S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

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

 

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

 

LOL.  Anti-discrimination laws do not require businesses to offer any good requested.

 

If I go into a kosher deli, I cannot say they discriminated against me if they don't serve me a BLT, as they don't serve BLTs to anyone.  If they refused to serve me lox because I am not Jewish, then that would be discrimination.

 

Really. This isn't hard.  Treat all customers the same.

[EmseB]

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

 

If a business is fined or shut down by the government for whatever reason, it is done so by force (men with guns do it).  That is the enforcement mechanism behind almost any law that is passed.  As we've seen, this mechanism can be applied for enforcing almost any law, including simply selling cigarettes illegally.  If there was no force or threat of force involved, then the law wouldn't matter.

 

Unless you're saying a law that requires businesses to cater events would be impotent?  No one would enforce it?

[Tanaqui]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Wait. I hate* the Duggars and everything they stand for. If they post a picture on their facebook, it'll look like I condone their lifestyle. Shouldn't I be able to kick them out of my store? What if I'm a gay member of the voluntary human extinction movement? Should I be able to refuse service to anybody who has more than one child (adopted children not counting)?

 

* Not quiiiiiiite, but I have some serious concerns about how they chose to raise their children, but let's pretend I do so this argument makes sense.

 

[TranquilMind]

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

 

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

 

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

Agreed.  Clearly,we are in the minority of those who respect the rights of all viewpoints, not just culturally popular ones.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Frances]

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

In states where sexual orientation is a protected class, the business has agreed to abide by the rules of the state when it began offering services to the public. So that is why the state would act to enforce the law in those cases (force them in your words). In states where people are still trying to change the law to make sexual orientation a protected class, suing is a time honored way of trying to change the law.

 

Depending on where you live, there isn't always a different place to go for services. That's the same argument that was used in the past by businesses that wanted to discriminate based on race or religion. And why should gay couples have to figure out who will or will not be happy to make them a wedding cake by going around to different bakers and being rejected or accepted?

[Tanaqui]

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

 

And if there is no other baker?

 

If you're dead set on selectively selling cakes, then provide them only to members of a private club. Then you won't be required to follow non-discrimination laws.

 

[TranquilMind]

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

 

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

Completely inappropriate parallel, but you know that already.

 

You are comparing apples (inherent physical trait, not mutable) to oranges (the behavior someone engages in - not visible, quite mutable as we see in today's culture). 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And if there is no other baker?

 

If you're dead set on selectively selling cakes, then provide them only to members of a private club. Then you won't be required to follow non-discrimination laws.

 

But then they can't make a point of telling gays they won't make them a cake!

[Tanaqui]

Agreed.  Clearly,we are in the minority of those who respect the rights of all viewpoints, not just culturally popular ones.

 

LOL. You said that other people aren't really married if they're not married in your church with your beliefs. That doesn't sound very respectful to me. And you aren't consistent, either - you don't respect the "right" to reject interracial couples, for example, and have been stunningly silent on the right to reject divorcees.

[TranquilMind]

And if there is no other baker?

 

If you're dead set on selectively selling cakes, then provide them only to members of a private club. Then you won't be required to follow non-discrimination laws.

That's one idea, but too bad that you would have to resort to that, just to continue selling wedding cakes for weddings, as you have done for the past 50 years. 

[LucyStoner]

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

 

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

 

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

Most wedding products are not venues.

 

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 the 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.

 

And your example is even more tenuous for most wedding vendors who just deliver the cake or chair rentals and go...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Completely inappropriate parallel, but you know that already.

 

You are comparing apples (inherent physical trait, not mutable) to oranges (the behavior someone engages in - not visible, quite mutable as we see in today's culture). 

 

It isn't.  Segregationists made religious arguments against race mixing.  You just deflect it because you know it wrecks your argument.

 

And "got to a different business" was exactly what segregationists said.

 

Oh, and by the way...homosexuality is not a choice and is more akin to your apples.  Even if it was an orange, religion is also an orange and religion is a protected class as well.

[Tanaqui]

You are comparing apples (inherent physical trait, not mutable) to oranges (the behavior someone engages in - not visible, quite mutable as we see in today's culture).

