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

[FaithManor]

I'm in Michigan...sweating it out. I've emailed and called, done what I could. I think I might go ballistic and move to Colombia if it passes.

 

Yes, we have a bicameral legislative body.

[LizItaly]

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. 

 

A little history may be useful here.  In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into a law a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law which had been sponsored by the late Teddy Kennedy.  This is law intended to protect the free practice of religion from government intrusion, unless the government has a compelling reason AND cannot serve its ends with less restrictive (or burdensome) means. So Native American tribes can continue to use peyote (though non-Native Americans cannot), Jews can continue to circumcise their sons (despite vociferous and growing opposition to the practice, particularly in places like California), etc..

 

The SCOTUS later said that the federal government could not compel state governments to comply with this law.  In other words, the federal government could make the law, but could only apply it to itself.  In response, several states then enacted their own RFRAs. To date, there are 19 states with RFRAs, not including Michigan (for example Rhode Island, Illinois, and Florida).  These laws have been on the books for years.  The Michigan law is almost identical to the federal law.  Where are all the cases you warn about?  Why haven't we been hearing of them?  It's worth noting that the ACLU endorsed the passage of the federal law and regularly uses it in its practice.

 

For the record, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals and EMTs etc. to treat anyone who enters, regardless of minority status or ability to pay.  Police have similar regulations because they are government employees, as are most social workers, and all DMV employees.  No one can be denied service/treatment/aid by the aforementioned because it would constitute government-sanctioned discrimination.

[LizItaly]

LizItaly, on 12 Dec 2014 - 3:26 PM, said:

when the government has a compelling reason, it may place a burden on the free practice of religion, if no other regulation can suffice. 

 

*snip*

 

 

In the case of sexual orientation, it is NOT ILLEGAL to serve gays or to provide services for gay matrimonial events.  There is no  state-enforced segregation of gays.  Sexual orientation is not federally protected, and not all states protect it.  In some states, it is protected in some but not all municipalities.  It can never be considered in the same category as race.  

 

There is no compelling reason for the government to  burden religious freedom in this case because there are plenty of businesses who have differing views and who would happily provide the requested service.  For this reason, I believe that extending public accommodation laws to make sexual orientation a protected group is problematic.

 

If a gay t-shirt maker refuses to make t-shirts for a particular church group because they want the slogan "Jesus Hates Gays," he should be well within his rights to refuse.

 

Thank you for taking the time to type this out.

 

I think you've identified the core disagreement here.

 

It sounds as if we agree that, as you said, "when the government has a compelling reason, it may place a burden on the free practice of religion,"

 

Where we disagree is whether there is a compelling reason for sexual orientation to be a protected class.

 

I'd like to point out that many of the other protected classes don't follow the pattern you described for race (I disagree with some of your interpretations there, but that's a different conversation)

 

The compelling reason I see is here:
 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

 

Re: your first bolded, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are exactly the reasons the government had to abolish slavery (in which a class of people had no right to their own lives, and obviously no liberty or ability to pursue happiness), and end Jim Crow.  But please note that though the government must work to secure these rights, it cannot, for example, guarantee you the attainment of happiness.  Blacks in the Jim Crow south were so restricted in their ability to lives their lives as they wished that their right to pursue happiness had been severely damaged.  How does not providing a cake for someone's wedding interfere with that person's right to life, his liberty, and his pursuit of happiness?  

 

Re: your second bolded, the author is describing the situation in which a citizenry may justly abolish a government which is no longer securing these rights and institute a new government in its place.  It is a jewel of a sentence, like many others in the Constitution, but I am not sure it is relevant here.

 

and here:

 

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

 

We have a national vision of a country in which 'all men are equal', in which there is justice and the 'blessings of liberty' for all.

Yes, absolutely.  

 

When it is clear that one class of our people is not receiving equal treatment, does not have their general welfare equally protected, then our government has the compelling reason of which you spoke.

It might be compelling if all the cake-makers in Denver refused to sell to the gay couple.  This is demonstrably not the case.  The couple were upset and offended, but their general welfare was not affected, nor was their right to life, their liberty, or their pursuit of happiness.

 

I should not have to go from baker to baker until I find one willing to make a cake for my son's bris, Mrs Mungo shouldn't have to get an app to tell her which restaurants will serve people with Native blood, and a same-sex couple shouldn't have to wonder if they'll be able to receive the same services any straight couple could easily access.

