Galway university society disbanded for homophobic message

[Seth]

The foregoing being said, I say the cake-baker's solution is to go ahead and make a cake but to decorate it with biblical references against sodomy and express statements that the creator of the cake is doing so under duress and against her religious beliefs.

After all, when you commission a work of art, you don't get to dictate how the artist interprets the subject, you just have the right not to pay for the work if you're not pleased with it.

That would put a stick in the eye of the gay couple who insisted on making a political and legal sideshow of their wedding.

[NineBerry]

There is no "medical meaning" of the word homophobia.

And since I don't think a student society preaching racism would be accepted, so a society preaching homophobia shouldn't be accepted either.

[mistermack]

I think it's pathetic that people keep quoting the US constitution to bolster their argument.
It's just like quoting the Koran. You find a passage, interpret it so that it seems to support your argument, and then seem to think that that MEANS something.
The constitution is not sacred text. Nor is sacred text. It's just the bollocks that some people came out with.

It shouldn't be telling you what to think.
If the objective of a system is fairness, then discrimination should be outlawed, as much as possible, until you reach a point where the level of fairness and unfairness is roughly equal for everybody.
Gays are born gay. It's unfair to make them suffer, for the way that they are born. So the law should prevent that, up to the point where other people are beginning to suffer, from the anti-discrimination laws. Then you have to find a balance.

But I think there is a difference. Gay people have no choice. But homophobic people often PRETEND that their sensibilities are so outraged, or that their ''principles'' are so strong, that they should be allowed to discriminate.
But it's really just wallowing in prejudice. People like having an enemy, or someone to tread down on. It's part of being human.

[Seth]

There is no "medical meaning" of the word homophobia.

Wrong. "Phobia" has a specific medical meaning. "Homo" combined with "phobia" also has a specific meaning. Unfortunately homosexuals and homophiles misuse the word "homophobia" as a derogatory term applying to anyone who declines to drink the homosexual Kool-Aid and evidences anything less than full acceptance of homosexual activities as a normal and/or socially acceptable thing to do.

In the heterophobe's (radical homosexual's) world a personal distaste or dislike for homosexual sexual practice becomes "homophobia," which is a state of pathological fear of homosexuals when actually what the person feels is merely dislike or disgust of the practice of sodomy or that such behavior is harmful to society and/or a violation of their religious beliefs. It's not "phobic" to have a distaste for someone else's unusual sexual practices. It's just a matter of personal choice...just like the decision to engage in unusual sexual practices is a choice. As I said, homosexuality and homosexual sexual activities are two entirely different things. One can rationally accept an alternate sexual orientation while still rejecting the voluntary physical manifestations of that sexual orientation without being a "homophobe."

And since I don't think a student society preaching racism would be accepted, so a society preaching homophobia shouldn't be accepted either.

The point is that if a student society wants to preach racism, it should have an equal right to do so right next to those who preach integration, abortion rights, atheism and homosexuality.

Content-based discrimination in the regulation of free speech is a very, very dangerous area of government action, and the right to free speech, even, or especially offensive speech, needs to be carefully protected to the greatest extent possible consistent with public order and peace.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I passed the tl;dr point a couple of posts back. You're on your own here, guys.

[Seth]

I think it's pathetic that people keep quoting the US constitution to bolster their argument.
It's just like quoting the Koran. You find a passage, interpret it so that it seems to support your argument, and then seem to think that that MEANS something.
The constitution is not sacred text. Nor is sacred text. It's just the bollocks that some people came out with.

Thing is, it's the best sociopolitical bollocks that mankind has ever come up with, so it's perfectly appropriate to hold it up as the best example we have of how government should act.

It shouldn't be telling you what to think.

It's not. It's telling the government what the government may not do about what I think. That's an important distinction.

If the objective of a system is fairness, then discrimination should be outlawed, as much as possible, until you reach a point where the level of fairness and unfairness is roughly equal for everybody.

Why should the objective of the system be "fairness?" I think the objective of the system should be to maximize individual liberty to the greatest extent possible consistent with a peaceful and orderly society.

Gays are born gay. It's unfair to make them suffer, for the way that they are born. So the law should prevent that, up to the point where other people are beginning to suffer, from the anti-discrimination laws. Then you have to find a balance.

Straights are born straight and it's unfair to make them suffer for the way they are born, so the law should prevent homosexuals from forcing their sociopolitical agenda on straights using the excuse that holding a personal preference of dislike towards homosexual sexual activity is "discriminating" against homosexuals.