 

Having a romantic relationship with an individual of another race is an act, not an inherent physical trait.

 

[TeacherZee]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ax96cghOnY4

[TranquilMind]

LOL. You said that other people aren't really married if they're not married in your church with your beliefs. That doesn't sound very respectful to me. And you aren't consistent, either - you don't respect the "right" to reject interracial couples, for example, and have been stunningly silent on the right to reject divorcees.

I never said ANY such thing.  Quit putting words in my mouth.

 

They are married if the government says they are married, for legal purposes.  

 

That does not automatically translate into forcing all business owners to accept all business that comes their way, denying them the right to refuse business that violates their scriptural beliefs, if they choose. 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Less easy. Michael Jackson changed his skin color, after all, so it CAN be done.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

First, who is talking about men with guns or physical violence at the hands of the state?  :confused1:  Do you live in Russia? Is that how you're envisioning activists handling this problem? We're talking here about lawsuits and articles and negative publicity and yes, possible business closings. I think your vision of violent pro-gay marriage protesters says a lot more more about your feelings on the subject than mine. Would you like to talk more about that? Actually, have you ever even met anyone who is pro-gay marriage?! 

 

Second, if you don't see how the two issues are equivalent, than I have little hope that you understand the issues at all. 

 

Your original post said: 

 

"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?"

 

Again, I'm not sure where the violence part comes from, since no one's thrown any molotov cocktails at any wedding bakeries as far as I know. My point is that you don't even realize that you, as a woman, have benefited from exactly the bolded, above. And at the time the lawsuits were being brought and the protests and petitions were happening and laws were being changed so that women COULD have their own bank accounts and buy their own cars and so on, those who didn't want the laws changed cited scripture and morality, JUST AS THEY ARE NOW, in their attempts to prevent the laws from changing.

 

In spite of the morality and scripture arguments, those who needed and wanted the laws changed kept on fighting until they reached their goals and society began to view women as independent entities with their own rights, equal to those of the rights of members of the male sex. Now, not only are laws in place to protect women, but when an institution tries to implement policies that discriminate against women and the public gets wind of it, the public backlash is usually so large that the Gestapo intervention that you're envisioning isn't even needed.

 

It should be hard for you, as a woman, to argue that other groups of people, whomever they may be, shouldn't have the same right to petition and publicly organize, bring lawsuits and publicity, and attempt to change the laws so that they receive equal rights under the law to whatever group they believe has the rights they also deserve.

 

I can't make it any clearer. If you still don't understand the parallel, I don't know what else to say. 

[Tanaqui]

They are married if the government says they are married, for legal purposes.

 

 

But you keep talking about "scriptural" marriage. If you are okay with legal marriages, then same-sex marriages shouldn't be in issue in many states at all.

 

[EmseB]

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

 

And those people who didn't see any issues with it also did not see any issues with using the government to enforce their views on the entire populace of the state.  It's crazy to me that people can't see the exact same pitfalls happening with what they are advocating for in this thread.  If we use the government to make businesses do something that agrees with our ideals, surely nothing can go wrong there!

[TranquilMind]

Most wedding products are not venues.

 

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.

 

And your example is even more tenuous for most wedding vendors who just delver the cake or chairt rentals and go...

There is no scriptural basis that states that marriage before age 25 is not a marriage.  This is nonsensical.    Stick to scriptural proscriptions if you are going to argue them. 

[Tanaqui]

There is no scriptural basis that states that marriage before age 25 is not a marriage.  This is nonsensical.    Stick to scriptural proscriptions if you are going to argue them.

 

There are many religions, and they have many beliefs regarding marriage, including the correct age for marriage. New religions are developing all the time, and new offshoots to religions. Are you suggesting that the only religious views that matter are those that use your holy book?

 

[Veritaserum]

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

Yes. Keeping my daughter alive and mentally healthy are things that I have to work at harder than parents of hetero/cis kids could ever realize. She was suicidal due to the "innocuous" (according to school officials) questions, comments, and treatment she received from other students and sometimes staff. When I suggested to her school counselor that education is needed at that school regarding LGBT issues, he said the parents wouldn't allow it. Because, I assume, it would be seen as the school "promoting the gay agenda." So much better to let LGBT kids suffer and die, apparently. It's more convenient to the majority if they cease to exist.

