Again, a bit disengenous. We live in a world where the LGBT community continues to come under persecution in various forms, usually because of bigotry inspired by organised religion. Quite why a business gets to hide behind faith is beyond me, and it's a massive falsehood to then equate that desire to be treated equally (on the part of the LGBT community) with hate groups.
'Reasonable' may or may not be wholly subjective, but it's a term used a lot in the legal system, so it must have some kind of meaning that's objective enough to make it useful. For example, is it reasonable to compare a message celebrating a same sex union with one that celebrates the murderous regime of a vicious tyrant?
More projection. If nothing else, you get points for consistency. I do admire your inflated sense of self worth; having a strong ego is generally good for your mental health.
I don't see why there's any need for a separate 'middle ground' to the status quo, which would accept and allow for violations of our anti-discrimination laws in any scenario I can think of. The laws are put in place for the benefit of all, and have been formed through compromise.
Laws can be changed, and often are as public sentiment evolves. This is why appealing to a law to justify a position isn't a particularly strong argument.
What's reasonable? The UK supreme Court effectively ruled it wasnt for a number of reasons.
No doctor reasonably should refuse a life saving procedure, an unnecessary (medically) abortion is another matter
There is a difference between asking for a cake for Adam and Steve's wedding, and shopping around a cake devised offend and sue
There was no gay couple, it was shopped around
California court says baker can refuse wedding cake order from gay couple
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - A California court has recognised a pastry chef's right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, as the Supreme Court debates a similar case with weighty implications.. Read more at straitstimes.com.www.straitstimes.com
...The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez, however deny that they wanted a special-order cake.
They said they went in August 2017 to taste cakes for their wedding and anticipated ordering a pre-existing model without special decorations.
But after they returned with other people to the bakery Miller directed them to a competitor, Gimme Some Sugar, saying she does not approve of same-sex marriages for religious reasons...
Lesbian couple rejected by Tastries Bakery says they will pursue legal action
Two women who were refused a wedding cake by Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller because they were marrying each other say they plan to pursue legal action.www.bakersfield.com
Eileen Del-Rio and Mireya Rodriguez began dating two years ago, fell in love and got married. But they never had a traditional wedding party.
So they have planned a big December ceremony, complete with officiant and vows.
They were missing a cake.
On Aug. 17, they checked out Tastries on Rosedale Highway and were very pleased.
The prices were good, the tastings free and the service great, so the couple signed up for a tasting appointment on Aug. 26. When they got there the
employee they had been working with whispered in Mireya’s ear that her boss would be taking over the tasting.
Then they met Cathy Miller.
She took them to a seat in the back of the shop, said Margaret Del Rio, Eileen’s mother, who was with them. Miller immediately started asking them questions they had already answered when they set up the tasting, Eileen said.
When she pointed that out, Eileen said, Miller said she was taking the information down and would transfer their cake to her competitor Stephanie at Gimme Some Sugar.
They asked why.
“She said, ‘I don’t condone same-sex marriage,’” Eileen said.
For Mireya, who only came out as gay recently, it was a heavy blow.
“I’d never had someone discriminate and put me down and make me feel bad,” she said.
“We were totally dumbfounded by the statement,” Eileen said. “I was upset. I was hurt. I was angry because it affected her so bad.”
Miller offered to let them stay and taste the cake.
But her tone wasn’t kind, Eileen said.
They got up and left without tasting a bite. Why would they, Eileen said, when they would never be able to order the cake...
The case I was referring too is the one in northern Ireland that I received the thread with.
The long term trend is for public sentiment and our laws to move towards accommodating equal treatment of minority groups at the expense of tradition-based prejudice, even with a strong Christian/conservative federal leadership for the better part of the last quarter of a century.
Yes, and I think that's fair so long as the procedure isn't a medical emergency.
The long term trend is a more humanist and liberal ideology to be dominant, and they include respect for and accommodation of religious beliefs. To enforce otherwise is arguably antithetical to those ideals which have been considered "progressive" for the latter part of the 20th century.
Well then enlighten me please, good sir, on how the religions aren't in the vanguard of opposing social liberal policy
If you mean I'm not a libertarian then I agree, but other than that I find it somewhat unhelpful if you judge a post not on its content but rather on your prejudicial opinion of the poster. I still have no idea what your opinion is of religion and social liberal policy, for example.
That's a pretty self-contradictory and and unworkable version of liberalism. You can't do the first bit if you allow the second bit with no restrictions.
Such as what policy?
