S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Muttichen]

 

Should COMMERCIAL venues be allowed

to turn people away on account of their age, religion, race, disability? Maybe the venue owner doesn't think that people should get married before 25. If an 18 year old couple gets married there and posts the pictures on Facebook, doesn't it look like to venue owner is condoning this young marriage? No, no it does not. It looks like an 18 year old couple (or their parents!) paid the venue owner the market price for their COMMERICAL offering of services.

 

 

 

So -- if you own a venue and the FRC wants to rent it to hold a fundraising dinner, should you be allowed to refuse them?  If you don't rent to them, you are discriminating on the basis of their religion.

[ktgrok]

It has NOTHING to do with making a cake or selling a cake!  I don't know how many times that has to be said.

 

It has to do with not being forced to provide goods and services for an event against your will for something that violates your religious beliefs.    If you have specific knowledge, and it is morally wrong, Americans should feel free to reject that business at will.  Rejecting for skin color?  No.  Rejecting a nonwhite person's (or any person's) request for a cake to celebrate a swinger's party (if they tell you, which is unlikely), yes, feel free to reject. 

 

But what if your religious beliefs make it so you are against serving black people. Or jewish people. Or Catholic people?

[ktgrok]

Name any other instances in which Christians don't follow the law.  This is pretty much the only instance in which they are targeted and forced to provide goods and services under penalty of law by gay activists.  I have a problem with that.  Let the market deal with it.  Don't support that business if you don't want to, but don't target it. 

 

Sexual orientation is not a protected class everywhere, and generally it makes NO DIFFERENCE.  Not even a hardcore Christian would object to selling anyone a bicycle or  a birthday cake or a tropical fish. 

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. 

 

You make our point for us. Where else don't they follow the law? So why is THIS worth breaking it over? Why is it morally ok to provide a cake for a glutton but not for a gay wedding. Scripturally, explain that to me. 

[TranquilMind]

I am not being discriminated against if I don't choose to exercise the same objection that the CO does as long as that option is available to me too.  People are also allowed to not get vaccinated for religious reasons and that option is open to everyone.  People choosing to not vaccinate does increase the possibility that someone else will be harmed because vaccines work better if everyone gets them, just as someone else will have to go in the CO's place.  But everyone can still be a CO (although that rule might change if everyone took that option).

 

There are a very few times when we've decided that people's religious rights are less important than others' civil rights.  One of those times happens to be in running a business and offering services to protected classes.  The US actually allows for quite a bit of religious freedom nearly all of the time.

Exactly- there would BE no option if any significant number exercised it.

 

In the case on this thread, I disagree that someone's right to force me to do business with him in the marketplace trumps my right to refrain on the basis of my religious beliefs.    The civil rights of cake seekers rank far below the religious rights of bakers to operate according to their own conscience.   A cake baker is not discriminating against "gay people".  Any people at all can buy his cookies and cakes and pies.  He is objecting to being forced to make a cake for a "gay wedding", an oxymoron in the Christian faith. 

The idea that you are free to live and let live is quickly morphing into the idea that you are free to live as I say, in accordance with current popular moral standards only. 

[elegantlion]

  Any people at all can buy his cookies and cakes and pies.  He is objecting to being forced to make a cake for a "gay wedding", an oxymoron in the Christian faith. 

The idea that you are free to live and let live is quickly morphing into the idea that you are free to live as I say, in accordance with current popular moral standards only. 

 

Not all christian religions believe that gay marriage is wrong. 

[EmseB]

Sure, if you say so. I didn't see answers to my specific questions, and the answers were key to my understanding. 

 

 

What about not hiring your daughter because she's a female, or firing your husband because he's a Christian? Should companies be prevented from discriminating against employees under circumstances like those?

 

Sorry if I seem to be dense. I'm trying to winnow down to the basic tenets of your argument.

 

The basic tenet of my argument is that no one should be forced to do business with someone else if they don't want to.  I don't need to know the reason, they could be horrible snobs, bigots, or just lazy.  I could be doing asking for a service that they find morally reprehensible.  I just don't see any benefits of forcing one party to contract with another party for something they don't want to do.  If someone doesn't want me to give them my money, then I'd rather not make an issue of it and I'd rather not give them my money anyway.  So maybe I'm just lazy.  I can think of one or two times where I've been turned away from somewhere and quite a few more where I made to feel like I shouldn't be shopping somewhere, and no, it does not feel good.  What would make me feel less good is actually forcing the person to sell me something, mainly because I'd rather not give someone money/business who acted that way.

 

But all of that belies the point that the current cases where this is contentious are not about refusing service to people for who they are, but rather, not being associated with specific events or organizations.  That, to me, is much different than not serving a particular person because of who they are.  An event or ceremony is often deeply personal, each with its own look and style, and represents a lot of different things.  There are few events more personal than a wedding.  I can't imagine wanting to hire someone who is so diametrically opposed to your beliefs that you would have to force them to participate in a special day like that.  It makes no sense to me.  I can understand spreading word of mouth that they wouldn't serve your wedding, but I can't understand wanting the law to force them to be there against their conscience.

