How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[BilliardsBall]

Does that happen? How in the world can you be sued if you haven't yet provided a service?

Cake maker refuses to vend, is therefore sued BEFORE they vend.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The framers borrowed more from enlightenment thinkers than the Bible.

If we are talking natural law, then by all means, indulge in your sexual desires!

What about Gay Pride parades not occuring in front of kids would make you happy?

And you know this because all the States's constitutions have anti-sodomy laws. (Rolls eyes, lols).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Cake maker refuses to vend, is therefore sued BEFORE they vend.

In that case, they ARE providing a service, they're just refusing that service to a particular customer.

You can't be sued for refusing to vend for a service you aren't providing. That makes no sense.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Part 1 of 2

Get ready for a long post. I want to address all of your comments directly, so that my position is crystal clear. Maybe a slight green tint, because that's my favorite color, but still very clear!

First off, I want to say that even though I do believe that homosexuality is sinful and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I do not agree with the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner's decision to refuse to make a wedding cake for that same-sex wedding.

I don't see any reason from the scriptures, Bible or otherwise, for anyone to believe that doing such a thing would harm them spiritually. In fact, I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ taught the opposite.

However, I also believe, that men are free to believe as they will and their ability to live according to their religious beliefs should not be infringed.

If the owner believes that making such a cake would violate his beliefs and cause him, his family or business some kind of harm - then no one should be able to force him to make such a cake.

If the State can force someone to violate their religious beliefs then that is no different than establishing a law in support of one belief over another. A violation of the First Amendment.

Even though I disagree with his beliefs, I must respect his right to have them and live by them because I want to continue to have the freedom to have and live by my own beliefs.

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

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

I want this to be very clear, because you are trying to muddy the waters here.

The owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop does not believe that "marriage" is a mockery of his religious beliefs. It is the State-enforced redefinition of marriage that he takes issue with.

I believe that his religious beliefs concerning marriage are that it is a covenant (or contract) that should only be between a man and a woman.

I believe that he would consider any other configuration of participants in said contract to be a practice that violates his religious beliefs and he does not want to associate with it in any way. Such as making wedding cakes for these unions.

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

I don't believe that to really be relevant to the matter of whether this is discrimination or not.

The owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop has refused to make the wedding cakes for same-sex marriages both before and after his State recognized the practice.

The famous case actually took place before the State recognized same-sex amrriage.

Are you arguing that his refusal was appropriate before the State recognized it, but should be considered discriminatory afterward?

If so, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment?

If marriage between people and animals does become legal - you would force any and all bakers to make wedding cakes for those events?

It is legal in many States for adults to marry children. Should a baker be forced to make wedding cakes for these marriages - no matter their beliefs (religious or otherwise) about pedophilia?

Or does the legality of it not actually matter to you at all?

What if a caterer has strong feelings about mutilating the genitals of newborns? Would you force that caterer to service a bris?

A flower business owner needs to supply flowers to a Satanic funeral no matter what?

Or, is it only homosexuals that should be entitled to everything?

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.

No business owner is “required” to cater to anyone. Even these “protected groups”.

Don’t forget that sexual orientation is not recognized as a protected group by every State.

Although, I don't see how that matters in the case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop since no product or service was denied due to anyone's sexual orientation.

It was the wedding itself that caused him to refuse to make the cake. Not the sexual orientation of the customers.

It is impossible for you to say otherwise considering that he offered them all other baked goods, even for their wedding.

Homophobic bigots tend not to do that. It does not qualify as discrimination.

Being a member of a protected group does not entitle someone to all products and services at all times. No one has that power.

That would make the owner of every business a slave to these protected groups.

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.

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.

One of my main goals in life is to avoid hypocrisy as much as I can. I try to maintain consistency.

This is my belief I have held for decades and it is independent of you and this conversation.

It is my belief that if a business owner has a religious belief against the practice of interracial marriage then they cannot be forced to participate in that practice.

Even though I would consider such a belief to be ridiculous (I am in an interracial marraige) I believe they have the right to have and live according to their beliefs.

When I was young my parents hired a woman to come and clean our home every other week. She was some kind of Catholic and she flat out refused to clean in my little brother’s room because he had all kinds of “anime” posters up and she considered them to be evil.

We all thought that she was being ridiculous, but my parents said that she was not required to clean that one room, which was unfortunate because my brother was a real slob.

Even though my parents thought her belief was ridiculous, they knew she had a right to have and live by it, and because they respected her, they respected her belief and came up with a compromise.

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

Irrelevant, because even if they were, it would be the redefinition of marriage, not the fact that one of the customers was a tower, that would cause this baker to refuse to make a wedding cake.

Then don't sell wedding cakes.

Don’t violate the First Amendment.

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.

No, you are off in the weeds.

