Most Americans side with gays in religious freedom disputes

[bbgun]

As for the rest of your hypotheticals, I don't think those would be genuine requests. Also the KKK, racists, skinheads, and Larry Flynt aren't protected classes against whom there's a history of discrimination.

But being part of a protected class doesn't mean others are obligated to cater or photograph your ceremonies/events. If you're a vendor who's refusing to do business in any form with gays or blacks, then yes, you're violating the law. But declining to participate in a gay marriage ceremony because you find it innately offensive isn’t “discrimination,” because one can not discriminate against an activity. If a gay man goes to a photographer and demands some erotic snapshots for his bf but the photographer balks, should the state get involved?

 

[dbair1967]

Muslims throw gays to their death off rooftops in America and get away with it?

No dumbass, in other countires

Apple makes a huge stink out of the Christian bakery, but opens Apple stores in Tehran

 

[Hoofbite]

No dumbass, in other countires

Apple makes a huge stink out of the Christian bakery, but opens Apple stores in Tehran

Maybe Apple doesn't believe all Muslims kill gays.

Sort of like how like nobody in America thinks the WBC speaks for everyone who reads the bible.

 

[dbair1967]

I'm sure they dont Hoof, but they choose to do business with countries who DO support those sorts of things.

Does the term "hypocrite" mean anything to you Hoof?

Apple isnt the only one I could have cited, I'm sure there are many others who have this moral oytrage over this crap anytime it happens here, but they have no problem lining their bank accounts with $$$ from foreign countries who openly support suppressing the rights of women or gays elsewhere.

 

[bbgun]

Maybe Apple doesn't believe all Muslims kill gays.

You can't boycott Indiana (which last I checked doesn't stone gays or subject women to sharia law) then turn around and open an Apple store in Saudi Arabia. The hypocrisy is staggering.

 

[Hoofbite]

But being part of a protected class doesn't mean others are obligated to cater or photograph your ceremonies/events. If you're a vendor who's refusing to do business in any form with gays or blacks, then yes, you're violating the law. But declining to participate in a gay marriage ceremony because you find it innately offensive isn’t “discrimination,” because one can not discriminate against an activity. If a gay man goes to a photographer and demands some erotic snapshots for his bf but the photographer balks, should the state get involved?

Not really a 100% direct comparison.

The photographer may be unwilling to take erotic pictures for anyone so of course the state shouldn't get involved. There's plenty of reasons why a photographer might be unwilling to take erotic pictures. Maybe the guy works for Nat Geo and doesn't know the first thing about photographing people or erotic scenes. Shit, maybe he's afraid he'll cum in his pants.

For a more accurate hypothetical the photographer would need to sell himself as an erotic photographer, have made money from taking photographs of members of both sexes, but refuse his services only after he found out the recipient would be a person of the same sex as the photographed subject.

 

[dbair1967]

You can't boycott Indiana (which last I checked doesn't stone gays or subject women to sharia law) then turn around and open an Apple store in Saudi Arabia. The hypocrisy is staggering.

That was exactly my point.

Thats the problem with liberals.

 

[Hoofbite]

You can't boycott Indiana (which last I checked doesn't stone gays or subject women to sharia law) then turn around and open an Apple store in Saudi Arabia. The hypocrisy is staggering.

If companies were to pull their products and presence out of every country that has fucked up shit going on, they'd have no place to sell their items.

Is it hypocrisy by definition? Sure. It is. So what? Why look at the situation as though it were in a vacuum and all external factors are the exact same? Reality is, we know for a fucking fact that Apple can't do a single thing to change the status quo in Saudi Arabia. They know that. Nobody is going to change that culture. However, business pressure in the US may change something in Indiana.

Like everything in life, you pick and choose your battles. Taking up a cause from one aspect doesn't necessarily require that you go to bat for every single situation in which it could be applied because you'd be wasting your time. Why doesn't the entire population of 2nd Amendment fanatics go to bat for gun ownership rights for convicted felons?

By definition, is that hypocrisy? Yes, but nobody gives a shit because we fucking know better and we've moved beyond looking at issues from an "all or nothing" perspective on the issue.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm sure they dont Hoof, but they choose to do business with countries who DO support those sorts of things.

Does the term "hypocrite" mean anything to you Hoof?

Apple isnt the only one I could have cited, I'm sure there are many others who have this moral oytrage over this crap anytime it happens here, but they have no problem lining their bank accounts with $$$ from foreign countries who openly support suppressing the rights of women or gays elsewhere.

Doing business in a country with fucked up laws isn't passively condoning those laws. It's the price of operating a business.

 

[bbgun]

Not really a 100% direct comparison.

The photographer may be unwilling to take erotic pictures for anyone so of course the state shouldn't get involved. There's plenty of reasons why a photographer might be unwilling to take erotic pictures. Maybe the guy works for Nat Geo and doesn't know the first thing about photographing people or erotic scenes. Shit, maybe he's afraid he'll cum in his pants.

For a more accurate hypothetical the photographer would need to sell himself as an erotic photographer, have made money from taking photographs of members of both sexes, but refuse his services only after he found out the recipient would be a person of the same sex as the photographed subject.

