Bakers, Freedom, & the Law - John Corvino
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Bakers, florists, and other wedding-service providers sometimes balk at anti-discrimination law, citing the importance of “freedom.” John Corvino explains how such laws protect access and promote inclusion.
Dr. John Corvino is a writer, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. He has written several books for Oxford University Press, including, most recently, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (with counterpoint by Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis).
Find the book here: amzn.to/2ozZABp
Video by Chase Whiteside. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
Ahhhh, John.....leave it to you to give a cheeky ending.
Pixilated! Damn...
Hahaha, that ending. Love these videos, keep it up! :D
Corvino, It would help if gay lesbians, etc., reciprocate by writing what is requested on a cake where someone wanted a Bible-shaped cake with "Leviticus 18:22 Homosexuality is a detestable sin" written on it. Is the bitter pill too big of a swallow? Is it the thoughts that go behind the intents and words? Do gay people want to force Christians to do the same? Hypocrisy at best. You said the LGBT-friendly baker only agreed to sell the cake but not to write the words. It should apply in both directions because no one has the right to force anyone to write, bake or create things they don't want to. Furthermore, the Christian baker never did it before or offered it to other customers. A gay cake creation that includes writing and gay themes was never done in his shop; therefore, it was never offered to other customers. The Christian baker wouldn't even have same-sex wedding cake toppers because they are not the same as a straight couple's wedding cake toppers. They are not the same finished product. Additionally, " Declining to perform services doesn’t violate anyone else’s sexual freedom. If a citizen concludes that he cannot in good conscience participate in a same-sex ceremony, the government should not force him to choose between his religious beliefs and his livelihood'.
you are so wise...and easy on the eyes...haha...enjoy all your videos....
Okay John. Let's say you get your crayons and open up a graphic arts business. Then someone walks into your shop and wants you to design and produce a giant banner that says some horrific slanderous homophobic slur, and he wants you to make it super snazzy. Do you not have the right to say, "Sorry, as a matter of conscience, I don't want to take on this job. You can go to some other graphic arts company if you wish."? Or should you by this reasoning be forced by the power of law to violate your conscience because you are in business? What if you are a woodworker and someone wants you to make a giant swa$tika for their skinhead society meetings, and you don't believe in what they do? Should you be forced to do it? I think the fundamental flaw in your argument is that you equate gay marriage with immutable characteristics of a person. And I wouldn't be opposed to a business owner saying he didn't like serving people with big ears. The marketplace will punish those who do business in bad faith through the tarnishing of their reputation and starve them with a dwindling customer base.
Here is the thing,
A. Do you honestly think that people choose to be gay? Are you trying to make a joke, cause it's quiet a shit one. If people could just choose to be attracted to the opposition sex why would they choose to be constantly discriminated against?
B. He already addressed this argument in other comments. To tldr his stance, it's about the costumizablity of the product. He thinks that bakers should have to make the cake, not write anything on them like "congrats adam and Steve"
C. To address your free market argument
Welcome to Confederate cakes! Where we don't serve filthy n***rs
My point is we have anti discrimination laws for a reason.
@ArabīAlayhā m8 you're arguing two different things. One is that
A. Being gay is just another choice in which I'd simply ask, please look up someone of the same sex and just... be attracted to them. It's ez cause it's just a choice right?
B. Being gay is just a feeling which you don't have to act on. And for that, never have sex or jerk off to someone of the opposite sex again. Sexuality is an important part of life, you can't just ignore it cause it's "just a feeling"
@ArabīAlayhā btw, fucking your Neighbor's wife is very different from wanting to fuck a dude
Neighbor's wife:
She is one person
There are people who you can be attracted to that aren't your Neighbor's wife
Fucking your Neighbor's wife hurts your neighbor
Dudes:
A group of people
You are exclusively attracted to said group
Fucking someone in said group is not inherently harmful
Even if you weren't exclusively not attracted to dudes it still harms no one so it's morally neutral at wores
Now, don't say stupid shit like equating extramarital affairs to homosexuality.
Homosexuality isn't just sex either way, a homosexual could be your neighbor and it's a lesbian relationship, homosexuality is just like being str8, it's not just banging and suppressing it is harmful to the individual
@ArabīAlayhā what are you trying to refute. You appear to agree that fucking your Neighbor's wife is far more harmful then fucking literally any single guy.
@ArabīAlayhā "like an addict in a gutter"
(Who should tell them that I've never had sex before and I'm only planning to in a long term relationship)
Also please tell all the conversion tharapists that came out as gay and explained what a soul crushing miserable way to live suppressing your homosexuality is how it's just a feeling. They'd love to know that
Also gay does not equal sexually active. You can be gay and not sexually active and just looking for a long term partner
I'm a libertarian. I don't believe the government should discriminate against persons based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. But persons with their own property should be free to serve or associate with whomever they choose. The 1960s presented a prevalent climate of discrimination based on race within parts of the country that just doesn't translate today, especially with sexual orientation. The market gives enough force and choice to over come the problem. A bakery that discriminates loses business and 10 bakeries are there to do the job, sometimes for free. We don't need government involvement. Plus, the bakers are not refusing to serve gay customers but to cater an event they morally object to.
