I do think that descrimination outweighs religion here. What if, for example, christians stopped serving muslims and jews - or anyone who'd ever been divorced? Or what if they stopped serving anyone who owned more than 1 shirt (Ephesians). But separately, I also don't think it's right to use shows like "The Good Wife" to sell in-your-face left wing politics. I'm a gay independent and have watched american media skew so far to the left that borders on the absurd. Season six of the The Good Wife became so inundated with left wing propaganda that it ruined the show for countless viewers who hadn't yet drunk the liberal kool-ade. Not surprisingly, the show's ratings suffered.
I’ll do you one better, imagine the same baker in any of the 50 states she refuses to bake a cake for a doting couple, because he’s White and she’s black. The same baker sites Her religion as the explanation. Explain to me why that doesn’t constitute discrimination? Likewise if the same Baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because she’s a Catholic, and the bride (a fellow Catholic) is about to marry a Jew. Her branch of Catholic Church doctrine prohibits marrying non-Catholics without conversion. The point being it is exclusively in the case of same-sex marriage that these arguments are ever considered. And it is only in the case of same-sex marriage that you’re ever able to find a judge or a jury that might actually side with you. In all other cases, the baker is considered a laughingstock. Also we must think about the slippery slope that this sets, if a baker can refuse to serve LGBTQ clients where is the line drawn. Are doctors no longer allowed to uphold the Hippocratic oath if the patient is gay and helping them violates their religious practices? Outside the realm of LGBTQ rights, who is to say that liberal doctors no longer have to treat conservative patients because doing so now violates their beliefs or values. There’s no in-between, either we’re all equal or we’re not.
I've been an outlier with this argument. I usually side with the baker and the fact that the free market will adjust accordingly. The fault here is that society as a whole needs to see things the same way. At least to the degree that any baker that refuses services on such grounds is punished financially... by customers going elsewhere and forcing them to close their bakery in a few months due to lack of revenue. However, today's society... though it's beginning to sway toward the left in regard to gay rights... still does not agree that the LGBTQ+ community should be treated the same (especially in certain regions of the country). The other hypotheticals you cite (interracial marriage and catholicism) once would have had just as much uproar as the gay couple. Today, they are accepted by society, while LGBTQ+ still are not. In regards to the doctors, you mention the very reason they can't behave in a similar manner. Doctors take an oath to heal patients... no matter who the patient may be. Case in point, Dr. Samuel Mudd. He set Booth's broken leg after Booth shot President Lincoln. He was convicted as part of the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln but maintained his innocence and was pardoned by President Johnson after serving 4 years of his life sentence. If they do not heal the patient, they violate this oath. However, the AMA doesn't have legal grounds in this regard, but the various medical organizations and societies do have guidelines and a doctor that doesn't follow them may find it hard to be in the medical practice. So rather than legislate this, we must educate society that a gay couple has just as much right to the same consideration. And that takes time.
Let's say it's a small town, so small that the only plumber (a devout christian) is in a nearby town. What if he stopped serving anyone who's faith didn't jibe with his - free mkt's hand would fail to satisfy that void. However, it's also never right to use shows like "The Good Wife" to sell in-your-face left wing politics. I'm a gay independent and have watched american media skew so far to the left that it borders on the absurd. Good Wife (season 7) was so packed with left wing propaganda that viewers (like myself) just stopped watching. Not surprising that the show's ratings suffered.
@@attsealevel I do not believe the free market would fail in your scenario. In fact, your scenario starts with a lack of a free market already. It's a monopoly run by a single plumbing company. That is a golden opportunity for another business to move in and break up the stranglehold of that one company. That's exactly what the free market is supposed to do. In response to your other comment, The Good Wife's Season 6 ratings actually were UP from Season 5 and Season 4... Season 4 - Rank 27th - 10.98 million average viewership Season 5 - Rank 23rd - 11.43 million average viewership Season 6 - Rank 22nd - 12.17 million average viewership It grew throughout... so I don't see where they "suffered" as you claimed. If you're talking just within the season itself, it's common for shows to drop off throughout a season after the premiere episode and especially after they take a huge hiatus. Good Wife was off the air for half of January and the entire month of February in 2015. Before that, it held continuously strong viewership averaging over 13 million per episode. When it came back, it still held over 10.5 viewers.
