Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[songsparrow]

The difference between this sin and others is that society isn't forcing us to accept that lying, adultery, and gluttony are perfectly normal and acceptable behaviors.

 

How is society forcing you to accept that homosexuality is normal and acceptable behavior?  The general consensus in society may be that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, but how are you being forced to accept that conclusion?  You are free to continue believing that homosexuality is a sin.  You are free to refrain from engaging in homosexual acts.  There is no law forcing you to do otherwise.

 

ETA:  The law is simply preventing one from harming others - it is prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LBGT individuals.   As the old adage goes, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Guest]

I agree that a photographer or wedding coordinator should not be forced to "participate" in a gay marriage as I am quite opposed to shot-gun weddings - however, I fully support their right to enter into a same-sex marriage if they wish to do so. (In case the tongue-in-cheek is not clear, I'm attempting to point out - with a touch of humor - that the only participants in the marriage ceremony are the couple exchanging vows and the officiant.)

 

The photographer is taking photographs of an event.

The wedding coordinator is organizing the logistics of an event.

A soloist who is hired to sing or perform music during the ceremony would be performing at an event.

 

There is nothing sacred about snapping photographs, organizing the flow of people, or even singing a song (although the song may be about sacred topics).

 

It's easy to tell the difference between those who are participating in the marriage (couple & officiant) and those who are not: absent those who are participating in the marriage, there is no marriage. Without the photographer, wedding coordinator, soloist, etc., there is still a valid marriage. Thus, they are not participants in the marriage. They are simply professionals hired to enhance an event.

I agree.

 

The other thing to keep in mind, those of you who say you would not be the photographer, etc., is that I have no doubt that business people avoid some events by simply saying they aren't available on a given date, or by giving a high bid that the couple does not accept. I'm not advocating it, just saying I don't doubt this happens.

[Word Nerd]

The difference between this sin and others is that society isn't forcing us to accept that lying, adultery, and gluttony are perfectly normal and acceptable behaviors.

 

But Christian business owners are not fighting for their religious right to discriminate against people who practice those behaviors. I don't see anyone refusing to make wedding cakes for adulterers or gluttons.

[Guest]

But Christian business owners are not fighting for their religious right to discriminate against people who practice those behaviors. I don't see anyone refusing to make wedding cakes for adulterers or gluttons.

That is exactly the point being made. People who claim they cannot "support" same-sex marriage because it is a sin are, nevertheless providing cake to other "sinners."

[Mrs Mungo]

We are talking about business.  Business needs roads, sidewalks, water, etc., the infrastructure of the community.  I do not pay taxes so that only one subset is allowed to make a purchase in a business.

 

Not only that, but many "wedding chapels" are organized as businesses instead of churches for the tax breaks, profits, etc. It is a *money based* decision. When you decide to accept money based upon the rules that Caesar has set up for businesses instead of churches, then you have to follow the rest of the rules that Caesar has set up for businesses.

 

 

Not a very popular viewpoint, but I think it is the most workable and the best guarantor of freedom for all groups.

US history shows us that you are wrong. It's the best guarantor for the majority group to subject minority groups to tyrannical behavior. The past predicts the future.

 

 

Likewise, I am an ardent supporter of free speech, regardless of whose feelings are hurt by it.  Let people be true to themselves. If that means that it comes out that the guy at my corner bar hates me because I am Jewish, well thank goodness I know!  Now I will spend my money elsewhere.

 

It doesn't logically follow that people in favor of anti-discrimination laws are anti-free speech.

 

 

"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company’s written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually." From dept of labor. http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

 

SBA (special groups created "social or economically disadvantaged who then get special dispensation)https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Small%20Business%20Act.pdf#page110

 

Federal contracts are subject to different laws than private businesses are when they strictly sell to the public. The previous poster was asking you about businesses that deal with the public, not he federal government.

 

 

I don't think they should have to be present at the event, sorry.

 

Then they shouldn't be an open to the public business. They can re-organize their business or not do weddings (plenty of senior portraits to do). They have options under the law as it is.

Here's a different question. Lots of the photographers that I know do "homecoming" photos with the families of service members returning from overseas. Should photographers be able to refuse families with same sex parents? Would that be condoning the marriage?

 

 

 

The difference between this sin and others is that society isn't forcing us to accept that lying, adultery, and gluttony are perfectly normal and acceptable behaviors.

 

Sorry, was the wedding cake baker screening for those or no? If no, then it clearly isn't being treated the same, and he's already accepting them as normal and acceptable.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I did not read the 11 pages of replies, just want to make a few, not necessarily connected points:

 

- Switzerland, which has arguably one of the best medical systems in the world... does not pay for birth control as part of the standard health care package.  You pay for it out of pocket, if you want it.  This seems like a much more cohesive "Gov't, stay out of my private life" policy than "Stay out of my private life EXCEPT fund my BCP."  It's not illegal, it just isn't paid for because except in exceptional cases, it is not actually treating any sort of illness. 

 

- It would be easier for conservative Christians to MTOB if the gov't minded it's own as well.  Many Catholic adoption agencies have had to close doors, because the only other option was to adopt children into homosexual homes, which is against Catholic principles.  These are good, charitible organizations who had Liberal Humanists forcing their own agenda.  The road goes both ways in terms of who is forcing what down who's throat. 

 

- Certain specific cases (I'm thinking of the A word here), the Christian imperative is considered universal, because A is considered murder.  To say, "Well, I won't do it personally, but others can do what they wish" makes as much sense (to a CC) as saying "Well, I don't murder personally, but I don't think it should be illegal."  So while many questions are (or should be) liive-and-let-live, a few are considered so grave that we feel a moral obligation to vote in a particular way. 

 

- Why on earth WOULDN't someone vote according to their moral principles?  We would all like to see a society that aligns more closely with our own ethical system, and so we all vote that way.  That's the whole point. 

 

- What about liberal bias in the news?  Like when a pro-life parade is reported on, only 9 out of 12 photos are of the protestors holding pro-abortion posters?  And that's when the march gets reported at all? 

