Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text

Views: 180

Comment by Safe Bet's Amy on June 5, 2018 at 4:52pm

Oh, and "thoughts" and "prayers" (My "thoughts" are you SUCK ASS and I'm "praying" you get anal warts every time you discriminate against ANYONE!) to all of the homophobic assholes out there!

P.S.  ...and that most certainly includes the Supreme Court!

Comment by Ron Powell on June 5, 2018 at 5:58pm

Amy, are you directing your comment at me? The comment I made on Neely's post was facetious and intended to suggest that people who discriminate against us because of their "religious beliefs" should never get a dime's worth of business from anyone.

No cash paying customers whatsoever!

Comment by Safe Bet's Amy on June 5, 2018 at 6:15pm

LOL, nope.

I didn't read his post until just now...  I guess great minds work alike is all.

Comment by Foolish Monkey on June 6, 2018 at 10:33am

this one had me in a quandary to be honest.  I saw an interview with the baker and he was sincere.  I don't agree with him but this isn't an issue about agree or disagree.  it's about his faith.  he didn't say they couldn't buy a cake, he said he couldn't make one for their wedding, and while I find this entire argument offensive I think he has that right to refuse.  and they and the entire community have the right to not frequent his store.  which I believe has in fact happened....he lost his business...at least that's what I read.  i could be wrong.

I've thought about this particular case a good deal because i'm an artist.  what if someone liked my work, wanted me to make a painting about a subject that offended me or went against my core principles - would I be obligated to do this?  do I not have the freedom to say no.  I would sell my work to anyone who wanted to buy it.  But could/would I create a piece that went against who I am?  no.  

so I get it.  I don't like it but I get it.  and yeah, I saw his work and it's beautiful.  but even if it weren't - because beauty is very subjective - if he is creating then he has the right to not create.

Comment by Safe Bet's Amy on June 6, 2018 at 11:09am

So you are justifying homophobia in the name of "art"???

What you are missing/ignoring (as an artist) is that he has a commercial business that sells to the public.  That means as the owner of a "public accommodation" he can not discriminate against people based upon race, color, religion or national origin.  Sadly, discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community is NOT included.  

Would you be equally as accepting his right as an "artist" if he was discriminating against Black people, people of color, Jews or Spaniards???

Comment by Foolish Monkey on June 6, 2018 at 12:19pm

I'm not justifying it.  but I get it.

and I don't disagree with you.  

so let me pose this - lets say, you're approached by a wealthy white supremecist who believes all the ugly things they all believe - but for some reason, he's decided he wants you and your skillsets.  so he approaches you and asks you to work for him, to advise him, to help him increase his wealth and the tools that would only make him wealthier, stronger and more prominent.  would you?

ultimately none of this is REALLY about arts or creativity.  but in a way it is because we're all creative in our way.  to become good at our jobs we dig deep to achieve our goal of becoming who we are. 

so he's demanding that you give him a piece of and the essence of you), the you you've worked all your life to be.  the you you love, respect, that you are proud of becoming.  so would you?

me...?  I WOULD NOT.  and I think, neither would you.

you would probably say morally this isn't an equivalent, but it is.  it's about what we give to our work and whether we can be treated with disrespect by the state for following what we believe is our moral obligation.  isn't that what this case was decided on?  

the issue is still open.  the supreme court ruled colorado did not treat the baker fairly.  they gave him and his faith a considerable amount of public disrespect.  what the SC said was it was the states imperitive to consider the men who believed they were wronged by a business.  but the state also had to respect that this baker was a man following the teachings of his faith. there should have been more subtlety and discretion used.  and in this instance, the state didn't do that.  so it's still an open question.

but I think it's always going to come down to this.  it's going to be hard to make people work with people they don't want to work with.  and so long as the business does not discriminate, but instead offers some alternative means of resolution, it's going to be one of those gradual changes that happens because the culture itself changes.  

