How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[tayla]

an analogy might help you understand: race instead of sexuality.
Suppose a religion states that blacks are inferior to whites and shouldn't be able to use the same bathrooms or drive he same busses etc.

Would you say that laws against discrimination based on skin colour would infringe upon their religious rights?

Yes, this is a very strong argument.

 

[tayla]

That leads to the idea that they must all follow the secular rules of the state.

I can imagine a future day in which these secular rules of the state will be oppressive for everyone.

 

[tayla]

I think there is no reason why people should not have right to decide to whom they sell things. And I think it is interesting that this is problem in the case of sexual orientation, but not for example in case of poor, "ugly" and not well-dressed people. Why it is accepted that there are many places that don’t accept people who have not much money, or who are not good looking or well dressed?

Seems like the polite thing for businesses to do is to post a list of who they will and will not do business with -- so we don't have to embarrass the poor cashier who informs us he/she can't sell to us (or the poor bus driver who must ask us to move to the back of the bus). Maybe everyone should have ID cards having all our pertinent preferences, and each business will have a bouncer out front who won't even let us in if we don't match the criteria for that business.

 

[icehorse]

I can imagine a future day in which these secular rules of the state will be oppressive for everyone.

Hmmm. My understanding is that secular countries are historically the best examples of allowing true freedom of religion, correct?

 

[tayla]

My understanding is that secular countries are historically the best examples of allowing true freedom of religion, correct?

If there were no religions whatsoever, I doubt the autocrats and dictators will magically disappear.

 

[columbus]

If there were no religions whatsoever, I doubt the autocrats and dictators will magically disappear.

But, we'd be closer to their disappearance.
Anybody can see that.
Tom

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will start with the latter case. It involves a female owner of a bakery who refused to write certain Biblical verses and anti-homosexual slurs on some cakes that she was asked to bake.

She did, however, supply the customer with everything he would need to write whatever he wanted on the cake himself, but she herself did not want to do it. The customer sued claiming that she was violating his freedom of religion (which is ridiculous) and thank God the baker won the suit.

She did not want herself or her business to be involved with that kind of message or event. His religion had nothing to do with her refusal to write those things on the cakes.

The difference in this case is that it is within a baker's rights to not put a specific message or image on a cake if they feel it may negatively impact their business. If, however, the baker offered a service where they would "decorate a cake in whatever way and with whatever message you want", they might have an issue.

Now, moving on to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, when the homosexual couple requested a wedding cake, the owner offered to make any and all baked goods for their event, but he refused to make the actual wedding cake because he does not agree with same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs and the state (Colorado) did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.

To me, the owner did not refuse service to anyone based on their gender or sexual orientation, because he offered baked goods for the event, he just refused to craft a wedding cake (the symbol of the same-sex couple's union) for the practice/event he disagreed with.

But they sell wedding cakes. If they are not prepared to make and sell wedding cakes to weddings that they don't believe should have cakes, then they should not sell wedding cakes.

See the example I gave above. If the baker offered a "whatever decoration or message you want" service, they cannot then deny a specific message or decoration without potential legal repercussions. If you don't believe in supplying a cake for all weddings, then don't sell wedding cakes.

I believe these two cases are exactly similar.

They are not. One is a baker denying writing a specific message on a cake, the other is a baker specifically refusing to provide a service they otherwise offer because of the sexuality of the people who require it.

No aspect of the customers caused these owners to make these decisions. They simply did not want themselves or their businesses to be involved with these messages or events.

But the second baker sells wedding cakes. If they do not want their goods or services associated with weddings that they do not agree with, then they should not be offering or selling wedding cakes.

I believe that the owner of any business can refuse service if providing such a service would require them to violate their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Then you're just plain wrong. What you're essentially advocating here is that businesses get to discriminate against people and deny their equal rights for whatever reason they feel. The problem with this is that consumers have rights too.

It's not necessarily the same cake. A lot of people ask for specific custom designs.

Designs don't matter. There is no special "gay" ingredient that makes a wedding cake into a gay wedding cake. They are the same cake.

Also, those who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman might not regard it as the "same event".

Then they shouldn't sell wedding cakes.

The sexual orientation of the individuals is not necessarily the "only difference".

Yes, it is. It is the precise reason why they are being denied a cake.

Those who believe that homosexuality is sinful would see other differences. Crucial ones.

Why should we cater to bigots and give them the right to use businesses to diminish the rights of minority groups?

I don't believe the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop should be forced to participate in any activity or event that would have caused him to feel like his personal beliefs were violated, just like how the female baker should not be forced to violate hers.

Once again, couching this in terms of "participating in an activity or event" goes out of the window when the baker makes the decision to advertise and sell wedding cakes. By making that offer, they lose the right to suddenly decide "Oh, actually, this particular version of a wedding is not something I want to sell a cake to". You either sell wedding cakes, or you do not. Any right the baker has to object to selling wedding cakes to particular weddings vanishes the moment that they decide that selling wedding cakes is part of their business model.