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with OP, but had OP retitled the post "Why do liberals feel they should dictate how the rest of us live?" there would be no lack of examples to prove that perspective as well. 

[Tanaqui]

- What about liberal bias in the news?  Like when a pro-life parade is reported on, only 9 out of 12 photos are of the protestors holding pro-abortion posters?  And that's when the march gets reported at all?

 

The much vaunted liberal bias in the news is more often observed in the breach.

 

[Little Nyssa]

Just popping in to say I don't really want to get into the discussion... but I am curious to see a photo of Dmmetler's child's 'snake cake'! :)

[MSNative]

Not only that, but many "wedding chapels" are organized as businesses instead of churches for the tax breaks, profits, etc. It is a *money based* decision. When you decide to accept money based upon the rules that Caesar has set up for businesses instead of churches, then you have to follow the rest of the rules that Caesar has set up for businesses.

 

 

US history shows us that you are wrong. It's the best guarantor for the majority group to subject minority groups to tyrannical behavior. The past predicts the future.

 

 

It doesn't logically follow that people in favor of anti-discrimination laws are anti-free speech.

 

 

Federal contracts are subject to different laws than private businesses are when they strictly sell to the public. The previous poster was asking you about businesses that deal with the public, not he federal government.

 

 

Then they shouldn't be an open to the public business. They can re-organize their business or not do weddings (plenty of senior portraits to do). They have options under the law as it is.

Here's a different question. Lots of the photographers that I know do "homecoming" photos with the families of service members returning from overseas. Should photographers be able to refuse families with same sex parents? Would that be condoning the marriage?

 

 

 

Sorry, was the wedding cake baker screening for those or no? If no, then it clearly isn't being treated the same, and he's already accepting them as normal and acceptable.

So it's ok for the federal government to discriminate even though it is funded entirely by public money? Does it make it right to discriminate if the government is doing it rather than a private business? If a company works for the government it should have the right to discriminate too?

I also listed SBA. Disparate impact regulations with regard to loans comes to mind. There are numerous examples if you want to search for them.

Again, the point isn't so much whether or not these regulations and laws are good. They exist and most of us are in favor of them because they are discriminating in a way we agree with. But it also means that a lot of us don't really mean it when we say that since businesses are open to the public they shouldn't discriminate. We want them to discriminate in a way we prefer, that we think makes things fair.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

- Switzerland, which has arguably one of the best medical systems in the world... does not pay for birth control as part of the standard health care package.  You pay for it out of pocket, if you want it.  This seems like a much more cohesive "Gov't, stay out of my private life" policy than "Stay out of my private life EXCEPT fund my BCP."  It's not illegal, it just isn't paid for because except in exceptional cases, it is not actually treating any sort of illness. 

 

I'm going to assume that that excellent medical system also provides excellent coverage for maternity care and all its attendant potential costs, correct? And Switzerland is recognized for its well-compensated and liberal parental leave policies, is this also correct? We don't have that here. Our healthcare coverage system is an utter mess, and only certain employees are entitled to (unpaid) parental leave with the expectation that they'll have a job to return to. In exchange, given the impact of unexpected pregnancies on poverty rates and overall societal well-being, the least our government can do is ensure that women have access to affordable birth control. Also, the government isn't funding the birth control. They're simply ensuring that insurance companies cover it for their customers--who, by the way, are typically paying for a good chunk of their coverage out of their own pockets, or the coverage is considered part of their compensation package in exchange for their labor.

 

- It would be easier for conservative Christians to MTOB if the gov't minded it's own as well.  Many Catholic adoption agencies have had to close doors, because the only other option was to adopt children into homosexual homes, which is against Catholic principles.  These are good, charitible organizations who had Liberal Humanists forcing their own agenda.  The road goes both ways in terms of who is forcing what down who's throat. 

 

As has been pointed out earlier, the Catholic adoption agencies were the recipients of government contracts; thus, they were held to the standards required of institutions that receive government funding. You know, sort of like how conservative politicians have ensured that agencies that receive government fund can't be connected to providing abortions in any way. See how that works?

 

- Certain specific cases (I'm thinking of the A word here), the Christian imperative is considered universal, because A is considered murder.  To say, "Well, I won't do it personally, but others can do what they wish" makes as much sense (to a CC) as saying "Well, I don't murder personally, but I don't think it should be illegal."  So while many questions are (or should be) liive-and-let-live, a few are considered so grave that we feel a moral obligation to vote in a particular way. 

 

This is a whole other set of debates, but generally, we're talking about actions beyond just voting your conscience on this issue.

 

- Why on earth WOULDN't someone vote according to their moral principles?  We would all like to see a society that aligns more closely with our own ethical system, and so we all vote that way.  That's the whole point. 

 

Again, we're talking about more than voting here.

 

- What about liberal bias in the news?  Like when a pro-life parade is reported on, only 9 out of 12 photos are of the protestors holding pro-abortion posters?  And that's when the march gets reported at all? 

 

There are plenty of news outlets that have a distinctly conservative slant as well. I've come across MANY of them while researching issues related to these threads the last few days. One of them is one of the top news organizations in the country. And those marches rarely get reported on because they've been happening for years. We know what the marchers want. We understand the argument. It's not actually news anymore. 

 

​Also, the term is pro-CHOICE. I've never met anyone in my life who is pro-abortion, even when they support the right to choose. 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

So it's ok for the federal government to discriminate even though it is funded entirely by public money? Does it make it right to discriminate if the government is doing it rather than a private business? If a company works for the government it should have the right to discriminate too?

I also listed SBA. Disparate impact regulations with regard to loans comes to mind. There are numerous examples if you want to search for them.

Again, the point isn't so much whether or not these regulations and laws are good. They exist and most of us are in favor of them because they are discriminating in a way we agree with. But it also means that a lot of us don't really mean it when we say that since businesses are open to the public they shouldn't discriminate. We want them to discriminate in a way we prefer, that we think makes things fair.

 

It isn't discrimination to promote government interests when using government funds, IMO. SBA loans are ALSO government funds. We may disagree upon this point, but so far the courts side with me.

