April 19, 2016

"SNL's trailer, titled 'God is a Boob Man,' spoofs the just-released 'God's Not Dead 2'...."

WaPo explains... and I needed that explanation. I'd never even heard of "God's Not Dead 1." So... now I'm prompted to blog that SNL spoof, which you may have seen:



And here's the "God's Not Dead 2" trailer:



WaPo's columnist, Amber Phillips, says:
"God's Not Dead 2" is a sequel to the hit 2014 movie where a Christian college student defends his faith against a liberal philosophy professor. The wildly successful movie made $62 million off just a $2 million budget.

Reaction to SNL's skit was pretty much what you'd expect it to be — either positive or negative, with hardly anything in between. Religious protections vs. gay rights is the social battle of the moment right now as lawmakers grapple with how to govern around a changing definition of marriage and family — against some people's wishes. And as such, there is hardly any gray area for either side to find common ground.
My wistful dream is that the common ground would be arrived at through an understanding the law of the First Amendment — Free Speech, Free Exercise, and the Establishment Clause — and the various controversies that courts and legislatures have worked through over the years. I get a hopeless, sick feeling seeing pop culture material like the 2 videos I've embedded, which I think have a great effect on how people think about legal issues, which I do sometimes take the time to try to explain here. The "SNL" thing mocks what "God's Not Dead 2" presents with melodramatic seriousness. Both are funny in their own way but also annoying if you actually care about the problems of religious freedom, which involve coordinating a lot of conflicting interests and could benefit from more open-minded, educated thinking from the citizenry. But the entertainment industry takes advantage of the existing conflicts and ignorance and, for its own benefit, further hardens minds and separates people.

And I'd just like to add that I can't believe writers of a courtroom drama stoop to the level of having a judge tell a lawyer that he's holding him "in contempt" and the lawyer accepting the charge because he, in fact, feels contempt. I guess there's always somebody hearing that hoary riposte for the first time.

237 comments:

1 – 200 of 237   Newer›   Newest»
David Begley said...

Those two videos perfectly capture the nature and magnitude of the divide in America today.

rhhardin said...

Freedom of association was where the SC screwed up, leading to the idiotic idea that you can be forced to bake cakes unless you believe in God.

Freedom of association ought to have been upheld except in monopoly markets or in cases of state-enforced violence. It makes no sense in competitive markets. Find another baker.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

The reason they won't bake cakes is that they're in the wedding business and that's not a wedding.

Robert Cook said...

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I can't believe the charming "Clarissa Explains It All" Melissa Joan Hart is appearing in such hacky dreck!

(Well...an ex-teen starlet has to eat, I guess.)

Phil 3:14 said...

A Christian movie reviewer discusses Christian movies.

Robert Cook said...

"The reason they won't bake cakes is that they're in the wedding business and that's not a wedding."

Aren't they in the cake business? If a customer asks for a birthday or an anniversary cake, the cake-maker will say "Nay...get thee hence!"?

And, yes, a gay wedding is a wedding, your biases notwithstanding.

Robert Cook said...

@Phil 3:14:

I should certainly hope there are many Christians who dislike "Christian" movies. Although I am not a Christian or a believer in God, (though I was raised in the Episcopal Church), I know there are many thoughtful Christians who see and experience in their faith much more than the primitive ahistoricism and childish emotionality of those to whom the stereotypical Christian movies (i.e., "Christians are the most persecuted people in the world!") appeal. Such movies are really just crude Christ-porn or super-hero movies for evangelicals.

David Begley said...

SNL skit, "I want to deny basic goods and services to gay people."

And that's how the Left thinks about this wedding cake thing.

David Begley said...

The line "Christians are the most persecuted people in the world" captures both the victim and David v Goliath narratives. Also not too far from the truth considering the motivation of the Islamists.

Tank said...

And I'd just like to add that I can't believe writers of a courtroom drama stoop to the level of having a judge tell a lawyer that he's holding him "in contempt" and the lawyer accepting the charge because he, in fact, feels contempt. I guess there's always somebody hearing that hoary riposte for the first time.

Ha. I fairly often do "feel" contempt when I'm in Court. Well, for 33 years I've managed to keep my mouth shut; if I can make it a few more months, I can retire without ever having been thrown in jail or being fined for contempt. That's my new goal. It's not as easy as you might think.

David Begley said...

Undeniable that the Left wants to re-educate the masses and get their minds right. Think in the approved way or else!

sean said...

"My wistful dream is that the common ground would be arrived at through an understanding the law of the First Amendment."

Okay, that is not going to happen. It would be nice if supporters of gay marriage like Prof. Althouse had the honesty to say, "The result of our crusade is to trample other people's religious freedom. The First Amendment does not protect the rights of people who don't believe in gay marriage. Our assurances that it would were false, and we admit it."

paminwi said...

Free speech for the lefties in this world is: "shut up you moron! You don't believe like me so therefore you must be silenced."

Just look at what is happening on college campuses these days.

I may head off to the Jesus Lunch today with a support sign just to piss the leftists in Middleton off!

MarkW said...

"Aren't they in the cake business?"

Sure. But it's also a business that involves expression of ideas (as do all design businesses). But even for non-expressive businesses accepting work from a client suggests at least a tacit approval or at least acceptance of the customer and, potentially, his activities. Would you allow a gay baker to turn down the job of making a cake for, say, a prominent anti-gay-marriage opponent? What about a progressive plumber who wanted to decline to work on the house of a hedge fund manager or coal company CEO?

Owen said...

Robert Cook: '"The reason they won't bake cakes is that they're in the wedding business and that's not a wedding."
Aren't they in the cake business? If a customer asks for a birthday or an anniversary cake, the cake-maker will say "Nay...get thee hence!"?'

So Robert, in what business is the Muslim baker?

Basil said...

Professor, your sentiments of today are beautifully expressed and heartfelt. What is puzzling is your seeming inability to get outside your cultural cocoon and see that the left progressive movement intends to completely eradicate the First Amendment.

Animal Farm is not a cautionary tale to these folks, it is a how to book. Life is too short and precious to be lived in the grip of this thinking.

People who make fun of religious people for profit and for political expediency are, simply put, mean people. The problem is that so many soft leftists, like yourself, seem unable to call them mean people, even when it is obvious.

The Tina Feys and Amy Schulers of the world are mean people.

The folks who made the God is Not Dead movies are not mean people. They just want to follow their religion, which, unlike another religion, does require them to not convert by force.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

My wistful dream is that the common ground would be arrived at through an understanding the law of the First Amendment — Free Speech, Free Exercise, and the Establishment Clause...

I would add a through understanding of freedom to that list. A basic assumption that people are free to do as they wish unless there is a compelling government interest in prohibiting/requiring some behavior. ( Along with constitutional authority to do so. )

I think you have such an interest in non-discrimination in, for example, medical care. You have it to a lesser extent in lodging and dining. That interest is not as strong as it used to be since the internet gives travelers much more information they can use when planning their travels. But still, if your car breaks down then you need food and lodging ( and auto repair ) where you are, not where you planned to be.

On the other hand, nobody needs a wedding cake, or photographer, or flower arrangement, let alone needing them on short notice.

Ann Althouse said...

"Robert Cook: '"The reason they won't bake cakes is that they're in the wedding business and that's not a wedding." Aren't they in the cake business? If a customer asks for a birthday or an anniversary cake, the cake-maker will say "Nay...get thee hence!"?'"

To make this a good analogy, assume the customer wants a birthday cake with a number of years stated on it and the cake decorator believes or even knows that the person who is to be celebrated is actually a different age and doesn't want to be implicated in a lie.

Bob Ellison said...

I saw the SNL skit yesterday and didn't get it at all. Where's the funny, I wondered. Now I get it: they're poking at a Christian movie that nobody's heard of.

A Christian movie that will probably net $50m, especially after this.

Ann Althouse said...

"I would add a through understanding of freedom to that list. A basic assumption that people are free to do as they wish unless there is a compelling government interest in prohibiting/requiring some behavior."

I'm not adding that because then you are getting into wider libertarian questions that exclude a lot of regulation that we don't have to argue about here. I think most Americans do not want to go back to a time when a privately owned business had the option to refuse to serve black people. You may think freedom should extend to that decision, but I think this nation has worked through that problem and committed to the idea that businesses can be deprived of this option.

Ann Althouse said...

Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality.

campy said...

"I can't believe writers of a courtroom drama stoop to the level of having a judge tell a lawyer that he's holding him "in contempt" and the lawyer accepting the charge because he, in fact, feels contempt."

My favorite:

Judge says "Are you trying to show your contempt for this court?"

Lawyer replies, "No Your Honor, I'm trying to conceal it."

David Begley said...

From the SNL skit, "Gays are the most powerful force in America."

Without an election, the gay lobby changed the definition of marriage for 330 million people and how it existed since the beginning of history. Who can argue with the fact that the gay lobby is extremely powerful?

Tank said...

Ann Althouse said...

Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality.


Well, it's equality or freedom.

Pick one.

Apparently you have (or you could say you're just being a professor; but, no. I think you've chosen).

Anglelyne said...

Both are funny in their own way but also annoying if you actually care about the problems of religious freedom, which involve coordinating a lot of conflicting interests and could benefit from more open-minded, educated thinking from the citizenry. But the entertainment industry takes advantage of the existing conflicts and ignorance and, for its own benefit, further hardens minds and separates people.

The progressive's cure for everything: "education". ("Educate yourself!")

Part of which is, of course, the right propaganda - it's not that there are ever intractable divisions about "the way things ought to be". It's that wreckers "take advantage" of differences and use them to divide people. Who would be getting along swimmingly if it weren't for the wreckers.

Notice how often the word "divisiveness" is on the lips of Western leaders these days? It's freakin' everywhere. It's never X that divides people. It's the people "taking advantage" of X to "create divisiveness".

At the stage of cultural disintegration signified by this kind of political speech, "co-ordinating conflicting interests" has just become stomping on people to make them "get along".

