The guy who coined the phrase "facts don't care about your feelings" uses religion, a concept supported entirely by feelings, to create his own "facts"
And this law doesn't even guarantee equal rights. If obergefell gets overturned states can ban same sex marriages from happening within their borders they just have to recognise the marriages the occur in others states.
Normally, I would say that someone who obsesses over gay people so much must have repressed homosexual urges, but with Ben, I think he is just a genuinely hateful person.
I agree. I definitely think there are some homophobes who are closeted gay. But I don’t like when people act like that’s all homophobes. I think that certain people just don’t like people who are different, and are brainwashed by religion.
I still wouldn’t rule it out. There was that old study about gay attraction in homophobes. Not a demonstrative study, but still interesting to note with all the examples we have of it
@@Hellcommander245 Please understand the many men-on-men hookups that happen at those sausage-fest right-wing conferences such as TPUSA and the like. It's rampant, and I do not doubt that Ben has done it once or twice.
@@zephrosyne Not deliberately, but his response to the song WAP was a pearl-clutching screed where he said that his doctor wife told him that a WAP was a sign of illness.
@@lnsflare1 Didn't he also admit at one point that he's never changed a diaper too? I feel I may be misremembering, but if I'm not then he is also a shitty partner who doesn't help his wife.
@@lnsflare1 I just went and looked that up. Geez, he was really fit to be tied over that song. I had never even heard of the song until your post (I don't listen to the radio). It is just painful to listen to someone who speaks as if he is in a state of perpetual fast foward.
Ben is straight up screeching that the law won't allow him to exercise his religious dogma commanding he hate, discriminate against and show bigotry towards those who have no adverse affect on his petty, worthless life.
@@tjenadonn6158 I mean, I'm pretty sure he doesn't whisper antisemitic things. Except against the people that Pope Ben I unilaterally declares aren't real Jews, I guess.
For most of human history we didn't wear clothes or write shit down. Most of human history was prehistory that that falls more into the realm of paleontology than archaeology.
@@holden6104 ahh you ARE being obtuse: History (from Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía) 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation')[1] is the study and the documentation of the past.[2][3] Events before the invention of writing systems are considered prehistory.[4] "History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events. Historians seek knowledge of the past using historical sources such as written documents, oral accounts, art and material artifacts, and ecological markers.[5]
@@marcomoreno6748 it isn't? It wasn't about being held back in society due to people's identity? It wasn't about an entire communities experiences that are deeply tied to their identity?
@@JavierFernandez01 Presumably a Muslim baker wouldn't prepare a depiction of Mohammed regardless of the customer. So that's a different situation from a baker refusing to provide someone a cake which is practically identical to cakes they sell to other people.
I just find it sad we are still having to fight over these most basic human rights. I would like to focus on Medicare for all, infrastructure, climate change. But unfortunately a big segment of this country is still living in the medieval times.
Both left and right are living in medieval times, even the left have an over fixation with gay people. They are both polarized, love or hate gays, treating them neutrally like normal human beings would be the next step. If you identity is loving/hating gay people you are in the medieval, "ohhhh my God they are so beautifullll" 90 % of the left. I will never understand what's beautiful about being heterosexual, bi sexual or gay, it's just a trait, an orientation. Both parties are fucked, and have a sick fixation over people's orientation. Who cares, why that particular trait makes u valuable or a p of shit. I will never understand.
A few hours ago, I watched a group of people argue that things were so much better in 1908 that all of the infrastructure (specifically highways) built since should be torn down. I tried countering with the supply line situation, pointing out the freight vehicles in the "present" picture, but to no avail.
@@TheScotsalan maybe certain politicians. But the evangelical base definitely has sincere hatred for gay people or anything LGBTQ. When I was a kid I was taught God would enact retribution on America if we ever allowed gay marriage.
As a business owner, you use what are called common services in order to run your business. Electricity, water, garbage, roads used for transportation; these are all utilities you rely on for your business to function. All of these services are funded by all groups of tax payers. You don't get to operate your business using services that are paid for by all members of society while simultaneously deciding which groups of society you are/aren't going to serve.
Please be honest with your assessment of the situation. Gays were never denied service. They were only denied those specific services which would infringe upon the baker's religious freedom. Totally reasonable. The media has spun this into a bigotry issue which is utter horseshit.
@@Gambit0590 Unless I'm thinking of a different case, didn't the bakery say that they were willing to sell the couple a cake, just not a custom-made wedding cake? Don't know whether or not that makes a difference in terms of the law, but I don't think Holden is necessarily wrong about the literal details.
@@holden6104 he is NOT a priest/pastor/reverend/preacher/bishop/archbishop/imam/rabbi.....HE'S A BAKER AND HE PRODUCES A SERVICE FOR THE BROADEST POPULATION. he relies on quality goods and service and good will to expand his business, makes significant profits to keep his business running well.....just because 2 men or women want a wedding cake DOESN'T MEAN he endorses the way they live, he is simply wanting to provide a service.....nothing more
You have to understand that Ben is an egomaniac and takes the Biblical quote that Jews are God’s chosen people literally. He is superior to you in his mind. He is moral and you are amoral. At this point I also just think he’s a hateful, unapologetic dick.
I love how they claim to follow the constitution, but keep forgetting about the separation of church and state... Edit: Dear Lord, what is this chain going on below this post?? 👀
@@jesusfernandez-eh8cx upholding the right to worship is not a marriage between church and state. You might as well call upholding 1st amendment rights a marriage between press and state.
When a business opens its doors it does not do so alone. It accepts use of huge amounts of government/tax support. Its employees were taught in public schools. The business is tied to a very expensive government funded transportation network, without which there would be no business. It gets police and fire protection, military protection. They also often get direct government subsidies or at least use subsidized raw materials. When accepting these huge advantages they also need to be required to provide services to ALL citizens.
Business' also pay their fair share of taxes as well to support said services. Not seeing the point you're making other than you don't like the fact that people are exercising their freedoms here. It's okay if people don't want to do business with you, that's their right. It's also your right to shop somewhere else.
Yeah well said. It you and you're craft can't openly selictivly violate civil rights, I'm sure one can find dishonest justifications, or re-think, re-brand, or stop your biggited (illegal) polocies/actions. That's freedome. Get right on side of the constitution, get loud and begrudgingly pretend, Or get the fuck outa the discussion.
@Terrance Cloverfield If you don’t want to serve the public, then why open a business that serves the public? Either bake a cake for whoever walks through the door (unless that person is somehow a threat) or don’t open a business.
@@terrancecloverfield6791 they got the freedom to say what they want whenever they want. They can literally tell a person to their face what they dont like about them but to discriminate based on sexual preference IS discrimination. So idk what your point is exactly
the funniest thing about this is that ben came within inches of saying that if you are religious, it's ok for you to discriminate against gay people. he almost gave the whole game away.
If you're religious, it's okay to discriminate against those that would force you against your religion. Has nothing to do with being gay. That's just liberal spin.
@@holden6104 Same exact argument was used to justify anti interracial marriage arguments. Should Muslim men be able to force relatives to wear head coverings if they don't want to because of their religion? The fact is just because somthing can be justified with your religion doesn't mean it isn't inherently discriminatory and steps on other people's right to equality under the law.
@@arturobasilio4123 There is an inherent difference between imposing a belief on someone, and someone resisting the imposition of a belief on himself. I am for religious arguments towards prohibiting or limiting government intervention. I am against government becoming a conduit for religious imposition on private life. The particular situation we're dealing with falls in the former category.
@@holden6104 But why do so many religious people focus on the "sin" of being gay? And why is that same energy not applied to other "sins" in the same fashion?
To be honest I'm all for this conservative anti-gay revival arc. It really goes to show just how out of touch they are. I haven't checked recently, but I know when they first started these talking points again even their crazy fanbase wasn't having it
@@holden6104 it’s absolutely fine with it if it allows more people to live freely with less religious oppression against them. I’m not cool with tolerating intolerance.
I wouldn’t say it’s a stupid analogy I just don’t agree that comparing someone’s sexual orientation against someone’s race/ethnicity is the same thing.
@@absurdterror9779 Why? Unless you are saying sexual orientation is a choice. Is that your argument? Because if it's not then it's the same thing. Discrimination over someone because of who they are inherently.
@@xq8152 I would say the analogy doesn't work for the concept of marriage... Since marriage is something that has been inherently religious, if one is speaking about a priest marrying someone its a bit different. Food and gas are secular things. The bible actually says marriage is between a man and woman. So if you have a priest who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible they may have religious grounds not to do it. I don't believe in that shit, but I feel that that is within the religious domain and thus it could be argued that it isn't the business of the government. I do think the argument works for the cake maker tho. Cake making is not an inherently religious act, get over yourself. ;)
Anybody who has worked retail knows that at least a few times a year, someone cramps on the floor. Not in or near the bathroom but near the shoe rack or behind a display.