The point is that it’s a legal photograph which might be taken by any number of other vendors. The hypothetical photographer is objecting to a specific situation, activity or request which offends them, be it on religious grounds or otherwise. You needn't be Jewish to be offended by a Hitler cake. But will a baker be forced to deliver it? If a florist is asked to create a bouquet in the form of a vagina for a bachelor party, can she not refuse on any grounds she chooses?

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Doing business in a country with fucked up laws isn't passively condoning those laws.

But it is in US states, apparently.

Some of you guys are overthinking this. Apple has made the calculated decision that the goodwill they gain from condemning Indiana is greater than the loss in sales from not selling there. It's that simple.

In the end, Apple is about selling ipads and iphones and maximizing profit. They act like social statements are part of their core because it helps them sell more product.

 

[Doomsday]

You can't refuse service to anyone in a protected class for a discriminatory reason... that's illegal.

Of course, proving that you aren't serving the person in the protected class solely because they are a member of the protected class is difficult. It generally has to be proven that it's a systematic and habitual course of conduct.

But technically a public business can't refuse to serve blacks just because they are black.

You can refuse service to anyone for any reason, and you don't have to say why.

Saying why is dumb.

 

[Doomsday]

Doesn't your "judge not" statement kind of align with the goofy Christians comment you replied to?

I really don't see how, since it is the opposite of what he was saying.

 

[bbgun]

If companies were to pull their products and presence out of every country that has fucked up shit going on, they'd have no place to sell their items.

Is it hypocrisy by definition? Sure. It is. So what? Why look at the situation as though it were in a vacuum and all external factors are the exact same? Reality is, we know for a fucking fact that Apple can't do a single thing to change the status quo in Saudi Arabia. They know that. Nobody is going to change that culture. However, business pressure in the US may change something in Indiana.

Like everything in life, you pick and choose your battles. Taking up a cause from one aspect doesn't necessarily require that you go to bat for every single situation in which it could be applied because you'd be wasting your time. Why doesn't the entire population of 2nd Amendment fanatics go to bat for gun ownership rights for convicted felons?

By definition, is that hypocrisy? Yes, but nobody gives a shit because we fucking know better and we've moved beyond looking at issues from an "all or nothing" perspective on the issue.

wtf? you make it sound like they have no choice but to do business in backwards countries which routinely abuse human rights. take a look at the list of countries where Apple has a presence. see any nations that engage in discrimination?

When was the last time Cook objected to a single act of discrimination in any of these places? Never. Instead, he prefers to bully Indiana because he knows that Americans won’t threaten his family or blow up his stores. he's a fucking coward who turns a blind eye to evil in the name of profit.

 

[Doomsday]

he's a fucking coward who turns a blind eye to evil in the name of profit.

And political correctness.

 

[peplaw06]

But being part of a protected class doesn't mean others are obligated to cater or photograph your ceremonies/events. If you're a vendor who's refusing to do business in any form with gays or blacks, then yes, you're violating the law. But declining to participate in a gay marriage ceremony because you find it innately offensive isn’t “discrimination,” because one can not discriminate against an activity. If a gay man goes to a photographer and demands some erotic snapshots for his bf but the photographer balks, should the state get involved?

Legally, you're not required to cater to a specific group of people... you're just required to provide the services you offer to others, to those in the protected classes as well.

It's not discrimination against an activity, it's against the customer... The wedding is the activity. The fact that it's two men getting married versus a man and a woman, by definition that has to do with the customers getting married. If a business provides wedding catering services, they shouldn't refuse to provide wedding catering services based on who is getting married.

 

[peplaw06]

You can refuse service to anyone for any reason, and you don't have to say why.

Saying why is dumb.

Please.... not every business who has been found liable for discrimination said why they were discriminating. You're not likely to find a sign saying "no gays" with every business that discriminates against gays. In courts, discrimination is proven by disparate treatment most of the time.

Your position is overly simplistic and naive.

 

[peplaw06]

I really don't see how, since it is the opposite of what he was saying.

He was saying Christians shouldn't judge, but he judged Christians who judged. You then said he shouldn't judge the way Christians chose to judge. You sure showed him.

 

[bbgun]

Legally, you're not required to cater to a specific group of people... you're just required to provide the services you offer to others, to those in the protected classes as well.

It's not discrimination against an activity, it's against the customer... The wedding is the activity. The fact that it's two men getting married versus a man and a woman, by definition that has to do with the customers getting married. If a business provides wedding catering services, they shouldn't refuse to provide wedding catering services based on who is getting married.

no, it's the activity. there are any number of events involving gay people that most businesses would tolerate. most bakers would be content to make non-marital treats for gay couples, and most photographers would be eager to collect a fee to take photos of a gay person's family’s reunion, because in those scenarios, being gay is incidental to the event. explicitly gay ceremonies like gay marriage are another ballgame entirely. and the bar is set high for any business denying that service (i.e., they have to go to court to prove their religious exemption), so let's not pretend that gays can be shunned without good reason.

 

[Midswat]

He was saying Christians shouldn't judge, but he judged Christians who judged. You then said he shouldn't judge the way Christians chose to judge. You sure showed him.

Thats how I interpreted it as well.

Christians are the most judgemental fucks out there anyways.