is that people are not willing to provide the same quality of service to gay couples.
Hahahaha.
'OH MY GOD! OH GOD WHAT IF THE GUYS HAVING HAVING ASS TO MOUTH CAN'T A CUSTOM MADE WEDDING CAKE!
OH GOD!
OH GOD HAVE MERCY ON THEM!
PLEASE! PLEASE IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY THINK ABOUT WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A GAY ESKIMO AND YOU NEED A WEDDING CAKE AND THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN BAKE IS A CHRISTIAN!
HELP! PLEASE! PLEASE! IT'S 2015!
OH GOD!'
This is modern liberalism. Hahaahahaha.
Wow, that's what it sounds like in your head? Interesting...
It's weird to me when I hear atheo-materialists talk about rights, dignity, truth, and tolerance while they simultaneously insists that everything ultimately amounts to electron flow. How can a biological robot that is not a self "dehumanize" anything? Isn't the "dehumanization" a forgone conclusion?
I can imagine this kind of conversation between citizens:
Gay couple walks into a bakery and asks for the owner. After exchanging greetings and introductions,
Bill: Joe and I are getting married and would like you to design a cake for our wedding.
Owner: Sorry Bill, but I don't want to participate in something that violates my conscience. If you like we can have a beer and talk it over sometime, but I have to decline.
Joe: Understandable, is there someone you can recommended?
Owner: Sure, Homer over on Elm and Third will decorate your cake.
Bill: Thanks. I don't drink perhaps coffee?
Owner: Anytime. You know where to find me.
We live in a fallen world.
Chris, we are humans who can discuss things like rights, dignity, truth, and tolerance. Regardless of the true nature of the universe and our place in it, these things won't go away. You are simply avoiding though questions (in that specific case only, of course; I would assume you don't in general otherwise you would not be reading that kind of blog...)
Hugo,
I see your point. But, don't you "think" those "discussions" have a rather changed complexion if by "human" we mean wetware and meat machines?
Dave Duffy,
A seller should be able to say NO without any blubbering of conscience and its possible violation.
Nobody has a right to force a man to do what he does not want to do, for any reason whatsoever.
Chris,
I already see us as 'wetware and meat machines' and, even if the choice of words here sounds nihilistic, I think this belief renders human intellect even more special, fantastic, and elaborate. For instance, the knowledge that the atoms in my body came from stars that exploded and seeded the galaxy with elements needed for life, which in turn evolved to spawn such complex thinking machines who, with their shared centuries-old knowledge, built long-lasting civilizations, makes humans truly remarkable in my opinion. It's actually a lot more remarkable than the direct act of a supernatural agent who could have done it a million different ways, and also make us think completely differently.
Actually, one could even argue that on Theism humans are nothing but the 'meat machines' created for the amusement of gods. Religion can also sometime dehumanize people by making them believe they are worthless, that this life means nothing and only the next one is what counts, or that people they love are to be pushed away because they don't fit within the doctrine. Plus, having a constant invisible watcher can infantilize use by thinking that this watcher will ultimately judge us and decide what the best outcome is, instead of letting us actually live with each other and figure out what to do on our own, like actual adults.
Anyway, in short... no, even if we are just 'wetware and meat machines', physically, we are still who we are as rational thinking people.
Gyan: "Nobody has a right to force a man to do what he does not want to do, for any reason whatsoever."
I'd agree with you EXCEPT that this is so obviously incorrect.
I don't like stop signs. Should I be forced to stop at them? I feel the same way about using my turn signal, and driving on the right side of the road. I do not want to obey any of the laws of driving, and I see no reasons whatsoever why I should be made to follow them.
Oh, if I only I could live in a world where no one would ever be forced to do something they don't want to do for any reason they can imagine. I bet it would exactly like paradise. Exactly.
"... then I am have to suspect that they ..."
Be careful! Someone may mistake you for that Ilion fellow, even if you don't explicitly use the term.
