Jump to content

Menu

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


Cammie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actually, it would be "bakers in more populous areas get privileges that bakers in less populous areas do not."

 

Correction noted. Do you really think that's a good system?

 

I do not believe this is ever going to be likely but it is possible.

 

Why do you not think this is likely? As it is, many people live in places with only one bakery/supermarket/florist for a great distance in any one direction. In the US, rural areas tend to be more conservative, as well.

 

As I said, I would be interested to see such cases (and I am fairly sure none currently exist).

 

No, because that sort of discrimination is illegal, so we don't get to that point.

 

When I asked about the fairness of citing a gay bar for discriminating against a gay man based on his particular expression of his (gay) sexual orientation, no one was willing to answer me.  Anyone?

 

I don't know enough about the case.

 

 

Again, if Denver did not allow gay people to be customers in cakeshops, then I would say the government had a compelling case to protect them.  But this is obviously not the case.  It is brimming with cakeshops, the majority of whom would be happy to provide a cake for the event.

 

Putting aside the fact that the cakeshops are not all equally good - perhaps this one offers some special sort of cake the others do not - you are suggesting something that is fundamentally unjust, that laws that ought to apply to everybody should apply only in certain circumstances. We cannot have "this rule for cities" and "this rule for very conservative areas" and "this rule for rural areas".

 

The law really has to be the same in this case for everybody.

 

Re: your last question, I answered it above -- you know, the whole thing about human bondage and state-enforced segregation.

 

Those laws do not just protect black people. They also protect other minorities, some of whom were never held as slaves or suffered much in the way of legal discrimination. Are you saying that those laws should only protect those who have been harmed by the law in the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, one more thing, and I don't know how I missed it.

 

The government is not in the business of policing thought.  It cannot tell a baker how to feel or what to think.

 

Indeed not, and nobody ever suggested it should. The government also cannot tell people not to want to rape little kids. Can't tell people not to want to kill people. Can't tell people not to hate black people, or to suggest that slavery was really a good thing after all.

 

What the government CAN do is sanction those who move from thinking or feeling or even talking into doing. You can want to rape kiddies, but it's not a crime until you actually do so. You can want to murder people, but you can't be punished until you actually try to kill somebody. You can hate black people, but you don't get punished until you beat one up for being black, or refuse to hire them, or refuse to sell them anything.

 

Telling the baker to offer his goods equally to all customers isn't thought control. Nobody cares how he feels deep down inside.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we talked about the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" that passed the Michigan House this month? It allow anyone the right to refuse to serve anyone if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  EMTs, pharmacists, social workers, DMV employees, doctors, police... anyone could refuse to serve you if they feel their religion tells them not to.  If you're gay.    Or Muslim. Or atheist.  Or divorced.  Or female, if their religion says you should be in the home or not wearing pants.

  

While it allows anyone from any religion to discriminate at will, Michigan is 79% Christian. And this is very much about the freedom to refuse service to LGBT people.  "Restoring" the right to discriminate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Family bathrooms are a,so awesome when you have a kid with sensory issues who panica at even going into a restroom with automatic hand dryers. Because it's just you, there's no chance of that scary monster on the wall roaring at the kid when they're not ready for it. Even at age 10, my DD has to steel herself to go into a public bathroom because of the sounds, and relaxes obivously at the Family Bathroom sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we talked about the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" that passed the Michigan House this month? It allow anyone the right to refuse to serve anyone if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  EMTs, pharmacists, social workers, DMV employees, doctors, police... anyone could refuse to serve you if they feel their religion tells them not to.  If you're gay.    Or Muslim. Or atheist.  Or divorced.  Or female, if their religion says you should be in the home or not wearing pants.

  

While it allows anyone from any religion to discriminate at will, Michigan is 79% Christian. And this is very much about the freedom to refuse service to LGBT people.  "Restoring" the right to discriminate. 

 

I'm disgusted to see my nation pass laws like this, but I do feel some sense of hope in knowing this kind of hateful action serves to reduce the respect, and ultimately therefore, the influence of the religious community in my country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, the right terminology is important because we want to keep budding pedophiles from turning into child molesters. There isn't much help available for people in that situation, which is unfortunate, because helping them would be helping kids.

 

This is a true statement and a difficult and uncomfortable subject.  Thanks for making me consider that issue. We are so instinctively repulsed by the idea that someone would be attracted to children it is not surprising that there is no help available.  But as you said, helping them would be protecting kids from potential abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction noted. Do you really think that's a good system?

