S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Tanaqui]

 Just off the top of my head and because I work for a tax agency, people regularly refuse to file and pay taxes due to religious beliefs. Although they always lose in court, they keep trying.

 

And Christian churches continually disobey the law that says they cannot get tax-free status if they engage in political campaigning.

 

Oooh, and Christians in the US constantly are breaking laws when it comes to preaching to public schoolchildren, pretty much the definition of a captive audience.

 

[Joanne]

You do know that property damage during demonstrations at times of social change has been a feature of history for many hundreds of years, don't you?  The Luddites come to mind.  As do those who rioted against the Corn Laws of the early 19th century in the UK.

 

L

 

How about a significant percentage of the OT?

 

Or even Jesus himself at the temple?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You are missing the point.  Reducing it to absurdity, as if it is merely a financial transaction is necessary to support your view, but it doesn't recognize the view of the Christian baker who feels in good conscience that he chooses not to participate in providing products for something that violates his scriptural beliefs. 

 

That's just not ok.  Someone else might decide not to sell products to say, the Duggar family, when they have yet another of their huge number of upcoming weddings because the business disagrees with their scriptural beliefs.  That's fine too.  They can go somewhere else, and would, I suspect, rather than framing the business and suing. 

 I just love the hypocrisy here that it is fine to FORCE some transactions/performances, if a liberal interest is at stake, but by golly, stay out of my (womb, or fill in the blank with another) if a conservative belief is at stake. 

 

How about some "equality" there? 

 

No, it is not fine for a business that operates in the public space to pick and choose whom it serves.  Fortunately the more rational elements of our society who do not support discrimination have made doing so illegal.

 

Baking a cake is baking a cake.  The baker is not taking part in an immoral act anymore than a grocer is who sells a gay couple steaks for an anniversary dinner.

[TranquilMind]

But swingers aren't a protected class, so you would be perfectly fine not a baking a cake for them. Again, when it comes to weddings, what is so special about the "sin" of gay marriage? Why aren't the Christian bakers who are refusing to provide wedding cakes to gay couples not carefully screening all couples to make sure they aren't guilty of sins, especially sexual sins, that violate their religious beliefs?

Who says there is any obligation to screen?  You are only responsible to act appropriately for the information you have.  If someone comes in and says that he is having a swinging party, it should be perfectly acceptable to reject for that purpose.   If he just asks for "a cake that serves 12", you sell him a cake. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Pedophiles and pornographers are not a protected class in any jurisdiction. As an athiest I wouldn't make a pro-child molestation or pornographic cake either and I would be perfectly within my rights to refuse service.

 

Gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, age, race, disability. Those are the sorts of things that you can't discriminate about under the law though the specifics vary by place.

 

FTR- above you did say it would be ok for the baker to turn the Duggars away. No, no it is not and now your latest post contradicts that prior claim.

 

And likening homosexuals to pedophiles is just tired and inaccurate.

 

But yet oh so revealing.

[TranquilMind]

No, it is not fine for a business that operates in the public space to pick and choose whom it serves.  Fortunately the more rational elements of our society who do not support discrimination have made doing so illegal.

 

Baking a cake is baking a cake.  The baker is not taking part in an immoral act anymore than a grocer is who sells a gay couple steaks for an anniversary dinner.

You prefer to prevent one in the wedding marketplace (this is the limitation here)  from acting in accordance with his religious beliefs.  OK.

 

 I prefer to allow everyone the freedom to act in accordance with his own religious beliefs.  

[TranquilMind]

But yet oh so revealing.

No one did that.  I certainly didn't. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

No one did that.  I certainly didn't. 

 

:lol:

[DragonFaerie]

It is the specific requirement to sell goods or services for weddings that cannot be weddings scripturally that is the current sole issue.  A very small class of people are affected here, and why they in particular should be stripped of the First Amendment rights is difficult to justify. 

 

I admit to not being very well-versed on the Bill of Rights, so I'm wondering if you could explain this for me.  I'm thinking the Christian bakers are the "very small class of people" you're referring to, but what First Amendment right are they losing by not being allowed to refuse service based on sexual orientation?  I don't understand (not being snarky; I really don't understand).