It is my position that gays have the right to be of any sexual orientation that pleases them, and indeed to engage in any sort of sexual activity that they find mutually pleasurable. But that doesn't mean that gays have any right or justification to force me, or anyone else, to accept, support or facilitate those activities because we have a superior right to determine for ourselves with whom we will associate and not associate and how we will do so.

And that's what the gay cake-buyers were doing. They were flaunting their sexuality and they were imposing their sexual mores on the maker of the cake with the deliberate intent of "making an example" of him because he declined to facilitate their homosexual celebration. They could have found a bakery run by gays that would be happy to make them a cake, but they didn't, they chose to disparage and damage one particular business simply because the owner held an opinion about gay marriage that was different from theirs. And they did so because the law gave them the power to do so, and for no other reason. That's why the law is a ass in this regard. They could have gone in and ordered a cake without mentioning their sexual orientation or what the nature of the ceremony was going to be and gotten a generic wedding cake that would have served the purpose for which it's intended. If they needed to change the figures on the top of the cake to two males rather than a man and a woman, they could have done so and avoided all the hoo-haw.

But they didn't WANT to avoid it, they wanted to push their "rights" into the face of the business owner and force him to do something that he believes violates his religious beliefs. And it's my firm opinion that his religious freedom rights substantially outweigh any inconvenience that might be caused to the gay couple by declining to participate or facilitate the ceremony.

The right of gays not to be discriminated against in the providing of goods and services takes a distant second place to the legitimate free exercise of religion rights of quite literally anyone. There is a hierarchy of rights involved, and gays getting a cake from one specific vendor is very, very low in the hierarchy, and the religious rights of the vendor are very, very high.

This wasn't about discrimination, it was about in-your-face gay activism and we see it all the time, and it's not only morally repugnant to force your sexual agenda on others, it's harmful to gays because such actions breed ill-will towards homosexuals as a group.

But I think there is a difference. Gay people have no choice. But homophobic people often PRETEND that their sensibilities are so outraged, or that their ''principles'' are so strong, that they should be allowed to discriminate.
But it's really just wallowing in prejudice. People like having an enemy, or someone to tread down on. It's part of being human.

Wallowing in prejudice is a civil right. One changes the perceptions and acceptance of society by changing the perceptions and opinions of those who wallow in bigotry and prejudice, not by using the blunt force of the Mace of State to compel compliance with and acceptance of the gay political agenda. What this sort of thing does in reality is to polarize and fragment society even further. Ordinary people don't like it when someone is essentially run out of business by the law because he objects to the bedroom activities of a potential customer. It makes gays look like insensitive radical assholes, and that's not good for the cause.

Bigotry and prejudice against gays will disappear as the public comes to the realization and acceptance of the fact that their private sexual orientation and behavior is not a threat to society. You don't get there by shoving the law in the face of someone who hasn't evolved that far, you just make more enemies. It's not as if gays aren't already mainstreamed in society already in many places.

[NineBerry]

So much fail

[Svartalf]

I wouldn't mind a little female invigilation right about now

So long as the invigilation took place in a bar, a restaurant and a bedroom, in whatever order and multiples.

[piscator]

Wallowing in prejudice is a civil right. One changes the perceptions and acceptance of society by changing the perceptions and opinions of those who wallow in bigotry and prejudice, not by using the blunt force of the Mace of State to compel compliance with and acceptance of the gay political agenda. What this sort of thing does in reality is to polarize and fragment society even further. Ordinary people...

Notice how they all sound so similar when they're fighting integration?

[Seth]

Wallowing in prejudice is a civil right. One changes the perceptions and acceptance of society by changing the perceptions and opinions of those who wallow in bigotry and prejudice, not by using the blunt force of the Mace of State to compel compliance with and acceptance of the gay political agenda. What this sort of thing does in reality is to polarize and fragment society even further. Ordinary people...

Notice how they all sound so similar when they're fighting integration?

There's a distinction between a person's race and a person's activities. There's a distinction between discriminating against someone because of their physical attributes such as race, sex, or age, which they cannot control, and discriminating against someone because you find their behavior or manner of dress, which they can control, not suited to your choice of free association.

Refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is not discrimination against their status as having same-sex attraction, it's a free speech and freedom of association decision against their actions. If a store owner has a dress code he has the right to exclude those who do not comply with that code, regardless of the reason why they don't comply. If he has a code of conduct he has the right to exclude those who violate that code of conduct, regardless of the status of that individual. It's only unlawful discrimination if he excludes someone BECAUSE of their race or gender, or gender preference. This is because race, gender and gender preference are things that the individual cannot change about themselves. How they behave however is something that is completely under their control, and any business owner has a right to decline to service anyone who either engages in behavior that is prohibited on his premises or the performing of which would violate his personal or corporate rights of freedom of speech and association. A masseuse may not refuse to give a massage for reasons of ethnicity, but she may absolutely refuse to give a massage to someone who becomes sexually aroused and/or engages in offensive conduct during the massage.

Engaging in overt or offensive behavior on the premises of a business does not oblige the business owner to tolerate that behavior even if that behavior happens to be a display of one's sexuality or sexual preference. Demanding that a business owner engage his or her artistic talents to create a message that favors some group of cause that the artist disagrees with is a violation of the artist's right to be free of compelled speech and his right to decline participation in some activity or cause that violates his religious scruples. A graphic artist has every right to refuse a demand to create an advertising poster depicting overt sexual acts if doing so violates his personal or religious beliefs.

If the couple had come in and simply said "We'll take that cake right there", then the cake maker would be obliged to sell them the cake irrespective of what their intended use of it happens to be. But to expect him to engage his artistic talents as a wedding-cake designer in support of a cause or group that he disfavors is a violation of his rights. Should a Jewish baker who survived the Holocaust be forced to design, bake and decorate a cake covered with swastika's and anti-semitic neo-nazi quotes? I don't think so. So why should this baker be compelled to design and create a cake that celebrates a behavior that he finds morally repugnant?

The right of someone to buy something free of discrimination does not include the right to force someone else to participate in morally or ethically repugnant activities or associations in order to facilitate that purchase, which is what happened when this couple tried to commission a wedding cake for a gay marriage. The owner simply said he doesn't make cakes for gay weddings based on his religious scruples. He was being honest and open and was not wasting the couple's time by dancing around the issue. If he had done so, and been all obsequious and fawning and spent a lot of his valuable time discussing the cake design only to ultimately tell the couple that he would not decorate it as they wished, or if he'd taken their design suggestions and then made a cake that didn't meet those specifications but fit with his religious scruples, which the couple would then have rejected or complained about, it would have been a waste of time and money on everyone's part but it would have prevented this gross miscarriage of justice. So next time the baker should take the order, require full payment in advance with no refunds, make the cake and decorate it with biblical references to homosexuality as a sin and then tell the couple that since HE is the artist, he gets to decide how the cake looks and they are shit out of luck for a refund. That would be perfectly legal, but would it be a better result than simply saying "I don't make cakes for gay weddings on religious principle"?

[Seth]

So much fail

Interesting that you can't point out or analyze a single example...

[piscator]

Wallowing in prejudice is a civil right. One changes the perceptions and acceptance of society by changing the perceptions and opinions of those who wallow in bigotry and prejudice, not by using the blunt force of the Mace of State to compel compliance with and acceptance of the gay political agenda. What this sort of thing does in reality is to polarize and fragment society even further. Ordinary people...

Notice how they all sound so similar when they're fighting integration?

There's a distinction between a person's race and a person's activities. There's a distinction between discriminating against someone because of their physical attributes such as race, sex, or age, which they cannot control, and discriminating against someone because you find their behavior or manner of dress, which they can control, not suited to your choice of free association.

There's a difference between thinking you don't like a particular person and extending a blanket generalization to everyone in similar straits and desiring they could all be placed in a position where they had to, say, kill 600 rats a day to earn poverty wages. To do the latter makes one a rank lowlife scumbag piece of shit who should definitely have to spend a few months living by his haughty nasty prescription for others.

If one doesn't put much stock in the preferences of others, that should extend to the preferences of those who prefer not to associate in any way with those of different sexual orientation.

[Seth]

dupe

[Seth]

There's a difference between thinking you don't like a particular person and extending a blanket generalization to everyone in similar straits

"Straits?" So to you being homosexual is a "strait?" How....interesting. To me it's an unremarkable personal trait of no particular importance or concern.

and desiring they could all be placed in a position where they had to, say, kill 600 rats a day to earn poverty wages. To do the latter makes one a rank lowlife scumbag piece of shit who should definitely have to spend a few months living by his haughty nasty prescription for others.

You do build the most extraordinarily large strawmen... Who on earth are you talking about, pray tell?

[MrJonno]

Why is fairness less or more important than freedom?