The reason many religious people _think_ it’s different is they do not understand the science and think being gay is a choice. Even if they were aware that approximately the same percentage of other primates (yes, we are primates!) observed in the wild are also gay, they think humans are different and special. I don’t know how to reconcile this, other than passing laws they have to abide by. They have a right to be ignorant (and wrong), but not to disobey equal protection laws.
I personally disagree with you on the wedding cake thing. They were not against serving a cake to gay and or lesbian couples. But to making a cake celebrating something they disagree with. I don't believe that the government should have the right to make people work against their will.
Would they make a cake celebrating the marriage of a fifty year old man to a fourteen year old girl? American Christians sure seem fond of those these days. It seems their only problem with consensual gay relationships isn't with the gay part, but with the consent.
The whole Wedding Cake thing is what you get when you have activist judges running our courts. There's no gay couple taking this lady to court and forcing her to make a wedding cake.
I like how Ben has to tack on the "for producing children" bit for the definition of marriage because he knows that if he leaves that out there is no reason it can't be redefined to just be a union between two people, because it fundamentally ignores that straight people can get married with no expectation of having kids together.
I don't even understand what he means by marriage being a "fundamental" institution. If he were to answer what "fundamental" in this case means, it'd boil down to religious reasons. Where else is marriage said to be for the purpose of producing children other than religious texts? Again, an inability or unwillingness to separate religion and government.
@@ADrew26 Do some research, gay is mostly made from the environment, not you just born with it. Evidence everywhere,unhappy marriages have high percentage of creating gay/less. Think left-wing!
I agree with Kyle on a lot, but as a gay man, I think the Utah compromise is fine. Why would I want to get married in a homophobic church? I'll go to a church who wants me or I'll go to the Justice of the Peace.
Kyle, I agree these business owners may be bigoted... but It's unfair to ask people sell out for money, or worse, force them out of fear of legal repercussions... These small businesses are often labors of love as much as they are commercial ventures. Yes, It's unfair of businesses to deny services to gay people, and to make people feel unwanted, but it's also unfair to be forced to twist ones honestly/deeply held religious beliefs. It causes deep psychological resentment/distrust/reflexive antogonism of leftists policy and authorities. And those "bigoted people" are the ones you have to get on board if you want to get REAL SYSTEMIC CHANGE in this country. If you expect to make a coalition of perfect people, you will end up very lonely.
Hi Kyle. I think a more apropos analogue would be the pharmacists who refuse to dispense morning after pills, condoms or other reproductive / gynecological products on the basis of their religious beliefs as it shows a) a more recent example that ties into the right’s recent obsession with what goes on in a person’s bedroom and b) that these people are not just excusing the commitment emotional harm but also irreparable physical harm on others in the name of their “religious” rights. I find it extremely scary that a pharmacist or doctor might end up refusing me service due to their religious beliefs and with the Overton window moving as far right as it has, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a right wing Supreme Court might hear a case re: pharmacists refusing to serve certain clients or drugs based on religious grounds and the Supreme Court holding that up as their constitutional right.
8:10 sorry but i disagree with that. If you are a priest and you run a church and you believe that gay people should not get married in your church nobody should force that priest to marry them. If the whole christian or muslim or any religous community does not agree with gay people marrying in a church they have every right to not let them get married. That is their believe and it is not breaking any law or hurting someone. They just believe in what they believe is the true religion. What is the other option? Create an LGTBQ church and create your own religion or just marry by state.
Honestly I feel bad for Dave Rubin. These are the people he aligned himself with, thinking they'd be welcoming and that he could reason with them about basic human rights. But they hate him. Regardless of claiming they don't, this is how effortlessly they're able to stand against his very being. I know this audience will tell me "lolz don't feel bad for him" but I do.
I don’t feel bad for Rubin. He’s a sellout and he knew exactly who he was getting into bed with. And if he didn’t know then he still had multiple opportunities to walk away, but chose to continue to be a sellout and a grifter.
U can feel bad for him. There’s just no real reason to do so. Dude could not be a dick and he wouldn’t suffer from it. Sometimes people don’t need pity they in fact need to be made fun of. Bc if Dave Rubin wants to not be in that situation. He could simply not be… u see. He can’t stop being gay… but he can stop being a grifter
I don’t see a church officiated wedding as being analogous to car repair services and dining. Just my 2c. Forcing any religious body to preside over a same-sex marriage is not going to work.
Prior to the 1970s, marital rape was not illegal in the United States, so a traditional view of marriage would state that a husband cannot legally rape his wife, regardless of her actual consent to the act. I wonder if Ben supports marital rape, since he wants to go back to a "traditional" definition of marriage.
Wedding cakes are not necessities, bakers can deny baking cakes for LGBTs, but they are not allowed to force other bakeries to not bake cakes for LGBTs.
@@Hipfireturtle I was just talking to someone about this the other day. Elderly people on retirement social security can marry and still get a check. Anybody on SSI can't even live with a romantic partner. It's a violation of civil rights. We need to have a class action suit.
It reminds me of something I read in the papers a couple of months ago. A gay couple wanted to view a house for sale, but the owners (a young Christian couple) sent them a message advising that they cannot allow them to view because of their beliefs. On one side, the majority of my colleagues argued that the owners have a right to their opinion and right to religious beliefs. I argued that it’s discrimination. What about kindness and compassion, they are a young couple wanting to buy their first home, what does their sexuality matter to the owners, it is just property anyway? If you don’t like someone because of their character fair enough, but this is just bullying to me. Morality is certainly not synonymous with religious beliefs.
As a religious person I agree with most of the points you’ve made. Especially the black couple not getting service analogy. The only problem with a “church wedding” is that it’s considered a religious ceremony. I understand and agree with the legal argument for marriage equality but ,tbh, I don’t understand why a gay couple would want to get married at a religious institution when they know it’s against that institution’s belief. Please help me understand that.
Kyle is so far off on that particular topic. it would be an act of cruelty to force a christian minister to perform homosexual weddings. A christian minster is NOT in the business of providing weddings.... he or she is in the business of shepherding christian communities. The left becomes authoritarian and fascist if it begins to compel such actions. It is an act of thuggery and cruelty to force it even.
@@deadexplorations7439 Let me preface this by saying I'm an ally and big supporter of marriage equality... Devil's Advocate question here: A church is a non-profit, not a business. Why wouldn't same couple rather have an officiant and church who supports them do the ceremony rather than people who literally hate them on the most joyous day of their lives?
I was one of those people that was thinking 'yeah it sucks people think this way but should the government really force contractors or whatever to contract with someone they personally don't want to' but the analogy you gave toward the end with the gas station put things into perspective so thank you Kyle.
It does, but then I question, what if someone came in to a bakery asking for a Nazi cake, with swastikas all over it, and a picture of Hitler. I mean, I wouldn't want to make that cake as Nazism is antithetical to my beliefs. I should not be forced to make that cake, or design such a website. Of course, Nazism isn't a protected class, to my knowledge.
Not same thing. The baker wasn't denying any essential services. He was willing to sell them a cake, he just didn't want to make a custom cake as that would require artistic expression.
@@Raphael4722 yeah its a lot more complicated then he is making it really. I don't buy into it 100% it just helps me understand the other side a bit better. The precedent it would set just feels wrong. Idk it really feels in this situation damned if you do damned if you don't. If we set the precedent that people HAVE to do things for their patrons and customers how far will that go? How will it be enforced? Will people take out video and say 'this man won't make a gay wedding cake for me?' what if the person makes up an excuse like he selling the establishment or he is closing for the day or whatever to get out of it? Are we going to have the police investigate? It really feels like it would be easy to abuse.
@@og_finn661 Just think what would happen if instead a christian went to muslim baker and told him/her to bake a custom cake saying "Jesus is God" or some shit. It would feel oppressive and rightly so. It's one thing to sell goods that you already have on your shelf, but when it comes to getting people to make custom goods/services it's different.
Forcing a Cristian church or any other religious church to marry a gay couple that go against their beliefs and convictions is wrong, and i said that as an atheist.
The analogy about the Jim Crow Era is very relevant. People constantly used to justify their racial discrimination through religion. The belief that Africans and the diaspora were descendants of Cain and/or Ham was extremely widespread in the South during slavery and lingered in Protestant churches well past the middle of the 20th century. Nowadays, it's like people can more easily understand Ben's argument is preposterous when applied to race, and see how you'd be making people lives more difficult for no objective reason. Change out "black" with "gay" and suddenly folks like Ben's brains turn off again.
