Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:51 am

Private individuals and businesses are just the opposite. Private companies can discriminate however their owners wish, even if they are the only grocery store in town. It often isn't economically feasible - for example, if a company has a reputation for discriminating against a certain race or gender, people may refuse to shop there, and they will lose business. But the owners of the business have that right, and that right should not be infringed upon.
In the small town "only grocery store in town," I feel there would be different reactions from people who support this if it weren't gays or blacks who were discriminated against this way
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:21 am

Private individuals and businesses are just the opposite. Private companies can discriminate however their owners wish, even if they are the only grocery store in town. It often isn't economically feasible - for example, if a company has a reputation for discriminating against a certain race or gender, people may refuse to shop there, and they will lose business. But the owners of the business have that right, and that right should not be infringed upon.
In the small town "only grocery store in town," I feel there would be different reactions from people who support this if it weren't gays or blacks who were discriminated against this way
I live in a small town. I agree with you. However, I don't think government force is the solution to this issue. Government force should never be the answer to melding different races, cultures or ideologies together. The only thing that tends to bring is more resentment and hostility.

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:52 am

I don't know which is harder to implement, government involvement or convincing people to get along :P
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:16 am

The latter, definitely. It can be hard to get people to change their minds - especially if they've grown up thinking one thing, or their experiences have jaded them into thinking one particular way.

And who knows - maybe I'm in the same category. :P But in my experience, anything that gives the government more power ends up biting the people in the hindquarters eventually. And that's not just the U.S., either.

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:27 am

I dunno. I'm beginning to suspect that it's inevitably a balance between the government and corporations dictating our markets, and at least the government has to LOOK like it has our best interests in mind. And if my dealings with AT&T have taught me anything, it's that business is not necessarily more efficient :P

(though that's kind of a tangential topic and not within the scope of our discussion here)
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:05 am

My only problem with your scale is that you seem to confuse public services with private enterprises.
Public accommodations are private businesses. They provide services to the public, but are run in the private sectors. I used that term since it's the term used in the Civil Rights act and chose to focus on those type of businesses as opposed to all private business because they are a little more relevant to issue of discrimination towards customers, which is why the Civil Rights act uses it.
Government force should never be the answer to melding different races, cultures or ideologies together. The only thing that tends to bring is more resentment and hostility.
I don't really quite know if we can say that. That's still a point of debate and segregation generally leads to more prejudices. Statistics do seem to side with the other perspective; let's just take a quick cursory glance: which generation is more racist, the one which grew up before or after the civil rights act/desegregation?
Racism in culture is a complex issue, and I don't know if we can rule so quickly on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness or government influence.
But in my experience, anything that gives the government more power ends up biting the people in the hindquarters eventually.
I'd be generally inclined to agree with you and I'd like to think I have strong libertarian leanings, but, I might have to ask: are you an anarchist?
Not like a skateboarder with a spray can, but there are some genuinely smart anarchists out there with some very interesting theories that challenge some very fundamental assumptions we make. Always worth listening to, and I think nobody's political worldview is complete without seriously considering their theories. If you haven't listened to any, I highly recommend checking out some, like David Friedman. I have a lot of respect for them.
Now, I'm gathering by gleaning from earlier statements that you aren't, but I think it's still probably worth getting out there. I'll proceed with some follow up questions assuming that you aren't an anarchist.

What do you think are the parameters of government powers? What's the point of having a government? What should they be allowed to do, and why should they have the controls they have?
And more importantly, is one of the government mandates to protect people and their rights from other people?
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:44 pm

I don't really quite know if we can say that. That's still a point of debate and segregation generally leads to more prejudices. Statistics do seem to side with the other perspective; let's just take a quick cursory glance: which generation is more racist, the one which grew up before or after the civil rights act/desegregation?
Racism in culture is a complex issue, and I don't know if we can rule so quickly on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness or government influence.
This is getting away from the topic significantly, but I wonder if there have ever been any studies done on the degree(s) of racism between countries that did attempt segregation by legislation (e.g. the U.S., South Africa) and those that didn't (I'm not sure, but I think Great Britain would fall into this category). The results could be quite interesting!
I'd be generally inclined to agree with you and I'd like to think I have strong libertarian leanings, but, I might have to ask: are you an anarchist?
Very observant of you. I am practically an anarchist in my political leanings (and yes, not like the skateboard anarchists. On the American scale of political ideologies, with totalitarianism on the far left and the absence of any form of government on the far right - the very definition of anarchy - I tend to be much further to the right than most of the mainstream). However, I'm also somewhat of a realist, too. Like communism, anarchy is one of those "looks good on paper" ideologies that tends to fall apart one human nature is applied. If everyone were nice to each other and left everyone else alone, it would be great! But the real world doesn't work that way. I believe that, in order for society to function, there needs to be some sort of guidepost to indicate what constitutes as "right" or "good," and what constitutes "wrong," or "evil." I don't believe humanity is advanced (evolved?) enough to come up with these on their own.