 

I am very worried about the other LGBT kids at that school and in the community at large. Many of them aren't out to their parents because of the very valid fear of rejection. They have no advocates at home, at school, at church, or in the community. They are constantly bombarded with messages that they are flawed, broken, undeserving of rights and families. In the name of God!

[Frances]

If a business is fined or shut down by the government for whatever reason, it is done so by force (men with guns do it).  That is the enforcement mechanism behind almost any law that is passed.  As we've seen, this mechanism can be applied for enforcing almost any law, including simply selling cigarettes illegally.  If there was no force or threat of force involved, then the law wouldn't matter.

 

Unless you're saying a law that requires businesses to cater events would be impotent?  No one would enforce it?

When businesses in my state were fined for refusing to follow public accommodation laws, the police were not involved. They didn't even start with fines, but tried education and arbitration first. And my state agency regularly fines businesses with no police or guns involved. I think the threat of financial penalties is often sufficient in many cases. When I get a parking ticket, I don't think about the police with guns coming after me if I don't pay it in a timely manner. I think about the fine increasing and the unpaid bill possibly being sent to a collection agency and negatively affecting my credit rating. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And those people who didn't see any issues with it also did not see any issues with using the government to enforce their views on the entire populace of the state.  It's crazy to me that people can't see the exact same pitfalls happening with what they are advocating for in this thread.  If we use the government to make businesses do something that agrees with our ideals, surely nothing can go wrong there!

 

The stated ideals of the US include the belief we have all been created equally, and we all deserve to be treated equally in the public sphere,  While we have not always lived up to those ideals as a nation, we are (very) slowly getting there.

 

I have no problem stating that yes, I do believe everyone should be treated the same, regardless of their race, sex, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.  Oddly enough, I see no pitfalls in asking business and government agencies to uphold the idea of equality.  I do see massive pitfalls in not doing so.

[LucyStoner]

There is no scriptural basis that states that marriage before age 25 is not a marriage. This is nonsensical. Stick to scriptural proscriptions if you are going to argue them.

Your scripture isn't more valid than anyone else's. Should a Muslim owned business be able to discriminate against you because you are Christian? I could take a page out of L Ron Hubbard's book and start a religion with any sort of text I decide as sacred.

 

People could find plenty of scriptural reasons in various religions to discriminate. None of them are valid because we don't live in a theocracy.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes. Keeping my daughter alive and mentally healthy are things that I have to work at harder than parents of hetero/cis kids could ever realize. She was suicidal due to the "innocuous" (according to school officials) questions, comments, and treatment she received from other students and sometimes staff. When I suggested to her school counselor that education is needed at that school regarding LGBT issues, he said the parents wouldn't allow it. Because, I assume, it would be seen as the school "promoting the gay agenda." So much better to let LGBT kids suffer and die, apparently. It's more convenient to the majority if they cease to exist.

 

I am very worried about the other LGBT kids at that school and in the community at large. Many of them aren't out to their parents because of the very valid fear of rejection. They have no advocates at home, at school, at church, or in the community. They are constantly bombarded with messages that they are flawed, broken, undeserving of rights and families. In the name of God!

 

I personally believe if Jesus were here to see how some alleged "Christians" treat his children he would drop a boom switch on some folks that would go beyond upending a few tables in a Temple.

 

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another"

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

If we use the government to make businesses do something that agrees with our ideals, surely nothing can go wrong there!

 

So we're back to...business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, anytime they want? Is that truly the world you want to go back to? That's the world you want your children living in? Business should be allowed to not hire your daughter because she might, possibly, someday have a baby and be less productive for them and even..gasp!...cost them money in maternity benefits? An insurance company should not be required to provide healthcare to your son because he has some kind of unfortunate pre-existing condition? The hourly job your daughter works in college can require her to work 60 hours a week with no overtime pay involved, and if she complains, she gets fired? Your DH's employer should be allowed to fire him because he prays at his desk over his lunch? There should be no protection for him in that area? 

 

Is this really what you believe? Do you not believe that enforcing these business requirements is forcing businesses to do something that agrees with our ideals?

