[QUOTE=neeeel;53918881]I dont understand. What is "being gay" if its not desire and behaviour?

Let me give the full quote I was objecting to The idea that somehow discriminating against being gay is not "REAL discrimination", that being only "desire and behavior" isn't enough to take it to the "REAL" category is a disgusting and homophobic remark. He goes on and on about the "genetic" argument and just how important being gay not being genetic (which isn't entirely true) is to "REAL" discrimination. These kinds of....'arguments'....are part of a long history of homophobic delegitimizing remarks against LGBT people. To say that it is "only" discrimination against desire and behaviour is part and parcel of this kind of long history, but particularly relevant in today's era where people accept that discrimination against blacks is wrong but try to concoct all sorts of ridiculous ways where discrimination against gays is not even "REAL", it's "only desire and behaviour". Now it might be possible to have some meaningful conversation unpacking ideas of gay identity and its intersections in society, but in the context of such rampant homophobia where discrimination against gays isn't "REAL discrimination" because of genetic blah blah this just isn't realistic.

Too bad. Comparing baking a wedding cake to baking a nazi cake isn't a point that needs to be taken seriously. Nor is comparing homophobia to "porcinophobia". He ridiculously alternates between absurdly dramatic comparisons and stupid trivial ones.

But let's just start with something basic, since you seem oddly interested in zooming in on a couple details of a much larger post:

DoOrDoNot believes LGBT can't face "REAL discrimination" because being LGBT isn't, in his view, genetic. Do you agree that this view is - obviously - homophobic?

Im not sure thats what hes saying though. In another post he says

As I understand it, hes not saying that all discrimination against being gay is not real, but that



This isnt an answer to my question though. you said

I am trying to understand where you are coming from, and how "reducing being gay to desire and behaviour" is minimizing and homophobic, when all categories are reduced to desire and behaviour ( and observable appearance, but that doesnt necessarily apply in the case of gay people). That is, we observe behaviours,desires and appearance, and from those ,categorise people.


I dont see how? I think its a legitimate question. As I understand your position, you think that a christian baker shouldnt be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple, and that if he does, he is homophobic, is that a correct stating of your position?

I want to understand the principle behind this, so I think extrapolating the scenario to "If a member of group X refuses service to a member of group Y, he is Y-ophobic" and asking if you agree, is valid. Its a way of extracting the principles on which you base your position. If you are able to clarify how it applies in the one case, and not in another, that further explains the principles behind your position.



As shown by his quote above, I am not sure that IS his position. He acknowledges that gay people can face discrimination.

[QUOTE=uke_master;53919677] How so? The burden of proof is on you to show that homosexuality is something beyond desire and behavior. If there is no genetic link then discrimination they feel, in some but not all cases, is against that desire and behavior and not against them. Which of course is fine, because behaviors are and can be discriminated against all the time in our society. Gay rights activists make a category mistake when talking about this subject: they mistake what someone does for who they are. This is of course, super important when determining when discrimination is taking place because discrimination against behaviors you don't agree with isn't the same as discriminating against a person. One is real, and one isn't.

Man you sure threw a lot of insults and ad hominems in there to lessen my position, and not a lot of substance. I think you're revealing your hand here.

Why not? In both cases someone is refusing to bake a cake celebrating someone elses beliefs. Why is one analogy right and the other 'homophobic?'



Nice job totally misrepresenting what I said. How tolerant of you.

I have a question uke, is it possible for gay people to discriminate against Christians?

If he salvaged something non-homophobic in a subsequent post, well great for him. But what he DID say when he described "REAL discrimination" as something genetic before proceeding to drone on about how gay people were not genetic was - and is - objectively homophobic. That kind of argument is part of a long, and disgusting history of homophobia that brings up this non sequitur nature vs nurture argument that minimizes gay people.

Take the analogy with being black. There is a part of this that is skin color. But being black comes with this whole history, with cultural implication, sociological implication. And the identity of a black person intersects in complicated and varied ways with all these kinds of things. It isn't just about having an adjective of skin color. So too with gay identity. Now it is absolutely possible to try and unpack this in an appropriate conversation, but it can't be divorced from how it is being used in this conversation, which functions to delegitimize the "REAL discrimination", as it isn't genetic like being black but just "desire and behaviour". Doordonot makes this very explicit, that you can (when it's not genetic) discriminate against these adjectives without discriminating against the person and that the later isn't even real. It's repulsive.

