I support this, only I'd strengthen it. I'd make this a very visible part of each wedding contract and state that the donation will be made 'in your name' and also state that couples agree to let the business use their name/photo for the purposes of announcing the donation on their website. Those that are proud to make the donation won't be bothered by these things.
There are a lot of things that can be done via contracts. Just insert various things that you and like-minded people value and let the chips fall where they may.
This won't solve the problem of people, like yourself John, who think that there is something wrong with holding the view that gay activity is morally wrong, that if you believe that you deserve to be viewed just as we view Bull Conner and George Wallace. That is what many gay rights supporters are pushing for, but technically, the state's civil rights commissions aren't saying that. All they are asking the bakers, et al, not to do is discriminate. And this nicely takes care of that while allowing them to affirm their position on homosexuality and frees them from the implication that they are lying if they, say, bake a wedding cake with two grooms on top.
I think the comparison of people who hold that, for example, the Book of Romans proscribes homosexual activity, and therefore gay people shouldn't engage in gay activity, are somehow comparable to Klan members and segregationists, is in my view a preposterous myth that is wrong on so many levels I cannot begin to count them.
Let's see, Woolworths served lunch to whites but not blacks. The Giffords host weddings for heterosexuals but not homosexuals. That's the basic comparison.
In 1960, blacks did not have the same legal rights as whites. Before 2015, homosexuals did not have the same legal right to civil marriage as heterosexuals.
People used to talk about "separate but equal" for blacks and whites. This is like people today asking why homosexuals can't just go to a different wedding provider.
It's a matter of principle - If you do business, you must serve all comers without discrimination. Your choice is to do business or not do business. You don't get to choose which moral outlook your customers need to have (or which color their skin is).
OK, that's why I compared the Giffords to the KKK. I'd be glad to hear your explanation for why this is preposterous.
It's not quite as cut and dried a comparison as is being claimed.
If I have a restaurant and Maxine Waters, Donald Trump, PZ Myers, the Westboro Church, and Milo Yiannopoulos all walk in and wish to purchase a burger, I would have no trouble serving them beyond wondering what sin I committed that warranted being punished with their presence. I would serve them even though I fundamentally have strong objections to the things they stand for, if not active dislike for them as individuals.
Now, if any of the people on my list were getting married, I'd cater their wedding because the wedding itself does not run afoul of my principles. But if Maxine Waters wanted me to service a white-guilt event dedicated to demanding reparations, I'd refuse. If Donald Trump wanted me to service an event commemorating his millionth irrational tweet, I'd refuse. I would not service an Atheism Plus crapfest for Myers, I would not service a funeral protest for Westboro, and I would not service a troll party for Milo. Those things fly in the face of what I stand for.
There is an obvious difference between discrimination of a person based upon some demographic checkbox, and the desire to not be associated with, or assist in any way, causes and speech that you are opposed to. Priority of freedoms - public accommodation vs freedom of expression, etc - can be debated certainly, but to compare it to the KKK is sheer nonsense.
Thank you, Legion, for that last comment! The phony equation of conscience-based business practices and racism is maddeningly widespread. You've done a great job sticking a pin in that balloon.
(By the way, I had to google Milo Yiannopoulos. I had no idea who he was. Now I wish I hadn't.)
This equivalency argument collapses on a number of accounts.
By the way, the attempt to, as I call it, bigot-bomb people who believe in and defend traditional marriage by comparing them to Klansmen is one of the things that got Trump elected. Evangelical Christians noticed that Hillary's infamous "deplorables" comment took place at an LGBT gathering. That and some statements by Obama administration officials that trivialized religious freedom issues as merely a cover for discrimination.
It is one thing to say that we need gay marriage to be fair within a religiously diverse society, but we understand the right and rationality of people to dissent from the idea that gay relationships can ever truly be marriage. It is another to attribute all opposition to bigotry, as something not even deserving of respect in a pluralistic society.
What puzzles me about all of this is that the Democratic politicians like Obama, Biden, the Clintons, and Kaine, are all Christians. Hillary seems very serious about faith. I know conservatives like to discredit faith claims made by liberals, on the assumption that if they were true believers they wouldn't be pro-choice. But liberals could just as easily counter that they think the faith of conservatives is phony because they support public policies that harm the poor and the needy, something that is all over the Bible.
If you look at Romans 1 and other passages on homosexuality, it doesn't look good for gay relationships at least on the face of things.