Robert Cook said...

"So Robert, in what business is the Muslim baker?"

Uh...the baking business?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality

And that is precisely why this country is fucked. Yes, I'm bringing in libertarian principles, because they are the only way out of this mess we are in. Otherwise the federal government is nothing but a weapon to be wielded against people who don't think like you. And with such a powerful weapon up for grabs, people will go to great lengths to insure that they are the ones wielding it.

Curious George said...

"Robert Cook said...
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I can't believe the charming "Clarissa Explains It All" Melissa Joan Hart is appearing in such hacky dreck!

(Well...an ex-teen starlet has to eat, I guess.)"

Perfect example of your bias. But Hart is doing fine asswipe. Her net worth is estimated at $14 million. There is a simpler explanation. "Hart and her family are Christians. In an interview, she stated that they attend church every Sunday and pray every night and before every meal."

PB said...

Government would argue that requiring business to adhere to a principle of equality is based on a compelling interest, even if that interest is upholding constitutional rights..

But where can the line be drawn? Can a baker refuse to draw a word or picture on a cake they deem offensive? What commerce can be refused? What are the limits to government forcing people to engage in commerce they otherwise wouldn't engage in? It's problematic because government constantly increases is efforts to tell people what to do, what not to do.

Robert Cook said...

@Curious George:

It's all fine and well that Ms. Hart is a Christian. But does she have to have such poor taste?

(I know she's quite well off, by the way. Sometimes a joke is just a joke, bud.)

CachorroQuente said...

" Would you allow a gay baker to turn down the job of making a cake for, say, a prominent anti-gay-marriage opponent? What about a progressive plumber who wanted to decline to work on the house of a hedge fund manager or coal company CEO?"

Of course. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of any factor for which discrimination is not outlawed. You can discriminate on the basis of politics, for example. You can discriminate against lawyers (if you dare), Cubs fans, Democrats, billionares, and pug dog owners -- assuming that discrimination in such cases is not outlawed. You might even be able to discriminate against gay advocates of homosexual marriage on the basis of their political views though likely not if you were using political views as a proxy for a characteristic for which discrimination is forbidden. In many areas of the country, you can probably discriminate against gays for being gay, if you like.

Clayton Hennesey said...

There's really no reason other than the cost of doing so not to target known gay-owned businesses in a similar, reciprocal manner, and such a financial cost is simply the price of doing politics these days. Line up the money and get started.

Eventually, given a large enough reciprocal number of the sorts of targeted assaults that have picked Christian bakers and florists out of the general marketplace for example-making, a large number of gay-owned businesses would be similarly wounded, after which everyone could then sit down and have a nice chat.

Let's remember, Jeb Bush only cost $100 million or so. Freedom of association might easily cost a lot less. But continuing to bring a wedding cake to a gun fight is surely not the way to go.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I'm guessing that there are very few physics professors who see anything worth taking umbrage at in The Big Bang Theory.

An inconsistency that bugged me was in that episode where Sheldon got all excited to go to Switzerland to see the LHC after it had already been established that he disdains experimental physics.

I tell myself that I have to let go of inessential annoyances like that, if I'm ever going to get something useful out of watching sitcoms on television.

Michael K said...

"I think most Americans do not want to go back to a time when a privately owned business had the option to refuse to serve black people."

It's interesting that even Ann does not get the issue.This has NOTHING to do with serving or not serving black people.

I assume as a well read person with an interest, you are aware that the lesbian couple were long time customers of the bakery which had NEVER declined service to them. Because they "liked" the bakery, the lesbians asked them to bake a wedding cake. The bakery politely declined because of their religion. The lesbians then SUED the bakery and destroyed them.

I expect Cook to be a dullard in these issues. I am a bit surprised at your blindness. I know your emotional attachment but you should still be able to see how ridiculous your example is.

Lets say a black couple want a bakery to make a cake with the words, "Lets kill all the white people." These days, that is a perfectly reasonable sentiment for a black "activist."

Still with me ?

robother said...

Satire and open contempt for religious beliefs and icons are primal weapons. They signal to the children and the vulnerable what must be abandoned if you desire success and fear social death. The new religion, the worldview of those who control access to wealth and status in Western Society, is hedonistic materialism.

The respectful religious tolerance Ann wistfully recalls was merely a temporary expedient. The dominant anti-spiritual culture now has weaponized Tolerance of the Other (Muslims, gays transsexuals) to search out and destroy the livelihoods and social viability of any sincere believers. Materialism is in the mop-up stages of its conquest.

Sebastian said...

"I can't believe writers of a courtroom drama stoop to the level" Ah, another "I can't believe." Just missing the "Why would they?" And the "Whoa!"

"What is puzzling is your seeming inability to get outside your cultural cocoon and see that the left progressive movement intends to completely eradicate the First Amendment." Correct in essence, but not puzzling, and not a "seeming inability."

cubanbob said...

Ann Althouse said...
Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality.

4/19/16, 8:05 AM"

Just for "fun" suppose the infamous Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church (many of whom are lawyers) decides to hire a gay baker to bake a wedding cake with "God Hates Fags" written on the icing.

Robert Cook said...

"I expect Cook to be a dullard in these issues."

Heh. You don't even know what I think about this issue.

CarlF said...

Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality.

That is why I cannot understand why my local daily newspaper (Gannett Corporation, a $17 billion multi-national business) can endorse a Democrat without also endorsing the Republican. Yet, the Obama administration does not compel that. I assume the Professor will support Trump so Republican presidential endorsements can be compelled.

Unknown said...

"Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality."

What a silly thing to say. We (you and I) do not agree on what "principle of equality" means -- in my book you (or anyone else for that matter) do not get to make any choice you want and force other people to support that choice regardless of their personal or religious beliefs. Or undercut the choice either, except by non-participation/-association.

Yeah, this is the 20th century and yeah, the Constitution is old and faded, but nothing to do with sex (except maybe the guy who decided he is a lesbian dragon) is new. And I don't support the lesbian dragon guy or the woman who "married" a rock and will not bake a cake, take a photograph, or paint a portrait to help them celebrate holy matrimony. They can play if they want, that's their privilege and mine is to not participate. Even if I run a business (see the signs, "We reserve the right..." and "no shoes, no shirt, no service").

The Constitution set ground rules about specific things like religion and guns that were agreed on at the time, and added things like race and sex when it became an issue that nation decided to grapple with. Redefining sex and marriage instead of revising the Constitution is a cute way to defeat the enemy, but way outside common sense and it unlinks government and "the people." The government of the people, by the people, and for the people is lost when the people are neither represented in its laws and application nor given a voice in deciding how the government will act. If you can get gay marriage explicitly into the Constitution, I'll accept it as a State sanctioned contractual arrangement (rendering unto Caesar) BUT I don't think it will ever happen because homosexuality is CLEARLY against the black and white words in the original language of the Holy Scriptures ascribed to by a large majority (Bible and Koran).

The fact that making something a protected and legal choice is not likely to happen while you think should does not justify redefining terminology so that the old faded Constitution can be stretched to make other people honor and support your choices.

Sorry about the rant.

rhhardin said...

If a baker refuses to serve black people, that's more money for other bakers.

Bob Ellison said...

Ann Althouse said, "Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality."

Why do you say this? It seems like a moral statement, something stronger than laws.

I think you're wrong. Government doesn't need a goddamned thing. That's not just a writing problem. We do need government, but not to enforce equality.

Mike said...

Wait a minute, Althouse. Are you saying lawyers don't yell at judges and say things like, "I'm out of order? YOU'RE out of order!"? TV is such an unreliable education device, I guess.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Unknown said...

Yeah, this is the 20th century...

You might want to set your clock ahead by about 15 years.

bagoh20 said...

Where is this government that adheres to principles, because I could swear we have some written down someplace?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

bagoh20 said...

Where is this government that adheres to principles, because I could swear we have some written down someplace?

Not those principles.

Michael K said...

"You don't even know what I think about this issue."

You proclaim it proudly here every day.

"It's all fine and well that Ms. Hart is a Christian. But does she have to have such poor taste?"

Do you mean you are lying?

I don;t care about gay marriage. I still think it is a fad coming out of the AIDS crisis. Still, gays can get "married" if they want to. Just don;t make it a killing offense to decline to participate.

The backlash is coming and boy is it going to be fun to watch.

Gahrie said...

But the Progressives takes advantage of the existing conflicts and ignorance and, for its own benefit, further hardens minds and separates people.

bagoh20 said...

"If a baker refuses to serve black people, that's more money for other bakers."

But that would encourage and reward tolerance. It's just not the kind of thing that gets progressives excited like use of force and punishing...oh, sweet punishment.

Gahrie said...

To make this a good analogy, assume the customer wants a birthday cake with a number of years stated on it and the cake decorator believes or even knows that the person who is to be celebrated is actually a different age and doesn't want to be implicated in a lie.

????

There is nothing political or religious about lying about your age.

Gahrie said...

Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality

Really?

I bet you wouldn't agree that government does not need a compelling interest to ban abortion....even though it has one in protecting the lives of the unborn.

Robert Cook said...

"You proclaim it proudly here every day."

Oh? Quote back to me what I've said about this particular issue.

"'It's all fine and well that Ms. Hart is a Christian. But does she have to have such poor taste?'

"Do you mean you are lying?"


My regret at Melissa Joan Hart's poor taste in movies she chooses to participate in is hardly revelatory of any particular view I may have on other issues.

Gahrie said...

Without an election, the gay lobby changed the definition of marriage for 330 million people and how it existed since the beginning of history. Who can argue with the fact that the gay lobby is extremely powerful?

It is worse than that....they defied and overturned elections and the will of the people and imposed gay marriage on us through the courts.

bagoh20 said...

The better analogy would be if the gay baker was asked to make a cake that said: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean that's just to much writing for a cake, and it should be refused.

Gahrie said...

Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality

So...can the government force Michael Moore to show his movie in North Carolina?

CachorroQuente said...

"Just for "fun" suppose the infamous Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church (many of whom are lawyers) decides to hire a gay baker to bake a wedding cake with "God Hates Fags" written on the icing. "

If the baker is in the business of making "God Hates Fags" cakes and refuses to bake for the Phelps people because of the Phelps's religion, then, the baker is screwed. If the "God Hates Fags" baker desires to discriminate because the Phelps people are lawyers, probably OK. If the baker refuses to bake a cake with an offensive message because the message is offensive, that's probably ok, too, regardless of the characteristics of the purchaser.

The problem, as I understand it, with the bakers and the florists and the photographic studio owners is not that they are refusing to do something which is extraordinary; they are refusing to provide their ordinary and customary products/services to people because those people are members of groups of which they disapprove when members of those groups are protected by statute from discrimination based on their group membership.

Clayton Hennesey said...

Why is Bruce Springsteen free not to create a product for people he disagrees with - in North Carolina, after previously contracting to do so - but the Christian photographer is not similarly free not to create a product for people they might disagree with?

Surely a principle of equality with respect to compelled speech would apply here, and thus surely it would then be one government would want to enforce equally.

Why should the government not force all recent creative merchants who have announced their intentions to discriminate against the citizens of NC and MS on the basis of those citizens' particular places of residence and presumed beliefs to produce the services currently being withheld or to face monetary damages under law?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

CachorroQuente said...

The problem, as I understand it,...

Then you don't understand it. The bakers are not refusing based on their membership in a group. They are refusing based on the activity they are doing. If a gay man was marrying a lesbian woman, the baker would happily bake them a cake.

CachorroQuente said...

"So...can the government force Michael Moore to show his movie in North Carolina?"

I think so. If Congress and the president enacted a statute forbidding motion picture showers from discriminating among the states, that might work.

Michael K said...

"they are refusing to provide their ordinary and customary products/services to people because those people are members of groups of which they disapprove "

Not true. Ignorance is Bliss said it above.

The lesbians who destroyed the bakery were REGULAR CUSTOMERS but the bakery owners declined ONLY the request for the wedding cake.

Gahrie said...

The problem, as I understand it, with the bakers and the florists and the photographic studio owners is not that they are refusing to do something which is extraordinary; they are refusing to provide their ordinary and customary products/services to people because those people are members of groups of which they disapprove when members of those groups are protected by statute from discrimination based on their group membership.

You are misunderstanding the issue...perhaps deliberately as apparently Althouse is.

Go read Michael K's post at 8:32.

Gahrie said...

Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality

After some thought, I have concluded that this is probably the most fascistic thing I have ever seen posted on this blog.

CachorroQuente said...

"Then you don't understand it. The bakers are not refusing based on their membership in a group. They are refusing based on the activity they are doing. If a gay man was marrying a lesbian woman, the baker would happily bake them a cake."

You shouldn't be surprised to learn that I think you are wrong. But, that's not important. What is important is that the states and local governments that enforce these laws against the discriminating bakers, photographic studio owners, florists, et al think you are wrong. They say that the discrimination is based on sex and status.

mccullough said...

I thought we had moved to the bathroom battles phase of the culture war. The religious liberty vs public accommodations laws has sort of settled down in a tie these days. Hobby Lobby won its case against the federal government and the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have lost their religious liberty cases under state public accomodation laws.

Meanwhile, more Muslims keep moving to the US.

CachorroQuente said...

"The lesbians who destroyed the bakery were REGULAR CUSTOMERS but the bakery owners declined ONLY the request for the wedding cake."

The request for the wedding cake was declined because the customers were lesbians.

Gahrie said...

You shouldn't be surprised to learn that I think you are wrong.

Nope. I'm not surprised you continue to ignore the inconvenient facts of the case either..that's pretty common among the SJW crowd. I bet you marched around shouting "hands up don't shoot" also.

They say that the discrimination is based on sex and status.

People also say that Bruce Jenner is a woman..that doesn't make it true.

Curious George said...

"Gahrie said...
It is worse than that....they defied and overturned elections and the will of the people and imposed gay marriage on us through the courts."

Reminds me of a person from Iowa who said "I am so proud of my state" when gays could marry. I informed him that the citizens of the state of Iowa had rejected SSM by a large majority every chance they had, and recent polling had showed nothing had changed. Nope, their Supreme Court ruled.

Gahrie said...

The request for the wedding cake was declined because the customers were lesbians.

Wrong. The request for the wedding cake was declined because it was for a gay wedding. If the lesbians had ordered a wedding cake for the marriage of two of their straight friends, the bakery would have happily made it.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Christian Movie's message: We feel that our ability to express our beliefs in the public sphere is being constrained by societal forces that despise us and our message and people in authority are trying to marginalize us.

SNL's response: Look at those dumb ass hicks. Oh, and Gaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyssssssssss!

Michael said...

Mae West on the contempt issue:

Judge: Are you trying to show contempt for this court?
West: No, your honor. I'm attempting to conceal it.

Gahrie said...

Gay marriage is one more example of the Establishment elites overthrowing or ignoring the will of the people, and had a role in creating the candidacy of Trump.

CachorroQuente said...

"Go read Michael K's post at 8:32."

I had read K's post before I made mine. He has an emotional inability to understand the situation. The baker refused to bake a very ordinary wedding cake because the people that wanted him to bake it are lesbians. The law in that jurisdiction forbids discriminating against lesbians when offering wedding cake baking services to the public. It's really quite simple and straight forward.

Robert Cook said...

"...the citizens of the state of Iowa had rejected SSM by a large majority every chance they had, and recent polling had showed nothing had changed. Nope, their Supreme Court ruled."

And the Supreme Court ruled correctly. We do not have a direct democracy, and the Constitution provides that, while we are (purportedly) a self-governing people, the rights of the minority are to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. As Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address:

"All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression."

Which is to say, even if a majority of the citizens of Iowa reject same sex marriage, under the Constitution, gay citizens do have the right to marry. This is not a matter of someone's religious rights or beliefs being trampled upon, but a matter of equal civil rights for persons who are citizens of this country.

MarkW said...

"You can discriminate on the basis of politics, for example. "

Well, yes, but the bakers weren't refusing to sell cakes to gay customers because they were gay. In fact they weren't refusing to sell to gay customers at all -- they were only refusing to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding. And they would presumably have refused to make the cake if the customer wasn't gay (e.g. one of the parents of the couple was buying the cake). The refusal WAS political (as, of course, was the scorched earth response).

CachorroQuente said...

"Nope. I'm not surprised you continue to ignore the inconvenient facts of the case either..that's pretty common among the SJW crowd. I bet you marched around shouting "hands up don't shoot" also."

You are so predictable.

Because I understand how the law was applied, I must be a "SJW" who marches around shouting "hands up don't shoot." Even though I have expressed no opinion about anything involving these gay public accommodation cases behind explaining the rationale. Jesus Christ on a fucking Ritz cracker.

Robert Cook said...

"Christian Movie's message: We feel that our ability to express our beliefs in the public sphere is being constrained by societal forces that despise us and our message and people in authority are trying to marginalize us.

"SNL's response: Look at those dumb ass hicks. Oh, and Gaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyssssssssss!"


Maybe. I can't say what SNL's writers thoughts were. For me, it's more a matter of ridiculing hacky, self-pitying, comic book-level black/white storytelling. One can make a thoughtful and complex drama out of any social issue; one can also make a stupid, pandering melodrama out of any social issue. Whatever the subject matter, stupid and pandering melodramas are always fair game for ridicule.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Robert Cook said...

...under the Constitution, gay citizens do have the right to marry...

And always have, and that was never disputed.

The only thing that was disputed was if they could marry someone of the same sex, which of course, they logically couldn't, because it didn't meet the definition of marriage. Straight people couldn't marry people of the same sex either, and for the same reason.

TreeJoe said...

A long-standing small business - or any business - practice in this and just about every country is the concept that the proprietor may decline to do business with any person for any reason. That's been abbreviated in that they may not decline to do business with someone because of certain characteristics like gender and ethnicity - which I get.

But the cake saga crosses the line, because it forces not a service (provision of a cake) but an expression by the owner on the cake(gay wedding). The cake maker did not decline to provide a cake, or to provide many variations of a cake, but instead declined to provide a specific variation of a cake that the law said the cakemaker must provide.

That is a terrible precedent in a society premised upon freedom of expression. Should a Jewish cake maker make a cake celebrating a local Nazi chapter's annniversary? Cakes must now be made to celebrate polygamists, satanists, or perhaps just offensive imagery.

If that's NOT the standard meant to be set here, then this is simply catering to a special group of individuals

Gahrie said...

You are so predictable.

I notice you never denied it.

CachorroQuente said...

" they were only refusing to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding"

Cakes don't celebrate gay weddings, or anything else.

Bakeries are in the business of selling baked goods, not in the business of celebrating.

Gahrie said...

He has an emotional inability to understand the situation.

Can you say projection?

CachorroQuente said...

"I notice you never denied it."

Denied what? You expect someone to deny the asinine allegations of a known witling?

Gahrie said...

Cakes don't celebrate gay weddings, or anything else.

You can't really be this ignorant...the whole point of buying a cake for an event is to celebrate that event!

That is why you don't buy wedding cakes for birthdays, and birthday cakes for weddings.

Gahrie said...

Denied what? You expect someone to deny the asinine allegations of a known witling?

Nope..I expect you to continue forcing your agenda on an unwilling people.

rehajm said...

Have SNL's ratings fallen low enough to join shows like The View that exist only to spew the puss of liberalism to have it reported on the MSN and Yahoo! homepages as news?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Even though I have expressed no opinion about anything involving these gay public accommodation cases behind explaining the rationale.

