S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Corraleno]

It isn't "MY" interpretation of scripture.  It's plainly in there that this behavior is proscribed.    Would you like me to cite the passages (but I think that is unnecessary...everyone knows). 

 

So how do you suggest we write a law, that would apply to everyone in the US, that says "religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws shall exist, but only for those who agree with TranquilMind's interpretation of the Bible"?

 

Why should secular laws be based on one group's interpretation of one religious text?

 

And how can you possibly justify the idea that "freedom of religion" only applies to those who agree with your version of it?  :confused1:

 

[*Lulu*]

Please leave my cats out of it. There is no wisdom in those two.

My grandmother's cat had a half dozen dogs, most the size of small horses, completely buffaloed.

 

She could twitch her tail in their direction and they tucked tail and ran.

 

She was a total badass and would have grudgingly allowed worship as long as it included sitting on DH's chest at 2am and a perpetually dripping faucet.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, I do.

 

But then I favor small government and the retention of Constitutional rights by individuals, not huge, "we tell YOU what to do and think" government, as do many.

The only person who wants to tell everyone what to *think* in this thread has been you. You are the one claiming the sole correct religion and interpretation of scripture. You can THINK whatever you please. But, you must follow the law with your actions.

 

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty.  I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads."   It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think. 

The market will speak as to the viability of doing so.

At the time of the fourteenth amendment a majority of states banned interracial marriage, using The Bible as their basis. When the Loving case went before the SCOTUS, 16 states still banned interracial marriage. This article is from 2011:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2011/june/opposition-to-interracial-marriage-lingers-among.html?paging=off

 

BJU only lifted its ban on interracial dating in 2000.

 

Deuteronomy 7 was the chapter used to justify discouraging interracial dating in the Southern Baptist church I attended in high school and college (I left the church over that Sunday school lesson). It doesn't matter that I (or you or anyone else) might think it's a misinterpretation and misapplication of the intent of the verse.

 

Whether or not all (or most) Christians agree upon this point is not relevant. The stone cold fact is that SOME do believe it. It is their sincerely held belief based upon their study of The Bible. It was orthodox enough that BJU had rules on it until relatively recently. It is not an unreasonable question.

 

If your answer is that the law should make exceptions only for your brand of religion, well, I can't see how that would be constitutional.

 

A yes or no question:

If a baker didn't want to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple, do you think it should be legal for him to refuse them service? ETA: I mean by providing an exception to current public accommodation laws, not by getting rid of them entirely.

[ktgrok]

He is free to adhere to whatever standards he might want to apply to *anything* as long as he isn't operating his business in the public sphere. Because we have collectively chosen to have laws that businesses operating in the public sphere must follow (from food safety to who you may/may not refuse to serve). He has *other options*.

 

Exactly. If I have a religious belief that washing one's hands is immoral, that doesn't mean I'm allowed to make and serve food to the paying public with dirty hands. If following the food safety laws violates your conscience you are free to not wash your hands in your own home. But if you operate a business you agree to follow the law. It may offend you to do so, but you can't ignore the law. 

[ktgrok]

Nope.  All inappropriate comparisons.  Not going to entertain that, as if engaging in particular sexual behavior is the same as being born to a Jewish family, or born black, or born in a foreign land.

 

Inapposite. 

 

Someone might be born to a Jewish family, but being a practicing Jew is engaging in a behavior. Someone might be born to a Catholic family, but continuing to be Catholic is their choice. So if you are saying that engaging in a particular behavior is a choice, so is religion, once one is an adult. You think practicing a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and wrong. Many people in the past thought practicing Judaism, or Catholicism, would send one to hell, was sinful, wrong, etc. It is illegal and wrong to discriminate in the workplace/public sector/ businesses based on who you think is being sinful. 

[ktgrok]

Sure, scripture has been used wrongly by evil people (Hitler, priests who wanted to rape kids, molesters, etc.)  which is why one needs to know it better than the guy who is talking to you (not expected of a child, of course). 

I'm simply saying that as a businessperson, the other guy's rights should not trump MY conscientious objection either.   

 

Let's go further...suppose a baker is requested to do an anniversary cake for a couples' orgy.  Can he deny that event on the basis of his religious beliefs because adultery is involved?  After all, adultery isn't illegal (anymore)?  Why should he get to insist on his fuddy duddy traditional view of marriage?     Marital status is protected in many jurisdictions. 