June continues to be a month of business' grifting off the emotional weakness of people that need affirmation through consumerism. Spend at Target because they're selling pride flags but on July 1st..Also, Target imports much of their clothing from Oceania and China, conducting forced child slave labor by Western standards.
Oh Ben is gay. He’s locked up those feelings real tight. Lock and key. Every day, Ben looks mirror and says….”I AM SPARTACUS!!!” Nothing wrong with that Ben. You live your truth.
For the love of breathing, it's legal for people to marry whoever the F they want. It's not FORCED gay marriage. Why fret so much over it? It's not like any gay person is gonna marry Ben anyways. It's as simple as "People are (wait for it) PEOPLE" Plain and simple. A person, however said person looks, sounds or smells is a person. End of discussion.
I wonder how people like Ben would feel about religious people having the ability to discriminate against interracial couples. Although, I'm worried about putting that idea in their heads...
@@__foam That's capitalism baby. We pay and you obey. If you don't like that you're free to become a communist/anarchist, but be warned: finding homophobic leftists is even harder than finding literate right wingers.
I have a strange stance on this. Part of me if I was gay would actually want to know who turns me down because I'm gay. If they were force to make a cake or etc. Food in general I would like to know. If they where forced to make my food they would be likely to spit in my food. As it stands now they get marked.
I disagree about forcing churches to recognize same sex marriage. The option to get married should definitely be open and ordainable by some party (similar to right to an autorney kinda), but you can't force someone to change their beliefs. If a homosexual couple wants to get married by a church that hates gay people then maybe they should reconsider their church...
Hits home as a trans women I have been refused service at so many nail salons and eyebrow places because I'm trans and they tell me to my face it's because I'm trans. I'm so greatful for for the nail brow places that are inclusive of all And I aways see guys and trans women there I know why I'm literally on the other side of town where people like us have to go. And I aways give them a big tip for providing service to my "kind"
Eh, their own book says that if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword. Maybe of they spent more time reading it and less time beating people with it they'd know that.
Then that restaurant is wrong and should be sued. To be clear, I do think that if your service is essentially a form of art (like baking a custom cake) then you shouldn't be forced to bake it for the gay couple (you should just be boycotted out of business). But you should NOT be allowed to blanket refuse services like food that you serve to the public. So if the gay couple came in asking for a pre-baked cake-they should not be allowed to be denied because of their sexual orientation.
The cake maker sighed a contract and went back on it. The web designer has not had anyone ask them to make a same sex merriage website and she took it to court.
Gay marriage needs to be legal because marriage can affect your life and has legal implications, end of the story. However the comparison to the racist south back in the day doesn't hold up. There is no religion that says you can't serve black people, it was bigotry without reason that's protected. If your RELIGION says you can't do something it's protected. But if your feelings say you can't that's not protected. This is bigotry with reason that is protected. There are interpretations of religion that say you can't serve the gays in this context. Why do people keep relating these things? It's ignorant. If your religion says you're a Norse pagan and you cannot associate with burger King workers you're allowed to not associate with burger king workers. If your religion doesn't mention that specifically then it's not protected.
The Mormon Church's stance on black people in the past would disagree. Also Hinduism's caste system allows for discrimination based on family history. There's plenty of bigotry to be found in religion that can be argued should be protected on the grounds of religious freedom
If Republicans really lean into that type of discrimination, I'd probably go through with wanting to run a coffee shop, where we woundn't serve conservatives.
Can a florist choose not to make funeral flowers but all other events like weddings or conventions are okay? If you say the florist can choose not to do funerals, then how is that different than the gay cake?
once in a while ben makes good points and in those rare cases his delivery makes him seem kinda smart......but when he's literally like wiggling and squeaking like he's on 15x speed, clearly upset to his core OVER DUDES MARRYING EACHOTHER just makes him so pathetic I find it extremely hilarious. how could you give that many shits over other peoples actions.....ones that make those people happy no less
I have figured out what to do with all these people who are not in favor of same-sex marriage. I am here by implementing a law that these people do not have to get married to someone of their own gender. Am I not generous. Look how easy it was for me not to care about who they're bro sexual lifestyle. I just wish they could do the same in regards to mine.
10:28 For crying out loud, I heard this talking point from TJ kirk's stream when he critiqued Matt Walsh's video on the idea of Walsh thinking Transgenderism as a religion. I am starting to think that this is the new talking point on the right where anything that attacks a religion, or is not subjected to said religion, must be itself another religion.
They've been doing this every since they started calling atheism a religion back when guys like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins started taking atheism mainstream back in the early 2000s. I'm pagan, and even I can see that atheism is only a religion in the same way that baldness is a hair color.
@@tjenadonn6158 ye but the difference between Transgenderism and atheism is that atheism still plays within the category of religious belief where transgenderism is more of a movement to acceptance towards individuals who are transgender. You could also say there is another major difference on whether each is natural or social. People can choose whether or not to have a belief in god but some people who are transgender cannot just change who they are. That is one of the reasons why you simply cannot lump Transgenderism as though it were another religion.
Could a gay surgeon choose to not save Ben Shapiro's life if he was in critical condition from some instance because of "a difference in beliefs" or "I don't support or recognise his way of life"? No of course not that'd be crazy.
I don't quite get why churches should be forced to perform a gay marriage when they don't want to. I agree no one should discriminate, but a church doesn't have to perform a service they don't want to and frankly if this behavior produces more atheists then I'm all for it.
You're wrong, Kyle. Forcing a church to marry a gay couple, despite homosexuality being seen as a sin by that church, is NOT the answer. I hate when the left goes this far. It's unreasonable and embarrassing. If a person believes they'll go to hell for "promoting sin by participating in a gay marriage", how dare you insist they go ahead with it?
@@Hipfireturtle I don't see the correlation myself, between tax status and doctrine, just looking at it fairly. However, I don't really see any good secular argument to allow religious institutions to be exempt from taxation either. So I kind of agree with you in spirit but I'm not comfortable with THAT kind of change as a mere tit-for-tat solution to the gay marriage problem. But as part of an overall overhaul of the entire relationship between church and state, sure! I just think it's a whole different subject and I think gay people on this issue need to back down and let these bigots be bigots, find another church etc. A fight like this, well in a fight like this, clearly your activism is more important than you actually having a beautiful, harmonious wedding with the man/woman/other you supposedly love, and perhaps in that case you don't really deserve a wedding all that much. You certainly don't deserve a wedding enough to encroach on these bigoted but otherwise peaceful Christian types. Is that a world anyone wants to live in?
Kyle- this was truly excellent. I would love to see you and Ben have a conversation on this face to face. Your ability to see through his BS is so great.
Ppl like ben shapiro and jordan peterson want to pretend this is about individual rights but won't admit their homophobia. Discrimination is the last lasting feature of the hard right.
Refusing service to a class of people because they are gay (or black, Hispanic, etc.) is discrimination, and because of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is open to government regulation. That regulation is guided by the equal protection clause. Refusing to express one's skills in a specific way (making a particular cake) that is against one's religious beliefs regarding the actions of another person (gay marriage, smoking pot, etc.) is protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has established this compromise, and regards these cases based on the specific facts in each.
It's a balancing act. And in this case religion should win because the aggrieved parties can easily find services elsewhere. Most of the time these cases are vexatious and meant as a form of harassment anyways.
@@holden6104 You're not being persecuted by being expected to treat those you seem subhuman as people. Nobody cares what your magic book says, this is the 21st century, not the 1st: women are humans, queerness is legal, children can't consent. Get with the times.
By your logic, this ability to dicriminate on actions should still apply to interracial marriage as an action even if it doesn't apply to race specifically. Would you say that a baker is still within their rights to refuse making a cake that celebrates an interracial marriage?
@@yee2631 In your example, a First Amendment religious protection doesn't seem to apply. It seems based on straightforward racial animus that has resulted in a discriminatory act. Therefore, it would be under federal Civil Rights restrictions. The surrounding facts of the case would clarify to the Court the exact circumstances. As Kyle pointed out, Ben Shapiro is attacking the basis for the Civil Rights Acts altogether. (He, like many libertarians, are basing their claims implicitly on an extreme notion of property rights.) That has not been the Supreme Court's record over the last decades. They have explained that such exemptions can be applied for religious causes based on First Amendment protections. But the Court has not attacked the underlying Constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Acts. (Not yet, anyway.)