So, since Gyan didn't word his comment as logically precise and tight as he might have, therefore Cal Metzger is free to pretend to not grasp his point, and to then misrepresent it?
I apologize for steering this thread off topic. I don't think it's merely a choice of words that "sounds" nihilistic, it positively is nihilistic. For it not to be, one has to willfully live in their own home grown matrix - but here's the catch- the pill doesn't work. After all, the "awe" and the "beauty" and the "love" and the "truth" are really just reaction formations, electrical activity in brain cells, atoms bouncing off of one another, and electrons flowing in the void. I don't deny that other metaphysical positions have their problems, it's just that materialist monism strikes me as particularly absurd because its core tenet is a denial of the human estate.
Ilion: "So, since Gyan didn't word his comment as logically precise and tight as he might have, therefore Cal Metzger is free to pretend to not grasp his point, and to then misrepresent it?"
How did I misrepresent Gyan's point? Specifically, the one I cited:
Gyan: "Nobody has a right to force a man to do what he does not want to do, for any reason whatsoever."
When someone order a wedding cake, they are often asking more than bake the cake and decorate it. With larger cakes, they are expecting the baker to come to the venue and set it up. This involves much more participation than a counter transaction. For a photographer, the participation is even more intimate. The photographer is very much a participation in the ceremony. Requiring participation in a religious ceremony can be an infringement on the rights and freedom of the service provider.
Chris,
Of course, you are exactly correct. The atheist wants to have it both ways. They talk as if there are two realities. One reality says humans have no value. The other reality says humans have value. They flip/flop between the two realities depending on what conclusion they want to argue for.
Chris, SteveK, no matter what we find to be true for the external world, what we feel is meaningful to us and that cannot be taken away. There is no flip/flop because no-one is denying the value of personal experience. It's a bit like watching a shocking documentary, feeling horrible for what happened to the protagonists, and then realizing it was actually fiction; the feelings, the reactions, were not fake. And again, a god-created world can just as much be seen as meaninglessness; the powerful creator could make everything disappear in 30 sec and nothing would matter, or some illusion could be place in front if your eyes and you would never ever know, etc... our personnal subjective experiences are neither more/less significant under any scenarios. But, at the same time, if your personnal experience is such that finding out there is no supernatural would make you feel devastated or meaningless, then I could never convince you, for the same reason.
Oozielionel: Exactly my point. Typically, a couple doesn't just say "Just bake the damned cake, I want it white with chocolate frosting." They want something that helps to celebrate their relationship and upcoming marriage. If I were going to marry a man at long last because of Obergfell, I would probably want something like a rainbow arrangement and two grooms on top of the cake. Wedding photographers pose pictures to accentuate the romance between the couple. Ours certainly did. If they didn't, they wouldn't be good photographers. That is why at least some wedding services are engaged in what seems to me to be more like speech than just cooking a meal. And if they are traditional Christians and they are being asked to do this for a same-sex wedding, they are being asked to produce, and do a good job of producing, speech that celebrates something that their religion says should not be celebrated.
There is a principled basis within the religion for taking this position. It's not just a cover for hating certain people. I am not saying it can't be challenged within Christianity. I have a lot of sympathy for people of Christian conviction who find that they are unavoidably gay and become convinced that the best way they can serve God is to have the kind of commitment in a gay relationship that is required of Christians in their marriages. Other Christians are convinced that such people have reached the wrong answer. In my view, neither side in this is stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked, nor is it right to call them bigoted.
On the other hand, I don't see a principled Christian reason for opposing interracial marriage. So far as I can tell, race isn't even a biblical concept, except for Jew and Gentile, and Paul explicitly bridged that barrier. If someone convinced me that they had a principled religious reason for not providing wedding services to a racially mixed wedding, I actually think I would argue that they have the right to refuse service. Some people are going to get mad at me for this, but there can be cases where freedom of religion trumps equal rights. Convincing me that the religious objection to mixed-race marriage was motivated by religious principle and not racial prejudice would be the trick.