That's because everybody knows the rational. That there are laws penalizing businesses and their owners for refusing to provide goods or services to gays, including goods and services that are contrary to the business owner's beliefs (for instance, baking a cake for a gay wedding) is not in dispute. Whether those laws should exist is what is in dispute.

"To bad Larry was killed when Jack pushed that boulder of a cliff and it fell on him."

"Well what did you expect? E = -mMG/r + mcv = -mu/r + mcv"

CachorroQuente said...

"Can you say projection?"

A touch facile, don't you think? No, I suppose you don't.

Michael K said...

"He has an emotional inability to understand the situation."

Yes, back in the days when I was young they called it "logic" which has gone out of style.

"Bakeries are in the business of selling baked goods, not in the business of celebrating."

No, ordinary baked goods were not being requested. I don't know the exact words that were used to request the cake but everything I have read about the couple suggests they are very tolerant and were set up by two lesbians who wanted to make a statement. Sort of like the TV reporter who trapped the pizza parlor into saying they would not bake a wedding pizza.

This is a game to the weirdos. Find somebody religious and fart in their face and ask if they smell anything. Then sue.

The backlash is coming and it will be awesome.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

this is simply catering to a special group of individuals

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

CachorroQuente said...

"Nope..I expect you to continue forcing your agenda on an unwilling people."

And, what agenda do you suppose I have adopted and how is it, exactly, that I am forcing that agenda on anyone? All I have done is explain to some how public accommodation laws are being applied in some jurisdictions. That's not advocacy of any agenda and it certainly is not an attempt to force anyone to accept any agenda.

Robert Cook said...

"'...under the Constitution, gay citizens do have the right to marry...'

"And always have, and that was never disputed.

"The only thing that was disputed was if they could marry someone of the same sex, which of course, they logically couldn't, because it didn't meet the definition of marriage. Straight people couldn't marry people of the same sex either, and for the same reason."


Ignorance is Bliss...don't be stupidly pedantic and say things that may make others think your nom de blog is literally true.

What is this "definition of marriage" you refer to? That marriage is a union of man and woman? That's certainly included, but where is it written in adamantium that it may only be a union of man and woman? All social customs are provisional, always changing gradually or suddenly--as social mores change--and there has been no convincing or sensible reason put forth that justifies the prohibition of same sex partners from marrying each other.

Gahrie said...

This is a game to the weirdos. Find somebody religious and fart in their face and ask if they smell anything. Then sue.

Close.

Find someone Christian and .......

CachorroQuente said...

" Whether those laws should exist is what is in dispute."

That is not an argument which I have engaged. Those laws exist and they are being enforced.

Gahrie said...

That is not an argument which I have engaged. Those laws exist and they are being enforced.

Get back to me when they start suing the Muslim bakeries......

Gahrie said...

All social customs are provisional, always changing gradually or suddenly--as social mores change--

Four legs good...two legs better.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said... Ann Althouse said...
Government doesn't need a compelling interest to require businesses to adhere to a principle of equality.


Sure, and since there's no dispute over what that principle actually means (in practice) nor about what "adherence" to it actually requires, there's no problem at all. Oh, wait.

You correctly point out that the problem, legally, is a tricky balancing between competing rights and duties and assert that the polemical side-taking obscures the thorny issues and ossifies positions needlessly, making compromise & understanding more difficult than they need to be. Well said. To then turn around and question beg by using this statement as a rebuttal seems to undercut that sentiment, Professor.

Who gets to define that principle and who gets to enforce adherence? Seems like it matters quite a lot...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I, for one, am glad no one's complaining here that the Right doesn't get any respect in the Media. Think of how tiresome it would be to say that in relation to this story!

Steve M. Galbraith said...

My wistful dream is that the common ground would be arrived at through an understanding the law of the First Amendment

Yes, but who - today - refuses to find a middle ground or an area where we can work out, as best as possible, these conflicts? These rights are in conflict as they would be in a diverse pluralistic society like ours. So we try to muddle through and balance them out. Each side, then, has to give a little.

But again which side refuses to give?

If the RFRA was being voted upon today in Congress not a single leading Democrat would support it? And if it passed President Obama would veto it.

The problem here - today - is the cultural left. They simply will not compromise on this.

Robert Cook said...

"Without an election, the gay lobby changed the definition of marriage for 330 million people and how it existed since the beginning of history."

Maybe you shouldn't assume that the customary practices of a culture familiar to you in a tiny slice of historical time are the continuation of the practices of every world culture in all previous historical eras.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Robert Cook said...

All social customs are provisional, always changing gradually or suddenly--as social mores change--and there has been no convincing or sensible reason put forth that justifies the prohibition of same sex partners from marrying each other.

I absolutely agree that society can change the definition of marriage if it so wishes. But the courts have no authority to do so.

Gahrie said...

Bolshie Bobby:

As your link clearly points out, same sex relationships were NOT marriages, but instead unions and other forms of legal relationships that were explicitly separate from marriage.

Yes there were exceptions among the rich and powerful..but then there always is.

Many of us who are opposed to gay marriage (especially when it is forced upon us by the courts) have no problem with gay unions.

Robert Cook said...

"I absolutely agree that society can change the definition of marriage if it so wishes. But the courts have no authority to do so."

If the Supreme Court finds that laws prohibiting same sex partners from the right to legally marry each other violate the Constitution, it does have that authority.

CachorroQuente said...


"The backlash is coming and it will be awesome."

Dream on.

dreams said...

Real cutting edge to go after Christians. Don't try that with the Muslims, they won't.

Robert Cook said...

"Many of us who are opposed to gay marriage (especially when it is forced upon us by the courts) have no problem with gay unions."

That's mighty tolerant of you...if logically incoherent.

CachorroQuente said...

"Get back to me when they start suing the Muslim bakeries......"

What sort of an argument is that? Existing laws against discrimination shouldn't be enforced because Muslim bakeries? Is there any reason to believe that if Muslim owned bakeries discriminate that the law will not be enforced?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Robert Cook said...Maybe you shouldn't assume that the customary practices of a culture familiar to you in a tiny slice of historical time are the continuation of the practices of every world culture in all previous historical eras.

You know, Robert, for most of human history it was more or less ok to smash someone's head with a rock any time they ticked you off. I mean, most societies made allowances for people straight up murdering each other for little to no reason (and of course also raping women, stealing goods, killing kids, etc). We don't allow that any more, of course, but that's a relatively recent thing. And hey, societies change, right? Who's to say that one way of living is any better than another, really? If enough people decide that they don't mind living in a society where it's perfectly normal to, say, murder someone you happen to disagree with, well that's just how it goes I guess.

It's fair to point out that certain arrangements are relatively new w/r/t the timeline of human existence. If that makes you conclude that any social arrangements we have at any time aren't meaningful or worthy of some respect, hey, congratulations on your Progressivism, but you might want to think about what changes the great unwashed masses might actually make if they embraced your idea of the impermanence of mores and social customs. Hell, "western civilization" is just a recent aberration...

Big Mike said...

Is there any reason to believe that if Muslim owned bakeries discriminate that the law will not be enforced?

Yes.

Curious George said...

"Robert Cook said...
"I absolutely agree that society can change the definition of marriage if it so wishes. But the courts have no authority to do so."

If the Supreme Court finds that laws prohibiting same sex partners from the right to legally marry each other violate the Constitution, it does have that authority."

What was that huge roar of applause I just heard? It sounded like it was coming from Utah...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

CachorroQuente said...Is there any reason to believe that if Muslim owned bakeries discriminate that the law will not be enforced?

Yes, CachorroQuente, yes there is. You know there is.
Rotherham. Rotherman, dude. The authorities demonstrably won't enforce laws against RAPING CHILDREN if that enforcement might cause them to be accused of racism or ethnic bigotry. You think they'll risk their reputations and careers over something like an anti-discrimination law?

It's fine and dandy to say you support equality and equal treatment under the law. It's not fine to pretend, despite copious evidence to the contrary, that the law is applied equally when it in fact is not.

That's the whole argument the Left keeps making w/r/t black men, by the way! The Left insists the law is applied unequally all the time, but now wants to argue that Christians are getting equal treatment (and not being targeted) because, after all, the law as written requires equal treatment? That's a bit much, no?

Gahrie said...

Is there any reason to believe that if Muslim owned bakeries discriminate that the law will not be enforced?

I don't know...why don't we ask the young girls of Rotherham?

FullMoon said...

Ya know, there are actually religious people who seriously believe that committing a "sin" will deny them entry into "heaven". That is the driving force behind the refusals/ The baker, florist or photographer are not rich or powerful enough to fight these battles. On a human level, they are literally afraid committing sins may send them to hell. They also believe that doing everything in their power to remain sin free is the absolute right way to live and set a good example.It may be an ignorant, or superstitious belief, but there it is. I do not personally know people like that, but I have met many. The government is forcing them to commit a sin.

And, accusing these people of "hate" is fairly hilarious, coming from the most intolerant group on the scene today.

Gabriel said...

@Eric the Red:I'm guessing that there are very few physics professors who see anything worth taking umbrage at in The Big Bang Theory.

I haven't taken a poll, but I personally tolerate it as an affectionately-intended caricature; but I don't watch it and don't find it that funny.

I do not know how lawyers can stand to watch courtroom shows, or doctors can stand to watch medical dramas.

Birches said...

Has anyone watched The Grinder? Fantastic mockery of the courtroom drama.

Gahrie said...

"Many of us who are opposed to gay marriage (especially when it is forced upon us by the courts) have no problem with gay unions."

That's mighty tolerant of you...if logically incoherent.


It is perfectly logical and coherent. Words mean things. That is why the Marxist Left spends so much time trying to regulate the language, and what it is acceptable and unacceptable to say. It is why the gay rights movement was unwilling to accept the compromise of gay unions.

Birches said...

Hacking through this other discussion is getting tedious. Cachorro basically just looked at the sun and then said it was not shining. There is no way to convince someone like that.

Gabriel said...