Really? You really can't ****ing see the difference between homophobic and naziphobic? This isn't symbolic substitution. Gay people and nazis have fundamentally different cultural significance. It is important as a society to identify, label, and shame harmful and detrimental actions against signfiicant minority groups. This is why we have anti-semitism and homophobia in our lexicon, but not naziphobia. Likewise, I think it is good that our non-discrimination laws enumerate lgbt protections to things like religion, gender, and race. But I'm not worried about explicitly codifying non-discrimination protections in state law for nazis. And so on and so on, as soon as you leave a symbolic substitution structure, differences abound.

Look, I really don't have any desire to keep litigating his posts. I find them disgusting. But I'd be happy to take up more discussion around the actual issue of the OP which you did bring up a bit belatedly in the conversation:


Depends. I certainly agree to the principle of equal access to public goods and services, that a racist, for instance, must allow black people into their bar. And I do believe wedding cakes are in general a commodity good. However, I do agree that on occasion they get more into like customized works of art, and that in that space there is a grey area in between. For instance, I don't think a sculpture should be required to sculpt anything requested, because their work transitions more into the "freedom of expression" than the "provision of public commodity". It's a spectrum. I would probably have signed onto the dissent in this case, but it's close and I could be persuaded otherwise.

I dont know exactly what this means, or how it fits into my question. People are put into a category because of their skin colour, for example, not because of a history, cultural implication, or socialogical implication. This doesnt counter my statement that all categories are based on desire, behaviour and appearance.

I dont understand what this means or how it fits into my question


again, this still doesnt answer my question. What is the principle behind it? Why is it not symbolic substitution? Nazis are a significant minority group (probably less than 2% of the population, depending on your definition). Are you saying that cultural significance( and Im not sure what that means, either) dictates who is the protected group and who isnt?

Is there actually a principle behind your position, or is it a set of rules about who is and who isnt protected, that I dont yet get or understand?

You're just being WAY too simplistic. Sure, we can only judge other people on things we can observe such as their behaviours and appearance. Desire seems weirdly added to your list (we can't directly observe this, only behaviours based on this. If you are adding desires, why not beliefs too? Or add group membership things like nationality too), but OK. However, whether people actually go about "categorizing" others, and the way that is used, absolutely depends on historical, cultural, sociological factors etc. This isn't neutral. We don't "categorize" desires for vanilla ice cream, behaviours like buying vanilla ice cream, or appearances like attached earlobes, in the same way we categorize gay people, or black people, or nazis since you went there. I've mapped out the contours of how these phrases have been disgustingly used in the case of gay people, for instance. And likewise, these broader and complicated factors build individual identity; being gay means more than just any other category like desiring vanilla ice cream.


Go read the opinion in the OP. Seriously. Try "symbolic substitution" with nazis and then come back with this black and white categorization crap that doesn't see any difference between wedding cakes and nazi cakes. Yes of course cultural and historical considerations are relevant in making meaningful differences between categories. Take federal anti discrimination laws for instance. As a society, we enumerate specific categories to protect. You can't fire someone for being a christian, or a woman, or black. But they do NOT currently protect LGBT people in the same way. IIRC, 21 states however have passed anti-discrimination laws supporting LGBT people. I support that. This is a class that historically and today experiences harmful discrimination and ought to be enumerated in the same basic way as for religion and gender. Do you oppose ALL forms of anti-discrimination laws? Because unless you do, you too are making choices about categories that you think are worth protecting.

But this is getting silly. You've entered this conversation in such a strange way, that I almost feel it is better to start fresh. You asked me my opinion on the case and when I gave my answer you didn't quote it. Well what about you. What is your position on the issue ITT and the principles behind it?

again, your claim is


I am trying to understand what this means, as I still havent grasped it yet. Does it mean that the simple fact of reducing something to desire and behaviour, is inherently discriminatory? Perhaps I havent understood what you mean by "reducing being gay to desire and behaviour", are you able to explain, and explain why doing so is minimizing and homophobic?

Sure , what happens AFTER the categorisation depends on a number of factors. Thats not the same thing though.



I dont understand why you are not answering my question. What is the principle behind your position? what I mean is, a logical set of premises and conclusions that can be applied to a situation to decide whether a group gets protection or not. This principle should be applied consistently, across all cases.