Sounds like Mr. Baker is just out of luck here...he has to do a wedding cake for anyone who has the money, regardless of the undesirability of the event, nor the fact that he may not wish to be associated with it in the marketplace. 

 

You are missing that Mr. Baker has another option. Not make wedding cakes, if he cannot do so within the realms of the law, and without discriminating. He absolutely has the right to follow his religious beliefs. If he is very concerned, and feels that baking cakes without discriminating will violate his beliefs, he can choose not to bake cakes, or not to bake wedding cakes. 

[Mrs Mungo]

You are missing that Mr. Baker has another option. Not make wedding cakes, if he cannot do so within the realms of the law, and without discriminating. He absolutely has the right to follow his religious beliefs. If he is very concerned, and feels that baking cakes without discriminating will violate his beliefs, he can choose not to bake cakes, or not to bake wedding cakes.

Or he can open Mr Bigot's Anti-Gay Wedding Cake Club. He can have an application process to make sure his religion can support the marriage and people can pay to join and receive one free wedding cake with membership. That would be perfectly legal. The law only deals with public accommodations.

 

eta lest anyone doubt the ability of such a club to make money hand over fist, a quote from a story on the Colorado baker (who opted to stop selling wedding cakes and stay open to the public):

 

“It’s actually increased our business,†he said of the controversy surrounding his stance. “Since we were just in the news, it’s busier.â€

 

For instance, Phillips said he had 65 orders Monday, up from the 25 or 30 the bakery would normally have on the first day of a normal work week.

[ktgrok]

For anyone wondering, even the Catholic Church is willing to accept that people may actually be born gay. (they do feel gay persons should embrace celibacy, but as the people advocating celibacy are themselves celibate, I find that slightly less distastful than when married people say it.)

 

 

The bolded argument is simply speculative.  Simply because it is authoritatively stated repeatedly does not make it true.  Nothing has been - or will be - proven.  It will always be the "chicken and the egg" argument.  Did brain changes occur because of what people choose to do, or did they do what they chose to do because of their brains?

 

Your blatant and unsupported assumption is that those who engage in same sex behavior are created that way by God. There is simply no substantive evidence for this.  In addition, it is highly illogical for God to create someone specifically to engage in behavior which is proscribed.  That makes no sense. 

 

I agree with your final statement, of course.  That doesn't change the unproven validity of the arguments in your post, however. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

Have you discussed evolution with a group of people lately?

Are you saying I should start an evolution thread? I think the mods might get a bit cross with me with what they already have on their plates. :lol:

 

What is the religious basis for not believing in genetics? How can that be justified?

 

"This is black and not white."

 

"I don't believe in that."

 

"Whut?"

[Rosie_0801]

 

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty.  I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads."   It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think. 

The market will speak as to the viability of doing so. 

 

What about the bit where God said people were made in His image? I don't remember any exceptions like 6 foot red heads or gay people.

[Veritaserum]

Bisexuality is trendy? *facepalm*

[FaithManor]

Bisexuality is trendy? *facepalm*

 

Yah, that one made my brain blink really, really hard too! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Tanaqui]

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty.  I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads."   It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think.

 

Are you suggesting that you want the government to be in the business of deciding what is and is not orthodox, what is and is not adequately scriptural not just for all Christians but also for all Muslims, all Jews, all Hindus, all Buddhists...? What if the government decides that your interpretation is not adequately supported?

 

Edit: I read from the bottom up. I'm absolutely boggling at the fact that you pulled that out in the SAME COMMENT where you said you support small government. TranquilMind, what you suggest is the very antithesis of small government.

 

[kiana]

Are you suggesting that you want the government to be in the business of deciding what is and is not orthodox, what is and is not adequately scriptural not just for all Christians but also for all Muslims, all Jews, all Hindus, all Buddhists...? What if the government decides that your interpretation is not adequately supported?

 

Furthermore, frankly, once the government is in the business of deciding what is or is not a permissible religious belief to have with respect to public accommodation, I do not see it as far beyond that for the government to start deciding what is or is not a permissible religious belief to have with respect to other things. 

 

ETA: And frankly, I find the idea of the government telling you what religious beliefs you can and cannot have as incredibly frightening. I prefer to have the government as far out of religion as possible. 

[ocelotmom]

Bisexuality is trendy? *facepalm*

 

Depends on where you live. Though I'd say more edgy than trendy.

 

Trendy makes me think that it's widespread enough that there is peer pressure to conform. I'm not seeing that, though I admit I'm not exactly super in-tune with teen culture.