"The market gives enough force and choice to over come the problem." No, it doesn't, especially when people aren't able to participate equally in the market either because of financial constraint or geographical location; if there's only one bakery in town and they refuse to serve you, you're screwed. Dollar votes mean that those with more dollars get more votes, and the U.S. is a constitutional democracy, not a libertarian fantasy world. It's also not the case that the climate of discrimination that existed in the 1960s has somehow dissipated, and we certainly saw this after the voting rights act was gutted and states that were formerly subject to preclearance immediately set about passing or trying to pass voting laws that were demonstrably intentionally designed to discriminate against and suppress the vote in specific populations.
When a baker refuses to 'cater' a gay wedding, they're refusing to serve gay customers; there's no distinction here. Bakers typically provide a cake, sometimes picked up by the customer and sometimes delivered to the venue, but the baker is not required to participate in the event, which is almost always the reception anyway, not the wedding ceremony. So when a baker refuses to provide a product or service for a gay wedding that they would for a straight wedding, they're committing illegal discrimination. And it would be the same if they refused to sell a wedding cake to a straight couple because they were aware and disapproved of the fact that the couple had had premarital sex. It isn't an issue of private property, but rather public accommodation, which is why it's referred to as such in civil rights legislation. The moral and religious beliefs of a baker aren't violated when a gay person buys or eats a cake they've made. (I used to be a baker, and my atheism was never violated by decorating cakes with Christian iconography for baptisms, or because religious people consumed my cakes at religious events. I sold cakes, not my personal beliefs or morality.)
@Jay Spillers, that's not good enough for the homosexual alphabet crew, you have to agree with them or you're a homophobe, transphobe, bigot. It's their way or the highway. But there can be no compromise between right and wrong, everyone is going have to pick a side. What homosexuals are doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Constitution is on the Line, meaning Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association. You and I know Bruce Jenner is Not a Woman, but even journalist repeat these lies that a man is a she. Do you find those things disturbing? Also, what about children who didn't agree to be raised by homosexuals, what about their Right to a mother or father. Society just threw children right under the bus and then have the nerve to say these kids are so disrespectful. And they should respect us why? This Agenda will destroy the West as it has destroyed past great Civilizations. "All Roads Lead To Rome".
+Olive O'Sudden I'm a gay libertarian and I love John Corvino so much with his strong homosexual-morality arguments. Now I'm in a conflict with myself :( But I still believe in the libertarian principles. I would argue that financial constraint screwing one's life is not a good argument because other poor people who live like in Africa are less fortunate than us. Even for them to purchase essential things to sustain their life is almost impossible. The discrimination in this video can be solved by expanding markets into rich, various, and truly free markets. It's the only best way out that's available to us. Libertarians are striving for the best, not for the perfect like democrats do. Who's on the side of fantasy utopia world nowww? Also, here is one of the U.S.'s founding principles: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect. Therefore, U.S. is a constitutional striving-for-the-best libertarian principle, not a majority authoritarianism called "democracy." And yes! In Plato's The Republic, democracy is a third social state which is viewed as a result of mob rules. So it's NOT good enough in the eyes of Socrates and Plato. I would argue that economic advancement is also the heart of libertarianism. Economic virtue helps explain why discrimination has been reduced by the past rights movements which were caused by information sharing which was in turn caused by technological advances like from the printing presses through to the present day Internet. And technological progresses follow ecomomic progresses. Does that sound logical? All libertarians reading my comments, y'all should base an economic progress principle as your virtue now. It strengthens your arguments dramatically. I would argue that it's clearly a private property of the cake owners or else we lose the distinction between public and private property. That's a huge cost. Which principle will you choose to draw the distinction, Mr. Olive O"sudden? Plus I'm backing up my argument with a credential economic professor, Ninos Malek. here's his page from the learnliberty big organization for you to read: www.learnliberty.org/blog/the-sweet-cakes-case-let-the-market-give-discrimination-its-just-desserts/
By the way, however strong my libertarian side is, I see the plights of our fellow LGBTQs. I'm seeking a way to compromise between the two sides of mine. So I'm not an enemy of LGBTQs, don't get me wrong.
+request2000 Noooo! There's a shady gray area between right and wrong. You seem to know nothing about ethics and laws. Homosexuals are right, right, right. Children definitely have the right to be cared for by someone. It's their biological parents' fault in the fist place that abandoned children are abandoned. Bruce Jenner is a woman, I'm not disturbed at all. Great civilization is full of gay men such as Rome. "All Roads lead to Rome" means that in the end every society is fated to follow the Rome paragon of virtue like accepting gays and classics.
@request2000 I have to discard every one of your sentences. all are wrong and contradictory to one another.