@@jaginaz Not sure you can expect a small midwestern town to quickly produce more plumbers, doctors, electricians... which can often take months/years to free mkt assimilate. Far as Good Wife, I was talking aftermath numbers (season 7 viewers went way down).
@@jaginaz I agree with some of what you said, but the point I made with Catholicism is the baker would never invoke Catholic doctrine on marrying outside of the religion. But she would invoke Catholic doctrine with regards to the genders of the spouses. In other words her claim to religious freedom is impeached by the fact that she’s already ignoring her religion in the other instance. As to the example I gave with the doctors there is pending legislation in Arkansas that would give doctors the right to ignore the Hippocratic oath for gay people (due to religious conviction) unless the patient is in critical care. So it’s not exactly a far-fetched notion, we also have to remember it was done before during the AIDS pandemic of 1984. There were some doctors who treated patients as second class citizens. Lastly and this is the larger point, it says right in the first amendment that Congress shall create no law respecting an establishment of religion. When the baker invokes her religion as a means of exemption, she is effectively asking for the law to respect and establishment of religion, namely her’s. And as a government and as a society we can’t be making allowances, there’s too much of that going on in other avenues. And as we all know from other tumbled governments, when you make allowances with regards to the constitution you don’t have a constitution you have a piece of paper..
Those poor guys had to go to four bad movie sets and a whole bargain bin of Party City Halloween costumes, just to be offered bear claws by a stock photo image of a baker?
My best friend has already told me that if I ever get married, that she would pose as my wife for the purposes of buying a wedding cake so as to avoid a situation like this. Of course, I'd be the guy who would pose with my husband in front of the cake, and naming the bakery where we got it from.
Except there is nothing in the bible that says selling a cake, wedding or otherwise, to a gay couple, or for the use of a gay couple in their wedding, is a sin. Nor is there anything about making a cake for such an occasion free of charge. Then of course there is the issue that if you conceed that this is allowed on religious grounds, then why not the sale of one's daughter? That, unlike the cake, is specifically allowed and procedure defined as to how to go about doing it, so the case to allow a Christian to sell their daughter is far stronger than this cake case. If the sale of the daughter however is not permitted due to religion, then how on earth is the refusal to sell a cake going to be permitted?
"Selling your daughter" is not a religious practice or a command. It was normal part of culture in ancient history. It's sound ludacious to our time because we are of a more priveldeged form of society. But back then, if you didn't own much land or livestock, you didn't have the greatest prospect for your daughter to be married or cared for. Likewise you could easily find yourself indebted to someone. The only option that was available to the poor or indebted person was to work as a servant. A man who "sell their daughter" in other words was one who was employing their daughter to a job. She would work for a family and with hopes that she could one day become a concubine (a servant wife). And God's law was simply to ensure that your daughter as a servants would not be treat or sold as a slave and was provided and cared for. If she was not she would go free with the Father having to pay a ransom price. And it also ensured that if she was a made a wife that she was treated like any other wife or else likewise she would also go free with the Father paying a ransom price. So I don't see what your argument is. First of all, because they is no law that commands you to "sell your daughter" the law you are referring is simply God regulating how maidservants should be treated after employment. In fact There is a law from that says not sell into prospistuation. Lev 19:26 You just bring up something completely random to avoid the issue. Art is an expression of ones self, wedding cakes is something celebratory, if a Christian respectful says I will make any cake for you, except one that celebrate what we believe God call sin then why should we be forced.
Someone who owns a bakery is clearly not being *forced* to bake anything for anybody. The issue here isn't cake; the issue is whether or not refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding constitutes some kind of religious act akin to prayer or worship.