 

And I don't think there's anywhere where it's going to be seen as anything but a negative for someone who already isn't well accepted.

 

Acting bisexual to get attention from guys seems to be fairly trendy.

[FaithManor]

Are you suggesting that you want the government to be in the business of deciding what is and is not orthodox, what is and is not adequately scriptural not just for all Christians but also for all Muslims, all Jews, all Hindus, all Buddhists...? What if the government decides that your interpretation is not adequately supported?

 

 

Really, the desire of those that believe this is to have a theocracy. It's just not popular to say aloud, so it doesn't get said by many of the adherents.

 

The fear I carry is that the likes of people like Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, RJ Sproul Jr, Gary DeMar, the entire Constitution Party/Taxpayer Party lead by Doug Phillips father who ran for president more than once on a platform of Christian Reconstructionism including closing the prisons and reinstituting the death penalty for pretty much everything including the stoning of adulterers and mouthy teenagers...as a side note this kind of cracks me up because his own son would be having big rocks lobbed at his head if they'd won the vote and managed to take over congress and the supreme court, Pat Robertson, Alan Sear president of Alliance Defense Fund who claims there is no constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a state religion, Ralph Reed of Faith and Freedom coalition - I could keep going here - will eventually make significant inroads into American politics, and then there is going to be serious trouble. There are a lot of reconstructionists out there that believe that America should be a theocracy.

 

Oh, and we have a church in our area that believes, whole heartedly believes and preaches, that genetic deformities and abnormalities are the result of the sin...sin of one or both of the biological parents. They are ANTI public accommodations for people with disabilities. Thankfully they are a tiny lot, and no one so far, pays them any attention. Good grief.

 

God help us if a bunch of people with that belief ever get elected to politics!!!!!

[Slartibartfast]

Depends on where you live. Though I'd say more edgy than trendy.

 

Trendy makes me think that it's widespread enough that there is peer pressure to conform. I'm not seeing that, though I admit I'm not exactly super in-tune with teen culture.

 

And I don't think there's anywhere where it's going to be seen as anything but a negative for someone who already isn't well accepted.

 

Acting bisexual to get attention from guys seems to be fairly trendy.

 

 

Acting bisexual and kissing girls in bars is not the same as actually *being* bisexual.

[Veritaserum]

Acting bisexual and kissing girls in bars is not the same as actually *being* bisexual.

Exactly.

 

Performing for the male gaze is just icky. Bisexuals don't exist for anyone's entertainment. And no, they're probably not interested in a threesome, either.

[Amy in NH]

For anyone wondering, even the Catholic Church is willing to accept that people may actually be born gay. (they do feel gay persons should embrace celibacy, but as the people advocating celibacy are themselves celibate, I find that slightly less distastful than when married people say it.)

 

Except for the ones who claim to be celibate and are meeting people at rest areas or molesting children (of both genders).

[ktgrok]

It isn't "MY" interpretation of scripture.  It's plainly in there that this behavior is proscribed.    Would you like me to cite the passages (but I think that is unnecessary...everyone knows). 

 

Now if you want to talk about vegetarianism and its relative merits, for example, something about which God does not proscribe certain behaviors, fine.   

 

Let's pretend there is no other way to read the Christian Bible, no other denominations. What about other religions? What if there is a religion that says ongoing prophecy is also part of their religion, or they use another set of scriptures entirely, or NO scripture, whatever. Do  they get a pass on various laws if they have a sincerely held belief? Or just the religion that you belong to?

[ktgrok]

Yes, I do.

 

But then I favor small government and the retention of Constitutional rights by individuals, not huge, "we tell YOU what to do and think" government, as do many.

 

If a person can demonstrate a legitimate religious basis for his reason to decline business, let him do so without government threat of penalty.  I don't think it can be a belief without scriptural basis, such as "GOD told me not to serve 6 foot tall redheads."   It must be legitimate and within the bounds of orthodoxy, I think. 

The market will speak as to the viability of doing so. 

 

Wait...you are ok with a business refusing to serve interracial couples, as long as it is a religious belief.

 

And as for orthodoxy, whose? Which religion? Whose authority?

[albeto.]

. 

 

[ktgrok]

This is so highly offensive I cannot believe it was posted. Conspiracy theories regarding events that are well documented with clear, objective information available is grossly negligent for an educator, awkward to see from a person who supposedly believes in a loving, knowledgeable deity, and horrifying for reasons pertaining to decency and compassion. I suggest you learn more before parroting more homophobic rhetoric in public. 