@Robert Cook:If the Supreme Court finds that laws prohibiting same sex partners from the right to legally marry each other violate the Constitution, it does have that authority.

Huh? Not finding that in the Constitution. Nothing in there about striking down laws that violate the Constitution. That power was invented by the Supreme Court in 1803.

I do find, however, in Article III: the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

CachorroQuente said...

"I don't know...why don't we ask the young girls of Rotherham?"

What does that have to do with the enforcement of public accommodation laws in Oregon? What's wrong with you people?

Gabriel said...

@CachorrQuente: What does that have to do with the enforcement of public accommodation laws in Oregon?

Illustrates selective law enforcement depending on membership in protected classes.

Robert Cook said...

It's very typical that a person making easily understood and consistently logical statements here, (i.e., CachorroQuente), will be derided as denying that the sun shines by one whose ilk believe in hobgoblins and devils.

Robert Cook said...

Hoodlum Doodlum @ 10:50 AM: That's a lot of words, all to say...what?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

What a funny example, Robert Cook! I saw this yesterday:

Youtube: College Kids Can't Say a 5'9" White Man isn't a 6'5" Asian Woman

But by all means, tell yourself it's those OTHER people who deny objective reality..it's those OTHER people who hate logic and are too primitive to understand reality. Ooogah boogah!

Clayton Hennesey said...

Again, this is nothing that cannot be solved by the application of enough money and willpower. As the Attorney General of U.S. VI has amply demonstrated with respect to the CEI, the law is nothing if not a whore perfectly willing to perform delightful acts as a weapon of process so long as sufficient monies are left upon her vanity.

So creative acts like wedding cake baking (we also carry pre-baked, unadorned, DIY wedding cakes on the shelf; pick any one you like, very affordable) require contracts up front, including mandatory arbitration by a party chosen by baker, additional flat social notoriety cost of $5,000 equally applicable to any and all same-sex marriages; (which will no doubt disappear after several decades), etc.

In a word, aggressive de-marketing backed by costly legal process. Money and willpower, the same way telecomm firms are ridding themselves of land line customers by systematically pricing them away.

CachorroQuente said...

"Illustrates selective law enforcement depending on membership in protected classes."

Perfect Donald Trump logic.

Famous general says that American soldiers/agents shouldn't be expected to commit actions which will likely expose them to war crimes prosecution.

CIA chief says that if ordered by the President of the United States to order subordinates to commit war crimes that he will refuse.

Donald Trump replies, but they are cutting heads off in the middle east. They are drowning people in steel cages. How can you refuse to commit war crimes when our enemies are committing war crimes?

FullMoon said...

CachorroQuente said...

"Illustrates selective law enforcement depending on membership in protected classes."

Perfect Donald Trump logic.

Famous general says that American soldiers/agents shouldn't be expected to commit actions which will likely expose them to war crimes prosecution.

CIA chief says that if ordered by the President of the United States to order subordinates to commit war crimes that he will refuse.

Donald Trump replies, but they are cutting heads off in the middle east. They are drowning people in steel cages. How can you refuse to commit war crimes when our enemies are committing war crimes?

You lied


Actual Trump quote
“They chop off heads and they drown people in cages with 50 in a cage in big steel heavy cages, drop them right into the water, drown people and we can’t waterboard and we can’t do anything and we’re playing on different fields and we have a huge problem with ISIS, which we can’t beat. And the reason we can’t beat them is we won’t use strong tactics, whether it is this or other things. So, I think his comments are ridiculous. Can you imagine these ISIS people sitting around eating and talking about this country won’t allow waterboarding and they just chopped off 50 heads?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Robert Cook said...
Hoodlum Doodlum @ 10:50 AM: That's a lot of words, all to say...what?


To say your casual dismissal of tradition and lack of respect for the incredible prosperity our current mode of living has made possible (concurrent with your flippant dismissal of those current circumstances as unimportant/merely an historical accident) shows arrogance, condescension, and a lack of understanding of just how fragile societal norms can be. You dismiss the social traditions you dislike as outdated and give no consideration to people who cherish them (or, I guess, "cling to" them). My point is that your attitude is both pretentious ("oh, look at those backward cavemen with their silly ideas!") and dangerous--dangerous because once you convince everyone that social norms aren't important and we owe no allegiance to tradition, etc, there's no real restraint on what comes next.

Most of us don't view the Cultural Revolution as a good thing, Robert (you know, with the millions killed, the total upheaval and social destruction, the entrenching of power that it wrought, etc)...maybe you disagree.

CachorroQuente said...

No, fullmoon, I did not lie. I accurately characterized the Donald Trump quote.

Trump says:

"So, I think his comments are ridiculous. Can you imagine these ISIS people sitting around eating and talking about this country won’t allow waterboarding and they just chopped off 50 heads?"

People with military and CIA experience who understand the American experience with "enhanced interrogation" say that they will refuse orders likely, if obeyed, to result in war crimes prosecution and Donald Trump responds by pointing out that those with which we are at war are savages. Trump's response is just fucking stupid. Just as stupid as using Rotherham in the gay cake (and, who doesn't like their cake gay) argument.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Don't they have the ideal of equal treatment before the law in the UK, CachorroQuente? I think they do, on paper.
Does that ideal (on paper) translate into actual equal treatment?
No, as the example of Rotherham vividly illustrates, certain groups are treated differently. In fact, the very same group about which you asked was treated differently in the very same way you asked about (that is to say, Muslim people who violated the law were nevertheless not penalized/subjected to law enforecment action for a LONG time, if at all).
The laws being broken in that case, of course, were much more serious than what's under question in your hypothetical. The harm done was MUCH more severe, and yet the group was still given special treatment.

It's an example showing that although the law says all groups will be treated equally (w/r/t law enforcement), that's not the case in many instances. Pretty clear.

It's a straightforward example. You're welcome to argue "well that's the UK, it's different here" but it's still a good example countering your assertion that the law is (or will be) applied equally.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Do you want me to help? I can give some counter arguments/examples. What about the Catholic Church's abuse scandals? Were those covered up by law enforcement, swept under the rug by cops & judges, etc? Maybe! That's a good counter, but I'd then say "well that was true back then, the pendulum has swung the other way now" and we could go back and forth.

It'd still be true, though, that even with that example you would have demonstrated that the law often is not applied equally! It's not crazy to assume that Christian bakers (etc) who discriminate would be prosecuted but Muslim bakers (etc) who discriminate would not be. That's what was asserted, and you're treating it like it's wholly unsupported. It's not.

Hey, remember when all those papers ran the Danish cartoons showing the Prophet? I don't. That would have offended people, and the Media and Culture won't allow that. I mean, we wouldn't allow an entire religion to be mocked, that's insensitive. Ooh, unrelated: have you seen the musical Book of Mormon? Pretty funny stuff, am I right?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You're welcome to argue "well that's the UK, it's different here

He's not doing that. He is basically squirting out squid ink and trying to obscure the fact that he argued that Muslims that refused bake a cake for a gay wedding would be treated the same as Christians who did so.

Nobody believes that. But you are supposed to pretend you do. In his circle anyway.

Bruce Hayden said...

What is interesting to me is the Muslim angle. Last I heard, there was a running issue at the Minneapolis airport with Muslim (Somali) drivers refusing to drive drunk passengers, or those with booze. Something like that. Mohammed didn't like alcohol, and so it is apparently a Muslim sin to even associate or work with/for people using such. Something like that.

But, what do we do when Muslim bakers refuse to back gay wedding cakes? Or, even to keep their hands to themselves around (our) women? Despite now being about as numerous here as are Jews, they are an officially aggrieved and discriminated against minority, with apparently as much victim status as gays (and often more than women). And, they are apparently often rabidly, violently, anti-gay/homophobic. What do we do with their competing victimhoods (gays v. Muslims)? Who wins?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Requiring Muslims to provide services to gay weddings is Islamophobic.

Requiring Christians to provide services to gay weddings is standing up for the rights of a downtrodden minority against hateful bigots.

Four legs good. Two legs better.

CachorroQuente said...

"It's a straightforward example. You're welcome to argue "well that's the UK, it's different here" but it's still a good example countering your assertion that the law is (or will be) applied equally."

This is bizarre shit, right here.

I contend that I am not arguing about whether certain public accommodation laws should exist. I am arguing that they do exist and that they are being enforced and what those enforcing the laws are citing as reasons. Someone makes the rather queer statement, "Get back to me when they start suing the Muslim bakeries" as if that statement addresses my statement that I am not arguing about whether the laws should exist. I ask if there is evidence that Muslim owned bakeries are discriminating but are not being subjected to the law and people respond , "Rotherham."

Think about that. Christian bakers in the US are being discriminated against in favor of Muslim bakers because Rotherham.

That's a crazy argument.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

That's a crazy argument.

Hand waving.

Gays don't seem to be going out of their way to find Muslim bakers to create cakes for same sex weddings.

I wonder why?

Michael K said...

"That's not advocacy of any agenda and it certainly is not an attempt to force anyone to accept any agenda."

This commenter seems to be deliberately blind to logic. She/he has that right but not to expect us to listen.

Nobody tries to get Muslim bakeries (are there any ? I thought their industries had mostly to do with bombs) to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings. They don't try because they know a head chop would soon follow.

"Someone makes the rather queer statement"

Whoops ! Microaggression.

Big Mike said...

Look, there is an underlying reality that is readily discernable if one only looks. The hard-core left hates Christianity with a blind, unreasoning level of hatred. Period. They have used gay marriage as a trumped-up issue to turn gays into the latest club to be used against devout Christians. It didn't have to be this way, except it had to be this way because the 21st century Democrat party wants it to be this way.

Hey! It's been this way for over thirty years, and it's not going to stop until the Democrats go the way of the Whigs.

CachorroQuente said...

"He is basically squirting out squid ink and trying to obscure the fact that he argued that Muslims that refused bake a cake for a gay wedding would be treated the same as Christians who did so.