@@BigBri550 I disagree - the problem was the message to be written on the cake, promoting gay partnerships. Not a problem for me, but it was for this baker.
@@Loosehead It still comes down to religion. Why didn't the baker like the message? Because it lauded a gay marriage. Why didn't the baker like a message that lauded gay marriage? Because it went against his religious beliefs. Refusing to do something based on First Amendment freedom of religious expression comes down to it _being_ an act of religious expression in the first place. Is putting a message on a wedding cake a religious act?- no, not even if it is a religious message. There is nothing inherently religious/worshipful about adorning wedding cakes; therefore, refusing to do so for a gay couple comes down to an act of prejudicial discrimination because of personal, religious-based reservations. It is an attempt to violate another's civil liberties (not be discriminated against for what they are) and justifying it by claiming one's own civil liberties (freedom of exercising one's religion).
@@Loosehead Right. I get it. What I want you to see is that the baker's discrimination based on his religious indignation at being requested to put a message on a wedding cake supposedly "promoting" gay marriage is not covered under the First Amendment. What if the issue wasn't about sexual orientation? What if it was about ... *religion?* For instance, if the wedding was for a Muslim union: "I refuse to put a message on a wedding cake that promotes Allah because of my First Amendment free exercise of religion to believe only in the Judeo-Christian God." Does the baker have a First Amendment right to discriminate based on religious differences? NO. What about an interracial marriage? "I refuse to put a message on a wedding cake that promotes interracial marriage because it violates my religious belief in white separatism." Is that covered under the First Amendment? NO. Do you see what I am getting at here?
At that point it stops being about the cake. If someone is suing for discrimination it’s not because they want to be able to interact with someone who hates them, they want justice and/or retribution for discrimination and mistreatment. If your discriminated against you can sue that person and never step near them again and it would be the be the same except for now they just paid you instead if you paying them
Here are the facts about the real world 🗺 Colorado baker 👨🍳 who objected to the gay 🏳️🌈 couple’s wedding cake 🎂. It wasn’t about the BAKING of the cake 🎂, it was about the DECORATION of it. The act of decoration is a form of artistic expression and is therefore covered under the 1st Amendment. Artists cannot be *compelled* to produce their “expression”. That’s compulsory speech 🎤, which is illegal. However, it’s very unfortunate that this gay 🏳️🌈 couple is engaging in what’s called “lawfare” (legal warfare). Their plan is to ruin the bakery 🧁 by forcing the baker 👨🍳 into paying legal fees in order to go to court just to fight against frivolous lawsuits levied against him. Eventually (hopefully, by the couple’s reckoning) the bakery 🧁 may go out of business due to these legal fees.
"She just won't do the one thing her religion says is a sin." The problem with this argument is that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids selling things--even wedding cakes--to homosexuals. It may speak clearly against homosexual behavior, but, as far as I know, that is as far as it goes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
@@BigBri550 I've heard this opinion before, but I don't get it. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." That seems pretty clear to me. How do you think it is not clear?
@@TH-camallowedmynametobestolen It would be clear if Leviticus had originated in English, but it didn't. The original Greek Leviticus 18:22 reads "καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν" which transliterated says "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (A) disgusting ritual is that." Do you see a *clear* prohibition against homosexual behavior there? I don't. Leviticus 20:13 is no clearer. תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּֽם׃ in Hebrew transliterates "(a) man lie down (a) male in bed (married) woman two make disgusting ritual" ... I find it interesting how in both verses the "abomination" is apparently a pagan _ritual._ In neither case is it apparent exactly what that ritual is except that it apparently involves sex, and not necessarily just homosexuality. In fact, both verses could be referring to marital adultery rather than homosexuality.