Your saying: First of all homosexuals are disordered that's a fact. They were listed as a sexual deviancy and a mental illness, up until 1973.
My answer: So this is in 2018 which gets past 1973. So it's no longer a fact. You simply contradict yourself.
Your saying: And what they do is not sex, because it can Never reproduce.
My answer: Of course it's SEX. People use condoms to do something not reproducing. How do you call this behavior if not SEX?
Your saying: No one is born a homosexual, and many people who engage in homosexual acts also engage in heterosexual sex acts, do reproduce children and leave those children behind. So you don't know what sexual behavior people who abandon children engage in.
My answer: You don't know whether or not people are born homosexual. And many people who reproduce children are likely to be heterosexuals. You don't know what sexual behavior people who abandon children engage in.
Your saying: Rome Fell because of it's decadence including homosexuality.
My answer: For spelling's sake, "its" not "it's". your grammatical mistake. How ignorant!
Rome fell because of plenty of complicated various reasons excluding homosexuality. Don't claim all your sayings as a fact. You don't have evidence to back up any.
Your saying: And Civilization began in Africa not Rome, so the Classic is BS, just white washing His-Story.
My answer: There's no beginning of civilization. Wherever there's a community, it's all called civilization. There is GREAT civilization, however. I first said Rome is GREAT civilization, not the beginning one. You claimed it's BS But it's you who are without evidence to back up yours.
Your saying: America is collapsing under the weight of promoting all manner of sexual deviance. Also Bruce Jenner is Man, he was born a man and he participated in the Olympics as a Man, he looks like a Man and he will die a Man.
My answer: You're biased. She wants to be a woman, so she's a woman. Despite what you're saying, she looks like a woman.
Your saying: There is no such thing as "Transgender" only gender confused Males and Females.
My answer: Yes, there simply is. Again you don't know for a fact.
What I really have a problem with is that bakers that do this and preach that it is their beliefs, will still sell cakes to people who are getting married for a 2nd, 3rd or more times. Divorce people get remarried, and these bakers are more than fine with selling to them, but selling to two people of the same sex that want to be married is wrong according to them. Divorce is wrong in the that book that the preach to love so much.
Should a gay baker be forced to make a cake for a Christian couple that reads "Godly marriage is between one man and one woman"?
I think not.
By the same token, I disagree with your argument.
I just stumbled upon some of your videos and have to say not only do you make your points which are all so valid but your sense of humor brings such a great relief to the conversation. Thank you so much for your dedication to fairness, equality and Love for everyone. Keep up the amazing work.... and when are you opening up the Bakery.... the world always needs more cupcakes. ❤
I've seen several of your videos and am sharing them with a Facebook group for Gay Christian men. This one however I HAD to watch because of the thumbnail. Just...wow! Handsome.
As also a gay man and philosopher, I don't think there is any question that a baker should sell pre-fabricated products to anyone, and I don't think anyone is questioning that. Contrariwise, I think anyone making custom anything is entirely within their rights to refuse to make a particular custom something, which is what the alluded lawsuit has been about. Also, that lawsuit(s?), as I generally understand it, was basically a situation contrived by the customer, which isn't very honest, and kind of undermines whatever point they were trying to make. To be sure, it also sounds like various laws pertaining to the situation in Colorado exceed Constitutional limits.
I completely disagree. The state should not force a business into providing goods and services to a customer it doesn’t want to serve. Simple as that. If a business chooses to forgo making a profit off of that customer, it should be their right. A private business is not “public sphere” and it’s in the interest of both the consumer and the business that the state stays out of it as much as possible
So if the KKK came to me and asked for a pro-KKK cake, I must make it for them? Equality can be bad sometimes.
Not exactly. See my response here (or for a more thorough response, check out the book!): www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/05/15/print_shops_shouldn_t_have_to_make_gay_pride_t_shirts.html
You have to make the cake, but you do not have to write on it. That is how the law works.
Nashon, BINGO!
Gary Lee and why was saying that important? Who’s gaining anything when you make that claim? Honestly, I know RUclips’s not exactly a forum for people to be ethical, but that’s kinda why he’s posting these videos, so I think it’s only fair to respect that. I’m not saying that you should agree with everything he said, but there’s no need for the immaturity.
Here, here. Obviously an irrelevant comment from a troll, snarking for attention. Just ignore it. Don't even acknowledge it. Could be a robo-comment! If that's a thing yet. You might be replying to an algorithm!
I can’t invole myself in good conscience in the promotion of evil
I will obey God rather than men
Life is fleeting eternity you’ll soon be meeting !
And that is why I wont be hasty in going on the next video, cutting past the end credits.... cupcake.
