(October 24, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: If an atheist goes to a christian-owned t-shirt shop for example, the shop can't refuse them service, but can refuse to print t-shirts saying "Fuck jesus" or something equally as offensive.

If said store advertises that they will print custom t-shirts and they refuse to print one for a particular cause I would say they have a problem.

http://www.customink.com/

Well, a t-shirt company already did go to court over it, and the court sided with the shop (which I think is the right choice, even if I find the owners' beliefs to be disgusting).

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/201...irts-video

The same thing goes for artists or anyone that creates products on commission, just because someone solicits the service of the artist doesn't mean the artist is then bound to draw literally anything the customer wants. If a certain artist only offers religious drawings or only offers non-religious drawings as part of his services, the law can't force him to suddenly start drawing one or the other. The artist is happy to draw something for anyone, but only offers a range of products, from which anyone is able to select.

Belfast needs more peace. Here is a song of peace for Belfast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HNtsdtnBfk

The lyricless speechlessness is appropriate.

This song was actual named Belfast retroactively after being played in Belfast and it brought people together in the crowds because the song was so peaceful.

I dream of a world when music can bring people together a lot more.

I'm a silly idealistic dreamer sometimes.

But I'm not the only one.

(October 24, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: So not forced to do it, just fined and punished if they don't....coercion right?

But they aren't preforming a service of preservation ie cleaning/maintenance/repair.  Their service is creating something that did not exist before.  I don't think they should have to create something they morally disagree with or be fined for refusing to create it.  The free market is more than capable of working out the bigots.

Let me put it this way. The only bone of contention in this case was the same-sex marriage angle, deemed to be against the bakers' personal beliefs. Would they have the same reservations about a straight wedding cake? If not, this is discrimination, plain and simple. Are you advocating for discrimination, and if so, on what are you justifying it?

I think we all know the answer.

I don't think a person should be forced to create something they find morally reprehensible, pure and simple. I don't care what they base it on. There are other cake shops.

What about a son who's father is a strict and stoic German and his nick name is "Hitler". Son wants to get a joke cake made that says "Heil Hitler!" from a Jewish baker. Should they be fined for "refusing service"?

(October 24, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Being gay is equivalent to being a Nazi? Why are we shifting focus here?

That's not what I'm saying and you are avoiding the logical consequences of your position. You are saying that a business that produces custom messages must by force of law speak, write, or draw any message requested by any kind of customer regardless of whether the business owner strongly objects to the content of that message.

(October 24, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Being gay is equivalent to being a Nazi? Why are we shifting focus here?

That's not what I'm saying and you are avoiding the logical consequences of your position. You are saying that a business that produces custom messages must by force of law speak, write, or draw any message requested by any kind of customer regardless of whether the business owner strongly objects to the content of that message.

Yes, if the basis for refusal is based on a protected characteristic.

I'll put it this way. As Staff, I frequently find myself having to make judgements on the actions of you lot. On a personal level, I cannot agree with every belief or persuasion that everyone holds, but on a professional level I put all that to one side and remain impartial. If I wasn't, if I allowed my own feelings to bias my objectivity, I would be useless in my job and there would be - justifiably - calls for my resignation. Where is the problem in this approach?

(October 24, 2016 at 3:03 pm)ukatheist Wrote:

(October 24, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's not what I'm saying and you are avoiding the logical consequences of your position. You are saying that a business that produces custom messages must by force of law speak, write, or draw any message requested by any kind of customer regardless of whether the business owner strongly objects to the content of that message.

Yes, if the basis for refusal is based on a protected characteristic.

Who qualifies as a legally protected class is a political determination. In a free country people are allowed to hold and express controversial, stupid, and offensive positions so long as they do not incite violence, commit fraud,, liable, prompt immediate danger or violate community standards of decency.

I think a solution is as FatandFaithless hinted at: The baker offers specific cakes and no "write your own message" cakes...except for Happy Birthday (Insert name here) cakes....but I could order a "Happy Birthday Lucifer" cake from a Christian and we're back in the same boat, dammit.

(October 24, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'll put it this way. As Staff, I frequently find myself having to make judgements on the actions of you lot. On a personal level, I cannot agree with every belief or persuasion that everyone holds, but on a professional level I put all that to one side and remain impartial. If I wasn't, if I allowed my own feelings to bias my objectivity, I would be useless in my job and there would be - justifiably - calls for my resignation. Where is the problem in this approach?

The difference is that you have a choice. AF has discretion to set its own editorial guidelines. Other forums may choose to limit discussions to certain topics and/or deem some topics out-of-bounds.

(October 24, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'll put it this way. As Staff, I frequently find myself having to make judgements on the actions of you lot. On a personal level, I cannot agree with every belief or persuasion that everyone holds, but on a professional level I put all that to one side and remain impartial. If I wasn't, if I allowed my own feelings to bias my objectivity, I would be useless in my job and there would be - justifiably - calls for my resignation. Where is the problem in this approach?

None. Your "service" is that of preservation and destruction if necessary, not creation. Wait a minute, are we the bakers or are you the baker?