@@BigBri550 I understand very well that translations can be a tricky thing. You run the risk of losing the real meaning both by trying too hard to give a literal translation and by allowing too much leeway for interpretation. I'm not sure what "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman" means. And I have absolutely no idea what "(a) man lie down (a) male in bed (married) woman two make disgusting ritual" means. I don't see any suggestion that either has anything to do with any kind of ritual. I have zero problem with homosexuality myself, but I do suspect that those who make arguments such as the one you have made are trying too hard to find a reason to think Biblical scripture doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. It seems to me you are doing rhetorical contortions to make the Bible support your views.
This is such a disgusting argument. If you choose to engage in commerce, and want to treat people differently based on their immutable characterists, it's no different than race an it's unacceptable. It's immoral and it should be illegal. Talk about taking the anti establishment clause way over the line from what it was intended for.
@@chuckychuck8318 You Don't get to pick and choose, what you do make, and which side you do support. That's the thing, you support ALL sides, or No sides. It does not MATTER, what you believe. Your business,, even tho you legally own it, is NOT ABLE to believe in a religion, as you are. It, is a mindless entity, that is there to sell a product to the public. It does NOT sell the product, or products, to the public, under the "following stipulations." NOOOOOO, that's NOT how it works. You Don't get to set what "stipulations" there are, in order for a sale to occur. If you think you, because you own the business, think you're somehow entitled to do that, your business should be shut down. The people, who are directing you to make a specific custom cake, regardless of what you believe, are NOT incurring damage upon you. If they asked you to make a cake, with a portrayal of a terrorist attack, or a president being murdered, or something in regards to child exploitation, then YES, you can refuse to VIOLATE the LAW. Other than that, it's Fair Game. You, should have done your due diligence, and sufficiently and thoroughly, done your research, in regards to the specific business you wanted to open, and the details surrounding that, before you launch your business and open your doors to the public! You can think something, is wrong, or immoral, or unethical, or just plain grose . . . does Not mean other people share your school of thought, or belief system. Your holy book, and deity, can tell you you must do certain things, but that, can NOT INTERFERE, with your business, and how you CONDUCT business. Don't like it, then Don't be in that PARTICULAR BUISNESS! Thank You!
I still don't understand the point of the argument. You're running a business. Just baked he damn cake. You making a cake doesn mean you condone gay marriage and the bible says to follow the law. Making a cake for a gay couple is not a sin. Discrimination and judgement is, however, a sin.
So if the baker is gay, and some straight order cake with writting "gay is poison for good community", and the baker refused, is he doing discrimination also?
Religious arguments against logical situations are so exhausting. There’s no point arguing with religious people on these types of topics, they will wear you out. You won’t bake a cake because your religion says gay cakes are bad, but will buy a gun because your religion supports that? Fuck yeah, ‘Murica I guess. Ever seen or read about how religious people react when they are discriminated against based their religion? That’s how you know these conversations only exist to validate religiosity on factual issues.
Ehhhh, show the rest of the scene, where the guy pulls Diane aside and says that's NOT a good point, and she needs to attack the argument in earnest without worry of offending him.
The argument of not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple because it condones homosexuality is the same as saying you won't watch movies anymore because it condones adultery. Ridiculous.
This is why I’ll forever be rewatching The Good Wife until the day I die.
Me too. And the good fight
"I'm sorry, I won't serve you because you eat shellfish and wear blended fabrics". How'd that fly? It's in the bible. 🤔
This is how debates of all kind of topics should be. Hearin each other out, listening, answering CALMLY. Ah I love this show
What is the show no I never seen this before
@@wheelyjon the show is called The Good Wife
@@taymoorarsalan7789 do you know from which episode from which season is extract this scene ?
@@adetanouarn1883 S6 E18
I do think that descrimination outweighs religion here. What if, for example, christians stopped serving muslims and jews - or anyone who'd ever been divorced? Or what if they stopped serving anyone who owned more than 1 shirt (Ephesians). But separately, I also don't think it's right to use shows like "The Good Wife" to sell in-your-face left wing politics. I'm a gay independent and have watched american media skew so far to the left that borders on the absurd. Season six of the The Good Wife became so inundated with left wing propaganda that it ruined the show for countless viewers who hadn't yet drunk the liberal kool-ade. Not surprisingly, the show's ratings suffered.