 

- Why on earth WOULDN't someone vote according to their moral principles?  We would all like to see a society that aligns more closely with our own ethical system, and so we all vote that way.  That's the whole point.

We aren't talking about moral principles, we're talking about religious principles. In the US we have separation of church and state. I do not believe everyone in the US should be subject to the rules of my religion.

[MSNative]

 

It isn't discrimination to promote government interests when using government funds, IMO. SBA loans are ALSO government funds. We may disagree upon this point, but so far the courts side with me.

 

 

We aren't talking about moral principles, we're talking about religious principles. In the US we have separation of church and state. I do not believe everyone in the US should be subject to the rules of my religion.

 

I said in my earlier post that judges agreed with them. I never even said that I disagree with them. I'm just saying that it's simplistic to say that if a business is open to the public it shouldn't discriminate.

Yes, SBA is government funds, which are public taxpayer funds. I also mentioned disparate impact rules which affect private banks.

Government interests is an interesting term. What does that mean and who gets to decide? I'm assuming the majority gets to vote and those representatives then decide. What if some religious people of one form or another got enough elected and held a majority and decided that promoting their religion was in the government interest? Isn't that what we said we don't want?

 

It's a slippery slope once we say that businesses or the government should be able to discriminate in order to serve a good goal. Personally, I don't think that discrimination should be allowed at all by government or business. And I think that affirmative action and other regulations serve a good ideal. But it worries me when we give government and business the power to discriminate even if it is for what we consider good now.

[swimmermom3]

I would ask what system of beliefs would you like to base laws on? I am not trying to be flip, I am trying to understand. 

 

I lived in a city where Secular Humanists make the laws, and they are actually quite religious and inflexible in their beliefs most of the time. They would tell you they are not "religious" but that is not true, they are actually extremely dogmatic in many of their beliefs. I would be very concerned if they were allowed to make laws for the whole country because they do not feel they are religious.

 

I have lived in that same city for most of my life. Could you please give me specific examples of laws made by "Secular Humanists."

 

Are you referring to a dogmatic obsession for recycling, bicycles, and tree-hugging? I am completely lost as to which laws you are referring to, but am intrigued to learn more.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I have lived in that same city for most of my life. Could you please give me specific examples of laws made by "Secular Humanists."

 

Are you referring to a dogmatic obsession for recycling, bicycles, and tree-hugging? I am completely lost as to which laws you are referring to, but am intrigued to learn more.

 

:lurk5:  

 

I tried to follow up on that one as well. I'm intensely curious about what these religiously secular laws include. I suspect we're not going to get any examples, though.

[Mrs Mungo]

I said in my earlier post that judges agreed with them. I never even said that I disagree with them. I'm just saying that it's simplistic to say that if a business is open to the public it shouldn't discriminate.

Yes, SBA is government funds, which are public taxpayer funds. I also mentioned disparate impact rules which affect private banks.

Government interests is an interesting term. What does that mean and who gets to decide? I'm assuming the majority gets to vote and those representatives then decide. What if some religious people of one form or another got enough elected and held a majority and decided that promoting their religion was in the government interest? Isn't that what we said we don't want?

 

It's a slippery slope once we say that businesses or the government should be able to discriminate in order to serve a good goal. Personally, I don't think that discrimination should be allowed at all by government or business. And I think that affirmative action and other regulations serve a good ideal. But it worries me when we give government and business the power to discriminate even if it is for what we consider good now.

How is promoting government interests like the veterans' preference system (just to focus on one of the list that you provided) actively discriminating? It isn't saying that any other group cannot possibly get the job.

[kiana]

The thing that really weirds me out is that my facebook friends who are the most vocal about how we need Christian laws are also the most paranoid about Sharia laws.

[Amira]

The thing that really weirds me out is that my facebook friends who are the most vocal about how we need Christian laws are also the most paranoid about Sharia laws.

I've noticed that too, but they never seem to appreciate it when I point out the hipocracy. Or when I suggest they might read _The Handmaid's Tale_ in addition to websites they're getting their information from.

[*Lulu*]

The thing that really weirds me out is that my facebook friends who are the most vocal about how we need Christian laws are also the most paranoid about Sharia laws.

I have noticed that tendency as well.

[MSNative]

How is promoting government interests like the veterans' preference system (just to focus on one of the list that you provided) actively discriminating? It isn't saying that any other group cannot possibly get the job.

Isn't giving preference to one group over another discriminating? If I just prefer to give white people would that be ok? I mean others could possibly get the job, it's just that I prefer to hire whites. No way is that ok.

To be fair, I think veterans preference is different from affirmative action. Veteran status is due to experience, like having a college degree. Affirmative action for ethnic groups, gender, etc. is based on how someone was born not what experience he has.

[Dmmetler]

Just popping in to say I don't really want to get into the discussion... but I am curious to see a photo of Dmmetler's child's 'snake cake'! :)

 

Post #6 in this thread

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/533947-dd-had-her-birthday-party-yesterday/

[swimmermom3]

And I know people who have changed their sexual orientation. Mutable.

 

 

You are very fortunate, Cindy, as are those people you know that have successfully changed their sexual orientation.  My nephew received Christian counseling for many of his teen years. He prayed and prayed, married a good young woman and has two children with her. The result is a devastating mess with two young people and their children truly suffering.  He loves his God, but has struggled so hard.  If we lose him because of the misguided counseling efforts, I will be beyond outraged. Those babies deserve so much more than this mess and so do their parents. He is gay. He always has been, even as a small child. Marrying a woman and fathering children did not make him any less so. Nor did years' worth of prayer.

[Tanaqui]

Isn't giving preference to one group over another discriminating? If I just prefer to give white people would that be ok? I mean others could possibly get the job, it's just that I prefer to hire whites. No way is that ok.

To be fair, I think veterans preference is different from affirmative action. Veteran status is due to experience, like having a college degree. Affirmative action for ethnic groups, gender, etc. is based on how someone was born not what experience he has.