 

[TranquilMind]

How about a significant percentage of the OT?

 

Or even Jesus himself at the temple?

Jesus upended some tables.  That's it.  He didn't have His apostles steal all the doves and other goods in order to use it himself.   Not an appropriate example. 

[Frances]

Who says there is any obligation to screen?  You are only responsible to act appropriately for the information you have.  If someone comes in and says that he is having a swinging party, it should be perfectly acceptable to reject for that purpose.   If he just asks for "a cake that serves 12", you sell him a cake. 

So you're saying the baker should only follow their religious beliefs when it comes to baking cakes for weddings when it is easy to do so? If they had to screen couples to make sure they weren't doing anything to offend their religious beliefs that would be too difficult? Since it's easy to spot a gay couple who asks for a wedding cake, but would take more effort to find out if a heterosexual couple was engaging in premarital sex or had committed adultery to meet each other, they don't need to worry about not following their religious beliefs in those cases?

 

And again, there is no issue with not baking a cake for a swinging party. Swingers are not a protected class.

[TranquilMind]

Hugs to you and your daughter. I'm really sorry she had to go through that.

 

My dd is very lucky in that her friends have all been supportive, her Christian friends included. Isn't it sad that I have to think of her being treated as, in your words, 'fully human', as a bit of 'luck' ?

 

Anyway, sending love and support to you both, from both of us.

 

I would like to see what that treatment looked like, because I know no one who treats anyone like that today.  One of my kids is in a pretty conservative religious school right now, and there is a wide range of sexual behaviors represented by the teens in that school.  That's the way the world is today. 

 

All of them are left alone to do whatever they want to do.  No one even mentions it. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If I don't get cake I will do more than upend a table.

 

You have been warned.

[Amira]

You prefer to prevent one in the wedding marketplace (this is the limitation here)  from acting in accordance with his religious beliefs.  OK.

 

 I prefer to allow everyone the freedom to act in accordance with his own religious beliefs.  

 

I'm still confused whether you just mean that people in the wedding marketplace can refuse to serve whomever they want for religious reasons, or if everyone can. Or does your "everyone" in your second sentence just refer to everyone in the wedding marketplace?

 

Either way, why should people in the wedding marketplace get a special dispensation to discriminate?  Or why should everyone get to choose whether or not they follow laws because of their religious beliefs?  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So you're saying the baker should only follow their religious beliefs when it comes to baking cakes for weddings when it is easy to do so? If they had to screen couples to make sure they weren't doing anything to offend their religious beliefs that would be too difficult? Since it's easy to spot a gay couple who asks for a wedding cake, but would take more effort to find out if a heterosexual couple was engaging in premarital sex or had committed adultery to meet each other, they don't need to worry about not following their religious beliefs in those cases?

 

And again, there is no issue with not baking a cake for a swinging party. Swingers are not a protected class.

 

I am lol'ing at the term "swinging party",  Did the 70s come back and no one told me?  Where are my leopard print pants when I need them???

[TranquilMind]

So you're saying the baker should only follow their religious beliefs when it comes to baking cakes for weddings when it is easy to do so? If they had to screen couples to make sure they weren't doing anything to offend their religious beliefs that would be too difficult? Since it's easy to spot a gay couple who asks for a wedding cake, but would take more effort to find out if a heterosexual couple was engaging in premarital sex or had committed adultery to meet each other, they don't need to worry about not following their religious beliefs in those cases?

 

And again, there is no issue with not baking a cake for a swinging party. Swingers are not a protected class.

I'm not talking about protected classes, however. It would indeed be a protected class today if enough people cared to make an issue out of it.    Or feel free to substitute a cake for a plural marriage:  Groom Joe, and Wives, Mary, Cherie, and Terry (though the really do the sequential thing, rather than "marry" three at once). 

 

I'm talking about scriptural proscriptions here and both situations fit the case.  In both instances, the baker should be allowed the freedom to do the work or not, based upon his scriptural proscriptions. 

Apparently, others are much more interested in forcing these few Christian bakers we are talking about into making wedding cakes for what cannot be a wedding, according to their religious beliefs.    Fine, you've got your wish, but don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you. 