What do you think are the parameters of government powers? What's the point of having a government? What should they be allowed to do, and why should they have the controls they have?
And more importantly, is one of the government mandates to protect people and their rights from other people?
Now this is getting into complicated territory and possibly straying from the original topic. In terms of the Federal government, I see that there are basically four functions.

1) Border security. Maintain a standing army in order to protect and defend the people of the nation from foreign invaders. (As you can expect, I think our current government has fallen off severely in their diligence of this, and has done so for several administrations.)

2) Maintain the means of transportation for interstate commerce. (The Interstate system.)

3) Have some sort of investigative force for crimes that cross state lines. (I think the FBI does this well - this is a deviation from some of the founding principles, but I think it may be necessary because of the way that crime has evolved so much over the decades. Prosecution should still take place within state boundaries, though).

4) Represent the citizens of the United States in terms of international relations. Note that this does NOT mean serve as the world's police force! If a country isn't actively attacking us, there is no reason why our U.S. forces should be there.

In terms of coming up with the taxes to pay for this, I strongly favor a flat tax - everyone pays the same percentage, regardless of income. That's it. No loopholes, no complicated tax laws and no exemptions (I'm still on the fence about whether or not businesses should pay taxes, too). Anything beyond these duties should be left up to the individual states.

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:18 pm

There's a term I found I really like and I once applied to myself: Pessimistic Anarchist. Sounds like it might be fitting for you.

So, I know this seems off-topic, but I'll try to bring this around. The topic of government theory is really interesting and would love to discuss this on a conceptual level on another topic. Maybe even a Make-Your-Own-Government deal where we have to try to poke holes in each other's ideas.

You mention maintaining transportation for interstate commerce. Is this because the government has a responsibility, or at least a stake, in promoting economic growth?

Also, is your list largely inclusive, as in that the protection of rights from other coercion from other citizens is not really a concern of the federal government? If a business fires people for being of a religion, or limits their speech, or a community tries to exert it's influence make itself a single race or single religion area, the government has no call to step in and protect that person? And how would this compare to other protections provided by the government, such as right to own property (protected from theft) or the right to life (protected from murder)?
This is getting away from the topic significantly, but I wonder if there have ever been any studies done on the degree(s) of racism between countries that did attempt segregation by legislation (e.g. the U.S., South Africa) and those that didn't (I'm not sure, but I think Great Britain would fall into this category). The results could be quite interesting!
Agreed!
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:35 pm

You mention maintaining transportation for interstate commerce. Is this because the government has a responsibility, or at least a stake, in promoting economic growth?
No. That sort of thing is left up to the individual. The reason why interstate transportation would be necessary would be for the other primary functions of government - basically getting its defenders to where they are needed as quickly and efficiently as possible. However, since taxpayer funds are used to maintain these roads, the taxpayers should have access to them, too. It's mutually beneficial for all parties involved.
Also, is your list largely inclusive, as in that the protection of rights from other coercion from other citizens is not really a concern of the federal government? If a business fires people for being of a religion, or limits their speech, or a community tries to exert it's influence make itself a single race or single religion area, the government has no call to step in and protect that person? And how would this compare to other protections provided by the government, such as right to own property (protected from theft) or the right to life (protected from murder)?
On the federal level (and in my opinion) you would be correct. The federal government should have no authority to step in. These kinds of things should be left up to the local communities and states, which can agree how to govern themselves as their citizenry sees fit.

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:41 pm

Hmmm, I might have to retool, but as I'm seeing it, I don't really have a way to further argue with you on this issue without discussing theory of government and that's out of scope for this.

To your credit, your ideas are consistent. That's more to say than for most people.

I guess the only thing I'd want to say is that for people who differ on stances and even hold positions you don't understand, they could be well enough supported under a different theory of government with possible compelling evidence and that they might not be "a bunch of idiots."
Then, you might be reserving that for people who don't form theories of government and come to conclusions based on "feelings"... And in all fairness, we are all idiots in one area or another. Psh, feelings. Vulcan up! SURAK 4 LYFE.

I guess this point is out of scope, too. Hmmm...
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:20 pm

Idea: "Make Your Own Government" thread, government theory discussion, etc.