 

I'm not sure why this line of thinking means you want to know what I personally think about every other business law that exists or every other possible circumstance that has to do with hiring/firing/OSHA/child labor, etc.  I view consumer issues differently than I view employment issues, differently than I view workplace safety issues, differently than I view taxation issues, and on and on.

[ktgrok]

Think this through, but instead of cakes, think of it as electricty. What if the electric company decides they can cut off the power to whatever event suits them, or to classes of people, or what not. Or what if a private hospital, the only one in the area, refuses to serve certain classes? Or what if the phone company thinks women are gossips, so refuses to provide phones/service for women? AGain, we TRIED not regulating this stuff,a nd what we got was segregation, and separate but unequal.

I think people are conflating the idea of refusing service based on protected classes of people and not wanting to be associated with certain events.

 

If I think that circumcision is genital mutilation, that doesn't mean I won't sell cakes* to Jews.  But it might mean I won't cater a bris.

 

I'm not going to associate my name, for example, with the WBC by making a cake* for them that says something horrible.  That doesn't mean I won't sell cakes to Baptists.

 

There's a distinct difference between not selling a cake to a gay person and not wanting to cater to a certain event/ceremony/function based on religious beliefs.  I bet the same bakeries would also refuse to sell cakes to a divorce party (yes, this is a real thing) or any number of events they don't want to be associated with.  Maybe some of those reasons are illogical and bigoted, but what I'm hearing here is that it would be better for them to be forced to go against their beliefs than for the consumer to simply head on down the street and find someone who doesn't care what the event is.

 

The fact that I, as one party to a contract, should be forced into said contract under the the threat of violence is disturbing no matter what the reason.  And no one really wants to acknowledge that they (from what I can tell) would rather use violence to put people they disagree with out of business than let them say, "No, I can't cater this event."  We would rather send men with guns to a business to shut it down than have someone get offended because they can't obtain a cake for an event.  Which is okay, I guess, until the pendulum swings the other way and the men with guns are coming for the wrong offense.

As a consumer, I'm free to boycott any business I want and I can tell the world why I'm boycotting them.  The idea that I, then, as a consumer can also force any business I want into a contract with me is abhorrent, and a huge imbalance of power.  A business transaction is just two parties entering into a contract.  One party should not get freedom of conscience while the other party does not.  People who run businesses are still individuals with rights.  Or at least they should be.  And it shouldn't matter if their conscience offends mine.  Wouldn't it all be better if we just moved along instead of threatening people with violence to get what we want?

 

 

 

*I don't actually even make cakes for a living.

 

[TranquilMind]

You make our point for us. Where else don't they follow the law? So why is THIS worth breaking it over? Why is it morally ok to provide a cake for a glutton but not for a gay wedding. Scripturally, explain that to me. 

Does the glutton come in and say, "I've got a real problem with cake, and can't stop eating it and it is killing me.  I want you to make me a cake that serves 30."  If so, I think you have the moral obligation - even if not the legal one - to say no, that you don't want to participate in killing someone.  But then, that never happens.  You can't even assume you are dealing with a glutton even if he weighs 300 pounds.  He could be buying the cake for a work function, for all you know.

 

The case about weddings is different, I presume, since so much information is given up front.

 

What do you do, when your faith proscribes a behavior and someone tells you they want a cake for that very thing?     YMMV.  Some may feel compelled not to participate in providing goods and services for that event, and that should be ok.  Others will sell anything to anyone.   I say leave it to the market.  Others want to force everyone to comply with their standards. 

[maize]

No, but if they have a moral belief, the person ahead of them also having a similar moral belief doesn't negate their genuine objection.

 

So the first CO can't be said to be discriminating against the second CO. If two Quakers had their number come up in a draft, one after the other, the first one objecting doesn't change anything for the second one objecting.

 

Your point about it not being a choice just speaks to the discrimination those who wish not to go to war generally face.

 

 

Agreed, but I don't quite see where you are going with this. So now we have two CO's; however many CO's we have, that many non CO's must be drafted who otherwise would not have been. And those are the people who must face the hazards of war.

 

I doubt their mothers will be happy.

 

What about the conscientious objector for whom there is no legal recourse, as was the case for many of various nations during WW I, who must either break the law or breach with their own conscience? 

 

I'm not trying to take this any particular direction, but it seemed to me that some people were saying moral and religious beliefs cannot be held above the law; and yet I think that most people would actually grant exceptions to that rule for some cases. Do we grant exceptions only if life and death are involved? Only if we believe the law to be wrong? Only if the person involved believes the law to be wrong?

 

Mostly I see a grey area that can be reasonably interpreted differently by different people.

[TranquilMind]

Think this through, but instead of cakes, think of it as electricty. What if the electric company decides they can cut off the power to whatever event suits them, or to classes of people, or what not. Or what if a private hospital, the only one in the area, refuses to serve certain classes? Or what if the phone company thinks women are gossips, so refuses to provide phones/service for women? AGain, we TRIED not regulating this stuff,a nd what we got was segregation, and separate but unequal.

Utilities are different from goods and services that can be obtained in a variety of places.  You are constrained to the utilities that serve your area as they have a monopoly.

 

Not true with cake makers or other goods/services providers. 