Nearly four years ago in a debate you had with Dr. Jennifer Robock Morse, you conceded that the photographer Elaine Huguenin should not have been punished for having refused to photograph a Lesbian commitment ceremony. You said you were a "big Free Speech guy" and that Photography is a form of self-expression and the right to exercise this self-expression as one lists is even for a business owner protected by the First Amendment (ruclips.net/video/oV5NkU8HpJc/видео.html At 115:37). Well, in this video you say that baking a wedding cake is a form of artistic expression, and artistic expression is also a form of self-expression, no? If you believed that the First Amendment protected Ms. Huguenin's right to refuse to photograph a Lesbian commitment ceremony, why don't you think that it also protects the right of a baker to refuse to bake a same-sex 'wedding' cake? Why do you think the photographer has a right to self-expression but the baker does not? Or have you changed your mind about the Huguenin case?
I haven't actually changed my mind about the Huguenin case, although my thoughts on it have become more complicated. I actually address this point in the book, but here's the quick answer: I think it depends on level of customization: A wedding cake chosen from a catalog of designs is more fungible than an artistic photograph, which I think is more easily assimilated to free speech arguments. The rough rule (there are some exceptions) is that if you sell item X, you should sell it to anyone willing to pay for it (assuming adequate supply, etc.). One implication of this rule is that I wouldn't require any baker to provide particular writing ("Congratulations John and Mark!) or particular designs (two men on top of the cake) that they wouldn't provide to any other customer.
I hope you get a chance to check out the book; I go into more depth there.
Interesting answer. Thanks.
Yeah, well, I have the book on order from Amazon.com, and Amazon.com has not sent it yet and neither have they told me when it will be sent. Yes, I know that I could start reading the Kindle version, but Kindle is evil.
The problem, though, becomes in the Cakes by Melissa and Jack Phillips is that both don't exactly have a catalog of designs. This isn't like going to get a wedding cake from Costco. They design cakes specific for that couple therefore no wedding cake is exactly alike. Heck I've even seen in videos of Jack Phillips that he uses a paint brush to create his designs in frosting on cakes. In other words, they aren't selling a particular product, they are agreeing to sell a custom made one. It's a different contractual obligation than say selling cookies. If Jack Phillips had said, "I'm sorry I can't make that custom cake for you because I'm already booked for that weekend", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead, he felt like he couldn't create the cake just like an artist may not be able to paint a person's portrait to what they desire because he doesn't share the same joy, beliefs about the marriage, etc. You can't just force someone to take a contract. That's not how it works in business and wedding cakes are often contracts in which the person asking for the wedding cake may even have a payment plan available to the them.
The book arrived just a few moments ago. Just wanted to let you know.
Oh, I should tell you that I just started to read the book, and although this is not exactly relevant to this particular thread, I can't resist pointing out that on page 21 The Reynolds case forces you, Dr. Corvino, to acknowledge, albeit obliquely, the difference between prohibiting a marriage and the non-recognition of a relationship as a "marriage". I bet that gave Anderson and Girgis occasion to grin.
john corvino is adorable
2:59 Beautiful. Loved it . I am down for that cake!
Update? In light of the Supreme Court decision on the Masterpiece case.
Thank you Thank you Thank you.
Brilliant.
Well said, Professor Corvino. Please keep up your good work!
The problem, as you well know, is that the door doesn't swing both ways. There are countless stories of Christians who want a cake from a LBGT-Friendly baker who refuse them service. And to Christians, that's the point. You want your cake, and to eat it too.
Actually, no, there aren't countless such stories. Indeed, I can't think of any such stories. There was one case (I discuss it in the book) where someone wanted a Bible-shaped cake with "Leviticus 18:22 Homosexuality is a detestable sin" written on it; the LGBT-friendly baker agreed to sell the cake and even provide an icing bag, but not to write the words. According to the view for which I argue, that should apply in both directions: No one has to write messages they don't want to write, but they still have to sell items that they sell to other customers.
John Corvino So "no one has to write messages they don't want to write". Isn't baking a cake for a gay couples weddings making a statement in and of itself? Therefore saying that you support gay marriage? I'm a firm believer in gay rights but I also feel in this specific case the bakers should not be forced to support something against his beliefs. IMO the same goes for similar situations e.g. wedding photography. However for other goods and services e.g. A house IMO the seller is not justified.
Actually, no: I don't think selling a cake to a gay couple means that you support same-sex marriage, any more than selling cakes for both Democrats' and Republicans' election-night parties means that you support opposing candidates.
"countless stories"
Where? You gave NO examples.
But even if that were true, that isn't a problem. They'd also not be able to discriminate against them simply for being a Christian.
Cee Jay you obviously didn't see my reply to my original post. I'm happy to keep the examples coming as long as needed. You just won't likely hear of these examples in mainstream media.
I find it morally absolutely unacceptable that someone who brings such extremely clever and correct thoughts and words to the ear is also allowed to be so sympathetic, attractive and adorabel - sorry, universal justice I definitely imagine differently !!!!
Every day around the world people are baking cakes. Every day people eat these cakes but not everybody eats cake everyday. There's too much cake. Nobody ever thinks about that.
Wish I had been your student because I love philosophy but my philosophy professor never went as deep or as practical as you do. BTW. You and I are both Sophists. Blessings bro.