 

Not particularly, and I also find it highly unlikely that it will ever become the system.

 

Why do you not think this is likely? As it is, many people live in places with only one bakery/supermarket/florist for a great distance in any one direction. In the US, rural areas tend to be more conservative, as well.

 

Yes, and rural, conservative areas are very unlikely to be places where gay couples hoping to marry would live.  Especially as many of them happen to be in states that do not recognize gay marriage.  In any case, in many of such extremely rural places, sexual orientation is not protected.  

 

No, because that sort of discrimination is illegal, so we don't get to that point.

It is certainly not illegal in all places.  Sexual orientation, as stated before, is not federally protected and is not protected by all states.  And simply because something is illegal does not mean it will not be challenged.  This happens every day.  Laws get changed.  Hence, "cases."

 

 

I don't know enough about the case.

 

What else do you need to know?  The whole thing is ludicrous.  A gay bear bar with a dress code refused a gay cross-dresser entrance.  Gay cross-dresser filed a complaint based on his sexual orientation.  Protected group (gay) cited for discriminating against the identical protected group (gay) on the basis of their shared (gay) sexual orientation.  

 

I am perfectly willing to concede points or say I don't know.  How about a little honesty on your side?

 

Putting aside the fact that the cakeshops are not all equally good - perhaps this one offers some special sort of cake the others do not - you are suggesting something that is fundamentally unjust, that laws that ought to apply to everybody should apply only in certain circumstances. We cannot have "this rule for cities" and "this rule for very conservative areas" and "this rule for rural areas".

 

We do, in fact, have different rules for different places.  That is the beauty of federalism.  States makes different laws.  Cities make different laws.  Counties make different laws.  Municipalities make different laws.  These laws reflect the will of the local population, as is right.  The 10th Amendment protects this.  The federal government is highly restricted in its scope by the Constitution.  

 

The law really has to be the same in this case for everybody.

 

But it will not be, unless the federal government steps in.  Whether it can, under the 10th Amendment, is doubtful.

 

 

Those laws do not just protect black people. They also protect other minorities, some of whom were never held as slaves or suffered much in the way of legal discrimination. Are you saying that those laws should only protect those who have been harmed by the law in the past?

 

Correct, but the Civil Rights Act was instituted for the purpose of protecting black people.  National origin was included because some also used that as an excuse to discriminate against black people.  It was not, for example, instituted specifically to protect Chinese people; a group which was also often mistreated, for example in western states.  Title II protects race, color, religion, and national origin.

 

And finally, even though sexual orientation IS protected in Colorado, I do not believe the baker discriminated based sexual orientation as it has been stated COUNTLESS times that he offered to serve the gay couple in other ways.  He did NOT refuse to serve them BECAUSE they are gay.  If that had been the case, he would have asked them to leave.  He did not.  I realize you do not accept this.  To me, your viewpoint says that the white t-shirt maker who will not print "Kill Whitey" on t-shirt for the Black Panthers is discriminating based on race.  Presumably, said t-shirt maker would be happy to provide "Black People are Awesome" t-shirts for said Black Panthers, and so I disagree.  It is the event, not the client.  It is the message, not the client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: how mandated accommodation for disability group morphed into (originally unintended) benefit for many:

Family bathrooms are a,so awesome when you have a kid with sensory issues who panica at even going into a restroom with automatic hand dryers. Because it's just you, there's no chance of that scary monster on the wall roaring at the kid when they're not ready for it. Even at age 10, my DD has to steel herself to go into a public bathroom because of the sounds, and relaxes obivously at the Family Bathroom sign.

 

Yes.  Yet those bathrooms started out as a mandated solution to allowing people in wheelchairs access to bathrooms... a problem which hadn't been considered a problem, for the majority of people who had never experienced difficulty getting to a bathroom.

 

 

 

The Universal Design history is fascinating -- it originated as a response to legislative mandates about expanding physical access to government (initially federal, though many states soon followed) buildings and for the provision of a free and appropriate public education to people with disabilities.  

 

Although these legislative mandates were controversial at the time, as architects and urban planners and software designers turned to the problems of how to expand access to people with disabilities, all sorts of unexpected benefits accrued to other people -- sidewalk curb cuts and public elevators are great for pushing strollers and lugging suitcases too; text-to-speech as all sorts of classroom and educational software applications; closed captioning enables us to watch videos while our spouses are sleeping; yada yada yada.  Once a solution is invented new applications for it arise.