 

What you seem to be forgetting in your analysis is that if people don't make a special effort to remember to hire blacks, or women, or whatever, then they automatically hire almost all white men.

 

[FaithManor]

I agree.

 

The other thing to keep in mind, those of you who say you would not be the photographer, etc., is that I have no doubt that business people avoid some events by simply saying they aren't available on a given date, or by giving a high bid that the couple does not accept. I'm not advocating it, just saying I don't doubt this happens.

 

I liked it because I think you are right, not because I actually "like" the sentiment. We need an "I agree with you" button instead of only a like button, but since it took me a while to adjust to the last modification/upgrade, I'm not going to necessarily rally for another one, and will instead, continue to use the like button.

[Mrs Mungo]

Isn't giving preference to one group over another discriminating? If I just prefer to give white people would that be ok? I mean others could possibly get the job, it's just that I prefer to hire whites. No way is that ok.

To be fair, I think veterans preference is different from affirmative action. Veteran status is due to experience, like having a college degree. Affirmative action for ethnic groups, gender, etc. is based on how someone was born not what experience he has.

No, veteran status is intended to help government interests in helping to employ veterans who might otherwise try to live off of disability, receive more care and money from the VA, etc. For example, having received a purple heart give you more points. How is getting hit with shrapnel equivalent to a college degree? It isn't. The laws exist to encourage the hiring of veterans who might otherwise be handicapped by a lack of civilian work experience, companies worrying that the veteran might be volatile, etc. It is to help a specific minority group, which in turn helps promote government interests. I don't see the difference. I recognize the fact that I'm probably in a better position to understand this particular program than most people here. The rules are pretty convoluted. 

 

Affirmative Action (and programs like veterans preference) exist to promote *inclusion* by overcoming prejudice and exclusion of groups who have been traditionally and systematically excluded. These prejudices still exist and are in full force today, just look at the study talked about in Freakonomics about names. Working to mindfully include groups who have traditionally been excluded is the opposite of discrimination, in my opinion.

[Joanne]

"For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company’s written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually." From dept of labor. http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

 

SBA (special groups created "social or economically disadvantaged who then get special dispensation)https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Small%20Business%20Act.pdf#page110

 

Just a couple. I'm heading out to a meeting but a google search of racial preferences will give you lots of examples.

 

 

Can you fill me in on the laws concerning affirmative action that apply to private businesses that are open to the public? I'm not familiar with them.

 

 

The question was private businesses open to the public. Your answer was for *government* jobs.

[swimmermom3]

That isn't true.  His goods are offered at the reception.  If he doesn't wish to be associated with a function, he should not be forced to be. 

 

If you are a cake maker and someone shows up stating that he wants a cake for his (insert objectionable religious practice here), should YOU be forced to supply it? What if he posts photos all over Facebook, stating that he got his fabulous cake from Ravin Bakeries, and you really don't want to be associated with those who engage in (insert religious practice here)? 

 

I hadn't really thought about the part in bold and can see your point. Melissa Klein in Oregon really loved doing wedding cakes from a spiritual viewpoint(if I remember right). If they had done the cake, our city being the way it is (good, I think) word would have spread and she may very well have ended up doing numerous wedding cakes for gay couples. That in turn would have increased her discomfort and perhaps ruined how she felt about her business. I get that and have a certain level of sympathy, but I can't go and condone the practice because the bigger question is (besides breaking the law) how do you create a dividing line?

 

If I had walked in to be served with a baby stroller in hand and no wedding band on that hand, would Mrs. Klein have refused to serve me because I am an adulterer (or my wedding ring is being resized)?  Or what if I walked into a pharmacy and the pharmacist refused to fill my prescription for birth control pills? Never mind that I am over 40, married with three kids, and the prescription has nothing to do with birth control and everything to do with the fact that I bleed like a dying pig on every cycle and we're trying to fix that.

 

Those business owners have passed moral judgement and refused service. How far would you allow that "privilege" to go?  Do you refuse medical care to an adulterer?

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Oh really! So, does the baker give customers a questionnaire before choosing to do business with every couple? I think not despite the fact that the Bible indicates females should be virgins - I seriously doubt he/she is going to ask about the virginity of the female in question before deciding to the sell the cake - adultery, idolatry, being unequally yoked in faith matters, divorce status. Does the baker ask about lying, stealing, murdering, mixed fiber blends, conducting agricultural pursuits on the Sabbath, taking the Lord's name in vain, coveting, ...oh that's a bad one...they might come in and have coveted someone else's wedding cake which is possibly why they are there in the first place....to get a beautiful cake like their friends had?  Strike them off the list. They liked their friends' cake and decided to do business with you so they could get one equally, if not, more beautiful. Must ask these important questions before doing business with them.

 

I mean really. This is not supportable. There are HUGE prohibitions against all kinds of activities within the context of marriage in the Bible. Picking ONE and hanging one's hat on it as a business tactic to openly discriminate against a protected group while actively ignoring the others and NOT discriminating against those that engage in such practices is folly. Pure.simple.folly. A secular government has absolutely no reason to allow a public business to engage in such folly. Be a private business or club if that's the name of your game. Be a 501c. There is room for the folly, but as a private entity.

 

It's not supportable. It really isn't. In order for it to be a supportable "closely held belief" then the people claiming they shouldn't have to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple because of their "sin" would have to discriminate against all the other committers of marital sin as well. Otherwise it's not a closely held belief; it's just bigotry.

 

What's next? "Sorry, the paramedics sent to your car accident have surmised you are gay and therefore cannot provide you with medical services because that would violate their conscience?" How about utilities, law enforcement...nope, don't have to come look for the prowler on your property because you are a lesbian..., not going to teach your kid in school because I disapprove of your lifestyle...where the heck does it end???

 

That is not a world I want to live in, but sad to say, I do believe there is a small, and very outspoken minority of religious observers that do want to live in a world like that and those people do align themselves with PACS like FRC, or belong to organizations like The 700 Club, Vision Forum, ATI, KKK, Westboro Baptist, etc. and liberals, moderates, conservatives, and all people somewhere in between should be very afraid of the agenda of these folks. One day they may be attempting to restrict something you are okay with being restricted and then next day, they are coming for you! That's how it works. They are right, everyone else bows to their demands. The end.

