Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

a reply to: grandmakdw

Also, short reasonable answer ... to deny to create a special good or special service because there is harm or the potential for harm is one thing ... to deny to provide a standard good or standard service to someone because of some arbitrary non-harmful characteristic of the individual requesting the service is discrimination.

A bakery that specializes in wedding cakes does not make cakes for pedophiles because that harms children.

A cake that depicts a violent act is either a part of a given bakery's repertoire ... or it isn't.

Not creating a special item is not the same as refusing a standard item based on a person's nature or characteristics.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw

Doesn't matter, denying some one something that you do for everyone else is not practicing your religion!
It is forcing it on to the person.

That was the point I said, the one which you seem to have ignored.

I don't want people who provide a service to be able to discriminate
If you think that you can't provide a service to the public because of your religion then maybe you need to decide what is more important. You are free to practice in your private life, but you don't not have the right to deny me something because my views differ then yours.

Where there are so many options available to people
why would someone want to force others to participate
in their wedding, someone who doesn't want to?

This really isn't always the case, not everyplace is a busting metropolis.
And if you take any sort of help from the tax payer then what right do you have to deny them the service?

So then in my post above,

a gay baker must bake a cake for a pedophile "pretend" wedding
if they bake cakes for other weddings?
or be fined for sexual discrimination?

a photographer who specializes in anniversary parties
must take photos at a nudist 50th anniversary party
where all attendees are 65-85
or be fined for age discrimination?

a florist must make a display of a white police officer out
of flowers with a dagger through the heart if they make
floral sculptures for events for a "black lives matter" event
or be fined for racial discrimination?

These people may not decline on the basis that
they find what they are asked to do to be against
their personal moral code?

Ok, if you agree with all of this then you are at least consistent.

a reply to: grandmakdw

1. Pedophiles are not a protected class. A baker does NOT have to provide a cake for one.

2. If photographer doesn't do nudist party photos for ANYONE, then it's not a problem.

3. A florist does not have to do any specific display that they find personally offensive, as long as they won't do it for ANYONE.


These are the best examples you could come up with? How silly.

a reply to: grandmakdw

a gay baker must bake a cake for a pedophile "pretend" wedding
if they bake cakes for other weddings?
or be fined for sexual discrimination?

This has to deal with a criminal act, so not sure what it has to do with anything. That isn't about two consenting adults.
Don't get why pedophilia always gets brought up when it has zero to do with anything.

a photographer who specializes in anniversary parties
must take photos at a nudist 50th anniversary party
where all attendees are 65-85
or be fined for age discrimination?

I would say the nudity what would be more in question here,again laws and what not. and rather that photographer will photograph younger people nude and denying this based on age alone...

a florist must make a display of a white police officer out
of flowers with a dagger through the heart if they make
floral sculptures for events for a "black lives matter" event
or be fined for racial discrimination?

They would have the right to deny the putting a knife through a heart, but I would say they would have to make a floral arrangement. I don't think gay people should be able to force a baker to put a picture or decorate it in a way that is offensive like that either.

I think you are missing the point here based on those examples...
Obviously you tried to make each one political.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: grandmakdw

Also, short reasonable answer ... to deny to create a special good or special service because there is harm or the potential for harm is one thing ... to deny to provide a standard good or standard service to someone because of some arbitrary non-harmful characteristic of the individual requesting the service is discrimination.

A bakery that specializes in wedding cakes does not make cakes for pedophiles because that harms children.

A cake that depicts a violent act is either a part of a given bakery's repertoire ... or it isn't.

Not creating a special item is not the same as refusing a standard item based on a person's nature or characteristics.

Sorry but you are making a moral judgement,
the pedophile clearly stated it was a pretend
wedding and nothing sexual would be happening
sexually, it was all pretend. Who are you to
make a moral judgement if this is the lifestyle
the person has chosen and no one will be harmed.
You are actually making a very moral judgement.
A pedophile would say that is their nature and
who they are.
But the baker can not by law make that moral
judgement, current law forbids it, the baker
must make the cake or lose their business through
massive fines.

As for the florist, the florist I said specializes
in floral sculptures, I'll even say the florist
has done macabre sculptures for Halloween.
So this is the type of work the florist does.
So this florist can not refuse to make a floral
sculpture of a white police officer with a dagger
through the heart and blood dripping for a
black lives matter event.
That would be racist and judgmental on the
part of the florist who under current law could
lose their business through massive fines for
discrimination. Just because the group is
black (a characteristic) to refuse to make
the same type of sculpture one would for
Halloween is discrimination.
To say otherwise is to be extremely morally
judgmental on your part.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, the words judgement and ridicule are two different words. Are you now accusing someone of ridiculing Christians?

