S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't sell cakes.  I do not know how much information they ask, but presume that most cakes are simply sold over the counter, or requested on the basis of size.  But yeah, if someone tells me he is buying a cake for his mistress, so don't tell his wife, who regularly buys donuts from me, I'm going to tell him no.

Which, you are allowed to do because adulterers aren't in a protected class. Keeping secrets isn't an obligation required by the government.

 

On the other hand, you (general you, not you specifically) could open a private club called the "Catholic Bakers Club." You could have everyone sign an agreement that they will only engage in activities-weddings, baptisms, confirmations, etc that are approved and made sacraments by the Catholic Church. THAT would be legal.

 

What you *cannot* do is have an open to the public business in which you randomly discriminate against weddings you disagree with some of the time (but you aren't doing it all of the time because you are NOT screening each wedding, questioning them on their virginity, etc). The key here is being open to the public.

[TranquilMind]

Because the religious beliefs of the owner don't allow him to pick and choose which laws he will follow.

If the law contradicts his scriptural law, there is an issue of religious freedom that cannot be ignored while we still retain the First Amendment (which, I fear, is quickly on its way out). 

[EmseB]

OK, if that's how you want to discuss, then address my questions to you from my previous post:

 

 

 

Do you believe that business should not be subject to laws like the ones I mentioned above here? OSHA regulations? Child labor laws?

 

I'm truly asking. 

 

A little demanding, no?  And I answered you earlier.  There's a difference between those things and demanding that a baker write something on a cake that goes against their conscience.  There's a difference between those things and catering to an event that promotes something you fundamentally disagree with.  No, I shouldn't be allowed to employ 12yo's in sweatshops.  No, I shouldn't be able to disregard the safety of my employees.  I'm not sure, however, why that would mean that I should be compelled to write WBC's famous slogan on a cake I bake because it's their religion.  I'm not sure what those things have to do with me being forced to cater a bris and serve food during a ceremony I find completely and totally immoral.

 

Like I said, we're at an impasse because you want to compare apples and oranges, and then call me an anarchist when I disagree that they are different circumstances or issues.  There are laws I agree with, and laws I disagree with.  Disagreeing with some doesn't mean I want to get rid of all of them.  I'm not sure why you think it does.

[TranquilMind]

Which, you are allowed to do because adulterers aren't in a protected class. Keeping secrets isn't an obligation required by the government.

No, they aren't a protected class, but they are in the same category scripturally, as proscribed behaviors. 

[Joanne]

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

 

 

If a rental or real estate agent won't rent or sell in certain neighborhoods to Asians, or AA or hispanics, their license should be revoked.

 

The woman a few years back who, as a graduate student, stated she would not treat gays for marriage therapy should have been (and was) kicked out of her *secular* program.

 

If I refuse to treat conservative religious people based on their conservative religion, I am against the ethics I agreed to and should be reported.

 

"Threat of force to shut the business down" is inaccurate.

 

Using administrative means to shut the business down is more accurate.

[Tanaqui]

There are TWO SIDES to this issue; that is my entire point. 

 

No. What you said, your exact words, were

 

No, you don't get to hitch your wagon to the Civil Rights movement.  That's cheap.  I know that it is routinely done, but it is a great offense to all those who actually fought the real civil rights movement.

 

You went and you said that calling gay rights civil rights is a "great offense" to "all" those who actually fought in the "real" civil rights movement (scare quotes all mine).

 

You lied outright. It's not a great offense to all those who fought in the civil rights movement. That is an abhorrent thing to say, and factually untrue when many of those who did so continue to fight for gay rights and agree that gay rights ARE civil rights.

 

And then you lied again by claiming you said something utterly different. It's the internet. Your words don't vanish into thin air once spoken.

 

[Amira]

If the law contradicts his scriptural law, there is an issue of religious freedom that cannot be ignored while we still retain the First Amendment (which, I fear, is quickly on its way out). 

 

And I'll ask you again, do you really want people to not obey civil laws if they claim they violate their scriptural laws?  Does that not seem like it could create a large number of problems? 