[TranquilMind]

The basic tenet of my argument is that no one should be forced to do business with someone else if they don't want to.  I don't need to know the reason, they could be horrible snobs, bigots, or just lazy.  I could be doing asking for a service that they find morally reprehensible.  I just don't see any benefits of forcing one party to contract with another party for something they don't want to do.  If someone doesn't want me to give them my money, then I'd rather not make an issue of it and I'd rather not give them my money anyway.  So maybe I'm just lazy.  I can think of one or two times where I've been turned away from somewhere and quite a few more where I made to feel like I shouldn't be shopping somewhere, and no, it does not feel good.  What would make me feel less good is actually forcing the person to sell me something, mainly because I'd rather not give someone money/business who acted that way.

 

But all of that belies the point that the current cases where this is contentious are not about refusing service to people for who they are, but rather, not being associated with specific events or organizations.  That, to me, is much different than not serving a particular person because of who they are.  An event or ceremony is often deeply personal, each with its own look and style, and represents a lot of different things.  There are few events more personal than a wedding.  I can't imagine wanting to hire someone who is so diametrically opposed to your beliefs that you would have to force them to participate in a special day like that.  It makes no sense to me.  I can understand spreading word of mouth that they wouldn't serve your wedding, but I can't understand wanting the law to force them to be there against their conscience.

 

I'm not sure why this line of thinking means you want to know what I personally think about every other business law that exists or every other possible circumstance that has to do with hiring/firing/OSHA/child labor, etc.  I view consumer issues differently than I view employment issues, differently than I view workplace safety issues, differently than I view taxation issues, and on and on.

This (the bolded). 

[Joker]

Utilities are different from goods and services that can be obtained in a variety of places.  You are constrained to the utilities that serve your area as they have a monopoly.

 

Not true with cake makers or other goods/services providers. 

 

Actually it is in some areas. I grew up in a small, rural town and there were not multiple providers of the same service. What are those people supposed to do?

[TranquilMind]

Not all christian religions believe that gay marriage is wrong. 

I should have stated those who adhere to scriptural proscriptions about marriage, or some more specific wording (even a smaller category). 

[Amira]

Exactly- there would BE no option if any significant number exercised it.

 

In the case on this thread, I disagree that someone's right to force me to do business with him in the marketplace trumps my right to refrain on the basis of my religious beliefs.    The civil rights of cake seekers rank far below the religious rights of bakers to operate according to their own conscience.   A cake baker is not discriminating against "gay people".  Any people at all can buy his cookies and cakes and pies.  He is objecting to being forced to make a cake for a "gay wedding", an oxymoron in the Christian faith. 

The idea that you are free to live and let live is quickly morphing into the idea that you are free to live as I say, in accordance with current popular moral standards only. 

 

I am quite happy to agree that the cake is not a big deal and that most couples could find someone else to make the cake for the wedding.  But if you want to set up your business in the US, you're agreeing to provide services equally to protected classes.  Your religious objections to what they do with your products *do not matter.*  This is not about cake, this is about who gets to avoid anti-discrimination laws in the US.  

[Scarlett]

You make our point for us. Where else don't they follow the law? So why is THIS worth breaking it over? Why is it morally ok to provide a cake for a glutton but not for a gay wedding. Scripturally, explain that to me.

I don't have a clear decision as to whether I would refuse to bake a cake....but I can say there is a big difference in making a public commitment to live a certain way....vs sometimes eating too much. I mean I don't know a lot of people who say hey I am a glutton, I overeat constantly and I have no intention of stopping.

[Mrs Mungo]

Exactly- there would BE no option if any significant number exercised it.

 

In the case on this thread, I disagree that someone's right to force me to do business with him in the marketplace trumps my right to refrain on the basis of my religious beliefs. The civil rights of cake seekers rank far below the religious rights of bakers to operate according to their own conscience. A cake baker is not discriminating against "gay people". Any people at all can buy his cookies and cakes and pies. He is objecting to being forced to make a cake for a "gay wedding", an oxymoron in the Christian faith.

The idea that you are free to live and let live is quickly morphing into the idea that you are free to live as I say, in accordance with current popular moral standards only.

He was fine with making cakes for dog weddings. So, claiming that he only makes cakes for weddings that are scripturally sound is wrong.

[TranquilMind]

And are unmarried couples living together sinners according to your religious beliefs? 

I just presumed people would automatically assume that I discriminate against them, so I stated that this was not the case.   But it is permissible. 

[EmseB]

Think this through, but instead of cakes, think of it as electricty. What if the electric company decides they can cut off the power to whatever event suits them, or to classes of people, or what not. Or what if a private hospital, the only one in the area, refuses to serve certain classes? Or what if the phone company thinks women are gossips, so refuses to provide phones/service for women? AGain, we TRIED not regulating this stuff,a nd what we got was segregation, and separate but unequal.

 

Um, no, segregation was not a result of deregulation.  Segregation laws were passed and enforced by the government.  Jim Crow?  Woodrow Wilson?  That was something I was talking about upthread.  People think that the very government they want to enlist to protect these classes doesn't have the same potential of destroying them via the same types of laws.