 

I think she was accusing priests, not gay people. 

[albeto.]

I think she was accusing priests, not gay people. 

 

That occurred to me, so I edited.

 

You're just too fast.

 

^_^

[TranquilMind]

Who would be the arbiter of real spiritual beliefs fake ones?

Well, I think we can rule out the shams, and stick with orthodox beliefs.  For example, no spiritual discipline contains a tenet that one must decline business with red haired people, as in my example.

[TranquilMind]

Let's pretend there is no other way to read the Christian Bible, no other denominations. What about other religions? What if there is a religion that says ongoing prophecy is also part of their religion, or they use another set of scriptures entirely, or NO scripture, whatever. Do  they get a pass on various laws if they have a sincerely held belief? Or just the religion that you belong to?

Yes, and legitimate religions already do get a pass.

 

The Amish do not need to be photographed for a license because of their sincerely- held religious belief. Rightly so. 

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses decline blood transfusions because of a sincerely-held religious belief. 

[TranquilMind]

So how do you suggest we write a law, that would apply to everyone in the US, that says "religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws shall exist, but only for those who agree with TranquilMind's interpretation of the Bible"?

 

Why should secular laws be based on one group's interpretation of one religious text?

 

And how can you possibly justify the idea that "freedom of religion" only applies to those who agree with your version of it?  :confused1:

Who said any of that??

 

Please reread.  Nowhere do I suggest that only my interpretation of the Bible is valid.  I do plainly say that a clear proscription against sexual behavior outside of marriage (defined by Jesus) in contained in the Bible, which is indeed true. 

 

For the thousandth time, no one is stating that secular laws must be based on MY faith.  No one has ever said this.

 

What has been stated is that an individual should be free to follow -for himself, not to impose on another - the dictates of his own conscience in reference to his religious faith.  The Court in Hobby Lobby supports this, by the way. 

 

For me to say YOU have to FOLLOW MY FAITH - not ok.

For me to say I am going to follow the tenets of my faith and operate my life and business in accordance thereto - perfectly fine, Constitutionally,

[TranquilMind]

The only person who wants to tell everyone what to *think* in this thread has been you. You are the one claiming the sole correct religion and interpretation of scripture. You can THINK whatever you please. But, you must follow the law with your actions.

 

 

At the time of the fourteenth amendment a majority of states banned interracial marriage, using The Bible as their basis. When the Loving case went before the SCOTUS, 16 states still banned interracial marriage. This article is from 2011:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2011/june/opposition-to-interracial-marriage-lingers-among.html?paging=off

 

BJU only lifted its ban on interracial dating in 2000.

 

Deuteronomy 7 was the chapter used to justify discouraging interracial dating in the Southern Baptist church I attended in high school and college (I left the church over that Sunday school lesson). It doesn't matter that I (or you or anyone else) might think it's a misinterpretation and misapplication of the intent of the verse.

 

Whether or not all (or most) Christians agree upon this point is not relevant. The stone cold fact is that SOME do believe it. It is their sincerely held belief based upon their study of The Bible. It was orthodox enough that BJU had rules on it until relatively recently. It is not an unreasonable question.

 

If your answer is that the law should make exceptions only for your brand of religion, well, I can't see how that would be constitutional.

 

A yes or no question:

If a baker didn't want to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple, do you think it should be legal for him to refuse them service? ETA: I mean by providing an exception to current public accommodation laws, not by getting rid of them entirely.

Again, you are mixing a separate issue into the mix in an attempt to bolster your case.  I am discussing ONLY the right of the cake baker (or wedding service providers) to decline an event that violates the meaning of "marriage" under the tenets of his faith and clear biblical proscription. That's it.  Other issues are not relevant here. 

[TranquilMind]

Do you really want to give government the power to decide what is and isn't within the bounds of orthodoxy?  Because I sure don't.

 

It wouldn't work anyway, because constitutional freedom of religion is not just for biblical religion. If it only applies to approved religions it's not really freedom of religion, is it?

But you are happy to have the government impose its views - your views- on this cake maker, who is unable to decline business that violates his conscience and faith tenets under the First Amendment.

The inability to see the implications of this are mind-boggling.