[Whereneverever]

Should churches be able to refuse to perform gay weddings? They act as agents of the state and fill out legal documents are part of religious marriage services. 

[justasque]

Do Christians who believe in traditional marriage also have the right to work in that community without being threatened by those who have redefined the meaning of marriage?  Then we're good.

 

Everyone has the right to work without being physically threatened.

 

Everyone has the right to decide whether or not to patronize a particular business.  They can base that decision on whatever they want, including the religious or political views of the business owners, their business actions, their financial donations, and so on. 

 

 Folks can either boycott or make a point of patronizing businesses in an attempt to either put them out of business or to make sure they (financially) survive a boycott attempt from a rival group.

 

If a business is breaking the law, including the public accommodations law, then they can expect to be held accountable, and the (financial) consequences might inhibit their ability to do business in the future.  

 

When bakers and other wedding providers have felt their business was "forced to shut down", it was usually because the business owner realized that there would be both fines and possibly loss of customers should they continue to refuse to do business with same-sex couples, which would financially ruin the company.  The other choice would be to comply with the law, which they felt was personally unacceptable.  So, given that complying was not, for them, a moral choice, they felt "forced" to choose to shut down.  I have not seen a single case where the authorities used or threatened physical force or violence.

 

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. I may be misunderstanding what you're saying. Can you give an example of a situation where Christians who believe in traditional marriage were threatened by those who have redefined the meaning of marriage?

[TranquilMind]

If a rental or real estate agent won't rent or sell in certain neighborhoods to Asians, or AA or hispanics, their license should be revoked.

 

The woman a few years back who, as a graduate student, stated she would not treat gays for marriage therapy should have been (and was) kicked out of her *secular* program.

 

If I refuse to treat conservative religious people based on their conservative religion, I am against the ethics I agreed to and should be reported.

 

"Threat of force to shut the business down" is inaccurate.

 

Using administrative means to shut the business down is more accurate. 

 

Shutting a business down by means of fining them out of business, or refusing to issue permits, or suing the owner on the basis of discrimination all leads to the same result; penalizing a person on the basis of his religious beliefs, in the case at hand.  Not ok, under the First Amendment. 

 

I'm not sure why you are bringing up all that unrelated stuff about renting properties. 

[Mrs Mungo]

If the law contradicts his scriptural law, there is an issue of religious freedom that cannot be ignored while we still retain the First Amendment (which, I fear, is quickly on its way out).

There is nothing in the law that contradicts the scripture. There is ZERO scriptural law forbidding you (general you) from doing business with people whose religion disagrees with your own or who engage in activities forbidden by your religion.

 

Let's look at this another way. There actually *IS* a scriptural law that compels you to stone/kill people. Here is just one example:

 

Exodus 31:15

Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

 

Are you saying that the law forbidding you from throwing rocks at workers (or stabbing them, etc) entering Walmart on Sunday morning is against the first amendment since The Bible compels you to kill people who work on the Sabbath?

[Tanaqui]

And I'll ask you again, do you really want people to not obey civil laws if they claim they violate their scriptural laws?  Does that not seem like it could create a large number of problems?

 

I can think of one big problem it causes right now. Hindus in NYC put religious objects into the bay as part of worship, in direct violation of littering laws. Unfortunately, the bay is not like the Ganges, and all that stuff just hangs around and causes problems for everybody else. Many Hindu religious authorities have tried spreading the message that it's okay to put stuff in and then take it out again, which the Parks Department is okay with, but stricter Hindus do not consider that acceptable.

 

Real world example, no hypotheticals, can they disobey the civil law to suit their religious needs?

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Should churches be able to refuse to perform gay weddings? They act as agents of the state and fill out legal documents are part of religious marriage services.

Yes because they aren't public businesses. However, wedding chapels that are open to the public should NOT be able to refuse.

[elegantlion]

Because the religious beliefs of the owner don't allow him to pick and choose which laws he will follow.