 

There is no right to a life free of difficulty, confusion, offense, etc..  Putting that aside, though, let's look at reality.  There are plenty of bakers happy to bake a cake for a bris, and not because the government tells them they must.  I cannot imagine a restaurant in this day and age that screens for Native Americans. Is this only because the government would forbid such an action? And a same-sex couple can easily find any service they require, as was amply demonstrated by the gay couple's ability to find another baker immediately.

 

And no religious scruple, mine, yours, or anyone else's should trump that.

 

The reality is that a person's religious scruples do not trump that in a general way.  One person is not controlling the baking decisions for all of Denver.  There is no segregation or redlining here.  One dude didn't want to bake the cake.  The majority of bakers would be happy to do it. 

 

It's been a long and bumpy road trying to figure out how to actualize that vision (and there's more work to do), but that's those are the values that underlie the essence of what this country is, and has striven to be.

 

I agree with this.  I do not think more government intrusion into the individual's life is the correct answer, though.

 

Thanks for responding again, Eliana.  

[LizItaly]

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.

 

Wait, what millions of dollars?  If anything, it should save money by curbing frivolous lawsuits.

 

Again, there has been a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the books since 1993, and Michigan will be the 20th state to enact its own state law.  

 

Deep breaths.

[LizItaly]

 

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/

 

 

 

 

 

Wedding was not even in the same state.

 

The Colorado civil Rights Commission and the Administrative Courts do not make judgments based on constitutionality. All they do is decide whether someone violated a Colorado law, or not.

 

Where has the Supreme Court said that Colorado can define "wedding" anyway it likes?  How is that even at issue here?

[LizItaly]

LizItaly, on 12 Dec 2014 - 7:10 PM, said:

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. 

My point is that plenty of non-private clubs have dress-codes.  This is normal and common practice.  
 

 

TranquilMind, on 12 Dec 2014 - 8:23 PM, said:

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.

 

I don't even know how to respond to this.  That's like saying, "If the baker is selling cakes for gay weddings to everyone else, then yes, he has to see it to that couple."

 

Must a bakery list ALL the mottos they are not in the business of selling or risk discriminations lawsuits?  Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is just silly.

[PeacefulChaos]

Ok, I will admit that I haven't read the last 4 pages yet, because I'm thinking that this morning, I may end up forgetting what I was going to say by the time I get through them.  :P  So if this has already been covered, I apologize.

 

 

What is it about m...a...r...r...I...a...g...e... that makes the word itself so - magical almost for conservatives?

 

Also, please address WHY it is ok for gay families to have fewer protections, rights and benefits under the law than straight families? Again, no one is answering this question.

 

I'm going to try to answer both of these questions based on what I've heard from a few of the 'fringe' extreme of Christianity, which is really the only part of it that I think is really against gay marriage.  While they are not beliefs *I* ascribe to, I do have some extended family members who *do*, so I think I know enough to be able to explain what they think.  

Okay, so the first one, regarding *marriage* as opposed to civil unions - there are those who believe that marriage itself is a Biblical institution and that the state/government/whatever never had any right to have anything to do with it.  So already, they think that *marriage* should not be a legal thing, but a thing before God that wasn't the business of the 'law', so to speak.  

They also interpret scripture to believe that homosexuality is wrong - that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality - and that sexual sins are up there as some of the 'worst' ones because of the emotional and spiritual connection that sex entails.  They see it as a major violation of the body/temple, and I can't really explain or understand why it is so much worse in their eyes... though I would say they feel the same about all sexual sins and homosexuality is not alone in that.  Perhaps because of the puritanical background and sex being so taboo, it has been elevated to a position higher than other things like lying.  I wouldn't say they consider it worse than murder, though.  :P  

So with their beliefs against homosexuality coupled with the belief that marriage is a Biblical thing, not legal, they are against the idea of homosexual marriage.  They are okay with civil unions because those don't imply a religious aspect to them.  

 

Basically, the only way to make all of these people happy would be to completely take the legal term of marriage off the table for all couples, heterosexual or homosexual, and instead make civil unions the actual marriage, with all the benefits of marriage, and make the actual word 'marriage' only apply to the religious ceremony.  Obviously, homosexuals of faith could still have the religious marriage at their own place of worship (which would obviously be one that is okay with homosexuality), but that isn't something that the general public would have a say in, nor would they need to, because what a church does is up to that church.  

Does that make sense?  (Not do you agree with it - just does this present their point of view in a way that is understandable :D ...)