 

And I'll reiterate, I'm not talking about refusing service to people based on who they are, as your examples imply.  I'm talking about a shop being able to decline to provide a service for an event, or personalize an item with a slogan or picture they find objectionable.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The basic tenet of my argument is that no one should be forced to do business with someone else if they don't want to.  I don't need to know the reason, they could be horrible snobs, bigots, or just lazy.  I could be doing asking for a service that they find morally reprehensible.  I just don't see any benefits of forcing one party to contract with another party for something they don't want to do.  If someone doesn't want me to give them my money, then I'd rather not make an issue of it and I'd rather not give them my money anyway.  So maybe I'm just lazy.  I can think of one or two times where I've been turned away from somewhere and quite a few more where I made to feel like I shouldn't be shopping somewhere, and no, it does not feel good.  What would make me feel less good is actually forcing the person to sell me something, mainly because I'd rather not give someone money/business who acted that way.

 

But all of that belies the point that the current cases where this is contentious are not about refusing service to people for who they are, but rather, not being associated with specific events or organizations.  That, to me, is much different than not serving a particular person because of who they are.  An event or ceremony is often deeply personal, each with its own look and style, and represents a lot of different things.  There are few events more personal than a wedding.  I can't imagine wanting to hire someone who is so diametrically opposed to your beliefs that you would have to force them to participate in a special day like that.  It makes no sense to me.  I can understand spreading word of mouth that they wouldn't serve your wedding, but I can't understand wanting the law to force them to be there against their conscience.

 

I'm not sure why this line of thinking means you want to know what I personally think about every other business law that exists or every other possible circumstance that has to do with hiring/firing/OSHA/child labor, etc.  I view consumer issues differently than I view employment issues, differently than I view workplace safety issues, differently than I view taxation issues, and on and on.

 

I'm not sure why you're not comfortable answering the questions? They were pretty simple. You took a strong stand on businesses not being forced to comply with laws, invoking men with guns and beatings and so on. I think that's worth discussing. I'm trying to sort out the apples from the oranges, since you pointed out that I'm confusing the two.

 

So you believe that discrimination among employees should be unlawful, then? Do you believe an employer should be prohibited from firing an employee who is homosexual?

 

The basic tenet of my argument is that no one should be forced to do business with someone else if they don't want to.

 

Going back to the whole women's rights argument, then, do you believe that laws forcing businesses to  allow women to take out loans and credit cards, have their own bank accounts, etc. were misplaced? Or laws allowing black patrons to eat in restaurants they were previously turned away from? Should those laws not have been enacted or enforced? Or do you only believe that no one should be forced to do business with someone else going forward from this point in time?

[TranquilMind]

He was fine with making cakes for dog weddings. So, claiming that he only makes cakes for weddings that are scripturally sound is wrong.

Who makes cakes for dog weddings?  This thread is huge and I have been bombarded with responses so I have not read every word in order.

 

  Obviously (to me, anyway) A dog "wedding" would be tongue in cheek. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Who makes cakes for dog weddings? This thread is huge and I have been bombarded with responses so I have not read every word in order.

 

Obviously (to me, anyway) A dog "wedding" would be tongue in cheek.

The Colorado baker invoked in your previous link.

 

Eta: you don't understand the intentional humiliation and dehumanization involved in saying that you (General you) are fine with providing a cake for a wedding for two dogs but not a wedding for two women?

[justasque]

So -- if you own a venue and the FRC wants to rent it to hold a fundraising dinner, should you be allowed to refuse them?  If you don't rent to them, you are discriminating on the basis of their religion.

It depends on the nature of your objection. If you are objecting to their particular flavor of Christianity, then the law says you must accommodate them. (Similar to the case where a church that owned a gazebo and turned it into a public venue for weddings (because the tax breaks were better than if it were a private venue); because it was a public business they had to rent to couples of any religion.) In cases like this where religion and politics are likely to be entwined, it may be hard to tease out whether the objection is religious or political. Religious discrimination is not allowed, because religion is a protected class. Political beliefs are not. This is why we often see hard cases go to court.

[TranquilMind]

But what if your religious beliefs make it so you are against serving black people. Or jewish people. Or Catholic people?

None of those are scriptural mandates, such as the proscriptions/constraints regarding marriage.    They are matters of cultural prejudice in various eras. 

[Mrs Mungo]

I would say that the FRC's political beliefs are the reason I might refuse to host them. I am a Christian, so it would be tough to prove that I was discriminating against them based upon their Christian beliefs.

[Tanaqui]

 

Here are just a few examples of Christian discrimination.  It happens.

 

Example 1: long-standing First Amendment law delineating the permissible use of federal aid by religious organizations does not permit religious proselytizing of the intended beneficiaries.

 

Example 2: Religious organizations are allowed to remain tax-free so long as they refrain from electioneering. Billy Graham's organization did not follow the law. Frankly, it is astonishing that there was any audit at all, given how blatantly that law is broken all the time. They weren't targeted for being a Christian organization, they were targeted for illegally using their pulpit to sway the vote.

 

Example 3: Now, this is interesting. It says they were acquitted. However, an illegal arrest is still a problem, even if there is no conviction.