This seems disingenuous. Can we morally argue that by operating a specific space in public for the purpose of exchange, one is agreeing to serve all equally? Do you really believe an atheist is as likely to discriminate against an Evangelical as the other way around? Sure, I think it's an arsey move to deny somebody a cake just because their event is gay or because they are gay. Money is money. It knows no gender but that of whoever is holding. However, since when has "I am willing to make a commitment in exchange for cash" negated the very moral essence of the exchange itself? If what separates a transaction from theft is consent, then, could we not also say that it is immoral to present a store owner with the dichotomous choice scenario of defy your values as a service provider or close down? That's not consent. It's an ultimatum.
Would you see my strange forecasting point if I proved that gender ideology and gay victimhood politics in the U.S.A. can indirectly and certainly feed a crisis between the U.S.A. and the China-Russian-Iran triplet?
Sounds weird, but I will wierdly explain my view if you give me an eye patiently: PLEASE!
Gender and gay politics of victimhood is highly at vogue worldwide, as an ideological perfect example of socialism cored by gayism or nongenderism or transgenderism. These issues are in the core of the heart of whatever can be called social or humanistic politics worldwide nowadays. if you think of politics without raising this ideology to the utmost urgent priority to "save" the world, you won't be fit to be a high-rank politican anymore. It is not about therapeutical laboral folk's articraft and cultural diversity anymore. They are sexualizing whatever correctness or validness of social and humanistic politics and actions by raising the transgender causes to the main utmost priority of health budget allocation pyramid. This sacrifices urgent life-or-death treatments and surgeries. Whenever you allocate budget for gay parades, gay causes, gay victimhood politics, abortion victimhood politics, etc, you are sacrificing a life. They leaped from anti-homophobia politics to gay indroctrination on the basis of gay victimhood as a pretext. They are forgetting all about articraft and artistical varieties of the diversity of cultural laboral therapy of the avarage poor social folks with a great potential for peacemaking and harmony to promote the beast inside, the id's appeal, the corrupted side of our selves that have to do with the voracious capitalism more than socialism. They are victimizing gays at the upper-most layer of social and political pyramid of political priorities and sexualizing politics. Health budget for treating unargumentably more crucial and urgent diseases, and for performing surgeries and terminal or highly expensive treatments are being decreased or set astray for gay fetiches and agendas.
...So, these ideologies with strong political and social power will affect the order of our schools and colleges, of science, of our society, up to a global crescendo directly and indirectly involving our psychosocial relationship with the whole world and backwards the other way around. It is a type of meta-neo-nazism. The more governments empower televisive media, image media, commercial media, etc, the more they will be creating a geopolitical checkmate much more complex than simply a catch-22 situation. Gay spectrum indoctrination politics coming from sociology in the U.S.A., for example, will create a political pole reversion scenario that will strengthen and attract conflictual issues related to Iran, for example, even empowering even more of communism as a link between China and Russia, even though these countries don't necessarily agree with these issues or ideologies, but they will take advantage of them to manipulate countries in South America. Islamic causes in the Trojan Horse of immigration will, for example, get agglutinated with gender causes, and this will consequently allow for alliance and allegiance to China and Russia. You are creating your own ruin pathway of self-destruction like, alegorically speaking, matter and antimatter meeting together. This will be God's perfect judgement last checkmate. You will harvest the consequences of your folly. In Brazil and Venezuela we already can see examples of Islamism in the package of immigration binding together with transgender causes, and guess which side of the world political pole it tips over to?
Americans are working freely for the Triplet Russia-China-Islamic nations because you Americans create ideologies with a very high social appeal for the masses empowering them with an ideo-narcissistic self-worth that are indissociable from what is considered authentic socialism and communism here in South America and around the world because these basic political ideologies are subsequently faithful and allied to its origins: and its origins are from Russia and China. So the more desperate to gain public appeal by using gender and gay ideologies, you are working harder and freely for the polarization towards the Russia-China-Islamic nations triplet. The United States creates, China copies, and that will be the practice off in the deal because it is a strict question of economial survivance more than peace and commercial agreements. They will not abide to what they sign up for a long time. You are investing in your own cultural and ethnic extinction. In South America being a real authentic communism or socialist has to do indirectly and directly with being faithful to the core authentic communism's origins, Mao revolution to Russian communist rise. This is has become an irreversible catch-22 situation, because Americans create media technology, China copies; America creates a new concept of socialist and humanistic ideology, China and Russia profits from it. Internet social media appealing to relational and narcissistic commercial socialism is the body is the body of this great revoltion and its very heart. Would you give a shot back in your own heart?