Basically, IMO, it's all semantics.  I don't see why it's such a big deal to them, though I do agree with one small portion, which is that the legal marriage should perhaps leave the hands of pastors, particularly if they don't believe in homosexual marriage.  This protects them as well, because then they would remove any chance of getting in trouble, so to speak, for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, and it wouldn't hurt anyone to go and do the whole thing legally at the courthouse the day before or after the actual religious ceremony.  But I digress.

 

As for the second question, I really don't think that the sect of radicals that I'm speaking of above would have a problem with all of those things if it didn't include the 'marriage' word.  

If they *did*, however, I think it would be because of things I've already seen addressed in this thread - they don't think that God's design for human beings was a homosexual relationship.  They see men and women and they *fit* together and that is how we procreate, that's how we were created in the first place (God created Adam and as a help meet for Adam he created Eve, because it wasn't good for man to be alone, etc, etc).  So they see it as unnatural and not a correct family unit. 

This still shouldn't affect the legal ins and outs of marriage, and again, I think the majority of them would be okay with it if that word was different.  

 

So yeah, semantics.  :P

 

HTH.

 

 

[PeacefulChaos]

Actually, the sermon issue and what happened in Houston raises many, many interesting issues.

 

Churches are tax exempt as long as they are not political.

 

However, it seems more and more pastors use the pulpit to make political statements.

 

Should pastors be free to do so?

 

Should churches lose tax-exempt status for doing so?

 

Where are the lines drawn between religion and politics?

 

This reminds me - the church we were attending for years started putting out these little flyers in the weekly bulletins from some conservative organization that listed the different candidates and where they stood on certain *issues*.  What was incredibly frustrating to me was that the issues were NEVER what I was actually interested in.  :glare:  

While we're discussing religious freedom, here's a specific one I saw recently: http://www.katu.com/news/investigators/Fallen-followers-Investigation-finds-10-more-dead-children-of-faith-healers-231050911.html

 

I think an adult ought to be able to refuse treatment for whatever they damned well please based on faith, but I hold that denying necessary treatment for medical conditions for someone else (i.e. your minor children) should not be a legitimate religious expression. Letting your kid die of appendicitis because you believe that only prayer should heal that should be prosecuted as a homicide.

On one hand I agree with you, but on the other I guess I can see where not allowing people to act in the terms of their faith would be a slippery slope to go down.  

I was surprised when I was wakened at 3am the night after Pink was born so that they could get my signature for blood transfusions for her.  It had never occurred to me that someone would actually refuse treatment that was going to save their child's life.  At the time, I felt like anyone who would do so should be charged with murder.

Now, I still think it sucks and, honestly, that it's stupid (sorry).  I can't understand that point of view.  But for me to say their rights should be taken away would be equal to me saying that my rights should be taken away, or that anyone's rights should be taken away due to something another sect doesn't agree with.  And I just can't get behind that.  

[Love]

 

. 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Slartibartfast]

The Colorado civil Rights Commission and the Administrative Courts do not make judgments based on constitutionality. All they do is decide whether someone violated a Colorado law, or not.

 

Where has the Supreme Court said that Colorado can define "wedding" anyway it likes?  How is that even at issue here?

They said that in the DOMA decision, United States v Windsor. I quoted quite a bit of it several pages ago. I don't want to quote it again because it was rather long and unwieldy for those scrolling on smaller screens.

 

she said,

 

 

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.

 

And I was saying it was Constitutional.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm going to try to answer both of these questions based on what I've heard from a few of the 'fringe' extreme of Christianity, which is really the only part of it that I think is really against gay marriage.  While they are not beliefs *I* ascribe to, I do have some extended family members who *do*, so I think I know enough to be able to explain what they think.  

Okay, so the first one, regarding *marriage* as opposed to civil unions - there are those who believe that marriage itself is a Biblical institution and that the state/government/whatever never had any right to have anything to do with it.  So already, they think that *marriage* should not be a legal thing, but a thing before God that wasn't the business of the 'law', so to speak.