 

No thanks. That's not the kind of America that most of us actually want to live in when it's all said and done regardless of where you fall on the political and religious spectrum unless you do belong to one of these extremist groups.

 

Again, Sneetches...read about the Sneetches. Play nice; be nice. It works.

I am not in a position to determine what bakers do in the practice of their trade.  I am not a baker.  But I still can assert that it is right that one retains the right to decline to serve someone whose event he/she finds biblically contrary to his faith.  I am fairly certain that if someone came in asking for a cake for his Adultery group, or his Murderers Anonymous group, or his  that said baker might indeed find the event in contravention with his faith and values and decline it.  But then adulterers and murderers have not managed to pass legislation placing themselves into a protected class, and indeed, likely tend to stay underground.   THAT'S the difference here.

 

I can assure you that if "Adulterers" manage to gain a huge groundswell of support and pass laws to place themselves into a protected class, well then, there will be some targeted Christian bakers or other business owners who will decline their business.  We can't imagine this scenario today, much as bakers 50 years ago could not imagine the current state of affairs regarding the redefinition of marriage.    It is really a tiny subset of business owners who have any religious objections. No significant result occurs from leaving them free to accept business as they choose.    They are hardly "scary" in their miniscule numbers, or likely to have any effect alone.

 

What IS scary is the silencing of conservative viewpoints in the marketplace, and the strong arm of the government to support compliance by...cake makers.    Them today, you tomorrow. 

 

Medical services are not private, and accept federal funding and programs, hence, are required to follow state rules. Inappropriate comparison.

[Tanaqui]

Affirmative Action (and programs like veterans preference) exist to promote *inclusion* by overcoming prejudice and exclusion of groups who have been traditionally and systematically excluded. These prejudices still exist and are in full force today, just look at the study talked about in Freakonomics about names. Working to mindfully include groups who have traditionally been excluded is the opposite of discrimination, in my opinion.

 

It's like we tell the kids. Fair isn't that everybody gets the same, fair means that everybody gets what they need.

 

Equality doesn't mean justice.

[TranquilMind]

I hadn't really thought about the part in bold and can see your point. Melissa Klein in Oregon really loved doing wedding cakes from a spiritual viewpoint(if I remember right). If they had done the cake, our city being the way it is (good, I think) word would have spread and she may very well have ended up doing numerous wedding cakes for gay couples. That in turn would have increased her discomfort and perhaps ruined how she felt about her business. I get that and have a certain level of sympathy, but I can't go and condone the practice because the bigger question is (besides breaking the law) how do you create a dividing line?

 

If I had walked in to be served with a baby stroller in hand and no wedding band on that hand, would Mrs. Klein have refused to serve me because I am an adulterer (or my wedding ring is being resized)?  Or what if I walked into a pharmacy and the pharmacist refused to fill my prescription for birth control pills? Never mind that I am over 40, married with three kids, and the prescription has nothing to do with birth control and everything to do with the fact that I bleed like a dying pig on every cycle and we're trying to fix that.

 

Those business owners have passed moral judgement and refused service. How far would you allow that "privilege" to go?  Do you refuse medical care to an adulterer?

Well, I don't know. Do you tell Mrs. Klein that you want a cake for your "Adultery group"?  Or do you just order a cake?    In the former case, I think Mrs. Klein should have the right to respectfully decline your business.

 

Again, pharmacist cannot decline to fill drug prescriptions under his contract with his company, and/or also if he/the business accepts public money at all (like Medicaid or Medicare) to pay for prescriptions.   Inappropriate example. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am not in a position to determine what bakers do in the practice of their trade.  I am not a baker.  But I still can assert that it is right that one retains the right to decline to serve someone whose event he/she finds biblically contrary to his faith.  I am fairly certain that if someone came in asking for a cake for his Adultery group, or his Murderers Anonymous group, or his  that said baker might indeed find the event in contravention with his faith and values and decline it.  But then adulterers and murderers have not managed to pass legislation placing themselves into a protected class, and indeed, likely tend to stay underground.   THAT'S the difference here.

 

I can assure you that if "Adulterers" manage to gain a huge groundswell of support and pass laws to place themselves into a protected class, well then, there will be some targeted Christian bakers or other business owners who will decline their business.  We can't imagine this scenario today, much as bakers 50 years ago could not imagine the current state of affairs regarding the redefinition of marriage.    It is really a tiny subset of business owners who have any religious objections. No significant result occurs from leaving them free to accept business as they choose.    They are hardly "scary" in their miniscule numbers, or likely to have any effect alone.

 

What IS scary is the silencing of conservative viewpoints in the marketplace, and the strong arm of the government to support compliance by...cake makers.    Them today, you tomorrow. 

 

Medical services are not private, and accept federal funding and programs, hence, are required to follow state rules. Inappropriate comparison.

 

 

Do you not read the replies people make to you?  This has been answered time and time again.

[Mrs Mungo]

What IS scary is the silencing of conservative viewpoints in the marketplace, and the strong arm of the government to support compliance by...cake makers.    Them today, you tomorrow.

Explain how their VIEWPOINTS are being SILENCED. This is exactly like Tim Robbins claiming his anti-war stance and free speech were being silenced when the BHoF canceled a Bull Durham event in order to avoid giving him a platform. They are in the news actively discussing their viewpoint. It's a LIE that anyone's viewpoint is being SILENCED. They (eta: the baker, not Tim Robbins who can certainly go on the news and lie about being silenced. I just yell at him in my living room, he doesn't get arrested or anything) are being punished for their illegal *actions*. These are *very* different.

 

Medical services are not private, and accept federal funding and programs, hence, are required to follow state rules. Inappropriate comparison.