I am not arguing in defense of these hateful things, but rather I am arguing in defense for everyone’s right to hate or love as much or as little as they want.

I don’t believe that we can legislate morality. Everyone has the right to hate anyone else for any reason. No law is going to make anyone’s irrational hatred go away.

In actuality, forcing someone to associate with a person they made would breed even more hatred.

A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just as you have the right to refuse someone entrance into your home or property for any reason.

If everyone has the right to refuse to associate with anyone else - that’s equality.

Of course, no freedom comes without its price and any hateful business owner would need to suffer the consequences of their actions if they decided to refuse service for these reasons.

I believe that the free market would eventually put these people out of business. And rightly so, but it should be left to the market to decide, not government.

Claiming that a business owner needs to associate with everyone, when the customer has the right to come and go however they desire is you arguing that the rights of the customer supersede the rights of the business owner.

I am arguing for equality while you are arguing for inequality.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Part 2 of 2

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.

You would lose that bet. I try to maintain consistency.

Although, I don’t know how this scenario would happen considering that people don’t wear signs that say, “Atheist” or “Christian”.

How would the bookshop owner know if their customer is Christian?

Your lost bet reminds me of when I was a missionary for my Church (the guys in white shirts and ties) and I was denied service twice at this restaurant franchise.

I don’t know if the guys who ran the place were Muslim, but they were Middle Eastern and spoke Arabic.

The first time we came was about noon and the place had no customers in it and they claimed that they had run out of food. We thought that was odd. Why be “Open” if you have no food? But no one else was there so we left.

A week later we came back about the same time. There were customers eating. When he saw us the guy in the front yelled something in Arabic to someone in the back and they laughed. Then he claimed that they had no food again. When we remarked about the customers eating, the guy said, “We don’t have food for you.”

Needless to say, considering my beliefs, we left without making a scene and ate somewhere else.

But since it largely benefits your religion to be able to discriminate against people using businesses, you're taking this position.

I wouldn’t say it “benefits” anyone other than ensuring that everyone enjoys the same rights and privileges. Customers and business owners alike.

I don’t believe that anyone is gaining any “salvation points” for refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, but they have the right. Especially if they believe that doing so would cause them some kind of spiritual harm.

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.

I would claim, in my opinion, that those who argue that everyone, even business owners, should have equal rights are most likely those who are not infected with the “victim mentality” that plagues our nation.

Being a homosexual does not make you a victim. Someone refusing to make your wedding cake does not make you a victim.

I can’t speak for other religions, but Christian principles reject the notion of victimhood. Even if you are victimized, it is up to you to decide whether or not to become a victim.

The Lord Jesus Christ suffered the worst pains and persecutions, yet He rose above it all and taught others to “Be of good cheer.”

I also have my mother as an example. She had a remarkably horrible childhood filled with abuse and neglect, but she rose above it and is a true angel mother to me and my brothers.

Her sisters, on the other hand, allowed what happened to them to affect themselves so negatively that they all repeated the cycle of abuse and neglect on themselves and their children.

My mother had to adopt two nieces and two nephews and take care of them until they were grown because of the bad choices made by her sisters.

So the civil rights movement was wrong, then?

I believe that it did more harm than good.

Actually, to be clear, it created more potential harm than good.

It was great in the moment, but today we are witnessing the harm caused by the inequality. It will get worse before it gets better.

Nobody should be forced to let black people into their establishments? They're right to do that?

I believe that they have that right, but I also believe that it would not be right for them to do so.

You and I could protest such a business. Organize a boycott. Destroy them on social media.

The government, however, should not get involved. Because you cannot legislate morality.

That's their belief, and they have a right to it.

You ignore the fact that beliefs are lived not just believed.

They have the right to live according to their beliefs.

I mean, what good would their right to believe that the Sabbath Day should be kept holy amount to if the government forced them to work on it?

What good does the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner’s belief about marriage matter if he is forced to violate that belief?

They do not have a right to force that belief on others by operating their business in a discriminatory way.

This would be a good point if the Masterpiece Cakeshop were the only bakery on planet Earth or if someone put a gun to the heads of those homsoexual customers and made them go there.

When you consider that no is being forced to go to the Masterpiece Cakeshop and that there are innumerable bakeries which would be willing to make such a cake for that event, how is anyone “forcing” their beliefs on others?

The only beliefs being forced are those had by these homosexual customers and the State.

They are trying to force this business owner to live contrary to his beliefs and to operate his business contrary to his will.

Yes, it does, and the fact that you are so desperate to distract from that fact just shows how uneasy your position is.

My discussing the actual facts of the case is hardly a “distraction”.

You keep ignoring the facts and are trying to make this case into something it is not.

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".

I don’t know what “race realism” is, but I would argue that disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle is not “homophobia”.