Except conservative groups do *not* want everyone to have to get a civil union at city hall. They actively lobby against that. They also actively lobby against same sex couples being united in a civil union or anything like marriage. The other thread started off specifically talking about the FRC. They lobby against those things. In fact, the FRC wants to make homosexual "behavior" illegal. You can see quotes from them here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-research-council

[Slartibartfast]

Except conservative groups do *not* want everyone to have to get a civil union at city hall. They actively lobby against that. They also actively lobby against same sex couples being united in a civil union or anything like marriage. The other thread started off specifically talking about the FRC. They lobby against those things. In fact, the FRC wants to make homosexual "behavior" illegal. You can see quotes from them here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-research-council

Colorado did allow Civil Unions but the Tenth circuit overturned that and said they had to allow marriage. The Tenth Circuit did not like Civil Unions.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am *trying* to only quote where you were actually talking, but your formatting via various forms instead of using the multi quote function is making it difficult to tell what you have said versus what you are quoting. It is nearly impossible to tell what you are actually saying in some of your recent posts.

 

 

My point is that plenty of non-private clubs have dress-codes.  This is normal and common practice.  

But, your point is completely irrelevant since we are talking about state public accommodation laws. The Colorado club in question can get around public accommodation laws by becoming a private club. This is analogous to the baker opening his own private wedding cake club. Both would be legal.

 

 

 

I don't even know how to respond to this.  That's like saying, "If the baker is selling cakes for gay weddings to everyone else, then yes, he has to see it to that couple."

No. The type of wedding is entirely irrelevant. If he is selling wedding cakes, then public accommodation laws require him to sell wedding cakes to everybody-black or white, protestant or jew, gay or straight. Whether he is willing to sell them a pie is entirely irrelevant because ALL goods sold to the public must be offered equally under Colorado public accommodation law. Once again, public accommodation laws have been upheld by SCOTUS over and over and over.

 

 

Must a bakery list ALL the mottos they are not in the business of selling or risk discriminations lawsuits?  Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is just silly.

If they sell "Happy Birthday" cakes to one group, then they must sell them to all groups of people. Refusing to make a cake with a particular slogan *at all* is not discriminatory since you aren't selling cakes with that slogan at all.

[Mrs Mungo]

Colorado did allow Civil Unions but the Tenth circuit overturned that and said they had to allow marriage. The Tenth Circuit did not like Civil Unions.

That is a separate argument, really. And it was because the two were unequal. If *nobody* had a civil "marriage' and *everybody* had to get a "civil union" under secular law, then they would be equal. :)

 

My point was that conservative lobbying groups don't want homosexuals to have anything that looks like marriage, no matter what. That includes the FRC. It was discussion of the FRC that kicked off the two threads. The question in the title of this thread isn't about the Tenth Circuit. ;) The FRC most certainly does want to dictate how people live, to include outlawing homosexuality.

[Scrub Jay]

 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. 

 

It's not unconstitutional.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That is a separate argument, really. And it was because the two were unequal. If *nobody* had a civil "marriage' and *everybody* had to get a "civil union" under secular law, then they would be equal. :)

 

My point was that conservative lobbying groups don't want homosexuals to have anything that looks like marriage, no matter what. That includes the FRC. It was discussion of the FRC that kicked off the two threads. The question in the title of this thread isn't about the Tenth Circuit. ;) The FRC most certainly does want to dictate how people live, to include outlawing homosexuality.

I was just talking. :lol:

[TranquilMind]

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.

I am well aware that the law has gone the other way now.  In itself, that doesn't make it right.  The law has been wrong many times (i.e. Plessy v. Ferguson, Gideon v. Wainwright), and I am sure will be wrong again. 

 

It does matter what "wedding" means, to a Christian adhering to biblical principles, and it should matter constitutionally that he he is required to abnegate that standard to do wedding cakes in the future, though it may not matter to others. 

[TranquilMind]

It's not unconstitutional.

 

Not now, no. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Not now, no.

It was never unconstitutional. That is the interpretation.

[Mrs Mungo]

It does matter what "wedding" means, to a Christian adhering to biblical principles, and it should matter constitutionally that he he is required to abnegate that standard to do wedding cakes in the future, though it may not matter to others.

They can open a Christian bakery club and only sell to approved people. They cannot be an open to the public bakery selling wedding cakes to anyone off of the street, to include selling wedding cakes for dogs and refuse to making a wedding cake for someone based upon their sexual orientation.

 

Ether you agree with public accommodation laws or you do not. You can't have it both ways.

 

If this objection is worth of a religious exception, then other objections whether they come from the church of the white supremacist or a pastafarian would be equally valid under the law. The law does not determine which religions are valid, legitimate or orthodox.

[TranquilMind]

I am *trying* to only quote where you were actually talking, but your formatting via various forms instead of using the multi quote function is making it difficult to tell what you have said versus what you are quoting. It is nearly impossible to tell what you are actually saying in some of your recent posts.

