Separation of Church and State

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know if there's been a case in England specifically, but perhaps he meant the one in Northern Ireland, the outcome of which was reported a couple of days ago:

"Christian bakers who refused to make gay activist a 'Support Gay Marriage' cake are 'relieved and happy' after European court threw out discrimination case as Equality Commission is slammed for spending £250k of taxpayer money"

EU court throws out case against Christian bakers who refused to make 'support gay marriage' cake | Daily Mail Online

A few things about that:

- the case was dismissed because they hadn't exhausted the appeals process at the national level, not because the court decided that the bakers' case had merit.

- the cake in question wasn't a wedding cake.

 

[Kenny]

Why shouldn't LGBQT actively oppose those that would deny them their freedoms and dignity? The church actively opposes them, and has for millennia. It labors ceaselessly to marginalize and demonize people for their sexual preferences. This is not a rhetorical question - it request an answer if you can come up with one. I'm pretty sure that you can't give any reason why such people should accede to the church's treatment of them.

Never said they couldn't.

Church has changed and we treat all people with dignity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Never said they couldn't.

Church has changed and we treat all people with dignity.

In case you forgot, you just argued in favour of shop owners who treated their LGBTQ customers in an undignified way.

 

[VoidCat]

Never said they couldn't.

Church has changed and we treat all people with dignity.

That depends on the church sadly...
Definitely not the case in many of the churches I've been to...some are decent here in NC so long as you fit their mold but if not...
Let's just say I've had lots of troubles with quite a few churches. Including where the pastor wanted to kick me out their church for no other reason then I'm trans. That's what their words were anyway.
But one or two churches have been alright. So there's that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Care to explain how "religious freedoms" are even a factor here?

On the "freedom" piece: as I've pointed out many times now, freedom is maintained. The business owner has complete control over what products and services they choose to offer. Anyone who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple doesn't have to; all they would need to do is stop selling wedding cakes.

On the "religious" piece, what religion/denomination/etc. even has a tenet that forbids making a cake for a same-sex wedding?

Since @KenS hasn't answered yet, anyone else feel like having a go at my question?

 

[pearl]

On the "religious" piece, what religion/denomination/etc. even has a tenet that forbids making a cake for a same-sex wedding?

None that I know of, as discrimination, I think, is first of all a personal thing and religion the excuse. Chic fil-a was banned from Boston Ma for years because of discrimination, now finally allowed.

Boston mayor Thomas Menino is not about to have "Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail." Menino has promised to block the fried chicken chain from opening in Boston after Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy admitted he was "guilty as charged" in having an anti-homosexual stance. "If they need licenses in the city," Menino told The Boston Herald, "it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."

Some of the comments were interesting
guest
Today I am proud to be a recent Boston transplant.
The privately held, family owned Chick-fil-A is certainly free to flex its evangelical Christian muscles, just as I’m free to decide that Chick-fil-A leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Home - Giga Biting

 

[metis]

On the "religious" piece, what religion/denomination/etc. even has a tenet that forbids making a cake for a same-sex wedding?

None that I know of, as discrimination, I think, is first of all a personal thing and religion the excuse. Chic fil-a was banned from Boston Ma for years because of discrimination, now finally allowed.

Boston mayor Thomas Menino is not about to have "Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail." Menino has promised to block the fried chicken chain from opening in Boston after Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy admitted he was "guilty as charged" in having an anti-homosexual stance. "If they need licenses in the city," Menino told The Boston Herald, "it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies."

Some of the comments were interesting
guest
Today I am proud to be a recent Boston transplant.
The privately held, family owned Chick-fil-A is certainly free to flex its evangelical Christian muscles, just as I’m free to decide that Chick-fil-A leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Home - Giga Biting

Even though I don't live in Boston [Detroit area instead], I also don't ever go there for the same reason.

IMO, if one is in the business of serving the public, then maybe they should serve the public. If not, what's the next form of discrimination are they going to use?

 

[Kooky]

Since @KenS hasn't answered yet, anyone else feel like having a go at my question?

I don't even see how religion enters the picture at all.
This is about the question whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers based on protected characteristics such as sexuality, skin color, or gender/gender identity.

 

[Kenny]

You were talking about a specific cake? I thought you were speaking in the hypothetical.

If you're talking about Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado, I think you're misrepresenting what the ruling actually said.

OK...

What one in England?

UK supreme court backs bakery that refused to make gay marriage cake

That would be analogous to what I suggested earlier: a bakery that doesn't want to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples could just not sell wedding cakes.

What wouldn't be okay is a bank that does lots of church loans refusing a loan to your church just because the manager disagrees with your denomination's beliefs or practices.

No... not quite. They had no problem making a cake for "whosever". Their position was simply "I have to draw the line on "what" I write." It would be like a Catholic artisan in silver being forced to make an image of Baal. IMV.