[TranquilMind]

Someone might be born to a Jewish family, but being a practicing Jew is engaging in a behavior. Someone might be born to a Catholic family, but continuing to be Catholic is their choice. So if you are saying that engaging in a particular behavior is a choice, so is religion, once one is an adult. You think practicing a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and wrong. Many people in the past thought practicing Judaism, or Catholicism, would send one to hell, was sinful, wrong, etc. It is illegal and wrong to discriminate in the workplace/public sector/ businesses based on who you think is being sinful. 

The cake maker here (not talking about me) is prevented from following his own conscience on a matter of faith tenets, a clear violation of the First Amendment, if one ever existed. 

 

Again, for the ten thousandth time, NO ONE is advocating that the cake maker be able to STOP others from what they are doing or believing.  There is nothing in this entire thread that suggests anything like this, but people keep attempting to bring it up, despite its irrelevance.    The only matter at issue is whether he should be forced by law to violate his own religious tenets in order to satisfy the demand of the customer for a wedding cake. 

 

I say that this is a violation of the First Amendment, but inexplicably, most here feel like this is perfectly acceptable. 

 

Be careful what you wish for.  What you want to protect in the exercise of your own beliefs could be stripped away next. 

 

We have now stated that currently politically acceptable religious tenets are protected by the First Amendment.   That is a scary place to be. 

[TranquilMind]

Or he can open Mr Bigot's Anti-Gay Wedding Cake Club. He can have an application process to make sure his religion can support the marriage and people can pay to join and receive one free wedding cake with membership. That would be perfectly legal. The law only deals with public accommodations.

 

eta lest anyone doubt the ability of such a club to make money hand over fist, a quote from a story on the Colorado baker (who opted to stop selling wedding cakes and stay open to the public):

The way you stated that makes clear your incredible bias and inability to look at both sides.

 

Instead, he could call it, "Traditional Marriage Cake Club", if he liked.   In fact, every single wedding-related business owned by a Christian could be forced to go private or out of business instead of doing "weddings" - but why?  Why the targeting of traditional Christian beliefs, while opposing views remain sacrosanct?     Why can't this baker and other bakers who still adhere to a scriptural basis of marriage be permitted to operate their business according to their faith, and others operate their businesses according to their own standards (religious, secular, Jehovah's Witness...whatever) ? 

 

That is as bigoted as anything I have read here. 

[Corraleno]

Well, I think we can rule out the shams, and stick with orthodox beliefs.  For example, no spiritual discipline contains a tenet that one must decline business with red haired people, as in my example.

 

So who gets to serve on the committee that determines whether someone's religious beliefs are "orthodox enough"? Government officials? Members of a few select religions? How does this further the cause of "freedom of religion" to restrict which religions count as "real"? Do you really want to go down that road???

 

 

 

Yes, and legitimate religions already do get a pass.

 

The Amish do not need to be photographed for a license because of their sincerely- held religious belief. Rightly so. 

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses decline blood transfusions because of a sincerely-held religious belief. 

 

I find it really interesting that Katie specifically asked about how this would apply to nonChristian religions, and yet your response only includes references to other Christians. What about Rastafarians? Pagans? Buddhists? Scientologists? Or would those religions be excluded by the Religious Validity Commission?

[zoobie]

The cake maker here (not talking about me) is prevented from following his own conscience on a matter of faith tenets, a clear violation of the First Amendment, if one ever existed. 

 

Again, for the ten thousandth time, NO ONE is advocating that the cake maker be able to STOP others from what they are doing or believing.  There is nothing in this entire thread that suggests anything like this, but people keep attempting to bring it up, despite its irrelevance.    The only matter at issue is whether he should be forced by law to violate his own religious tenets in order to satisfy the demand of the customer for a wedding cake. 

 

I say that this is a violation of the First Amendment, but inexplicably, most here feel like this is perfectly acceptable. 

 

Be careful what you wish for.  What you want to protect in the exercise of your own beliefs could be stripped away next. 

 

We have now stated that currently politically acceptable religious tenets are protected by the First Amendment.   That is a scary place to be. 

 

I can't believe I am typing this again. But. When you decide to run a business that is open to the public, you have to abide by the laws. These laws do not affect one's personal right to worship freely. They only govern the behavior of the BUSINESS. If one's inalienable right to be a bigot is more important to that person than the public business, the business owner is free to change his business model. The second amendment does not give you an inalienable right to run a business however the hell you want.

[Tanaqui]

Yes, and legitimate religions already do get a pass.

 

Now we've moved on to discussing only legitimate religions. Who, exactly, gets to decide which religions are and are not legitimate?