 

 

But, your point is completely irrelevant since we are talking about state public accommodation laws. The Colorado club in question can get around public accommodation laws by becoming a private club. This is analogous to the baker opening his own private wedding cake club. Both would be legal.

 

 

 

No. The type of wedding is entirely irrelevant. If he is selling wedding cakes, then public accommodation laws require him to sell wedding cakes to everybody-black or white, protestant or jew, gay or straight. Whether he is willing to sell them a pie is entirely irrelevant because ALL goods sold to the public must be offered equally under Colorado public accommodation law. Once again, public accommodation laws have been upheld by SCOTUS over and over and over.

 

 

If they sell "Happy Birthday" cakes to one group, then they must sell them to all groups of people. Refusing to make a cake with a particular slogan *at all* is not discriminatory since you aren't selling cakes with that slogan at all.

Don't you see that the result is EXACTLY the same, though arrived at by different methods? 

 

Cake maker cannot refuse to make wedding cakes for anyone who asks, whether that wedding violates his conscience or not.

 

Cake maker can create a private club to sell wedding cakes, or sell everything except wedding cakes. 

 

Or - third option - Cake maker is "busy" when he doesn't wish to do a reception for a ceremony that is scripturally proscribed (although now, they will be more heavily scrutinized, since this protected class apparently takes precedence over other protected classes, like religion). 

 

Either way, these few cake bakers involved that have a sincerely-held religious belief that doing only traditional weddings are valid can act according to conscience, utilizing different methods.  You just get to publicly shame them for not being politically correct, which I suppose is the point here. 

 

I don't know why you can't leave the few people alone to take wedding business as they choose, and simply patronize other businesses, but that's me.  That's what I would do. 

[Violet Crown]

It seems to me that an abortion clinic was shut down somewhere in TX when no contractors would work on it because they would lose their church business and it was too scary to them.

 

Which leads down another rabbit trail. Can you turn down business just because it will offend your religious clients? I am not sure how that would work. Because that works both ways. If the majority of your clients will be offended if you do business with someone, do you really have a choice?

Not participating in this discussion per se; but this happened in my city, and involved people I knew, and that is not at all what happened. An abortion clinic was delayed in being built because local contractors organized a boycott. Construction work here is heavily hispanic and Catholic/Evangelical. There was no pressure from churches. Boycotts work in all directions.

 

Leaving discussion now.

[TranquilMind]

They can open a Christian bakery club and only sell to approved people. They cannot be an open to the public bakery selling wedding cakes to anyone off of the street, to include selling wedding cakes for dogs and refuse to making a wedding cake for someone based upon their sexual orientation.

 

Ether you agree with public accommodation laws or you do not. You can't have it both ways.

 

If this objection is worth of a religious exception, then other objections whether they come from the church of the white supremacist or a pastafarian would be equally valid under the law. The law does not determine which religions are valid, legitimate or orthodox.

No, you don't get to say the bolded, unchallenged.  He is not selling to "approved PEOPLE."  He is selling to any people who have receptions for biblical marriage.  It isn't the people, it is the act. 

 

He would sell to the SAME GUY if he marries a woman. 

 

 

[Jane in NC]

A question for those of you who see marriage strictly as a biblical institution:  You cannot deny that the government gives married people certain rights and privileges that unmarrieds do not have.  I am thinking about tax breaks, inheritance, medical decision making for an incapacitated spouse.  To the best of my knowledge, these are not biblical.  Would you prefer to see marriage strictly defined on a biblical basis and have these government issued privileges removed?

 

(Wondering if I need to don a flame retardant suit.)

[Jane in NC]

Well it has not been clear to me if people who would prefer "civil unions" for some would allow those partners to have the governmental privileges of marriage.  It is the use of the term "marriage" that is bothering some people or are they equally bothered by extending rights and privileges?

[Scrub Jay]

Not now, no. 

 

It never was unconstitutional....

 

[TranquilMind]

A question for those of you who see marriage strictly as a biblical institution:  You cannot deny that the government gives married people certain rights and privileges that unmarrieds do not have.  I am thinking about tax breaks, inheritance, medical decision making for an incapacitated spouse.  To the best of my knowledge, these are not biblical.  Would you prefer to see marriage strictly defined on a biblical basis and have these government issued privileges removed?

 

(Wondering if I need to don a flame retardant suit.)

No, the government can define it any way it likes and advantage or disadvantage whatever groups of people tax-wise.