@@stephenbailey9969 Do you think racial discrimination could be justified if there was a religious basis for it? Up until the mid 20th century, people used to justify enslavement of Africans on a religious basis by claiming them to be descendants of the biblical Ham, who was cursed to have his descendants be "servants of servants" for dishonoring his father Noah.
Kyle’s stance is that The Mango episode from Seinfeld is a solid basis for a private restaurant to serve someone. Anything identity based that can’t be changed isn’t a justifiable reason to *not* serve someone. Generally, agree. But that really depends on the organization. Public? Absolutely not. Private? Arguable they can deny service, it just won’t end well for them necessarily.
They are not being denied services. They are being denied those specific services that would constitute in affront to the provider's religious sensibilities. What is the big deal? There are hundreds of cake makers that can fill that gap.
Kyle my only disagreement with you is that some “services” are different than others. Some are government guaranteed rights, others are simply not. Getting gas or food is a right, having a cake designed for you isn’t.
Terrible analogy at the end. There is a huge difference in a baker refusing to make a cake and a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone for being gay. If the government forces a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding they are forcing people to act in a way that is contrary to their beliefs. People hold genuine religious views and people are genuinely gay. But neither view point should be forced upon either of these two groups.
I hold the genuine religious view that tight wingers are more closely related to bacteria than to humans, and I reserve the religious right to force-feed hand sanitizer to any right wingers I encounter until they either evolve into humans or enter the past tense. You can't stop me because it's my genuine religious belief, and to dupl me would be forcing your beliefs upon me. Ben won't be fake crying this time.
I am a lefty and am happy that gay marriage is legal. But I don't think it'd be right to force a church to host a gay wedding. I know that religious freedoms are often overstated and overprotected, but you're talking about forcing an actual church here to put on a ceremony against their will. Who even wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them? Seems like a very rare situation that a gay couple would insist on getting married at a place that rejects them. Church's aren't really comparable to a bakery or a 711. It is literally a place of worship.
I was about to shit on Ben for being homophobic (which he is) then I had to do a double take on Kyle's insane nonsense regarding forcing religious institutions to marry gay people. They should but it is clearly a violation of their religious rights to force religious institutions to ordain a union that goes against their beliefs. You are calling for a MASSIVE government intrusion into religion and basically trying to dictate their tenets. Ironically you are just proving Ben's point (to be clear-he is still wrong. Just because the left wants to be authoritarian towards people of faith doesn't give him an excuse to be discriminatory against gay people. Two wrongs don't make a right).
Bruh, how are we not past this yet. Who the hell cares, for real, just let people live so long as it’s consensual and no one’s being hurt. I see this kind of fervor and just feel tired and sorry for these fools.
I agree with the compromise. Not having a gay couple married at a church makes sense. Why would a gay couple would want to get married at a Church anyways? Why be in a religion where the other members are taught to shun you? Why be in a religion at all?
The guy who coined the phrase "facts don't care about your feelings" uses religion, a concept supported entirely by feelings, to create his own "facts"
Nothing new.
Isn’t Kyle saying a Catholic Church should be forced to perform a gay marriage?
@@nickcavalero3780 🧐🤔
THIS HAS MORE FACTS
@@nickcavalero3780 yeah. just as they were forced to perform interracial marriage
Ben crying over people having equal rights brings me joy.
You think the abnormal should be the decline of western civilization.
Wish I could steal his fiddle and play it really sad right in his face 🎻😭😭😭😭😂😂😂😂
And this law doesn't even guarantee equal rights. If obergefell gets overturned states can ban same sex marriages from happening within their borders they just have to recognise the marriages the occur in others states.
I'm surprised at how his head bobbles when he talks/squeaks
Same! Seeing hateful conservatives cry just warms my heart.
Normally, I would say that someone who obsesses over gay people so much must have repressed homosexual urges, but with Ben, I think he is just a genuinely hateful person.
I agree. I definitely think there are some homophobes who are closeted gay. But I don’t like when people act like that’s all homophobes. I think that certain people just don’t like people who are different, and are brainwashed by religion.
I still wouldn’t rule it out. There was that old study about gay attraction in homophobes. Not a demonstrative study, but still interesting to note with all the examples we have of it
Nah. I refuse to believe he is anything less than bisexual.
You should check Very Tall Bart. The whole channel is a YTP that ships Ben Shapiro with Jordan Peterson.
@@Hellcommander245 Please understand the many men-on-men hookups that happen at those sausage-fest right-wing conferences such as TPUSA and the like. It's rampant, and I do not doubt that Ben has done it once or twice.
Weird that these people just assume that if gay marriage is illegal, somehow now all the gay people will get straight married and have kids.
I mean, it worked in the case of Ben, who publicly admits that he doesn't know/care about making his wife wet.
@@lnsflare1 Dude actually said that?
@@zephrosyne Not deliberately, but his response to the song WAP was a pearl-clutching screed where he said that his doctor wife told him that a WAP was a sign of illness.
@@lnsflare1 Didn't he also admit at one point that he's never changed a diaper too? I feel I may be misremembering, but if I'm not then he is also a shitty partner who doesn't help his wife.
@@lnsflare1 I just went and looked that up. Geez, he was really fit to be tied over that song. I had never even heard of the song until your post (I don't listen to the radio). It is just painful to listen to someone who speaks as if he is in a state of perpetual fast foward.
Any time Ben Shapiro is angry about something, you know it's for the best.
It's like how of the Westboro Baptists protest someone's funeral you know they were a good person.
Ben is straight up screeching that the law won't allow him to exercise his religious dogma commanding he hate, discriminate against and show bigotry towards those who have no adverse affect on his petty, worthless life.
Not when he’s disagreeing with people to the right of him, like Kanye and Nick Fuentes
@@superchargedhelium956 Even then his only disagreeing with them because they're shouting the parts he whispers.
@@tjenadonn6158 I mean, I'm pretty sure he doesn't whisper antisemitic things. Except against the people that Pope Ben I unilaterally declares aren't real Jews, I guess.
"For most of human history" he's actually just lying here
For most of human history we didn't wear clothes or write shit down. Most of human history was prehistory that that falls more into the realm of paleontology than archaeology.
@@tjenadonn6158 that's not history. History means recorded history. Civilization. You don't talk about the "history of the dinosaurs" for example.
@@holden6104 then what would you call it? that seems obtuse
@@zentai5076 ...prehistory
@@holden6104 ahh you ARE being obtuse:
History (from Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía) 'inquiry; knowledge acquired by investigation')[1] is the study and the documentation of the past.[2][3] Events before the invention of writing systems are considered prehistory.[4] "History" is an umbrella term comprising past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of these events. Historians seek knowledge of the past using historical sources such as written documents, oral accounts, art and material artifacts, and ecological markers.[5]
The issues Ben prioritizes shows that his life is way too easy.
His home state is always on fire
Identity politics is a product of having things way too easy.
@@holden6104 the civil rights movement was the product of black people in america having it too easy?
@@dinkystick the civil rights movement isn't identity politics
@@marcomoreno6748 it isn't? It wasn't about being held back in society due to people's identity? It wasn't about an entire communities experiences that are deeply tied to their identity?
Traditional marriage: trade my teenage daughter to an adult male for a goat.
Nahh
😂
@Ken 🏳️🌈 ⃠ Sell your daughter and wife too. Oh I bet you don't even have one.
You have problem ?
Ben’s warpath tactic is to raise the pitch of his voice and talk faster to leave us audibly tortured.
Shapiro's an old school fast talker, i.e. someone who talks quickly to keep you off balance. You don't have time to realize he's a saying nonsense.
Firehouse of high frequency falsehoods.
@Steven Kies Like an 80's pimp. Back then, the counter was simply slap the shit outta them and tell em shut the hell up.
I completely agree, well said.
Is Kyle not playing him on 1.5-speed?!? IS THAT JUST HOW HE SOUNDS???
I think it would be hilarious if there were gay wedding decorations that looked like Ben Shapiro in a dress.
Good one, cringelord
It would make some headlines. And Grand Central has no sense of humor.
Should a Muslim cake place be forced to bake a Muhammad pbuh cake? I want the face.
@@JavierFernandez01 Presumably a Muslim baker wouldn't prepare a depiction of Mohammed regardless of the customer. So that's a different situation from a baker refusing to provide someone a cake which is practically identical to cakes they sell to other people.
Then I've got a video for you:
Deep Fat Fried: Ben Shapiro x Daniel Craig art contest
I just find it sad we are still having to fight over these most basic human rights. I would like to focus on Medicare for all, infrastructure, climate change. But unfortunately a big segment of this country is still living in the medieval times.