 

 

It started, though, with legislation defining a class as having rights of access.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What else do you need to know?  The whole thing is ludicrous.  A gay bear bar with a dress code refused a gay cross-dresser entrance.  Gay cross-dresser filed a complaint based on his sexual orientation.  Protected group (gay) cited for discriminating against the identical protected group (gay) on the basis of their shared (gay) sexual orientation.  

 

I am perfectly willing to concede points or say I don't know.  How about a little honesty on your side?

 

I am being honest. I don't know enough about the case. This thread is the first place I've ever heard about it. To be honest, I think it is entirely possible that it has been misrepresented, as that list of "CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION!" that was posted earlier* was. I am waiting until I have some free time to look it up, and then I'll have more information with which to formulate an opinion.

 

* Possibly on another thread. I lost track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am being honest. I don't know enough about the case. This thread is the first place I've ever heard about it. To be honest, I think it is entirely possible that it has been misrepresented, as that list of "CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION!" that was posted earlier* was. I am waiting until I have some free time to look it up, and then I'll have more information with which to formulate an opinion.

 

* Possibly on another thread. I lost track.

The name of the gay bar is The Wrangler.  It is in Denver.  There was no misrepresentation.  This is the logical result of far-reaching public accommodation laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The name of the gay bar is The Wrangler.  It is in Denver.  There was no misrepresentation.  This is the logical result of far-reaching public accommodation laws.

 

Thank you for the information. You may even be correct with your conclusion. However, I am not going to believe you simply based on your assertion. I will do my own research and come up with my own conclusion, which I will then share with you if you like. No good will come from people spouting off on subjects they know nothing about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the information. You may even be correct with your conclusion. However, I am not going to believe you simply based on your assertion. I will do my own research and come up with my own conclusion, which I will then share with you if you like. No good will come from people spouting off on subjects they know nothing about.

I wish I could convince my extended family of this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, your viewpoint says that the white t-shirt maker who will not print "Kill Whitey" on t-shirt for the Black Panthers is discriminating based on race.  Presumably, said t-shirt maker would be happy to provide "Black People are Awesome" t-shirts for said Black Panthers, and so I disagree.  It is the event, not the client.  It is the message, not the client.

"Kill Whitey" would qualify as hate speech so it wouldn't be protected anyway, even if the customer is a member of a protected class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Kill Whitey" would qualify as hate speech so it wouldn't be protected anyway, even if the customer is a member of a protected class.

 

"Hate speech" is not a constitutional thing in America.  It is just speech, and subject to the same restrictions as any other speech.  In other words, if it will provoke imminent violence, it is not allowed.  Otherwise, it is unrestricted. I would argue that "Kill Whitey" on a t-shirt is unlikely to convince anyone actually to go out and kill a white dude, and so I think it could withstand scrutiny.  A member of the Black Panthers who literally instructs his followers to go out and kill white people would not find his speech protected.  In any case, I've seen worse on t-shirts.  

 

But fine.  Let's go with "Whitey is Ugly" or any other slogan you choose.  It does not really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those laws do not just protect black people. They also protect other minorities, some of whom were never held as slaves or suffered much in the way of legal discrimination. Are you saying that those laws should only protect those who have been harmed by the law in the past?

Right. I posted earlier that a *white* news anchor was fired and replaced by a Latina one in El Paso because they thought a Latina would be more popular. The white news anchor who had been fired due to her race sued the news station and won. The law protects everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input...

 

I'm not angry here...just going to speak my mind. :)

 

I agree with creekland's first comment. I am a conservative Christian. I'm not reformed (I don't believe that the Church fulfills God's promises to Israel and so we need to establish a Christian nation, etc.)... Most Christians in my circle vote against homosexuality because

 

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too.

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

Has anyone mentioned yet... The mayor of Houston recently demanded the SERMONS of PASTORS who spoke out against homosexuality. In Canada, pastors are being JAILED for SPEAKING against homosexuality. (Once again, not angry here, just trying to be heard in what I feel is a largely one-sided conversation.) Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A?

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

You mention that fear drives the conservative Christian, and I agree. I think the gap between presumption and truth exacerbates an inappropriate reaction from people who have little knowledge of the group they persecute.

 

This post makes me sad. I want it to anger me. I want to be able to show my children that, unfortunately, there are people who don't equate God with love, and then hope that it spurns them to fight harder for humanity. Honestly, I don't want them to know that people like this, let alone groups of them, exist. This post makes me tired. It makes me want to pull the sheets over my head and sleep because it makes me realize that some people will probably never change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And finally, even though sexual orientation IS protected in Colorado, I do not believe the baker discriminated based sexual orientation as it has been stated COUNTLESS times that he offered to serve the gay couple in other ways. He did NOT refuse to serve them BECAUSE they are gay. If that had been the case, he would have asked them to leave.

Read the law that I posted. He can't refuse to sell any goods to anyone in a protected class. He doesn't get to pick and choose what he sells to whom. A clothing retailer cannot refuse to sell pants to women, even if the store is willing to sell them a skirt or dress. That is how the law works. You might disagree with it, but that is how the court interpreted it.

 

If The Wrangler has a history of discriminating against men in drag, there is a solution to that-become a private club and institute a dress code. It is the same solution as I offered for the baker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hate speech" is not a constitutional thing in America.  It is just speech, and subject to the same restrictions as any other speech.

Actually, it's distinguished from "any other speech" by virtue of inciting "hate" [fear and violence] for an individual or individuals who are part of, or perceived to be part of a protected group. There are legal definitions and presidents revolving around the concept that separate it from other forms of arguably hateful speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's distinguished from "any other speech" by virtue of inciting "hate" [fear and violence] for an individual or individuals who are part of, or perceived to be part of a protected group. There are legal definitions and presidents revolving around the concept that separate it from other forms of arguably hateful speech.

 

Precedents.

 

Unless you are inciting people to violence or otherwise creating a situation of clear and present danger, it is protected speech.  Period.  See R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: Bears in drag (sigh)...

... If The Wrangler has a history of discriminating against men in drag, there is a solution to that-become a private club and institute a dress code. It is the same solution as I offered for the baker.

 

I hesitate to go here....

 

 

The bolded is, btw, how loads of clubs in urban areas get away, legally, with putting up bouncers who limit access to the Beautiful People. They set themselves up as "clubs" and limit "membership" as they see fit.  They are not categorized, legally, as public establishments.  

 

There are pros and cons associated with going this route.  The clubs lose certain protections and services, but gain certain room for maneuver, including the ability to serve whom they choose to admit.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Amish in my community will build pretty much anything. They don't allow electricity/plumbing/ or automobiles for themselves, but that doesn't stop them from contracting out as plumbers, electricians, and mechanics. I even saw them roofing a pub in town last summer. The school district will drive ther kids to an Amish school, and they have nonAmish drivers take them to stores in the next town over . I still think they have sincere beliefs, but it doesn't interfere with what they need to do to survive. I think their bishops decide what is allowable in their own small communities.

My BIL was telling me about a fascinating encounter he had with an Amish man who was hired to work on a barn. He whipped out a power saw, to which,y BIL said, "Are you allowed to use a power saw? I thought your faith did not allow it." The man sheepishly replied, "Well, if it makes you uncomfortable, I can use a hand saw, but it's an awful lot quicker this way." :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: Bears in drag (sigh)...

 

I hesitate to go here....

 

 

The bolded is, btw, how loads of clubs in urban areas get away, legally, with putting up bouncers who limit access to the Beautiful People. They set themselves up as "clubs" and limit "membership" as they see fit.  They are not categorized, legally, as public establishments.  

 

There are pros and cons associated with going this route.  The clubs lose certain protections and services, but gain certain room for maneuver, including the ability to serve whom they choose to admit.

 

However, lots of places have a dress code, but are not private clubs.  Restaurants, for example, that require men to wear a jacket. Plenty of lower-brow places requires shirts and shoes.

 

The gay man in drag, who was neither transgender nor transitioning, argued that their code was used to exclude him because of misogyny and transphobia due of his particular expression of non-female, non-trans gay sexuality.  He was objecting to their "hypermasculinity."  Why can't an establishment have its own rules and cater to a particular demographic?

 

Here is the -- rather extensive -- dress code of some random bar in NJ.  They allow no brimless headgear.  I'll just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Amish in my community will build pretty much anything. They don't allow electricity/plumbing/ or automobiles for themselves, but that doesn't stop them from contracting out as plumbers, electricians, and mechanics. I even saw them roofing a pub in town last summer. The school district will drive ther kids to an Amish school, and they have nonAmish drivers take them to stores in the next town over . I still think they have sincere beliefs, but it doesn't interfere with what they need to do to survive. I think their bishops decide what is allowable in their own small communities.