This is according to you. That is your personal opinion.

No, it is not my personal opinion. Being asked to provide a service that you openly provide and advertise is not an endorsement of any position or ideology attached to the people you provide that service for. That is a fact.

Yes, in my book, it would be discrimination.

However, I don't believe this to be an apt comparison.

Then you're wrong. It's very obviously the same. Someone is denying me a service because I intend that service to benefit a friend of mine who is black.

Let's say that your friend wanted to have a birthday cake made to celebrate the birth of Adolf Hitler.

Stop right there.

Comparing a gay wedding to a celebration of Hitler is obviously absurd.

Again, the bakery sells wedding cakes. I am not asking for a Hitler celebration cake, I am asking for a wedding cake, which is a service they advertise and provide constantly to all kinds of people and yet it is being denied in this specific case due entirely to the sexuality of the people involved in the wedding.

Your inability to understand that "gay marriage = marriage" and "wedding cake = wedding cake" is beginning to baffle me. The fact that you keep having to imagine it as something else indicates that you are unable to engage honestly with the concept that gay weddings are really no different to straight ones, and nobody is asking the baker to provide any service that they aren't already offering. They already sell wedding cakes. This is a thing that they do. Like the loaf of bread in my example, nobody asked the baker to make a "black loaf of bread for black people". It's the same loaf. It's the same cake. They sell it. They denied selling it because of the sexuality of the individual who needs it.

That is discrimination. It's the exact same thing.

Even if the customer doesn't want anything written on the cake, the baker should be able to decline to make a birthday cake for that event.

So a baker should be able to deny giving a loaf of bread to a black customer, right?

It is the event that is the factor here. Not any aspect of the customer.

False. Once again, the event is a wedding and the baker sells wedding cakes. So it is categorically not the event, since they provide those specific services for those specific events. The ONLY difference is the sexuality of those involved. That's it.

Please stop trying to avoid this fact.

Again, the sexual orientation of the customers may not be the only difference here.

But it is.

I merely provided examples that I felt that any reasonable person would agree that any baker should be allowed to avoid.

Any imagined "equating" is all from you.

No, it's also from the law.

However, I do believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior and that same-sex marriage mocks a divine institution.

And yet I'm willing to bet that you would never use any of the above arguments to defend someone denying a cake to a black or interracial marriage, would you? Regardless of the beliefs of the baker.

It's almost as if what you're after isn't religious freedom, but for you to be able to have the right to use your religion as justification for discriminating against others using your business. It's not about religious equality - it's about you wanting your beliefs to be above others and entitled to more rights. But you don't get to do that.

Not exactly. Someone's belief that the King of the Universe commands us not to engage in homosexual behavior may affect how someone feels about the practice.

And someone's belief that all non-white people should be hung from a tree might affect how they feel about the practice of baking a cake for an interracial marriage.

So what? Why does your belief get special status to allow you to contravene law? Why should it?

Also, I would have written this "between a "gay wedding" and a "wedding"" since "non-gay weddings" are just weddings.

You just exposed your bigotry, there.

A "gay wedding" is just a wedding.

Well, even though the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the grounds of anti-discrimination laws, they did rule in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, claiming that his right to free exercise had been violated.

And they were wrong to do so.

Therefore, your opinion on this matter is still just as valid as mine.

False, since yours is based on bigotry.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Would Christians be so petty as to refuse to do business with a company because it obeyed the law?

The Christian baker can easily avoid making a cake for a same-sex wedding by simply not doing wedding cakes.

There's nothing stopping the baker from sticking to breads, pastries, pies, birthday cakes, etc.

In fact, there are plenty of bakers who refuse to do wedding cakes for reasons other than bigotry: the baker ends up having to do a lot of weekend work to set up the cakes, they can be so large the bakery would need larger fridges, wedding couples can be high-maintenance, etc.

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".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Depends on the community the baker serves. If @BilliardsBall says that, for his religious community, baking a same-sex couple a wedding cake is so likely to lead to boycotts and reprisals that it would cost the bakery in the long run, I'm inclined to believe him.

I have no doubt that there are people so vindictive and bigoted that they would not only not support same-sex marriage, but they would also try to exact retribution on anyone who treated a same-sex couple with normal decency.

This still doesn't mean that the business doesn't have to follow the law, though.

... but I do wonder what would be if the world worked the way @BilliardsBall is suggesting: where a business could be exempt from the law if following it cost too much money:

- Safe handling and treatment of our toxic materials is too expensive. Our manufacturing plant can't make a profit on this product if we have to treat the byproducts we're generating.

- Oh! If that's the case, then you have permission to just dump them in the river behind your plant.

