The Morals & Principles of Cake: Derail from SCOTUS to take the cake

[ruby sparks]

So would you say that Silva should have had to do the bible-passage lettering on that cake?

Assuming that she usually did lettering on request and got paid for doing it.

Of course. That is her product. She's not expected to believe or decide what others do with it since it is a product. She may pray at night to care for those who are disbelievers if that soothes her angst with being in said trade. If she does believe or decide others who ask for such are evil with evil intent she can try to reason with them. Or she can move on to another trade where she is more likely to never come in contact with those who are different in belif from her. She is the product of her beliefs and others should in the marketplace not have suffer loss of open market product for those beliefs.

Ok I thought she didn't do the bible passages because she wasn't a believer, so not sure she would be praying, but maybe I haven't understood something about the Silva case.

In any case, I'll assume your answer would be the same. And I think it's a nice, neat, easy answer which has the benefit of clarity and simplicity and would at least create an even playing field.

I wish I could say that I am completely of one mind on this. But at least you seem to be.

 

[ruby sparks]

Try this one, fromderinside:

I am strongly pro-life. I don't advertise it, and when I am approached by a client who wants an abortion clinic, they are unaware.

Am I obliged to design the clinic, knowing what it will be used for?

 

[fromderinside]

Just so you know I'm speaking not as anti religious, but, as fair business. You may not agree. That is your choice.

Yes, if it is not public that you are inclined to look unfavorably on certain work because of your prejudice. You chose to design medical clinics because you saw profit there. If you can't get past your prejudice and design the facility which, as I understand, can be used for many purposes you are favoring one group over another unfairly. The only way for you to fairly procede in designing clinics is to make public your prejudice against one purpose for such clinics. In business, bias for religious belief, is usually called prejudice.

If you think clearly, it is the one wishing to pay you for the clinic that decides how the clinic is to be used. That is not part of the design agreement. You can avoid your concerns by not being involved in zoning decisions for particular use. Or the one wishing to have the clinic designed by you need only keep back her intended purpose for the clinic. Would you rather find out after the fact that your design was use for other purpose than you were told? It is best if you are up front as a business, not just as a particular potential client.

Sure you can claim you'll be discriminated against because of your religious beliefs . But is that true? Aren't you the one letting your religious beliefs dictate for whom you work. If that is so just be up front as a business. I'm sure such a statement as "I'm a christian clinic design specialist" might cost you some clients. But isn't it more proper for clients to choose you rather than you choose them?

 

[fast]

Yes, it's wrong. It's just not unfair. If I'm going to give only A students a star, then it's both wrong and unfair if I withhold a star from an A student and slip in a star to student below an A. If I sell a cake with two groom figurines to some homosexuals and not others, then that's unfair.

You're advocating equal discrimination for all within any group. It's wrong but fair if you're consistent about it regarding this kind of human or that kind of human, you say.

But the group is humans, and the inconsistency (the unfairness) is some get the cake they want and others don't.

The harm in one single couple not getting the cake as they want it is negligible. It's not "discrimination in itself" that is the harm. It's the accumulative effect in society that curtails the freedom of some persons because of the reticence of others to engage in business transactions in a professional, impersonal manner.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, maybe that'll give a broader perspective and help illustrate the harm: Someday Christians may become a minority. Imagine if much of society thinks "eww, gross" when a Christian walks by. You're told "No, can't help you" and "I won't take part in your filthy lifestyle!" in both stores and agencies. They want their rights to discriminate against the kind of human that you are; it's "wrong but fair" they say "so long as we treat all Christians as bad people consistently". So your liberty is curtailed such that you can't live your life like an equal of others and pursue your happiness with the liberty others enjoy.

Harm? Or no harm?

I'm sorry sir, but I only sell Pepsi. I don't sell Coke.

In fact, it's the one and only thing I do sell, and it's the only thing in good conscious I will sell. While that is discrimination, it is limited to what I'm willing to carry. As to who I will sell to, my door is open to everyone. Yes, I understand that you want Coke and not getting what you want, but I'd advise you not go to an airport looking to purchase a train ticket either. They discrimate too, but like me, if you got the money, they'll sell to ya whoever you are, but don't get upset if you don't get what you wanted from those that refuse to carry what you're after.

Now, if you want a Coke, why not try the vending machine across the street. Be forewarned, however, every can has been labeled with a sticker that reads, "There is no God." If you're a Christian and can't stomach to drink from a can that reads that, don't squawk about unfairness as you keep in mind that the discrimination is limited to the product, not the person. Like me, that machine will take money from whoever you are.

