How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Huh? Loving enemies, obeying rules, paying taxes, working honestly, avoiding theft, supporting charity, and I've mentioned before how we support families overseas and work toward ending sex trafficking of children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh? Loving enemies, obeying rules, paying taxes, working honestly, avoiding theft, supporting charity, and I've mentioned before how we support families overseas and work toward ending sex trafficking of children.

I've seen no evidence that you love your enemies or obey rules when it doesn't suit you.

And doing charitable things is no sign that you don't also do horrible things. Ted Bundy volunteered for a suicide hotline. One of the volunteers he worked with figured he save more lives than he took.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Post 1 of 3

We have been having two discussions at once and I think we should stop, for both the sake of brevity and to be courteous to the OP.

1. If a business owner should be able to deny service on religious (or other “protected group”) grounds. Our main focus has been on whether the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop discriminated against the homosexual customers who requested a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.
   
   
2. If the State should be involved with free enterprise at all by creating “protected groups” and enforcing certain standards upon business owners in order to avoid discrimination of any kind.

I think we should focus only on discussion #1 and cease #2. Even though I am very interested and passionate about discussion #2, I don’t think it is relevant to the OP and it is taking up too much time and space. Also, since it is all theoretical anyway, we are never going to prove anything or convince each other of anything.

I think you are owed me responding to the main comments you made about both discussions #1 or #2 in your last post, because you put time and effort into them, but I suggest that we taper discussion #2 down and refocus on the OP.

I will not respond to every comment you made because we have been repeating ourselves like crazy.

I will say, as a sort of “blanket statement” that you keep trying to sell a false narrative about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

The owner will always refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. It does not matter who asks him. Who the cake is for does not matter to him, it is what the cake is for.

He has a right, ensured by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to live according to his religious beliefs and the State’s attempt to redefine marriage cannot infringe that right.

Your insistence that he discriminated against his customers because they were homosexual is simply not true. It does not match the facts of the case. I will not be responding to any of your false narrative anymore. I have covered it here.

I’m going to start with my response to that ridiculous and “over-the-top” little scene you made up. “Jed - praise be his name”. Pfft. You’re silly.

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

Thank you for this scene. It perfectly illustrated your point.

It is unfortunate, however, that this scene was also built on the same false narrative you have been peddling and is not comparable to the facts of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

I’m going to rewrite the scene and make it more applicable. In my scene, the Man is a returning customer who had already paid back a loan he received from Example Bank to open up a Bed and Breakfast. Also, the bank will be located in Nevada,

Man: Hello, again!
Teller: Hello. How are you? How’s my favorite BnB?
Man: I’m great and business is booming.
Teller: I’m glad to hear it. How can I help you?
Man: I’m actually looking into starting up another business venture. Was hoping for another loan.
Teller: Excellent. That should be no problem with you. What type of business were you hoping to open? Another BnB?
Man: Kind of. A brothel.
Teller: Oh…
Man: Is there a problem?
Teller: Unfortunately, we here at Example Bank do not issue loans for those types of businesses.
Man: Oh, why is that?
Teller: It is our policy. Our CEO and the Board of Directors agreed long ago to operate according to particular standards.
Man: But I would just be buying the same things I purchased for my BnB. A nice property. Furnishing. Beds. It’s exactly the same set up.
Teller: I understand, but it would still be against our policy to invest in that type of business.
Man: How does that work? It’s completely legal in this State. It’s exactly like a BnB!
Teller: Well, it might look like a BnB, but it’s a completely different type of business.
Man: That’s ridiculous! It’s completely legal and there’s nothing wrong with it!
Teller: I understand that that is your opinion, sir, but consider our position. We have earned the trust of those who bank with us by ensuring them that their money would never be involved in anything they might consider “morally ambiguous”. Issuing this loan could reflect poorly upon the image we have built. We just don’t believe that the potential benefit outweighs the risks for us.
Man: You know me. I promise there will be zero risk. I have stellar credit. Just take a look.
Teller: I’m sorry, but this has nothing to do with you personally or with your business plan, but with us operating according to the standards agreed upon by the CEO and Board of Directors.
Man: I can’t believe this. I mean, I know that I’m not entitled to your money, but you know I’m good for it. I really think this is a good idea. It can make some money. I really want to do this.
Teller: I understand this can be frustrating, but fortunately I happen to know that the bank across the street has given small business loans to those who have opened brothels. They may be able to help you out.
Man: I don’t want to go to another bank. I’ve always come here. I really like it here.
Teller: I’m sorry that you are disappointed.
Man: Everything went so smoothly with the last loan I got from you guys.
Teller: Well, last time it was for a different type of business.
Man: I understand. I don’t agree with it or like it, but I do understand. It’s your money after all. Your decision.
Teller: I know you’d have no problem getting a loan from that bank across the street. You could even list me personally as a reference.
Man: I appreciate that. I guess I’ll go give it a try. Seeya.
Teller: Have a good day , sir.