I’ll do you one better, imagine the same baker in any of the 50 states she refuses to bake a cake for a doting couple, because he’s White and she’s black. The same baker sites Her religion as the explanation. Explain to me why that doesn’t constitute discrimination? Likewise if the same Baker refuses to provide a wedding cake because she’s a Catholic, and the bride (a fellow Catholic) is about to marry a Jew. Her branch of Catholic Church doctrine prohibits marrying non-Catholics without conversion. The point being it is exclusively in the case of same-sex marriage that these arguments are ever considered. And it is only in the case of same-sex marriage that you’re ever able to find a judge or a jury that might actually side with you. In all other cases, the baker is considered a laughingstock. Also we must think about the slippery slope that this sets, if a baker can refuse to serve LGBTQ clients where is the line drawn. Are doctors no longer allowed to uphold the Hippocratic oath if the patient is gay and helping them violates their religious practices? Outside the realm of LGBTQ rights, who is to say that liberal doctors no longer have to treat conservative patients because doing so now violates their beliefs or values. There’s no in-between, either we’re all equal or we’re not.
I've been an outlier with this argument. I usually side with the baker and the fact that the free market will adjust accordingly. The fault here is that society as a whole needs to see things the same way. At least to the degree that any baker that refuses services on such grounds is punished financially... by customers going elsewhere and forcing them to close their bakery in a few months due to lack of revenue.
However, today's society... though it's beginning to sway toward the left in regard to gay rights... still does not agree that the LGBTQ+ community should be treated the same (especially in certain regions of the country). The other hypotheticals you cite (interracial marriage and catholicism) once would have had just as much uproar as the gay couple. Today, they are accepted by society, while LGBTQ+ still are not.
In regards to the doctors, you mention the very reason they can't behave in a similar manner. Doctors take an oath to heal patients... no matter who the patient may be. Case in point, Dr. Samuel Mudd. He set Booth's broken leg after Booth shot President Lincoln. He was convicted as part of the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln but maintained his innocence and was pardoned by President Johnson after serving 4 years of his life sentence. If they do not heal the patient, they violate this oath. However, the AMA doesn't have legal grounds in this regard, but the various medical organizations and societies do have guidelines and a doctor that doesn't follow them may find it hard to be in the medical practice.
So rather than legislate this, we must educate society that a gay couple has just as much right to the same consideration. And that takes time.
Let's say it's a small town, so small that the only plumber (a devout christian) is in a nearby town. What if he stopped serving anyone who's faith didn't jibe with his - free mkt's hand would fail to satisfy that void. However, it's also never right to use shows like "The Good Wife" to sell in-your-face left wing politics. I'm a gay independent and have watched american media skew so far to the left that it borders on the absurd. Good Wife (season 7) was so packed with left wing propaganda that viewers (like myself) just stopped watching. Not surprising that the show's ratings suffered.
@@attsealevel I do not believe the free market would fail in your scenario. In fact, your scenario starts with a lack of a free market already. It's a monopoly run by a single plumbing company. That is a golden opportunity for another business to move in and break up the stranglehold of that one company. That's exactly what the free market is supposed to do.
In response to your other comment, The Good Wife's Season 6 ratings actually were UP from Season 5 and Season 4...
Season 4 - Rank 27th - 10.98 million average viewership
Season 5 - Rank 23rd - 11.43 million average viewership
Season 6 - Rank 22nd - 12.17 million average viewership
It grew throughout... so I don't see where they "suffered" as you claimed. If you're talking just within the season itself, it's common for shows to drop off throughout a season after the premiere episode and especially after they take a huge hiatus. Good Wife was off the air for half of January and the entire month of February in 2015. Before that, it held continuously strong viewership averaging over 13 million per episode. When it came back, it still held over 10.5 viewers.