Comment by Foolish Monkey on June 6, 2018 at 12:42pm

let me add this - when it comes to big businesses, big commercial bakeries lets say - you won't see this sort of problem even if the owners are raging homophobes because their lawyers make these determinations and they're paid to guide their clients to avoid litigations that will hurt the bottomline and their reputations.    

what I think will happen, is what happened to this guy - the community will stop frequenting the business and eventually go under.  or they will end up with a smaller business catering to an exclusive clientele of like minded individuals.

amy, freedom from the state oppressing or attempting to control beliefs and practices is what this country was founded on.  no one can force an american to eschew their religion, not by making a woman remove her scarf or wig or a man his yarmulka or hat or cap.  we're all free to practice or not. 

Comment by Safe Bet's Amy on June 6, 2018 at 12:42pm

Nope, you are missing my point, FM.

I'm not going to go into "moral equivalency", but that's okay because the issue is LEGAL equivalency.

As an artist you are not subject to the Civil Rights Act which makes it ILLEGAL for "public accommodations" such as restaurants, stores and BAKERIES that serve the public at large.  HE WAS because he was open to the public and sold products to the public.  He would have broken the law if he would have refused to bake a cake for a Black person because his "religion" told him to Blacks were inferior, refused to bake a cake for a woman's group because his "religion" told him to women were inferior or a cake for a bar mitzvah because his "religion" told him to Jews were inferior.  IT'S THE LAW!  That gays and lesbians aren't included is the travesty, not some "violation" of some fundie fucking baker's "beliefs". (and I'd challenge you to show me in the Big Book of Made Up Shit where it says, "Thou shall not bake cakes for homos!", so fuck a whole bunch of his "beliefs" because they are bogus as hell!)

Comment by Ron Powell on June 6, 2018 at 1:39pm

There's a world of difference between "religious beliefs" and religious justification for non-religious beliefs.

There's also a world of difference between religious belief and religious practice.

Operating a business that's open to the public should not be seen as an article of religious faith or a tenet of the practice of religion.

"Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and ""When in Rome, do as the Romans do." May be interpreted as follows:

Re religion, you may do and think as you please in the privacy of your mind, your home, your church, mosque, or synagogue.

However, when you choose to engage the public in the public square or market place you are no longer limited to the dictates of your religion and your conscience, you are required and expected to abide by the law that governs everyone....

In this, there cannot be, nor should there be, exceptions or exemptions...

There's a reason why the First Amendment addresses religion first....

Comment by Foolish Monkey on June 6, 2018 at 2:19pm

I know you both know that this wasn't decided in favor of a business discriminating.  this case was decided in favor of the baker and not because his religion allowed him to discriminate against the couple.  the state overstepped his rights.  the court did not rule on this issue at all.

my point isn't that he was right, it was that it will never be settled in the court.  you can't force individuals to change their religious perspectives.  you can rule legally.  you can make laws.  but it will always come down to individuals making a decision they can live with.

I agree with the couple, the baker should have made their cake.  but I get why he didn't.  and I get why the court ruled in his favor.  and I also can see where this is going to be a cultural issue, rather than a legal one.  one by one you can shut down businesses but you can't MAKE people believe what they do NOT believe to their core.

and that is MY point.  no one can make either of you work for a person whose views or beliefs you find intolerable or repugnant and neither can the courts.  but with time society changes and people change.   I hoped for the couple winning but I also felt sympathy for the baker.  

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

Phat Country

Posted by Robert Young on June 20, 2018 at 11:30am 2 Comments

Not On My Watch

Posted by Robert Young on June 20, 2018 at 10:30am 3 Comments

Site Launch

Posted by Robert Young on June 20, 2018 at 8:30am 8 Comments

Infestation?

Posted by Ron Powell on June 19, 2018 at 8:00pm 4 Comments

Persistence of Memory

Posted by Doc Vega on June 19, 2018 at 11:07am 0 Comments

Wall him up!

Posted by Dicky Neely on June 19, 2018 at 7:59am 3 Comments

Keep Your Eyes on the Money

Posted by Ron Powell on June 19, 2018 at 12:30am 8 Comments

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service