Having experienced the insanity of Mormonism I thought that would make someone more open minded -- not less.

Is it lack of empathy?
Experience or much ado about nothing?

The greatest civil rights issues of our time are being debated now.

Since people are uncomfortable with naked discrimination, religion is the current vehicle that's now being used to deny the rights of others.

If you are a person of faith, why would you tolerate this?

You are saddened? Sorry, that isnt illegal. What law did the baker violate? Your feelings are not what determines what is legal and illegal. Courts follow laws. Who woulda thunk it?

Oh is this what Anyone is asking about? The court case about the baker?

Ignore my other comment.

Don't know what faith the baker is, but I would suggest studying that particular denomination's beliefs. The answer may be found there.

this is what anybody is talking about https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/us/wedding-cake-ruling-trnd/index.html

Which religion are you referring to? I think you are stereotyping "religion" by putting all who have faith under that umbrella claiming we all are into hate and bigotry.

I say, educate yourself on the different faiths, denominations etc.

You are asking a complex question and thinking the answer is simplistic

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The greatest civil rights issues of our time are
> being debated now.

That, to put it mildly, is an unnecessary hyperbole.


But, even though I haven’t a faith to speak of, let me briefly explain why I tolerate hatred in others. In a word, empathy: I do not extend empathy to only those who do not hate, for then I’d be extending it to no one.

I do not shut haters out with blanket judgement and condemnation. I assume, like myself, that haters hate the things they hate for certain reasons. I’m interested in knowing those reasons. Besides, we are always in danger of hating the haters for their hatred. I’ve been there and can say that it does no one any good.

Human

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having experienced the insanity of Mormonism I
> thought that would make someone more open minded
> -- not less.
>
> Is it lack of empathy?
> Experience or much ado about nothing?
>
> The greatest civil rights issues of our time are
> being debated now.
>
> Since people are uncomfortable with naked
> discrimination, religion is the current vehicle
> that's now being used to deny the rights of
> others.
>
> If you are a person of faith, why would you
> tolerate this?


???I don't get it.

Since it's not easy to be a flat out bigot in today's modern society, some groups are trying to use the "religious freedom" concept to discriminate. They don't really care about faith or religion -- it's just an excuse. That's the principle I'm talking about.

I think the terms "hate" and "bigotry" get thrown around way too casually.

A baker politely pointing someone to a competing bakery to fulfill an order they feel uncomfortable providing is showing hatred? I don't think so.

> A baker politely pointing someone to a competing bakery to fulfill an order they feel uncomfortable providing is showing hatred? I don't think so.

If the reason they feel uncomfortable is due to the sexual orientation of the customer, then yes, I think so.....even if their position is "love the sinner, hate the sin" its hatred driving it.

You equate feeling uncomfortable with hate? Very odd!

You equate feeling uncomfortable with the right refuse service? How odd.

You can refuse service for some things....illegal activity, disruption to patrons and business, hygiene (no shoes/ shirt), etc.....just feeling uncomfortable isn't one of them. People are uncomfortable with any number of things, but that doesn't grant them the right to refuse service on those grounds.

Some folks are uncomfortable around a young male wearing a hoody, they may even have a sincere belief that young men that wear hoodies are gang bangers, but they can't refuse service on those grounds alone.

What about jewelry stores that have to "buzz" you in to their store? If a sales clerk feels uncomfortable, for any reason, should he or she be forced to "buzz" in someone who might rob, steal, etc?

No, that falls in to illegal activity, like a mentioned in my post.

A jewelry store has a huge $ amount of items that poses a temptation for some to steal. If the jeweler feels the person is a threat or will rob him, he has the right to not buzz them in. That's why businesses like that are set up with buzzers.

If they have no buzzer, like a quicky mart, or a bakery, and the hoody guy walks up and say's I'll have a pack of Marlboro 100's, or a donut, then no, they can't refuse to sell it just because they are uncomfortable.

I don't see how it's illegal activity if they haven't even been buzzed in yet -- and the reason they haven't been buzzed in is because the store clerk feels uncomfortable!

The jeweler has a legitimate fear for their safety and theft of merchandise. That's why the store has a locked door and buzzer. This is perfectly legal and I don't hear much debate on the subject. Same reason you can't just walk behind the counter or into the vault in a bank.

The baker wasn't in fear for their safety or theft of their cakes.

I just don't understand why a person's sexual orientation causes another person so much discomfort that they would refuse to offer them the same services they would offer to someone else of a different sexual orientation. I just don't get that.

You are surprised and saddened, eh?

You shouldn't be.

For example, when someone posts a comment that is judgmental toward others, such as "I am surprised and saddened..." --that statement in itself is hateful and I'd dare say bigoted toward persons who don't share your worldview.

On second thought, maybe it is sad...

"I am surprised and saddened..." is a hateful statement?

Which is it, the "surprise" or the "sadness" that embodies hatred? When your child weeps with sadness, do you perceive that as hatred? When you close the door and wake your pet cat in surprise, do you feel that the cat hates you?

Anybody expressed moderate anxiety in moderate terms. That is the essence of polite conversation. He is not informed by hatred: it is your binary and polarizing reply that is disproportionate.

"I am surprised and saddened that..." is the prelude to a judgmental remark. It cloaks the actual disdain that the speaker has for others who disagree in so-called politeness. Mormons are experts at using this method of criticism and meanness. I know-I was a non-royalty Mormon who was always being lectured with words that imply caring but drip with hate and judgment. It makes me sick when people do that. When you call them out for saying such judgmental crap, they respond with the ever popular--"you misinterpreted what I said".

Look again at the title of the thread. The implication clearly is that the writer considers themselves above the unwashed who have a differing opinion that the writer's own - clearly superior attitude.

I have had a bellyful of this attitude in my life, I am tired of putting up with it.

It is akin to 'bless your heart' as it is used by so-called Christians, predominately in the south.

Your response indicates that you are a supporter of the ongoing chastisement of others who see things differently. How's about getting off the lectern and letting people develop their own views without talking down to them from uppityness...

"Your response indicates that you are a supporter of the ongoing chastisement of others who see things differently. How's about getting off the lectern and letting people develop their own views without talking down to them from uppityness..."

Exactly! I am tired of the ongoing chastisement of people who have a different point of view. We simply will not all agree -- this baker issue is a prime example.

If people dump on you and make your life difficult as an ex-mormon, why would you in turn do the same to someone else?

It's not about a stupid cake.

It's about what I'm reading from some people -- more than I would have expected -- that seems to imply that discriminating against people is OK or not really a problem.

It's not OK.

It's agreeing with discrimination.

Really Anybody? Do you think the Judge was just a bigot? Do you think that was his motivation? Or is it just absurd to force someone to sell something that doesnt even exist thus forcing them to create something they dont want to create thus forcing them to do something they dont want to do thus hurting them?

The gay couple could have purchased anything "for sale" in the store. Things that dont exist cant be "for sale". There was no discrimination.

Really Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> The gay couple could have purchased anything "for
> sale" in the store. Things that dont exist cant be
> "for sale". There was no discrimination.

Non-gay couples can purchase something that "doesn't exist" though. That would seem to be the point. If you are not LGBTQ, or if you are but the shopkeeper doesn't realize it, you can order a cake that will only exist in the future, decorated according to your request. (The names on the cake can be "Sam and Joe", both of which are male or female names, and there are many examples of such, and the baker wouldn't know, short of asking, whether that is a gay or straight couple).

So, in fact, things that "don't exist" *are* for sale at that bakery. If you're straight. Apparently.

In the world you describe LGBTQ folks are limited to only purchasing what is "for sale", on view at the time they attend the shop, while straight folks can purchase a non-existent, yet to be created, item. This separates people by their sexual orientation.

Ipso facto. Ergo. And demonstrably. That is discrimination.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 05:27PM by Nightingale.

Except that the court recognized the shop owners first amendment right to refuse to engage in speech that she finds offensive.

Similarly an actor can refuse to play a role in a movie that they find offensive. It happens all the time in Hollywood. Imagine that.

In the Hollywood example, where an actor refuses a part that goes against their principles, that is a decision a person is making according to their own outlook, for themselves. That's different from a businessperson imposing their standards on others.

Btw, my comments are general ones, not centred specifically on the court case previously discussed, as I am not yet familiar with all the info about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 05:44PM by Nightingale.

So an actor who is hired to play a role in a movie can decline to do the work because they dont like what the role is but a baker cant refuse to bake a cake because they dont like what the cake is. hahahahahha. The insanity continues. LOL. The only difference in the 2 scenarios is that you are a control freak trying to force your agenda onto the baker. That is it. You want to force people to agree with you.

ok let me break this down for you.

Actor: I refuse to do the movie because I dont like what it represents.

You said that was ok.

Baker: I refuse to bake the cake because I dont like what it represents.

You said that was not ok.

Difference? None. You are hypocrite.

You could use that argument to discriminate against anyone for any reason...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 06:19PM by anybody.

You are confusing the buyer and the seller.
The actor in this case is the buyer. The studio offers (sells) a role to the actor who can refuse to accept (buy) it. The buyer is free to refuse to purchase what is offered. For your analogy to be proper, it would require the actor to want the role and the studio to refuse to offer it to him.

Lets see.

Baker stands at counter. Customer enters store and requests cake that baker doesnt have. Baker refuses to make cake because baker finds it offensive.

Actor stands in their office. Studio producer enters office with new role in a movie he wants the actor to perform. Actor reads the script and decides it is offensive. Actor refuses to do the movie.

Nope. I dont see any difference. You are just wrong.

Of course *you* don't see any difference. You seem to have a lack of logical thinking skills. Try this:

Actor stands in their office. Studio producer enters office with new role in a movie he wants the actor to perform. Actor reads the script and decides it is offensive. Actor refuses to do the movie;

VS.

Actor goes to producer and says I want this role and producer says I won't give it to you because I don't like the fact that you are _________ (fill in the blank).

Compare to:

Customer goes into store and baker says I will sell you this cake, but customer doesn't want that cake and so refuses to buy it.

VS.

Customer goes into store and tells baker they want to buy a certain cake and baker says I won't sell it to because you are gay.

The first examples are each discriminatory, the second are not.

You should know that the baker didnt say I will not bake a cake for you because you are gay. The baker said I dont want to participate in your wedding by you displaying my cake at your wedding. That is the difference you have distorted.

Bakers are hired to bake.
Actors are hired to act.

Sometimes actors refuse to act because they dont like the message it sends.

Sometimes bakers refuse to bake because they dont like the message it sends.

Get over it.

And why do you have to be rude about it?

An actor is not hired blind to a movie they know nothing about. They know what the role entails before they accept it.

That in no way equates to a customer accessing a public business but being turned away due to not meeting the proprietor's standards.

Totally not in the same ballpark.

An actor. Self-employed, in effect. Can choose what they want for their own selves and brand.

A baker. Operating a business for the public. The public is whoever the public is. Can't sell a cake to Don and Rita but not one to Steve and John. Unless you get a judge who says you can which obviously this particular baker did. I would be surprised if this is upheld.

But like I said. My comments were not directed specifically towards this specific court case as I don't know enough about it. I'm just talking about general principles.

In any business I have been involved in, I don't care what people do with the items they obtain from me. I am not responsible for their moral standards or even their actions (depending, of course, on what I am dealing in; arms, illicit substances, that is different in terms of personal responsibility of the seller, of course).

Regarding Christians in particular, I do think they go wrong at times in seeking to impose their standards on everyone else. I believe the standards apply to *our* behaviour, not that it's our responsibility to force others to act and believe in the same way we do. Anyway, I think most people's standards are just fine. If not what some would call "Christian", so what. Are we in the position of enforcing our way? I sure hope the answer is a decided no.

>Things that dont exist cant be "for sale".

It happens all of the time.
You can go to a new housing development and buy a house that hasn't been built yet.

Wall Street does it all of the time when they buy and sell options.

Do you think Newport News Shipbuilding started building this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier
without already having a buyer?

The point is you cant force the sale of something that doesnt exist because that forces the creation of that thing. If the cake was already present then they couldnt have refused the sale. Since the cake didnt exist then the baker had no obligation to create a cake they didnt want to create. Sorry. You are wrong. Just the same that any artist (actor, sculptor, painter, etc.) doesnt have to do your thing just because they did someone elses thing. Its called freedom. Embrace it. Artists can be picky about what they do and dont do. Get over it.

Except that in this case, they are refusing to create it for a discriminatory reason. As to which one of us is wrong, we will just have to wait for the Supreme Court decision.

Too bad discrimination only works one way; if someone were to deny service to religious people, they'd go out of business. And everyone would be all up in arms about THAT, even though it's the same thing that's going on now but in reverse.

But what do you expect? People suck.

Typically if people dont like the Catholic Church then they just dont attend their mass. Why do you think it is appropriate to attend a Catholic Mass then complain about how much you hate it the entire time? Why go places you dont feel comfortable with and try to force people to do things they dont want to do? Do you think it would be appropriate for a Mulsim to attend the Catholic Church and read the Quran out load in the middle of their Mass? Dont worry he would say. Its ok I am Muslim.

In the United States, religion and religious institutions are often (though not always) subject to many of the regulations, laws, and court decisions which are required of other entities (grocery stores, for example) considered (in some way) "public."

For-profit businesses, especially if they are licensed by some governmental authority, ARE subject to many different laws, regulations, and court decisions which mandate that they operate their businesses in such a way as to be open to the public at large.

It is my understanding that it is legal for certain religiously-oriented entities to operate a business which is either only open to members of a particular religion, or where certain products are sold to ONLY members of that religion. (Desert Books selling garmies, as an example---but this (theoretically!!!) could also apply to kosher bakeries or hallal meat markets too (were anyone to actually do this theoretical thing). (I also assume that it MIGHT be legal for certain Jewish bookstores which cater to the super-Orthodox to either not allow females into their premises, or to sequester them in a restricted part of the premises where books they might possibly be interested in would be brought to them, outside of the eyeline of male patrons in the main part of the store.)

The problem only arises with "public" businesses, which sell products or services to the "public." For about a half-century now, "public" means: ALL of the public (regardless of what you think about a potential customer's race, ethnicity, first language, country or state of birth, gender, or sexual orientation, to name but some of the possible examples).

A church or other religious service is, in some ways, allowed some leeway as to who they will allow to attend their services.

A bakery open to the general public is not.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 04:19PM by Tevai.

Really Tevai? And they didnt throw them out of their store either. All they did was refuse to customize a cake for them. Ergo there was no discrimination.

The service that was open to the public was open to the gay couple as well. They could have purchased anything they saw in the bakery. Ergo there was no discrimination.

Going to a church and making a purchase in a business are two very different things.

It must be so burdenson to be so judgemental. It makes me sad

for you.

I think anybody is expressing concern about the number of posts in various threads that are explicitly anti-LGTBQ. I share that concern.

I think (but may be wrong) that you do too? No worries either way, of course.

for any reason whatsoever -- race, sex, skin colour, orientation, ethnicity, etc, etc doesn't matter.


Our modern society could not exist nor function if people could discriminate for any reason.

1950 was a long time ago.

I cannot understand the desire of some to return to that era of open restriction and segregation.

Discrimination is wrong.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 04:07PM by anybody.

Yes I'm saddened by all the hate and bigotry, but not surprised

since hate and bigotry are not a new thing in my life, but... I

also hate to be judged.

Ex-mormons are no more "all alike" than the world at large is.
We have leaving the cult in common...sometimes not much else.

All I can say, Anybody, is this board is filled with some of the most wonderful, wise, non-judgmental, supportive, and best of all funniest people who do not only "get us" but want to be friends with us without reservation. This is something to celebrate. They showed up on the last three or four threads and made powerful statements of inclusion. This is what I never thought I would ever see when I was young. I am no longer surprised though, at how many people are inclusive.

We see the cake as the new drinking fountain, back door through the kitchen, or forbidden country club. Many here don't and we won't convince them with words. But many do and that many is growing and I absolutely love so many here and consider them some of my best friends.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 06:08PM by Maude.

Hate and bigotry against Mormons? That’s like stepping onto a soccer field and complaining about a ball being kicked around. It’s therapy.

Anybody, to the Religious Right and the Zealous Chosen Few, it's called "Love the Sinner, while rejecting the sin."

They want no part of the sin of the lifestyle they condemn as ungodly - on their part. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Until the law steps in to enforce anti-discrimination laws, bakers up to now have been able to serve their clientele according to the dictates of their conscience.

To them it isn't about being bigots or hating on those who violate the laws they believe in. It is rooted deep in their faith - which has taken root over a lifetime of biblical indoctrination not so unlike Mormon teachings on the same subject matter.

Jesus didn't come into the world hating or condemning. Whatever reason people took his teachings out of context to pervert his gospel wasn't based on New Testament teachings, but distorted to serve those in power to exercise total control over the societies they ruled.

Should an African American baker be forced to create a white supremacist cake?
Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a anti-Israel cake?

There are lots of cases of people having to serve customers they didn't like.

Here's the real issue.

Years ago, Group "X" wasn't part of society and were excluded, marginalised, and discriminated against.

Then things changed socially. Attitudes have changed. Now Group "X" is increasingly accepted as part of every day society and are no longer segregated or marginalised as they once were.

Some people, however, still don't accept that Group "X" are normal people just like they are and don't want to interact with Group "X" even though the wider culture has moved on. These people attempt all matter of legal manoeuvres in order to continue to discriminate.

So, things have changed. Society has changed. Group "X" is now part of the public and should be treated with the same respect as anyone else.

Should an African American baker be forced to create a white supremacist cake?
Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a anti-Israel cake?

And if you want to talk about Nazis I doubt they would do that but if they do, then they have to pay -- it's not free...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 07:14PM by anybody.

You are equating piping icing on a happy cake saying Congrats Will and Bill to anti-semitic or white supremacist messages?

From another view, how is the relationship between a businessperson (eg: baker) responding to a customer's request relating to their type of business anything at all akin to a Jewish person in relation to Nazis or a black person regarding white supremacists?

Speaking specifically of the bakers, there argument is stupid. They won't customize a cake for the gay couple but they'll sell them an already baked cake - how does that make any sense? What is their objection? I'm only guessing but is the issue that they have to write something in frosting like, "Best wishes for a happy life together - Larry and Bill." Is this the type of issue that throwing these people into a religious frenzy? If this is the issue, then these baker/bakers are pathetic.

Please ignore my first response. I didn't know what op was talking about.

I will take all the blame, now can we all have world peace and sing primary songs? All hate on me instead of all eyes on me. Loving everybody is not even humanly normal. I found my purpose i'll take all the blame for everything. Problem solved.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2018 05:46PM by anybody.