Not wanting to violate one’s beliefs concerning homosexuality and marriage is not “homophobia”.

If the owner had refused to serve these customers at all because of their sexuality or if he spent any of his free time protesting against homosexuality or same-sex marriage (or if he had taken some other antagonistic action), then you may have had a point here.

That may prove that he had an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals, but he didn’t so it doesn’t.

Except the religious are not being discriminated against.

The State forcing someone to either violate their beliefs or lose their livelihood is State-enforced discrimination which is the worst kind and a violation of the First Amendment.

How is requiring religious people obey the exact same anti-discrimination laws as everybody else an act of discrimination?

The case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop is not one of discrimination, which you know, so I don’t understand your question.

However, Christian beliefs or laws concerning marriage existed prior to the State’s redefinition of marriage.

How is anyone surprised by this conflict?

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

There is no such law. Being a member of a protected group does not entitle you to someone’s service or labor.

You simply cannot be refused a service or labor because of your protected status.

Especially when you clearly seem to believe that the religious deserve special protections.

This is a very hypocritical position for you to take.

Aren’t you the one claiming that certain groups of people are entitled to “special protections”?

You also forget that religion is one of those protected groups. Why do you support one of these groups over the other?

Not only this, but it’s not “my belief” that the religious deserve “special protections”, but it’s the U.S. Constitution that does so.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That’s the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in case you didn’t know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Part 1 of 2

Get ready for a long post. I want to address all of your comments directly, so that my position is crystal clear. Maybe a slight green tint, because that's my favorite color, but still very clear!

First off, I want to say that even though I do believe that homosexuality is sinful and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I do not agree with the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner's decision to refuse to make a wedding cake for that same-sex wedding.

I don't see any reason from the scriptures, Bible or otherwise, for anyone to believe that doing such a thing would harm them spiritually. In fact, I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ taught the opposite.

However, I also believe, that men are free to believe as they will and their ability to live according to their religious beliefs should not be infringed.

If the owner believes that making such a cake would violate his beliefs and cause him, his family or business some kind of harm - then no one should be able to force him to make such a cake.

If the State can force someone to violate their religious beliefs then that is no different than establishing a law in support of one belief over another. A violation of the First Amendment.

Thing is, that just isn't true. And once again you're equivocating belief with business.

The idea that religious beliefs should be uniquely exempt from anti-discrimination laws is obviously nonsense. You cannot justify claiming a religious belief to use your business to discriminate against people unjustly. By that reasoning, anybody can deny service to anybody else on whatever basis they want - they only need to claim it is a religious belief, and therefore they are now exempy from the laws the govern the rest of us regarding fair and equal treatment of others.

Why can't you see why that is a terrible idea? Why should religious beliefs grant privilege and exemption from law?

Even though I disagree with his beliefs, I must respect his right to have them and live by them because I want to continue to have the freedom to have and live by my own beliefs.

He can have his beliefs. What he cannot do is open a business and use that business as a means to discriminate against people - even if he genuinely believes he has a right to.

Again, BELIEVING YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMETHING doesn't entitle you to it, especially when it regards discrimination against protected groups.

I want this to be very clear, because you are trying to muddy the waters here.

The owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop does not believe that "marriage" is a mockery of his religious beliefs. It is the State-enforced redefinition of marriage that he takes issue with.

Now YOU'RE trying to muddy the waters.

Marriage is marriage, end of story.

I believe that his religious beliefs concerning marriage are that it is a covenant (or contract) that should only be between a man and a woman.

Then stop selling wedding cakes.

I believe that he would consider any other configuration of participants in said contract to be a practice that violates his religious beliefs and he does not want to associate with it in any way. Such as making wedding cakes for these unions.

Then stop selling wedding cakes.

I don't believe that to really be relevant to the matter of whether this is discrimination or not.

Then you're delusional. If you cannot understand the difference between a practice undertaken by two consenting adults and people marrying objects or animals that cannot give consent, you have larger issues.

The owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop has refused to make the wedding cakes for same-sex marriages both before and after his State recognized the practice.

The famous case actually took place before the State recognized same-sex amrriage.

Are you arguing that his refusal was appropriate before the State recognized it, but should be considered discriminatory afterward?

It's discriminatory in both.

If so, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment?

Because nobody's beliefs or speech are being curtailed. Again, right to belief is not right to discriminate.

If marriage between people and animals does become legal - you would force any and all bakers to make wedding cakes for those events?

This is a ridiculous argument that doesn't need to be addressed for the reasons I gave above.

It is legal in many States for adults to marry children. Should a baker be forced to make wedding cakes for these marriages - no matter their beliefs (religious or otherwise) about pedophilia?

See above.

Or does the legality of it not actually matter to you at all?