@@jaginaz Not sure you can expect a small midwestern town to quickly produce more plumbers, doctors, electricians... which can often take months/years to free mkt assimilate. Far as Good Wife, I was talking aftermath numbers (season 7 viewers went way down).
@@jaginaz I agree with some of what you said, but the point I made with Catholicism is the baker would never invoke Catholic doctrine on marrying outside of the religion. But she would invoke Catholic doctrine with regards to the genders of the spouses. In other words her claim to religious freedom is impeached by the fact that she’s already ignoring her religion in the other instance. As to the example I gave with the doctors there is pending legislation in Arkansas that would give doctors the right to ignore the Hippocratic oath for gay people (due to religious conviction) unless the patient is in critical care. So it’s not exactly a far-fetched notion, we also have to remember it was done before during the AIDS pandemic of 1984. There were some doctors who treated patients as second class citizens. Lastly and this is the larger point, it says right in the first amendment that Congress shall create no law respecting an establishment of religion. When the baker invokes her religion as a means of exemption, she is effectively asking for the law to respect and establishment of religion, namely her’s. And as a government and as a society we can’t be making allowances, there’s too much of that going on in other avenues. And as we all know from other tumbled governments, when you make allowances with regards to the constitution you don’t have a constitution you have a piece of paper..
Those poor guys had to go to four bad movie sets and a whole bargain bin of Party City Halloween costumes, just to be offered bear claws by a stock photo image of a baker?
Diane lockhart is such a classy, intelligent and elegant human being
we need her in these tough times
My best friend has already told me that if I ever get married, that she would pose as my wife for the purposes of buying a wedding cake so as to avoid a situation like this.
Of course, I'd be the guy who would pose with my husband in front of the cake, and naming the bakery where we got it from.
I m sure there are plenty of bakery willing to take your wedding cake order… for me I just walk out, never go back
it’s crazy how we allow people to discriminate others, because of a belief in outdated, medieval fantasy stories
Amen lol
Except there is nothing in the bible that says selling a cake, wedding or otherwise, to a gay couple, or for the use of a gay couple in their wedding, is a sin. Nor is there anything about making a cake for such an occasion free of charge.
Then of course there is the issue that if you conceed that this is allowed on religious grounds, then why not the sale of one's daughter? That, unlike the cake, is specifically allowed and procedure defined as to how to go about doing it, so the case to allow a Christian to sell their daughter is far stronger than this cake case. If the sale of the daughter however is not permitted due to religion, then how on earth is the refusal to sell a cake going to be permitted?
"Selling your daughter" is not a religious practice or a command. It was normal part of culture in ancient history. It's sound ludacious to our time because we are of a more priveldeged form of society. But back then, if you didn't own much land or livestock, you didn't have the greatest prospect for your daughter to be married or cared for. Likewise you could easily find yourself indebted to someone. The only option that was available to the poor or indebted person was to work as a servant. A man who "sell their daughter" in other words was one who was employing their daughter to a job. She would work for a family and with hopes that she could one day become a concubine (a servant wife). And God's law was simply to ensure that your daughter as a servants would not be treat or sold as a slave and was provided and cared for. If she was not she would go free with the Father having to pay a ransom price. And it also ensured that if she was a made a wife that she was treated like any other wife or else likewise she would also go free with the Father paying a ransom price.
So I don't see what your argument is. First of all, because they is no law that commands you to "sell your daughter" the law you are referring is simply God regulating how maidservants should be treated after employment. In fact
There is a law from that says not sell into prospistuation. Lev 19:26
You just bring up something completely random to avoid the issue. Art is an expression of ones self, wedding cakes is something celebratory, if a Christian respectful says I will make any cake for you, except one that celebrate what we believe God call sin then why should we be forced.
A nuanced conversation that unfortunately is obviously a work of fiction
Would you want a cake baked by someone who was forced to bake it for you? The major ingredient would be saliva and other bodily fluids.