[TranquilMind]

I am lol'ing at the term "swinging party",  Did the 70s come back and no one told me?  Where are my leopard print pants when I need them???

Yes, the 70's live.

 

"Ah, ah, ah, ah, Stayin' alive...Stayin' alive"

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's a cake.  A freaking cake.  The baker isn't be asked to ice the couple during consummation.

[Joanne]

Jesus upended some tables.  That's it.  He didn't have His apostles steal all the doves and other goods in order to use it himself.   Not an appropriate example. 

 

 

Destruction of property has been around since the beginning of time. Your God commanded it, over and over again, in the OT.

 

The recent riots were limited to a statistically insignificant number of persons. That is why it was news.

[Frances]

I would like to see what that treatment looked like, because I know no one who treats anyone like that today.  One of my kids is in a pretty conservative religious school right now, and there is a wide range of sexual behaviors represented by the teens in that school.  That's the way the world is today. 

 

All of them are left alone to do whatever they want to do.  No one even mentions it. 

And because you haven't seen it then it doesn't exist? A simple google would find numerous stories of severe bullying of LGBT teens.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I would like to see what that treatment looked like, because I know no one who treats anyone like that today.  One of my kids is in a pretty conservative religious school right now, and there is a wide range of sexual behaviors represented by the teens in that school.  That's the way the world is today. 

 

All of them are left alone to do whatever they want to do.  No one even mentions it. 

 

Shenanigans.

 

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/12/12-year-old-boy-on-cheerleading-squad-commits-suicide-over-anti-gay-bullying/

[Catwoman]

Where are my leopard print pants when I need them???

 

I stole them from you and I'm wearing them right now.  :D

 

I think they looked better on you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You better clean them before you bring them back!

[TranquilMind]

Shenanigans.

 

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/12/12-year-old-boy-on-cheerleading-squad-commits-suicide-over-anti-gay-bullying/

Well, my kid goes there and talks to me/argues with me (this one loves to do that- surprise!)  every day on our long rides , and it seems surprisingly socially liberal there, but I think that is a function of the society in which we live as well as the young principal.  It is really pretty much a  "live and let live" environment, but......(gasp) all the kids actually have an equal voice in the environment and are not shouted down by those who oppose them.

I think it is a good thing.

[TranquilMind]

And because you haven't seen it then it doesn't exist? A simple google would find numerous stories of severe bullying of LGBT teens.

I never said it doesn't exist.  I said I would like to be a fly on the wall and have observed what went on first hand.  That's all. 

[Catwoman]

You better clean them before you bring them back!

 

:lol:

 

I'll be sure to do that.

 

I'll also bring cake. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I never said it doesn't exist.  I said I would like to be a fly on the wall and have observed what went on first hand.  That's all. 

 

You haven't seen something personally? So what?  You realize it does happen, right?

 

[Frances]

I'm not talking about protected classes, however. It would indeed be a protected class today if enough people cared to make an issue out of it.    Or feel free to substitute a cake for a plural marriage:  Groom Joe, and Wives, Mary, Cherie, and Terry (though the really do the sequential thing, rather than "marry" three at once). 

 

I'm talking about scriptural proscriptions here and both situations fit the case.  In both instances, the baker should be allowed the freedom to do the work or not, based upon his scriptural proscriptions. 

Apparently, others are much more interested in forcing these few Christian bakers we are talking about into making wedding cakes for what cannot be a wedding, according to their religious beliefs.    Fine, you've got your wish, but don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you. 

And how exactly will it come back to bite me? And again, why is it only important for the Christian baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake when it is easy for them to spot a couple who offends their religious beliefs? If their beliefs are that important to them, why wouldn't they be carefully checking all couples for sins that go against their beliefs before baking a wedding cake for them? 

[EmseB]

I see you're a woman and a mother. Once again, I'm going to say that you should take a look at the benefits that have accrued to you over the years thanks to anti-discrimination policies and lawsuits. Can you hold a job? Have a checkbook? A credit card? A driver's license? Inherit property? Purchase a car or house in your own name? Gosh, I don't know, what else...VOTE?