My initial draft of this scene was just as ridiculous and “over-the-top” as the one you made (the “Man” was a black elderly homosexual transgender (MTF) with rickets), but I decided to go with the more reasonable route.

Notice, that the decision of the Teller was not at all based on who the loan was for, but rather on what the loan was for.

The same thing could be said of the Masterpiece Cakeshop. It was never about who the cake was for, but what the cake was for.

I assume you are going to claim that my scene is not relevant to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case because a BnB is not a brothel and a “marriage is a marriage, end of story”, but you have to understand that not everyone is going to agree with that.

For those who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman any attempt to claim that a same-sex marriage is just the same as a traditional one would be like trying to convince them that a brothel is just the same as a BnB.

It does not matter if they look or operate similarly - they will never be convinced that they are the same.

Now, to you, “marriage is marriage, end of story” or “business is business, end of story” or even “money is money, end of story”, but to other people the details might matter.

Some people are not going to view all businesses or marriages the same. Even if they are legal, people may object on a moral level and would not want to become involved.

Everyone has the right to choose how involved they want to be with these things.

The idea that religious beliefs should be uniquely exempt from anti-discrimination laws is obviously nonsense.

Your stance is that you believe religious groups should have more rights than others.

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 that businesses (and specifically religious businesses) have more rights than consumers.

You are arguing that a belief being necessarily religious entitles you to more rights than others.

Wow. You really seem to like this lie to repeat it so often. Are you a Democrat? They also seem to believe that repeating the same lie over and over will eventually make it come true.

I never said that the religious should have more rights than others.

What I actually have said is (Post #203),

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

And again in Post #244 I said,

“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.”

I try to remain consistent and I believe in equality.

If a customer is free to choose which business to engage in, a business owner should be just as free to refuse someone's business. I believe that the business owner should have the same rights as the customer.

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Marriage is marriage, end of story.

This is just not true and you honestly do not believe it.

If you did believe this, then you would have taken no issue with the other examples of “marriage” I mentioned in my last post.

If “marriage is marriage, end of story” then you should recognize all other forms of marriage seen throughout the world and you should demand that any and all bakers make wedding cakes for those unions.

Their beliefs about adults marrying children, animals, inanimate objects or even having multiple marriages should not matter, right?

If you honestly believed that “marriage is marriage, end of story” then you should treat all of them the same, should you not?

How dare you claim that there is any difference between a “practice undertaken by two consenting adults” and “people marrying objects or animals that cannot give consent”!

Isn’t marriage marriage, no matter what, as you claimed?

You understand how this line of reasoning leads to even more “muddy waters”, inconsistencies and hypocrisies?

You may believe that a same-sex marriage is just the same as a traditional one (like the Man who argued that a brothel was no different than a BnB), but not everyone is going to agree with you and they have the right to not get involved.

The owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, and myself, believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

And you are truly no different than he and I because all three of us drew a line somewhere.

If “marriage is marriage, end of story”, as you claimed, then you should have drawn no line at all whatsoever.

But you did.

You do not recognize those other forms of marriage (even though they happen in the U.S.) and that is hypocritical after claiming that “marriage is marriage, end of story”.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Post 2 of 3

It's discriminatory in both.

This comment further supports my point above.

You had claimed in Post #212 about my “man marrying dog” example that,

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

You claimed that the “legality” of the marriage was a crucial factor in whether or not refusing service should be considered discriminatory. You even ignored my other examples based on that.

You also mentioned the whole “two consenting adults” component, which rules out polygamous marriage and adults marrying children (even though adults marrying children is legal in several States).

But now you claim that the owner’s decision to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding was discriminatory both before and after his State recognized the practice.

Therefore, you just admitted that the legality of the marriage does not actually matter to you at all.

Since that is the case, you should give the wedding between a man and his dog the same amount of weight as same-sex marriage, or you should at least be arguing that all bakers should be forced to make a wedding cake for that union as well.

There are no laws against marrying an animal. We only have laws against bestiality. So, even though there would be no way to make the marriage legal (which doesn’t matter to you anyway) no one is going to stop someone from having a spiritual union or whatever the heck.

Let’s not forget the lady and the Eiffel Tower. Slap on another spiritual union here.

You tried to ignore my example of an adult marrying a child with the whole “legality” argument too, but you didn’t realize that that practice is legal in several States and now you even claim that the legality doesn’t matter to you at all - so you just ignored my example because you did not like it.

Since you believe that it was just as discriminatory before the State recognized the practice as it was afterward, you inadvertently answered the question I posed to you,

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

Whether or not the form of marriage was legally recognized does not matter to you, so why did you bring up legality at all?