Both left and right are living in medieval times, even the left have an over fixation with gay people. They are both polarized, love or hate gays, treating them neutrally like normal human beings would be the next step. If you identity is loving/hating gay people you are in the medieval, "ohhhh my God they are so beautifullll" 90 % of the left. I will never understand what's beautiful about being heterosexual, bi sexual or gay, it's just a trait, an orientation. Both parties are fucked, and have a sick fixation over people's orientation. Who cares, why that particular trait makes u valuable or a p of shit. I will never understand.
A few hours ago, I watched a group of people argue that things were so much better in 1908 that all of the infrastructure (specifically highways) built since should be torn down. I tried countering with the supply line situation, pointing out the freight vehicles in the "present" picture, but to no avail.
@@TechGroupF430i it's like trying to persuade flat earthers or the vaccine conspiracy. Just wasting your breath.
Is that not the plan tho ? Deflection.
@@TheScotsalan maybe certain politicians. But the evangelical base definitely has sincere hatred for gay people or anything LGBTQ. When I was a kid I was taught God would enact retribution on America if we ever allowed gay marriage.
As a business owner, you use what are called common services in order to run your business. Electricity, water, garbage, roads used for transportation; these are all utilities you rely on for your business to function. All of these services are funded by all groups of tax payers. You don't get to operate your business using services that are paid for by all members of society while simultaneously deciding which groups of society you are/aren't going to serve.
Please be honest with your assessment of the situation. Gays were never denied service. They were only denied those specific services which would infringe upon the baker's religious freedom. Totally reasonable. The media has spun this into a bigotry issue which is utter horseshit.
@@holden6104 why are you lying
@@Gambit0590 Unless I'm thinking of a different case, didn't the bakery say that they were willing to sell the couple a cake, just not a custom-made wedding cake? Don't know whether or not that makes a difference in terms of the law, but I don't think Holden is necessarily wrong about the literal details.
@@holden6104 he is NOT a priest/pastor/reverend/preacher/bishop/archbishop/imam/rabbi.....HE'S A BAKER AND HE PRODUCES A SERVICE FOR THE BROADEST POPULATION. he relies on quality goods and service and good will to expand his business, makes significant profits to keep his business running well.....just because 2 men or women want a wedding cake DOESN'T MEAN he endorses the way they live, he is simply wanting to provide a service.....nothing more
@@johnmcgee636 he would bake their cake. He didn't want to decorate it. That is his artistic expression. He bases his art around his faith.
How do you think Ben would react if a business said that they wouldn’t serve Jewish people because of "religious freedom"? Serious question.
If it wasn't for double standards the only standards he'd have are the ones he uses to decide which sixth graders he's going to stalk.
You have to understand that Ben is an egomaniac and takes the Biblical quote that Jews are God’s chosen people literally. He is superior to you in his mind. He is moral and you are amoral.
At this point I also just think he’s a hateful, unapologetic dick.
They’d be sued
I love how they claim to follow the constitution, but keep forgetting about the separation of church and state...
Edit: Dear Lord, what is this chain going on below this post?? 👀
Exactly 💯 👍
@@jesusfernandez-eh8cx upholding the right to worship is not a marriage between church and state. You might as well call upholding 1st amendment rights a marriage between press and state.
What does that have to do with two individuals being forced by the government to do something that one party doesn’t want to do?
Get help, the parts of your brain that produce the ability to reason aren't working.
@@holden6104 I'm not sure if I understand, are you saying that the right to worship is under attack?
When a business opens its doors it does not do so alone. It accepts use of huge amounts of government/tax support. Its employees were taught in public schools. The business is tied to a very expensive government funded transportation network, without which there would be no business. It gets police and fire protection, military protection. They also often get direct government subsidies or at least use subsidized raw materials. When accepting these huge advantages they also need to be required to provide services to ALL citizens.
Absolutely!
Business' also pay their fair share of taxes as well to support said services. Not seeing the point you're making other than you don't like the fact that people are exercising their freedoms here. It's okay if people don't want to do business with you, that's their right. It's also your right to shop somewhere else.
Yeah well said. It you and you're craft can't openly selictivly violate civil rights, I'm sure one can find dishonest justifications, or re-think, re-brand, or stop your biggited (illegal) polocies/actions.
That's freedome. Get right on side of the constitution, get loud and begrudgingly pretend, Or get the fuck outa the discussion.
@Terrance Cloverfield
If you don’t want to serve the public, then why open a business that serves the public? Either bake a cake for whoever walks through the door (unless that person is somehow a threat) or don’t open a business.
@@terrancecloverfield6791 they got the freedom to say what they want whenever they want. They can literally tell a person to their face what they dont like about them but to discriminate based on sexual preference IS discrimination. So idk what your point is exactly
the funniest thing about this is that ben came within inches of saying that if you are religious, it's ok for you to discriminate against gay people.
he almost gave the whole game away.
If you're religious, it's okay to discriminate against those that would force you against your religion. Has nothing to do with being gay. That's just liberal spin.
@@holden6104 Same exact argument was used to justify anti interracial marriage arguments. Should Muslim men be able to force relatives to wear head coverings if they don't want to because of their religion? The fact is just because somthing can be justified with your religion doesn't mean it isn't inherently discriminatory and steps on other people's right to equality under the law.
@@arturobasilio4123 There is an inherent difference between imposing a belief on someone, and someone resisting the imposition of a belief on himself.
I am for religious arguments towards prohibiting or limiting government intervention. I am against government becoming a conduit for religious imposition on private life. The particular situation we're dealing with falls in the former category.
@@holden6104 But why do so many religious people focus on the "sin" of being gay? And why is that same energy not applied to other "sins" in the same fashion?
@@dinkystickthey aren’t arguing against sin , they are arguing on behalf of power .
To be honest I'm all for this conservative anti-gay revival arc. It really goes to show just how out of touch they are. I haven't checked recently, but I know when they first started these talking points again even their crazy fanbase wasn't having it
100% agree. Yeah it backfired on them in the midterms.
So forcing religious people into heresy is okay with you?
@@holden6104 it’s absolutely fine with it if it allows more people to live freely with less religious oppression against them. I’m not cool with tolerating intolerance.
@@holden6104
What part of serving gay people is heresy?
@@holden6104 its not heresy homie and thats dangerous talk and you're bordering on it by invoking it frivolously
I used the exact gas station and diner argument against my Republican Dad and it actually worked. Thanks Kyle ❤️
Stupid analogy.
@@WL1264 how?
I wouldn’t say it’s a stupid analogy I just don’t agree that comparing someone’s sexual orientation against someone’s race/ethnicity is the same thing.
@@absurdterror9779 Why? Unless you are saying sexual orientation is a choice. Is that your argument? Because if it's not then it's the same thing. Discrimination over someone because of who they are inherently.
@@xq8152 I would say the analogy doesn't work for the concept of marriage... Since marriage is something that has been inherently religious, if one is speaking about a priest marrying someone its a bit different. Food and gas are secular things. The bible actually says marriage is between a man and woman. So if you have a priest who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible they may have religious grounds not to do it. I don't believe in that shit, but I feel that that is within the religious domain and thus it could be argued that it isn't the business of the government. I do think the argument works for the cake maker tho. Cake making is not an inherently religious act, get over yourself. ;)
"Pissing on the shelves" is my new favorite kyle quote
Anybody who has worked retail knows that at least a few times a year, someone cramps on the floor. Not in or near the bathroom but near the shoe rack or behind a display.
Hes a sissified men
How is denying gay people service because of religion any different than denying black people service because of racism?
The reason many religious people _think_ it’s different is they do not understand the science and think being gay is a choice. Even if they were aware that approximately the same percentage of other primates (yes, we are primates!) observed in the wild are also gay, they think humans are different and special.
I don’t know how to reconcile this, other than passing laws they have to abide by. They have a right to be ignorant (and wrong), but not to disobey equal protection laws.
Racism in itself has religious origins
@@PGVEL - It has a tribal (other) origin. Religion has certainly made it (and many other things!) much worse, but it’s not the origin.
The baker's arguments went out the window after we found out he made cakes for dog weddings lol
I personally disagree with you on the wedding cake thing. They were not against serving a cake to gay and or lesbian couples. But to making a cake celebrating something they disagree with.
I don't believe that the government should have the right to make people work against their will.
Would they make a cake celebrating the marriage of a fifty year old man to a fourteen year old girl? American Christians sure seem fond of those these days. It seems their only problem with consensual gay relationships isn't with the gay part, but with the consent.
@@tjenadonn6158 WTF. Weird red herring.
If Ben is getting married some day, and the baker says "I don't make wedding cakes for creepy bigots," that will be fair play.