So a rule or set of logical rules that when applied to 2 different situations, come to the conclusion that a christian cannot refuse service to a gay couple, but a jewish person can refuse service to a nazi ( perhaps I am mistaken and you think that a jewish person cant refuse service to a nazi either?)

From what you have said, it seems like your principle might be something like "if the group to which you belong has in the past been subject to discrimination, you cannot be refused service. If the group to which you belong has in the past discriminated, then you are allowed to be refused service." but its not clear.



my principle is that I have no right to force anyone to associate or do business with anyone else.

OK. That's fine, but to be clear this extreme libertarian view is very much at odds with the way western democracies are established. We have explicitly codified protections about equal access to public goods and services. This means that I can't block you from my bar or fire you just because you are black. And in some states, because you are gay. That is a very good thing, we know how terrible the US history of discrimination has been. There is reasonable grounds for debate in the grey area between competing principles (maybe protecting firing gay people is ok, but forcing baking cakes is not), but you've entirely let one side win.

If you had actually read the opinion in the OP, you might give up on your attempts to force a universal "principle" on me. Cases like this result in 50 pages of discussion, where the long history of legal canon steming from the constitution comes in and out, blended with competing values and the context and history of the situation. It isn't just a one sentence application of a single universal principle.

I'm sorry you're really struggling here. But I'm not explaining it a fourth time if you refuse to substantively engage with the explanations I give, and just repeat that you don't get it. Especially if you keep pulling this bull**** black and white "simple fact" nonsense that severs it from the clear context in which it was said.

but you dont use 50 pages of discussion and a long history of legal canon, do you? And, surely you know what the universal principle behind your position is?


ok, but I dont see where you have explained it. Can you at least quote where you explain what you mean by "Reducing being gay to desire and behaviour is minimizing, and homophobic", because I just dont see it

to be specific

1)What does it mean to reduce being gay to desire and behaviour

2) why is the above minimizing and homophobic

so you can just quote my questions, then directly quote where you answered them, shouldnt take you more than a few seconds

Unlike you, who has espoused a "universal principle" entirely at odds with the way western democracies are structured, I don't have a single universal principle which, in a sentence, adjudicates any and all situations. When I described my view on this case (a passage you ignored) I gave a tension between different principles. At the 30,000 foot view, these case put freedom of expression against equal access to public goods and services. Both are laudable, but it really takes zooming down into the details to adjudicate a specific case. And reasonable people can disagree on exactly how this shakes out - the supreme court justices disagree! So stop being so simplistic and black and white.


As I explained - repeatedly, and at length - and as you ignored, being gay, or having a gay identity, is more than simply desiring the same sex, just as how being black is more than just having black skin. It comes equipped with a historical, cultural, and sociological factors that affect how other people interact with you, how you perceive of yourself, how those intersect with other components of your identity. If you are a young black man in the US getting pulled over by the police, it is in the back of your mind whether you are going to get abused or even killed. It's not just skin color, because that's part of the package. Being gay is more than just desiring vanilla ice cream and behaving by eating vanilla ice cream.

Now the context this was said in - and please STOP removing that context! - was very clear. Discrimination against gays, by some 'genetic argument' (that you've voiced zero opposition to), it was not "REAL discrimination". It was just desires and behaviours being discriminated against, not the person, as if those are easily divorcible. If you want to make a (bad) trichotomy for categorizing people in a vacuum and want to insist that you can ignore any historical, cultural, political, or sociological factor that contributes to gay identity when doing so and you really aren't homophobic, well great for you. But the context matters.

ok,

so you said

so that means, if a christian baker refuses to sell an "off the shelf" cake to a gay couple, that is discrimination?

It should be easy for you to answer whether a jewish baker refusing to sell an "off the shelf" cake to a nazi is discrimination.

If you think the principle doesnt apply to the second example, please tell me why rather than "WTF? really? You really dont see the difference?"

I am struggling to understand this. I am getting a blank confusion and non comprehension when trying to parse this, which likely indicates a disconnect, or even cognitive dissonance.

I understand that someone who comes to the realisation that they are gay( as in , they realise they have same sex attraction), may look around them and hear people talking negatively about gays, or hear about someone who got beat up. I understand that this may cause them to worry about their safety or cause them to question their self image. it may also not.
I dont understand where "gay identity" or "being gay" comes in.

