The March of Dimes Syndrome • Hacker News Board

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#91

Post by anal_reactor » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 2:35 PM UTC

TheNewsIsHere wrote: post #85

anal_reactor wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. I can recall that a few years back I was browsing some right-wing forum and someone wrote "they will force you to have sex with them" which seemed absolutely ridiculous. Then I was browsing a left-wing forum and the concensus was "refusing to date black people is racism and therefore the worst thing you can possibly do, refusing to date transsexuals is kinda allowed but we'd rather see you do". I had…

I submit that the idea that it’s racist at face value not to date a Black person is ridiculous. If we indulge that type of view with any sort of seriousness, we’re just lending undue legitimacy to that idea. It is no more or less ridiculous than me being sexist because I am not interested in women. I’m not sexist. I’m just not into women. Reasonable people can identify the difference. We shouldn’t mistake crazy views…

The argument goes like this: if a sizeable part of the society refuses to date black people, then black people are in a disadvantaged position.

> It is no more or less ridiculous than me being sexist because I am not interested in women

I tried saying this but "race is race and gender is gender, two totally different things".

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#92

Post by wtfwhateven » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 2:39 PM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #90

wtfwhateven wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cake shop refuses to make a cake that is pink and blue because trans people. You knew that as it's in the article you keep linking. If this person could legally refuse to serve LGBT people entirely he absolutely would.

[flagged]

What flag? They weren't asked to make a flag. They bake cakes.

Nobody asked for any ideology to be represented. Nobody asked them to endorse anything.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#93

Post by Georgelemental » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 2:45 PM UTC

wtfwhateven wrote: post #78

Georgelemental wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> gay clients were free to purchase any baked goods from his store just like everyone else Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Spamming the same paragraph in the thread and pretending they were just misunderstood and the real victim isn't helpful, it's dishonest. >Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018. In June 201…

> Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store.

Evidence?

> >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event

> *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple

The important distinction here is that Masterpiece did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex. Sexual orientation is a spectrum, and does not inherently force you to marry someone of a particular sex; the latter is a choice. Masterpiece's owner disapproved of the choice his clients made and didn't want to express support for it; that is his right.

> and refused to bake a cake featuring two colors because he doesn't like trans people

The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication. The baker didn't want to support the specific ideology those colors represent. Just like a baker might refuse to bake a cake with a red color scheme and an elephant decoration, because they don't want to support the Republican Party. It has nothing to do with who the client is!

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#94

Post by tivert » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 2:47 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #51

Georgelemental wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory doesn't explain this part, though (emphasis mine): > 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. 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. Public schools must encou…

The explanation is simple, conservative outrage over non-issues. To the first example, it's the same as whining about restaurants being forced to serve black patrons. If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? Regardless, conserva…

> The explanation is simple, conservative outrage over non-issues.

IMHO, that's not an explanation, that's gaslighting. One of the simplest things to do if you do not want to listen to or address someone else's concerns is to simply deny they exist. That's often very easy to do, because those concerns genuinely do not exist from perspective of the person doing the denying, especially in today's polarized and politically segregated environment, and it saves the effort of trying to understand and empathize with someone else's perspective.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#95

Post by wtfwhateven » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 2:51 PM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #93

wtfwhateven wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gay clients were free to purchase any baked goods from his store just like everyone else Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Spamming the same paragraph in the thread and pretending they were just misunderstood and the real victim isn't helpful, it's dishonest. >Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018. In June 201…

> Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Evidence? > >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event > *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple The important distinction here is that Masterpiece did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orient…

>Evidence?

Their behavior spanning decades and their belief in Leviticus 20:13 as morally correct. If they were allowed to they would do much worse.

>The pink-and-blue color scheme has a particular ideological implication.

There's no ideology involved.

>It has nothing to do with who the client is!

It irrefutably does.

>The important distinction

There is none.

>did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orientation; he refused to service it because the people being married were of the same sex

There's no distinction, it's the same thing. Mental gymnastics to justify his behaviour.

It's simply making excuses for someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13 to exclude gay people in any way they legally can.

Would a white nationalist bakery owner that refuses to bake a cake for a black couple celebrating their wedding also be justified and morally righteous to you?

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#96

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 2:56 PM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #93

wtfwhateven wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gay clients were free to purchase any baked goods from his store just like everyone else Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Spamming the same paragraph in the thread and pretending they were just misunderstood and the real victim isn't helpful, it's dishonest. >Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018. In June 201…

> Only because the owner knew they'd get in a lot of trouble trespassing people they assume are gay from their store. Evidence? > >What he refused to do was bake a cake in support of a specific event > *refused to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple The important distinction here is that Masterpiece did not refuse to service the wedding because the people being married were homosexual in their sexual orient…

[deleted]

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#97

Post by Georgelemental » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 2:57 PM UTC

wtfwhateven wrote: post #80

Georgelemental wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conservative christians are not "legally required" to support same-sex. Yes, they are, at least according to the people who keep suing Masterpiece Cakeshop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... Jack Phillips was not accused of refusing to bake a cake for clients because of their sexual orientation (immutable charateristic of the client). He was accused of refusing to bake a cake celebrati…

>He was accused of refusing to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding event. No. He was accused of refusing to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple. And that is what he did. He repeatedly admitted to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. He would bake cakes for straight couples without a problem. Gay couples? Nope. >Phillips was perfectly willing to bake cakes for clients of any sexual orientation, N…

> He repeatedly admitted to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. He would bake cakes for straight couples without a problem. Gay couples? Nope.

No. What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex. There is no inherent law of nature forcing someone of a particular sexual orientation to marry someone of a particular sex. Who you marry is a choice; Phillips's religious beliefs tell him that he should not approve of some of those possible choices, and he has a right to hold those beliefs (and you or I have a right to disagree with them).

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#98

Post by wtfwhateven » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 3:04 PM UTC

Georgelemental wrote: post #97

wtfwhateven wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He was accused of refusing to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding event. No. He was accused of refusing to treat a gay couple equal to a straight couple. And that is what he did. He repeatedly admitted to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. He would bake cakes for straight couples without a problem. Gay couples? Nope. >Phillips was perfectly willing to bake cakes for clients of any sexual orientation, N…

> He repeatedly admitted to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. He would bake cakes for straight couples without a problem. Gay couples? Nope. No. What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex . There is no inherent law of nature forcing someone of a particular sexual orientation to marry someone of a particular sex. Who you marry is a choice; Phil…

> No.

Yes.

>What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex.

There is no difference. It's just grasping for a viable legal defense by someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13.

Phillips's religious beliefs also tell him murdering gay people is righteous.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#99

Post by Georgelemental » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 3:05 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Georgelemental wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory doesn't explain this part, though (emphasis mine): > 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. 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. Public schools must encou…

> 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…

> 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.)

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#100

Post by Georgelemental » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 3:09 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #71

Georgelemental wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? If many businesses were doing that, that would be pretty bad, yeah. But the activist demands go far beyond that. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative LLC weren't sued for refusing to s…

> It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. This comparison is beyond ridiculous. Being gay isn't an ideological choice, it's an inherent property of the people involved. If someone's a dwarf, you gonna say "well it's not that they were unwilling to bake cakes for little people, they just refused to provide a service for somethi…

> Being gay isn't an ideological choice

But marrying someone of the same sex is. It's perfectly possible for someone who is homosexual to marry a partner of the opposite sex, and vice-versa. (And of course, many people are bisexual!)