 

This is the same with the Mennonite community near where my parents live. In general, they seem to be the least judgmental people to those outside the faith known to man (I have a  friend who was raised Mennonite who found that it is VERY difficult to be a Gay teen in that community), and I have little doubt that a Mennonite baker (and there are many) would bake a cake for a Gay couple's wedding, wish them well, welcome them each week when they come in and get their bread, rejoice when they bring their new child in and hand the child a cookie with a smile, help them when they have a house fire or are in need, and pray for them without ceasing.  Just as they do for the soldier in uniform, the teen mom in cutoff shorts and a tank top, and the college student dressed full-on goth wearing a pentagram necklace, and many other people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the other tread (I think), I asked if a baker should be forced to bake a cake for an FRC fundraiser and people agreed that he shouldn't be.  Or maybe I asked if a venue should be forced to rent their space to the FRC for a fundraiser.  Either of these activities is showing approval in the way that buying flour or providing soda is not.  You might have to write "Congratulations Bob and Steve" on the cake.  You might have to put a little figure of two guys on top of it.  Someone might post a photo of the cake on their blog saying you made it and how wonderful it was.  This shows your approval of the wedding.

 

 

I raised this very issue, in terms of a gay cake maker being forced to create a cake for a Westboro Baptist "Church" event;  is it acceptable to force Mr. Cake Maker to create a cake that states, "God hates F&*S", or does that violate Mr. Cake Maker's right to free speech, freedom of association, and perhaps even religious freedom? 

 

I can easily see some gay cake maker being targeted to do this by some fringe organization. 

 

We shall see if the sentiment runs both ways, but I suspect not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I raised this very issue, in terms of a gay cake maker being forced to create a cake for a Westboro Baptist "Church" event;  is it acceptable to force Mr. Cake Maker to create a cake that states, "God hates F&*S", or does that violate Mr. Cake Maker's right to free speech, freedom of association, and perhaps even religious freedom? 

 

I can easily see some gay cake maker being targeted to do this by some fringe organization. 

 

We shall see if the sentiment runs both ways, but I suspect not. 

 

I've seen quite a few bakeries that have written policies of "no offensive language or adult subjects" for their goods. Kroger, for example, has that as a stated policy, at least in my region, as do quite a few non-chain businesses. They won't do an explicit cake for a bachelor party, for example. I'd imagine that they'd be able to refuse Westboro Baptist Church because of the fact that it would be pretty easy to say that this is offensive language.

 

If you didn't have such a policy, and especially if you'd made cakes with language that could reasonable be considered offensive in the past (there was a person on one of the Food Network shows who specialized in "erotic" cakes-leading to questions as to what that meant from my then 9 yr old followed by "ew! Who would want to eat THAT???")  I'd think it would be hard to have a legal leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen quite a few bakeries that have written policies of "no offensive language or adult subjects" for their goods. Kroger, for example, has that as a stated policy, at least in my region, as do quite a few non-chain businesses. They won't do an explicit cake for a bachelor party, for example. I'd imagine that they'd be able to refuse Westboro Baptist Church because of the fact that it would be pretty easy to say that this is offensive language.

 

If you didn't have such a policy, and especially if you'd made cakes with language that could reasonable be considered offensive in the past (there was a person on one of the Food Network shows who specialized in "erotic" cakes-leading to questions as to what that meant from my then 9 yr old followed by "ew! Who would want to eat THAT???")  I'd think it would be hard to have a legal leg to stand on.

All right, conceded.  Since a vulgarity is used in that common phrase they have used, let's change the wording to, "Traditional Marriage is the only Real Marriage". 

 

Can we force the gay baker to create this cake? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, conceded.  Since a vulgarity is used in that common phrase they have used, let's change the wording to, "Traditional Marriage is the only Real Marriage". 

 

Can we force the gay baker to create this cake? 

 

I suspect that for most bakers, that would fall in the same category as a Jewish baker making a cake for a baptism or first communion (and I have a friend who went to a Kosher bakery/deli for a party for her DD's baptism-her child has dairy allergies, and she was confident a Kosher baker/caterer could come up with a wonderful, dairy-free spread. The presumably Jewish staff had no trouble making a cross shaped cake for the occasion). I believe most people recognize that the message on a cake reflects the client, not the baker/decorator, but the artistry and beauty of the cake reflects the baker/decorator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that for most bakers, that would fall in the same category as a Jewish baker making a cake for a baptism or first communion (and I have a friend who went to a Kosher bakery/deli for a party for her DD's baptism-her child has dairy allergies, and she was confident a Kosher baker/caterer could come up with a wonderful, dairy-free spread. The presumably Jewish staff had no trouble making a cross shaped cake for the occasion). I believe most people recognize that the message on a cake reflects the client, not the baker/decorator, but the artistry and beauty of the cake reflects the baker/decorator.