I believe it is morally wrong to deny people service based on their sexuality, regardless of what the law says.

What if a caterer has strong feelings about mutilating the genitals of newborns? Would you force that caterer to service a bris?

That depends. Do they offer "Bris cake"? If so, then yes. But since there is no such thing (that I'm aware of) that caterer cannot deny a service that they would otherwise offer non-gental mutilating clients.

Also, genital mutilators are not a protected class.

A flower business owner needs to supply flowers to a Satanic funeral no matter what?

Again, this depends on what services the flower shop OFFERS AND PROVIDES.

Or, is it only homosexuals that should be entitled to everything?

Muddying the waters again.

It is fair and reasonable for people to be entitled to a wedding cake from a business that sells wedding cakes.

No business owner is “required” to cater to anyone. Even these “protected groups”.

That depends. A caterer doesn't have to cater to anybody, but if they OFFER A SERVICE which the supply freely to anyone except a particular group, then they are engaged in unjust discrimination.

I've explained this a number of times.

Don’t forget that sexual orientation is not recognized as a protected group by every State.

But it should be, regardless. And I would argue it is immoral not to.

Although, I don't see how that matters in the case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop since no product or service was denied due to anyone's sexual orientation.

Yes it was. I have also explained this multiple times.

It was the wedding itself that caused him to refuse to make the cake. Not the sexual orientation of the customers.

Then why does he sell wedding cakes?

It is impossible for you to say otherwise considering that he offered them all other baked goods, even for their wedding.

It is extremely possible for me to say otherwise, because it's obvious. If you OFFER A SERVICE but then deny that service on the basis of the sexuality of those who are asking for or require it, it is the SEXUAL ORIENTATION of them that us the basis for discrimination.

This is an argument you fail to address time and time again, and keep repeating refuted arguments over and over. Please stop doing that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Homophobic bigots tend not to do that. It does not qualify as discrimination.

This is some really, REALLY poor logic. Allow me to illustrate how and why using a brief scene:

[A MAN walks into a bank and approaches the TELLER.]

Teller: Good morning, sir. Welcome to the bank of example! How may I help you today?
Man: Good morning. Yes, I was wondering if you may be able to help me with a number of things, actually.
Teller: No problem at all, sir. What can I do for you?
Man: Well, firstly, I was thinking about putting away some savings, so I was wondering if I might open a new savings account.
Teller: Not a problem, sir. All you need to do is fill out this form, and I can open the account for you today. And you get a free pen!
Man: Excellent! Now, the second thing is that my daughter has just turned 10, and I was wondering if I could open an account for her.
Teller: Very good, sir. This would be no problem. Would you like to open a standard savings account or our super junior savings account?
Man: What's the difference?
Teller: Well, both come with a free pen, but the super junior account also comes with a teddy bear-shaped piggybank.
Man: Lovely! I'll take the super junior account.
Teller: Not a problem, sir. Here is the form. Is there anything else, sir?
Man: Ah, yes. Me and my partner were thinking of putting down a deposit on some offices to expand our business, and we were wondering if we could apply for a small business loan?
Teller: I see. And what religion are you, sir?
Man: ... Excuse me?
Teller: May I ask what, if any, religion you belong to, sir?
Man: Well, er, I'm Jewish.
Teller: Oh, that's a shame. Unfortunately we cannot offer loans to Jewish customers.
Man: ... What?? But, why not??
Teller: You see, the Bank of Example was founded under the religion and teachings of Jed - praise be his name. And, you see, among his teachings is the belief in the brotherhood of all men, forgiveness, peace and Universal love.
Man: And?
Teller: But he also believe Jews shouldn't be allowed to borrow money, because they steal it. So I cannot offer you a loan, I'm afraid.
Man: What?? That's antisemitic!
Teller: Excuse me, sir?
Man: You can't do that, it's antisemitism!
Teller: How could we possibly be antisemitic? I've opened two accounts for you this morning. Surely, if I were antisemitic I would not have served you at all.
Man: But you're refusing to grant me a loan!
Teller: The Bank of Example refuses loans all of the time. Nobody is entitled to one of our loans.
Man: But you're denying me a loan just because I'm Jewish!
Teller: No, I'm not. I'm denying to participate in the act of funding Jewish businesses, because that is against the sincerely held teachings of Jed - praise be his name.
Man: Look, if I were a Christian, you'd grant me a loan, wouldn't you?
Teller: Oh, surely, yes.
Man: So what's the difference between them and me?
Teller: There is no difference. You are both equal in the eyes of Jed - praise be his name.
Man: But I am not allowed a loan?
Teller: Of course not. There is a difference between a loan in the hands of a Christian and a loan in the hands of a Jew. While we would love to treat you both the same, and we really would, we morally object to what Jews would do with money.
Man: What??
Teller: I do apologize, sir. Would you like another free pen?