Someone who owns a bakery is clearly not being *forced* to bake anything for anybody. The issue here isn't cake; the issue is whether or not refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding constitutes some kind of religious act akin to prayer or worship.
@@BigBri550 I disagree - the problem was the message to be written on the cake, promoting gay partnerships. Not a problem for me, but it was for this baker.
@@Loosehead It still comes down to religion. Why didn't the baker like the message? Because it lauded a gay marriage. Why didn't the baker like a message that lauded gay marriage? Because it went against his religious beliefs. Refusing to do something based on First Amendment freedom of religious expression comes down to it _being_ an act of religious expression in the first place.
Is putting a message on a wedding cake a religious act?- no, not even if it is a religious message. There is nothing inherently religious/worshipful about adorning wedding cakes; therefore, refusing to do so for a gay couple comes down to an act of prejudicial discrimination because of personal, religious-based reservations. It is an attempt to violate another's civil liberties (not be discriminated against for what they are) and justifying it by claiming one's own civil liberties (freedom of exercising one's religion).
@@Loosehead Right. I get it. What I want you to see is that the baker's discrimination based on his religious indignation at being requested to put a message on a wedding cake supposedly "promoting" gay marriage is not covered under the First Amendment.
What if the issue wasn't about sexual orientation? What if it was about ... *religion?* For instance, if the wedding was for a Muslim union: "I refuse to put a message on a wedding cake that promotes Allah because of my First Amendment free exercise of religion to believe only in the Judeo-Christian God." Does the baker have a First Amendment right to discriminate based on religious differences? NO.
What about an interracial marriage? "I refuse to put a message on a wedding cake that promotes interracial marriage because it violates my religious belief in white separatism." Is that covered under the First Amendment? NO.
Do you see what I am getting at here?
At that point it stops being about the cake. If someone is suing for discrimination it’s not because they want to be able to interact with someone who hates them, they want justice and/or retribution for discrimination and mistreatment. If your discriminated against you can sue that person and never step near them again and it would be the be the same except for now they just paid you instead if you paying them
Here are the facts about the real world 🗺 Colorado baker 👨🍳 who objected to the gay 🏳️🌈 couple’s wedding cake 🎂. It wasn’t about the BAKING of the cake 🎂, it was about the DECORATION of it. The act of decoration is a form of artistic expression and is therefore covered under the 1st Amendment. Artists cannot be *compelled* to produce their “expression”. That’s compulsory speech 🎤, which is illegal. However, it’s very unfortunate that this gay 🏳️🌈 couple is engaging in what’s called “lawfare” (legal warfare). Their plan is to ruin the bakery 🧁 by forcing the baker 👨🍳 into paying legal fees in order to go to court just to fight against frivolous lawsuits levied against him. Eventually (hopefully, by the couple’s reckoning) the bakery 🧁 may go out of business due to these legal fees.
Joel
"She just won't do the one thing her religion says is a sin."
The problem with this argument is that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids selling things--even wedding cakes--to homosexuals. It may speak clearly against homosexual behavior, but, as far as I know, that is as far as it goes.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
@@solarydays "they didn't want to put the extra stuff on it that clearly represent a gay wedding"
I was not aware of that. Thank you, Andrea.
Okay, I'll correct you: the bible does not speak clearly against homosexual behavior.
@@BigBri550 I've heard this opinion before, but I don't get it.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
That seems pretty clear to me.
How do you think it is not clear?
@@TH-camallowedmynametobestolen It would be clear if Leviticus had originated in English, but it didn't. The original Greek Leviticus 18:22 reads "καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν" which transliterated says "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman. (A) disgusting ritual is that."
Do you see a *clear* prohibition against homosexual behavior there? I don't.