Is it harmful? No. What's harmful is when the airline starts choosing who they will and who they will not sell to. I'll be harming society when I start choosing who I will and will not sell to. When the drink machine starts refusing money because of who is feeding it money, then you'll have a case to claim harm is being inflicted.

 

[fast]

I'm coming up with arguments against the view expounded upon btw. I just haven't connected all the dots yet. While there is not discrimination on the one hand, there is discrimation on the other. Old school discrimation was through customer selection (won't sell to blacks, won't sell to queers, won't sell to women, won't sell to foreigners). New school discrimation is through product selection (won't carry this, won't stock that, won't create this, won't make that).

I'm in a sense playing myself at chess trying to figure out how to win. I'll get there.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just so you know I'm speaking not as anti religious, but, as fair business. You may not agree. That is your choice.

Yes, if it is not public that you are inclined to look unfavorably on certain work because of your prejudice. You chose to design medical clinics because you saw profit there. If you can't get past your prejudice and design the facility which, as I understand, can be used for many purposes you are favoring one group over another unfairly. The only way for you to fairly procede in designing clinics is to make public your prejudice against one purpose for such clinics. In business, bias for religious belief, is usually called prejudice.

If you think clearly, it is the one wishing to pay you for the clinic that decides how the clinic is to be used. That is not part of the design agreement. You can avoid your concerns by not being involved in zoning decisions for particular use. Or the one wishing to have the clinic designed by you need only keep back her intended purpose for the clinic. Would you rather find out after the fact that your design was use for other purpose than you were told? It is best if you are up front as a business, not just as a particular potential client.

Sure you can claim you'll be discriminated against because of your religious beliefs . But is that true? Aren't you the one letting your religious beliefs dictate for whom you work. If that is so just be up front as a business. I'm sure such a statement as "I'm a christian clinic design specialist" might cost you some clients. But isn't it more proper for clients to choose you rather than you choose them?

Personally, I think that's a bit simplistic. In the case of the abortion clinic scenario, I clearly know what it will be used for and in designing it specifically for that use I am playing a role in assisting and facilitating that use.

I understand you are being consistent, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not really convincing me personally. On morals grounds, I still would deem it reasonable for me to be allowed to decline the project in that case. That's just a feeling, that there's a valid point somewhere where it's unreasonable to compel someone to do something, even if that someone is in business.

 

[fromderinside]

That's just a feeling, that there's a valid point somewhere where it's unreasonable to compel someone to do something, even if that someone is in business.

Seems to me that that feeling is just you trying to reconcile your need for profit with your want to control others in your getting that cash. If you are up front you may lose some business. If you're rational you understand that most clinic designs can be used for may purposes including abortions so your 'stand' would be not very meaningful.

Come to grips with what is real here.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's just a feeling, that there's a valid point somewhere where it's unreasonable to compel someone to do something, even if that someone is in business.

Seems to me that that feeling is just you trying to reconcile your need for profit with your want to control others in your getting that cash. If you are up front you may lose some business. If you're rational you understand that most clinic designs can be used for may purposes including abortions so your 'stand' would be not very meaningful.

Come to grips with what is real here.

Ahem. I said an abortion clinic was the brief, so I am assuming that is what it would be used for, regardless of whether, some day, it might be not used for that.

No, it's nothing to do with profit, or not centrally. As you say, I might stand to lose money. As to controlling others who use my product, I think that is sort of it, yes, but not so much control of them as not want to actively and substantially assist them myself. So I could, for example, point them in the direction of another architect who has no objections.

I think the 'what they use it for is nothing to do with me' thing has limits. If it didn't, there'd be nothing morally wrong with for instance selling weapons to anyone who just asked, be it a man in the street, a terrorist organizaton or a repressive government. That's just an illustration that there are arguably limits, you understand, not meant to be equivalent.

I understand that you prefer to look at this in terms of the commercial aspects, but I don't think that cover everything.

You are almost on the brink of saying, or at least getting towards saying, that there are no moral considerations to the issue. As I said, that theoretically gives you a solid base from which you can be consistent, but it is not necessarily the only way to look at it.

 

[fromderinside]

You are almost on the brink of saying, or at least getting towards saying, that there are no moral considerations to the issue. As I said, that theoretically gives you a solid base from which you can be consistent, but it is not necessarily the only way to look at it.

I am on that brink. Your morality does not apply to others in business or governance beyond yourself. I take a constitutional view that business and state are distinct from religion in government. People treat with their faeries and people treat with people and coin. the two are constitutionally separated.

