Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[ADigitalArtist]

the First Amendment does not protect BELIEFS. Read it carefully. It protects the FREE EXERCISE of those beliefs.

If a baker feels that he cannot, in good conscience, bake a cake for a specific wedding, then he is not abrogating anybody's rights. He is not forcing anybody to do anything against their beliefs. At most he is refusing to allow someone to force him to do something against his beliefs.

If his choice is...do the wedding or cease to do business with anybody, then that is forcing him to do the wedding; abrogating his religious rights.

That gay couple has a choice; they can get their cake elsewhere. Or not have one. Or make one themselves. It's the same choice I would have if I wanted a bakery to make a cake that is artistically repugnant to the owner, and he refuses out of sheer aesthetic disgust. THAT would be acceptable...

but refusing to bake a cake because doing so would violate his religious principles, a right guaranteed to him by the constitution?

I don't get this argument at all. It scares me, frankly.

Selective service based on discrimination for things like sex, sexuality, race, national origins or religion does indeed abridge the rights of those being discriminated against. And are protected precisely because it's so easy to set up communities that push out sections of their population via refusal of service.

If making a wedding cake for two men or a man and a trans woman or a Jew or someone in a wheelchair or an atheist or an interracial couple is too much for your religious sensibilities then get out of the public sector and become a hobbyist. Because you should have no right to operate under the BBB standards.

 

[dianaiad]

I can officiate a wedding, with the marriage being official, entirely and completely sans religion.

Perhaps you can, depending upon where you live. In California, however, you must be a member of the clergy, one of a specific list of elected officials, a city clerk or a judge.

The only group which doesn't have to prove that it is authorized to officiate a wedding before said wedding are the clergy, but if there are any questions, that clergy person had better be able to establish his/her bona fides later.

There may well be other rules in other states, but AFAIK, all of them give the clergy the right to do this.

And that makes weddings a religious event. They don't HAVE to be, but they certainly may be seen as such, and are traditionally seen as such.

 

[dianaiad]

Selective service based on discrimination for things like sex, sexuality, race, national origins or religion does indeed abridge the rights of those being discriminated against. And are protected precisely because it's so easy to set up communities that push out sections of their population via refusal of service.

If making a wedding cake for two men or a man and a trans woman or a Jew or someone in a wheelchair or an atheist or an interracial couple is too much for your religious sensibilities then get out of the public sector and become a hobbyist. Because you should have no right to operate under the BBB standards.

I see. Because YOUR religious beliefs say that one must participate in events that violate religious beliefs as long as they don't violate yours, the government has the right to force this?

Look. I may not like this discrimination; in fact, I don't. If I were the baker, I'd bake the cake. If I were the photographer, I'd go ask someone who does a lot of gay weddings what might be different about photographing such a wedding (and the photo opportunities and requirements ARE different) so that I can do the job right.

But if someone came into my store with the attitude that his/her beliefs were more important than mine, and that I had to abandon mine and ACT as if his were more valid/important/whatever than mine, I'd tell them to climb the nearest rope.

 

[leroy]

Your misused dictionary definition does not support you. See if you can find your error and try again.

Answer the question with a simple yes, or a simple no.


Even If I were wrong (I am not) I told you what I mean by pedophile, just change the word pedophile for any word that you might find convenient and answer my question. You are just playing semantic games

Should a baker be free to deny service to a pedophile (or use some other term) that asks for a cake with pedophile theme? yes or no Remember this pedophile (or use an other term) is not a rapist, he simply feels attraction for little girls.

 

[dianaiad]

Because baking a cake isn’t the same thing as solemnizing wedding vows. The baker wasn’t “doing the wedding.”

Says who?

Remember. I've DONE wedding cakes. A baker puts a great deal of artistic effort into one, and must take that cake to the wedding venue and assemble it there. In fact, it has become tradition in many weddings that the baker and his crew stick around until the wedding party first sees the cake so that they can 'take bows.'

That's 'doing' the wedding.

 

[dianaiad]

What about people who believe blacks should not be rented property or granted mortgages for home ownership?

Do you understand the difference between discrimination against a group....and an objection to a religious event that violates ones own beliefs?

Do you understand the difference between refusing to serve anything to gay people BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY....

and refusing to bake a cake for their wedding to one another?

Because there very much is a difference.

 

[columbus]

The only group which doesn't have to prove that it is authorized to officiate a wedding before said wedding are the clergy, but if there are any questions, that clergy person had better be able to establish his/her bona fides later.

Getting ordained is easy and free.

Universal Life Church - Become a Minister Online

Universal Life Church will do it over the internet. A friend of mine did it 20 years ago so he could officiate the wedding of some other friends of ours.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

Says who?

Remember. I've DONE wedding cakes. A baker puts a great deal of artistic effort into one, and must take that cake to the wedding venue and assemble it there. In fact, it has become tradition in many weddings that the baker and his crew stick around until the wedding party first sees the cake so that they can 'take bows.'

That's 'doing' the wedding.

They don’t have to do that, though. They can politely decline. Even so, it still is not the same thing as solemnizing vows. One is ancillary party appearance, which requires no judgment on the part of the artist. The other carries spiritual, ecclesiastical and legal authority, in which the decision of the fitness of the couple is the sole responsibility of the officiant.

 

[sojourner]

Do you understand the difference between discrimination against a group....and an objection to a religious event that violates ones own beliefs?

Of course I do. I’ve been professionally involved in social justice and equality work for 15 years. No ones asking the guy to bless, officiate, or rubber stamp the marriage. All they want him to do is bake a cake. He can object and still do his job.

 

[sojourner]

Do you understand the difference between refusing to serve anything to gay people BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY....

and refusing to bake a cake for their wedding to one another?