 

Given the situation as described (they were not simply reading the bible, they were preaching), I can see the point of the prosecutors, even as I agree they overstepped.

 

Example 4: Does not qualify as discrimination for reasons already discussed in this thread. I will not rehash it in this comment.

 

Example 5: Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk was fired for not reprimanding somebody who was abusing their position and preaching to a captive audience. Neither of them was simply saying "I don't agree with gay marriage" or even sporting an anti-gay marriage bumper sticker or pin.

 

Example 6: It's hard to find information on this, however, I did dig up a copy of the original article (scroll down) which states that they simply had decided to enforce that rule to prevent scheduling conflicts. You know, so that if the local Baptist church goes down there on Yom Kippur they don't have to wait for the Hindus to finish making puja and then the Jews to throw their sins in the water before performing their Baptism. It could get crowded there, down by the river. Sounds reasonable to me, and not discriminatory - unless they have a habit of never having room on the schedule for the Christians.

 

At any rate, they ultimately decided after pushback not to maintain that rule after all.

 

Example 7: Hoo-boy, where do I start?

 

First, the assignment wasn't about "stomping on Jesus", it was about the power of symbols and students had the right to refuse. The point was to show that symbols are important - including the collection of letters that represents, to Christians, the name of their Savior. That particular symbol no doubt is important to the professor, as he is himself a Christian.

 

The student in question allegedly said he "wanted to hit" his professor, which sounds like a threat, and which is what the professor told security. At any rate, the university has consistently said that no student was punished for anything that went on in that class.

 

So, final score? 1/7 - surprisingly high, considering the source was Todd Starnes. None of the rest constitute discrimination against Christians at all.

[Tanaqui]

None of those are scriptural mandates, such as the proscriptions/constraints regarding marriage.    They are matters of cultural prejudice in various eras. 

 

Knock it off with "scriptural mandates". We're talking about religion in general, not your particular interpretation of your scripture. What if you're a Hindu (gosh, I'm sorry to keep picking on Hindus here!) who firmly believes in not serving the so-called untouchables? Or a committed neo-Nazi who hates... well, everybody?

[maize]

No, my choice not to go to war does not remove the next person's choice not to go to war. Whole nations could decide not to go to war - we'd probably be the better for it.

 

Yes, CO's are often discriminated against by being jailed, abused or forced to leave their country. Makes selling a cake look pretty darn easy in comparison, doesn't it ?

 

Look, show me the bit in the bible where it says that JESUS says you will damn your immortal soul for selling wedding cake to a lesbian. Then I might be a bit more sympathetic.

 

Frankly, all I want is for my gay daughter to be treated the same as my straight daughter. If the general you can't see your way to do that, then shame on the general you.

 

Mmm, I was trying to address only the question of whether moral and religious objections might in some circumstances be justifiable reasons for breaking a law or allowing an exception to a law. 

 

If we allow that in some cases such exceptions are justifiable, I think we must also acknowledge that there will necessarily be grey areas. Ethical questions rarely have cut and dried boundaries.

 

The fact that cakes are being debated is proof that for some people at least the boundaries of this particular question extend to cake baking.

 

FWIW, if either of your daughters wants a cake I will bake her one. I'm not a particularly good baker though.

[justasque]

None of those are scriptural mandates, such as the proscriptions/constraints regarding marriage.    They are matters of cultural prejudice in various eras.

But the people at the time truly believed they were scriptural mandates. Bob Johns University went to court over their beliefs on inter-racial marriage, believing that it was forbidden by the scriptures. I believe they were sincere in their beliefs, just as I believe that you sincerely believe that same-sex marriage is forbidden by scripture. They were just trying to live by their religion, and by what their religious leaders preached, just as you are. How should we differentiate between sincerely held religious beliefs if not by listening to what a person says they believe? We certainly don't want the court to try to decide what is and what is not scriptural.

[DragonFaerie]

It has gone way beyond that, with threat of force to shut the businesses down if they did not comply. 

 

 

If they do not comply with the law. Businesses that do not comply with the law SHOULD be shut down. If they violate the health code, they should be shut down. If they routinely drop untreated sewage into the reservoir, they should be shut down. (Also, ew.) If they engage in blatant wage theft, they should be shut down. If they constantly have false advertisements and steal from the public, they should be shut down. If they discriminate against people - they should be shut down! We have laws for a reason.

 

This, exactly.  Thank you.  This really seems so very simple to me.  All this confusion is leaving me.....confused.

 

I bet you a million dollars Jesus would sell those gays a cake. Heck, he'd probably give it away.

 

And ask if he could come to the wedding, and probably offer to bless the happy couple.

[Ravin]

None of those are scriptural mandates, such as the proscriptions/constraints regarding marriage. They are matters of cultural prejudice in various eras.

One person's scriptural mandate is another's cultural prejudice.

[QueenCat]

Well as I said he hasn't to my knowledge refused to serve anyone....I guess I just don't know anyone of my religion who would WANT to eat there....besides not giving him our business there is the possibility he might do something to our food!

 

Oye, that bad that he'd do something to the food? That is incredibly sad and pathetic on his part.

