Eviora

Maybe I've underestimated just how tired people are of the nasty side of capitalism. =p

Hm. I have varying opinions on the things listed so far in this thread. Why not add a few of my own to the mix? *conjures flame shield* I live in the US, but these apply to any country in the same situations. We spend too much of our lives working. Individuals can own gigantic amounts of wealth. We spend tons of money on making weapons but won't pay for the health care of our citizens. Law enforcement/judicial workers are held to lower standards under the law than the average citizen rather than higher. I'm sure I can dig up some more of my controversial opinions. Maybe another time. =p

That is not the same as "crashing and burning". They could, for instance, refuse to include marriage related messages or decorations on all their cakes. Alternatively, they could hire someone who has no problem with selling cakes to gay people and have that person do the selling so that at no point they are knowingly selling cakes for a same-sex wedding. It's not too hard to come up with creative solutions unless you're being extremely stubborn, and in that case it's on you.

It's not about tolerance. It's about equal treatment. We (probably) can't control what we believe, but we can control how we act. However, I would appreciate it if you didn't construct a straw man concerning my views. It is my position that people should treat others equally in matters of business regardless of their views. I do not believe anyone should "crash and burn", I believe they should find a way of adapting and coexisting with others who are unlike themselves.

@Solace What does it matter if the cake is a wedding cake? It's not like the bakery is going to be doing the marrying. If the business is going to insist on taking responsibility for what the customer does with their cake that's *their* stubbornness. Only they can run their own business into the ground. The religious restrictions are self-imposed. You are giving far too little weight to the choices made by the business owner. If businesses are widely allowed to discriminate, it may not always be easy to take your business elsewhere. If there are relatively few businesses providing the service in question in the customer's area and all of them are discriminating then it may be a substantial burden. You may try to write this situation off as merely hypothetical, but the hypothetical can easy become actual without the proper precautions. And, by the way, yes, bigotry is unethical, at least when applied to aspects of a person outside of their control.

No. In fact, I explicitly said the issue of baking a cake is less extreme. I was merely pointing out that "religious freedom" is not a license to do unethical or illegal things.

How do you know it's hypothetical? There could be a small minority of people whose religions require that they discriminate based on race. Their religion must be protected to the same extent as that of Christians. There are plenty of things real (if old) religions practice that they are not allowed to do in the United States. For instance, anything requiring human sacrifice is very illegal, even if the sacrifices volunteer. The issue is the same in principle with "right to refusal", just less extreme. Christians should certainly be allowed to have businesses, but they'll have to run their businesses ethically. If they believe that the ethical behavior is actually an "abomination" or whatever, then they're free to excuse themselves from any position that requires the behavior of them. However, their religious beliefs are insufficient reason to violate the equal rights of others.The optimal solution for them would be to sell a cake (or whatever) to whoever wants one, and acknowledge that what's done with the cake is the responsibility of the buyer. If they believe that what's done with the cake is in part their responsibility then they should probably stop selling cakes, because it's not like the buyers are required to announce their intentions.

No one is talking about forcing Churches to perform same sex marriages. We're talking about businesses. As for your distinction between discriminating based on skin color and on sexual orientation, that's just special pleading. Even if your conception of Christian values doesn't discriminate based on skin color, it's easy to imagine a religion that does, and the government would have to provide freedom to ALL religions equally. This requires upholding criteria external to the religions themselves. Also, no one is talking about forcing Christians to do business with anyone, just about upholding the law or what's ethical. If Christians don't want to provide service to gay people, that's fine. However, their self imposed restriction may cost them something. They may have to forsake the prospect of running a business at all. Notwithstanding, that is an option available to them. Therefore, they are not being forced. I used to be Catholic, so I'll have to object to the idea that the Catholic Church would support refusing admission to gay students. I believe they would object only to homosexual acts. So let's instead consider a school run by religion X, which considers merely being gay to be evil. I would say if this school's purpose is in large part to educate its students about religion X, then it could be considered part of the Church of X, provided it satisfies all other legal criteria.

@ Tomas: These "sci-fi scenarios" are thought experiments, which are extremely helpful tools for figuring exactly what someone's position is. @ Kosher: There's your mistake. Your rights end where other people's rights begin. Your right to life is only sufficient to overrule someone else's right if that right is imagined. The whole issue about buying a cake is not actually a matter of being able to obtain a cake. It's a matter of dignity, a matter of giving all people opportunity to live their lives without having to go to extreme lengths to work around some belief held by the majority. Selling in a non-discriminatory manner is simply part of what's involved in being a business owner/runner. You wouldn't argue that it's fine for a doctor to bar their patients from medicine or medical procedures just because the doctor's religious beliefs are opposed to medicine, would you? It's the same thing. Those who are unwilling to serve the public equally should simply not put themselves in positions where they are obligated to do so. Trying to compare rights on a case-by-case basis would be utterly impractical; instead, we select principles to live by. That's why it doesn't matter whether you consider the product being sold to be frivolous or not.

No, the issue is about businesses. This has been an ongoing discussion based on some laws that have been passed or suggested recently. Namely, some people want the right to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. And you could certainly imagine a hypothetical religion that hates gay people so thoroughly that its members want nothing to do with them. @Antilegend and Kosher, Would that not be a violation of the seller's "religious rights", though? Their religion may be of the type I describe above. Are you saying it's okay to force them to violate a religious belief because a life is on the line? Murdering someone and allowing them to die naturally are very different things.

What if it isn't a frivolous as selling a cake, though? What if, say, the product is a pill that cures a lethal, fast acting disease, and only this seller has access to the pill at the time? Should they be able to effectively sign your death warrant because you're gay? In a society that would allow that, I don't think we could end up with anything but rampant hatred.

I'm really happy about this ruling! It's great to see so many couples finally able to have their committed relationships equally recognized under the law. ^.^ As for things like "right to refusal", I think many people underestimate just how insidious that can be. For one, there's no good reason to apply it only to the LGBT community - you'd have to grant the right to refuse service to people of any given race, gender, and even religion. In particularly uniform areas, that could devolve into some horrible tyranny of the masses, where a certain group (let's be real; in the US, it'd probably be Christians) all unite in banning the "unworthy" from their stores, and boycott any other businesses that dare defy them. That may be a stretch, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I don't really see how this would be good for anyone, and it would raise more than a few serious ethical issues.

TFW you get a friend to play a new game with you then he goes off and plays with someone else instead.

I recommend Steelheart by Brandon Sanderson. It's the first book in a trilogy about a world where random people were granted superpowers, and a group of normal people needs to take down a super powered tyrant. The second book has also been released, by the way. Feel free to shoot me a PM if you want more info!

I'm a girl who eternally yearns for life to be more than it is.

So much corruption and greed. It makes me really sad that we can't elect enough politicians willing to represent the the people who elected them instead of their own interests.

I used to use my intelligence as a defense mechanism, so I had a pretty big ego regarding that. But it was just a mask. It didn't make me happy.

Tbh a lot of my envy comes from that fact that I don't think I'll ever be adequate enough for people to like me that much. >.>

Ahhh.... you shouldn't feel obligated! XD I am currently feeling jelly of a girl on Youtube who is being sent extravagant gifts by random viewers. x.x

I'm basically been trying to write a fantasy novel... I'm not too far into the process, though. I posted the rather short prologue on the creative writing forum but not really getting any feedback. :< Also, I the "Tales of" games are absolutely awesome! I love the music!

Oh, you write? I've been trying some of that, too, but no one reads it! XD Yeah, it really sucks. So frustrating!