Your analogy is false on its face, comparing poisoning the water table to wanting to have aims, goals and mission statements drive one's business practices.

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

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. They aren't blanket-refusing a class of people in that situation. Refusing a case because it's unwinnable is not the same as refusing the case of someone who is of a particular religion.

There is nothing totalitarian provided in that example, and there is nothing totalitarian about not being granted special privileges and being told you must follow the law like everybody else. "But my religion says this and that" has ready been examined in court and ruled unconstitutional when it comes to the public services and accommodations.

When should unjust laws be disobeyed? For example, many Christians marched for civil rights and as slavery abolitionists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, for the same reason that a baker may refuse to bake a cake if the cake they are being asked for is far more complicated than they feel they are capable of making. If, however, an attorney is asked to take on a case which is basically identical to cases they have taken on before, but refuses to do so on the basis that the client is black, that is unjust discrimination.


That's a baseless assumption on the part of the baker, and one made with a very limited view of their patrons and the business they entered into. If you open a business and that openly offers a particular service, you should be expected to provide that service in manner that is non-discriminatory. If they want to serve exclusively Conservative customers, that's not something their opening a bakery could ever guarantee by law.

Besides, couldn't the opposite argument be made that many people - including both liberals and conservatives - would actually be MORE inclined to use the bakery if they heard they made the gay wedding cake?

Other than having a near-unenforceble law that is also a "cobra law" as cited, we now have "%@$%%#% you, you piece of @$@#$@#$#, serve me dinner at this table! Make me a @#$@#$ wedding cake right now, you intolerant @#@$$ religionist (or liberal or atheist or anything else you want to add)." Business owners reserve the right to reject business from certain clientele.

 

[1213]

Hmmm. My understanding is that secular countries are historically the best examples of allowing true freedom of religion, correct?

Soviet Union, Communist China, were/are not very accepting secular countries. And as western countries go deeper to secularism, it seems it destroys also all freedom. Godless people need to control everything, because they are ruled by fear, especially fear of losing this life. Those who believe in Bible God and are faithful to Him, are not ruled by fear, that is why they could allow the western world to come to exist with great freedom. Unfortunately, that is being destroyed and world seems to be going towards full "Mordor".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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".

Since the choice is either that or denying someone their human rights, I have to side with human rights.

BTW: which laws are you talking about? AFAIK, American law has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in matters of public accommodation since 1964. Have any of the cake shops in these suits been around that long?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When should unjust laws be disobeyed?

When they allow for people to be treated as less than equal is a great start. Such as those pro-discrimination laws. Which were based on Biblical reasons and support. But we told religion to bugger off, because we had to. Just as we have to again, in many areas. Your rights end where your neighbors nose begins, and religion should not get exemptions or special treatments.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those who believe in Bible God and are faithful to Him, are not ruled by fear,

Is that why they are so afraid of the gays getting married bringing about god's wraith?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your analogy is false on its face, comparing poisoning the water table to wanting to have aims, goals and mission statements drive one's business practices.

It wasn't actually an analogy, and you missed the point.

Can you name any other case where a business just gets exempted from a law because compliance is too expensive?

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

So you do agree that these bakers are disobeying the law.

 

[SomeRandom]

We all, of whatever belief need to not resort to physical violence or abuse. It’s just immaturity.

I agree with that. But that’s just what I witnessed.

 

[osgart]

IMO,Private religion should have no entrance into public law or service or domain. That's only right.

However private religion has private rights of conscience whereas they can freely practice their religion in private. And public expression of such religion is not prohibited.

I do not like the idea of forcing one's conscience upon others who do not share such conscience. However the root foundation of the law is to protect the rights of all citizens, and people's regardless of differences in conscience so long as that conscience does not run contrary to maintaining civil peace and well being for all.

Live and let live! Is the spirit I defend here.

 

[icehorse]

Soviet Union, Communist China, were/are not very accepting secular countries. And as western countries go deeper to secularism, it seems it destroys also all freedom. Godless people need to control everything, because they are ruled by fear, especially fear of losing this life. Those who believe in Bible God and are faithful to Him, are not ruled by fear, that is why they could allow the western world to come to exist with great freedom. Unfortunately, that is being destroyed and world seems to be going towards full "Mordor".

Okay, it might have been better to say "democratic secular" countries. Although I think we can make the case that the communist countries you mentioned weren't truly secular. Instead, their leaders attempted to establish new cult-like religions.

As for your comments on godless people, I think you've got it backwards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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".

When people wanted to keep good Christian white folk separate from black people, it was ruled religion will take a back seat to civil equality.

Unfortunately, that is being destroyed and world seems to be going towards full "Mordor".

Thanks for showing us the lengths Christians will go to in order to play the victimhood card, and scream the world is out to get them, JUST BECAUSE they are being told they are equal under the law, the must follow the law like everyone else, and they don't get to have special privileges.