 

All of those things are possible because people fought to put legislation in place to protect you, force businesses AND OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to enter into those contracts with you, and make so abhorrent to the public at large the idea that a business or government would REFUSE to enter into those contracts with you that they couldn't possibly do it without a huge public backlash.

 

You're welcome.

 

You're conflating a lot of different concepts here.  First of all, I'm not talking about public agencies or policies.  Based on this post I can see that you and I are talking about separate things.  The right to vote in public elections, or the government (the same government you want to use to achieve your ideals, btw) not allowing certain groups to own land is apples and oranges to catering food for an individual's personal event.  Most of what you're talking about is such a non sequitur to what I was saying that I don't even know how to address it.

 

I'm not saying anything good about refusing service to someone based on gender, religion, or whathaveyou.  Again, if you look at my examples, there's a big difference between refusing service to a person for who they are vs. not wanting to be associated with an event which that person chooses to celebrate.

 

And the public backlash is part of my point.  If I'm not going to cater a bris, then, yeah, my business gets word of mouth that I refuse to cater to a bris based on my beliefs about religion/circumcision.  And?  Maybe I go out of business from said backlash, but that's a whole lot different from being forced to do something under the threat of physical violence at the hands of the state.  On the other hand, I refuse to write (awfulstatement) on a cake for WBC and they get to sue me (and win!) for refusing to enter into a contract with them because of my religious beliefs.  Then I'm fined, and if I don't pay the fines, I go to jail, if I refuse to go to jail, I get shot.  All because I didn't want to cater a bris or have my business associated with a religion I find abhorrent.  That's not the picture of utopia that you paint above about everyone fighting for my rights.  But, let's say I make the cake because I'm scared of getting sued.  "Oh, who made this delicious cake?  And the writing is so elegant! I will let everyone know that it was JodiSue's bakery that did your event, Mr. Phelps."

 

I don't think people should forget, either, that the the men with guns we want to use to enforce our ideas of not being offended are employed by the same people who used that same threat of violence to keep businesses segregated, keep businesses from selling to certain ethnic groups, put certain groups in concentration camps, etc.  If someone thinks that they want to use the threat of force to make someone enter into a contract, then they should consider the fact that history pretty much says that same force will be used on their own selves some time in the future. 

 

The other alternative is to just let people enter into contracts as they wish or don't and deal with the fact that some people are horrible by just...moving along.  But as you stated above, the times are turning and there's less and less of that everyday.  In fact, I'm pretty sure the last place that was in the news for refusing to cater to a wedding was getting death threats from the public without the government having to do anything to shut them down.  So, progress, right?

[Tanaqui]

You prefer to prevent one in the wedding marketplace (this is the limitation here)  from acting in accordance with his religious beliefs.  OK.

 

There is no commandment that runs Thou Shall Not Sell Cake.

 

[TranquilMind]

I'm still confused whether you just mean that people in the wedding marketplace can refuse to serve whomever they want for religious reasons, or if everyone can. Or does your "everyone" in your second sentence just refer to everyone in the wedding marketplace?

 

Either way, why should people in the wedding marketplace get a special dispensation to discriminate?  Or why should everyone get to choose whether or not they follow laws because of their religious beliefs?  

Well, because it is the place where service providers are being targeted and the one in which scriptural proscriptions are coming into play.

 

No one is objecting to selling a gay person, or an adulterous person, or any person a hamburger or a bicycle. 

[DragonFaerie]

 

Apparently, others are much more interested in forcing these few Christian bakers we are talking about into making wedding cakes for what cannot be a wedding, according to their religious beliefs.    Fine, you've got your wish, but don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you. 

 

If it's not a wedding, in their view, then what's the big deal about making the cake?

 

[TranquilMind]

There is no commandment that runs Thou Shall Not Sell Cake.

For the umpteenth time, it isn't ABOUT cake. 

It is about providing goods or services -whatever they may be- for a wedding that cannot be a wedding scripturally.  That's all.   Do it or don't do it as your prerogative.

 

But no, that isn't good enough.  Instead some have to target those few who have declined and try to run them out of business for daring to hold a religious belief that is not in favor. 