 

But what about the specific case she mentioned: the gay baker and the religious client who wants "The Only Real Marriage is Traditional Marriage."  Must he make this cake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're in the business of providing a service to the public, then you provide it to the public. The whole public. You do not discriminate based on gender, race, ethnicity, country of origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, language, religion, caste..... 

You do not discriminate. Period. Full stop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about the specific case she mentioned: the gay baker and the religious client who wants "The Only Real Marriage is Traditional Marriage."  Must he make this cake?

 

If it's not in violation of stated policies across the board, yes. 

 

And I think most Gay adults would prefer to have equal access and protections even if it means baking a cake for a bigot vs not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, conceded. Since a vulgarity is used in that common phrase they have used, let's change the wording to, "Traditional Marriage is the only Real Marriage".

 

Can we force the gay baker to create this cake?

Yep. And the ugly t-shirt scenario too. Welcome to America. What's your dream? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same with the Mennonite community near where my parents live. In general, they seem to be the least judgmental people to those outside the faith known to man (I have a  friend who was raised Mennonite who found that it is VERY difficult to be a Gay teen in that community), and I have little doubt that a Mennonite baker (and there are many) would bake a cake for a Gay couple's wedding, wish them well, welcome them each week when they come in and get their bread, rejoice when they bring their new child in and hand the child a cookie with a smile, help them when they have a house fire or are in need, and pray for them without ceasing.  Just as they do for the soldier in uniform, the teen mom in cutoff shorts and a tank top, and the college student dressed full-on goth wearing a pentagram necklace, and many other people. 

 

This is my experience as well.  They may be quite strict with each other, but to anyone not of their faith circle, they are extraordinarily non-judgmental. They seem to have Matthew 7:16 down pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD#3 studied this last year - including several trips to the Institute for Human Centered Design - it was part of the organizing theme of last year's course work at her school (the other piece was areyvus, as in kol yisrael areivim zeh lazeh, all of Israel are guarantors for each other).

 

She was very excited by the benefits for everyone of accessible design, on a personal, practical, and spiritual level.

 

Neat.  

 

(And I took a peek at her school's website.  Wow.  Lucky girl.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you feel the same way about a bakery that refused to serve black people? Interracial couples? Asians? Women? Christians? And if you would, imagine that "right" extending to every business you come in contact with. Would you be comfortable living in that world? It wasn't so pleasant the last time we were there.

 But that is the main problem, it is not unpleasant to the those who are rarely-if ever on the receiving end of discrimination. 

 

The bottom post just made me shake my head. There was a time when interracial marriages were legally forbidden and supported under the guise of religion (just like slavery was condoned through it) and you could exchange homosexuals with interracial couples and it's the same discriminatory nonsense. My parent told me of a Pastor who refused to marry them because they were mixed race and found scriptures in hopes of showing them God's plan that they break up and mix with their own races. Now fast forward, would it be safe to say that Christians got it wrong in that respect, why is it still OK to discriminate for whatever reason when history has shown us we will never know enough about this life or the after life to be 100% sure that excluding any group of people is what God had called us to do.  Certain people cry vilification but never sit back and say "hallelujah" they have never truly experienced being on the other side of that word....

 

I really, really don't understand.

 

I have no problem with whatever people want to believe or disbelieve. Your personal, private views on religion are your own business,

 

I have no problem with whatever rules secular organizations want to have. Their organizations, their decision how to run it and all that.

 

I would LOVE to understand why secularists have decided that their rules should apply to religious individuals and organizations?

 

Why should a religious adoption agency be forced to place a child in a home that the agency feels is inappropriate? Homosexuals can just go to another agency if they want to adopt.

 

Why should a wedding photographer or cake baker or other vendor be forced to participate in an event the vendor feels is immoral? Again, the couple can simply find another vendor. Would it be considered acceptable to sue a Jewish caterer who declined to cook a pork meal or a Jewish photographer who declined to work on Friday nights & Saturdays for religious reasons?

 

Why should religious affiliated employers be forced to pay for contraception? It's not like anyone held a gun to the employees' heads and forced them to go work for that organization rather than a secular one. Don't like your benefits package? Quit and go work for someone else.

 

There are many other examples I could give, but you get the point.