[Muttichen]

I would say that the FRC's political beliefs are the reason I might refuse to host them. I am a Christian, so it would be tough to prove that I was discriminating against them based upon their Christian beliefs.

 

So, you can refuse service to someone if what they stand for violates your morals?

[Pam in CT]

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

 

You really are very gracious, not to bring up that tacky Boston Tea Party as well.

[Tanaqui]

Oye, that bad that he'd do something to the food? That is incredibly sad and pathetic on his part.

 

And definitely a violation of the health code, even if he can't be specifically nailed on non-discrimination grounds.

 

[albeto.]

This would be excellent.   If not financially supported, the business would not thrive.  But don't target Christians specifically, and sue them in order to damage or eliminate their businesses, which is what gay activists have done.  That just sucks.  If you would find it distasteful for a Christian to target and sue a gay-owned business on some basis, don't do it to someone else.   But feel perfectly free not to patronize that business with which you disagree. 

 

Are you talking about providing wedding cakes for LGBTQ wedding? If so, you assume the law suits are "in order to damage or eliminate their business." How do you know that was the intent of the lawsuit? How do you know the intent of the lawsuit wasn't to see whether or not a couple had a legal right to get what they expected under the circumstances?

 

Arguing an extreme example here does not address the question. So it is perfectly fine with you that ONLY liberal viewpoints are available on campus, and all conservatives are silenced?

 

http://www.twincities.com/ci_19541486

 

Don't mistake my disagreement with your opinion not addressing it, but you're asking another question about a nonexistent problem. You say "ONLY liberal viewpoints are available on campus, and all conservatives are silenced." Do you mean all campuses around the nation? Or any particular campus? By what standards should people identify what is conservative enough or not liberal enough? Should Liberty University be compelled to host Sam Harris for a two hour talk with a follow up question/answer period in order to level the playing field? If they're not hosting him already, why not? Surely he's not too conservative.

 

Well, in your equally biased view, it is undesirable to conserve any traditional morals in society. Unlike you, I say let all views be equally heard and not silenced. Those that are marginal and unworthy won't be supported in the long run.

We all have biases. We can't get around that. We can, however, pay attention to the details of any particular claim made, and discern through critical thinking skills, if they have merit or not. You suggest I think it is undesirable to conserve any traditional morals in society. This can be shown pretty quickly to be false. In a previous post in reply to you, I mentioned conservation efforts to preserve traditional values like appeal to law rather than vigilantism, appeal to reason rather than tyranny, appeal to logic rather than fear of retribution. These are not new ideas, they've been conserved over the generations. I've got all kinds of desire to see these conserved into the next umpteen generations. You suggest all views should be equally heard and not silenced. I agree with you, but it's impractical to suggest a campus ought to be compelled to provide space to anyone who has a soapbox to stand on, or to hire anyone who demands a job. There are, of course, laws in place to determine if an individual's rights have been violated, and while these laws may not work 100% effectively 100% of the time, it's a far cry better than the political anarchy you propose. Well, in my opinion it's a "far cry better," although I'm willing to bet all the coins in my pocket that there exist objective data to support this, however we define "far cry" and "better."

 

Sure, every generation has had its issues and fears. My mother worried that all her friends wouldn't come home from the War and she lost people every day. I had different concerns. But the difference is that in those days, we had a general set of values that MOST shared, and those were supported by society as a whole. Today, each man for himself and screw everyone else.

War isn't social behavior, it's national politics. The general set of values that existed during the war allowed for people to leave their front doors unlocked when they went to the market, and to pay a man enough wages to support a family. It also allowed for impromptu lynching of blacks, beating children without accountability, refusing to hire Jews, and rounding up Japanese Americans behind barbed wire fences, just in case. This is the value you'd like to return to? It's one reason I have little sympathy for the argument you and others support - it's an argument that cries for the loss of an unjust privilege, at the expense of the liberty and life of others. So you can't expect that any more. You'll get over it. Or you won't, but my kids and their generation will have a greater measure of liberty and freedom (in certain respects, the NSA is an alarming example of the opposite [/tangent]) than previous generations did. I don't lament that at all. 

 

Furthermore, recent studies indicate the world sees less violent behavior now than in any time in history, a trend that has been consistent for centuries. While we see all kinds of horror stories on the nightly news and the internet, data shows that our nation isn't necessarily more dangerous in general than when our parents were children. We are just more likely to hear about these violent acts.

[albeto.]

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.

This kind of anarchy (everyone behaves according to their own subjective, personal code of conduct) would be chaos. How could any personal liberties be determined, much less protected? 

[LucyStoner]

So -- if you own a venue and the FRC wants to rent it to hold a fundraising dinner, should you be allowed to refuse them? If you don't rent to them, you are discriminating on the basis of their religion.

Unless I operated a private club or a religious venue, it wouldn't be my right to turn down a religious organization on the basis of their religious beliefs. Sorry to disappoint you but my beliefs are consistent.

 

If I were turning down a political organization though because I disagreed with their politics, that's legal. Politics is not a protected class. I could for instance say no to the state Libertarian Party or the Green Party of Seattle.