Man, I can’t wait for a day that we can all be purity tested to buy a custom cake. 😂😂😂
Amen! And maybe a current photo ID cake buyers license so we can get the damned uncertified cake-eaters off of our streets, haha.
Peace!
This is a repeat of the day Obummer took all our guns. Life has never been the same, they're coming for our Superstraight cakes next!
You make A LOT of sense, Kyle.
Thanks for all your good work.
He's a bigger beta soy boy than sh1tpero
He's wrong about forcing churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. to conduct gay marriages though.
@@homersimpson408 he’s not. Those are indoctrniation centers and they should be demolished and he pastors jailed for covert bigotry
@@ProudCommie Well you sure as hell aren't hiding the ball are you comrade. Uncle Joe would be proud. And I'm not talking about Biden.
But no one even asked her to make them a website she didn't agree with...pitiful
The whole Wedding Cake thing is what you get when you have activist judges running our courts. There's no gay couple taking this lady to court and forcing her to make a wedding cake.
So should tell Ben that for 90% of human civilization we were polygamous hunter gatherer’s?
I like how Ben has to tack on the "for producing children" bit for the definition of marriage because he knows that if he leaves that out there is no reason it can't be redefined to just be a union between two people, because it fundamentally ignores that straight people can get married with no expectation of having kids together.
I don't even understand what he means by marriage being a "fundamental" institution. If he were to answer what "fundamental" in this case means, it'd boil down to religious reasons. Where else is marriage said to be for the purpose of producing children other than religious texts? Again, an inability or unwillingness to separate religion and government.
@@oldlavygenes honestly, progressives never should have taken their foot off of the "Republicans are religious weirdos" gas pedal.
People like him also like to shame people who don't want to marry or married people without kids
@@oldlavygenes He'd probably weasel around by saying something about 'Judeo-Christian values' or 'Western values'.
Plus, gay people could easily adopt all those children that they don't want women to abort, if they actually gave a shit about their well being.
how many times is this lil boy going to complain about wedding cakes??
Little boy but he is much greater than you 😂
@@HoangTheViet "gay marriage is a mental illness" yea definitely
@@ADrew26 Do some research, gay is mostly made from the environment, not you just born with it. Evidence everywhere,unhappy marriages have high percentage of creating gay/less. Think left-wing!
@@HoangTheViet you've clearly done your research
I agree with Kyle on a lot, but as a gay man, I think the Utah compromise is fine. Why would I want to get married in a homophobic church? I'll go to a church who wants me or I'll go to the Justice of the Peace.
Marriage should be "Any adult humans who give consent to be Married to one another."
Exactly! I've been married for 18 years and don't have children. In Ben's eyes I don't count
Kyle, I agree these business owners may be bigoted... but It's unfair to ask people sell out for money, or worse, force them out of fear of legal repercussions...
These small businesses are often labors of love as much as they are commercial ventures.
Yes, It's unfair of businesses to deny services to gay people, and to make people feel unwanted, but it's also unfair to be forced to twist ones honestly/deeply held religious beliefs. It causes deep psychological resentment/distrust/reflexive antogonism of leftists policy and authorities.
And those "bigoted people" are the ones you have to get on board if you want to get REAL SYSTEMIC CHANGE in this country. If you expect to make a coalition of perfect people, you will end up very lonely.
Hi Kyle. I think a more apropos analogue would be the pharmacists who refuse to dispense morning after pills, condoms or other reproductive / gynecological products on the basis of their religious beliefs as it shows a) a more recent example that ties into the right’s recent obsession with what goes on in a person’s bedroom and b) that these people are not just excusing the commitment emotional harm but also irreparable physical harm on others in the name of their “religious” rights. I find it extremely scary that a pharmacist or doctor might end up refusing me service due to their religious beliefs and with the Overton window moving as far right as it has, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a right wing Supreme Court might hear a case re: pharmacists refusing to serve certain clients or drugs based on religious grounds and the Supreme Court holding that up as their constitutional right.
8:10 sorry but i disagree with that.
If you are a priest and you run a church and you believe that gay people should not get married in your church nobody should force that priest to marry them.
If the whole christian or muslim or any religous community does not agree with gay people marrying in a church they have every right to not let them get married. That is their believe and it is not breaking any law or hurting someone. They just believe in what they believe is the true religion.
What is the other option? Create an LGTBQ church and create your own religion or just marry by state.
I agree and as a gay person why would I want to get married at a place that sees me as wrong?
Honestly I feel bad for Dave Rubin. These are the people he aligned himself with, thinking they'd be welcoming and that he could reason with them about basic human rights. But they hate him. Regardless of claiming they don't, this is how effortlessly they're able to stand against his very being.
I know this audience will tell me "lolz don't feel bad for him" but I do.
I don’t feel bad for Rubin. He’s a sellout and he knew exactly who he was getting into bed with. And if he didn’t know then he still had multiple opportunities to walk away, but chose to continue to be a sellout and a grifter.
U can feel bad for him. There’s just no real reason to do so. Dude could not be a dick and he wouldn’t suffer from it. Sometimes people don’t need pity they in fact need to be made fun of. Bc if Dave Rubin wants to not be in that situation. He could simply not be… u see. He can’t stop being gay… but he can stop being a grifter
I don’t see a church officiated wedding as being analogous to car repair services and dining. Just my 2c. Forcing any religious body to preside over a same-sex marriage is not going to work.
Prior to the 1970s, marital rape was not illegal in the United States, so a traditional view of marriage would state that a husband cannot legally rape his wife, regardless of her actual consent to the act. I wonder if Ben supports marital rape, since he wants to go back to a "traditional" definition of marriage.
Could explain why his wife is unable to get wet.
Wedding cakes are not necessities, bakers can deny baking cakes for LGBTs, but they are not allowed to force other bakeries to not bake cakes for LGBTs.
Ben’s overzealousness against gay rights coupled with his past admittance that he doesn’t get his wife wet has got me questioning him. 🤔
What happened to private companies having the ability to do what they want? I've heard this for years, especially with all the social media censoring.
As a disabled person who has been redlined out of intimate relationshiprelationships, I don't mind throwing rocks at the institution of marriage.
I'm sorry, could you elaborate?
@@Hipfireturtle I was just talking to someone about this the other day. Elderly people on retirement social security can marry and still get a check. Anybody on SSI can't even live with a romantic partner. It's a violation of civil rights. We need to have a class action suit.
@@Hipfireturtle Oh wow, I didn't know that !! That's terrible ! Roughly how long has this gone on?
It reminds me of something I read in the papers a couple of months ago. A gay couple wanted to view a house for sale, but the owners (a young Christian couple) sent them a message advising that they cannot allow them to view because of their beliefs. On one side, the majority of my colleagues argued that the owners have a right to their opinion and right to religious beliefs. I argued that it’s discrimination. What about kindness and compassion, they are a young couple wanting to buy their first home, what does their sexuality matter to the owners, it is just property anyway? If you don’t like someone because of their character fair enough, but this is just bullying to me. Morality is certainly not synonymous with religious beliefs.
Ben's never met an argument he couldn't strawman, lol. He wouldn't know a good faith argument if it bit him
As a religious person I agree with most of the points you’ve made. Especially the black couple not getting service analogy. The only problem with a “church wedding” is that it’s considered a religious ceremony. I understand and agree with the legal argument for marriage equality but ,tbh, I don’t understand why a gay couple would want to get married at a religious institution when they know it’s against that institution’s belief. Please help me understand that.
Kyle is so far off on that particular topic. it would be an act of cruelty to force a christian minister to perform homosexual weddings. A christian minster is NOT in the business of providing weddings.... he or she is in the business of shepherding christian communities.
The left becomes authoritarian and fascist if it begins to compel such actions. It is an act of thuggery and cruelty to force it even.
Perhaps ….just maybe, some Homosexual people are also religious and believe in Christ at the same time as being in a same sex relationship?
@@deadexplorations7439 Let me preface this by saying I'm an ally and big supporter of marriage equality...
Devil's Advocate question here: A church is a non-profit, not a business. Why wouldn't same couple rather have an officiant and church who supports them do the ceremony rather than people who literally hate them on the most joyous day of their lives?
I was one of those people that was thinking 'yeah it sucks people think this way but should the government really force contractors or whatever to contract with someone they personally don't want to' but the analogy you gave toward the end with the gas station put things into perspective so thank you Kyle.
It does, but then I question, what if someone came in to a bakery asking for a Nazi cake, with swastikas all over it, and a picture of Hitler. I mean, I wouldn't want to make that cake as Nazism is antithetical to my beliefs. I should not be forced to make that cake, or design such a website. Of course, Nazism isn't a protected class, to my knowledge.