Because there very much is a difference.

The difference is negligible. Because the dehumanization involved in refusing to bake the wedding cake is because they are gay. If they were straight, he’d bake the cake.

 

[sojourner]

Getting ordained is easy and free.

Universal Life Church - Become a Minister Online

Universal Life Church will do it over the internet. A friend of mine did it 20 years ago so he could officiate the wedding of some other friends of ours.
Tom

I object to this practice. It cheapens the office in ways too numerous to mention here. Just because someone gets a piece of paper online doesn’t mean that that someone is in any way prepared or qualified to engage the work of ministry. In short, it’s a misrepresentation, because I doubt that the person passing himself off as “clergy” could elaborate on the theological and spiritual implications of marriage, provide spiritual counsel, or is prepared to do any kind of follow up spiritual care for the couple.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I see. Because YOUR religious beliefs say that one must participate in events that violate religious beliefs as long as they don't violate yours, the government has the right to force this?

No, because I know what discrimination and anti-discrimination law are meant to prevent. and historical examples of when lack of oversight has done damage. You dont have to participate in anything...unless you want to have a business recognized under the BBB, with the benefits therein.
Just like I don't care if you dislike 'catering to the weak' as part of your religion, you still have to be ADA compliant.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I object to this practice. It cheapens the office in ways too numerous to mention here. Just because someone gets a piece of paper online doesn’t mean that that someone is in any way prepared or qualified to engage the work of ministry. In short, it’s a misrepresentation, because I doubt that the person passing himself off as “clergy” could elaborate on the theological and spiritual implications of marriage, provide spiritual counsel, or is prepared to do any kind of follow up spiritual care for the couple.

I got married by a judge with no spiritual component involved whatsoever. If people are looking for that, they should be able to. If people dont want to be married by hardcore religious folks, they should have options. This is a way that provides options.

 

[dianaiad]

Getting ordained is easy and free.

Universal Life Church - Become a Minister Online

Universal Life Church will do it over the internet. A friend of mine did it 20 years ago so he could officiate the wedding of some other friends of ours.
Tom

Thank you for proving my point. In order to officiate, your friend had to become ordained in some way, by some group.

A religious one.

 

[dianaiad]

They don’t have to do that, though. They can politely decline. Even so, it still is not the same thing as solemnizing vows. One is ancillary party appearance, which requires no judgment on the part of the artist. The other carries spiritual, ecclesiastical and legal authority, in which the decision of the fitness of the couple is the sole responsibility of the officiant.

That's what you think. The problem here isn't that what YOU think of his beliefs doesn't count. It's what HE thinks about them that does. That's what 'freedom of religion' is all about. For you to decide that your opinion of this trumps his is the definition of 'abrogating' his freedom to exercise his religious beliefs.

 

[dianaiad]

That's what you think. It might even be what I think, personally. The problem here isn't that what YOU think of his beliefs doesn't count. It's what HE thinks about them that does. That's what 'freedom of religion' is all about. For you to decide that your opinion of this trumps his is the definition of 'abrogating' his freedom to exercise his religious beliefs.

 

[dianaiad]

The difference is negligible. Because the dehumanization involved in refusing to bake the wedding cake is because they are gay. If they were straight, he’d bake the cake.

Not if they were marrying someone who is of the same sex.

...............and if this gay person were marrying someone of the opposite sex, the cake would get made.

"Gay" may or may not be intrinsic. One may or may not be able to choose one's sexual orientation; I lean towards 'not.' But one may indeed choose what to do about it, and if a gay man or woman marries someone of the opposite sex, the cake would get made.

.....and if, for some reason, a 'straight' or 'bi' person married someone of the same sex, it wouldn't be.

Not if the problem is the wedding/marriage, as claimed, and not the sexual orientation.

............and if, as was claimed, all OTHER services were performed for gay customers: cakes for other events, catering for parties other than weddings, etc., then the 'discrimination' isn't about the customer being gay.

 

[sojourner]

That's what you think. The problem here isn't that what YOU think of his beliefs doesn't count. It's what HE thinks about them that does. That's what 'freedom of religion' is all about. For you to decide that your opinion of this trumps his is the definition of 'abrogating' his freedom to exercise his religious beliefs.

He can think what he wants. But he can’t refuse them the same service he offers to others. “Wedding cake” = “wedding cake” — no matter who’s getting married. He’s not required to like them or agree with them or be attracted to them. He can exercise his religious belief by not marrying another man, himself. “Baking cakes” is a culinary endeavor — not a religious endeavor.

 

[dianaiad]

No, because I know what discrimination and anti-discrimination law are meant to prevent. and historical examples of when lack of oversight has done damage. You dont have to participate in anything...unless you want to have a business recognized under the BBB, with the benefits therein.

Y'know what? None of the people suing here are worried about the Better Business Bureau. The businesses involved are worried about fines, confiscation of property and having to close their businesses because they have a religious objection to an event.

 

[sojourner]

"Gay" may or may not be intrinsic. One may or may not be able to choose one's sexual orientation; I lean towards 'not.' But one may indeed choose what to do about it, and if a gay man or woman marries someone of the opposite sex, the cake would get made

So, his idea of what they should do should dictate their choice?? Why? What authority does this man have to dictate whether they’re “worthy” of being married? Medical science and the law of the land have determined that heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage is neither “more normal than ” nor “preferable to” homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

Why should a homosexual couple be forced to do what is not natural for them to do, just in order for some doofus to consider them “normal” and “worthy?”

This is insidious! You can’t separate the expression from the orientation, saying that one is ok, but the other isn’t. You’re denying them full sovereignty over their participation in human sexual expression. Equity demands that they be given the same choices as everyone else.