 

We read a bit of Rousseau in history class this semester. In "The Social Contract" this is one of the aspects he discusses, that in order for all of society to remain free, we give up some individual rights to be a part of the community. In this he says no one has superior status, everyone is equal. In order to own a business, be a part of a community you forfeit some of your individual rights. You cannot have business hours on a whim and expect to stay in business. If you have your business in certain locations you must be open certain hours (malls used to be this way), there is a standard of practice in the form of laws that must be followed by the federal government, state laws, city/community laws and perhaps laws specific to your industry. If you hire employees, you must follow laws. That is part of the social contract you agree to when you go into business for yourself. If you feel you cannot in good conscience provide equal and just service to all peoples from all lifestyles, the best thing is not go into business and enter into a social contract with those laws. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

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

 

A little demanding, no?  And I answered you earlier.  There's a difference between those things and demanding that a baker write something on a cake that goes against their conscience.  There's a difference between those things and catering to an event that promotes something you fundamentally disagree with.  No, I shouldn't be allowed to employ 12yo's in sweatshops.  No, I shouldn't be able to disregard the safety of my employees.  I'm not sure, however, why that would mean that I should be compelled to write WBC's famous slogan on a cake I bake because it's their religion.  I'm not sure what those things have to do with me being forced to cater a bris and serve food during a ceremony I find completely and totally immoral.

 

Like I said, we're at an impasse because you want to compare apples and oranges, and then call me an anarchist when I disagree that they are different circumstances or issues.  There are laws I agree with, and laws I disagree with.  Disagreeing with some doesn't mean I want to get rid of all of them.  I'm not sure why you think it does.

 

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

 

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

[EmseB]

I think someone upthread mentioned that you would need to establish a pattern of behaviour.

 

If someone is regularly refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers, that's a bit of a clue.

 

I would enquire further if a business owner said he or she 'was not available'.

 

Not to persecute them, but with the mind set of working out the problem and coming up with an alternative. I wouldn't just go 'Oh, OK' and walk out. I'd assume there was a valid difficulty. "Oh, are you already booked ?" type of clarifying question. I would find it very weird to be told 'no' with no reason given. That's not very good business manners.

 

How do you establish a pattern?  Who is monitoring the pattern of sales?  The government?  Would you have to prove a pattern in order to get the government to investigate the shop?  Or would the government be pre-emptively monitoring sales at random shops looking for patterns?

 

I'm not saying it's good manners, but if a person just insists that they aren't available, is that in and of itself something that can be cause for an investigation?  Wouldn't not accepting no for an answer be sort of rude in and of itself?

 

 

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just trying to figure out practically how this sort of law would be enforced if someone just didn't want to be forthright or humiliate anyone, they just had a personal prejudice.

[Amira]

I can think of one big problem it causes right now. Hindus in NYC put religious objects into the bay as part of worship, in direct violation of littering laws. Unfortunately, the bay is not like the Ganges, and all that stuff just hangs around and causes problems for everybody else. Many Hindu religious authorities have tried spreading the message that it's okay to put stuff in and then take it out again, which the Parks Department is okay with, but stricter Hindus do not consider that acceptable.

 

Real world example, no hypotheticals, can they disobey the civil law to suit their religious needs?

 

I don't think their scriptural law trumps the civil law against littering (although I'm okay with the idea of people retrieving the stuff if the city is okay with it).  Just like I don't think TranquilMind's interpretation of scriptural law allows anyone to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

Edited because I thought I was answering someone else and now everything makes more sense.  Sorry Tanaqui!

[TranquilMind]

No. What you said, your exact words, were

 

 

You went and you said that calling gay rights civil rights is a "great offense" to "all" those who actually fought in the "real" civil rights movement (scare quotes all mine).

 

You lied outright. It's not a great offense to all those who fought in the civil rights movement. That is an abhorrent thing to say, and factually untrue when many of those who did so continue to fight for gay rights and agree that gay rights ARE civil rights.

 

And then you lied again by claiming you said something utterly different. It's the internet. Your words don't vanish into thin air once spoken.

Point taken on the inadvertent use of the word, "all".  The witness will strike the word, "all", and substitute the word "many" with the rest of the sentence remaining exactly the same.    No lying involved here at all, and your suggestion of such is inaccurate.   