[Frances]

 

People could find plenty of scriptural reasons in various religions to discriminate. None of them are valid because we don't live in a theocracy.

One like is not enough for this.

[LucyStoner]

Completely inappropriate parallel, but you know that already.

 

You are comparing apples (inherent physical trait, not mutable) to oranges (the behavior someone engages in - not visible, quite mutable as we see in today's culture).

Religion is also a behavior and is a choice. I can for instance convert to Islam or Orthodox Christianity if I choose.

 

Should an auto dealership be allowed to refuse to sell you a car because it is their religious belief that women should not leave their homes or drive?

[elegantlion]

Christ would weep.

 

Matthrew 7:1-3 

 

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 

 

Judging and casting stones is what a business does when they refuse to provide service to gay couple simply based upon  appearance. Perhaps if they named the business "judging and casting stones" it could be a signal to everyone that they really weren't the place to do business. 

Jesus did not come so that we could be judges and throw stones at each other. 

 

[TranquilMind]

But you keep talking about "scriptural" marriage. If you are okay with legal marriages, then same-sex marriages shouldn't be in issue in many states at all.

Does that mean that business owners have no right to decline, based upon their religious beliefs that limit marriage to traditional marriage?  I say no.  You say yes, and would force them. 

[Scarlett]

In my small home town is a restaurant owned by a man who HATES ( quite vocally) my religion. Oddly enough none of the members of said religion ever eat at his restaurant. But there is no organized protest or official denouncement of his place of business....no FB chain to out him as a hater....we just avoid him.

 

So I just can't imagine trying to FORCE him to serve me if he refused. Even though of course religion is a legally protected group. Now if he was in charge of the water service in town...yeah, we would have to deal with him. But it is a restaurant. We just go elsewhere or go home.

[TranquilMind]

Christ would weep.

 

Matthrew 7:1-3 

 

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 

 

Judging and casting stones is what a business does when they refuse to provide service to gay couple simply based upon  appearance. Perhaps if they named the business "judging and casting stones" it could be a signal to everyone that they really weren't the place to do business. 

Jesus did not come so that we could be judges and throw stones at each other. 

Who is "judging"?  Who is condemning anyone to eternity in hell?  No one, that I can see.

I see people examining the parameter of religious beliefs as an exercise.  Maybe that's just me though, and others are judging and condemning others to hell.  I don't know. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Religion is also a behavior and is a choice. I can for instance convert to Islam or Orthodox Christianity if I choose.

 

Should an auto dealership be allowed to refuse to sell you a car because it is their religious belief that women should not leave their homes or drive?

 

Or private schools or universities begin refusing to admit women because they believe women do not need higher education? Or businesses refuse to hire women because they are traditionally more expensive in terms of health benefits and overall employee costs? You know, what with the childbearing and breastfeeding and all.

 

I am honestly flabbergasted at what I am reading here. Dumbfounded at how some people can be so clueless about the privileges they have that would vanish entirely if this perfect world they imagine actually came to be. 

[TranquilMind]

In my small home town is a restaurant owned by a man who HATES ( quite vocally) my religion. Oddly enough none of the members of said religion ever eat at his restaurant. But there is no organized protest or official denouncement of his place of business....no FB chain to out him as a hater....we just avoid him.

 

So I just can't imagine trying to FORCE him to serve me if he refused. Even though of course religion is a legally protected group. Now if he was in charge of the water service in town...yeah, we would have to deal with him. But it is a restaurant. We just go elsewhere or go home.

Exactly.  Finally, a voice of reason. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

In my small home town is a restaurant owned by a man who HATES ( quite vocally) my religion. Oddly enough none of the members of said religion ever eat at his restaurant. But there is no organized protest or official denouncement of his place of business....no FB chain to out him as a hater....we just avoid him.

 

So I just can't imagine trying to FORCE him to serve me if he refused. Even though of course religion is a legally protected group. Now if he was in charge of the water service in town...yeah, we would have to deal with him. But it is a restaurant. We just go elsewhere or go home.

 

That's completely your prerogative. I would choose to be the change I wish to see in the world. 