 

 

The Amish do not need to be photographed for a license because of their sincerely- held religious belief. Rightly so. 

 

That is an issue between them and the state, not them and other individuals. Totally different kettle of fish.

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses decline blood transfusions because of a sincerely-held religious belief.

 

And they only harm themselves in the process. Again, totally different kettle of fish - and the jury is still out on whether or not they can opt out of necessary transfusions for their minor children.

 

For example, no spiritual discipline contains a tenet that one must decline business with red haired people, as in my example.

 

Perhaps not, but I can think of at least one religion which says you must avoid contact with a certain class of "unclean" individuals. Why do you keep dodging this?

 

Well, I think we can rule out the shams, and stick with orthodox beliefs.

 

 

Who decides what is and is not orthodox? One person's orthodoxy is the next person's dire heresy.

 

Please reread.  Nowhere do I suggest that only my interpretation of the Bible is valid.  I do plainly say that a clear proscription against sexual behavior outside of marriage (defined by Jesus) in contained in the Bible, which is indeed true.

 

There are many Christians who disagree with you, who interpret those passages completely differently. I have linked to examples several times. I know I'm not on your ignore list, because you've replied to me since then. Why do you keep asserting that this is fact when it is only opinion?

 

For the thousandth time, no one is stating that secular laws must be based on MY faith.  No one has ever said this.

 

 

You keep talking about "orthodoxy". You have yet to explain how "orthodoxy" is determined, but you seem convinced that your views are it, at least with regards to Christianity. You also continually assert that "Christians" share your beliefs about same sex marriage, despite having been told repeatedly that many Christians do not. It's not a huge leap to assume that you believe you are the arbiter of what is and is not Christian.

 

In fact, every single wedding-related business owned by a Christian could be forced to go private or out of business instead of doing "weddings" - but why?

 

Only those Christians who share your views. Many Christians do not have that problem.

[Tanaqui]

The second amendment does not give you an inalienable right to run a business however the hell you want.

 

No, the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms and join a militia, though probably not a militia of armed bears.

 

I find it really interesting that Katie specifically asked about how this would apply to nonChristian religions, and yet your response only includes references to other Christians. What about Rastafarians? Pagans? Buddhists? Scientologists? Or would those religions be excluded by the Religious Validity Commission?

 

And notice the term 'legitimate' snuck in there. Are Muslims and Jews "legitimate"? Mormons? Members of the Baha'i faith? Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans? Yazidis, about whom we've heard so much lately? Alevis?  Zoroastarians? Gnostics Christians? Samaritans? Druze, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, Satanists, Shintoists, Vodoun practitioners, Taoists? Scientologists? Discordians? Mandaeans, Hare Krishnas?

 

(I'm updating this list as I remember more religious groups.)

 

 

[TranquilMind]

So who gets to serve on the committee that determines whether someone's religious beliefs are "orthodox enough"? Government officials? Members of a few select religions? How does this further the cause of "freedom of religion" to restrict which religions count as "real"? Do you really want to go down that road???

 

 

 

 

I find it really interesting that Katie specifically asked about how this would apply to nonChristian religions, and yet your response only includes references to other Christians. What about Rastafarians? Pagans? Buddhists? Scientologists? Or would those religions be excluded by the Religious Validity Commission?

Who is deciding it now? Because someone is.  Someone is changing the meaning of standards that used to be held in common.

 

I'd prefer to go down the road of individual liberty for all ANY day, then down the road proposed here, where all adhere to currently popular standards. 

 

If I show up in Mr. "I Hate Traditional Christians" store  and he tells me he doesn't make cakes for middle-aged, white, traditional Christians, I'll be on down the road, rolling my eyes.  That one guy is free not to take my business under the First Amendment.  Someone else will.  And we all have the power of the internet today, so we can leave reviews, hence, the ability to influence the market.  I just don't see the demand for heavy-handed conformity in the exercise of religious beliefs, as do some here. 

[Corraleno]

Again, for the ten thousandth time, NO ONE is advocating that the cake maker be able to STOP others from what they are doing or believing.  There is nothing in this entire thread that suggests anything like this, but people keep attempting to bring it up, despite its irrelevance.    The only matter at issue is whether he should be forced by law to violate his own religious tenets in order to satisfy the demand of the customer for a wedding cake.

 

I say that this is a violation of the First Amendment, but inexplicably, most here feel like this is perfectly acceptable. 