"Over-use" implies, again, that you are some sort of authority ... 1) who do you think recognizes your authority and 2) how does your interpretation of what some other poster's ... what, tone? ... matter at all to the subject at hand?

So now it's a joke? Or it's not ... a meritorious joke ... your perception of your own statements seem to be in flux here.

No one has to prove that there is a direct reference to "anti-gay" or "anti-woman" in the bill to know that 1) it's unconstitutional both from the State and Federal perspectives and 2) this type of legislation reflects a recognizable, nationwide trend to allow folks to discriminate unfairly against their fellow citizens. There is no need for a "pro-religion" bill ... the Constitution not to mention the RFRA laws have done more than enough.

Why do religious people deserve so much special attention? Why do they need a class of special rights?

You call it judgement; I call it ridicule. It doesn’t matter to the subject at hand at all. You’re the only one who got all defensive about it. It was supposed to be a light-hearted jab. And apparently only you recognize my authority. No one else but you has even conceived of such an absurdity.

1) If you wouldn’t mind, show me the words or phrases in the legislation that makes it unconstitutional. I, as of yet, cannot see how it is, and I could use some enlightenment on the subject. I’m being sincere here. 2) I doubt one or two situations of discrimination constitutes a growing nationwide trend. All this over wedding cake or pizza?

What seems to be growing is the trend of paranoia and irrational fear people have towards an American theocracy, something that hasn’t happened in its history. The christian population is in heavy decline while the unaffiliated is growing rapidly. I understand this is a conspiracy site, but we should at least err on the side of reality.

Apparently they haven’t done enough, as some people feel others should be mandated, coerced, penalized, or forced by the state to perform services on people they do not want to, simply because those people want them to.

The freedom of religion is a fundamental human right.

a reply to: grandmakdw

What you don't seem to get is that all your examples are being purposefully offensive in some way. In the cases that have actually happened nobody was being asked to do anything out of the ordinary. The baker was asked to bake a normal cake like they would make for anyone. The refusal wasn't based on the request for some offensive product, it was refused based solely on their judgement of another person. That is discrimination.

Do you see the difference???

a reply to: grandmakdw

I'm not making a moral judgement, although there is certainly one to be made regarding the constant lie trying to equate marriage equality (and homosexuality) to child abuse. We've all seen it from you dozens of times.

What I am saying is that child abuse is illegal. Denying someone a product that would require special creation based on the fact that it represents an illegal act is one thing. Denying a standard product to someone because they're gay (not illegal) and wish to be married (also not illegal now, which is what is sticking in your and all the other "Christian's" craws is discrimination.

It's not hard to see the difference, unless you don't want to: child abuse=illegal same-sex marrige= legal.

Like I said previously, (which you, of course, avoided), to deny a specially created product that depicts an illegal act is not the same, in any way shape form or fashsion, as denying the goods and services that you offer as a standard of your business to someone who is not doing anything illegal (or harmful), suggesting anything illegal (or harmful) or depicting anything illegal (or harmful.)

You are not nearly as clever as you conceive yourself to be, Granny.

a reply to: chuck258

There is not a single semblance of this law to segregation, it's not creating schools for gays only, gay only water fountains and gay seating areas in restaurants. Segregation was state laws that mandated (required) and actively enforced by the state, the separation of two groups of people based upon race. This is not requiring gays to be SEGREGATED, this is allowing certain people to opt out of a business arrangement they don't agree with. They are not remotely the same. Segregation required seperate schools, separate water fountains, separate waiting areas, etc. This law is not corralling gays. Your logic is flawed.

The fallacy is abundant here. The only argument given by opponents of this bill is "racism, bigotry, discrimination". Don't even bother, the goal-posts will be expanded in due time.

Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:


[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Kind of very generalized opinion here.

First Amendment: An Overview

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Then we have this,

Anti-discrimination law refers to the law on the right of people to be treated equally. Some countries mandate that in employment, in consumer transactions and in political participation people must be dealt with on an equal basis regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, mental, sexual orientation, gender identity and sometimes religious and political opinions.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Having a discussion with you is defensive? Isn't that what we're all here to do? Simmer down professor.

I don't recognize any authority on your part. I pointed that out. Sorry you didn't like it.

You're not being sincere in the least: you just made a claim that there are only one or two instances of discrimination against certain sexual orientations in the country. You have lost all credibility.

In regard to what the bill intends to do, I'll leave you with the words of its sponsor, Julio Gonzalez what he intends the proposed law SPECIFICALLY to address:

Though the bill does not include any LGBT-specific reference, Gonzalez specifically highlighted to the Herald Tribune the examples of wedding vendors that been found in violation of nondiscrimination laws when refusing service to same-sex couples. “We have seen in other states the bakers, the photographers who don’t want to participate in certain religious events,” he said.