 

The argument is solely limited to weddings as traditionally defined.   While weddings were defined inadvertently or otherwise in accordance with scripture up until now (for the most part), this is no longer true.  Now the legal meaning has expanded.   

[TranquilMind]

Well it has not been clear to me if people who would prefer "civil unions" for some would allow those partners to have the governmental privileges of marriage.  It is the use of the term "marriage" that is bothering some people or are they equally bothered by extending rights and privileges?

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but the issue is defining "marriage" which is (supposed to be) a religious sacrament in Christian faith in a way that violates scripture. 

 

Civil unions - no problem.  Call anything a union, but don't call it "marriage", if it turns scripture on its head, I would suspect would be the view. 

[*Lulu*]

No, you don't get to say the bolded, unchallenged. He is not selling to "approved PEOPLE." He is selling to any people who have receptions for biblical marriage. It isn't the people, it is the act.

 

He would sell to the SAME GUY if he marries a woman.

Or if he wanted to marry off his dog.

 

DOG wedding does not equal PEOPLE wedding.

 

So is it the people again or the act?

 

I'm getting confused.

[Jane in NC]

No, the government can define it any way it likes and advantage or disadvantage whatever groups of people.

 

The argument is solely limited to weddings as traditionally defined.   While weddings were defined inadvertently or otherwise in accordance with scripture up until now (for the most part), this is no longer true.  Now the legal meaning has expanded.   

 

So your argument is just with the label "marriage", of who gets to say "I am married"?

 

If domestic partners are given tax breaks, you have no beef?  That is very interesting to me.

 

By the way, I have no idea what a "traditionally defined" wedding is!  My parents were of the WWII generation where people often had quick civil ceremonies as soldiers left for war.  My sister had a huge wedding--ceremony followed by a sit down meal for 175.  Neither was the norm for my peers.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why can't I order a wedding cake just to have a tea party with stuffed animals? 

[*Lulu*]

Just trademark TM.

 

The rest of us, gay or straight, can just be married.

 

The spiritual elite can be TM'ed - Traditionally Married Copyright The Bible.

 

Honestly, this many pages and this many days - anybody unconvinced is going to remain unconvinced.

 

That's okay.

 

It has been enlightening for me.

 

I am even more convinced of my position than I was before.

[hornblower]

 

 

The argument is solely limited to weddings as traditionally defined.   While weddings were defined inadvertently or otherwise in accordance with scripture up until now (for the most part), this is no longer true.  Now the legal meaning has expanded.   

 

What does wedding "traditionally defined" mean? According to which tradition? Defined by whom? 

 

Your definitions are all biblical - which leads nicely back to the title of this thread. Why do Christians seek to dictate how USA functions? There are other traditions, other religions - why don't they get to define 'wedding'?

 

[TranquilMind]

Or if he wanted to marry off his dog.

 

DOG wedding does not equal PEOPLE wedding.

 

So is it the people again or the act?

 

I'm getting confused.

Unless someone produces evidence that this "dog wedding" was a legitimate ceremony and not just a silly joke, I feel this has been appropriately addressed on several occasions and is not relevant. 

If he is routinely doing "dog weddings" in earnest, yet won't do cakes for ceremonies with two people of the same gender, then that makes sense. 

Dogs cannot marry, and he can decline those cakes if he likes.  Dogs aren't a protected class, yet.

[TranquilMind]

What does wedding "traditionally defined" mean? According to which tradition? Defined by whom? 

 

Your definitions are all biblical - which leads nicely back to the title of this thread. Why do Christians seek to dictate how USA functions? There are other traditions, other religions - why don't they get to define 'wedding'?

 

The law of this country (we will limit it there to avoid the stupid, "Some gay guy could possibly have been  "married" in ancient Greece" arguments) defined marriage as between a man and a woman since the beginning, which dovetailed with the religious beliefs of all major religions.

 

Here is a typical state law (most have been on the books since statehood):

 

"A marriage is prohibited and void between a person and his or her ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin or between persons of the same gender";Del. Stat. Title 13 ' 101

 

The feigned shock over this history is flummoxing today. 

[zoobie]

Why can't I order a wedding cake just to have a tea party with stuffed animals?

Are they gay stuffed animals? Cuz that would be wrong.

[TranquilMind]

Why can't I order a wedding cake just to have a tea party with stuffed animals? 

Do it!  Invite me.  ;)  I like cake.