The US is constitutionally a secular state in spite of faerie heritage. So looking to origins isn't appropriate for understand what is written. What is written approaches is a governance ideal recognizing the risks of combining two power motives. Founders chose to require citizens to accept the others in their daily lives in business and government and to practice their faiths privately according to their beliefs. The world of Caesar and the world of God. Even Jesus recognized government is for getting by in the social world while your spiritual world is for you.

Of course one should be able to try to convert others. That is not the problem. What is the problem is that one impose her beliefs in the world of state and business on others. It just doesn't work to have two master in the marketplace or the governing place. If the state says we are all equal and we must respect the rights of others then that is the case. It is not the case that by setting up a business that one can dictate what others who are otherwise willing buyers can or cannot buy.

You don't believe in abortion. Don't practice it. For instance don't design clinics. In the US your faith ends at your family ands then only to the point of attaining majority status. You have a business run under US law that insists you treat others equally, that is your customers are everybody, and that if you want to sell a product you must offer it to all who can use it. If you don't want to build abortion clinics I suggest you work outside the clinic design area. Yes your faith puts constraints on you. Our constitution welcoming all faiths and non faiths limits your faith being used by you to put constraints on others because of it.

I actually go quite a bit further than take an, in your mind, extreme track. I take a track to which our form of governance dictates.

Think of things this way. You are not being discriminated against. You are being constrained against bringing discrimination to others.

 

[ruby sparks]

You don't believe in abortion. Don't practice it. For instance don't design clinics.

So are you saying I shouldn't have the right to decline a customer who wants an abortion clinic designed by me?

It's got nothing to do with faith, by the way. I'm an atheist.

As far as I can see, the only good argument for that is the one Ravensky mentioned, that advocates of abortion are not a protected subgroup. But like I said, I'm more interested in the morality. Laws are funny things. One day they're this the next day they're that. If advocates of abortion were for any reason to gain legal protection, all of a sudden it'd be discrimination. Perhaps that's a good reason. But it doesn't seem to apply to the Silva case, where the baker wouldn't inscribe the bible passages. Nor would it seem to apply if I as a straight white male went into a shop and asked for something but was refused because I was straight, white or male.

As an aside, I'm wondering what the anti-discrimination laws are in the US. Here, there are not protected sub-groups, as far as I am aware. There is just the Equality Laws, which apply to everyone on the same basis.

 

[Juma]

You really dont see the difference between having an opinion and being gay?
Do I need to spell it out for you?

I think you might have to, yes.

you dont choose to be gay. you choose your opinions.
you are not responsible for being gay, you are responsible for your opinion.

 

[Juma]

So you admit it that you think it is ok to force people to move due to their color or being gay???

You really ARE a fascist pig!

The couple lived in Denver. Are you saying that Denver isn't accepting of the gay lifestyle?

no. i say you are a nazi.

 

[ruby sparks]

You really dont see the difference between having an opinion and being gay?
Do I need to spell it out for you?

I think you might have to, yes.

you dont choose to be gay. you choose your opinions.
you are not responsible for being gay, you are responsible for your opinion.

I must have been living in a hole in the ground or something, thinking that homosexuality was just an opinion. Thank goodness I met you.

 

[Elixir]

You don’t even get to choose your opinions most of the time. How many religious people belong to a faith other than the one with which they were brought up?

 

[untermensche]

You don’t even get to choose your opinions most of the time. How many religious people belong to a faith other than the one with which they were brought up?

No.

You do get to choose your opinions.

But that is work.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you admit it that you think it is ok to force people to move due to their color or being gay???

You really ARE a fascist pig!

The couple lived in Denver. Are you saying that Denver isn't accepting of the gay lifestyle?

no. i say you are a nazi.

For believing that someone keeps their constitutional rights even when they start a business? Please point to me in the Constitution where you lose your rights for having a business? Where are public accomodations defined in the Constitution?

 

[untermensche]

no. i say you are a nazi.

For believing that someone keeps their constitutional rights even when they start a business? Please point to me in the Constitution where you lose your rights for having a business? Where are public accomodations defined in the Constitution?

Where in the Constitution is the right to discriminate based on delusions and nothing else?

 

[fromderinside]

You don't believe in abortion. Don't practice it. For instance don't design clinics.

So are you saying I shouldn't have the right to decline a customer who wants an abortion clinic designed by me?

It's got nothing to do with faith, by the way. I'm an atheist.

As an aside, I'm wondering what the anti-discrimination laws are in the US. Here, there are not protected sub-groups, as far as I am aware. There is just the Equality Laws, which apply to everyone on the same basis.