I have re-read your paragraph a number of times, but am still feeling confused.

Sure. More precisely, I would support states writing anti-discrimination laws that protected against LGBT discrimination but not nazi discrimination. Remember, you and I have extremely discordant views. I take the same view as how western society is structured. As I understand it, you think it is wrong that the federal government prevents bar owners from banning black people. I think the 21 states that have added LGBT to the already established federal enumeration of protected classes are correct.

I think the problem keeps coming back to your X/Y Gay/Nazi substitution mentality as if it is that simple and black and white. These issues, as evidenced by the ruling in the OP, are not just single sentence affirmations of a single principle. They are complicated conflicts between multiple principles where the details and context are extremely important.

I don't understand what you don't understand. All these historical, cultural, political, sociological etc things, such as the example you mention, have a complicated (and rather varied!) range of interactions with how gay people interact in the world, how they perceive of themselves, how others perceive of them, etc. Sure, in the most stark definition-only view, "being gay" is defined to have certain desires and behaviours. But the actual lived experienced of "being gay" intersects with all these other factors. And then when someone dismisses discrimination against them as not real because it is only about their desires and behaviours, it is just extremely revolting.

You said the principle that you hold to is

in this case, it is that simple and black and white. Do nazis get equal access to public goods and services? Its not clear from your answer that you think that they do.

I dont understand why, under this principle, LGBT get protection, and nazis dont. unless this isnt actually the principle you are using.


I am not sure I can articulate my non-understanding either, so we might as well leave it there for now

No, I said different principles were in conflict:

Nearly every point you have made ITT is basically insisting on seeing thing from a single, context-less, black and white viewpoint. Equal access to public goods and services isn't a universal trump card that eliminates every type of free expression and association. Neither does freedom of expression and associating annihilate any attempt to create non-discrimination laws. There are grey areas, and we have to dig much further than just these sort of single sentence affirmations when deciding policy.

I'll give a different example that was relevant when I was in Toronto. I support a school board policy that schools should be required to allowed students to form GSAs (gay-striaght alliance clubs). Issues of gay teen suicide are devastating, for instance, and these can help fight against that. There is a big and prominent social gain to be had by students being able to form GSAs in their schools. But that isn't true for nazi clubs. I would absolutely agree with schools that prevented their students from making official nazi clubs, for this is an extremely harmful ideology that could cause harm to minority students.

You said I had ignored and not quoted the part where you gave your principles.

So I went back and looked at that post, and saw that 1 principle that you said you supported was the principle of equal access to goods and services.

This is the principle you are applying with regard to the christian baker and gay couple( as I understand it).

A principle is something that is applied in all cases. That is, you can replace christian baker and gay couple with any other group, and get the same answer. If you dont get the same answer, then its not a universal principle and you need to adjust your principle to take that into account.

So clearly, if you think that a jewish baker not serving a nazis is not discrimination, this is NOT the principle you are using. I am constantly trying to get to your principles, and failing.

what principles are in conflict?

A cake with a Nazi symbol promotes a belief system that committed the Holocaust, the genocide of over 6 million people, so it should not be supported. For example, the promotion of Nazism isn't permitted in this forum. It is clearly immoral to the highest degree by any reasonable standard. Practically everybody on earth understands that idea except for Neo-nazis.

what is immoral? The promotion of nazism? Or baking a cake with a nazi symbol on it? I assume both, since you said a cake with a nazi symbol is promoting nazism.

I am not sure your system of morals is logical or practical.

This is exhausting. I've said it four times now:

Two DIFFERENT principles, both laudable, but in conflict with each other in cases like this. Seriously, read the opinion in the OP! Most SC level legal cases are about balancing a range of different legal principles stemming from different parts of the constitution.

This idea is just wrong:

You effectively eliminate any principle from being a principle when conceived of so ridiculously broadly. Specific issues are in reality complicated, complex conflicts between a range of different laudable values and the local context is incredibly important.

Notice how your "principle" means that you think business owners can (systematically even) ban black people from their goods and services and the government can not do anything to stop that. This should be the clue that your "universal principle" shouldn't be universal in the way you think of it.

Nope, that literally is what a principle is.


I agree, it is exhausting trying to pin you down



why? Just because you say so, doesnt make it true.

