This was unconstitutional

[sojourner]

So how about the right to refuse to bake a cake? Should the government force to go against your religious or moral beliefs?

Baking a cake does not constitute participation in something that is counter to one's religious beliefs or moral code. If one's religion teaches that one shouldn't bake cakes, then why is one a baker to begin with?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So how about the right to refuse to bake a cake? Should the government force to go against your religious or moral beliefs?

In the public sphere, special circumstances to discriminate complicate things. If you serve the public, you serve the public. Whether you are gay or trans, public places should not have the right to refuse service to those groups just because they are of those groups.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Baking a cake does not constitute participation in something that is counter to one's religious beliefs or moral code. If one's religion teaches that one shouldn't bake cakes, then why is one a baker to begin with?

It isn't that one shouldn't bake cakes, it's that one shouldn't bake cakes for weddings or other clients that you find religiously offensive. In other words, if you engage in a public business, you should have the right to refuse service to potential clients based on your personal religious beliefs about the client and their traits and behaviors (beyond what is reasonably allowed for public health and safety).

I think this question was prompted by the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts of the various states (The Indiana version got quite a lot of publicity around NCAA finals time), and the US version, which create a right for individuals in private business or in government agencies (as is happening in Texas right now, with county clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses, with the vocal support of the state's attorney general) to refuse to perform their jobs on the basis that the individuals' beliefs prohibit participation in the offending activity--such as a same-sex marriage--and exempt them from lawsuits and government enforcement of laws. The common example used in Indiana was that a baker could refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because it offends their personal religious sensibilities. A pizzeria in rural Indiana publicly declared that it would decline to cater any same-sex weddings, and apparently received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations in support, although there was essentially no chance of a lawsuit or any significant repercussions economically from the declaration.

 

[fantome profane]

It isn't that one shouldn't bake cakes, it's that one shouldn't bake cakes for weddings or other clients that you find religiously offensive. In other words, if you engage in a public business, you should have the right to refuse service to potential clients based on your personal religious beliefs about the client and their traits and behaviors (beyond what is reasonably allowed for public health and safety).

I think this question was prompted by the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts of the various states (The Indiana version got quite a lot of publicity around NCAA finals time), and the US version, which create a right for individuals in private business or in government agencies (as is happening in Texas right now, with county clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses, with the vocal support of the state's attorney general) to refuse to perform their jobs on the basis that the individuals' beliefs prohibit participation in the offending activity--such as a same-sex marriage--and exempt them from lawsuits and government enforcement of laws. The common example used in Indiana was that a baker could refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because it offends their personal religious sensibilities. A pizzeria in rural Indiana publicly declared that it would decline to cater any same-sex weddings, and apparently received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations in support, although there was essentially no chance of a lawsuit or any significant repercussions economically from the declaration.

What is the difference (or is there a difference) between refusing service to homosexuals and refusing service to Blacks? We decided this issue back in the 60's when we said that you could not have Whites only restaurants. Back then people protested that decision because they said it went against their religion. People said that having blacks eating in the same room with whites was a violation of their religious freedom. They really did make exactly the same arguments back then that people are making now. And we decided that issue then. Why do we need to decide it again?

 

[gsa]

So how about the right to refuse to bake a cake? Should the government force to go against your religious or moral beliefs?

What if your religious beliefs require opposition to serving blacks?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What is the difference (or is there a difference) between refusing service to homosexuals and refusing service to Blacks? We decided this issue back in the 60's when we said that you could not have Whites only restaurants. Back then people protested that decision because they said it went against their religion. People said that having blacks eating in the same room with whites was a violation of their religious freedom. They really did make exactly the same arguments back then that people are making now. And we decided that issue then. Why do we need to decide it again?

My guess is because the Religious Right and other conservatives continues to push for laws that will negate the civil rights gains of the last several decades. Things like RFRA set the groundwork for future legislation that could undermine civil rights protections for minority groups.

 

[dust1n]

Legalizing same sex marriage everywhere was against the constitution of the united states. This is not something to be debated. Anyone who read the constitution would know that any powers that then federal government doesn't have is left up to the states. This should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Instead of giving people a choice it's either making it legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. This was wrong.

Does anyone know the Constitution, let alone care?

You mean like Section One of the 14th Amendment?

 

[Jainarayan]

I'd like to see someone refuse service to that baker on the grounds of not agreeing with his religion. Then let begin the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Sauce for the goose. I wonder if this uprighteous baker would refuse the help of a gay cop or EMT. How far does his moral uprightness extend?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

there's one of those facebook meme's that asks if a baker is participating in a same-sex wedding by selling a cake, is a gun seller participating in a murder if they sell a gun that's used to kill people?

 

[BSM1]

What if your religious beliefs require opposition to serving blacks?

Or Jews? Or Muslims? Or circus clowns? What difference would it make? What if you go into a Kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich? If you are a private business and not providing a public utility why should the government have the power to tell you how to run your business? BTW over the years I have been asked to provide security for suspected drug houses and marijuana fields. I have declined on moral bases. The people involved had never been charged so should the government have the power to force me to provide the service?

 

[fantome profane]

Or Jews? Or Muslims? Or circus clowns? What difference would it make? What if you go into a Kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich? If you are a private business and not providing a public utility why should the government have the power to tell you how to run your business? BTW over the years I have been asked to provide security for suspected drug houses and marijuana fields. I have declined on moral bases. The people involved had never been charged so should the government have the power to force me to provide the service?