 

The inconvenience of one person in having to find a different wedding vendor/adoption agency/employer/etc. should NOT trump the right of the other person to practice his/her religion. Religious liberty should be given precedence as religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution. There is no "right to convenience" in the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we talked about the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" that passed the Michigan House this month? It allow anyone the right to refuse to serve anyone if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  EMTs, pharmacists, social workers, DMV employees, doctors, police... anyone could refuse to serve you if they feel their religion tells them not to.  If you're gay.    Or Muslim. Or atheist.  Or divorced.  Or female, if their religion says you should be in the home or not wearing pants.

  

While it allows anyone from any religion to discriminate at will, Michigan is 79% Christian. And this is very much about the freedom to refuse service to LGBT people.  "Restoring" the right to discriminate. 

 

 

I think this is just another one of those things where a stupid  state legslature votes in ridiculous things that will result in millions of tax payers dollars being wasted for something that is unconstitutional. That money could have been used on roads, or schools or even Detroit's water department which has a big huge problem, nope. "We are going to waste it on stupid and evil laws that are not legal!" Michigan sure as HECK doesn't have any extra money just laying around to waste on nonsense.

 

If a healthcare worker doesn't want to treat that person then they should find a new job. Period.

 

Arizona tried to pass a similar law and it was vetoed by the governor, and I hope this one is also vetoed.

 

But....maybe Michigan should rethink who they are voting for state legislature if they are going to be wasting the taxpayer's time and money like this. As a moderate I am certainly not anti-any certain party, I get mad and happy with all political parties but I AM anti-stupid-evil-crap-that-wastes-money. I would get rid of every single person who voted for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, lots of places have a dress code, but are not private clubs.  Restaurants, for example, that require men to wear a jacket. Plenty of lower-brow places requires shirts and shoes.

 

The gay man in drag, who was neither transgender nor transitioning, argued that their code was used to exclude him because of misogyny and transphobia due of his particular expression of non-female, non-trans gay sexuality.  He was objecting to their "hypermasculinity."  Why can't an establishment have its own rules and cater to a particular demographic?

 

Here is the -- rather extensive -- dress code of some random bar in NJ.  They allow no brimless headgear.  I'll just leave it at that.

NJ is a totally different state. The Wrangler and the bakery in question are both in Colorado, making them comparable. A dance club in NJ operating under a separate set of state laws is not comparable. 

 

 

I raised this very issue, in terms of a gay cake maker being forced to create a cake for a Westboro Baptist "Church" event;  is it acceptable to force Mr. Cake Maker to create a cake that states, "God hates F&*S", or does that violate Mr. Cake Maker's right to free speech, freedom of association, and perhaps even religious freedom? 

 

I can easily see some gay cake maker being targeted to do this by some fringe organization. 

 

We shall see if the sentiment runs both ways, but I suspect not. 

 

If they are selling, "God Hates F&*S" cakes to everyone else, then yes. If they aren't in the business of selling cakes with that motto, then the bakery is in the clear. Just as the bakery in Colorado is now in the clear because they stopped selling wedding cakes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NJ is a totally different state. The Wrangler and the bakery in question are both in Colorado, making them comparable. A dance club in NJ operating under a separate set of state laws is not comparable. 

 

 

If they are selling, "God Hates F&*S" cakes to everyone else, then yes. If they aren't in the business of selling cakes with that motto, then the bakery is in the clear. Just as the bakery in Colorado is now in the clear because they stopped selling wedding cakes.

 

 

I would not agree to write the word F@*&$&*@$ Someone cannot make another person write a slur, that is not ok. I would sell the cake but not write slurs on it, I would give them icing and they can do that themselves.

 

I can't say I wouldn't write bad words on cakes because I think we all know I would totally write bad words on cakes. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - how about the grocery store in New Jersey that refused to write Adolf Hitler's name on a birthday cake?  As in the boy named Adolf Hitler?  A Walmart in PA did agree to write it.  But could the store in NJ have been compelled to do it?  

 

I am not sure Adolf Hitler is a protected class. :lol:

 

I remember that story, those people were crazy.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/-year-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/#.VIuKkSvF-HM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh,

 

I guess there was an update. I don't remember discussing this....er...it is the NY Dailey News. I don't know that this link I am posting is legit.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nazi-devil-worshipping-n-father-fighting-custody-adolf-hitler-article-1.1367217

 

and then

 

http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2014/03/third_wife_of_nazi_dad_heath_c.html

 

Er....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but if I come to a baker who holds as a previous poster said she does, and am refused a cake for my son's bris (circumcision), how is it helpful that she'll happily sell me a baptismal cake or a wedding anniversary cake or a First Communion cake?