[EmseB]

First, who is talking about men with guns or physical violence at the hands of the state?  :confused1:  Do you live in Russia? Is that how you're envisioning activists handling this problem? We're talking here about lawsuits and articles and negative publicity and yes, possible business closings. I think your vision of violent pro-gay marriage protesters says a lot more more about your feelings on the subject than mine. Would you like to talk more about that? Actually, have you ever even met anyone who is pro-gay marriage?! 

 

 

I'm not talking about activists.  I don't have a violent vision of pro-gay marriage protestors.  I haven't even mentioned any of this in the context of gay marriage, I'm talking about any event in general, or personalization of products being sold.  I can't tell if you are confusing me with another poster, or if you're deliberately being obtuse about the scenarios I've presented.  At any rate:  I'm talking about laws being passed and I'm talking about enforcement of said laws.

 

A business refuses to cater an event.  Let's say the penalty is a fine.  The business owner refuses to pay the fine, or he can't afford it.  A warrant is then put out for his arrest because his fine went unpaid, or a lien is put against his business.  After that, he is physically forced to go to jail.  If he resists in any way, he will probably at least be beaten.  How is that not violent?  How are you possibly construing the idea of law enforcement with anything I might have to say about pro-gay marriage protestors or consumer activists?

 

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, it happens every day.  It is how the government enforces laws.  You pass a law in order to put the full force of government behind an idea or moral that you want enforced.  If you want a law passed saying that a baker must make a cake for any religious event, then you are in effect saying you want the threat of force used to make sure he does it.

 

I am absolutely 100% okay with consumer activism, boycotting, etc.  That is much different than having the state enforce a law.  If you talk about consumer activism and government shutdown of businesses as if they are remotely equivalent, then I agree, we're at an impasse, because the two things are so totally different.

[TranquilMind]

Or private schools or universities begin refusing to admit women because they believe women do not need higher education? Or businesses refuse to hire women because they are traditionally more expensive in terms of health benefits and overall employee costs? You know, what with the childbearing and breastfeeding and all.

 

I am honestly flabbergasted at what I am reading here. Dumbfounded at how some people can be so clueless about the privileges they have that would vanish entirely if this perfect world they imagine actually came to be. 

Again, you are extending into areas that are not scriptural proscriptions, which is the extent of my argument.    You are branching out into arguments of prejudice, not proscription.  Not applicable. 

[Tanaqui]

In my small home town is a restaurant owned by a man who HATES ( quite vocally) my religion. Oddly enough none of the members of said religion ever eat at his restaurant. But there is no organized protest or official denouncement of his place of business....no FB chain to out him as a hater....we just avoid him.

 

So I just can't imagine trying to FORCE him to serve me if he refused. Even though of course religion is a legally protected group. Now if he was in charge of the water service in town...yeah, we would have to deal with him. But it is a restaurant. We just go elsewhere or go home.

 

Wait, is he actually refusing to serve members of your religion?

 

[TranquilMind]

I'm not talking about activists.  I don't have a violent vision of pro-gay marriage protestors.  I haven't even mentioned any of this in the context of gay marriage, I'm talking about any event in general, or personalization of products being sold.  I can't tell if you are confusing me with another poster, or if you're deliberately being obtuse about the scenarios I've presented.  At any rate:  I'm talking about laws being passed and I'm talking about enforcement of said laws.

 

A business refuses to cater an event.  Let's say the penalty is a fine.  The business owner refuses to pay the fine, or he can't afford it.  A warrant is then put out for his arrest because his fine went unpaid, or a lien is put against his business.  After that, he is physically forced to go to jail.  If he resists in any way, he will probably at least be beaten.  How is that not violent?  How are you possibly construing the idea of law enforcement with anything I might have to say about pro-gay marriage protestors or consumer activists?

 

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, it happens every day.  It is how the government enforces laws.  You pass a law in order to put the full force of government behind an idea or moral that you want enforced.  If you want a law passed saying that a baker must make a cake for any religious event, then you are in effect saying you want the threat of force used to make sure he does it.

 

I am absolutely 100% okay with consumer activism, boycotting, etc.  That is much different than having the state enforce a law.  If you talk about consumer activism and government shutdown of businesses as if they are remotely equivalent, then I agree, we're at an impasse, because the two things are so totally different.