As far as churches.... it sure seems like you want to make an exception in one direction but not in the other.

 

[Kenny]

You know it's legal in some areas in the states unless laws have changed recently which could've happened I don't keep up with the news, to refuse service to an LGBT person in a restaurant. Like not even making a wedding cake just the person walks in maybe they wearing a shirt that says: Love is Love or had a tattoo of a pride flag and then be denied service. Maybe the person in my example here just wanted a burger to eat and a person refused cuz they are homophobic. The cake thing isn't much different imo tho you may disagree

EDIT: I've had a doctor refuse to see me for anything cuz im trans. I wasn't even looking for gender therapy or hrt. I was just there for an annual check up. I dont know if that is legal or not. But yeah. Refusing to bake a wedding cake you'd bake for other couples is not discrimination towards the LGBT person(sarcasm)

I'm not sure the examples are analogous.

Are you saying that if someone believes that abortion is taking life away and against his conscious that he should be forced to perform an abortion?

I would agree that a restaurant has to serve food to whosever but serving food isn't the same as "you have to perform my marriage even if you don't agree with it".

 

[VoidCat]

I'm not sure the examples are analogous.

Are you saying that if someone believes that abortion is taking life away and against his conscious that he should be forced to perform an abortion?

I would agree that a restaurant has to serve food to whosever but serving food isn't the same as "you have to perform my marriage even if you don't agree with it".

but the person isn't performing a marriage and doesn't have to they are just making a cake

 

[Kenny]

but the person isn't performing a marriage and doesn't have to they are just making a cake

But they had no problem with making a cake. They just didn't want to be forced to write things that violates their conscious. IMV, it would be like someone forcing me write all the words of foul language that I don't use. Can you imagine in they were forced to write, "Jesus Christ is a PIG"? Somewhere freedom needs to kick in.

At least in my perspective.

 

[VoidCat]

But they had no problem with making a cake. They just didn't want to be forced to write things that violates their conscious. IMV, it would be like someone forcing me write all the words of foul language that I don't use. Can you imagine in they were forced to write, "Jesus Christ is a PIG"? Somewhere freedom needs to kick in.

At least in my perspective.

I see what you are trying to say. I get your argument. I still disagree with the bakers and think their freedoms weren't infringed upon. But Im not good at debating and don't want to. I'll back out

 

[Kenny]

I see what you are trying to say. I get your argument. I still disagree with the bakers and think their reedoms weren't infringed upon. But Im not good at debating and don't want to. I'll back out

No problem... I think it will ultimately be simply "this is what I believe".

 

[Friend of Mara]

Agreed, which is why I consider the phrase a misnomer. What you described is keeping the church out of the state, but not the state out of the church.

That's not separation. Separation would be where the state had no authority over the church. That is no more separation of church and state than a parent giving a child some freedom to operate while maintaining full authority and the right to rescind those freedoms at any time is separation of parent and child.

What kinds of checks does the government have on religion? As far as I am aware outside of things that are except (usually thing that result in harm or abuse) religions can do whatever they want.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What kinds of checks does the government have on religion? As far as I am aware outside of things that are except (usually thing that result in harm or abuse) religions can do whatever they want.

That is at the pleasure of the state. There is nothing that is legal for the church that the same people who made it legal couldn't make illegal. In America, the church is allowed wide latitude in the rendering of its faith, but that could change if there a reason to do so. It might require a constitutional amendment, but if there was a will to do that and the amendment passed, then what the church was permitted to do could change. The point is that the church and state are not separate. The state has authority over the church to allow or disallow any given practice, such as giving it tax exemptions, or compelling bakers to make cakes for weddings they don't approve of or get out of the wedding cake business.

 

[Friend of Mara]

That is at the pleasure of the state. There is nothing that is legal for the church that the same people who made it legal couldn't make illegal. In America, the church is allowed wide latitude in the rendering of its faith, but that could change if there a reason to do so. It might require a constitutional amendment, but if there was a will to do that and the amendment passed, then what the church was permitted to do could change. The point is that the church and state are not separate. The state has authority over the church to allow or disallow any given practice, such as giving it tax exemptions, or compelling bakers to make cakes for weddings they don't approve of or get out of the wedding cake business.

So it is simply the threat of future regulation?

The cake thing actually doesn't have anything to do with religion. It was discrimination within another category and a religious exemption was simply not granted. And thus the freedoms of religion and of protected minorities clashed.

Or is there a lamentation that the church isn't actually in control of the governmental power?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't even see how religion enters the picture at all.
This is about the question whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers based on protected characteristics such as sexuality, skin color, or gender/gender identity.

Yes, that's one angle on the issue. I'm exploring a different one, though.

Aside from the question of whether religious freedom should win out over public accommodation, I'm asking whether religious freedom is even at issue here at all.