Not same thing. The baker wasn't denying any essential services. He was willing to sell them a cake, he just didn't want to make a custom cake as that would require artistic expression.
@@Raphael4722 yeah its a lot more complicated then he is making it really. I don't buy into it 100% it just helps me understand the other side a bit better. The precedent it would set just feels wrong. Idk it really feels in this situation damned if you do damned if you don't. If we set the precedent that people HAVE to do things for their patrons and customers how far will that go? How will it be enforced? Will people take out video and say 'this man won't make a gay wedding cake for me?' what if the person makes up an excuse like he selling the establishment or he is closing for the day or whatever to get out of it? Are we going to have the police investigate? It really feels like it would be easy to abuse.
@@og_finn661 Just think what would happen if instead a christian went to muslim baker and told him/her to bake a custom cake saying "Jesus is God" or some shit. It would feel oppressive and rightly so. It's one thing to sell goods that you already have on your shelf, but when it comes to getting people to make custom goods/services it's different.
Forcing a Cristian church or any other religious church to marry a gay couple that go against their beliefs and convictions is wrong, and i said that as an atheist.
theres something about being called a scallywag and a goblin by kyle that mildly infuriates me and is soothing at the same time
The analogy about the Jim Crow Era is very relevant. People constantly used to justify their racial discrimination through religion. The belief that Africans and the diaspora were descendants of Cain and/or Ham was extremely widespread in the South during slavery and lingered in Protestant churches well past the middle of the 20th century.
Nowadays, it's like people can more easily understand Ben's argument is preposterous when applied to race, and see how you'd be making people lives more difficult for no objective reason. Change out "black" with "gay" and suddenly folks like Ben's brains turn off again.
When Kyle covers Shapiro clips I always find myself wondering if he's sped them up or if that's actually how fast the guy is talking. Fine line
You guys are going at it from different perspectives. You are saying the baker is denying the people. Ben is saying the baker is denying the event.
Art is very concerned with ethics, business may pretend to be at times, but never truly is.
June continues to be a month of business' grifting off the emotional weakness of people that need affirmation through consumerism. Spend at Target because they're selling pride flags but on July 1st..Also, Target imports much of their clothing from Oceania and China, conducting forced child slave labor by Western standards.
Oh Ben is gay. He’s locked up those feelings real tight. Lock and key. Every day, Ben looks mirror and says….”I AM SPARTACUS!!!” Nothing wrong with that Ben. You live your truth.
I dislike spiders. I have arachnophobia.
Naturally this means I am secretly a spider.
💯😅😂🤣
For the love of breathing, it's legal for people to marry whoever the F they want. It's not FORCED gay marriage. Why fret so much over it? It's not like any gay person is gonna marry Ben anyways. It's as simple as "People are (wait for it) PEOPLE" Plain and simple. A person, however said person looks, sounds or smells is a person. End of discussion.
"Gays don't deserve rights, kill them all but not in a hitler way" -Ben probably.
I'm honestly surprised anyone married him period. He must've had some really good dirt on his wife to blackmail her into tying the knot.
I wonder how people like Ben would feel about religious people having the ability to discriminate against interracial couples.
Although, I'm worried about putting that idea in their heads...
Religious people don't discriminate in that fashion anyways. Those that do are coming from a background of culture, not religion.
@@holden6104 People used religion to justify slavery and segregation.
Live and let live....equality for all 💯👏
You say this and then you’ll force people to bake a cake for you. That’s not live and let live. You’re the aggressor.
@@__foam Would you prefer that businesses be able to discriminate on race and religion?
@@__foam That's capitalism baby. We pay and you obey. If you don't like that you're free to become a communist/anarchist, but be warned: finding homophobic leftists is even harder than finding literate right wingers.
@@tjenadonn6158 except that’s not how it works. SCOTUS and the constitution agree with me. Not you.
Thanks for playing though.
@@yee2631 yes
I have a strange stance on this. Part of me if I was gay would actually want to know who turns me down because I'm gay. If they were force to make a cake or etc. Food in general I would like to know. If they where forced to make my food they would be likely to spit in my food. As it stands now they get marked.
I disagree about forcing churches to recognize same sex marriage. The option to get married should definitely be open and ordainable by some party (similar to right to an autorney kinda), but you can't force someone to change their beliefs. If a homosexual couple wants to get married by a church that hates gay people then maybe they should reconsider their church...
Most gay couples DO NOT CARE about getting married and recognize by the church. They are looking for the LEGAL RIGHTS.
I think this is one of the best segments you’ve ever done, Kyle. You stated every counterpoint to Ben’s BS perfectly! Great job.
Hits home as a trans women I have been refused service at so many nail salons and eyebrow places because I'm trans and they tell me to my face it's because I'm trans. I'm so greatful for for the nail brow places that are inclusive of all
And I aways see guys and trans women there I know why I'm literally on the other side of town where people like us have to go. And I aways give them a big tip for providing service to my "kind"
A restaurant in Virginia recently refused service to a religious organization and I don't see people mad about it.
Probably because it mean the religious finally get a taste of their own medicine
Eh, their own book says that if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword. Maybe of they spent more time reading it and less time beating people with it they'd know that.
Then that restaurant is wrong and should be sued. To be clear, I do think that if your service is essentially a form of art (like baking a custom cake) then you shouldn't be forced to bake it for the gay couple (you should just be boycotted out of business). But you should NOT be allowed to blanket refuse services like food that you serve to the public. So if the gay couple came in asking for a pre-baked cake-they should not be allowed to be denied because of their sexual orientation.
I'm beginning to think dying his hair blond was the catalyst for his Zach Morris costume and not the other way round
Absolutely. I'm not seeing any roots - our boy's been maintaining that shit.
The cake maker sighed a contract and went back on it. The web designer has not had anyone ask them to make a same sex merriage website and she took it to court.
The web designer doesn't even have a business yet! It's entirely hypothetical!
Gay marriage needs to be legal because marriage can affect your life and has legal implications, end of the story.
However the comparison to the racist south back in the day doesn't hold up. There is no religion that says you can't serve black people, it was bigotry without reason that's protected.
If your RELIGION says you can't do something it's protected. But if your feelings say you can't that's not protected.
This is bigotry with reason that is protected. There are interpretations of religion that say you can't serve the gays in this context.
Why do people keep relating these things? It's ignorant. If your religion says you're a Norse pagan and you cannot associate with burger King workers you're allowed to not associate with burger king workers. If your religion doesn't mention that specifically then it's not protected.
The Mormon Church's stance on black people in the past would disagree. Also Hinduism's caste system allows for discrimination based on family history. There's plenty of bigotry to be found in religion that can be argued should be protected on the grounds of religious freedom
If Republicans really lean into that type of discrimination, I'd probably go through with wanting to run a coffee shop, where we woundn't serve conservatives.
Can a florist choose not to make funeral flowers but all other events like weddings or conventions are okay? If you say the florist can choose not to do funerals, then how is that different than the gay cake?
once in a while ben makes good points and in those rare cases his delivery makes him seem kinda smart......but when he's literally like wiggling and squeaking like he's on 15x speed, clearly upset to his core OVER DUDES MARRYING EACHOTHER just makes him so pathetic I find it extremely hilarious. how could you give that many shits over other peoples actions.....ones that make those people happy no less
Playing Shapiro sped up is actually how they developed fusion.
I have figured out what to do with all these people who are not in favor of same-sex marriage. I am here by implementing a law that these people do not have to get married to someone of their own gender. Am I not generous. Look how easy it was for me not to care about who they're bro sexual lifestyle. I just wish they could do the same in regards to mine.
10:28 For crying out loud, I heard this talking point from TJ kirk's stream when he critiqued Matt Walsh's video on the idea of Walsh thinking Transgenderism as a religion. I am starting to think that this is the new talking point on the right where anything that attacks a religion, or is not subjected to said religion, must be itself another religion.
They've been doing this every since they started calling atheism a religion back when guys like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins started taking atheism mainstream back in the early 2000s. I'm pagan, and even I can see that atheism is only a religion in the same way that baldness is a hair color.
@@tjenadonn6158 ye but the difference between Transgenderism and atheism is that atheism still plays within the category of religious belief where transgenderism is more of a movement to acceptance towards individuals who are transgender.
You could also say there is another major difference on whether each is natural or social. People can choose whether or not to have a belief in god but some people who are transgender cannot just change who they are. That is one of the reasons why you simply cannot lump Transgenderism as though it were another religion.
One of your best videos, Kyle. Enjoyed it. Great points.