Why do you demean these other forms of marriage? Why do you claim they are “different” or “less than”?

You would claim that I am a bigot for thinking a same-sex marriage is different than a traditional one, but what does this make you for not accepting these other marriages?

You are probably going to try to justify this hypocrisy and bigotry with the argument that it’s “different” for homosexuals because they are a “protected class” and “perpetual victims”.

If you do decide to use that argument, how are you any different from someone using the same argument to claim that religion is a reason to treat and be treated “different”?

I don’t bring this all up to try and make fun of you, but I do think that it highlights the main reason why I don’t think there should be any protected classes at all.

The entire idea is built on layers of inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

Because nobody's beliefs or speech are being curtailed.

You said this after I claimed that the State’s redefinition of marriage was a violation of the First Amendment, but you forgot about one huge component of the First Amendment.

Not only does the First Amendment protect our right to say and believe what we want, but it initially claims that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Meaning, the First Amendment not only ensures that there would be no State-religion, but it will also not interfere with anyone’s right to live according to their religion.

If someone’s religion dictates that they not be affiliated with same-sex marriage in any shape, way or form - forcing that person to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would violate their right to the “free exercise” of their religion.

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.

The “service” a caterer provides would be showing up and giving people food. Not any particular dish.

What if they cater newborn baby celebrations. You’d say that they cannot refuse to cater a bris?

Also, genital mutilators are not a protected class.

Yes they are. They are Jews. You keep forgetting that religion is also a protected class.

Jews hold a ceremony called a “bris” where they celebrate the birth of a male child and a mohel performs a circumcision.

This ceremony and celebration are part of their religion and religion is a protected class.

So, to you, if this caterer refuses to service a bris, they should not be allowed to service all other religions celebrations and functions? No more newborn celebrations either?

Just like how a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding should not longer be allowed to offer wedding cakes at all?

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

Not necessarily. If you remember the example of the scene above - it all depends on what the product is for.

You remember the example I shared of the female baker who did not want to decorate a cake with anti-gay slurs?

It seems that you would argue that she should be forced to write those slurs on that cake, regardless of how she feels, because she writes messages on cakes for other customers, so why not this one?

You believe that it would be “fair and reasonable” for this hateful customer to be “entitled” to this anti-gay cake from this baker?

The Thirteenth Amendment ensures that no one is “entitled” to anyone’s labor, by the way. That would be “involuntary servitude”.

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.

You keep trying to change the facts of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

What if a homosexual couple came into the Masterpiece Cakeshop and wanted a wedding cake. When asked if the cake would be for their wedding, they claim, “No, we are not getting married, we just thought it would be fun and awesome to eat an entire wedding cake together.”

Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the owner is totally convinced that the requested cake would not be for a same-sex wedding - do you think he would make it?

I believe, from what I have read and understand about the case, that he would have no issue baking that cake because he is not homopboic and is completely willing to serve homosexual customers - even those that request wedding cake.

His only issue is that he does not want to make a wedding cake (symbol of union) for a same-sex wedding.

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

This opinion is as worthless as mine is about how there should be no protected classes.

Then why does he sell wedding cakes?

Because he owns a cake shop. He has owned that cake shop for decades.

There was no conflict between his religious beliefs and his business until the State decided to redefine marriage.

The State made a law that violated his ability to freely live according to his religious beliefs, which is a violation of the First Amendment.

You keep forgetting that religion is a protected class too. This case is like when the “Unstoppable Force” collides with the “Immovable Object”. Which protected class should be considered more “fragile” and receive even more special treatment?

You see why I believe that this whole “protected class” thing is nonsense?

Considering that no one has the right to anyone’s labor, I believe that the best thing to do would be for the customers to do as I did when I was refused service - leave without making a scene and go somewhere else that will meet their needs.

That way both parties get what they want and no one’s rights are violated.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Post 3 of 3

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

You keep presenting the same “false narrative” over and over again.

I keep addressing your false narrative by reminding you of the actual facts of the case, but you don’t accept the facts.

Please stop doing that.

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

First off, no one was treated differently in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

He would have refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding no matter who asked him to make it.

Just as the Teller would have refused to issue a loan for a brothel, no matter who asked him for one.

Also, c’mon, this isn’t Soviet Russia or Maoist China. Everyone is equal in the U.S. because we are all free to hate or love each other as much as we want.

You cannot force people to treat everyone the same way.

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?

Again, not relevant to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. You love your false narrative.

Also, no, the compromise was not forcing her to clean my brother’s room.

Forcing my brother to remove his posters would not have been a compromise. That would have been bending over backwards for the weird Catholic lady.

No one is asking anyone to hide aspects of themselves.

Also, forcing her to clean the room, regardless of her feelings and beliefs, would also have not have been a compromise.