 

And businesses receive help from local Chambers of Commerce, state and local funds to keep areas safe and clean, provide access to their business and tax breaks from local, state and federal governments to help businesses. It is the same. They are *NOT* required to operate as public businesses as people have stated over and over. There are other ways to organize sales than to open a bakery that anyone can walk into off of the street. If you *choose* to run a business that is open to the public and receive all of the positive helps from the government (which IS why people do it), then you have to follow that same government's regulations surrounding your business.

[TranquilMind]

Do you not read the replies people make to you?  This has been answered time and time again.

This particular issue has been answered, you say, yet someone else brought it up to me.  So I responded.  I didn't read every single one of the previous 700 responses.  If the repetition bothers you, move on. 

[MSNative]

No, veteran status is intended to help government interests in helping to employ veterans who might otherwise try to live off of disability, receive more care and money from the VA, etc. For example, having received a purple heart give you more points. How is getting hit with shrapnel equivalent to a college degree? It isn't. The laws exist to encourage the hiring of veterans who might otherwise be handicapped by a lack of civilian work experience, companies worrying that the veteran might be volatile, etc. It is to help a specific minority group, which in turn helps promote government interests. I don't see the difference. I recognize the fact that I'm probably in a better position to understand this particular program than most people here. The rules are pretty convoluted.

 

Affirmative Action (and programs like veterans preference) exist to promote *inclusion* by overcoming prejudice and exclusion of groups who have been traditionally and systematically excluded. These prejudices still exist and are in full force today, just look at the study talked about in Freakonomics about names. Working to mindfully include groups who have traditionally been excluded is the opposite of discrimination, in my opinion.

Clearly we are not communicating. We actually agree on the veterans program. I meant that being a veteran was an experience based distinction, like getting a degree. One can choose to join the military or go to college. One cannot choose his race. I was not comparing getting a degree to getting hit with shrapnel. Because both the degree and begin a veteran are based on things within an individual's control, I said they were different that something like race.

 

I do agree that there is still prejudice in the world and I don't know the best way to deal with it. However, race and gender based preferences are still discrimination even if we agree with the end goals. For another non-government example, look at the Harvard lawsuit.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-17/activists-sue-harvard-and-unc-for-discriminating-against-asians

[Tanaqui]

those who think The Gays are trying to push Gaydom down their throats and boy, oh boy, are those sinners going to hell!

 

Tangent, why do those people always talk about gays "shoving it down our throats"? Can't they come up with another idiom? Like... ANY other idiom? Why is it always always always THAT one? Freudian, much?

 

[MSNative]

The question was private businesses open to the public. Your answer was for *government* jobs.

If you read my later response I gave private examples. I was running out to a meeting and did not read her question clearly enough. I tried to rectify and also stated several times that people are welcome to google on their own.

[TranquilMind]

Explain how their VIEWPOINTS are being SILENCED. This is exactly like Tim Robbins claiming his anti-war stance and free speech were being silenced when the BHoF canceling a Bull Durham event in order to avoid giving him a platform. They are in the news actively discussing their viewpoint. It's a LIE that anyone's viewpoint is being SILENCED. They are being punished for their illegal *actions*. These are *very* different.

 

 

And businesses receive help from local Chambers of Commerce, state and local funds to keep areas safe and clean, provide access to their business and tax breaks from local, state and federal governments to help businesses. It is the same. They are *NOT* required to operate as public businesses as people have stated over and over. There are other ways to organize sales than to open a bakery that anyone can walk into off of the street. If you *choose* to run a business that is open to the public and receive all of the positive helps from the government (which IS why people do it), then you have to follow that same government's regulations surrounding your business.

They are indeed being silenced into compliance by the arm of the law, after the complainants managed to create a protected class.  Religious objections are invalid.   The action of declining business for a wedding that is not a wedding (under your scriptural laws) should not be illegal.    If that does not have serious implications, I don't know what does.

 

We are starting to see a little bit of that expansion of governmental force in the housing sector and on public accommodations, where everybody and his brother suddenly needs a "comfort pit bull" or a "comfort pig" to get around the owner's pet-free housing requirement (or public transit proscription).  Last week, I think it was, an out-of-control HUGE "comfort" pig was booted off an airplane ride, much to the consternation of its owner, but relief of the passengers.    The necessary "service animal" protection boundaries are being pushed hard by all these people who want to force others to comply with their desires for animals.    Landlords, tired of repairing damage from animals, are finding it harder and harder to decline them.  We aren't talking about highly trained service animals, for the blind or people with seizures.  We are talking about "comfort" animals.  A pet IS a comfort animal - that's the purpose of a pet.     So people will pay higher prices and find fewer places to rent, because of these people abusing the no-pet rules. 

 

Same here.  Christian bakers either have to go through additional hoops (create private groups, etc), or resign themselves to doing cakes for weddings that cannot scripturally be weddings.   That seems a wrong result,  especially when there are and always will be loads of businesses happy to take your money, who have no such conscience restrictions. 

[TranquilMind]

Tangent, why do those people always talk about gays "shoving it down our throats"? Can't they come up with another idiom? Like... ANY other idiom? Why is it always always always THAT one? Freudian, much?

That actually made me laugh. 

[FaithManor]

Tangent, why do those people always talk about gays "shoving it down our throats"? Can't they come up with another idiom? Like... ANY other idiom? Why is it always always always THAT one? Freudian, much?

 

:smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5:

[*Lulu*]

Tangent, why do those people always talk about gays "shoving it down our throats"? Can't they come up with another idiom? Like... ANY other idiom? Why is it always always always THAT one? Freudian, much?

Well, to be honest, my foul mouthed father has a different, less delicate, expression he uses.

 

I'd pay good money to hear it come out of my uber conservative grandmother's mouth.

[Rosie_0801]

 

A gay couple eating cake hurts no one.

 

No. I think it doesn't. I feel very sure my gay buddy would share her cake with me in return for my great service of finding a blue cheese she liked and could share with all her gay buddies. I deserve cake for sharing my blue cheese shopping secrets and I know she would agree.

[TranquilMind]

I'm done banging my head against the brick wall.

 

There is an enormous gulf between people, both religious and secular, who believe in the common good, and those who don't.