For this to be a matter of freedom of religion, it would have to involve one of two things:

- someone is being stopped from practicing their religion, or
- someone is being forced to violate a tenet of their religion.

I haven't heard of any religion with any tenet that would imply that its adherents can't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. I also see no forcing in telling a baker "you're free not to sell wedding cakes, but IF you choose to sell them, you must do it equitably."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So it is simply the threat of future regulation?

No. It's the fact of past and present regulation as well. It's a statement that all of the power lies with the state, and that whatever power the church is permitted is granted by secular law and enforced by a secular government. I don't know how to say that any other way. Recall that my point is that such a relationship is not separation. It's the opposite. The term only means that church is not welcome in government according to the Constitution.

Didn't the state throw out public school led prayer? Do you think the church liked that? Or when the state forbad teaching creationism in science class, is that what would have happened if the state and church were independent of one another. No.

The cake thing actually doesn't have anything to do with religion. It was discrimination within another category and a religious exemption was simply not granted. And thus the freedoms of religion and of protected minorities clashed.

I don't agree with that, but if I did, it wouldn't change my point. When the church and state disagree, the state prevails.

Or is there a lamentation that the church isn't actually in control of the governmental power?

Yes, the church laments that. It wants to be outside of government control. It would love to recriminalize abortion, but it can't. It doesn't have the power without infiltrating government.

My entire point is that this arrangement is called church-state separation, and it's a misnomer. It cause people to say things such as that the state doesn't have the right to tax the churches, because they're separate, right? But that's just wrong. It causes people to think that their church decides what its rights are, causing the faithful to clamor about the state impinging on their religious freedom, as if it isn't the state that defines and guarantees those freedoms that are permitted, as if it were the church defining what its freedoms were, and getting in the way of that is oppression and inappropriate.

We see the same mistake with the anti-vaxx crowd. They think they decide what their freedoms are. They don't. They have the choice to refuse the vaccine because the state grants it. And they think that they have the right to enter premises where vaccines and mask are required. If the states back up those entrepreneurs who want to keep the unvaccinated and unmasked out of their shops, then they have no such right even of they insist that they do. Let them try to express that "right" on an airplane and see what rights they actually have, and where they come from.

 

[Friend of Mara]

No. It's the fact of past and present regulation as well. It's a statement that all of the power lies with the state, and that whatever power the church is permitted is granted by secular law and enforced by a secular government. I don't know how to say that any other way. Recall that my point is that such a relationship is not separation. It's the opposite. The term only means that church is not welcome in government according to the Constitution.

Didn't the state throw out public school led prayer? Do you think the church liked that? Or when the state forbad teaching creationism in science class, is that what would have happened if the state and church were independent of one another. No.

There is no singular church. Anyone can believe in any god they want. That is a massive provision for religion. Not a single god is illegal to worship. People can be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist ect.

People are free to pray in school. They are not permitted to pick a religion that they so choose and have a mandatory administrative led prayer because that actually infringes on the religious freedom of those of different faiths. Would you be okay with Muhamad leading a required school prayer to Mecca every morning? I doubt it.

And creationism is not science. So why would they teach it in a science class? That doesn't have anything even to do with separation of church and state in the small exception that there are some would be theocrats that would suppress facts.

I don't agree with that, but if I did, it wouldn't change my point. When the church and state disagree, the state prevails.

In a society of laws where religion isn't mandatory that only makes sense. If we were a religious theocracy you might have a point but what happens when we have conflicting takes from different religions? Who gest to be in charge?

Yes, the church laments that. It wants to be outside of government control. It would love to recriminalize abortion, but it can't. It doesn't have the power without infiltrating government.

My entire point is that this arrangement is called church-state separation, and it's a misnomer. It cause people to say things such as that the state doesn't have the right to tax the churches, because they're separate, right? But that's just wrong. It causes people to think that their church decides what its rights are, causing the faithful to clamor about the state impinging on their religious freedom, as if it isn't the state that defines and guarantees those freedoms that are permitted, as if it were the church defining what its freedoms were, and getting in the way of that is oppression and inappropriate.

We see the same mistake with the anti-vaxx crowd. They think they decide what their freedoms are. They don't. They have the choice to refuse the vaccine because the state grants it. And they think that they have the right to enter premises where vaccines and mask are required. If the states back up those entrepreneurs who want to keep the unvaccinated and unmasked out of their shops, then they have no such right even of they insist that they do. Let them try to express that "right" on an airplane and see what rights they actually have, and where they come from.

The church has no power to grant rights. That is a government function. Even without a government a church doesn't declare rights or freedoms. That just isn't in the preview of what they do. Theocracies will imitate government but have it mingled with the religious group that they are tied with but the functions of said government are not doctrine of the church itself.

I don't see the issue here. Either we have a secular society where we can have freedom of religion or we have a single religion in charge that attempts to squash out all religious freedom. I will take the former.