You are empowering Iran-Russia-China trade and politics, and masonic articulations because in Latin America Islamists, socialists, communists, immigrants from Syria, Venezuala, Cuba, Colombia, etc, can't dissociate communism-socialism from the triplet that I have just mentioned. For them, it would be contradictory to call any socialist and communist cause legimate if any local president had any affinity with the U.S.A., except for the culture of American vanities and ideologies and mediatic products, which can be easily copied by China. Have you already forgotten that Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejab are in good terms? Have you already forgotten that Putin or China won't admit intervention in Venezuela? If you are a legimate sociologist-communist in these countries, you have to be agaisnt the U.S.A., otherwise you are out of the game of negotiations. Muslim, Arabic and Islamic immigrants tend to vote for people from their own culture in Europe and the U.S.A.. You are in darkness about the reality that gender and gay ideologies in South America is fusingly bound to immigration ideologies, green ideologies, communist ideologies, ideologies of humanization of animals, witchcraft ideologies, etc. They are inseparable. If you are for any of these ideologies, you can't be for the U.S.A. in practice. Only in words. These transmediatic narcissistic ideologies highly appeal to self-centeredness and are polarized for China-Iran-Russia masonically. If masonically, also commercially and politically. The U.S.A. creates the technological, mediatic, ideological culture that will certainly backlash like a witchcraft turning back to its witch.
John Corvino is selling himself very well, and his price is 666... The beast emerges from the masses... People are buying his ideas euphorically. The zeitgeist of the times! John Corvino is an ideological pseudo-philophical superbly sophistic ventriloquist of the social mass media's ideo-narcissistic selling appeal, a stand-up comedian appealing to sarcasm within that mean and wicked corner of the minds of the masses, a quick thought-juggler entertaining adolescent psyches, a brainwasher, and that's something that translates exactly what education and politics these last days mean. He is a best-seller of gay ideology as well as the best sophistic self-seller that I have ever seen! John Corvino is the ideal antichrist because he alleges to be a follower of the gospel of Jesus while simultaneously he decontrues what Jesus preached, Jesus' God Father's values and Jesus' character by substituting the gospel for transmediatic mass ideologies. Before I proceed to talk about this. I would like to introduce someone that is redefining the philosophical and ideological speech about gay core focus in socialism.
Since when has applying for a business licenses to access consumer dollars in the marketplace required equal treatment for historically marginalized people?
1965.
That was easy..
Prior to the 1965 Civil Rights Act, business owners' property rights had primacy, and it had failed badly.
The United States chose a superior way decades ago, and we are not going back.
Hahaha very good. In America, capitalistic businesses should be neutral and open to all.
Clarity and humour is good.
He is really giving good advice &its realy working btw i thing he should be a motivation specialist becoz his voice is good enough for motivation & one thinks i remember his thought can used for any work!
Thank you for providing the right combination of intellect and humor to make your point.:)
U are missing one key point corvino, the religious baker actually has no problem with serving gay people.
They just don't serve a gay "marriage". People should not be forced into participating in an institution they don't believe exists.
blah blah blah
The law bans discriminating based on sexual orientation.
A baker who makes wedding 💒 cakes for hetero couples but refuses to do so for gay couples #obviously discriminates based on sexual orientation.
There's no other way to slice it.
Yeah, wedding cakes are artistic. Who cares? That doesn't make them speech.
There's no such thing as gay wedding cakes versus hetero wedding cakes. The baker refused all wedding-related sales to the gay couple (PLUS SEVEN previous gay couples, including lesbian moms who wanted cupcakes for a we-are-a-family picnic with their daughter) before they could ask about any custom adornments.
That activist justices on the Supreme Court were focus-grouping ideas to let #TheReligiousWhite treat gays as outcasts again only shows the Christian nationalists at the Federalist Society and GOP White Houses have defiled the judiciary.
I agree completely. I also agree with the other side of the argument, in a way. Guess we all have to meet half-way. In the ideal world, If a far left/religious person could truly wish us peace and be live and let live, couldn't''t we go to another baker for a wedding cake? Not because of a fight, just because we got their side too?
There was a case in Northern Ireland where a Christian bakery refused to bake a cake that had a support marriage equality slogan on it and I would actually support their right not to have to write a *message* they disagree with. But if it's just a cake for a same-sex marriage that you're refusing to bake then I think it's discriminatory. It's like if someone owned a bakery and refused to write messages supporting Donald Trump on their cakes. I think they should be allowed not to do that but to refuse to sell a cake to a Donald Trump supporter who was going to use it say to have a party celebrating his victory, that would be discriminatory. I would say the same applies to gay marriage. After someone buys a cake it's not the cake shop's business what they're going to use it for.
Hmm I see your point about knowing it's intended use having an effect on how people feel but I think the point still stands. I have strongly held beliefs about the rights of LGBT people but even knowing my cake was going to be served at an anti-LGBT event I don't think that would give me the right to refuse them service even if I was extremely uncomfortable with the idea because the reason for refusing service is specifically their political view(or any other identity trait). I do think it's simply better to try and be accommodating by purchasing from a non-Christian bakery but legally allowing bakers to refuse service to gay couples opens the door for discrimination across the board such as clerks not offering marriage licences, for care homes not to place same-sex couples together and there was even a case where a doctor refused to treat a child because she was the daughter of two mums. Legally a line must be drawn making it clear that if you provide a public service, then you cannot discriminate in terms of who you provide the same service to. And I think the law should apply equally to Muslim and Christian bakeries, but I have no control over how local government behaves.