“This is not about discriminating,” he insisted. “This is making sure the state stops, at a narrowly crafted level, from intruding into somebody’s liberties.” This is despite the fact that the bill empowers refusals of service in ways much more explicit than similarly controversial bills considered earlier this year in Indiana and Arkansas.

Source

To say that it has nothing to do with discrimination specifically directed at gays and/or lesbians, which you yourself just tried to minimize as "one or two instances" when the laws author and sponsor says otherwise would be a bit ... what was the word you attempted earlier?

Oh yes ... "obtuse."

a reply to: grandmakdw

Hilarious the lengths you are going to defend your absurd scenarios.

Pedophilia is against the law, being gay is not.

No one is saying that anyone has to make things that depict someone one getting killed, only you are.
Nothing racist about that at all, again unless you can show the florist doing it for one and not the other.

I think that is the point you are missing.

How ironic that "freedom" is used by narrow-minded bigots to take it away from others.

"Freedom" is not an exclusive concept.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: chuck258

There is not a single semblance of this law to segregation, it's not creating schools for gays only, gay only water fountains and gay seating areas in restaurants. Segregation was state laws that mandated (required) and actively enforced by the state, the separation of two groups of people based upon race. This is not requiring gays to be SEGREGATED, this is allowing certain people to opt out of a business arrangement they don't agree with. They are not remotely the same. Segregation required seperate schools, separate water fountains, separate waiting areas, etc. This law is not corralling gays. Your logic is flawed.

The fallacy is abundant here. The only argument given by opponents of this bill is "racism, bigotry, discrimination". Don't even bother, the goal-posts will be expanded in due time.

That is what I was trying to say with my examples.

They could easily become reality because the definition of discrimination, bigotry etc are expanding to new situations at an exponential rate in the US.

One day the very people who support forcing people
to do things against their will because they are
religious,
may be forced to do things against their will
and they will face being forced out of business
or doing something against their will.

James Madison, remarking on similarly invasive Bill proposed in his day , argued the following, which applies here:

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

That is exactly what the proposed Bill in Florida is "an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." No Founder ever intended to have religion become established as superior over civil law.

James Madison - "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments"

You might remember Mr. Madison as "the father of the Constitution."

No one is "forcing to do anything against their will" ... if someone is a baker, they are in the business of making cakes.

A florist creates floral arrangements.

Photographers create photographs.

Adoption agencies place children.

Doctors treat the sick and injured.

Declaring that the nature of the recipient of those goods and or services somehow makes that same service offered to every other member of public society repugnant ... is itself a most repugnant declaration.

That cannot be any more obvious ...

What is the nature of law? Law prevents us from exercising our "will" in ways that are harmful, either to ourselves, or others or society.

Complaining that someone has to perform the exact same acts and provide the exact same services to every citizen is somehow "unfair" is petulant, silly and not the least, irrational.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Very clear our laws regarding discrimination said that you can not discriminate base on sexual gender or orientation, meaning gender identification.

Actually is not debate concerning the bill Florida wants to pass, because it already violate discrimination laws.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

Very clear our laws regarding discrimination said that you can not discriminate base on sexual gender or orientation, meaning gender identification.

Actually is not debate concerning the bill Florida wants to pass, because it already violate discrimination laws.

Sadly, there is at this moment no national law that prevents such discrimination.

However, the Constitution does forbid a government from establishing special rights for any religion or religious person.

That is why this will fail.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I am from Florida and can assure you those who are pushing this bill are the summer ones who got their panties in a wad over the gay marriage ruling and there is no doubt in my mind, if passed will be used by those groups to discriminate against what some consider undesirables.

Of couurse my opinion is biased, as I am not exactly straight.

Also it needs to be noted that freedom of religion is protected by the first amendment...

originally posted by: grandmakdw

That is what I was trying to say with my examples.

Which you also failed at doing because your examples were totally incorrect and not a comparison to what is happening. Did you just skip past every post that came after it except those who agree with you??? Because you were shown exactly why you're wrong and how your examples sucked big time.

Your examples are implying that these Business owners were being asked to do something special, they weren't. The baker wasn't being asked to bake a giant cake shaped like a penis or something offensive like that. They were just asked to make a cake, which is what they do. They refused to make it based not on the request being made but on their personal moral judgement of the person asking. That is why it's discrimination.

You can refuse service based on some special request that is offensive but not because you simply don't like a certain group of people who are simply trying to do business with you like any other person. You're just being purposefully stubborn and ignoring the truth of what is happening here because YOU WANT AND LIKE TO TREAT PEOPLE AS LESS WORTHY. That's what it is whether you admit it or not. YOU LIKE TO POINT YOUR FINGER AT CERTAIN PEOPLE AND SHAME THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE. Shame on you and those like you!!