Could a gay surgeon choose to not save Ben Shapiro's life if he was in critical condition from some instance because of "a difference in beliefs" or "I don't support or recognise his way of life"? No of course not that'd be crazy.
I’ve been off the grid? What’s up with the hair? Kyle lose a bet? And he’s smashing Ball? Nice catch Kyle.
Dyed it for a couples Halloween costume with Krystal
@@angelcano4567 nice
Wow, that was a very classy way to put it but, yes they are engaged if I'm not mistaken.
I don't quite get why churches should be forced to perform a gay marriage when they don't want to. I agree no one should discriminate, but a church doesn't have to perform a service they don't want to and frankly if this behavior produces more atheists then I'm all for it.
You're wrong, Kyle. Forcing a church to marry a gay couple, despite homosexuality being seen as a sin by that church, is NOT the answer. I hate when the left goes this far. It's unreasonable and embarrassing. If a person believes they'll go to hell for "promoting sin by participating in a gay marriage", how dare you insist they go ahead with it?
@@Hipfireturtle I don't see the correlation myself, between tax status and doctrine, just looking at it fairly. However, I don't really see any good secular argument to allow religious institutions to be exempt from taxation either. So I kind of agree with you in spirit but I'm not comfortable with THAT kind of change as a mere tit-for-tat solution to the gay marriage problem. But as part of an overall overhaul of the entire relationship between church and state, sure!
I just think it's a whole different subject and I think gay people on this issue need to back down and let these bigots be bigots, find another church etc. A fight like this, well in a fight like this, clearly your activism is more important than you actually having a beautiful, harmonious wedding with the man/woman/other you supposedly love, and perhaps in that case you don't really deserve a wedding all that much. You certainly don't deserve a wedding enough to encroach on these bigoted but otherwise peaceful Christian types. Is that a world anyone wants to live in?
Kyle- this was truly excellent. I would love to see you and Ben have a conversation on this face to face. Your ability to see through his BS is so great.
Would Ben Shapiro support a traditional catholic businessman's right to refuse service to Jewish people on religious grounds? Is that freedom to Ben?
wonderful job with the what-if analogy scenario. Kyle shreds Ben, but that's really nothing new.
Cucklinski can't shred anyone hes a sissified weenie
Ben Shapiro on 2x speed sounds like the Micromachines guy.
I refuse to believe that Ben Shapiro doesn't have a meth lab in his garage.
Ben is in the dark ages.
Ppl like ben shapiro and jordan peterson want to pretend this is about individual rights but won't admit their homophobia. Discrimination is the last lasting feature of the hard right.
Refusing service to a class of people because they are gay (or black, Hispanic, etc.) is discrimination, and because of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is open to government regulation. That regulation is guided by the equal protection clause.
Refusing to express one's skills in a specific way (making a particular cake) that is against one's religious beliefs regarding the actions of another person (gay marriage, smoking pot, etc.) is protected under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has established this compromise, and regards these cases based on the specific facts in each.
It's a balancing act. And in this case religion should win because the aggrieved parties can easily find services elsewhere. Most of the time these cases are vexatious and meant as a form of harassment anyways.
@@holden6104 You're not being persecuted by being expected to treat those you seem subhuman as people. Nobody cares what your magic book says, this is the 21st century, not the 1st: women are humans, queerness is legal, children can't consent. Get with the times.
By your logic, this ability to dicriminate on actions should still apply to interracial marriage as an action even if it doesn't apply to race specifically. Would you say that a baker is still within their rights to refuse making a cake that celebrates an interracial marriage?
@@yee2631 In your example, a First Amendment religious protection doesn't seem to apply. It seems based on straightforward racial animus that has resulted in a discriminatory act.
Therefore, it would be under federal Civil Rights restrictions.
The surrounding facts of the case would clarify to the Court the exact circumstances.
As Kyle pointed out, Ben Shapiro is attacking the basis for the Civil Rights Acts altogether. (He, like many libertarians, are basing their claims implicitly on an extreme notion of property rights.)
That has not been the Supreme Court's record over the last decades. They have explained that such exemptions can be applied for religious causes based on First Amendment protections. But the Court has not attacked the underlying Constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Acts. (Not yet, anyway.)
@@stephenbailey9969 Do you think racial discrimination could be justified if there was a religious basis for it? Up until the mid 20th century, people used to justify enslavement of Africans on a religious basis by claiming them to be descendants of the biblical Ham, who was cursed to have his descendants be "servants of servants" for dishonoring his father Noah.
I agree with you but comparing segregation to gay wedding cakes is ludicrous
Its sad how badly brain broken Ben is
Nah, that’s just your blind hate
@@bobbun4369 Hate is a strong word. But I do hate bigotry and anti-freedom ideologies.
@@yunglukiebabewhat “bigotry” and “anti freedom”?
@@bobbun4369 I dont think you watched the video.
@@yunglukiebabeI listen to Ben everyday.. so I did more than you.. I don’t need to be spoon fed by Kyle the wanna be Eminem
Kyle’s stance is that The Mango episode from Seinfeld is a solid basis for a private restaurant to serve someone. Anything identity based that can’t be changed isn’t a justifiable reason to *not* serve someone.
Generally, agree. But that really depends on the organization. Public? Absolutely not. Private? Arguable they can deny service, it just won’t end well for them necessarily.
They are not being denied services. They are being denied those specific services that would constitute in affront to the provider's religious sensibilities. What is the big deal? There are hundreds of cake makers that can fill that gap.
I agree.
Remember Kyle said: You are objectively wrong if you like fall and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Autumn bis
Imagine commenting this on every video since fuck knows when. Touch grass.
Still? Get a life
How could we ever forget for a single day? Lol
BEN'S EYEBROWS: U CAN'T UNSEE THEM
Are they all natural?
If someone is against Jewish marriage can they discriminate under Ben's argument.
Kyle my only disagreement with you is that some “services” are different than others. Some are government guaranteed rights, others are simply not. Getting gas or food is a right, having a cake designed for you isn’t.
By that logic, a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a black couple, if they believe in a religion that's racist.
When you redefine a word that was made up... Might as well go straight to hell!
Terrible analogy at the end. There is a huge difference in a baker refusing to make a cake and a restaurant owner refusing to serve someone for being gay. If the government forces a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding they are forcing people to act in a way that is contrary to their beliefs. People hold genuine religious views and people are genuinely gay. But neither view point should be forced upon either of these two groups.
I hold the genuine religious view that tight wingers are more closely related to bacteria than to humans, and I reserve the religious right to force-feed hand sanitizer to any right wingers I encounter until they either evolve into humans or enter the past tense. You can't stop me because it's my genuine religious belief, and to dupl me would be forcing your beliefs upon me. Ben won't be fake crying this time.
@@tjenadonn6158 great to see people on the left are capable of making good substantive arguments
ok that doesnt make any sense either because suddenly every black/gay/trans person is 'looking for trouble' and 'disturbing the clients' etc etc
I am a lefty and am happy that gay marriage is legal. But I don't think it'd be right to force a church to host a gay wedding. I know that religious freedoms are often overstated and overprotected, but you're talking about forcing an actual church here to put on a ceremony against their will. Who even wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them? Seems like a very rare situation that a gay couple would insist on getting married at a place that rejects them. Church's aren't really comparable to a bakery or a 711. It is literally a place of worship.
That analogy was perfect 👌
"You are geh" "Why are you geh?" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I was about to shit on Ben for being homophobic (which he is) then I had to do a double take on Kyle's insane nonsense regarding forcing religious institutions to marry gay people. They should but it is clearly a violation of their religious rights to force religious institutions to ordain a union that goes against their beliefs. You are calling for a MASSIVE government intrusion into religion and basically trying to dictate their tenets. Ironically you are just proving Ben's point (to be clear-he is still wrong. Just because the left wants to be authoritarian towards people of faith doesn't give him an excuse to be discriminatory against gay people. Two wrongs don't make a right).
Much trolling.
@@itsmrme4951 "Opinions I don't like are trolling. I am so smart!" 🤡🤡🤡🤡
I share your position but nobody is forcing you to do your job, Kyle. Nobody is forcing you to cover what you don't want to cover.
Bruh, how are we not past this yet. Who the hell cares, for real, just let people live so long as it’s consensual and no one’s being hurt. I see this kind of fervor and just feel tired and sorry for these fools.
I agree with the compromise. Not having a gay couple married at a church makes sense. Why would a gay couple would want to get married at a Church anyways? Why be in a religion where the other members are taught to shun you? Why be in a religion at all?
Holy crap I can't keep up, is it on 2x speed?