You have every right to design clinics. It's your choice to not serve those who want abortion clinics. Morality is not the exclusive purview of the religious. If you publicly claim personal belief in your advertising catholic, fundamentalist, atheist, view that you are morally opposed to abortions most would not ask you to design an abortion clinic out of respect for you belief and their belief that you would likely not do your best in designing one if you accepted their request. Perhaps they would even be suspicious of your intents in taking their request.

Everybody takes risks and make morality based decisions when choosing a profession if they are upstanding. Using abortion as a test is your choice there. It is not the choice of those who want to have an abortion clinic. So instead of choosing winners and losers it comes down to how an upright person in a secular world would limit oneself to as a moral business decision. Is your choice to deny service to persons different from yourself based on your beliefs a moral one?

In our neck of the woods we are testing the limits of faith preference over equality of men right now.

I'm wondering if you would consider opening a clinic design business in plush west los angeles. It's a place where there is much wealth and Strong acceptance of AIDS support, women's and young girl's secuasl rights and other cross sexual medical advocacies. The financial temptation would be almost overwhelming, but, your business, should you advertise your disapproval of abortion, would be withering. IOW would you go to a place where there is a strong pro-abortion pro-woman's sexual and treatment rights, pro-gay, pro-trans, pro-bi, etc. just to make money. Or would you confront them with your intent to design clinics, but, not certain kinds of clinics to which they are positively disposed.

 

[ruby sparks]

You don't believe in abortion. Don't practice it. For instance don't design clinics.

So are you saying I shouldn't have the right to decline a customer who wants an abortion clinic designed by me?

It's got nothing to do with faith, by the way. I'm an atheist.

As an aside, I'm wondering what the anti-discrimination laws are in the US. Here, there are not protected sub-groups, as far as I am aware. There is just the Equality Laws, which apply to everyone on the same basis.

You have every right to design clinics. It's your choice to not serve those who want abortion clinics. Morality is not the exclusive purview of the religious. If you publicly claim personal belief in your advertising catholic, fundamentalist, atheist, view that you are morally opposed to abortions most would not ask you to design an abortion clinic out of respect for you belief and their belief that you would likely not do your best in designing one if you accepted their request. Perhaps they would even be suspicious of your intents in taking their request.

Everybody takes risks and make morality based decisions when choosing a profession if they are upstanding. Using abortion as a test is your choice there. It is not the choice of those who want to have an abortion clinic. So instead of choosing winners and losers it comes down to how an upright person in a secular world would limit oneself to as a moral business decision. Is your choice to deny service to persons different from yourself based on your beliefs a moral one?

In our neck of the woods we are testing the limits of faith preference over equality of men right now.

I'm wondering if you would consider opening a clinic design business in plush west los angeles. It's a place where there is much wealth and Strong acceptance of AIDS support, women's and young girl's secuasl rights and other cross sexual medical advocacies. The financial temptation would be almost overwhelming, but, your business, should you advertise your disapproval of abortion, would be withering. IOW would you go to a place where there is a strong pro-abortion pro-woman's sexual and treatment rights, pro-gay, pro-trans, pro-bi, etc. just to make money. Or would you confront them with your intent to design clinics, but, not certain kinds of clinics to which they are positively disposed.

Your hypothetical question asks me to say whether I would compromise my moral objections in order to make a good living, I think. As such, in principle it's hard to answer (not least because I am pro-choice). I guess if I were to reverse the scenario, would I decline to design something for anti-abortionists......it's hard to say. If I was really, really short of work and had bills to pay and kids to put through university, I might take that job. But it's not too difficult to say that because I accept that being anti-abortion is a valid position, just not mine. All other things being equal, including that I had enough other work, I'd probably decline.

Just to note, if I am a nurse, I can decline (as far as I know) to assist in abortions here in the UK.

 

[Underseer]

no. i say you are a nazi.

For believing that someone keeps their constitutional rights even when they start a business? Please point to me in the Constitution where you lose your rights for having a business? Where are public accomodations defined in the Constitution?

No, for thinking that the rights of some people matter and the rights of certain other people don't matter at all.

Non-fascists believe that your rights end the moment they impose on someone else's rights. You have zero concerns about someone else's rights being trampled as long as that someone else is from a minority group that you hate.

For fucks sake, we already had this debate during the civil rights era. I thought this matter was settled.

If you want to provide a police accommodation to the public, you have to provide those same accommodations to black people even if you really, really hate black people. If you don't like that, then you are free to stop serving lunch.