[Mrs Mungo]

No, they aren't a protected class, but they are in the same category scripturally, as proscribed behaviors.

But, the law isn't compelling you (general you) to make a happy adultery cake. In some states the law will compel you (general you) to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple just like you would sell a wedding cake to a straight couple. These are two different things.

 

The *federal* law will compel you (general you) to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple just like you would to a white couple, even if you (general you) believe that the scriptures are against interracial marriage. This is similar to the gay couple example *because* they are both protected classes under the law in some states.

[justasque]

I don't sell cakes.  I do not know how much information they ask, but presume that most cakes are simply sold over the counter, or requested on the basis of size.  But yeah, if someone tells me he is buying a cake for his mistress, so don't tell his wife, who regularly buys donuts from me, I'm going to tell him no.

You would be legally within your rights to do so, because mistresses and adulterers aren't protected classes.

 

The Supreme Court has, over many years, worked on figuring out the circumstances under which a group can be given "protected class" status and which circumstances don't rise to that level. In most cases race, religion and nationality are protected classes.

 

When I was a child, sex/gender was not a protected class, thus the newspaper contained separate help wanted columns for men and women. ("Help Wanted - Men" and "Help Wanted - Women". You can imagine which professions were listed in each column. This was perfectly legal and very much the norm.) This has now changed, and in most situations sex/gender is now a protected class.

[Frances]

No, I'm not saying someone would lie.  In fact, I doubt they would.  But that's why I'm asking the question.  What if someone doesn't give a reason?  Or what if you suspect they are lying?  How do you prove it?

 

What I hear you saying is that they would have to give a reason in order to decline to serve someone, and it would have to be a "valid" reason.  A business owner wouldn't simply be able to say they aren't available?

 

I guess I'm imagining certain scenarios where a restraunteur or stylist for a wedding could be quite snobbish and refuse to serve someone for some reason (like the image of their company means they wouldn't cater a backyard bbq for a barefoot reception with a keg or something) but the person asking them for services for their reception thinks that they were refused because of some protected class/unlawful discrimination.  What happens then?  The consumer sues or calls the government for an investigation and the business owner has to prove they didn't discriminate unlawfully?  Are they guilty until they prove their innocence?

Anti-discrimination cases when the refusal isn't clearly discriminatory usually take lots of time and evidence before they are brought forward. A major area is housing discrimination against minorities. Usually there has to be a long-term pattern of behavior, and then sometimes undercover agents will be sent in to see of there is clear evidence of discrimination based on race before any action will be taken.

 

In the public accommodation cases involving cakes for gay weddings that I've read about, the bakers did not hesitate to state that they were refusing on religious grounds, so there was no dispute that they were breaking the law.

[TranquilMind]

There is nothing in the law that contradicts the scripture. There is ZERO scriptural law forbidding you (general you) from doing business with people whose religion disagrees with your own or who engage in activities forbidden by your religion.

 

Let's look at this another way. There actually *IS* a scriptural law that compels you to stone/kill people. Here is just one example:

 

Exodus 31:15

Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

 

Are you saying that the law forbidding you from throwing rocks at workers (or stabbing them, etc) entering Walmart on Sunday morning is against the first amendment since The Bible compels you to kill people who work on the Sabbath?

You want to go there?  Then cite the totality of scripture on the matter:

 

Luke 14: 3-5

 

3Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?â€4But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way.

5Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child^a or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?â€6And they had nothing to say.

 

 

Matthew 12:

 

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.â€

3He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?6I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.7If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’^a you would not have condemned the innocent.8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.â€

9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?â€

11He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?12How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.â€

13Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.†So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

 

It is lawful  and right to heal or restore or feed or do other good things on the Sabbath. 

[TranquilMind]

You would be legally within your rights to do so, because mistresses and adulterers aren't protected classes.

 

The Supreme Court has, over many years, worked on figuring out the circumstances under which a group can be given "protected class" status and which circumstances don't rise to that level. In most cases race, religion and nationality are protected classes.

