[TulliusCicero]

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings.

This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society.

If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay?

> It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex.

This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education. Treating it like this taboo mysterious thing is worse than being matter of fact about how it works. Sex is a fact of life, just like many other things taught at school.

> Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge.

And? Is it bad to teach things to kids now? Those other gender identities are out there, why would it be wrong to teach about?

> Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports.

This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men).

> These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement.

[Citation needed] here for most of this. You really think requiring businesses to serve gay people is unpopular with...gay people?

[Georgelemental]

> If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay?

The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex. It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative's owners (to reference the highest-profile cases) refused to service weddings because the prospective spouses were of the same sex, not because they were homosexual. (In contrast, if a black person gets married, that will always be a "black person's wedding", so refusing to service it on that basis would be racially discriminatory.)

[wtfwhateven]

>The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex.

>It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex.

These seem contradictory? I guess you meant to say "doesn't force"

>In contrast, if a black person gets married, that will always be a "black person's wedding", so refusing to service it on that basis would be racially discriminatory.

Using your logic it would be perfectly fine for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race couple. Nobody's forcing them to marry someone of another race right? So discriminating against them is fine because... reasons?

Regardless the "distinction" you keep insisting on is wholly useless and meaningless for any reasonable person, all it does is attempt to justify the behavior of someone who believes Leviticus 20:13 is correct (the person uses the Bible to justify their actions so it's safe to assume they believe in the entirety of the bible including Leviticus 20:13).

[Georgelemental]

> I guess you meant to say "doesn't force"

Yes, sorry.

> It would be perfectly fine for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race couple.

It would be legal to refuse to bake a cake celebrating an interracial marriage. Not "fine"—it would be morally wrong, and if an establishment did this I would boycott them for it—but it would be constitutionally protected speech.

[beej71]

> It would be legal to refuse to bake a cake celebrating an interracial marriage.

Is this true? It seems like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would apply. (That law protects against racial discrimination, but doesn't protect the LGBTQ folks.)

[TulliusCicero]

This is the level of obtuseness we're talking about here, that's necessary to defend this sort of reasoning:

> Well, a straight dude technically could marry a guy! It could happen!

[wtfwhateven]

I think it's unfortunate that the people who push violent extremist ideologies don't receive more pushback. These are people that believe in Leviticus 20:13. Some may say they reject Leviticus 20:13 but that must also mean they reject the alleged infallibility of the bible. Many Christians do not reject Leviticus 20:13 and other horrid passages. The "religious freedom" angle is wholly insincere and just an attempt to claw back some of the power they've lost. "Religious freedom" is sadly synonymous with "make it legal to discriminate against people again". This is also demonstrated by Christians trying to make exceptions in "religious freedom" to shut down groups they don't agree with. They tend go silent if you mention Leviticus 20:13 because they agree with Leviticus 20:13, they just don't want to reject it because of their "beliefs", and they don't want to tell you they agree with it because it makes them look bad.

Many of the replies in this thread that advocate for this ideology are attempting to make distinctions that don't exist (or are meaningless) to justify discrimination. Everything they've said can be applied to interracial marriage too but if you tell them that they go silent because they know they need to eliminate gay marriage first before they go after interracial marriage.

It's extremely gross and deceitful behaviour. I would prefer these people be sincere and just say they dislike gay people instead of incoherent and nonsensical arguments they make as a facade to hide their true intentions.

All of this is an act to move society back in their favour. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

They, sadly, want a theocracy. They want to discriminate against LGBT+ people in the workplace. They want to refuse service to anyone they don't like the look of. They want to use Leviticus 20:13 again without repurcussions. They won't tell you to that because of optics. But Leviticus 20:13 exists in the bible, the book they use as a moral compass, the book they believe morality itself is codeified.

It's extremely difficult for any reasonable person to give any of this an ounce of good faith. It's literally arguing against people who want gay people slaughtered. There's not much discussion to have with such extremists.

It's useful to remember that Hanlon's razor is a joke that came from a joke book.

Project 2025 is what they want to lay the groundwork for all this horridness.

Religious extremism is abhorrent.

[zzo38computer]

> This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society.

It should not have to do with religion. It would be if it is a custom order; custom orders can potentially be anything. If they refuse a custom order, they can lose money and they can get a bad reputation, but that isn't to be disallowed, I think (unless they are going against what they have advertised).

They should not be allowed to refuse to serve black people, or white people, or gay people, or transgender people, or tall people, or bilingual people, etc, regardless of what is being ordered (including custom orders), and regardless of their personal opinions of such a thing; they should serve them anyways. (They may refuse to serve foreigners who do not have the correct money; if that is the case, then the customer will have to exchange their money elsewhere first, and then this business will be able to serve them.)

However, they may refuse to write certain words on the cake (regardless of what those words are, or what language they are written in), refuse to copy a complex diagram, refuse to bake a cake with a colour (or combination of colours) that they do not have, refuse to cast a spell on it, refuse to throw it at the wall, refuse to put a 3' cake into a 2' box, refuse to make something that you do not know how to make (especially if the customer refuses to explain), refuse to make something if the customer does not speak your language (and nobody is available who can translate; although if such customers are common then it would be good customer service to hire someone who does know their language), etc. If the customer is able and willing to alter the decorations themself when they get home, they can order a plain cake (or whatever parts they are willing) and then do the rest by themself at home.

However, refusing a custom order can give them a bad reputation and cause them to not earn the money from the sale that is not made; so it is better to accomodate reasonable custom orders if they can.

> If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay?

I should think it depends on what exactly is ordered, like above. If black people come in and say they want to order a wedding cake, then it is not OK to refuse; they should bake a cake (and sell it to them, for the same price that they would charge anyone else) anyways. If they ask them to draw specific pictures on the game, then they might refuse (although it may give them a bad reputation, and they would not earn the money from the lost sale), although if the order is reasonable then it would be better to not refuse (regardless of their personal opinions).

> This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education.

You are probably right; it is probably an exaggeration and that is what it seems to me, too. (I do not have any actual data or reports about this, though.) About the second part, that is a separate issue but also probably right.

> This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men).

That is what I thought too. It will have to be considered individually for each kind of sports. It will also have to be considered why they have gender segregation, and if they should have gender segregation, and if so, what criteria they should use (it is not necessarily as simple as only yes and no).

And you are probably also right some will have women with an advantage over men (on average it will be; but this is not always the case between two specific individuals). (On average, men will usually have more physical strength, but women will usually have more physical endurance. This is what I had read in a scientific article about women hunting.) However, it is not necessarily only per sport; some are team sports with different designations of the people in each team; possibly women will have an advantage on average in some positions but not others, and tall people will have an advantage in some positions but not others, etc.

[indigo0086]

So much written, so little said