The compromise was allowing her to avoid that room that offended her and allowing her to continue to work and my brother would clean his own room.

The compromise in the case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop would be for the homosexual customers to go to another bakery which would be willing to make the cake for their wedding.

That way neither of their rights are violated (no one has the right to someone else’s labor) and the homosexual couple still gets their cake. Compromise.

Any other outcome will lead to either forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs (First Amendment violation) or force them into involuntary servitude (Thirteenth Amendment violation).

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.

You keep forgetting that religion is also a protected class.

And also that nothing about the customer led the owner to make his decision.

Not only that, but the only person here advocating that someone should be forced to change (or to do anything) is you, not me.

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.

You don’t know me at all. Your accusations are baseless.

Words don’t have rights, but no one has the right to force someone to violate their religious beliefs or to force someone into involuntary servitude.

And it is not the “word” I take issue with, but the practice being implemented based on the redefinition of the word.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Being homosexual does not give you the right to change one of Mankind’s oldest institutions. Anything else is something else, not a marriage.

In my religion, a person needs to repent of their sins before getting baptized. This means that if a person is actively engaging in a homosexual lifestyle, they cannot be baptized.

Now, that homosexual person is free to go out and dunk themselves in some water and claim that they have been baptized, but they cannot force me or anyone else to accept it as an actual baptism.

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.

How do you not know that a business is private property and the owner of that property could ban anyone from entering for any reason?

Claiming that a business owner must serve every customer no matter what is advocating involuntary servitude.

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?

I find it shocking how you do not realize how racist, sexist and hateful this question is.

What if I had said something like this about a black man? Or a homosexual? Or an atheist?

This is another reason why I believe the entire “protected class” idea is garbage. It divides us.

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.

Are you simply ignorant of history or are you trying to revise it?

The reason that the Civil Right Movement came to be was not because some “white, heterosexual, male Christians” had a secret meeting and decided to discriminate against black people.

The Civil Rights Movement happened because around the turn of the century Democratic dominated State and local legislatures throughout the former Confederate States enacted the “Jim Crow Laws” which enforced racial segregation.

It was State-enforced racism. It was “government overreach” that caused the problems and then, rather than simply removing these evil laws, the Civil Rights Movement decided to go for even more “government overreach”.

You don’t see an issue with that? Trying to fix State-enforced segregation with State-enforced inclusivity?

It is my opinion that the State cannot fix these kinds of problems and they should just stay out of it completely because it will always end up with someone’s rights being violated.

You cannot legislate morality.

Now, let’s move on to “universal suffrage” and the Emancipation Proclamation, because you seem to be ignorant of these things as well. Or you are trying to revise history again?

You do understand that it was “white, heterosexual, male Christians” that ratified every American citizen’s right to vote?

And wasn’t the Emancipation Proclamation issued by a “white, heterosexual, male Christian”?

Didn’t hundreds of thousands of “white, heterosexual, male Christians” fight and die to free the slaves?

All the power that members of minority groups yield today to try and bludgeon the “majority” were first given to them by “white, heterosexual, male Christians”.

Drop the hateful ignorance and gain some educated gratitude.

The whole point of civil rights is that nobody has the right to deny service on unjust grounds.

You are arguing that publically offering a service gives a business the right to deny that service on unjust grounds to whoever they want.

It is not “unjust” to live one’s religion. The First Amendment is not “unjust”.

It is “unjust” to try and force someone to violate both their religious beliefs and their First Amendment rights.

You are essentially arguing that those in power should have the right to treat those without power in whatever way they want.

What makes you think that business owners should be considered “those in power”?

Everyone has the right to do what they want with their own property. This includes their business.

Just because I have authority over my private property does not mean that I have “power”.

It is a universal concept that a person can do whatever they want with what they own.

No, business owners are not “those in power”.

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

Isn’t that about the time that big government started getting involved?

You know, if you use a crutch long enough, you will lose the strength to walk on your own?

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.

Can you provide a single example of me claiming that my rights should supersede anyone else’s?

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 love how you assume so many things about me and how you have selective memory.

I already told you about that one incident when I was denied service as a missionary and I left without making a scene.

I do not believe that our society is as discriminatory as those on the left make it out to be. They need to tout the “party line” in order to stay in power, but it’s all lies.

Businesses should operate in a public space and according to the good of the public.

No. If you open up your own business - it is yours. No one should be able to tell you how to run your business. You are free to rise and fall. That’s the glory of America.

Owning your own business is not “public space” it is a private space. It is yours. It is not public property.

What is for the “good of the public” is completely subjective and is indicative to the idea of the State seizing and running all business.

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

Hmmm. I disagree with you, therefore I’m a bigot. How original.

I’m not going to address anymore. It’s a lot of you repeating your false narrative.

I don’t really see this discussion going anywhere if you keep posting lies about me and about what I said and about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.