 

When I was a child, sex/gender was not a protected class, thus the newspaper contained separate help wanted columns for men and women. ("Help Wanted - Men" and "Help Wanted - Women". You can imagine which professions were listed in each column. This was perfectly legal and very much the norm.) This has now changed, and in most situations sex/gender is now a protected class.

Gays are not a protected class in every jurisdiction, and indeed, were not in some of the cake cases that have occurred. 

 

That is totally different from immutable characteristics such as race and gender and (mostly) religion. 

[justasque]

I'm not sure why you are bringing up all that unrelated stuff about renting properties.

Because housing is an area where, historically, there has been a lot of discrimination against members of protected classes. It was discrimination in housing, lunch counters, transportation, theaters, swimming pools, and similar venues that led the courts to created public accommodations laws, which is the type of law that is being applied in the case of bakers and other wedding vendors.

 

To really understand the laws that are affecting the bakers, you need to understand the history of these laws, and the reasoning that underlies them.

 

As a side thought, I am incredibly annoyed at the press for not doing a better job of putting these cases into the context of existing public accommodations law, so that readers understand how we got here. Of course, that would require longer articles, more highly qualified authors, and less scare-mongering click-bait hype, none of which are financially rewarding to modern news outlets.

[TranquilMind]

But, the law isn't compelling you (general you) to make a happy adultery cake. In some states the law will compel you (general you) to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple just like you would sell a wedding cake to a straight couple. These are two different things.

 

The *federal* law will compel you (general you) to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple just like you would to a white couple, even if you (general you) believe that the scriptures are against interracial marriage. This is similar to the gay couple example *because* they are both protected classes under the law in some states.

Race is protected everywhere, federally and via state law. 

 

It's not similar at all and people have NOT refused to sell wedding cakes.  They have refused to sell wedding cakes for an event that does not constitute a wedding, under their religion. 

[EmseB]

Yes because they aren't public businesses. However, wedding chapels that are open to the public should NOT be able to refuse.

 

I think this is where the wording gets tricky.  Is there such a thing as a private business?  What is a public business?  To me, public denotes something very specific, like a public library (which is operated and funded by the government), and I've never seen a public wedding chapel (unless you count a justice of the peace).  But I think you are using the word public to mean something other than operated and funded by the government.

[justasque]

Gays are not a protected class in every jurisdiction, and indeed, were not in some of the cake cases that have occurred. 

 

That is totally different from immutable characteristics such as race and gender and (mostly) religion.

If they are not a protected class in the particular jurisdiction, then the law most likely allows the discrimination, and the baker can take it to court and win. Can you give an example of a case like this?

 

(Sometimes where there is not a law at the state level, there is one at the local level. Please note that the relevant protected class is usually sexual orientation, which is not the same as sexual behavior. Religion is not an immutable characteristic.)

[Mrs Mungo]

You want to go there?  Then cite the totality of scripture on the matter:

 

Luke 14: 3-5

 

3Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?â€4But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way.

5Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child^a or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?â€6And they had nothing to say.

 

 

Matthew 12:

 

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.â€

3He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?6I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.7If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’^a you would not have condemned the innocent.8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.â€

9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?â€

11He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?12How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.â€

13Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.†So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

 

It is lawful  and right to heal or restore or feed or do other good things on the Sabbath.

What has that got to do with working at Walmart? Or in a factory? Nothing. You ignored my question. If the government forbids you from killing those working on the Sabbath (which The Bible compels you to do with the exception of good works), then is the government impeding your practice of your religion? This is a yes or no question.

 

If you want to talk about the words of CHRIST, then he never said anything about homosexuality, but he did say this, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." He also said this, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â€

 

If these commandments supersede the commandment about killing people working on the Sabbath (and I think they do), then wouldn't they also supersede any concerns about doing business with someone who engages in activities forbidden by your religion?

[Tanaqui]

A private business is one only open to members, like a club.

[maize]

I don't have any particular opinion on wedding cakes and am not trying to make a specific analogy, but I want to explore a general principle.  For those who are saying an individual's moral or spiritual beliefs should not trump secular law, do you believe that standard should apply to conscientious objectors to military service? Some countries now have legislation in place particularly protecting such expression of conscience, but over time a great many people have broken laws in order to avoid military service because of sincerely held moral and religious beliefs. Do you condemn these (mostly young men) for breaking the law in order to follow their conscience?