Because a Kosher deli does not sell ham. So if they don't sell ham the government cannot force them to sell ham. But if a deli does sell ham to the public then they are required to sell ham to the public. They can't say they will only sell ham to white christian men.

 

[BSM1]

Because a Kosher deli does not sell ham. So if they don't sell ham the government cannot force them to sell ham. But if a deli does sell ham to the public then they are required to sell ham to the public. They can't say they will only sell ham to white christian men.

Sure they can, but they may not stay in business long due to financial Darwinism. But what about my real world situation? This has actually happened. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It isn't that one shouldn't bake cakes, it's that one shouldn't bake cakes for weddings or other clients that you find religiously offensive. In other words, if you engage in a public business, you should have the right to refuse service to potential clients based on your personal religious beliefs about the client and their traits and behaviors (beyond what is reasonably allowed for public health and safety).

It's like pharmacists complaining they shouldn't have to give contraceptive medications for birth control use, even though they know, up front, they are serving the public and the practice of medicine, ideally, puts aside all political, social, religious, and other issues to treat patients. When you serve the public, you serve the public.

I think this question was prompted by the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts of the various states (The Indiana version got quite a lot of publicity around NCAA finals time), and the US version, which create a right for individuals in private business or in government agencies (as is happening in Texas right now, with county clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses, with the vocal support of the state's attorney general) to refuse to perform their jobs on the basis that the individuals' beliefs prohibit participation in the offending activity--such as a same-sex marriage--and exempt them from lawsuits and government enforcement of laws.

The difference between Clinton's bill and Pence's bill is that Clinton's bill made exceptions for private individuals, groups, etc. (in this instance, Natives who have traditionally consumed peyote as a part of religious rituals) to be exempt from government regulations that place restrictions, whereas Pence's bill gave permission to public-service institutions to claim religious infringements when their serving certain parts of the public may infringe on religious views. Clinton's bill granted individual freedoms, whereas Pence's bill potentially restricts certain individuals from receiving services that anyone else can receive. However, the Supreme Court already ruled, decades ago, that this is not legal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure they can, but they may not stay in business long due to financial Darwinism. But what about my real world situation? This has actually happened. Where do you draw the line?

Drugs are illegal. Gay weddings are not.
There is no comparison to draw between "I won't bake a cake for a gay wedding because my religion is against homosexuality" and "I won't offer my services to protect drug operations because they are illegal." And offering such services to an illegal operations could also potentially make you an accomplice and an accessory to crime.

 

[fantome profane]

Sure they can, but they may not stay in business long due to financial Darwinism. But what about my real world situation? This has actually happened. Where do you draw the line?

No, really they can't. It would be against the law. That has been against the law for decades now. You cannot have a whites only deli, it is illegal.

And yes, there has been restaurants and deli's and lunch counters that use to refuse service to anyone who was not white. Then laws were passed to make that illegal. If you open your business to the public you must open it to all the public, regardless of race, religion or gender. That is the law.

 

[dust1n]

I already know people will regret it. Because by allowing the feds to do this, you'll let them overrule everyone and states will become non existant.This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to avoid. a big federal government. Not all amendments are good either like the income tax amendment. What I wonder is if the 14th amendment gives them a right to have gay marriage, why didn't you see it legalized everywhere in the states? This amendment protects privileges. Marriage is not a privilege but a commitment. People love to twist that around. Like the people who say healthcare is a right. Entitlements are not rights and this isn't a privilege.

Oh, so the constitution is only great insofar the parts that you personally like about it?

 

[sojourner]

It isn't that one shouldn't bake cakes, it's that one shouldn't bake cakes for weddings or other clients that you find religiously offensive. In other words, if you engage in a public business, you should have the right to refuse service to potential clients based on your personal religious beliefs about the client and their traits and behaviors (beyond what is reasonably allowed for public health and safety).

No, we really shouldn't have that right, because "baking a cake" isn't "officiating a wedding" or even "witnessing a marriage." It's "baking a cake for a client." In this country, no one should be able to find another too "religiously offensive" to do business with. This is nothing more than Jim Crow thinly disguised as "religious freedom."

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Or Jews? Or Muslims? Or circus clowns? What difference would it make? What if you go into a Kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich? If you are a private business and not providing a public utility why should the government have the power to tell you how to run your business? BTW over the years I have been asked to provide security for suspected drug houses and marijuana fields. I have declined on moral bases. The people involved had never been charged so should the government have the power to force me to provide the service?

Did you decide on the basis of morals, or on the basis of your suspicion that they were engaged in illegal activities and that you would be legally liable if you undertook the contract? Or both? If you advertised your security service with the notice "I will not provide security for those I suspect of engaging in illegal activities," I doubt that there could be much of a chance for a lawsuit for discrimination--or in getting requests for contracts from the small segment of the population that needs hired security for their illegal operation. However, if you advertised your security service as " refusing to provide service to African-Americans and Hispanics," I suspect that you could face some problems.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No, we really shouldn't have that right, because "baking a cake" isn't "officiating a wedding" or even "witnessing a marriage." It's "baking a cake for a client." In this country, no one should be able to find another too "religiously offensive" to do business with. This is nothing more than Jim Crow thinly disguised as "religious freedom."

I quite agree; I'm just reporting the reasoning that was used in explaining the law.

 

[BSM1]

No, really they can't. It would be against the law. That has been against the law for decades now. You cannot have a whites only deli, it is illegal.

And yes, there has been restaurants and deli's and lunch counters that use to refuse service to anyone who was not white. Then laws were passed to make that illegal. If you open your business to the public you must open it to all the public, regardless of race, religion or gender. That is the law.

Could you quote or cite that law for us?