Nobody believes that. But you are supposed to pretend you do. In his circle anyway."

That's not true.

Others are arguing that Muslim bakers could discriminate against gays in the same way that the Oregon bakers did and that the Muslims would not be subjected to the same law. I am asking for that assertion (discrimination in favor of Muslim bakers) to be justified. Others respond "Rotherham" and Danish cartoons. Misses the point.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I said...

I absolutely agree that society can change the definition of marriage if it so wishes. But the courts have no authority to do so.

Robert Cook said...

If the Supreme Court finds that laws prohibiting same sex partners from the right to legally marry each other violate the Constitution, it does have that authority.

But that is not what happened. The court did not find that the law violated the Constitution, and in response changed the definition of marriage. The court changed the definition of marriage, and in response found the law unconstitutional. Until the definition was changed they were not being denied marriage, because what they were seeking was not marriage.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

CachorroQuente said...That's a crazy argument.

It's an example of the law not being applied against the group in question (Muslim). You're familiar with analogies, right? It's crazy if you're looking for a literal example of exactly that thing happening. Since what's being argued is that THAT THING WON'T HAPPEN, it would be stupid to hold that only that literal example will give any evidence or proof of a problem.

Someone said Muslim bakers wouldn't be held to the same standard (and they wouldn't be able to find examples of Muslim bakers facing legal consequences, etc). You said Muslim bakers should be held to the same standard. Someone said they wouldn't be. You asked why anyone would think Muslim bakers wouldn't be held to the same standard. Ok so far?

To answer your question (why would anyone think Muslim bakers wouldn't be held to the same legal standard) Gahrie and I both immediately thought of an example where Muslim people were not held to the same legal standard as others, in the case of the city of Rotherham. We gave that as an example showing why we don't believe Muslim bakers would be held to the same standard--it's an example of Muslim people getting away with very serious crimes because the authorities were too worried about appearing insensitive or racist to take action. We are asserting that a similar mentality would apply in the case of a Muslim baker who illegally discriminated--we think they wouldn't face legal sanction because the law enforcement actions wouldn't be taken.

Now, you can disagree. You can dispute the relevance of that as evidence, you can dispute it's weight, you can even dispute the facts of that example itself. But it's not a crazy example. and as evidence for the belief that Muslim bakers would not be treated as Christian bakers are (w/r/t anti-discrimination laws) it's entirely relevant.
So, no, not a crazy argument.

Robert Cook said...

Hoodlum Doodlum @ 11:16 AM:

Again...you post a comment that is supposed to mean...what?

CachorroQuente said...

"Someone makes the rather queer statement"

Whoops ! Microaggression.

I apologize to you,I had no idea.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

[See, I'm still assuming we're arguing in good faith, here. I'm taking the time to explain what I mean and address your points w/o ad hominems or pointless attacks. Am I wrong to do so? Shall we just declare each other crazy and move on?]

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Others respond "Rotherham" . . . Misses the point.

In the Rotherham case the law was not enforced against Muslims because the authorities did not want to be accused of being racists, so they denied reality.

In the Muslim baker case nobody will ask a Muslim to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they will not want to be accused of being racists.

Seems on point to me.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

But the entertainment industry takes advantage of the existing conflicts and ignorance...

Gee Officer Krumpke/Mr. Kotter/Prof. Althouse - I'm so conflicted. If those Hollywood people hate guns so much, why do they keep making movies with so much gun violence?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

CachorroQuente said...Others are arguing that Muslim bakers could discriminate against gays in the same way that the Oregon bakers did and that the Muslims would not be subjected to the same law. I am asking for that assertion (discrimination in favor of Muslim bakers) to be justified. Others respond "Rotherham" and Danish cartoons. Misses the point.

You're familiar with the idea of synecdoche, right? I'm pretty sure it'd be mansplaining to go into it, but perhaps you should consider that "Muslim bakers" is, in that example, a snyechdoche for the differential treatment of members of the two religions in question, as a whole. Does that help explain why those examples (Rotherham & the cartoons) are relevant?

You want to say "well no Muslim bakery has refused service so it's irrelevant to bring that up." The response to that is 1.)how do we know (since implicit in the assertion is that it wouldn't get press, etc) and 2.) if Muslim bakery WERE to refuse service it WOULD receive unequal treatment (to the Christian bakery). The backing for 2.) is the demonstration that Muslims have received unequal treatment (in terms of the law and of social/cultural responses) in other areas.

See?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Your'e saying, CQ, in essence "you can't show me an example where Muslim bakers got away with discrimination, so that's it, case closed." Others are arguing that it makes sense to believe that Muslim bakers WOULD get away with discrimination because Muslim people & groups have "gotten away" with things in a number of other situations.

You appear to want the standard to be "only actual cases can give any evidence." Others are arguing "we can project the likely outcome of a case based on other information/cases in the past."

Again, you can disagree, but it's pretty straightforward.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Forget it HoodlumDoodlum, its Chinatown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cWnubJ9CEw

Robert Cook said...

"To say your casual dismissal of tradition and lack of respect for the incredible prosperity our current mode of living has made possible (concurrent with your flippant dismissal of those current circumstances as unimportant/merely an historical accident) shows arrogance, condescension, and a lack of understanding of just how fragile societal norms can be. You dismiss the social traditions you dislike as outdated and give no consideration to people who cherish them (or, I guess, "cling to" them). My point is that your attitude is both pretentious ("oh, look at those backward cavemen with their silly ideas!") and dangerous--dangerous because once you convince everyone that social norms aren't important and we owe no allegiance to tradition, etc, there's no real restraint on what comes next."

"...lack of respect for the incredible prosperity our current mode of living has made possible...."

What does this have to do with granting gay Americans the same right to marry their same sex loved ones as has long been enjoyed by heterosexual Americans? (Though even heterosexual Americans were, until recently, often legally barred from marrying...if they were of different races.)

"...dangerous because once you convince everyone that social norms aren't important and we owe no allegiance to tradition, etc, there's no real restraint on what comes next."

Who says social norms aren't important? People are still marrying and having families...it's just that now gay Americans can marry and enjoy the same legal rights and protections--and obligations--that other married Americans take for granted.

In whole, your statement verges on the apocalyptic...and yet, gay marriage is legal and the union still stands, people's lives go on as they had...there has been no cataclysm, no violent rupture to society.

All that really happened is that some people had to get over assuming their prejudices were justification enough for withholding equal legal rights to many of their fellow Americans.

Birkel said...

Rotterdam example unnecessary.

Jeffrey Dahmer escaped earlier capture because he was gay. The naked body he was chasing down a street was murdered and partially eaten.

But the police let them go as a lover's spat. Selective enforcement.

The boy was, if memory serves, underage.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Which is to say, even if a majority of the citizens of Iowa reject same sex marriage, under the Constitution, gay citizens do have the right to marry. This is not a matter of someone's religious rights or beliefs being trampled upon, but a matter of equal civil rights for persons who are citizens of this country."

Once in a great while, Cookie gets one right.


"Maybe. I can't say what SNL's writers thoughts were. For me, it's more a matter of ridiculing hacky, self-pitying, comic book-level black/white storytelling. One can make a thoughtful and complex drama out of any social issue; one can also make a stupid, pandering melodrama out of any social issue. Whatever the subject matter, stupid and pandering melodramas are always fair game for ridicule"

And then he discredits himself with a laughably disingenuous refusal to acknowledge what everybody, on all sides, knows to be true.

Robert Cook said...

"Jeffrey Dahmer escaped earlier capture because he was gay. The naked body he was chasing down a street was murdered and partially eaten.

But the police let them go as a lover's spat. Selective enforcement.

The boy was, if memory serves, underage."


Not selective enforcement; stupid STUPID cops.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The irony, Ron, is that I'm not personally opposed to gay marriage and I don't think I'd voluntarily spend my money in a shop that proudly declared they don't want to support gay marriage, etc. I should be on these people's side on this, in a way, but the freedom of association issues (w/r/t government force/coercion) are a problem (I'd prefer the market to make its judgement, but while avoiding the kind of targeted shaming/action/attacks we see more and more of from the Left) and beyond that I just really dislike bad arguments.

For most of my personal political views I'm in the minority. I won't be able to persuade enough of my fellow citizens to vote my way on most of the issues I care about. I'm an adult, I get it--at the ballot box I'm going to lose most of the time. That's ok, because I believe in the system we've created. I don't like when the ballot box winners rub my nose in their victories and I don't like when the Media (and, in fact, culture) doesn't give any respect to those minority viewpoints. I dislike it personally, of course, but also I think ti's harmful to the system itself. I think it's dangerous (and arrogant) to ignore history. On top of that, as I said, I dislike bad arguments.

This election cycle is not a happy one, for me!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Robert Cook said...

Not selective enforcement; stupid STUPID cops.

And clearly not a true Scotsman either.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...

For most of my personal political views I'm in the minority. I won't be able to persuade enough of my fellow citizens to vote my way on most of the issues I care about.

And it wouldn't matter if you could, since the courts would overrule the will of the people anyway.

( And I'm in a similar position. I don't oppose most of these things, but I oppose the use of government force in many of these cases, and the entirely unconstitutional process by which these things are being decided. )

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@HoodlumDoodlum

Yeah, its the attempt to enforce social conformity through bullying tactics while simultaneously preening themselves with regards to their "virtue" by people who are Mrs. Grundy personified that gets on my nerves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy

Fernandinande said...

CachorroQuente said...
Others are arguing that Muslim bakers could discriminate against gays in the same way that the Oregon bakers did and that the Muslims would not be subjected to the same law. I am asking for that assertion (discrimination in favor of Muslim bakers) to be justified.


"Others" are correct:
HIDDEN CAMERA: Gay Wedding Cake At Muslim Bakeries

HoodlumDoodlum said...

RobertCook said...All that really happened is that some people had to get over assuming their prejudices were justification enough for withholding equal legal rights to many of their fellow Americans.