According to your logic, what the Teller said and did in accordance with their bank's policy isn't discriminatory, because the Teller didn't deny service to the Jewish man in EVERY instance, just in that particular one instance. But anybody with any sense would tell you that what the bank does is undeniably antisemitic.

Being a member of a protected group does not entitle someone to all products and services at all times. No one has that power.

Once again, a strawman. The claim has NEVER been that everyone, or any group, is entitled to all services at all times. The claim is that denying people service of this particular type in this particular instance is unjust.

One of my main goals in life is to avoid hypocrisy as much as I can. I try to maintain consistency.

Then maybe ditch the belief which says all people are equal but that you have the right to treat people differently.

This is my belief I have held for decades and it is independent of you and this conversation.

It is my belief that if a business owner has a religious belief against the practice of interracial marriage then they cannot be forced to participate in that practice.

Bingo. You realize what you just said?

You just argued that your stance isn't equality. Your stance is that you believe religious groups should have more rights than others.

That's the heart of your argument. As soon as you realise this, you realise that you are not arguing for equality. You are arguing for inequality.

Even though I would consider such a belief to be ridiculous (I am in an interracial marraige) I believe they have the right to have and live according to their beliefs.

When I was young my parents hired a woman to come and clean our home every other week. She was some kind of Catholic and she flat out refused to clean in my little brother’s room because he had all kinds of “anime” posters up and she considered them to be evil.

We all thought that she was being ridiculous, but my parents said that she was not required to clean that one room, which was unfortunate because my brother was a real slob.

Even though my parents thought her belief was ridiculous, they knew she had a right to have and live by it, and because they respected her, they respected her belief and came up with a compromise.

This is not remotely relevant.

For starters, you cannot just "take your sexuality or gender or race" off the wall. You cannot "compromise" being denied a service on the basis of something that you cannot change. How can a consumer "compromise" their race, gender or sexuality?

"Oh, I'm sorry you won't serve me because I'm black. Allow me to 'turn down' my blackness to allow you to serve me. Compromise!"

If any compromise exists, it cannot come from the protected groups who are being unfairly treated because the things that are making them unfairly treated are not things that they can change nor does anybody have a right to demand change of them. The compromise MUST come from the businesses that are selling to them, and in most cases that compromise should already have been agreed upon by the very act of opening a legally recognized business: that you are required to serve the public in a non-discriminatory manner.

Irrelevant, because even if they were, it would be the redefinition of marriage, not the fact that one of the customers was a tower, that would cause this baker to refuse to make a wedding cake.

Banging the "redefinition" drum isn't going to work. You know full well that you don't care about redefining a term. Words don't have rights, so stop pretending you suddenly developed a moral conscience about words out of nowhere. This is about gay rights.

Refusing to serve a wedding cake to a gay couple on the basis that they are gay is a transgression of rights. Deal with that issue and do not continue to attempt to distract from it by talking nonsense about definitions.

Don’t violate the First Amendment.

First amendment isn't being violated. You've yet to demonstrate how it is, in any way, shape or form.

No, you are off in the weeds.

I am not arguing in defense of these hateful things, but rather I am arguing in defense for everyone’s right to hate or love as much or as little as they want.

I have already exposed this as a lie, since you believe the right to discriminate should be held exclusively by religious groups.

You are arguing for inequality.

I don’t believe that we can legislate morality.[ Everyone has the right to hate anyone else for any reason. No law is going to make anyone’s irrational hatred go away.

Nobody is saying we should "legislate morality". Again, this is a strawman. What we CAN legislate is that BUSINESSES operate in a way that is non-discriminatory. Nobody is saying the baker can't BELIEVE that gay marriage is sinful - or whatever. What we are saying is that the baker CANNOT use that belief to justify DENYING A SERVICE to people on the basis of their sexuality.

A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, just as you have the right to refuse someone entrance into your home or property for any reason.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between operating a business - which is intended by law to serve the public - and private property just proves that you cannot reasonably assess this issue.

If everyone has the right to refuse to associate with anyone else - that’s equality.

Not when the vast majority of businesses are owned and run by white, heterosexual, male Christians, who - according to you - should now have the right to discriminate against whoever they want. Tell me, what groups do you think white, heterosexual, male Christians are most likely to discriminate against?

No need to answer that question. All you need to do is look back before civil rights movement. Or Universal suffrage. Or the emancipation proclamation.

The whole point of civil rights is that nobody has the right to deny service on unjust grounds. You are essentially arguing that those in power should have the right to treat those without power in whatever way they want.

Anybody with half a brain can see that that's not equality.

Of course, no freedom comes without its price and any hateful business owner would need to suffer the consequences of their actions if they decided to refuse service for these reasons.

