How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All you said is accurate based on whether you are interpreting and contextualizing properly, you know, like when we read the Holy Bible.

That was a long way to go to get to you agreeing with me.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Do you think Jesus would approve of being willfully obtuse and arguing in bad faith?

I do not believe I am guilty of either.

I believe that the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop would refuse to make a wedding cake for any union unless it was for only a man and a woman.

Think about all these cases of people wanting to marry animals, plants or inanimate objects.

You believe the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop would make wedding cakes for those ceremonies?

If you look at these cases objectively you see it becomes less and less about the sexual orientation of the customers and more about the event taking place.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

On the basis that the wedding isn't a heterosexual one.

No. It is on the basis that it celebrates a practice he believes to be sinful or a mockery of his personal beliefs.

If it were a celebration of a union of a man and a dog - he would refuse to make a wedding cake for that event.

Same goes for the woman marrying the Eiffel Tower.

It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the customer and more about his beliefs on marriage.

For the exact same reason that a white man wanting to buy a wedding cake for his wedding to a black woman being refused a cake on the basis that his wife was black is racial discrimination. We both know that if that's what was happening, you wouldn't be defending them.

I actually believe that any business owner should have the right to refuse anyone service for any reason.

I might not always agree with their reasons, but I believe they should have the right.

No one has the right to anyone else's labor and the government should not be able to force a business owner to provide a product or service.

The sexual orientation of the wedding is, since that's the ONLY difference between a gay wedding and a straight one, in the same way that the race of the individuals getting married is the only difference between a non-interracial wedding and an interracial one.

As I have said many times before, that is not the only difference to a person who believes that God gave marriage to Man and commanded that only a man and woman could wed.

It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I do not believe I am guilty of either.

I believe that the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop would refuse to make a wedding cake for any union unless it was for only a man and a woman.

Think about all these cases of people wanting to marry animals, plants or inanimate objects.

You believe the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop would make wedding cakes for those ceremonies?

If you look at these cases objectively you see it becomes less and less about the sexual orientation of the customers and more about the event taking place.

More bad faith. Homosexuals are a legally protected class, as you well know. Your strawman examples are not.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

'Everyone has the same rights, no discrimination, because a heterosexual person also can't marry a same-sex person. All have the right to marry a opposite sex person.'

By that logic, heterosexual folks have a new right: now they are free to marry a person of the same sex!

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That's not merely intolerant of you, but Draconian, "chuck them, they either make gay wedding cakes or dissolve their entire wedding cake business and prior investment before the laws were enacted".

Hyperbole. The suggestion was if you are uncomfortable with certain aspects of your job, like making wedding cakes for gay couples, then choose a different career or business path.

Imagine a baker refusing to bake cakes for interracial weddings. Or cakes for a Muslim or Jewish wedding. Or for couples where one had been previously married.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Further, the Christian's duty is to disobey unjust laws (forced abortions in China, forced segregations and slavery laws in America, etc.).

Part of being civially disobedient is accepting the consequences. Thoreau accepted jailtime when he refused to pay taxes in protest of war.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The world IS out to get Christians. For example, none of us troll on atheist websites.

Hopefully, the world is out to get Christian doctrine out of policy. I don't think the world is out to get Christians in particular. Just expect that when you proselytize, debates will occur and when you try to get particular religious beliefs into policy, there will be a rejection of them. This isn't the world "out to get Christians."

 

[Shad]

I believe that the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop would refuse to make a wedding cake for any union unless it was for only a man and a woman.

He was willing to sell a wedding cake. He was not willing to make a custom cake with messages on it. He had no issues selling other good to the couple.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

More bad faith. Homosexuals are a legally protected class, as you well know. Your strawman examples are not.

Religion is also a legally protected class.

You cannot force someone to participate in an event they believe will cause them to to violate their religious belief.

If you look at these cases objectively you see that they have little to do with the sexuality of the customers, but the religious beliefs of the owners.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion is also a legally protected class.

You cannot force someone to participate in an event they believe will cause them to to violate their religious belief.

If you look at these cases objectively you see that they have little to do with the sexuality of the customers, but the religious beliefs of the owners.

When the law says "if you choose to operate a business, here are the basic requirements you must meet" and a person voluntarily decides to go into business - or continue to operate a business - and accept this responsibility, they were not forced to meet the requirements that go along with their choice.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. It is on the basis that it celebrates a practice he believes to be sinful or a mockery of his personal beliefs.

If they see marriage as a mockery of their personal beliefs, perhaps they shouldn't be selling wedding cakes.

If it were a celebration of a union of a man and a dog - he would refuse to make a wedding cake for that event.

The difference being that such weddings are largely illegal, and not comparable to a marriage between two consenting adults.

Also, bakers aren't required to cater to dogs. Dogs are not a protected class. And I'm pretty sure people attracted to dogs aren't either.