Leviticus 20:13 is no clearer. תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּֽם׃ in Hebrew transliterates "(a) man lie down (a) male in bed (married) woman two make disgusting ritual" ... I find it interesting how in both verses the "abomination" is apparently a pagan _ritual._ In neither case is it apparent exactly what that ritual is except that it apparently involves sex, and not necessarily just homosexuality. In fact, both verses could be referring to marital adultery rather than homosexuality.
@@BigBri550 I understand very well that translations can be a tricky thing. You run the risk of losing the real meaning both by trying too hard to give a literal translation and by allowing too much leeway for interpretation.
I'm not sure what "With (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings of a woman" means. And I have absolutely no idea what "(a) man lie down (a) male in bed (married) woman two make disgusting ritual" means.
I don't see any suggestion that either has anything to do with any kind of ritual.
I have zero problem with homosexuality myself, but I do suspect that those who make arguments such as the one you have made are trying too hard to find a reason to think Biblical scripture doesn't have a problem with homosexuality. It seems to me you are doing rhetorical contortions to make the Bible support your views.
Happy birthday at christine baranski for the 70 years from italian boy live in rome and I m fan of the good wife
What's a Bible?
This is such a disgusting argument. If you choose to engage in commerce, and want to treat people differently based on their immutable characterists, it's no different than race an it's unacceptable. It's immoral and it should be illegal. Talk about taking the anti establishment clause way over the line from what it was intended for.
But you should have the freedom to not make pro LGBTQ cakes as an atheist should have the right to not make religious cakes
@@chuckychuck8318 You Don't get to pick and choose, what you do make, and which side you do support. That's the thing, you support ALL sides, or No sides. It does not MATTER, what you believe. Your business,, even tho you legally own it, is NOT ABLE to believe in a religion, as you are. It, is a mindless entity, that is there to sell a product to the public. It does NOT sell the product, or products, to the public, under the "following stipulations." NOOOOOO, that's NOT how it works. You Don't get to set what "stipulations" there are, in order for a sale to occur. If you think you, because you own the business, think you're somehow entitled to do that, your business should be shut down. The people, who are directing you to make a specific custom cake, regardless of what you believe, are NOT incurring damage upon you. If they asked you to make a cake, with a portrayal of a terrorist attack, or a president being murdered, or something in regards to child exploitation, then YES, you can refuse to VIOLATE the LAW. Other than that, it's Fair Game. You, should have done your due diligence, and sufficiently and thoroughly, done your research, in regards to the specific business you wanted to open, and the details surrounding that, before you launch your business and open your doors to the public! You can think something, is wrong, or immoral, or unethical, or just plain grose . . . does Not mean other people share your school of thought, or belief system. Your holy book, and deity, can tell you you must do certain things, but that, can NOT INTERFERE, with your business, and how you CONDUCT business. Don't like it, then Don't be in that PARTICULAR BUISNESS! Thank You!
I still don't understand the point of the argument. You're running a business. Just baked he damn cake. You making a cake doesn mean you condone gay marriage and the bible says to follow the law. Making a cake for a gay couple is not a sin. Discrimination and judgement is, however, a sin.
So if the baker is gay, and some straight order cake with writting "gay is poison for good community", and the baker refused, is he doing discrimination also?
Can anyone tell me what series this is?
Good wife
The best series ever together with breaking bad. "The good wife"
Religious arguments against logical situations are so exhausting.
There’s no point arguing with religious people on these types of topics, they will wear you out.
You won’t bake a cake because your religion says gay cakes are bad, but will buy a gun because your religion supports that? Fuck yeah, ‘Murica I guess.
Ever seen or read about how religious people react when they are discriminated against based their religion? That’s how you know these conversations only exist to validate religiosity on factual issues.
Ehhhh, show the rest of the scene, where the guy pulls Diane aside and says that's NOT a good point, and she needs to attack the argument in earnest without worry of offending him.
The argument of not wanting to bake a cake for a gay couple because it condones homosexuality is the same as saying you won't watch movies anymore because it condones adultery. Ridiculous.