And then we all go play Civ. Yeah. I think we should do that. >_> :P
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:47 pm

Yuss.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Wildebear
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:49 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: South Africa

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby Wildebear » Sat Jun 14, 2014 5:13 am

This is getting away from the topic significantly, but I wonder if there have ever been any studies done on the degree(s) of racism between countries that did attempt segregation by legislation (e.g. the U.S., South Africa) and those that didn't (I'm not sure, but I think Great Britain would fall into this category). The results could be quite interesting!
I would agree with your statement, but there is definitely a matter of naivety and ignorance involved in defining and describing what racism actually is and why some historical/and modern states used it.

First off, Great Britain committed tons of racial atrocities in its colonies. It implemented "pass laws" in India, which were consequently also used by the South African Union(British dominion) preceding apartheid. I'm actually astonished that their "empire" gets so much credit as it was based on genocide and political engineering. - attrocities

Secondly, racial segregation isn't always a colour issue. In South Africa there have always been very big rivalries among the tribes. Here along with racial law, each tribal group was given a "homeland" along with government subsidies to independently and autonomously develop. Free schools, factories, hospitals, clinics and roads were constructed for these Bantostans.

The prime motive for apartheid was to promote peace and stability through separation(secondly securing resources and votes for the minority government :wink: ). This motive can be endorsed in a variety of ways, but the best endorsement would be to see what happens when rival tribes aren't segregated:
- Necklacing
- Genocide (Dr Gregory Stanton once opposed apartheid)
- Black on black political murders
...

Now, I'm NOT a proponent of apartheid/segregation by law. I'm a minarchist at heart. I believe every tribal community should have a reasonable degree of autonomy and that the government should focus on administration, and not enforcement or military domination.

So in the end, I believe every occurrence of "racial legislation" is different because of dynamic socio-political environments and it's likely that there will never be a general consensus, at least in the truthful independent media, over prosperity and racism.
“Conquer yourself rather than the world.”
― René Descartes

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby Sstavix » Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:41 pm

I had forgotten that we had a few members from South Africa here. I had also forgotten (obviously) about the history of Great Britain and India. Thanks for bringing that up and your own perspectives! :)

Do you think there have been any instances of a nation achieving some form of racial/ethnic/cultural harmony without violence or heavy-handed legislation getting involved? It may just be due to my own ineptitude with global history, but none come to my mind.

User avatar
Wildebear
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:49 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: South Africa

Re: Baker forced to make cakes for gay couples

Postby Wildebear » Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:01 am

I had forgotten that we had a few members from South Africa here. I had also forgotten (obviously) about the history of Great Britain and India. Thanks for bringing that up and your own perspectives! :)

Do you think there have been any instances of a nation achieving some form of racial/ethnic/cultural harmony without violence or heavy-handed legislation getting involved? It may just be due to my own ineptitude with global history, but none come to my mind.
Just contributing info from my knowledge framework :wink:

Multicultural societies stem from ancient times. The Greeks, Romans, Chinese(if you distinguish among Asian races), the Mongols, Egyptians, Iberians(Spanish tribes mixture with Moorish tribes) and Ottomans(Turks and all kinds of Arabs) are prime examples of "empires" and kingdoms that had very diverse societies. Unfortunately, none of these empires exist today, but if you look at both the rise and fall of these empires, multiculturalism was a deciding factor.

From my personal point of view every civilization has an expiring date. The Mongols were thought to be invincible, but their armies were wiped out twice by Tsunamis which occurred off the west coast of Japan(where Tsunamis rarely hit) - talk about divine intervention! The framework of governments and societies is often only temporary anyway.

However, if anything, societies are driven by conformity. Integration and assimilation are partly responsible for today's societies. The languages we speak, the colour of our skin, our world views and our cultural practises stem from assimilation and integration. The English language itself is a prime example of a language formed by the integration of various peoples. You have Scandinavians, Germans, Britons, Romans and French all forming one cultural group in a pro-longed period of time. Those who did not conform, were ethnically cleansed.

So to eliminate ambiguity, what I'm trying to say is that civilizations are temporary, but are often formed by various conforming peoples. The criteria for your question of harmonious multicultural society is hard to determine because history itself is ambiguous and very dynamic. The question though is, does it matter? Voltaire speaks of the weak vs the strong. Even if a community has the best social policies...they will be inferior and useless if they have no ability to defend themselves from "evil"(terrorists, criminals, dictators, elitist corporations, rogue states etc.)

If for a particular nation, multiculturalism is striking a divide in the military, economy and administration - precautions should be taken to eliminate or control it. Israel is a fairly good example. If multiculturalism allows progress - like with the ancient Egyptians hiring and embracing Nubian military tactics and using Nubian mercenaries - then it can be embraced
“Conquer yourself rather than the world.”
― René Descartes


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests