Now imagine that US politicians - in general, not poking fun at any party/group/platform - were capable of a tenth of the class and intelligence in this conversation.
Yes, it's great! I know she is an actress and these are memorized parts. But still, The banter between the parties was very cool to listen to, and watch the faces etc. Great all the way around. I wish I had been born with a quicker mind. Lol
No one outside the U.S. understands this case. If I were gay, and the bakery told me they hate gays, why in the world would I still want to give them my business? I would have to pay them in the end. I do not want them to have my money.
The issue then becomes when EVERY baker does so. When its a niche and there are viable friendly options you’d want to go to the friendly options. However there are various cases such as sentimental connection or lack of viable options than can drive it further, say a small town where its 120miles to the next baker, so its that baker or no baker. I understand the case as an Australian who is also Queer.
Also part of this is rooted in things like the Jim crow Era where half the country was completely segregated by race. If you argue all religious business owners should be able to deny service based in sexuality, and they all do, then now your back to segregation except it's based on sexuality rather than race.
Whether or not someone chooses to give them business is irrelevant. Attitudes like this should see the business cancelled. If a business refused service to Muslim people or people of colour, they'd absolutely get called out and cancelled... yet for some reason it's become socially acceptable again to discriminate against the LGBTQIA+ community under the pretence of religious freedom when what we're really talking about is religious privilege.
I just don't understand youtube. I was notified of Country Life's reply, but not of the other replies; I saw them only just now. My OC failed to fully express what I meant. I am sorry, but I'll just say it: this is a "USA problem". Because in Western Europe, here's what would happen: The baker refuses to make the cake, other people hear about that, and the baker is finished. Done. Broke. I am not saying that we do not have homophobes, xenophobes, bigots. But we have much fewer. Do Americans understand what the rest of the world sees when the GOP wins 50% of the votes? _
It is not rediculous. The baker is ok to sell bread (in the knowing of) to the same gay couple. She is not ok selling them the wedding cake as it is against her believe. End of story.
@@Gabriel-jk6ce that's what lawyers do they find ways around judgements. They find loopholes. Me personally I'm a Christian and idk what I would do in that scenario but I believe I have the right to choose service based off my religion while also not barring actual service.
Yeah, that guy is not dressed as a Sikh. The Sikh turban is not a cap that can be removed and worn instantly like the one shown. That one is worn by Hindus during religious ceremonies. What's the matter with you?
A Christian surgeon is preparing for a heart transplant and discovers the patient is gay and married. Does he legally have the right to refuse to operate seeing he believes homosexuality is a mortal sin? An extreme case I admit but isn’t this exactly the same principle?
Even as a Christian the surgeon is not allowed to kill. The surgery and receiving of heart is not a religious act. The difference is that weddings can be classified as religious acts and service hence against which it's sanctity can be argued. On the other hand if I were against homosexuality I could argue that the human body is a temple and it's been desiccated hence needs to be cleansed and purified before I can touch However, this still goes against Christianity as Jesus let Mary perfume his body when she was considered unholy. There is no room for homophobes in general as they do not really follow religion based practice. Atleast not one of Christian faith.
@marzadky4934 but not really... a wedding is only a religious act when those who's wedding it is follow a religious service. MANY people don't have a religious wedding.
@skycastrum5803 personally I think either way the baker should be obligated to bake the wedding cake... thr point I'm making is that people are trying to say weddings are intrinsically religious but they're not... what makes them a religious event is whether or jot the participants choose to have a religious service. When I got married to my husband neither one of us wanted a service tied to a religion that vilifies us so we didn't.
0:18 I really don't like someone claiming on whether or something is a pretext. That's an assumption on if someone would sell to same sex couples in general, or in this specific instance conserning a wedding cake. I'm not a christian, but I still feel that if the religious practise is acceptable and it's not infringing on someone else's freedom of speech or their right to happiness, your free to practice it. Refusing to sell someone a cake doesn't violate those, so in my opinion any entrepeneur may refuse service, for any reason. 'No shirt, no shoes' is still a thing.
Not if that reason means it violates your rights against discrimination and only if it is a view point, so they could deny "God Loves/Hates Gays" regardless of their beliefs because that's an interpretation/view they have of their Religion and Sexuality isn't as vague and if a gay person asked for a cake saying "Gay Marriage should be Legal", it can be denied while not being Discriminatory as they are arguing against the view of Gay Marriage and not the Sexuality itself. However, it cannot be denied simply because of their Religion, Race, Sexuality etc. if businesses were allowed to refuse service for any reason then -if it denied rights or not- they could choose groups of people to exclude from their services.
@@aarongray243 I'm just going to jump over the whole debate on which has more freedoms, sexuality or religion. The point in the end is this: who's rights are going to be infringed in this situation. The gay couple has the right to REQUEST a cake for a wedding. The baker has the right to either agree or disagree service to their potential clients, if it goes against their moral compass or faith. The baker does not have the duty or responsibility to fulfill an order made to them. If money has exchanged hands, by all means, the money should be returned. They said it right at the end: aren't religious groups afforded the same right and protections as a gays? Realistically, they should be. It then boiles down to simply a difference of opinion on whether or not the faith of the baker is 'right' or not, and that whole thing is a crapshoot. But, in my opinion, the rights of the gay couple to WANT something, doesn't exceed the bakers RIGHT to do refuse service, and be hence FORCED in to compliance. If the baker HAS to bake the cake, their freedoms have been infringed in my opinion. And again it is just my opinion. I'm looking at this situation only throught the lense of whose RIGHTS are actually being violated, nothing else. What I see here is representatives of two groups on equal footing, and the other one is requesting something and the other one is refusing. And both have the right to do so.
@@Moponen I believe your question on whether the baker can refuse to serve a gay couple was answered in the first video. If the baker is advertising a service, then they must provide that service, and can refuse to provide it with good reason. If the reason to refuse is "The customer is of a certain sexual orientation", that falls under discrimination, and is then not a good or valid reason. For if a religion should be held to the same standards of a sexual orientation, then the answer is yes, it should be, and it is in many circumstances. A baker cannot refuse a Catholic person because they are Catholic, for the same reason they cannot refuse a gay person because they are gay. It falls under discrimination. However, when it comes to providing a service, religion, race, orientation, etc. is removed from the equation. As stated above, if you offer a service, you must provide it. You cannot refuse service based off of someone's religion, race, orientation, etc. Certainly, everyone has the right to free speech and freedom of expression. But, why should one person's freedom of speech and expression be allowed to infringe on and remove someone else's? I'm of the opinion that when you are providing a good or service, who you are is taken out of the equation. You should be, for lack of a better term, secularist when acting as the provider. I'm also of the opinion that if your belief requires you to be discriminatory towards another group, it should be held up as lesser than the discriminated. This blog does a good job at explaining what I've said above, and more: www.mydoorsign.com/blog/right-to-refuse-service-to-anyone/
@@chancecomic1595 that really is the point however. Is it discrimination if your religion tells you that participating, in any way, in celebration X is forbidden, when it doesn't fulfill the requirments stated by your religion? When someone asks you to participate, freedom of expression should offer the option of 'No'. That is my only point. That person gets f*cked either way. Their religion might state that they go to hell for that and for true believers that's a scary thought. On the other hand if they refuse, they are punished while still alive. I'm not saying anyone should deny anyone services, just that the whole system is f*cked and I'm frustrated there are no good solutions. As I originally stated, I don't belong to any specific religion, but I'm one of those guy who believes in the idea that either freedom speech is absolute or it's not, no middle ground.
"no shirt, no shoes" isn't an allowance for discrimination. It's a request for basic hygiene and it isn't applied to a specific race, religion, or sexuality.
Everyone has the freedom to believe, freedom to express their ideas. I think people forget everyone else’s “freedom of will,” some people think that everyone should like LGBT people, then where is the freedom of everything? Like LGBT people have rights so the rest of the people have the same rights. We do not need to like each other but also we don’t need to hate each other. We can cohabitate in this world by respecting each other’s beliefs, traditions, backgrounds, sexual identities unless that is harming someone physically or verbally.
You can "not like" LGBT people (whatever that means) but you can't treat them differently as it would be discrimination. Refusing service is a difference in treatment based on personal characteristics, so it is discriminatory and should not be permitted
So by your logic, as an LGBTQIA person myself I should be able to refuse to employ Christians, Muslims and basically anyone with a faith because of the conflict of ideology. The door swings both ways, if a Christian can demiscriminate based on their beliefs, shouldn't I as an LGBTQIA person be able to discriminate against them based on my own beliefs?