 

As a professional fundraiser, I can decline to work for any cause that I don't support provided it's not based on a protected class. Since I mostly have only turned away clients because I don't find them fundraising ready or I've heard the managment is a nightmare to work for, it's moot for me IRL. I wouldn't for instance take a work contract from a white supremacist group and I would be in my rights to say no.

 

I believe the FRC is registered as a political lobbying organization but I am not sure. As such I don't know if hypothetical venue owner me would accept the booking or not. But if they are primarily a political org, I could say no.

[Amira]

I agree that there should be religious exemptions at times in certain circumstance and that means there will be grey areas, and that this particular example is clearly a grey area to some people even though it isn't to me.  

 

The reason I don't want to have grey areas in anti-discrimination laws is that I feel strongly that they're very important. I don't want there to be religious exemptions to businesses treating people fairly, whether it's based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are already plenty of exemptions for religious organizations.  Once you get outside protected classes there are plenty of grey areas that courts are asked to decide on.  But I think it's reasonable to say that, no matter what, businesses don't get religious exemptions that allow them to refuse service to certain customers who belong to protected classes.

[justasque]

So, you can refuse service to someone if what they stand for violates your morals?

That depends.

 

If you believe that it is immoral for people of different races to marry, then no, you can't refuse them service because of that, due to race being a protected class under federal public accommodations laws.

 

If you believe that it is immoral for men to eat in public without wearing a shirt or shoes, then yes, you can refuse them service, because state of dress is not covered under public accommodations laws. When I was younger, you could refuse service to a woman who was wearing pants, and many, many upscale restaurants did just that. Nowadays, this would be discrimination based on sex (assuming you don't also refuse service to men who are wearing pants), and thus would be illegal since sex is now a protected class.

 

Whether you can refuse service to someone because you assume they are homosexual, and you believe homosexuality is immoral, varies by jurisdiction, depending on whether sexual orientation is a protected class under local and state public accomodations laws.

[Ravin]

The basic tenet of my argument is that no one should be forced to do business with someone else if they don't want to. I don't need to know the reason, they could be horrible snobs, bigots, or just lazy. I could be doing asking for a service that they find morally reprehensible. I just don't see any benefits of forcing one party to contract with another party for something they don't want to do. If someone doesn't want me to give them my money, then I'd rather not make an issue of it and I'd rather not give them my money anyway. So maybe I'm just lazy. I can think of one or two times where I've been turned away from somewhere and quite a few more where I made to feel like I shouldn't be shopping somewhere, and no, it does not feel good. What would make me feel less good is actually forcing the person to sell me something, mainly because I'd rather not give someone money/business who acted that way.

 

But all of that belies the point that the current cases where this is contentious are not about refusing service to people for who they are, but rather, not being associated with specific events or organizations. That, to me, is much different than not serving a particular person because of who they are. An event or ceremony is often deeply personal, each with its own look and style, and represents a lot of different things. There are few events more personal than a wedding. I can't imagine wanting to hire someone who is so diametrically opposed to your beliefs that you would have to force them to participate in a special day like that. It makes no sense to me. I can understand spreading word of mouth that they wouldn't serve your wedding, but I can't understand wanting the law to force them to be there against their conscience.

 

I'm not sure why this line of thinking means you want to know what I personally think about every other business law that exists or every other possible circumstance that has to do with hiring/firing/OSHA/child labor, etc. I view consumer issues differently than I view employment issues, differently than I view workplace safety issues, differently than I view taxation issues, and on and on.

The problem with trying to parse who one bakes a wedding cake for in the case of a gay wedding from the event for which the cake is baked is that this guy's business is baking wedding cakes. If a baker doesn't believe in celebrating birthdays because of his religion, he's free to refrain from selling birthday cakes. What he cannot do is refuse to sell cakes for some birthdays but not others because of whose birthday it is when the people he refuses are in a protected class. The same principle applies to wedding cakes.

[idnib]

I'm glad my schedule is pretty open tomorrow. I'll have time to make a list of laws I don't like to follow and start a new religion against them so I don't have to. Cool.  :coolgleamA:

 

Note to self: Bring up the "cake for gay weddings" issue to steer away any conversation thread from its original topic. Handy for those pesky threads.

 

 

[albeto.]

There seems to be a lot of focus on defining marriage....but defining marriage won't change anything one way or the other. It may normalize to some what others feel should not be normalized, but it won't change whether a situation is right or wrong.

 

Morality cannot be legislated.

 

I disagree that morality cannot be legislated. In the United States, it's morally unacceptable to expect black man to cross to the other side of the walk if a white woman walks in his direction. It's morally unacceptable to beat a child for spilling milk, or for a husband to punch his wife in the face and knock out her teeth. It's morally unacceptable to pay a bribe to the judge with expectation for a favorable outcome. These things all reflect moral expectations in part because laws were changed to make problematic but common behaviors illegal. In time, as the behaviors decreased, so too did the rationalizations for them. Our kids, yours and mine, will likely have to explain to their kids that "back in the day" people weren't allowed to get married if they happened to have been the same gender. I suspect this will come as a bit of a surprise to our grandchildren, in the same way it is a surprise to find the fight to allow interracial marriages went before the Supreme Court in our life time. 