Freedom of religion is central to any free society. For example, democracy is going to have a lot of trouble working in a country like Iraq where the two types of Muslims are unwilling to grant religious freedom to the other branch.
The comparisons between defenders of traditional marriage and the KKK don't wash. Traditional marriage defenders may, at the end of the day, be mistaken. If people can't see the real differences between them, then I strongly suspect that they are not primarily concerned about equal rights for gay people, they are primarily concerned about bashing traditional religion and bringing it down a peg, and gays are just a tool for doing that.
Hugo,
I think your movie analogy is telling. Yes, the experience is the experience and that can't be taken away. I get it. But, it's derivative, derivative of something less than human. If we are conscious of the fact that our "real life" is just a movie, that the experience itself isn't really what we actually experience, then the personal experience is, in fact, devalued. It's like meeting the love of your life and then finding out that she's a scam artist who just wants your money. The experience, in truth, wasn't what it was believed it to be. But, on the materialist account, we should just accept the experience for what it appears to be, not what it really is?
Chris,
I think what you say makes sense, but only from the view that human value necessarily comes from being ore than just physical machines. Basically, the detail you are missing here is that people like me, who already believe that we are just physical "machines", do not see ourselves as 'devalued'. So I understand that for you that's what it 'would' mean, should you realize that we are 'just' machines, but I can assure you that, should you change your opinion on the matter, you would instantly drop that notion that we are 'devalued' as purely physical beings. You might find out that you are now less 'devalued', more valuable than you ever thought.
Because, again, we can make similar observations the other way around. If I were to find out that we are going to live forever as body-less souls, after our physical death, that would mean we are 'devalued' as today's physical humans. This limited life becomes just a tiny portion of what our 'real' life is: the non-physical never ending afterlife. This current life I am experiencing means little to nothing anymore; all I need to focus on is how to make sure I get this afterlife right. Anything in my current life which is not tied to the afterlife becomes meaningless. Moreover, from another angle, under the tyranny of a supernatural agent who can do anything to impact our lives, without warning, we are also 'devalued' as humans since we have no control on anything; we are at the mercy of that powerful agent. Whatever we do, whatever we decide, can suddenly be overruled by that agent.
To be clear, I don't think that the case; we are not more/less devalued under either scenario in my opinion, but the fact that it can go both ways is to me the best way to explain why we are not 'devalued' on a purely materialistic universe. Love is love, anger is anger, fear is fear, regardless of some unexplained non-material soul, or physical brain chemicals, making us experience them.
Hugo,
You've done a nice job in sketching out your position. Thank you.
But to re-iterate , since the materialist position tells us that what is ultimately real is less than it how it is experienced, it does actually devalue. You would agree, I presume, that a conscious physical thing has more value than a non conscious physical thing. But why? On your reductive ontology, consciousness is, in truth, just another form of non-consciousness, albeit of a more complex variety. If you then to try to make the emergentist move, I would have to say nothing really changes.
If consciousness doesn't end at the end of this life, like you said, it doesn't devalue this one. I agree with you if there is an evil God that you described. Sorry for the repetitiveness.
Chris, I appreciate the fact that you do seem to genuinely understand my position, and we are now running in circles simply because we disagree on the qualitative description of consciousness with respect to its underlying nature.
But to be clear, I don't see the materialist position as stating that consciousness is 'less than how it is experienced' nor ' just another form of non-consciousness', even if I also understand why it seems so, from the perspective of someone who believes that consciousness is not purely material. It's obvious that by starting with the idea that consciousness is 'material+X' and then removing the 'X', we did make it 'lesser than' the original.
Basically, I think it's inevitable for us to disagree on the 'devalued' part as a consequence of how we see consciousness.
"without any blubbering"
Gyan,
Yep. In all my years of business I had to say "no" to most of customers at some point. Business is a negotiation. There are exactly two customers I had to refuse to do business with altogether.
Post a Comment