There wouldn't be any conflict with the strictest of traditional cake makers in that instance, as he isn't making a cake for a ceremony which violates his faith.  Nowhere in scripture is one prohibited from celebrating a tea party with stuffed animals. 

[zoobie]

The law of this country (we will limit it there to avoid the stupid, "Some gay guy could possibly have been "married" in ancient Greece" arguments) defined marriage as between a man and a woman since the beginning, which dovetailed with the religious beliefs of all major religions.

 

Here is a typical state law (most have been on the books since statehood):

 

"A marriage is prohibited and void between a person and his or her ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin or between persons of the same gender";Del. Stat. Title 13 ' 101

 

The feigned shock over this history is flummoxing today.

never mind. I can't read...

 

ETA: found the background I was looking for on my phone. Only 7 states had laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman before 1993. They were changed in reaction to Hawaii's lawsuit. http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx

[TranquilMind]

That law says nothing about it being between one man and one woman.

Read it again:

 

A marriage is prohibited and void between a person and his or her ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin or between persons of the same gender";Del. Stat. Title 13 ' 101

 

[TranquilMind]

So your argument is just with the label "marriage", of who gets to say "I am married"?

 

If domestic partners are given tax breaks, you have no beef?  That is very interesting to me.

 

By the way, I have no idea what a "traditionally defined" wedding is!  My parents were of the WWII generation where people often had quick civil ceremonies as soldiers left for war.  My sister had a huge wedding--ceremony followed by a sit down meal for 175.  Neither was the norm for my peers.

The government does not purport to operate under scriptural laws.  Why is that interesting?  The law can do what it wants.  Where I have a problem is when that is used to curtail religious freedoms or expressions under the First Amendment. 

I can't even believe we are having this discussion.  If some gay guy declared that he was running a bakery that would ONLY do gay weddings as a statement against traditional Christians, most of you here would be cheering, and not see it as the violation that this case is. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Are they gay stuffed animals? Cuz that would be wrong.

 

 

Not openly.  A few are in the closet.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The government does not purport to operate under scriptural laws.  Why is that interesting?  The law can do what it wants.  Where I have a problem is when that is used to curtail religious freedoms or expressions under the First Amendment. 

I can't even believe we are having this discussion.  If some gay guy declared that he was running a bakery that would ONLY do gay weddings as a statement against traditional Christians, most of you here would be cheering, and not see it as the violation that this case is. 

 

Discrimination isn't a religious act.

And no one would be cheering that baker on as he would be discriminating, which (get this!) we don't think anyone should do.

[zoobie]

Read it again:

 

A marriage is prohibited and void between a person and his or her ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin or between persons of the same gender";Del. Stat. Title 13 ' 101

 

Ha! Oops. Can't read on my phone. Only 7 states had laws that limited it to one man and one woman prior to 1993. http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx

[Mrs Mungo]

Don't you see that the result is EXACTLY the same, though arrived at by different methods?

*Yes*, exactly! *That* is my point! You can reach the same result (somebody doesn't get a cake) by a different mechanism, *then* it is legal. It is the *mechanism* that is illegal.

 

Cake maker cannot refuse to make wedding cakes for anyone who asks, whether that wedding violates his conscience or not.

 

Cake maker can create a private club to sell wedding cakes, or sell everything except wedding cakes.

Right.

 

Or - third option - Cake maker is "busy" when he doesn't wish to do a reception for a ceremony that is scripturally proscribed (although now, they will be more heavily scrutinized, since this protected class apparently takes precedence over other protected classes, like religion).

Nope, he would be subject to the same scrutiny if he refused to sell a cake for a Jewish wedding.

 

Either way, these few cake bakers involved that have a sincerely-held religious belief that doing only traditional weddings are valid can act according to conscience, utilizing different methods.  You just get to publicly shame them for not being politically correct, which I suppose is the point here.

The word traditional here is extremely problematic. The word "traditional" has a meaning to those of us with an interest in anthropology and sociology that is different than your personal application of the word. Plenty of "traditional" societies have different views of marriage, *including* traditional Biblical societies.

 

I don't know why you can't leave the few people alone to take wedding business as they choose, and simply patronize other businesses, but that's me.  That's what I would do.

 

Because you are in the privileged class that doesn't have to really worry about it. If *nobody* would make a wedding cake for a Christians, then what?

 

No, you don't get to say the bolded, unchallenged.  He is not selling to "approved PEOPLE."  He is selling to any people who have receptions for biblical marriage.  It isn't the people, it is the act.