Now there may be ways of interpreting those passages so that they aren't so bad for homosexuals, or you can say that they reflect a limited understanding of homosexuality from the first century and they are not God's final word on the matter. But you have to admit that if it can be reasonable to be a Christian (I take it all these Democratic politicians think that), then it can also be reasonable, based on what Christians think of a special revelation, that homosexual acts are sinful. Because these arguments are Christian-specific, they might not be an adequate basis for law, but when we separate church and state we leave areas for the church that the state has to keep its hands off. By contrast, no reasonable interpretation of the Bible supports white supremacy. (Curse of Ham? Give me a break). These Democrats are also recent converts to the idea of gay marriage (Hillary says that Chelsea convinced her to accept it), so was she a bigot when she opposed gay marriage? Was her husband a bigot when he signed DOMA?
This implied bigotry charge against conservative Christians kept a lot of them in the Trump fold when Access Hollywood should have sent them running for the hills. I believe that if the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign had retained a respectful attitude toward opponents of gay marriage, even while disagreeing with those opponents, they evangelical bloc would not have held for Trump and Hillary would be President today.
I agree the comparison is wrong, still thing gayness is a sin is not the same as thinking certain races are inferior. But does the Bible tell us to kick them out of society? Being a sin does not mean we can ostracize them. Pride is a sin remember? If we took the the same attitude toward pride we would have empty churches.
1) I'm not arguing that Christians should approve of homosexuality. If that's what the Bible says, you guys can go ahead and keep believing it.
2) I support business owners exercising their free speech and expressing their beliefs that homosexual activity is wrong. I just think refusing to do business with homosexuals is the wrong way to express those beliefs.
3) I don't think the Bible says you should be racist. But actually, I don't think anti-homosexual attitudes really come from the Bible either. Both racists and anti-homosexual people are reacting to their gut feelings, and their psychology, and their upbringing.
When you guys say the comparison is invalid, I guess you mean racism is a gut feeling whereas anti-homosexual policy is a matter of conscience. And so I guess I don't think that's a real difference.
John: "I just think refusing to do business with homosexuals"
I don't know anyone who wouldn't do business with them, nor have I heard of such people. What I have heard of, is people who do not want to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, which is an entirely different matter.
16 comments:
Brilliant! Woolworth's should have donated a portion of its lunch counter profits to the KKK. Come to think of it, they probably did.
I support this, only I'd strengthen it. I'd make this a very visible part of each wedding contract and state that the donation will be made 'in your name' and also state that couples agree to let the business use their name/photo for the purposes of announcing the donation on their website. Those that are proud to make the donation won't be bothered by these things.
There are a lot of things that can be done via contracts. Just insert various things that you and like-minded people value and let the chips fall where they may.
This won't solve the problem of people, like yourself John, who think that there is something wrong with holding the view that gay activity is morally wrong, that if you believe that you deserve to be viewed just as we view Bull Conner and George Wallace. That is what many gay rights supporters are pushing for, but technically, the state's civil rights commissions aren't saying that. All they are asking the bakers, et al, not to do is discriminate. And this nicely takes care of that while allowing them to affirm their position on homosexuality and frees them from the implication that they are lying if they, say, bake a wedding cake with two grooms on top.
I think the comparison of people who hold that, for example, the Book of Romans proscribes homosexual activity, and therefore gay people shouldn't engage in gay activity, are somehow comparable to Klan members and segregationists, is in my view a preposterous myth that is wrong on so many levels I cannot begin to count them.
Let's see, Woolworths served lunch to whites but not blacks. The Giffords host weddings for heterosexuals but not homosexuals. That's the basic comparison.
In 1960, blacks did not have the same legal rights as whites. Before 2015, homosexuals did not have the same legal right to civil marriage as heterosexuals.
People used to talk about "separate but equal" for blacks and whites. This is like people today asking why homosexuals can't just go to a different wedding provider.
It's a matter of principle - If you do business, you must serve all comers without discrimination. Your choice is to do business or not do business. You don't get to choose which moral outlook your customers need to have (or which color their skin is).
OK, that's why I compared the Giffords to the KKK. I'd be glad to hear your explanation for why this is preposterous.
"That's the basic comparison."
Apples and bicycles. I am so tired of this phony equivalency.
It's not quite as cut and dried a comparison as is being claimed.
If I have a restaurant and Maxine Waters, Donald Trump, PZ Myers, the Westboro Church, and Milo Yiannopoulos all walk in and wish to purchase a burger, I would have no trouble serving them beyond wondering what sin I committed that warranted being punished with their presence. I would serve them even though I fundamentally have strong objections to the things they stand for, if not active dislike for them as individuals.
Now, if any of the people on my list were getting married, I'd cater their wedding because the wedding itself does not run afoul of my principles. But if Maxine Waters wanted me to service a white-guilt event dedicated to demanding reparations, I'd refuse. If Donald Trump wanted me to service an event commemorating his millionth irrational tweet, I'd refuse. I would not service an Atheism Plus crapfest for Myers, I would not service a funeral protest for Westboro, and I would not service a troll party for Milo. Those things fly in the face of what I stand for.
