I'm saying that most of the Christians in this country are hypocrites if they hold to this way of thinking. If they would see it as persecution when it is done to them but not if they do it to someone else, that's just wrong.
I agree, which is why I'd like to see the Muslim community as well as others affected negatively by this to come together in a united way.
Any business can deny service to any group if it can be explained that it provides a "substantial burden" on the business owner's beliefs without defining what constitutes a "substantial burden". The implications of not defining the key clause of this law are simple and straightforward. It allows for the scenarios I listed to occur. The wedding cake ones have already occurred and now the doors have been flung open for further abuse. You have not established any measuring stick whatsoever to determine whether or not a given situation falls under this law. It allows attacks on any group of people since in light of no external measure being defined, people will make up their own as they go along.
I understand what you mean, but I don't think it's so easy to create such a definition. I don't think it's possible to define it in such a way that both adequately protects all scenarios while at the same time being fortified against abuse.
That said, ultimately I think looking to Government to find the answer is all wrong. People will, as we all know, vote with their feet. If someone abuses the definition then they'll eventually lose enough business to close down. OR, enough people will still want to do business with them, suggesting the "harm" they're causing isn't so significant after all.
Second, as I have maintained before, if it is a wedding cake without a graphic or explicit message, it is not an attack on religious people.
Why would it need to be a directed attack? A celebratory message for the KKK would be offensive whether it's aimed at someone's religion or not.
To address this point on moral relativism, I don't think the kind of relativism you seem to imply is the case regarding whether or not the Government has authority to legislate on issues concerning marriage laws. Remember, this all started with whether businesses have a right to deny wedding cakes to gay couples looking to get married. As we know, the Constitution grants the state governments the authority to determine marriage laws and these kinds of issues fall under that jurisdiction. This is not a case of moral relativism, it is a case of the government doing its job by the powers given to it in the governing document of the Constitution. The government does answer to an external source of authority correct? So whether the laws are right or wrong, the government can enforce these kinds of laws as it is their right. The judicial system likewise is acting according to their authority given to them by the Constitution. This is the basis by which government action in this arena is not only permissible, but expected of them.
Hold on there I think you've hit upon a couple of the differences in our worldviews. From where I'm sitting, the Government has NO "rights" of any kind. Nowhere in the Constitution or in any Amendment will you see text granting a "right" to the Government at any level. The reason that's important is because I believe the Government only has the authority the people give it. To suggest it has a "right" is to suggest that it has a power the people have NO ability to take from it, which is untrue.
Another is that while it's true the states define their own marriage laws, we aren't talking about marriage laws here. We're talking about one person being forced to violate their beliefs in order to accommodate someone else, even when their refusal creates no severe burden upon that someone else.
So, the reasoning in allowing gay marriage wedding cakes under certain conditions is quite simple. It does not constitute an attack on the faith, and unless there is a graphic or message doing so or staff are required to directly partake in the event itself it does not constitute as participating in it. In light of that it is not a violation of freedom of religion and thus it is not their right to deny service and cannot be defended as if it was. The gay couple does have the right not to be denied based on their demographic assuming these same circumstances are true. The government's job is to protect that right, even if some people would rather see results to the contrary.
Again, I don't think it needs to be framed as an attack on religion to be reasonably viewed as a burden upon a person of conscience. Should a conscientious Atheist be compelled to bake a cake for the KKK anniversary party?
Now in addition to all that, as much you claim that my take is advocating for government sanctioned moral relativism, your stance is the one that also advocates for it. Think about it, leaving all of this up solely to each individual in an already morally relativistic society will only serve to encourage it even more. It then devolves, as does most forms of subjectivism, to who can establish more power by which to impose their own individual will.
Not really, because the relativism you're talking about wouldn't be codified into law if people just left each other alone instead of looking to persecute people who don't want to be involved in someone else's party. The point of the IN law was to reiterate that idea, as opposed to the other side who wants to use Government power to force everyone to act in support of the currently accepted Government morality whether they share it or not. It's moral relativism in the sense that the notion that gay marriage is moral has nothing to do with any particular moral system, but rather public pressure which is fleeting and changeable.
I think you may have misunderstood the point. When I say "just a cake", I mean, and have meant the whole time, a cake without any graphic or writing on it that would carry such messages. This example would be more similar to the example I gave earlier about the Bert and Ernie saying "support gay marriage" graphic, not an example of what constitutes a plain old cake.
But we've already agreed that if a gay couple shows up to buy a generic cake and take it with them, I doubt many Christian bakers would refuse them.
To that note something did occur to me. There is a way to get around the whole request for two male figures on the top of a wedding cake. The bakery can either sell it without them or just sell them separately and let the couple put them on themselves. There are other options even in that case.
I bet that's a compromise that a few places have used already.
The problem with most of thee cases isn't that the Christian baker is simply baking a cake. Remember that the majority of bakeries who do wedding cakes are doing custom cakes, and often deliver them to the venue where the wedding is taking place. That's a significant level of involvement.
I have yet to find one that hasn't, and I have tried to look up any instances where a heterosexual couple was denied on any remotely similar grounds. I could not find an instance where they denied other couples of different faiths (many of which who would certainly hold to this view).
If you can find me an example of bakeries doing otherwise but in the absence of that it seems pretty clear that they have no qualms about serving cakes to anyone else. The only qualms we have seen at all are to gay couples.
Can you clarify your first sentence? It sounds like you said you have yet to find a Christian bakery that hasn't made a cake celebrating fornication, but I don't think that's how you meant it.
So what of secular commitments of a couple that is not Christian or non practicing Christian?
What about them? There's no conflict there, since I'm unaware of any Biblical mandate that people had to be married in a church.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."