The courts disagree with your interpretation of what happened and agree with me. That is WHY they found against the baker.

 

He would sell to the SAME GUY if he marries a woman.

And Racist Cake R Us (whose beliefs are based upon sincerely held religious beliefs that are VERY traditional in the US and backed my numerous mainstream congregations until they very recently realized they no longer could do so on legal grounds) would sell a wedding came to a white guy who was marrying a white woman, but not a white guy marrying a black woman. Same scenario.

[Mrs Mungo]

The law of this country (we will limit it there to avoid the stupid, "Some gay guy could possibly have been  "married" in ancient Greece" arguments) defined marriage as between a man and a woman since the beginning, which dovetailed with the religious beliefs of all major religions.

You are being actively offensive. The arguments that we have evidence that same sex marriage has existed in many different societies across the course of history are not stupid. That argument isn't stupid. My personal ancestry and traditions are not stupid. You are rude.

[Mrs Mungo]

Why can't I order a wedding cake just to have a tea party with stuffed animals?

You can as long as your stuffed animals are not gay.

[TranquilMind]

*Yes*, exactly! *That* is my point! You can reach the same result (somebody doesn't get a cake) by a different mechanism, *then* it is legal. It is the *mechanism* that is illegal.

 

 

Right.

 

 

Nope, he would be subject to the same scrutiny if he refused to sell a cake for a Jewish wedding.

 

 

The word traditional here is extremely problematic. The word "traditional" has a meaning to those of us with an interest in anthropology and sociology that is different than your personal application of the word. Plenty of "traditional" societies have different views of marriage, *including* traditional Biblical societies.

 

 

Because you are in the privileged class that doesn't have to really worry about it. If *nobody* would make a wedding cake for a Christians, then what?

 

 

The courts disagree upon your interpretation of what happened and agree with me. That is WHY they found against the baker.

 

 

And Racist Cake R Us (whose beliefs are based upon sincerely held religious beliefs that are VERY traditional in the US and backed my numerous mainstream congregations until they very recently realized they no longer could do so on legal grounds) would sell a wedding came to a white guy who was marrying a white woman, but not a white guy marrying a black woman. Same scenario.

Then why can't the cake maker just say that he doesn't do non-traditional  (or we can call them opposite sex= which is the default, go to position, and has been since far before the beginning of this country) weddings, since he can obtain the result anyway?  The purpose of the hoops is twofold: To "shame" him for not adhering to liberal orthodoxy, and to negatively affect his business, if possible.  If you think this is fine, simply because it is a religious traditionalist at stake instead of someone in a category you like better, I don't know how to fix that. 

[Mrs Mungo]

I can't even believe we are having this discussion.  If some gay guy declared that he was running a bakery that would ONLY do gay weddings as a statement against traditional Christians, most of you here would be cheering, and not see it as the violation that this case is.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of people's beliefs and arguments. I AM a Christian. I was married in my grandparents' house by an Assemblies of God pastor.

 

The law protects discrimination due to religion *as well as* race, sexual orientation, etc. "The Ghey Baker" has to follow the same laws as "The Bigot's Bakery."

[Jane in NC]

The government does not purport to operate under scriptural laws.  Why is that interesting?  The law can do what it wants.  Where I have a problem is when that is used to curtail religious freedoms or expressions under the First Amendment. 

I can't even believe we are having this discussion.  If some gay guy declared that he was running a bakery that would ONLY do gay weddings as a statement against traditional Christians, most of you here would be cheering, and not see it as the violation that this case is. 

 

Actually, I would not be cheering for anyone's right to discriminate.

 

But why I think your comment is interesting is that I have heard people say that society should promote and protect the traditional family (again, not quite grasping what traditional is but that is another story.)

 

Many of the gay couples whom I know who wish to marry are doing so not only for reasons of love and commitment, but also for the same privileges that I have (medically related things, for example).  I am not well versed in these things so I am unaware of what privileges come with civil unions. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Then why can't the cake maker just say that he doesn't do non-traditional  (or we can call them opposite sex= which is the default, go to position, and has been since far before the beginning of this country) weddings, since he can obtain the result anyway?  The purpose of the hoops is twofold: To "shame" him for not adhering to liberal orthodoxy, and to negatively affect his business, if possible.  If you think this is fine, simply because it is a religious traditionalist at stake instead of someone in a category you like better, I don't know how to fix that. 

 

Because non-traditional weddings has no exact meaning.