Regular

reactionaryhater:

cookingwithroxy:

reactionaryhater:

cookingwithroxy:

siryouarebeingmocked:

officialbuckaroobanzai:

inked-up-nomad:

eviltessmacher:

Well… Let’s see how all the evangelical conservitard ammosexuals answer this…

And don’t say “it’s different” because it isn’t.

“If I sell you a car, did I participate in you driving drunk and hitting little susan?” 🤔

I love it when these professionally created Tumblr’s post shit like this. Because anyone with an HTML Editor or any Forensic Suite of Software can see they bare specific tells and watermarks of professional level editing and not just a random person posting things on a phone or laptop.

>evangelical conservitard ammosexuals answer this…

I’m detecting some bias here.

Thing is? This one is TOO easy to answer.

If I own a liquor store and someone comes in to buy liquor, I’m not at fault if they drink it later and get into a car accident. I may be part of the sale, but I am not participating in their drinking.

But if I’m a bartender and I don’t cut someone off when they keep coming to me for drinks, I AM responsible for my acts. Because I am not just enabling their activities, I’m

facilitating

in them with my personal actions.

It is that difference between passive participation and active participation in which the question is truly answered.

Of course maybe that’s too complex a concept for someone like OP.

I find it interesting to see “ammosexual,” a pretty clever pun that I’ve never read before, be used right after “conservitard,” one of the most clunky and overused insults you could possibly choose.

In any case, I’m wondering if @cookingwithroxy is just jumping on the debate here, or if she views this as a position that defines hers or others’ beliefs.  Let me throw this out at you:  The cake isn’t participation in a religious sacrament.   Cake is not necessary for religious union, nor does it increase the likelihood of a union taking place.  Cake is quite often used in purely secular celebrations.  What this means is that, if active participation is what concerns you ala selling alcohol to a drunk man, then the thing you are against is not merely the improper use of a religious ceremony, but is actually the personal relationship that two men or two women have; you express the belief that it is immoral, in fact damaging to others, to pair-bond within your sex.  I further suggest that such a position is incompatible with the value of individual freedoms.

I’m going to have to unpack this because. Well, because from the start I can’t tell if you’re joking with that opening statement. Seriously?

Okay. Let me try and explain this. Because you obviously do not understand. Things. We can start with the obvious: As a bi woman who prefers other women I find it really fucking INSULTING that you’d think I’m against gay marriage.

But maybe you… Just decided you could judge someone’s morality based entirely on the response to a point. I’d say that says bad things about your ability to judge a situation, but hey. Fair. Let’s be fair.

So let’s instead talk wedding ceremonies!

See, Cake is a thing for a secular occasion. I can go out and buy a cake RIGHT NOW. (Actually I can’t, don’t have my car at the moment) And in theory I could use that cake for anything! I could sit on it, or take it to a birthday party, or just shove it all in my face like a loon.

So if I went to the grocery store, or even a bakery. Or even a (GASP!) christian bakery! And bought a cake, and then took it to a park or a wedding hall and had it as part of my marriage to one of the cute girls who adore me (Yes Rae, I’m thinking of you here. :P) then that would just be that. I’d be buying a cake, and the baker would not in fact be taking part of something.

Which means that a baker who sells a sheet cake that gets, say, taken to a Neo-Nazi rally is not morally responsible for feeding Nazi’s.

But a wedding cake? Have you SEEN those fuckers? The smallest I’ve seen was like, five layers! For a real celebration the baker brings it out in a catering van!

Which means, well, that they’re taking an ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the wedding.

Now, I don’t like that churches teach homosexuality is a sin. I can’t come out to my mom because of that. It really REALLY fucks with me.

But I also don’t like the idea that we can violate someone’s religious beliefs if we want something from them. Ideally, the religious person should recuse themselves, let someone else do that service. Make it something that they’re not directly contributing to.

Just as, and let’s bring this back to the start! A gun store owner is not directly contributing to someone breaking the law if they themselves are obeying the law, as compared to someone selling a stolen gun on the black market.

Okay. Let me try and explain this. Because you obviously do not
understand. Things. We can start with the obvious: As a bi woman who
prefers other women I find it really fucking INSULTING that you’d think
I’m against gay marriage.

How…

DARE

You

Not know who somebody is on Tumblr!

I mean if you had just taken a moment to click on my blog you would have known this!

image

But a wedding cake? Have you SEEN those fuckers? The smallest I’ve
seen was like, five layers! For a real celebration the baker brings it
out in a catering van!

Which means, well, that they’re taking an ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the wedding.

Argument from proximity.  If I set up a gun shop in Times Square and someone buys one and turns around and stages a mass murder, it really seems like I should be more culpable than a gun seller ten miles away, but would I really?

Maybe this is some unusually brassy wedding where the cake baker actually hands out slices to the guests, but I don’t approach the scenario with that in mind.  Again, I don’t think a clergyman should be made to pronounce them man and man (although we have been through this with a county clerk, not “us” mind you but the courts).

Which means that a baker who sells a sheet cake that gets, say, taken to
a Neo-Nazi rally is not morally responsible for feeding Nazi’s.

What if it’s a cake with a little figuring of guy holding his fist in the air but you also sell those to Antifa… you know what, never mind.

Now, I don’t like that churches teach homosexuality is a sin. I can’t
come out to my mom because of that. It really REALLY fucks with me.

And I know what you mean.  Today you can never know what someone’s reaction will be until you tell them. I’ve been fortunate enough in my own life, but support from one person never erases that doubt.

But I also don’t like the idea that we can violate someone’s religious
beliefs if we want something from them. Ideally, the religious person
should recuse themselves, let someone else do that service. Make it
something that they’re not directly contributing to.

And what if they feel a very strong, sincere, integral-to-their-identity secular belief that gay marriage is immoral?  Why distinguish that person from someone who holds a religious belief?  I am being serious with this question, because it seems to me the government that makes that distinction has to be making religious tests and deciding what is the belief of a proper religion, or a proper denomination / sect of a religion.

Basically the question is this:  When the law says “You must offer goods and services regardless of identity” is this a violation of our civil liberties in general and if not, what makes a religious belief so special that it flips that answer around?

Just as, and let’s bring this back to the start! A gun store owner is
not directly contributing to someone breaking the law if they themselves
are obeying the law, as compared to someone selling a stolen gun on the
black market. 

For this last part I admit I don’t know what you’re proposing.  Is it that you feel the act of disobeying gun law carries with it implications of the seller’s intentions?  Or just that gun law is well-written enough to provide the moral reference we don’t have in civil rights law?

What kind of fucking dumbass bisexual defends homophobes in their free time?