Gay rights vs. Religious freedom

[Nelvan]

Trinity,

So what you are saying is that even though a interracial couple may be seen as wrong to certain cultures, they can still have a baby while a gay couple can not?  So it is pointless for a gay couple to marry whereas an interracial marriage may be seen as taboo by certain people, but there is a point to it which is procreation.   

[Moot]

I'm not sure if this point has been brought up in a previous post.. the following is a hypothetical question concerning gay marriage versus religious freedom:

Most RF members are familiar with the case of the Christian owned bakery rejecting business from a gay couple for a gay wedding.  Some say it is against the owner of the bakery's belief and his right.

But imagine that there is a new religion and this new religion is against interracial marriage because their holy book forbids it.  The owner of the local bakery in town happens to be a new convert of this new religion, and he rejected an interracial couple request for a wedding cake.  How is this different from the gay couple?

It has been discussed quite a lot. I don't see a relevant difference between the two. If a baker is allowed to discriminate based on the sexes of the couple getting married, he/she should be allowed to discriminate based on the ethnicity of the couple getting married.

[Trinity]

Trinity,

So what you are saying is that even though a interracial couple may be seen as wrong to certain cultures, they can still have a baby while a gay couple can not?  So it is pointless for a gay couple to marry whereas an interracial marriage may be seen as taboo by certain people, but there is a point to it which is procreation.   

Everything stands or falls with the definition of marriage. What is marriage?

Without any definition, there is no way to differentiate between just and unjust discrimination.

[Trinity]

It has been discussed quite a lot. I don't see a relevant difference between the two. If a baker is allowed to discriminate based on the sexes of the couple getting married, he/she should be allowed to discriminate based on the ethnicity of the couple getting married.

You assume what needs to be shown. You cannot say there is no relevant difference between the two without defining marriage first.

[Moot]

It has been discussed quite a lot. I don't see a relevant difference between the two. If a baker is allowed to discriminate based on the sexes of the couple getting married, he/she should be allowed to discriminate based on the ethnicity of the couple getting married.

You assume what needs to be shown. You cannot say there is no relevant difference between the two without defining marriage first.

Of course I can. Marriage is defined by the law. My own ideas about what marriage should be are completely irrelevant to whether or not I should be allowed to discriminate.

[Trinity]

Of course I can. Marriage is defined by the law. My own ideas about what marriage should be are completely irrelevant to whether or not I should be allowed to discriminate.

I don't think the bakers have discriminated based on sex or ethnicity, but based on the particular message on the cake. In many cases, discrimination based on message is just.

[Moot]

Of course I can. Marriage is defined by the law. My own ideas about what marriage should be are completely irrelevant to whether or not I should be allowed to discriminate.

I don't think the bakers have discriminated based on sex or ethnicity, but based on the particular message on the cake. In many cases, discrimination based on message is just.

We're talking about the law, aren't we?

[Trinity]

The law cannot make people to participate in the selling and buying of ideas, views and messages. See Lion's question:

How comes it that a Christian video store or bookshop owner can legally refuse to sell gay porn but a Christian baker can't say, oh I'm sorry we don't sell THAT product?