 

This isn't the only place that is happening...I see a parallel with the whole vaccine/medical treatment issue and, but that's a different thread. 

[Frances]

You're conflating a lot of different concepts here.  First of all, I'm not talking about public agencies or policies.  Based on this post I can see that you and I are talking about separate things.  The right to vote in public elections, or the government (the same government you want to use to achieve your ideals, btw) not allowing certain groups to own land is apples and oranges to catering food for an individual's personal event.  Most of what you're talking about is such a non sequitur to what I was saying that I don't even know how to address it.

 

I'm not saying anything good about refusing service to someone based on gender, religion, or whathaveyou.  Again, if you look at my examples, there's a big difference between refusing service to a person for who they are vs. not wanting to be associated with an event which that person chooses to celebrate.

 

And the public backlash is part of my point.  If I'm not going to cater a bris, then, yeah, my business gets word of mouth that I refuse to cater to a bris based on my beliefs about religion/circumcision.  And?  Maybe I go out of business from said backlash, but that's a whole lot different from being forced to do something under the threat of physical violence at the hands of the state.  On the other hand, I refuse to write (awfulstatement) on a cake for WBC and they get to sue me (and win!) for refusing to enter into a contract with them because of my religious beliefs.  Then I'm fined, and if I don't pay the fines, I go to jail, if I refuse to go to jail, I get shot.  All because I didn't want to cater a bris or have my business associated with a religion I find abhorrent.  That's not the picture of utopia that you paint above about everyone fighting for my rights.  But, let's say I make the cake because I'm scared of getting sued.  "Oh, who made this delicious cake?  And the writing is so elegant! I will let everyone know that it was JodiSue's bakery that did your event, Mr. Phelps."

 

I don't think people should forget, either, that the the men with guns we want to use to enforce our ideas of not being offended are employed by the same people who used that same threat of violence to keep businesses segregated, keep businesses from selling to certain ethnic groups, put certain groups in concentration camps, etc.  If someone thinks that they want to use the threat of force to make someone enter into a contract, then they should consider the fact that history pretty much says that same force will be used on their own selves some time in the future. 

 

The other alternative is to just let people enter into contracts as they wish or don't and deal with the fact that some people are horrible by just...moving along.  But as you stated above, the times are turning and there's less and less of that everyday.  In fact, I'm pretty sure the last place that was in the news for refusing to cater to a wedding was getting death threats from the public without the government having to do anything to shut them down.  So, progress, right?

I'm still confused about the references to violence and guns. Can you point me to a story about a baker being threatened with physical violence at the hands of the state or being shot?

[LucyStoner]

No one did that. I certainly didn't.

The chocolate ration has been increased!

 

Typing words doesn't make them true.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, because it is the place where service providers are being targeted and the one in which scriptural proscriptions are coming into play.

 

No one is objecting to selling a gay person, or an adulterous person, or any person a hamburger or a bicycle. 

 

A wedding cake is no different than a bicycle when it comes to providing a good to the public.

 

This is only a issue because some folks got butthurt over the fact that gays can now marry and their response is to become even more petty.

[TranquilMind]

If it's not a wedding, in their view, then what's the big deal about making the cake?

 

They don't want to do it.  Why force them or threaten them or sue them?  I don't get that.  I don't want to engage people who have no interest in my business anyway.  I would just go to someone who did want it. 

[Veritaserum]

I would like to see what that treatment looked like, because I know no one who treats anyone like that today. One of my kids is in a pretty conservative religious school right now, and there is a wide range of sexual behaviors represented by the teens in that school. That's the way the world is today.

 

All of them are left alone to do whatever they want to do. No one even mentions it.

Perhaps you are unaware of it because you yourself are not in the targeted category. I had to take my daughter out of school less than a MONTH ago because it was such a toxic and unsafe environment for her. We live in an area that is 90% conservative/anti-gay religious Christian, so that was the demographic among the students, teachers, and administrators at her school. Don't you dare dismiss the very real, very hurtful, and in some cases deadly treatment dished out to LGBT people by those who claim to be Christian and loving in their discrimination against LGBT. It happens. It damn well shouldn't, but it happens.