 

Should laws sometimes be changed to accommodate individual moral beliefs and allow for exceptions to general rules? Is it OK for the draft to apply to some young men but not to others? Why or why not? When is an exception to a general rule permissible?

[Tanaqui]

Point taken on the inadvertent use of the word, "all".  The witness will strike the word, "all", and substitute the word "many" with the rest of the sentence remaining exactly the same.    No lying involved here at all, and your suggestion of such is inaccurate.

 

Mmm, I'm not sure it's much better with your edit. So what if a few people who don't happen to be racist do happen to be anti-gay rights? I'd be very interested in seeing the numbers on what percentage of formal civil rights activists are against the current gay rights movement before I agree to accept "many" as accurate.

 

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

 

 

Free booze with every party?

[Mrs Mungo]

Race is protected everywhere, federally and via state law.

Right. I said that.

 

 

It's not similar at all

Yes, because both groups have been recognized in the US (by federal and/or state law) as protected classes. They are both protected classes where I live. Court cases are a large part of HOW classes become protected classes. You do understand this?

 

 

and people have NOT refused to sell wedding cakes.  They have refused to sell wedding cakes for an event that does not constitute a wedding, under their religion.

Fundamentally wrong. I haven't seen a single baker who refused to sell a cake to someone who had kids or a divorcee or who wasn't a virgin or to a couple having their wedding at the courthouse AND refuse to sell one for a gay wedding . This baker [eta: note: this is the baker referred to in your link about Christians who have been discriminated against] refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class:

 

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

 

Quote from the article:

 

Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage†of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women

Unless it is your contention that dogs can have legal *and* sacramental weddings?

[TranquilMind]

Because housing is an area where, historically, there has been a lot of discrimination against members of protected classes. It was discrimination in housing, lunch counters, transportation, theaters, swimming pools, and similar venues that led the courts to created public accommodations laws, which is the type of law that is being applied in the case of bakers and other wedding vendors.

 

To really understand the laws that are affecting the bakers, you need to understand the history of these laws, and the reasoning that underlies them.

 

As a side thought, I am incredibly annoyed at the press for not doing a better job of putting these cases into the context of existing public accommodations law, so that readers understand how we got here. Of course, that would require longer articles, more highly qualified authors, and less scare-mongering click-bait hype, none of which are financially rewarding to modern news outlets.

I am a landlord and understand public accommodation laws.

 

However, I do not think that the public accommodation laws can completely override the First Amendment.   Under your example, unmarried couples are not a protected class under federal law, nor in most states, except in public housing,in which sometimes marital status is recognized.  Landlords are still permitted to rent their houses or apartments to the best applicant, and not just any applicant, and they are allowed to do that on the basis of a religious belief that prefers married people over people living together.       

 

Just for the record, I have rented to unmarried couples, lest anyone jump down my throat.  However, I have not rented to unmarried couples who also had bad credit, references, and unstable job histories. 

[TranquilMind]

I don't have any particular opinion on wedding cakes and am not trying to make a specific analogy, but I want to explore a general principle.  For those who are saying an individual's moral or spiritual beliefs should not trump secular law, do you believe that standard should apply to conscientious objectors to military service? Some countries now have legislation in place particularly protecting such expression of conscience, but over time a great many people have broken laws in order to avoid military service because of sincerely held moral and religious beliefs. Do you condemn these (mostly young men) for breaking the law in order to follow their conscience?

 

Should laws sometimes be changed to accommodate individual moral beliefs and allow for exceptions to general rules? Is it OK for the draft to apply to some young men but not to others? Why or why not? When is an exception to a general rule permissible?

All excellent questions, to which consistency would produce interesting answers.  Awaiting them on this thread...

[TranquilMind]

Yes, absolutely people should be able to be conscientious objectors to the draft, say - but being a CO in that kind of situation doesn't involve discriminating against others.