I believe that the free market would eventually put these people out of business. And rightly so, but it should be left to the market to decide, not government.

This belief is naive. The free market doesn't work like that, and hasn't worked like that for hundreds of years.

Claiming that a business owner needs to associate with everyone, when the customer has the right to come and go however they desire is you arguing that the rights of the customer supersede the rights of the business owner.

I am arguing for equality while you are arguing for inequality.

See above. You are categorically and demonstrably not arguing for equality. You are arguing that businesses (and specifically religious businesses) have more rights than consumers. You are arguing that publically offering a service gives a business the right to deny that service on unjust grounds to whoever they want.

You are not arguing for equality. You want your rights to supercede the rights of others because you know that, if people had that power, you could come out on top. Please stop pretending believe in equality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Part 2 of 2

You would lose that bet. I try to maintain consistency.

Well, it sure is a good thing that we live in a society where the shoe is almost never going to be on the other foot, otherwise you might actually be challenged on that. Super convenient for you, though.

I don’t believe that anyone is gaining any “salvation points” for refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, but they have the right. Especially if they believe that doing so would cause them some kind of spiritual harm.

Once again, your religious bias rears its head. You are arguing that a belief being necessarily religious entitles you to more rights than others.

And yet, you claim to believe in equality.

I would claim, in my opinion, that those who argue that everyone, even business owners, should have equal rights are most likely those who are not infected with the “victim mentality” that plagues our nation.

Being a homosexual does not make you a victim. Someone refusing to make your wedding cake does not make you a victim.

This is just garbage rhetoric and you know it. It's like claiming the civil rights protesters were engaging in "victim mentality".

"Being made to sit at the back of a bus and not being served in bars does not make you a victim".

That's not an argument. It's certainly not an argument that addresses the actual point: that people are being treated unfairly.

The rest of your polemic is equally meaningless.

I believe that they have that right, but I also believe that it would not be right for them to do so.

Then you are an apologist for institutitonal racism, sexism and homophobia.

You and I could protest such a business. Organize a boycott. Destroy them on social media.

We shouldn't have to. Businesses should operate in a public space and according to the good of the public. Again, the civil rights movement wasn't a movement designed around shutting down or simply affecting businesses that discriminated. It was about encouraging government to put the necessary rules in place to prevent black people being treated as second-hand citizens through unjust discrimination of businesses. Civil rights did not come about by those racist business owners changing their minds, or their businesses closing. It came about by the government realizing that society was unequal, and taking step to try and make it more equal.

The government, however, should not get involved. Because you cannot legislate morality.

But you can legislate anti-discrimination laws.

You ignore the fact that beliefs are lived not just believed.

I don't ignore that fact. You ignore the fact that it's irrelevant.

A person can believe whatever they want and STILL not use their business to unjustly discriminate.

Why can you not see that?

They have the right to live according to their beliefs.

Those beliefs do not give them the right to use businesses to unjustly discriminate.

End of story.

I mean, what good would their right to believe that the Sabbath Day should be kept holy amount to if the government forced them to work on it?

Irrelevant. That is not the issue being discussed.

What good does the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner’s belief about marriage matter if he is forced to violate that belief?

He isn't being forced to violate that belief.

This would be a good point if the Masterpiece Cakeshop were the only bakery on planet Earth or if someone put a gun to the heads of those homsoexual customers and made them go there.

Missing the point. Businesses cannot discriminate unjustly. End of story.

When you consider that no is being forced to go to the Masterpiece Cakeshop and that there are innumerable bakeries which would be willing to make such a cake for that event, how is anyone “forcing” their beliefs on others?

See the bank example I used in my previous post, and the second-to-last paragraph.

Again, go look at the history of civil rights. Did ALL businesses deny service to black people? No. But telling a black person that they can just "go find somewhere else that will serve them" is not an argument that justifies their not being served in the first place. It's a non-argument.

The only beliefs being forced are those had by these homosexual customers and the State.

False. Nobody forced the baker to make and sell wedding cakes. They do that of their own free will.

They are trying to force this business owner to live contrary to his beliefs and to operate his business contrary to his will.

False. He can believe what he wants. But if he sells wedding cakes, he cannot refuse wedding cakes to people on unjust grounds.

My discussing the actual facts of the case is hardly a “distraction”.

You keep ignoring the facts and are trying to make this case into something it is not.

This is demonstrably false. You are the one arguing about "redefinition of marriage" and "violating personal belief" and "right to belief" and "being forced to serve everybody under every circumstance".

These are NOT the "facts of the issue". They are distractions.

The facts of the issue are that a baker offers wedding cakes, and denied a wedding cake on the basis of the sexuality of the people getting married.

That is unjust discrimination. The long list of distractions you have raised above suggest that you realize this, and cannot come out well in this discussion by sticking to the facts, so you invent new categories to try and justify the baker's actions.