Exactly.  Why is this unclear?

[Joker]

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

 

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

 

Horrible treatment of those who identify as anything other than straight happen in even the most diverse schools. Oldest dd attends a magnet school for the arts and there are many students and teachers who openly identify as gay, bi, or trans. Yet, often when she is eating lunch with her friends (which includes some of those students who identify as other than straight) there are others who come up to them and say horrible things to their faces. This is a school that definitely doesn't tolerate that kind of garbage but students still try to get away with it. Fortunately, one must audition and be accepted to enroll and it's quite easy to kick the trouble makers out.

[Mrs Mungo]

You are completely correct. I misspoke because I am trying to express the internal perspective of other people. I meant to make it clear that to the person, in their *experience* (meaning, their lifetime, in their home culture, in their language) "marriage" is a word that has 'always' had a specific, real meaning (for their whole life, so far).

 

I definitely know that the civil sense of marriage predates the Christian concept of a sacrament as far as human history.

 

However, I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to do. The "argument" I am making is that *people exist* who think these things. Since the people do exist, and they do think these things (or at least, they have told me they do) my "argument" is completely secure.

 

If you would like to understand these people better, and work together with them to help society (or at least get them to stop trying to stop other people from helping society) I can help with that. If you are looking for an "argument" you will have to direct your attention to CW.

 

(For myself, I pretty much think that civil contract style marriage is the best for everyone, and that religious people can embroider sacramentalism onto it on their own time. I just think having a special name for their-marriage-plus-sacrament idea might help them handle it better.)

Let me rephrase. The people who believe that marriage has always been a sacrament are dead wrong. There have always been marriages that existed outside of the Christian religion and/or religion at large. There has never been a time when all marriages were based upon a religious sacrament.

 

I was married in a church. I believe that my marriage is a religious sacrament. I can recognize the cold-stone fact that other marriages had nothing to do with Christianity or religion.

 

I lived in Europe for 5 years. Everyone has to go down to the court house for their legal marriage, then they choose whether to have some other religious ceremony and/or party in addition. I would be fine with people doing that in the US. But, there is no special name for those who host an extraneous party and/or religious ceremony. That is how it should be, IMO.

 

 

 

You mean like targeting and putting your opponents out of business because you don't like their religious beliefs?   You mean silencing all viewpoints but your own in venues like college campuses?  You might think that is cool, but I don't.  I'm willing to listen to anyone who is presenting a viewpoint respectfully.

Boycotting a company does not silence their POV. They can say whatever they want. But, having public political opinions comes with consequences. This applies on BOTH sides of the political aisle. When Tim Robbins complained *on television* that his anti-war stance was being silenced and his first amendment rights violated because the baseball hall of fame canceled the anniversary celebration of Bull Durham, I complained about that because it is dead wrong. The BHoF is a private entity and can do what it wants. It doesn't have to give anyone a platform for a political opinion. BUT, the BHoF cannot decide not to enter black players because that would be illegal. There are protected classes for a reason. No, I don't think people should have the right to discriminate when they are doing business with the public. I shouldn't have to figure out if a place will serve me before I enter. It wouldn't be right to humiliate groups of people that way.

 

 

 

Analogy does not work.  Segregation is not an established scriptural mandate anywhere.  In fact, Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman.  That is an issue of systemic prejudice within a culture but not a religious belief.

A church I attended as a teen/young college student bought a new Sunday school curriculum when I was a freshman in college. It *specifically* talked about "Biblical" reasons that blacks and whites shouldn't date/why interracial marriage was wrong. The teachers clearly had not reviewed the lesson before class because they seemed surprised by the lesson. The youth minister at the time was married to a woman from Vietnam. But, the interracial nature of the church was changing faster than they curriculum provided by the larger church body could keep up with, even in small town Oklahoma.

 

 

You do have to follow the law, and sell your cakes to people who are "getting married" if they want to buy them, or take your photos of "weddings".  However, that is not the question at all, as no business owner is suddenly refusing to do weddings.  They are being forced to perform wedding services for something that cannot constitute a wedding/marriage according to their scriptures and religious teachings, and that (now) minority should be free to do that.