Sure it does.  It most decidedly is stating that MY right to not go into active duty trumps the law requiring such, thereby discriminating against those who do not exercise that option by removing themselves from the equation. 

[Joker]

I am a landlord and understand public accommodation laws.

 

However, I do not think that the public accommodation laws can completely override the First Amendment.   Under your example, unmarried couples are not a protected class under federal law, nor in most states, except in public housing,in which sometimes marital status is recognized.  Landlords are still permitted to rent their houses or apartments to the best applicant, and not just any applicant, and they are allowed to do that on the basis of a religious belief that prefers married people over people living together.       

 

Just for the record, I have rented to unmarried couples, lest anyone jump down my throat.  However, I have not rented to unmarried couples who also had bad credit, references, and unstable job histories. 

 

So, you're fine renting to people who may be engaging in premarital sex and not going through with the sacrament of marriage? Would you rent to a same sex couple as long as they weren't married (since you said the marriage wouldn't be biblical)?

[Mrs Mungo]

I think this is where the wording gets tricky.  Is there such a thing as a private business?  What is a public business?  To me, public denotes something very specific, like a public library (which is operated and funded by the government), and I've never seen a public wedding chapel (unless you count a justice of the peace).  But I think you are using the word public to mean something other than operated and funded by the government.

 

What I meant by public wedding chapel is a wedding chapel that operates as a business (under business codes, not non-profit organization codes) that is open to the public. A private business is something like a club. For example, the Daughters of the American Revolution requires its members to prove that they have an ancestor who fought in the American Revolution. They are allowed to do that as a private club. They would not be allowed to open a cake business and only sell to white women.

 

 

I don't have any particular opinion on wedding cakes and am not trying to make a specific analogy, but I want to explore a general principle.  For those who are saying an individual's moral or spiritual beliefs should not trump secular law, do you believe that standard should apply to conscientious objectors to military service? Some countries now have legislation in place particularly protecting such expression of conscience, but over time a great many people have broken laws in order to avoid military service because of sincerely held moral and religious beliefs. Do you condemn these (mostly young men) for breaking the law in order to follow their conscience?

 

Should laws sometimes be changed to accommodate individual moral beliefs and allow for exceptions to general rules? Is it OK for the draft to apply to some young men but not to others? Why or why not? When is an exception to a general rule permissible?

 

I think this is a very different topic since it doesn't deal with discrimination. We don't currently have a draft in the US and haven't for many years, that makes it pretty tricky to debate. I think compensating the military so that our force remains an all volunteer one makes more sense.

 

 

I am a landlord and understand public accommodation laws.

 

However, I do not think that the public accommodation laws can completely override the First Amendment.   Under your example, unmarried couples are not a protected class under federal law, nor in most states, except in public housing,in which sometimes marital status is recognized.  Landlords are still permitted to rent their houses or apartments to the best applicant, and not just any applicant, and they are allowed to do that on the basis of a religious belief that prefers married people over people living together.       

 

Just for the record, I have rented to unmarried couples, lest anyone jump down my throat.  However, I have not rented to unmarried couples who also had bad credit, references, and unstable job histories.

You cannot discriminate against people based upon marital status for housing in my state.

[maize]

Yes, absolutely people should be able to be conscientious objectors to the draft, say - but being a CO in that kind of situation doesn't involve discriminating against others.

 

And yet the potential for harm to another individual is very real--if my number comes up for the draft and I opt out on conscientious objector grounds, another number must be drawn; that person then faces potential death in conflict because of the exception made for me.

 

Is my exemption, based on personal moral/religious beliefs, unequivocally justified?

 

(I am asking a question to which I don't have an answer)

[Scarlett]

Just thinking about how the restaurant owner doesn't upset me. If anything we are amused by him. I care not that he hates me. I guess I can't wrap my head around getting so upset if someone didn't want to make a cake for me.

[Mrs Mungo]

And yet the potential for harm to another individual is very real--if my number comes up for the draft and I opt out on conscientious objector grounds, another number must be drawn; that person then faces potential death in conflict because of the exception made for me.

 

Is my exemption, based on personal moral/religious beliefs, unequivocally justified?