But when you look at the reality, it's clear as say. You are wrong.

I don’t know what “race realism” is, but I would argue that disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle is not “homophobia”.

The very fact that you think there is such a thing as "the homosexual lifestyle" indicates otherwise.

Not wanting to violate one’s beliefs concerning homosexuality and marriage is not “homophobia”.

Then don't sell wedding cakes.

If the owner had refused to serve these customers at all because of their sexuality or if he spent any of his free time protesting against homosexuality or same-sex marriage (or if he had taken some other antagonistic action), then you may have had a point here.

See the bank example above.

The State forcing someone to either violate their beliefs or lose their livelihood is State-enforced discrimination which is the worst kind and a violation of the First Amendment.

No, it is not. Again, the baker has the right to BELIEF. He does not have the right to DISCRIMINATE.

How do you not undertsand the difference?

The case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop is not one of discrimination, which you know, so I don’t understand your question.

Since it clearly and demonstrably is, this is nonsense.

However, Christian beliefs or laws concerning marriage existed prior to the State’s redefinition of marriage.

Irrelevant distraction.

How is anyone surprised by this conflict?

There is no such law. Being a member of a protected group does not entitle you to someone’s service or labor.

No. But it does mean that somebody cannot UNJUSTLY DENY YOU THAT LABOUR that they would otherwise offer to somebody outside of those protected groups.

You simply cannot be refused a service or labor because of your protected status.

Which is what happened in this case.

Only, you make an arbitrary distinction by saying that because this is a RELIGIOUS belief, it therefore doesn't count as discrimination.

Bigots will always find some loophole or semantic argument to justify their bigotry. Your argument is an example of that.

This is a very hypocritical position for you to take.

Aren’t you the one claiming that certain groups of people are entitled to “special protections”?

No. All people are entitled to the same protections.

You also forget that religion is one of those protected groups. Why do you support one of these groups over the other?

I don't. One group is being discriminated against, the other isn't.

Not only this, but it’s not “my belief” that the religious deserve “special protections”, but it’s the U.S. Constitution that does so.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That’s the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in case you didn’t know.

You realize that this doesn't grant religous groups "special protections", right? It grants them the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. As in, "you are free to practice you religion".

What it DOES NOT do is say "Religoius groups have the right to open businesses and use those businesses to treat others however they want".

Learn the difference.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Actually, the change was thatvthe courts striking down an illegal law. Do you think that the State should be allowed to have illegal laws?


Judicial decisions are a bit of a blunt instrument. All they can do is strike down unjust laws; they can't really craft new laws.

If the federal legislature had been more on the ball, they could have arranged a more gradual change for businesses. Blame conservative legislators for blocking attempts to do this and insisting that an illegal law should stay on the books. They could have dealt with it, but they didn't, so the courts got involved.

Of course, it would be ridiculous for businesses to expect that laws will never change. Factories that were built decades ago still have to have modern pollution controls, even though this cost might never have been considered when the factory was built. Lunch counters that were established during segregation now have to serve people of all races, regardless of the opinions of the owner. The same holds here.


That's hardly the decision in question. If their bigotry wouldn't allow them to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, they could always sell other baked goods besides wedding cakes.

If they did decide to close the bakery, I have no doubt that they'd be able to find other employment to preserve their livelihood.


If your thinking is that muddled on this issue, then you have my sympathies. I wish you a quick recovery for whatever impairment you're suffering from.

Before I can continue here I want you to share the exact "unjust law" you have been referring to.

I just want to assume anything or say something dumb out of ignorance.

Also, at least in the case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop (which has been my "go to" case here), "bigotry" was not a factor.

Sometimes a person may need to avoid certain practices in order to live according to their beliefs.

I don't know why you would instantly assume bigotry.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are groups that sometimes hold up signs with pictures of bloody dismembered fetuses at my local hospital. I can only presume that you have the same concern for the parents struggling with how to explain that to their children.


So you have a problem with the free expression of others?

False analogy--I don't want homosexuals on parade, simulating sex acts and using profanities near children, and you don't want people to know how a medical procedure dismembers a living being. One thing should be withheld, the other--the Supreme Court just affirmed by refusing to hear a "heartbeat ultrasound case"--is meant to be made MORE public.

And freedom of expression/speech is not meant to place children in harm's way.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are you talking about? Why would this be any different if they saw straight people kissing? They're exposed to kissing all the time. You don't have to talk about sex to explain why people do that, do you?


Maybe don't take kids to those kinds of displays, then? The gay pride parades I've seen are not "immoral excesses". They come with no more excess or profanity or "bizarre clothing" that many other parades.