There's a distinction between refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple or a gay person, and refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. The former is discrimination and ought to be illegal, but the latter is not (though it is of course motivated by homophobia) and ought not to be illegal IMO.
No, there's not. A company trading goods or services publicly is bound to serve all of its customers equally. Both examples you mention violate anti-discrimination laws in exactly the same way. Change out 'same-sex' for 'interracial' (which the Bible similarly condemns) in your statement and you'll see how problematic it is.
So it's ok to sell me a cake because I'm a single gay, but not when I am marrying another gay person? Makes a lot of sense
No, there isn't any distinction. You haven't understood Corvino's message. You might want to watch Corvino's other video, "What's Wrong with Wedding Discrimination?"
Why is this trending?
The Baker has a right not to sell the same sex "wedding cake", you're going against his Constitutional Rights to say otherwise. As the Jewish Vendor doesn't sell bacon, the Christian Baker doesn't sell a same sex "wedding cake" to anyone. The Baker offered to sell to them what he sells to the general public. But he also doesn't sell cakes related to Halloween, Divorce or Racism also homosexual "marriage" wasn't even legal in Colorado at the time. When homosexual "rights" start to infringe on the rights of others it's a line to far. And homosexuality is not a race, national origin, handicap or gender. It's a lifestyle and laughing it off doesn't mean it's not.
The difference with racism is the fact that racism against Black people was institutionalized, they had no alternatives. When were homosexuals denied the right to use restrooms, eat at lunch counters, try on clothes in dressing rooms, had separate public water fountains....Never. When were homosexuals lynched, burned, subject to Jim Crow or Slavery...Never. So for them to compare their behavior to Real human rights is an insult. The homosexuals could have taken a three minute drive and have found a baker who would have been happy to take their business. This was a set up to advance an Agenda. Homosexuality is Not the New Black. Homosexuality is Homosexuality.
I'd eat those hot cakes!
Well if I owned a business I would discriminate against anti-gay people. :)
Philosophically speaking, I think John Corvino is very hot. I love his heated arguments. He knows how to mirror perfectly better arguments simply because he knows how to appeal to the ego's demands. He says exactly what people like the way they like with an adolescent twist. Also I adore the etymological mystery of his surname name. I think he has what it takes to be a president puppet. He is the ventriloquist of social narcissistic medias. He stands out so well as a stand-up comedian with his sophist wisdom and gay sarcasm. Who won't see his self mirrored in the style of John Corvino?
Would you see my strange forecasting point if I proved that gender ideology and gay victimhood politics in the U.S.A. can indirectly and certainly feed a crisis between the U.S.A. and the China-Russian-Iran triplet?
Sounds weird, but I will wierdly explain my view if you give me an eye patiently: PLEASE!
Gender and gay politics of victimhood is highly at vogue worldwide, as an ideological perfect example of socialism cored by gayism or nongenderism or transgenderism. These issues are in the core of the heart of whatever can be called social or humanistic politics worldwide nowadays. if you think of politics without raising this ideology to the utmost urgent priority to "save" the world, you won't be fit to be a high-rank politican anymore. It is not about therapeutical laboral folk's articraft and cultural diversity anymore. They are sexualizing whatever correctness or validness of social and humanistic politics and actions by raising the transgender causes to the main utmost priority of health budget allocation pyramid. This sacrifices urgent life-or-death treatments and surgeries. Whenever you allocate budget for gay parades, gay causes, gay victimhood politics, abortion victimhood politics, etc, you are sacrificing a life. They leaped from anti-homophobia politics to gay indroctrination on the basis of gay victimhood as a pretext. They are forgetting all about articraft and artistical varieties of the diversity of cultural laboral therapy of the avarage poor social folks with a great potential for peacemaking and harmony to promote the beast inside, the id's appeal, the corrupted side of our selves that have to do with the voracious capitalism more than socialism. They are victimizing gays at the upper-most layer of social and political pyramid of political priorities and sexualizing politics. Health budget for treating unargumentably more crucial and urgent diseases, and for performing surgeries and terminal or highly expensive treatments are being decreased or set astray for gay fetiches and agendas.