 

Parents in my community kick out their kids for identifying as LGBT. Those kids end up homeless. Their vulnerability due to lack of parental love and protection leads to heinous things like sex trafficking and murder. These are Christian parents who believe their God does not accept and love LGBT people so they refuse to either. And they feel justified.

[LucyStoner]

If it's not a wedding, in their view, then what's the big deal about making the cake?

 

Excellent point.

 

And last I checked wedding cakes and wedding flowers generally have nothing to do with any religious requirement in a wedding.

[Amira]

Well, because it is the place where service providers are being targeted and the one in which scriptural proscriptions are coming into play.

 

No one is objecting to selling a gay person, or an adulterous person, or any person a hamburger or a bicycle. 

 

But I already listed a bunch of other people and groups above who have attempted to not follow certain laws based on their religious beliefs. There are many people who have been forced to follow laws they disagree with religiously.  Why do the wedding people get to discriminate against gay couples for religious reasons when other individuals and groups don't get to discriminate against protected classes?

[Caroline]

A wedding cake is no different than a bicycle when it comes to providing a good to the public.

 

This is only a issue because some folks got butthurt over the fact that gays can now marry and their response is to become even more petty.

Weeding cakes are only in Colorado. :) and I bet people who make weeding cakes are liberal enough to make them for gay couples, too.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

For the umpteenth time, it isn't ABOUT cake. 

It is about providing goods or services -whatever they may be- for a wedding that cannot be a wedding scripturally.  That's all.   Do it or don't do it as your prerogative.

 

But no, that isn't good enough.  Instead some have to target those few who have declined and try to run them out of business for daring to hold a religious belief that is not in favor. 

 

This isn't the only place that is happening...I see a parallel with the whole vaccine/medical treatment issue and, but that's a different thread. 

 

But again, a baker selling a public good has agreed to do so to the public.  They don't get the right to determine who has a scriptural marriage.  And yes, there are those who think a wide variety of marriages are not scriptural.  If the decide to offer wedding services in the public sphere, they lose the right to discriminate.  Which is a good thing.

[TranquilMind]

And how exactly will it come back to bite me? And again, why is it only important for the Christian baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake when it is easy for them to spot a couple who offends their religious beliefs? If their beliefs are that important to them, why wouldn't they be carefully checking all couples for sins that go against their beliefs before baking a wedding cake for them? 

It isn't about spotting them or interrogating them. 

 

It is about the customer directly stating to the Christian baker that he wants a wedding cake for X and Y (and if you don't, I'm going to sue you, and try to get you shut down.); your belief does not permit him to decline.  I think that's wrong.  I'm not really about forcing people to provide goods and services for events in which they have no interest or actively think are immoral or wrong.  I think that's a bad tactic, and I wouldn't use it. 

 

One case I read about was in a jurisdiction where gay marriage wasn't even legal, yet they still nailed the baker for refusing to provide a cake.  Unbelievable. 

[Tanaqui]

It is about providing goods or services -whatever they may be- for a wedding that cannot be a wedding scripturally.

 

You already said that you don't think non-Catholic weddings are really weddings, so what's the difference? A Jewish wedding or an interfaith wedding or an atheist wedding, or one between two divorcees is a-okay, but this one isn't? Even if both participants are Christians and read simply scripture differently from you?

 

But no, that isn't good enough.  Instead some have to target those few who have declined and try to run them out of business for daring to hold a religious belief that is not in favor.

 

 

Let's compare and contrast homophobic Christians* who hide behind their religion and gays.

 

One group of people can be fired from their jobs in many states simply by admitting their identity. The other is in a protected class everywhere.

 

One group of people frequently is assaulted or even killed for the *suspicion* of being part of the group. The other isn't - at least, not in the West.

 

One group of people is has many members who will admit to sending death threats against people who disagree with it (and I can cite this if you like). The other... wants an occasional wedding cake, and doesn't want to risk finding out that they'll have to bake one at home because they can't find one who is willing to serve everybody.

 

Baking is a customer service industry. If you're not willing to serve the customer, find another job.