 

I will comply with the law up to the point my conscience says no. But other than that I just try to live my life and raise my kid the best way I know how according to what I believe.

 

You of course have the privilege to act contrary to the law, but society has the privilege to punish you for it (through fines, restriction of other privileges, or even imprisonment). Either way, the rights of a marginalized group targeted for unjust and irrational reasons will continue to be supported as society evolves.

[idnib]

I just presumed people would automatically assume that I discriminate against them, so I stated that this was not the case.   But it is permissible. 

 

The original question posed directly to you was whether co-habitating unmarried couples are considered sinners in your religion. When you say "it is permissible" can you please clarify if you're talking about your religion or in some other way?

[Scarlett]

 

I disagree that morality cannot be legislated. In the United States, it's morally unacceptable to expect black man to cross to the other side of the walk if a white woman walks in his direction. It's morally unacceptable to beat a child for spilling milk, or for a husband to punch his wife in the face and knock out her teeth. It's morally unacceptable to pay a bribe to the judge with expectation for a favorable outcome. These things all reflect moral expectations in part because laws were changed to make problematic but common behaviors illegal. In time, as the behaviors decreased, so too did the rationalizations for them. Our kids, yours and mine, will likely have to explain to their kids that "back in the day" people weren't allowed to get married if they happened to have been the same gender. I suspect this will come as a bit of a surprise to our grandchildren, in the same way it is a surprise to find the fight to allow interracial marriages went before the Supreme Court in our life time.

 

 

You of course have the privilege to act contrary to the law, but society has the privilege to punish you for it (through fines, restriction of other privileges, or even imprisonment). Either way, the rights of a marginalized group targeted for unjust and irrational reasons will continue to be supported as society evolves.

We will have to agree to disagree that society is evolving. I rather see it the opposite although there is progress in some areas.

 

But again all the laws in the world can't force people to be moral.

[*Lulu*]

I don't have a clear decision as to whether I would refuse to bake a cake....but I can say there is a big difference in making a public commitment to live a certain way....vs sometimes eating too much. I mean I don't know a lot of people who say hey I am a glutton, I overeat constantly and I have no intention of stopping.

There may not be a lot of people walking around SAYING those words, but there are more than a handful LIVING them. Case in point, my diabetic, obese FIL who has spent the better part of a decade ignoring the doctor's warning that his current diet is killing him. (The man never met a carb he didn't like- medicated his blood sugar stays around 130-150)

 

As a Christian I have made a public commitment to live a certain way:

 

To love The Lord with all my heart, mind, soul and strength

 

To love my neighbor as myself

 

To act justly

 

To love mercy

 

To walk humbly with my God

[Scarlett]

I'm glad my schedule is pretty open tomorrow. I'll have time to make a list of laws I don't like to follow and start a new religion against them so I don't have to. Cool. :coolgleamA:

 

Note to self: Bring up the "cake for gay weddings" issue to steer away any conversation thread from its original topic. Handy for those pesky threads.

I can assure you that not everyone trying to live in harmony with their religious beliefs makes things up as they go along.

 

At any rate I never want to be unkind or harsh to anyone even if my beliefs and theirs clash.

[zoobie]

If you want to run an open-to-the public business, then you cannot discriminate. If you want to discriminate, you should set up a private club instead. Either you're open or you're not. Cakes are a possibly frivolous example, but we can't have laws that only apply to "important" things. That would be a logistical nightmare. Also, I'm guessing it wouldn't be frivolous to you if you were the one unable to get service. 

 

So yes, the Big Rainbow Printshop would have to print flyers for the FRC if Josh Duggar walked into the open-to-the-public store and needed some new pamphlets to pimp his hate org.

[ktgrok]

What if it is a small town with only 1 baker?

 

You are making the same argument segregationists made regarding hotel accommodations and restaurants.

 

Exactly. What if hotels decided not to rent to interracial couples, because it would encourage/promite their sex life, and they find interracial mixing to be against their beliefs. Is that ok? What if ALL hotels in an area do this? What if interracial couples no longer can get accomodations? Cause that happened. Using the same arguments you are making. The exact same ones. 

[idnib]

I can assure you that not everyone trying to live in harmony with their religious beliefs makes things up as they go along.

 

At any rate I never want to be unkind or harsh to anyone even if my beliefs and theirs clash.

 

It was a statement about how the country would look if religious laws superseded civil ones and every person could pick and choose which laws to follow based on their religion. Combined with the (understandably) low threshold for creating a religion, what would stop people from creating their own religions based upon beliefs against particular laws? Nothing at all. (And that would be fine as long as they didn't act upon them.)

[Scarlett]

There may not be a lot of people walking around SAYING those words, but there are more than a handful LIVING them. Case in point, my diabetic, obese FIL who has spent the better part of a decade ignoring the doctor's warning that his current diet is killing him. (The man never met a carb he didn't like- medicated his blood sugar stays around 130-150)

 

As a Christian I have made a public commitment to live a certain way:

 

To love The Lord with all my heart, mind, soul and strength

 

To love my neighbor as myself

 

To act justly

 

To love mercy

 

To walk humbly with my God

that was the point though.....if you want to compare a glutton to homosexuality.....a wedding is pretty much SAYING it.