 

There is an even huger gulf between those people, both religious and secular, who want to see our gay brothers and sisters accorded the same rights as our straight brothers and sisters, and those who think The Gays are trying to push Gaydom down their throats and boy, oh boy, are those sinners going to hell!

 

My personal conclusions are that some people actively want a theocracy, human rights be damned. And some people do not possess the imagination or the good will to put themselves in a gay person's shoes, and learn from that experience.

 

Given these gulfs in understanding, intention, beliefs and desires, the best thing I can do for my dd is to teach her to avoid all those on the other side. There are plenty of religious and secular people who will treat her like a  full and non-deviant person. She doesn't need to go near the rest of you.

 

And given the above, wow, have I just had fuel added to a desire to work towards a world governed by humanist values! If ever a thread could turn a woman away from dialogue with conservative fundamentalist Christians, this is the one.

You are so misrepresenting the situation. 

 

People all have the same rights.  No one is saying that anyone is "going to hell".  That's not the purpose of individual and religious freedoms.  The purpose is to act in accordance with your own. The gay person is doing so when he decides to marry someone of the same gender; that is a blatant declaration of his religious freedom (from traditional values)  There isn't a "right" to demand that private business owners book you or else.  There isn't a right to demand that they create their work for your event, even if they find it religiously proscribed.    Live and let live here. 

 

Everyone has the right to buy a cake.  Everyone does NOT have the right to force another person to overlook his religious beliefs to bow to your demands in doing your event, regardless of their own beliefs.  That's the issue here. 

 

There IS no theocracy; it would look far different than the hideous mess we see today. But let's not go overboard and make sure there ARE no conservative Christians who will state their beliefs, for fear of governmental penalty, either. 

[TranquilMind]

I'm glad homophobic actions are being silenced. I can't help what you believe in your own home and church and head, but I don't want homophobic actions in the public square.

No, what you are saying is that you do not want religious expression in the public square that does not support homosexuality.

 

No one is "afraid" of homosexuals.  Please get that straight, at least. 

[Mrs Mungo]

They are indeed being silenced into compliance by the arm of the law, after the complainants managed to create a protected class.  Religious objections are invalid.   The action of declining business for a wedding that is not a wedding (under your scriptural laws) should not be illegal.    If that does not have serious implications, I don't know what does.

They are NOT being SILENCED. They are TALKING TO THE NEWS! I'm sorry for the caps, they are for emphasis. But, seriously, how can you insist that they are being SILENCED? I do NOT understand this. Do you think it is a fundamentally different argument than the argument used by Tim Robbins? If so, how? If not, how is his different? Or do you think his assessment of that situation was correct? Here is a part of the quote from him that he read ON TELEVISION (therefore, he was neither being silenced nor was his right to free speech violated): "I was dismayed that the Baseball Hall of Fame decided to use this event to make a political statement. It is using what power it has to infringe upon my rights of free speech with the hope to intimidate millions of others who disagree with our president."

 

You (general you) cannot have your cake and eat it too. WHEN you decide to open a business that is open to the public you receive lot of benefits from various levels of governments. There are *also* regulations that you must follow. If you feel that you CANNOT morally follow those laws, THEN you have other options like operating a private cake selling club with membership requirements. A number of the business owners who have been brought up in this thread (the Colorado bakery, the wedding chapel, etc) have found ways to make their business legal and functional. Their businesses *have not* been shut down.

 

We are starting to see a little bit of that expansion of governmental force in the housing sector and on public accommodations, where everybody and his brother suddenly needs a "comfort pit bull" or a "comfort pig" to get around the owner's pet-free housing requirement (or public transit proscription).  Last week, I think it was, an out-of-control HUGE "comfort" pig was booted off an airplane ride, much to the consternation of its owner, but relief of the passengers.    The necessary "service animal" protection boundaries are being pushed hard by all these people who want to force others to comply with their desires for animals.    Landlords, tired of repairing damage from animals, are finding it harder and harder to decline them.  We aren't talking about highly trained service animals, for the blind or people with seizures.  We are talking about "comfort" animals.  A pet IS a comfort animal - that's the purpose of a pet.     So people will pay higher prices and find fewer places to rent, because of these people abusing the no-pet rules.

I think this is a totally different discussion and inappropriate to this thread.

 

Same here.  Christian bakers either have to go through additional hoops (create private groups, etc), or resign themselves to doing cakes for weddings that cannot scripturally be weddings.

That still doesn't *silence* anyone. And jumping through hoops isn't the same as shutting down a business.

 

especially when there are and always will be loads of businesses happy to take your money, who have no such conscience restrictions.[/b]

People have repeatedly shown you that this is not true. It might be true for YOU, but it isn't true for everyone. Not everyone lives in a metro area with dozens of bakers. My MIL lives out in the boonies and there is ONE place to buy a cake without driving for an hour. The law has to apply whether there is one bakery in a 50 mile radius or 100 bakeries.

[TranquilMind]

You demonstrate the gulf.

 

Conservative Christians can state their beliefs all they like. If their beliefs are discriminatory, I for one will fight them with my vote and the money I give to groups set up to do that. And I will keep my child away from people with those beliefs.

 

Not all beliefs are of equal value in a diverse and thankfully non-theocratic society.

 

Ha ha.

Ok.  Well, at least you are honest here in saying that only YOUR beliefs are worth protecting.  All those conservatives with biblical beliefs can just suck it, because you are the arbiter of right and wrong.

 

I pity you if you keep your children from a wide range of beliefs, because they certainly are going to have to learn to hear them and navigate them out in the world. 

[texasmama]

No. I think it doesn't. I feel very sure my gay buddy would share her cake with me in return for my great service of finding a blue cheese she liked and could share with all her gay buddies. I deserve cake for sharing my blue cheese shopping secrets and I know she would agree.

 

I made my gay buddy a cake for her birthday in October.  You can have my blue cheese, though, because I don't like it.  Ewwwww.