 

How is it not discriminatory if she gets to decide whether my cake-need is valid or not?

 

Do we want to live in a world where any store I walk into could refuse me service because of my faith?

 

Or that a landlord could refuse to rent to us because Jews are "Christ killers" and it would violate his religious beliefs?

 

That a gas station could refuse to allow you to pump gas there because you're Xtian?

 

We've had that world - and these protections exist because we don't want to go back to that.  We want a country where public facilities and businesses are open to everyone.

A baker's decision that he does not want to take a particular job because it violates his own conscience does not in any way state that the event is invalid; he just simply doesn't want to do it because it violates his faith.  Why is that so hard to understand?   He isn't judging the person; he is simply saying that making the item for the event requested violates his own belief and he doesn't wish to be associated with it. 

 

You don't wish to be discriminated against for your faith, but the baker is not allowed his own exercise of faith. 

 

The gas station example doesn't work; that is a fungible good, and not at issue.

 

Landlords are permitted to discriminate on any basis except for the several federally protected categories (and in some areas, a couple of local ones), of which religion is one.  Not at issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is hard to understand because it is illegal. The law is on the customer's side, not the baker's. It is hard to understand because people agree with the law.

 

No one cares about judging, I am sure Drs judge patients everyday but that doesn't mean they ought to refuse treatment because someone is gay (though Michigan House might disagree on that one atm, let's see what their Senate does)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If they are selling, "God Hates F&*S" cakes to everyone else, then yes. If they aren't in the business of selling cakes with that motto, then the bakery is in the clear. Just as the bakery in Colorado is now in the clear because they stopped selling wedding cakes.

 

 No, what happened is that the baker is forced to abnegate his religious teaching of what constitutes a wedding, on which he has operated for 30 years,  to accept the state's new definition of "wedding", which is unconstitutional. 

 

He sold wedding cakes, when "wedding" had a specific meaning, which it still retains to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what happened is that the baker is forced to abnegate his religious teaching of what constitutes a wedding, on which he has operated for 30 years,  to accept the state's new definition of "wedding", which is unconstitutional.

 

He wasn't all that het up about it when it was dogs getting married. If it's that important to him, he should at least manage to be consistent.

 

And again, you've yet to explain why same-sex marriages shouldn't be protected but equally sincere prohibitions against interracial marriages don't have to be. Yet again, the phrase "well, that's not scriptural" is NOT an answer. We are all gratified to know you're not a racist. That's irrelevant to the question actually being asked. We are not a theocracy. We do not make laws based upon your interpretation of your scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what happened is that the baker is forced to abnegate his religious teaching of what constitutes a wedding, on which he has operated for 30 years,  to accept the state's new definition of "wedding", which is unconstitutional. 

 

He sold wedding cakes, when "wedding" had a specific meaning, which it still retains to him.

 

It is not unconstutional, at least not according to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Administrative Judge Robert Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts. You do not have jurisdiction over them.

 

Also, according to the US Supreme Court Colorado has the right to define whatever it likes as a "wedding." You don't have jurisdiction over the Supreme Court.

 

http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/

 

 

 

In December 2013, Administrative Judge Robert Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts issued a decision confirming that finding.  Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed Spencer’s ruling to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  The Commission discussed the matter at a public hearing on May 30, and issued a decision at a public hearing on May 30, 2014.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

Wedding was not even in the same state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 No, what happened is that the baker is forced to abnegate his religious teaching of what constitutes a wedding, on which he has operated for 30 years,  to accept the state's new definition of "wedding", which is unconstitutional

 

He sold wedding cakes, when "wedding" had a specific meaning, which it still retains to him. 

 

You can say this over and over but it's not going to make it true. You can believe it with all your heart but it still won't make it true. The law is not on your side here.

 

The other side is those of us, many of us Christians, who believe it is unconstitutional for public businesses to refuse a service to a select group of people that they offer everyone else.

 

It really doesn't matter what "wedding" means to the business owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, my.

 

Surely it will struck down as unconstitutional, yes?

It just passed their house, I don't think it is a law yet. Doesn't Michigan have a bicameral legislature? It would need to pass their other chamber and be signed by the governor. Would the Michigan governor sign that? I don't really think so. This is the system working.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just passed their house, I don't think it is a law yet. Doesn't Michigan have a bicameral legislature? It would need to pass their other chamber and be signed by the governor. Would the Michigan governor sign that? I don't really think so. This is the system working.

It has to pass the Senate, the Senate can pretend they don't see the bill and then it will just die or they can pass or fail it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...