Says someone who has never attend such a parade! I HAVE as an onlooker.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

False analogy--I don't want homosexuals on parade, simulating sex acts and using profanities near children, and you don't want people to know how a medical procedure dismembers a living being. One thing should be withheld, the other--the Supreme Court just affirmed by refusing to hear a "heartbeat ultrasound case"--is meant to be made MORE public.

And freedom of expression/speech is not meant to place children in harm's way.

I assume you think that this was coherent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Says someone who has never attend such a parade! I HAVE as an onlooker.

Sure you have.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

False analogy--I don't want homosexuals on parade, simulating sex acts and using profanities near children, and you don't want people to know how a medical procedure dismembers a living being. One thing should be withheld, the other--the Supreme Court just affirmed by refusing to hear a "heartbeat ultrasound case"--is meant to be made MORE public.

Do you seriously not realize how hilariously bad this argument is?

"That's a false analogy, because one is something I agree with while the other isn't!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure you have.

I went to high school on the border of NY's Greenwich Village. Me and buddies enjoyed the famous (legendary!) drag shows in the Village on Halloween and so on. My mother's best friend was one of the first persons diagnosed (and who died from) AIDS. I have gay friends and gay family now, and walk alongside some born agains, who have overcome sexual issues including homosexuality.

I've seen or attended gay parades, not lately, but from a tender age. There are things done in a typical gay parade that are outlandish, bizarre, unreasonable. EVERY PARENT IN THE USA avoids "gay days" at places like Disney and EVERY straight avoids gay cruises with VERY VERY VERY VERY good reasons. The parades are shown by the media as some kind of civil right yet a lot of the content CANNOT be shown on TV broadcasts but IS in public, near children.

Not all gays are a horror show, only the most bitter and hardened are. Many gays are against gay marriage, gay parades and other "ungodly" excesses in the horror show.

What a surprise? The born again wants to protect children, and is tolerant of gays who have private relationships and not "parades", and the liberal straight skeptic will die on a martyr's cross for the free speech of every single difficult, deviant person on the planet while insisting it is the CHRISTIANS who must be suppressed.

THANKS SO MUCH for sharing how deviant, bitter individuals can behave sexually in public in front of my children and yours, while desiring to suppress born agains who are commanded to pay their taxes, obey the government, honor parents, protect children and life womb to tomb, lay down their lives for others...

DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some relevant news that showed up in my feed today. I trust that everyone here arguing that people shouldn't lose their job because of their beliefs support this decision:

Atheist nurse wins fight to end mandatory 12-step addiction treatment for health staff in Vancouver

Six of AA's 12 steps directly refer to God or a higher power, including one that requires members turn their will and lives "over to the care of God."

"The 12 steps are a religious peer support group, not a medical treatment. They shouldn't be imposed on anyone," Wood said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some relevant news that showed up in my feed today. I trust that everyone here arguing that people shouldn't lose their job because of their beliefs support this decision:

Atheist nurse wins fight to end mandatory 12-step addiction treatment for health staff in Vancouver

Aaaaand... crickets.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I went to high school on the border of NY's Greenwich Village. Me and buddies enjoyed the famous (legendary!) drag shows in the Village on Halloween and so on. My mother's best friend was one of the first persons diagnosed (and who died from) AIDS. I have gay friends and gay family now, and walk alongside some born agains, who have overcome sexual issues including homosexuality.

I've seen or attended gay parades, not lately, but from a tender age. There are things done in a typical gay parade that are outlandish, bizarre, unreasonable. EVERY PARENT IN THE USA avoids "gay days" at places like Disney and EVERY straight avoids gay cruises with VERY VERY VERY VERY good reasons. The parades are shown by the media as some kind of civil right yet a lot of the content CANNOT be shown on TV broadcasts but IS in public, near children.

Not all gays are a horror show, only the most bitter and hardened are. Many gays are against gay marriage, gay parades and other "ungodly" excesses in the horror show.

What a surprise? The born again wants to protect children, and is tolerant of gays who have private relationships and not "parades", and the liberal straight skeptic will die on a martyr's cross for the free speech of every single difficult, deviant person on the planet while insisting it is the CHRISTIANS who must be suppressed.

THANKS SO MUCH for sharing how deviant, bitter individuals can behave sexually in public in front of my children and yours, while desiring to suppress born agains who are commanded to pay their taxes, obey the government, honor parents, protect children and life womb to tomb, lay down their lives for others...

DOUBLE STANDARD.

Thanks for finally showing your true face.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thanks for finally showing your true face.

You're welcome, I'm happy to admit I know and accept non-militant gays who don't put children and civilization in harm's way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're welcome, I'm happy to admit I know and accept non-militant gays who don't put children and civilization in harm's way.

Unlike you, apparently. It's apparently fine for you to harm children and civilization. Just as long as you don't do it in a "gay" way, I guess.