The problem, RobertCook, is your casual assumption that people who disagree with you are just bigots, and that in fact they're so backward, bigoted, and stupid that they aren't worth persuading or really even engaging at all. They're wrong and stupid, so fuck 'em--overturn their decisions (the laws they passed), mock them relentlessly, shun them, etc. That attitude is safe only if you think history starts at 0 every time you win. I understand that's a feature of Progressivism, but to me it's a dangerous concept (and contrary to history). "Get over it" isn't a great argument, and I daresay you don't accept it when the Right wins a battle or two (remember: "it's not over until we win!").

Now, again, I'm someone who believes in fundamental rights (as having primacy over, you know, democratically-instituted laws). I don't think it's somehow proof of an injustice when the S. Court overturns a law based on a finding that the law violated an individual's right against the government. I'm persuaded by arguments for gay marriage. I would have voted for a law to reflect that if I was given the chance. BUT I don't think all people who disagree are therefore bigots, haters, etc, unworthy of consideration or a voice, and I find it distasteful when they're treated that way.

I also, as a side note, dislike selective use of the argument for equal treatment under the law/rule of law--as in when the law goes "our" way we hold the Law to be the highest good (and the rule of law to be the most important thing to preserve) but when the law goes against "us" we hold the law to be an impediment to justice and an old, outdated piece of paper. But, you know, that never happens.

David Begley said...

From the SNL skit, "You'll be hearing from my Jewish lawyer."

1. These events are nearly always staged. In one case from Iowa involving a wedding venue, the gay couple lived some distance from the venue and the lawsuit was filed right after the reservation attempt was rejected by the owner. Looked like a shake down.

2. Why a Jewish lawyer? It kind of makes the skit funnier, but more stereotyping.

3. And the "no gay priests" comment in the courtroom scene was a cheap, cheap shot.

CachorroQuente said...

"Others" are correct:

Ah, Dearborn. Is there an applicable anti-discrimination law? Was a complaint filed?
According to Wikipedia (for what that's worth) "LGBT people are not included in Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act."

I am aware that there are "issues" in and around Dearborn.

Robert Cook said...

"The problem, RobertCook, is your casual assumption that people who disagree with you are just bigots, and that in fact they're so backward, bigoted, and stupid that they aren't worth persuading or really even engaging at all."

Absent any faintly logical argument as to why gays should not be permitted to marry, I have to assume objections to legalized gay marriage are, in fact, mere bigotry. To date, I have heard no faintly logical argument against permitting gays to marry.(I know, there are those who will say it is against their religious beliefs, but religious beliefs do not drive civil law, and so they must accept this as adult members of a secular, and not a theocratic, society.)

Actually, I do try to engage people who disagree with me...I'm here most everyday, aren't I? And I think that I am civil and argue in good faith and--for the most part--I avoid resorting to simple insults and name-calling.

CachorroQuente said...

"You appear to want the standard to be "only actual cases can give any evidence." Others are arguing "we can project the likely outcome of a case based on other information/cases in the past."

Again, you can disagree, but it's pretty straightforward."

Do you have examples of generally applicable laws in the United States that Muslims are not subjected to?

R. Chatt said...

Growing up Jewish in the 50’s I was exposed to Christianity in public school. That made me uncomfortable, but my parents certainly never complained. Instead they sent me to Hebrew school where I learned about Judaism, for about 8 years. I do not believe that Jesus is God, or the messiah, or died for our sins. I know what Christians believe and I deeply respect Jesus and Christianity without having to agree with all of it, or argue against it.

Eventually public schools stopped teaching Christianity, stopped reading the Bible in class, stopped teaching Christmas carols, etc. Christians are crying that they are being discriminated against, God is dead. Poor babies! FYI, God is not dead.

Why don’t they go to Sunday school and learn about their religion at church? Why do they expect to expound their religious beliefs in a public school? In a word, because they have been a majority and the majority rules.

When you’ve grown up as a minority you see things a little differently. You don’t expect everyone to follow the same beliefs as you and you don’t assume you have some right to impose your practices on others. You appreciate the laws of this country which protect the equal rights of all and expect those laws to be enforced. Christian bakers must serve all customers, Muslim cab drivers must serve all customers, etc.

No one who supports the legal right to same sex marriage is demanding all heterosexuals must now become homosexuals or agree with gay marriage, or even understand it.

Michael K said...

"I apologize to you,I had no idea."

So you consider "queer" to be an insult ? Got it.

"Do you have examples of generally applicable laws in the United States that Muslims are not subjected to?"

Terrorism ? Hassan committed "workplace violence."

I know that any discussion with you is a waste of time. Have a nice day.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

CachorroQuente said...Do you have examples of generally applicable laws in the United States that Muslims are not subjected to?

So you're either deliberately misunderstanding de jure and de facto...or you're not listening.
This is why the example of Rotherham was apropos, CQ. The UK law against rape, pandering, kidnapping, etc, all apply to all people in the UK, and on paper the British Muslims in Rotherham were subject to those laws. What actually happened, though, was that they broke those laws with near impunity for quite a long time.

I mean, it's something like a law-and-order Repbulican saying that police discrimination/unequal treatment of minority communities or people can't exist, because the law says everyone must be treated equally, right? I mean, show me the law that says black men aren't afforded the same rights as others (in the criminal justice system)--ooh, no such law exists, so those complaints must be wholly without merit!

Now, if I were being tendentious I'd toss out some news stories about local courts relying on local customs (what Fox News calls "Sharia Law in America!") and declare victory. My heart wouldn't be in it though, CQ, and I'm pretty sure at this point you aren't actually interested in examples or arguments.

To you, people who expect Muslim groups to receive unequal treatment under the law are crazy and have no reason for that belief/expectation. To me the examples and hypotheticals discussed here give some evidence that the belief (in likely/expected unequal treatment) is plausible. You think it's crazy & unsupported, I think it's plausible and could be true. Fine.

Gabriel said...

Absent any faintly logical argument as to why gays should not be permitted to marry

There are lots of reasons marriage enjoys a legal status, but not all of those reasons apply to partners of the same sex.

I have to assume objections to legalized gay marriage are, in fact, mere bigotry.

No you don't. And you do not apply this standard to polygamy or incest between consenting adults.

(I know, there are those who will say it is against their religious beliefs, but religious beliefs do not drive civil law

That's pretty silly. Laws are the result of value judgments. Value judgments need not derive from religious beliefs, but do for the vast majority of people.


Ron Winkleheimer said...

In a word, because they have been a majority and the majority rules.

That's ten words. I keed, I keed.

I attended school in the 70s. Just how much religious instruction was there in the 50s? Prayer in the school, sure. But actual catechism? Somehow I doubt it. I imagine some non-denominational prayer and, if the local population had enough Catholics, fish on Fridays.

The reason for religious tolerance in the US is not the Constitution, its because we have so many different sects of Christians. Now it looks like Secularism is winning, so persecution is on the agenda unless you agree to its tenants.

Expect infant circumcision to be outlawed in 20 years, tops.

http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/819-van-dijk-gert/820-medical-and-ethical-arguments-against-male-circumcision

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said... My wistful dream is that the common ground would be arrived at through an understanding the law of the First Amendment — Free Speech, Free Exercise, and the Establishment Clause — and the various controversies that courts and legislatures have worked through over the years.

Freedom of association too, huh? Intimate and expressive, right? Cool.
Also, you know, one of my many complaints about the Left is exactly that they give no weight to the history ("the various controversies that courts and legislatures have worked through over the years"--not to mention, you know, people/popular sentiment). It's always year 0. Thus a position someone as exalted as President Obama held just a few years ago is today so bigoted and hateful it disqualifies one from participating in the conversation. How we got here doesn't matter, where we might otherwise go doesn't matter, who said or believed what in the past does not matter--all that matters is RIGHT NOW, when the Left wins a victory or makes a value judgement (on the past, say), and it's precisely that instinct to ignore or destroy the past that I find so unsettling even when I might otherwise agree.

Not to be overdramatic, but it was that need, that instinct, which Orwell so accurately identified; we've always been at war with Eastasia, after all.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

R. Chatt said...No one who supports the legal right to same sex marriage is demanding all heterosexuals must now become homosexuals or agree with gay marriage, or even understand it.

Oh man, so close to agreement there, Chatt! I think you'll get some dispute with the assertion that "no on is required to agree with gay marriage!" I'm sure you mean in a strictly legal sense, but even there I'll guess there are some boundary cases people could find...I dunno, a social welfare agency using someone's stated belief against SSM as a reason to find a home unfit or something.
More importantly, though, look at the trends elsewhere. Enlightened Europe doesn't have our 1st Amend, but they do have plenty of prosecutions for "hate speech" which amount to punishing an expressed belief. Canada too! For beliefs about race, ethnicity, gender, or even for Holocaust denial people over there have been prosecuted. Can't happen here? I mean, I hope not...

So far it looks like the vanguard's going to be prosecuting companies for climate change denial. If you're certain it won't ever come to prosecuting people for not agreeing with gay marriage I envy your certainty.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Robert Cook said...

To date, I have heard no faintly logical argument against permitting gays to marry.

Have you ever heard a logical argument against permitting a man ( or a woman ) to marry a grandfather clock? If so, could you please share it? If not, does a person have a constitutional right to marry a grandfather clock?

( asking for a friend )

CachorroQuente said...

Terrorism ? Hassan committed "workplace violence."

Hassan was convicted and sentenced to death. It is, in my opinion, stupid to label his attacks as "workplace violence," but it is not an example of exempting Muslims from laws.

"I know that any discussion with you is a waste of time."

Yes, indeed.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

By the way, just to show that SNL can be funny (when they stop tiredly advancing leftist talking points) I present this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfPdYYsEfAE

William Chadwick said...