 

He was in no way FORCED to violate his beliefs. There is no law that would FORCE him to make a cake for a gay couple. No one is advocating anything that would prevent him from believing what he believes or practicing his religion.

 

But there is a law that says that if you offer a service to the public, you can't discriminate by refusing to provide that service to someone because of their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference. If you have a business, you have to follow the law. If following the law would mean violating your religious beliefs, then choose a business model that doesn't.

 

There is no law anywhere that guarantees every citizen the right to sell wedding cakes. There are laws that guarantee citizens the right not to be discriminated against by businesses that provide public accommodations.

[Tanaqui]

Who is deciding it now? Because someone is.  Someone is changing the meaning of standards that used to be held in common.

 

I'd prefer to go down the road of individual liberty for all ANY day, then down the road proposed here, where all adhere to currently popular standards.

 

Do you have no sense of irony? Do you not see how your first line and your second line don't match up at all? First you're complaining that we no longer all have the same definition of "marriage" - and then you're complaining that you don't want us all to have to "adhere to currently popular standards". But 50 years ago, when the currently popular standard was the one you agree with, that was all right?

 

If I show up in Mr. "I Hate Traditional Christians" store  and he tells me he doesn't make cakes for middle-aged, white, traditional Christians, I'll be on down the road, rolling my eyes.

 

Bully for you. And if I'm in that store, I'll be contacting the appropriate authorities so they can explain a few things to this person who wants to discriminate at will.

 

[TranquilMind]

Bisexuality is trendy? *facepalm*

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2003-12-30/news/0312300142_1_teen-girls-kiss-high-school-students

 

http://nymag.com/news/features/15589/

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201004/why-are-so-many-girls-lesbian-or-bisexual

[Vera]

Who is deciding it now? Because someone is. Someone is changing the meaning of standards that used to be held in common.

 

I'd prefer to go down the road of individual liberty for all ANY day, then down the road proposed here, where all adhere to currently popular standards.

 

If I show up in Mr. "I Hate Traditional Christians" store and he tells me he doesn't make cakes for middle-aged, white, traditional Christians, I'll be on down the road, rolling my eyes. That one guy is free not to take my business under the First Amendment. Someone else will. And we all have the power of the internet today, so we can leave reviews, hence, the ability to influence the market. I just don't see the demand for heavy-handed conformity in the exercise of religious beliefs, as do some here.

That would be OK with you because no one has ever discriminated against you. For those in a protected class, that type of discrimination is normal. When it happens often, it isn't so easy to just roll your eyes and walk away. Middle aged white people have spent their whole lives experiencing white privilege and we learn to think that that treatment is normal. It isn't normal at all.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

 

Bully for you. And if I'm in that store, I'll be contacting the appropriate authorities so they can explain a few things to this person who wants to discriminate at will.

That's the difference between us:

 

I'm fine with diversity of religious practice and belief on the part of a business owner.  Whatever.  I can find someone else.   Unless there IS no one else, I don't care (utility company with a monopoly over an area, for example). 

 

 

  You demand conformity in practice and will sue or contact the authorities to require it.   

[Joanne]

That's the difference between us:

 

I'm fine with diversity of religious practice and belief on the part of a business owner.  Whatever.  I can find someone else. 

 

 

  You demand conformity in practice and will sue or contact the authorities to require it.   

 

So, you are fine if a business owner won't engage with a married woman because according to the business owner's religion, the man is head of the house?

 

You are fine if the business owner won't serve couples in interracial marriages, based on the owner's religion?

 

You are fine if I refuse to treat a conservative religious couple based on my spirituality?

[CaffeineDiary]

That's the difference between us:

 

I'm fine with diversity of religious practice and belief on the part of a business owner.  Whatever.  I can find someone else.   Unless there IS no one else, I don't care. 

 

 

You are teetering on the very edge of an epiphany about what "privilege" is.

[Tanaqui]

You demand conformity in practice and will sue or contact the authorities to require it. 

 

You're the one who keeps stating that you feel religious protections should be in place for "orthodox" interpretations of "legitimate" religions.

 

I simply don't feel that people should have the right to unfairly discriminate against others. That's not how society operates. You keep hilariously asserting that you could just "go somewhere else", but not answering the question of "what if there IS nowhere else to go, because nobody in that area will sell to you?"

 

You say "until that happens, I don't care" - so, what then? Discrimination is fine so long as only a certain percentage of people discriminate, but then they get their - as you put it - "religious rights" revoked?

[*Lulu*]

I think some people must have greater faith in humanity and Christian goodness than I do.