...So, these ideologies with strong political and social power will affect the order of our schools and colleges, of science, of our society, up to a global crescendo directly and indirectly involving our psychosocial relationship with the whole world and backwards the other way around. It is a type of meta-neo-nazism. The more governments empower televisive media, image media, commercial media, etc, the more they will be creating a geopolitical checkmate much more complex than simply a catch-22 situation. Gay spectrum indoctrination politics coming from sociology in the U.S.A., for example, will create a political pole reversion scenario that will strengthen and attract conflictual issues related to Iran, for example, even empowering even more of communism as a link between China and Russia, even though these countries don't necessarily agree with these issues or ideologies, but they will take advantage of them to manipulate countries in South America. Islamic causes in the Trojan Horse of immigration will, for example, get agglutinated with gender causes, and this will consequently allow for alliance and allegiance to China and Russia. You are creating your own ruin pathway of self-destruction like, alegorically speaking, matter and antimatter meeting together. This will be God's perfect judgement last checkmate. You will harvest the consequences of your folly. In Brazil and Venezuela we already can see examples of Islamism in the package of immigration binding together with transgender causes, and guess which side of the world political pole it tips over to?
Americans are working freely for the Triplet Russia-China-Islamic nations because you Americans create ideologies with a very high social appeal for the masses empowering them with an ideo-narcissistic self-worth that are indissociable from what is considered authentic socialism and communism here in South America and around the world because these basic political ideologies are subsequently faithful and allied to its origins: and its origins are from Russia and China. So the more desperate to gain public appeal by using gender and gay ideologies, you are working harder and freely for the polarization towards the Russia-China-Islamic nations triplet. The United States creates, China copies, and that will be the practice off in the deal because it is a strict question of economial survivance more than peace and commercial agreements. They will not abide to what they sign up for a long time. You are investing in your own cultural and ethnic extinction. In South America being a real authentic communism or socialist has to do indirectly and directly with being faithful to the core authentic communism's origins, Mao revolution to Russian communist rise. This is has become an irreversible catch-22 situation, because Americans create media technology, China copies; America creates a new concept of socialist and humanistic ideology, China and Russia profits from it. Internet social media appealing to relational and narcissistic commercial socialism is the body is the body of this great revoltion and its very heart. Would you give a shot back in your own heart?
You are empowering Iran-Russia-China trade and politics, and masonic articulations because in Latin America Islamists, socialists, communists, immigrants from Syria, Venezuala, Cuba, Colombia, etc, can't dissociate communism-socialism from the triplet that I have just mentioned. For them, it would be contradictory to call any socialist and communist cause legimate if any local president had any affinity with the U.S.A., except for the culture of American vanities and ideologies and mediatic products, which can be easily copied by China. Have you already forgotten that Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejab are in good terms? Have you already forgotten that Putin or China won't admit intervention in Venezuela? If you are a legimate sociologist-communist in these countries, you have to be agaisnt the U.S.A., otherwise you are out of the game of negotiations. Muslim, Arabic and Islamic immigrants tend to vote for people from their own culture in Europe and the U.S.A.. You are in darkness about the reality that gender and gay ideologies in South America is fusingly bound to immigration ideologies, green ideologies, communist ideologies, ideologies of humanization of animals, witchcraft ideologies, etc. They are inseparable. If you are for any of these ideologies, you can't be for the U.S.A. in practice. Only in words. These transmediatic narcissistic ideologies highly appeal to self-centeredness and are polarized for China-Iran-Russia masonically. If masonically, also commercially and politically. The U.S.A. creates the technological, mediatic, ideological culture that will certainly backlash like a witchcraft turning back to its witch.
John Corvino is selling himself very well, and his price is 666... The beast emerges from the masses... People are buying his ideas euphorically. The zeitgeist of the times! John Corvino is an ideological pseudo-philophical superbly sophistic ventriloquist of the social mass media's ideo-narcissistic selling appeal, a stand-up comedian appealing to sarcasm within that mean and wicked corner of the minds of the masses, a quick thought-juggler entertaining adolescent psyches, a brainwasher, and that's something that translates exactly what education and politics these last days mean. He is a best-seller of gay ideology as well as the best sophistic self-seller that I have ever seen! John Corvino is the ideal antichrist because he alleges to be a follower of the gospel of Jesus while simultaneously he decontrues what Jesus preached, Jesus' God Father's values and Jesus' character by substituting the gospel for transmediatic mass ideologies. Before I proceed to talk about this. I would like to introduce someone that is redefining the philosophical and ideological speech about gay core focus in socialism.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- Wm. Shakespeare
Good Lord, William, come out of the closet already.
You aren't fooling anyone!
Can't force people to do anything except pay tax, this is bad law
Talking Head You're a smart person lol, no laws great idea!
Good law asks people refrain from doing things eg murder, blackmail, assault. Laws which counter this principle should be minimalist in terms of punishment and for the best interests of the person the law restricts, like forcing people to wear seatbelts.
Talking Head that directly contradicts your original comment, of not being able to force anyone to do anything except pay taxes
It does not, the law is not an absolute tradition, murder is wrong but it is acceptable in self defence. The rule which i initially stated is necessary to insure the greatest level of individual freedom and to force anyone to do anything is incredibly restrictive. The only way a law can surpass this standard is if it is an extremely small burden ie using a seatbelt or as Corvino alluded to, standardisation of goods.
They are operating a service to the public, this is not bad law as it protects people in the CIVIL sphere. If they want to do it as a private thing, no one is stopping them
You talk too much