There is an obvious difference between discrimination of a person based upon some demographic checkbox, and the desire to not be associated with, or assist in any way, causes and speech that you are opposed to. Priority of freedoms - public accommodation vs freedom of expression, etc - can be debated certainly, but to compare it to the KKK is sheer nonsense.
Thank you, Legion, for that last comment! The phony equation of conscience-based business practices and racism is maddeningly widespread. You've done a great job sticking a pin in that balloon.
(By the way, I had to google Milo Yiannopoulos. I had no idea who he was. Now I wish I hadn't.)
Sorry! But now you know, and knowing is half the blood pressure problem.
This equivalency argument collapses on a number of accounts.
By the way, the attempt to, as I call it, bigot-bomb people who believe in and defend traditional marriage by comparing them to Klansmen is one of the things that got Trump elected. Evangelical Christians noticed that Hillary's infamous "deplorables" comment took place at an LGBT gathering. That and some statements by Obama administration officials that trivialized religious freedom issues as merely a cover for discrimination.
It is one thing to say that we need gay marriage to be fair within a religiously diverse society, but we understand the right and rationality of people to dissent from the idea that gay relationships can ever truly be marriage. It is another to attribute all opposition to bigotry, as something not even deserving of respect in a pluralistic society.
What puzzles me about all of this is that the Democratic politicians like Obama, Biden, the Clintons, and Kaine, are all Christians. Hillary seems very serious about faith. I know conservatives like to discredit faith claims made by liberals, on the assumption that if they were true believers they wouldn't be pro-choice. But liberals could just as easily counter that they think the faith of conservatives is phony because they support public policies that harm the poor and the needy, something that is all over the Bible.
If you look at Romans 1 and other passages on homosexuality, it doesn't look good for gay relationships at least on the face of things.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A21-27%2C1+Corinthians+6%3A9%2C1+Timothy+1%3A8-10&version=NIV
Now there may be ways of interpreting those passages so that they aren't so bad for homosexuals, or you can say that they reflect a limited understanding of homosexuality from the first century and they are not God's final word on the matter. But you have to admit that if it can be reasonable to be a Christian (I take it all these Democratic politicians think that), then it can also be reasonable, based on what Christians think of a special revelation, that homosexual acts are sinful. Because these arguments are Christian-specific, they might not be an adequate basis for law, but when we separate church and state we leave areas for the church that the state has to keep its hands off. By contrast, no reasonable interpretation of the Bible supports white supremacy. (Curse of Ham? Give me a break). These Democrats are also recent converts to the idea of gay marriage (Hillary says that Chelsea convinced her to accept it), so was she a bigot when she opposed gay marriage? Was her husband a bigot when he signed DOMA?
This implied bigotry charge against conservative Christians kept a lot of them in the Trump fold when Access Hollywood should have sent them running for the hills. I believe that if the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign had retained a respectful attitude toward opponents of gay marriage, even while disagreeing with those opponents, they evangelical bloc would not have held for Trump and Hillary would be President today.
I agree the comparison is wrong, still thing gayness is a sin is not the same as thinking certain races are inferior. But does the Bible tell us to kick them out of society? Being a sin does not mean we can ostracize them. Pride is a sin remember? If we took the the same attitude toward pride we would have empty churches.
Just to clear up a few things:
1) I'm not arguing that Christians should approve of homosexuality. If that's what the Bible says, you guys can go ahead and keep believing it.
2) I support business owners exercising their free speech and expressing their beliefs that homosexual activity is wrong. I just think refusing to do business with homosexuals is the wrong way to express those beliefs.
3) I don't think the Bible says you should be racist. But actually, I don't think anti-homosexual attitudes really come from the Bible either. Both racists and anti-homosexual people are reacting to their gut feelings, and their psychology, and their upbringing.
When you guys say the comparison is invalid, I guess you mean racism is a gut feeling whereas anti-homosexual policy is a matter of conscience. And so I guess I don't think that's a real difference.
John: "I just think refusing to do business with homosexuals"
I don't know anyone who wouldn't do business with them, nor have I heard of such people. What I have heard of, is people who do not want to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, which is an entirely different matter.
Legion +2
Moore 0
What I have heard of, is people who do not want to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, which is an entirely different matter.
Putting together a cake is not participating in a marriage ceremony.
>> "Putting together a cake is not participating in a marriage ceremony."
Of course. It's also worth mentioning that making an AR-15 is not participating in a shooting.
SteveK,
So? What's your point?
Post a Comment