 

One case I read about was in a jurisdiction where gay marriage wasn't even legal, yet they still nailed the baker for refusing to provide a cake.  Unbelievable.

 

There is a difference between "not legally recognized" and "not even legal". You don't need a special legal permit to throw a party.

 

* I recognize that not all Christians share the same beliefs about this.

 

[DragonFaerie]

They don't want to do it.  Why force them or threaten them or sue them?  I don't get that.  I don't want to engage people who have no interest in my business anyway.  I would just go to someone who did want it. 

 

Because it's discrimination, and that's illegal.

[LucyStoner]

They don't want to do it. Why force them or threaten them or sue them? I don't get that. I don't want to engage people who have no interest in my business anyway. I would just go to someone who did want it.

To require them to comply with the law. To prevent them and others from breaking the law.

 

I suppose that the interracial family denied a hotel room one place could just go down the street. Why bother making the hotel treat people fairly?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Perhaps you are unaware of it because you yourself are not in the targeted category. I had to take my daughter out of school less than a MONTH ago because it was such a toxic and unsafe environment for her. We live in an area that is 90% conservative/anti-gay religious Christian, so that was the demographic among the students, teachers, and administrators at her school. Don't you dare dismiss the very real, very hurtful, and in some cases deadly treatment dished out to LGBT people by those who claim to be Christian and loving in their discrimination against LGBT. It happens. It damn well shouldn't, but it happens.

 

Parents in my community kick out their kids for identifying as LGBT. Those kids end up homeless. Their vulnerability due to lack of parental love and protection leads to heinous things like sex trafficking and murder. These are Christian parents who believe their God does not accept and love LGBT people so they refuse to either. And they feel justified.

 

Good point.  Oddly enough the majority of whites in Mississippi in the 1950s didn't think there were issues with racial inequality.  Funny how that works.

[Muttichen]

There is a difference between selling to a customer and participating in/promoting something you find morally repugnant.

 

If you own a bookstore and the Duggars walk in, you'll sell them a book.  Does that mean the government should force you to sell books by the Pearls and Bill Gothard?

 

If you have a wedding venue and a gay couple gets married there and posts pictures on facebook, it looks like you are condoning gay marriage.  You should have the freedom to avoid that association.

[Caroline]

Perhaps you are unaware of it because you yourself are not in the targeted category. I had to take my daughter out of school less than a MONTH ago because it was such a toxic and unsafe environment for her. We live in an area that is 90% conservative/anti-gay religious Christian, so that was the demographic among the students, teachers, and administrators at her school. Don't you dare dismiss the very real, very hurtful, and in some cases deadly treatment dished out to LGBT people by those who claim to be Christian and loving in their discrimination against LGBT. It happens. It damn well shouldn't, but it happens.

 

Parents in my community kick out their kids for identifying as LGBT. Those kids end up homeless. Their vulnerability due to lack of parental love and protection leads to heinous things like sex trafficking and murder. These are Christian parents who believe their God does not accept and love LGBT people so they refuse to either. And they feel justified.

I liked your post not because I like it, but because I totally agree with everything you are saying. The things kids did to my friend's daughter, well, I cry every time I think of it. And the discrimination by the admin and counsellors was just abhorrent. And my friend is just so tired that she is not going to makes fuss, and I totally understand. And at this point she is working hard to keep her daughter alive. Thank goodness for excellent mental health insurance. Actually thanks to the ACA.

[TranquilMind]

But again, a baker selling a public good has agreed to do so to the public.  They don't get the right to determine who has a scriptural marriage.  And yes, there are those who think a wide variety of marriages are not scriptural.  If the decide to offer wedding services in the public sphere, they lose the right to discriminate.  Which is a good thing.

You are saying that they are not permitted to define marriage scripturally, instead of the new definition of the last few years of "any two people". 

 

I say they retain the right to provide "wedding" services to those who can get "married".   Obviously, that view is out of favor now, and Christian bakers and photographers and others are getting run out of business by activists, which I suppose you see as a good thing, but it won't be a good thing in the long run, when your minority view is trampled.   In sharp contrast, I see respecting the views of ALL as a good thing.

 

Go down the road to the next baker.  Problem solved.