The coercive nature of forcing a baker to go against his/her religious convinctions, evidenced in the film by the angry Gays yelling "BAKE OUR CAKE!!!" and threatening legal action (thus weilding the mailed fist of the State), is certainly on target, although I doubt SNL intended it to be. And I speak as one who is non-religious (whether the religion be Judaism, Christianity, Islam or the Cult of the State) and has no animosity toward Gays. It's sad for me that people who should know best the evil of coercion and statism--Gays, Jews, and Blacks--are now foot-soldiers in Big Brother's vanguard.

Rachel said...

I don't understand why a gay couple would want someone who disagreed/disapproved of their life choices to make them a cake in the first place. Just choose a different bakery.

R. Chatt said...

@HoodlumDoodlum Actually I meant that people are expected to obey the law, they don't have to necessarily agree with the concept of same sex marriage. Worrying about whether someone will be prosecuted for their privately or even publicly stated opposition to gay marriage is bringing up another topic -- abuse of power. That is not relevant to the issue of same sex marriage or negates the validity of it. But it is a good point. My concern is in the other direction where the cohesiveness of American society breaks down because of religious intolerance.

hombre said...

R Chatt: "No one who supports the legal right to same sex marriage is demanding all heterosexuals must now become homosexuals or agree with gay marriage, or even understand it."

Not yet. They are, however, demanding that Christians participate in the festivities as florists, bakers, photographers, caterers, etc., or lose their status as public accommodations and their livelihoods.

Interesting that you felt "uncomfortable" as a Jew merely hearing about Christianity in school, but apparently can't generate any empathy for Christians being forced on pain of losing their businesses to participate in what they see as a desecration of a Christian sacrament.

Interesting, but not surprising. Secular progressive, eh?

BTW, I don't think the gay rights army targets Christians because we are a minority. We are not. They do it because they don't have the balls - so to speak - to go after Muslims.

CachorroQuente said...

"I don't understand why a gay couple would want someone who disagreed/disapproved of their life choices to make them a cake in the first place. Just choose a different bakery."

That would certainly be the adult thing to do and I would suggest that it be the proper thing to do. On the other hand, I can't understand why the baker didn't just bake the damned cake.

Gahrie said...

On the other hand, I can't understand why the baker didn't just bake the damned cake.

Because they considered it a sin against their God.

hombre said...

R Cook (sarcastically): "Christians are the most persecuted people in the world!"

If you think that assertion is open to dispute, Cook, you are an ignoramus of more epic proportions than have previously been evident here.

Gahrie said...

I don't understand why a gay couple would want someone who disagreed/disapproved of their life choices to make them a cake in the first place.

Because they can. It is about power and control.

CachorroQuente said...

"BTW, I don't think the gay rights army targets Christians because we are a minority. We are not. They do it because they don't have the balls - so to speak - to go after Muslims."

They don't go after Muslims because there are so few Muslims in the United States and as a group they just don't matter. There are almost twice as many Jews in the U.S. as Muslims. Probably 70 to 90 times as many Christians in the U.S. as Muslims. That is, of course, a good thing for gay people (and others) as it's much better for them if Muslims continue to have almost no influence or control.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

There we go, R. Chatt; complete agreement w/your 2:59, I knew we'd get there! Thanks.

CachorroQuente said...

"Because they considered it a sin against their God."

I don't believe that. Not everything in this comment thread is crazy, but that sure is.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

CachorroQuente said...They don't go after Muslims because there are so few Muslims in the United States and as a group they just don't matter. There are almost twice as many Jews in the U.S. as Muslims. Probably 70 to 90 times as many Christians in the U.S. as Muslims. That is, of course, a good thing for gay people (and others) as it's much better for them if Muslims continue to have almost no influence or control.

I think it's about 2.5M Muslims (half under 20) and about 4-5M Jews (skewing older). But I'm not sure we can just go by the #s to gauge influence--there are about 500-600k transgender people in the entire US (using broad measures) but we've got whole states fighting it out now over their laws relating to transgender bathrooms. Culturally, too, there are transgender characters, story lines, and news items everywhere. For comparison: there are about 600k Orthodox Jews in the US today. I can't remember the last time I saw an Orthodox character on a popular show, though.

But yeah, I agree, there does seem to be a potential for significant friction between the value systems of different minority groups (homosexuals and Muslims, in this case). That's always true, of course, but it sure feels like more and more we're tearing down the things that prevented those frictions from really becoming a problem. That's a concern, to me.

Gahrie said...

"Because they considered it a sin against their God."

I don't believe that. Not everything in this comment thread is crazy, but that sure is.


Why don't you believe that? That is what they said. What evidence do you have that they are lying?

Do you not understand that homosexual behavior is a sin according to Christianity?

They clearly believe in hate the sin, and love the sinner because they had no problem serving the lesbians until they demanded that the bakers participate in their wedding.

CachorroQuente said...

"Do you not understand that homosexual behavior is a sin according to Christianity?"

They were not asked to participate in homosexual behavior, they were asked to bake a cake. Homosexual behavior may be a sin, but surely, baking a cake is not.

"They clearly believe in hate the sin, and love the sinner because they had no problem serving the lesbians until they demanded that the bakers participate in their wedding."

They weren't asked to participate in the wedding, they were asked to bake a cake.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Gahrie

Apparently they refused to bake a cake because they wanted to be fined a few grand, excoriated in the media and online, and end up losing their business.

Gahrie said...

They weren't asked to participate in the wedding, they were asked to bake a cake.

FOR A GAY WEDDING!

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or arguing in bad faith?

Robert Cook said...

"Do you not understand that homosexual behavior is a sin according to Christianity?"

There are many things that are sins according to Christianity. Should cake bakers refuse to bake cakes for all self-abusers?

Robert Cook said...

"R Cook (sarcastically): 'Christians are the most persecuted people in the world!'

"If you think that assertion is open to dispute, Cook, you are an ignoramus of more epic proportions than have previously been evident here."


Of course it's open to dispute. There hasn't been any evidence put forth even to support it as a hypothesis. (Laws that keep Christian theology out of the civic square do not, by the way, count as persecution.)

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Robert Cook said...

There are many things that are sins according to Christianity. Should cake bakers refuse to bake cakes for all self-abusers?

No, but they would certainly be justified in refusing to bake a wedding cake for someone who was marrying themselves.

eric said...

"It's over"

My wish is that some people would realize it's not nearly over. It's just beginning.

eric said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Do you not understand that homosexual behavior is a sin according to Christianity?"

There are many things that are sins according to Christianity. Should cake bakers refuse to bake cakes for all self-abusers?

4/19/16, 3:57 PM


I'm going to guess you're serious in your ignorance here and explain it to you. Hopefully you're not just trolling.

The Christian Baker's of cakes aren't refuisng to bake cakes for sinners. They will bake them for gays, those who cheat on their spouses, presumably even for theives, prostitutes and murderers.

What they refuse to do is bake cakes that celebrate any of those things. If you want to have a divorce party, don't ask them to bake you a cake to celebrate that. If you want to have a shaking up party to celebrate moving in with your girlfriend, don't ask them to bake you a cake to celebrate that. Same with the who want to throw a celebration of their homosexual sin.

Consider yourself educated.

eric said...

Shacking up....

Robert Cook said...

"I don't understand why a gay couple would want someone who disagreed/disapproved of their life choices to make them a cake in the first place. Just choose a different bakery."

This would have been the more appropriately proportional action. There are all sorts of reasons to take one's trade elsewhere, (e.g., bad service, too high prices, shoddy products, dishonest business practices, etc.). I would count the baker's refusal to bake the cake as "bad service" and go elsewhere.

eric said...

They weren't asked to participate in the wedding, they were asked to bake a cake.

4/19/16, 3:43 PM


This person must be trolling. They can't be this dense and be on Althouse.

R. Chatt said...

Just a question for people who are adamant about "religious liberty" and the right of a baker to not serve gay customers: What about a real estate agent not showing homes or apartments to a gay couple? Is that OK? What about a jeweler not selling rings to a gay couple? What about a hotel refusing to rent a space to a gay couple for their reception and for their lodging? What about a printer refusing to print wedding invitations? What about a tailor refusing to provide alterations? What about a hair dresser refusing to cut hair for a gay couple? etc.

eric said...

Blogger Gahrie said...
On the other hand, I can't understand why the baker didn't just bake the damned cake.

Because they considered it a sin against their God.


Notice they said they are not capable of understanding? Not that they don't understand, but that they can't understand.

In this case, id take them at their word.

Unknown said...

"To date, I have heard no faintly logical argument against permitting gays to marry." -- R. Cook.

Either marriage means something or it does not. If it does, then there are some (maybe ill defined) boundaries because that's kind of what "definition" means. If there is no definition,...hey I was looking for a story I read about a (I think Japanese) woman who married a rock by way of illustration, but I stopped when Googling "woman married a" auto fill gave me:

(woman married a)dog
(woman married a)bridge
(woman married a)tree dolphin
(woman married a)roller coaster
(woman married a)building
(woman married a)Ferris wheel
(woman married a)rock
(woman married a)donkey
(woman married a)snake

"To date, I have heard no faintly logical argument against permitting a woman to marry a ________."

eric said...

Blogger R. Chatt said...
Just a question for people who are adamant about "religious liberty" and the right of a baker to not serve gay customers: What about a real estate agent not showing homes or apartments to a gay couple? Is that OK? What about a jeweler not selling rings to a gay couple? What about a hotel refusing to rent a space to a gay couple for their reception and for their lodging? What about a printer refusing to print wedding invitations? What about a tailor refusing to provide alterations? What about a hair dresser refusing to cut hair for a gay couple? etc.


Let me start by saying I fully support discrimination by private business. If someone doesn't want to serve me for any reason, they ought to be able to refuse me service.

That being said, let's start with your first sentence.

"The right of a Baker not to serve a gay customer"

You do realize that's not what this debate is about, yes?

They are serving gay customers and have been. They are refusing to serve celebrations of homosexuality.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 237   Newer› Newest»