Once again, your only recourse is to draw ridiculous comparisons, because any closer comparison (such as if the baker were to refuse to sell a cake to an interracial wedding) exposes your double-standard.

Same goes for the woman marrying the Eiffel Tower.

Again, towers and those attracted to them are not a protected class.

It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the customer and more about his beliefs on marriage.

Then don't sell wedding cakes.

I actually believe that any business owner should have the right to refuse anyone service for any reason.

Then you're an apologist for racism, homophobia, sexism and all other forms of discrimination, and you believe that the rights of businesses should be greater than the rights of the general population.

I'm also willing to bet that if the shoe were on the other foot, and this were, say, an atheist bookshop refusing to sell books to a Christian, you would not be taking this stance. But since it largely benefits your religion to be able to discriminate against people using businesses, you're taking this position. See, the people who tend to bang the "businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone" drum, in my experience, tend to be exactly the kind of people who are the least likely to be discriminated against by a business, and are unlikely to have experienced any kind of prejudice or discrimination in their life. Which is incredibly convenient.

No one has the right to anyone else's labor and the government should not be able to force a business owner to provide a product or service.

So the civil rights movement was wrong, then? Nobody should be forced to let black people into their establishments? They're right to do that?

As I have said many times before, that is not the only difference to a person who believes that God gave marriage to Man and commanded that only a man and woman could wed.

That's their belief, and they have a right to it. They do not have a right to force that belief on others by operating their business in a discriminatory way.

Again, if you don't believe in marriage, don't sell wedding cakes.

It has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

Yes, it does, and the fact that you are so desperate to distract from that fact just shows how uneasy your position is. The only way you can justify homophobia is to desperately pretend that it isn't homophobia. Just like when racists try to justify their racism as "race realism".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion is also a legally protected class.

Except the religious are not being discriminated against. How is requiring religious people obey the exact same anti-discrimination laws as everybody else an act of discrimination?

You cannot force someone to participate in an event they believe will cause them to to violate their religious belief.

Then that person should not operate a business that requires them, by law, to do that.

If you look at these cases objectively you see that they have little to do with the sexuality of the customers, but the religious beliefs of the owners.

Obtuse nonsense. You know full well you would not be defending this act if were against an interracial couple, regardless of the religious beliefs of the baker. You will probably claim otherwise now, but only because this has been explained to you repeatedly and rather than admit the double-standard, you're just going to lean further in and pretend that you believe all businesses have a right to discriminate however they like.

Which is obviously an absurd position. Especially when you clearly seem to believe that the religious deserve special protections.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I notice you can't actually find the part of the constitution that forbids gay marriage and instead just made up homophobic nonsense.

I wonder why.

Wonder no more, it depends on whether the Constitution should evolve via amendment or focus more on originalist doctrine. No founding father would approve of gay marriage. Acknowledge the fact and let's move on?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wonder no more, it depends on whether the Constitution should evolve via amendment or focus more on originalist doctrine. No founding father would approve of gay marriage. Acknowledge the fact and let's move on?

Where in the Constitution, ignoring any amendments, does it forbid gay marriage?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hyperbole. The suggestion was if you are uncomfortable with certain aspects of your job, like making wedding cakes for gay couples, then choose a different career or business path.

Imagine a baker refusing to bake cakes for interracial weddings. Or cakes for a Muslim or Jewish wedding. Or for couples where one had been previously married.

Yes, that's much better than "lose cake equipment investment..." just choose a "new career path!

I'm sure we Jews felt that sentiment when the Nazis told us "we just couldn't be shop owners any more."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where in the Constitution, ignoring any amendments, does it forbid gay marriage?

Where in the Constitution does it say church and state must be separate? How did THAT become "Constitutional"?

Answer: It was taken as original intent. NO SIGNERS of the founding documents approved of homosexual marriage.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where in the Constitution does it say church and state must be separate? How did THAT become "Constitutional"?

Answer: It was taken as original intent. NO SIGNERS of the founding documents approved of homosexual marriage.

Then why did they not put that in the Constitution?

Do you understand what a Constitution is?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, that's much better than "lose cake equipment investment..." just choose a "new career path!

I'm sure we Jews felt that sentiment when the Nazis told us "we just couldn't be shop owners any more."

The fact that you're comparing businesses who decide not to serve certain groups - despite choosing to operate a business which is required to do that by law - with not being allowed to open a business because you belong to a certain group is hilarious.

Here's a tip: "Right to discriminate" is not a thing.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, that's much better than "lose cake equipment investment..." just choose a "new career path!

I'm sure we Jews felt that sentiment when the Nazis told us "we just couldn't be shop owners any more."

By "career or business path" I meant instead of wedding cakes, maybe market something else. Cupcakes? Pies? Erotic cakes?