1) It's not true that Christians are a minority in the US. That's not true at all. 2) Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have choices. They can provide equal services to people and not discriminate against protected classes or they can choose not to be in business or they can become a private club of sorts that people have to pay to join. The only thing they can't do is operate a public business *and* discriminate.

 

 

There's always another florist, baker, or photographer around the corner who is happy to do it.

This just isn't true. It certainly wouldn't be true in large swaths of the country, if people were allowed to discriminate for such reasons.

 

 

BS.

 

The First Amendment IS the law of the land.  Unfortunately, it is being curtailed to serve the interests of liberal viewpoints only.  That is the hypocrisy you cannot see.

 

This isn't true at all. The ACLU fights for both conservative and liberal organizations and people.

 

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

 

 

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

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

They would probably have a better argument, if they were checking out every hetero wedding to make sure it was a scripturally sound, "real" wedding. They weren't. So, they don't have a leg to stand on, IMO.

[Veritaserum]

Who is "judging"? Who is condemning anyone to eternity in hell? No one, that I can see.

I see people examining the parameter of religious beliefs as an exercise. Maybe that's just me though, and others are judging and condemning others to hell. I don't know.

Discrimination against LGBT and judging them as unworthy of rights or even basic politeness condemn them to hell on earth.

[Amira]

In my small home town is a restaurant owned by a man who HATES ( quite vocally) my religion. Oddly enough none of the members of said religion ever eat at his restaurant. But there is no organized protest or official denouncement of his place of business....no FB chain to out him as a hater....we just avoid him.

 

So I just can't imagine trying to FORCE him to serve me if he refused. Even though of course religion is a legally protected group. Now if he was in charge of the water service in town...yeah, we would have to deal with him. But it is a restaurant. We just go elsewhere or go home.

 

What if someone new to your town who didn't know about this owner's sorry prejudices tried to eat there and was refused?  Do you think he should be able to do that? Would he actually do that?

 

You are certainly free to avoid that restaurant, but no one else should be under that obligation.  And if he truly would refuse to serve someone whose religion he didn't like, then it would be reasonable to do something about it because that is wrong.

 

I still regret that I didn't do anything years ago when I my landlord said she wouldn't rent to people who "sounded black."  

[TranquilMind]

That's completely your prerogative. I would choose to be the change I wish to see in the world. 

So you would target him and try to force him out of business?  Sue him, and get the ACLU involved? 

 

I'd spend my time on more fruitful pursuits. 

[Tanaqui]

Does that mean that business owners have no right to decline, based upon their religious beliefs that limit marriage to traditional marriage?  I say no.  You say yes, and would force them.

 

What if their beliefs state that two disabled people shouldn't get married? What if they belong to a religion (clearly not yours, so let's not start that nonsense up again) that says that biracial couples shouldn't marry? Or divorcees (which IS part of your religion, so put up or shut up)?

 

You've tried to weasel out of answering those before. Stop it. And please - answer some of the other more difficult questions that have been presented to you. I know it's a long thread. If you've lost track, I can quote them all in one mega-comment so you can explain why you keep bringing up "scripture" when we talk about "religion", or why you stated that Christians don't break other laws because of their religion when clearly many Christians do.

 

I'd spend my time on more fruitful pursuits.

 

Fruitful, like spending hours and hours on the internet telling us all not to look for legal recourse against discrimination?

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Again, you are extending into areas that are not scriptural proscriptions, which is the extent of my argument.    You are branching out into arguments of prejudice, not proscription.  Not applicable. 

 

They are for some religions and denominations. 

[EmseB]

 

Should an auto dealership be allowed to refuse to sell you a car because it is their religious belief that women should not leave their homes or drive?

 

Why would I care?  In America, why would I care?  I would go down to the next car dealership that would take my money.  In fact, I'd really like to know if there is someone who doesn't want to sell me a car because I'm a woman because I would really like to not give him my money.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So you would target him and try to force him out of business?  Sue him, and get the ACLU involved? 

 

I'd spend my time on more fruitful pursuits. 

 

I find fighting discrimination and making bigots uncomfortable quite fruitful.  Frankly it is downright enjoyable.