 

History is littered with corpses whose deaths were a direct result of allowing people to indulge in the full expression of their individual liberty.

 

People, as a group, do not tend to naturally favor the "other" in treatment or consideration. The link in this ( http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/536125-the-parable-of-the-polygons-segregation-bias-and-society/) thread is an excellent demonstration of this.

 

Even good, God fearing Christians tend to behave in less than Christ like ways when given the chance to fill a vacuum in power.

 

The idea that the end of slavery or segregation, women's rights, would have come about by the goodness of human nature alone is mind boggling.

[Tanaqui]

Edit: Just a bit too snarky, I think. No posting on an empty stomach for me.

[ktgrok]

The cake maker here (not talking about me) is prevented from following his own conscience on a matter of faith tenets, a clear violation of the First Amendment, if one ever existed. 

 

Again, for the ten thousandth time, NO ONE is advocating that the cake maker be able to STOP others from what they are doing or believing.  There is nothing in this entire thread that suggests anything like this, but people keep attempting to bring it up, despite its irrelevance.    The only matter at issue is whether he should be forced by law to violate his own religious tenets in order to satisfy the demand of the customer for a wedding cake. 

 

I say that this is a violation of the First Amendment, but inexplicably, most here feel like this is perfectly acceptable. 

 

Be careful what you wish for.  What you want to protect in the exercise of your own beliefs could be stripped away next. 

 

We have now stated that currently politically acceptable religious tenets are protected by the First Amendment.   That is a scary place to be. 

Once again, you didn't answer the question. If a cake maker feels it is against his religious beliefs to provide cake for an interracial wedding, is that ok with you? Should it be legal? Yes, the one person was born black, but he's choosing to marry a white person, that is an action, not an immutable characteristic. So don't pull the "it's different' card please.

 

Or, if a cake baker decides he will no longer provide cakes for Catholic weddings, because the Pope is the antichrist, and promoting a Catholic sacrament would be against his religion, is that ok with you, and should it be legal?

 

Finally this thread was about the FRC, and they do want to stop people from doing things. So the cake thing is really a tangent anyway. Yes, people are trying to stop others from getting married, based on religion. 

[Corraleno]

Do you have no sense of irony? Do you not see how your first line and your second line don't match up at all? First you're complaining that we no longer all have the same definition of "marriage" - and then you're complaining that you don't want us all to have to "adhere to currently popular standards". But 50 years ago, when the currently popular standard was the one you agree with, that was all right?

 

That's pretty much what it comes down to, isn't it? 

 

Not to mention the fact that it's completely false that "only currently acceptable religious tenets are protected by the first amendment." ALL religious beliefs are protected. The right to believe what you want and practice any religion you want is protected — not just the "orthodox" beliefs of "legitimate" religions. TranquilMind is the only one who seems to feel that there should be a distinction between "orthodox, legitimate" religions, whose members deserve the right to discriminate against anyone they choose, and members of other religions, who shouldn't have that right.

[ktgrok]

Who is deciding it now? Because someone is.  Someone is changing the meaning of standards that used to be held in common.

 

I'd prefer to go down the road of individual liberty for all ANY day, then down the road proposed here, where all adhere to currently popular standards. 

 

If I show up in Mr. "I Hate Traditional Christians" store  and he tells me he doesn't make cakes for middle-aged, white, traditional Christians, I'll be on down the road, rolling my eyes.  That one guy is free not to take my business under the First Amendment.  Someone else will.  And we all have the power of the internet today, so we can leave reviews, hence, the ability to influence the market.  I just don't see the demand for heavy-handed conformity in the exercise of religious beliefs, as do some here. 

 

So a sign that says "No Jews served" would be fine with you, and should be legal?  Or "No Catholics"? Cause both those have happened in the past, and would again, in a heartbeat. Not to mention how many businesses would be "No Muslims Allowed".

[Joanne]

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2003-12-30/news/0312300142_1_teen-girls-kiss-high-school-students

 

http://nymag.com/news/features/15589/

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201004/why-are-so-many-girls-lesbian-or-bisexual

 

Sexual *behavior* does not necessarily correlate with *orientation*.

 

Teens experiment.

 

IMO, any discussion about increased same - sex activity that leaves out discussion of it as influenced at least in part by the patriarchy found in porn, is incomplete.

 

While I support consensual expression of sexuality, I think the girl-on-girl focus is at least in part influenced by the interest men have regarding women having same-sex relations.