 

(I am asking a question to which I don't have an answer)

And right now people are voluntarily taking the place of people who might otherwise be pressed into service. I don't really see much difference in the result.

[DragonFaerie]

 ... simply selling cigarettes illegally.....

 

Really???  *Simply* selling cigarettes illegally?  If someone *simply* sold cigarettes illegally to one of my minor children, you can be darned sure I'd want the authorities to shut them down.  Now.  Permanently.  And loudly.

[Amira]

Sure it does.  It most decidedly is stating that MY right to not go into active duty trumps the law requiring such, thereby discriminating against those who do not exercise that option by removing themselves from the equation. 

 

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

 

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

[TranquilMind]

 

What I meant by public wedding chapel is a wedding chapel that operates as a business (under business codes, not non-profit organization codes) that is open to the public. A private business is something like a club. For example, the Daughters of the American Revolution requires its members to prove that they have an ancestor who fought in the American Revolution. They are allowed to do that as a private club. They would not be allowed to open a cake business and only sell to white women.

 

 

I think this is a very different topic since it doesn't deal with discrimination. We don't currently have a draft in the US and haven't for many years, that makes it pretty tricky to debate. I think compensating the military so that our force remains an all volunteer one makes more sense.

 

 

You cannot discriminate against people based upon marital status in my state.

Marital status is not protected in any but about 5 states. I guess you must live on one of them.   In all others, marital status means protection for married people as well as single people, not married as opposed to unmarried.  If you mean familial status, that refers to the presence of children. 

[Mrs Mungo]

But everyone can still be a CO (although that rule might change if everyone took that option).

No, *everyone* can't just claim CO status. That isn't how it works.

[Mrs Mungo]

Marital status is not protected in any but about 5 states. I guess you must live on one of them.   In all others, marital status means protection for married people as well as single people, not married as opposed to unmarried.  If you mean familial status, that refers to the presence of children.

Yes, I live in a state where marital status is protected. Familial status is federally protected. In addition to federal law, my state protects: gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, age and HIV status.

[ktgrok]

No, that's different to not sell to groups of people and no one refuses to "sell to Catholics or Jews", for example. It isn't the same at all as refusing to sell to a specific person who wants you to provide a service or products for an event that violates your religious beliefs specifically.

 

For example, sue me to Kingdom Come and back, but if a NAMBLA member shows up at my business and wants me to photograph their latest event or provide cakes that say, "Young girls are ******" (fill in with some nasty thing) or something, as a Christian business owner, I will most decidedly turn that down.  Your way forces me to find a pretext instead of be honest that I don't have any interest in being involved in such an event in any way. 

 

The ONLY reason there are not businesses refusing to sell to Catholics or Jews is that it is illegal. In our country's history there were PLENTY of businesses that refused to. And would again, if not legislated. 

[maize]

The next person whose number comes up is also free to make the choice to be a CO. The previous person choosing to do so does not remove their choice to be drafted, or to be a CO.

 

So I don't see how it can be a discriminatory choice.

 

CO status is not generally granted as a choice, it is supposed to depend on deeply held moral or religious beliefs.

 

The next person in line might want desperately not to be drafted because they don't want to die in war, but that doesn't mean they can claim CO status.

[Joker]

The draft question is tough. During Vietnam, my dad and several of his cousins dropped out of college and volunteered. My dh was officially out of the military a year after 9/11 but he told me if things got bad and they brought back a draft, he would be volunteering to go back in. I guess I want to believe we would always have enough people volunteering to cover those who object.

[elegantlion]

 

 

Just for the record, I have rented to unmarried couples, lest anyone jump down my throat.  However, I have not rented to unmarried couples who also had bad credit, references, and unstable job histories. 

 

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

[ktgrok]

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

 

What I said is that I have no problem with an individual refusing to provide services or goods in a case where he isn't the only provider, regardless of reason.  I guess that is why I am Libertarian.  You don't want to serve me because my beliefs contradict yours? I will go down the block and support your competitor, not sue you and try to put you out of business. 

 

We tried that approach. It was called segregation. Didn't go so well.