It also means that black people can ban white people from their goods and services. It means gay people can ban christian people from their coffee shops, as happened some place in the us not that long ago.

Edit: Also, the simplicity of my position is a clue that my universal principle should be universal in the way I think of it. With this principle you get none of the grey areas, or conflicts of principle

It's simple, but it just doesn't meaningfully address reality. There just are grey areas in society; there are conflicts between principles that society in general agrees to and writes in their founding documents. We have courts system because there are centuries of legal battles interpretting and resolving conflicts between the principles at societies core. If we want to have enough sensitivity to actually act in ways that improve our society, these kinds of extreme deontological positions have little place.

Take freedom of speech. This principle has incredible power in the US court system. But even it isn't legally "universal" in your sense of applying to every single situation. You can't scream fire in a crowded theater. You might recall the arguments for and against Citizens United where reasonable disagree about things in the grey areas of even this principle.

I'd be curious about hearing about the rest of your deontological moral system. Do you have a few other of these "universal principles" by which you think society should be constructed that you can share with us?

Finally, a piece of advice. It might be more appropriate for you to come in at the start and say "hey, I reject the laws of every western democracy, they are incorrect to enumerate protected classes such as religion or aim to combat discrimination in any legal way. For instance, the government should not act to ban the systematic discrimination of black people from civil society because that violates my core principles which are absolute and unwavering in every situation". If you give that kind of disclaimer, then the rest of us are not going to bother giving details about the case like whether cakes are commodity goods vs artistic expressions because all of this is just entirely irrelevant to your inflexible views.


Cute. Except I said the same thing four times in a row without change. You just never noticed I had cited two different principles and explicitly noted how they were in conflict. You then stubbornly demanded I quote where I said principles in conflict. I quoted it for you. And then you didn't even acknowledge that you had missed this (very obvious) but play this cute thing like I'm not being easily pinned down? Lol.

I genuinely wanted to follow your principles and reasoning, it wasnt to do with inserting my own principles or saying that you were wrong or whatever, I wanted to see how consistent and logical you were. The fact that I hold a different principle is irrelevant to that particular line of questioning. I didnt state my own position until you asked.


ok, here is the post where you outlined your principles


after I went back, I used the example of an off the shelf cake, which doesnt lead to conflicted principles, because there is no freedom of expression, its a standard good or service. You still didnt apply your principle of "equal access to public goods and services"

To be clear, at that point I didn't realize you were an extreme deontologist who rejected the basic premises of western democracies. I also didn't realize that you were going to be uninterested in responding to any criticism I make of this absolutist worldview or even quote my responses.

I can't outline principles - as you use them - that allow me to distinguish between wedding cakes and nazi cakes. You interpret principles as things that universally apply, no questions asked, single sentence substitutions. I don't believe in that. Heck at a philosophical level, I lean more utilitarian than deontological. No wonder you can't seem to come up with any qualitative differences between wedding cakes and nazi cakes that might be relevant! I thought it was just that you hadn't even begun to read the SC opinion; I now realize that (in addition) you fundamentally reject the work of the SC since there could never be a conflict between different principles you uphold (but ignore telling us further what they are).

But all belief systems are protected under the constitution, even Nazism. As soon as you start banishing belief systems, people get really scared that you're not talking about equal rights for gays anymore but instead enforcing your singular view of morality and the world onto everyone, including those who peacefully disagree. They worry that their belief system might be next.

Of course the problem with your point of view is you simply draw an arbitrary moral line in the sand with no standard appealed to whatsoever and then call people bigots and homophobes when they query you on the consistency of your position.

That is correct, uke, you can't. So why don't you admit that the principle underlying your position----that people should not be refused service for discordant beliefs----should apply equally and universally and even to belief systems that you don't agree with?

That is a consistent position, and sounds reasonably fair.

The fact is that you don't give a **** about equal access or equal rights. You just play that game until you have enough leverage to enforce your particular version of tyranny upon others, in this case Christian bakers.

So lets pretend that you are right that there are no belief systems including Nazism that are objectively wrong, (or close to it.) It should be pointed out that in this country people forced to not make distinctions and who think the baker should not be allowed to refuse service to gays, would overwhelmingly accept the compromise that he should be also forced to make Nazi wedding cakes if that was what it took to avoid the distress to gays. Even Jewish people. Did you not realize that?