 

 

[TranquilMind]

They are NOT being SILENCED. They are TALKING TO THE NEWS! I'm sorry for the caps, they are for emphasis. But, seriously, how can you insist that they are being SILENCED? I do NOT understand this. Do you think it is a fundamentally different argument than the argument used by Tim Robbins? If so, how? If not, how is his different? Or do you think his assessment of that situation was correct? Here is a part of the quote from him that he read ON TELEVISION (therefore, he was neither being silenced nor was his right to free speech violated): "I was dismayed that the Baseball Hall of Fame decided to use this event to make a political statement. It is using what power it has to infringe upon my rights of free speech with the hope to intimidate millions of others who disagree with our president."

 

You (general you) cannot have your cake and eat it too. WHEN you decide to open a business that is open to the public you receive lot of benefits from various levels of governments. There are *also* regulations that you must follow. If you feel that you CANNOT morally follow those laws, THEN you have other options like operating a private cake selling club with membership requirements. A number of the business owners who have been brought up in this thread (the Colorado bakery, the wedding chapel, etc) have found ways to make their business legal and functional. Their businesses *have not* been shut down.

 

 

I think this is a totally different discussion and inappropriate to this thread.

 

 

That still doesn't *silence* anyone. And jumping through hoops isn't the same as shutting down a business.

 

 

People have repeatedly shown you that this is not true. It might be true for YOU, but it isn't true for everyone. Not everyone lives in a metro area with dozens of bakers. My MIL lives out in the boonies and there is ONE place to buy a cake without driving for an hour. The law has to apply whether there is one bakery in a 50 mile radius or 100 bakeries.

I'm not talking about Tim Robbins. I am unfamiliar with that situation (will look at it in a bit).  It does sound from what you say as if he was removed from  appearing at an event because of his political views, which seems wrong to me, and should be wrong to you, if you want your own disparate beliefs respected....but I will look at it later. 

 

These bakers DID follow the laws....but then the law recently changed to create a new protected class of those whose beliefs contradict the scriptural belief of the baker.  Do you not see this?  

What if they suddenly created new laws that placed those who oppose your religious beliefs in a protected class, though you had run your business exactly the same way for 10, 20, 30, 50 years?  Can you see some instance in which this might affect you? 

[Mrs Mungo]

People all have the same rights.  No one is saying that anyone is "going to hell".  That's not the purpose of individual and religious freedoms.  The purpose is to act in accordance with your own. The gay person is doing so when he decides to marry someone of the same gender; that is a blatant declaration of his religious freedom (from traditional values)  There isn't a "right" to demand that private business owners book you or else.  There isn't a right to demand that they create their work for your event, even if they find it religiously proscribed.    Live and let live here. 

 

Everyone has the right to buy a cake.  Everyone does NOT have the right to force another person to overlook his religious beliefs to bow to your demands in doing your event, regardless of their own beliefs.  That's the issue here.

You are demonstrably wrong from a legal point of view. In the United States WE have determined that everyone DOES have the same right to be served as anyone else. We have built protections into our laws for minority and persecuted groups. It is NOT forbidden by The Bible to sell goods of any kind to a criminal or a gossip or a liar or a prostitute or a homosexual or someone who eats shrimp.

 

But let's not go overboard and make sure there ARE no conservative Christians who will state their beliefs, for fear of governmental penalty, either.

 

 NOBODY is claiming that Christians cannot state their beliefs. The WBC is an excellent example of hate-filled, prejudiced people saying whatever they please. But, Christians *cannot* illegally discriminate against people who they believe to be sinners whether the reason is a gay marriage or because they believe someone carries the Curse of Ham.

 

No, what you are saying is that you do not want religious expression in the public square that does not support homosexuality. 

No one is "afraid" of homosexuals.  Please get that straight, at least.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a

ËŒhÅməˈfÅbÄ“É™

 

noun

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not talking about Tim Robbins. I am unfamiliar with that situation (will look at it in a bit).  It does sound from what you say as if he was removed from  appearing at an event because of his political views, which seems wrong to me, and should be wrong to you, if you want your own disparate beliefs respected....but I will look at it later.

No, what I specifically said was that the Baseball Hall of Fame (a private organization) *canceled* an event in order to avoid giving Tim Robbins a platform from which to speak. Claiming that is a violation of free speech is tantamount to claiming that RandomHouse is violating my free speech by not publishing my book. It is NOT "silencing" someone, if they can go on national tv to complain about it.

 

 

These bakers DID follow the laws....but then the law recently changed to create a new protected class of those whose beliefs contradict the scriptural belief of the baker.  Do you not see this?

No, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have this backwards. The protected class of people was created before the Colorado incident.

 

I have to run for now, so I can't finish addressing the rest of this.

[TranquilMind]

You are demonstrably wrong from a legal point of view. In the United States WE have determined that everyone DOES have the same right to be served as anyone else. We have built protections into our laws for minority and persecuted groups. It is NOT forbidden by The Bible to sell goods of any kind to a criminal or a gossip or a liar or a prostitute or a homosexual or someone who eats shrimp.

 

 

 NOBODY is claiming that Christians cannot state their beliefs. The WBC is an excellent example of hate-filled, prejudiced people saying whatever they please. But, Christians *cannot* illegally discriminate against people who they believe to be sinners whether the reason is a gay marriage or because they believe someone carries the Curse of Ham.

 

 

 

Christians in the marketplace cannot NOW discriminate against people whose actions/events contradict scriptural beliefs, who wish to compel them to provide goods and services, and because NOW there is a brand new area of privilege in a protected class for sexual behavior that contradicts scripture.  At least state it the way it is. 

[Tanaqui]

No, what you are saying is that you do not want religious expression in the public square that does not support homosexuality.

 

No one is "afraid" of homosexuals.  Please get that straight, at least. 

 

TranquilMind, once again you are engaging in the etymological fallacy. I think you know perfectly well that the word "homophobia" has nothing to do with "fear", in the same way that "Lord" has nothing to do with the person who literally guards the bread and that a "hydrophobic" material is not literally afraid of water.

 

When you rely on already refuted points - and that is not the only example on this page - you make your argument look weak. Is that the impression you are trying to make?