Featured How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

I believe that these various cases have actually nothing to do with discrimination at all.

If a Christian baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding because they don't want to promote homosexuality or the practice of same-sex marriage, they are not refusing service based on anyone's sexual orientation.

This is so because even if a heterosexual person ordered a cake for a same-sex wedding - they would still refuse to make the cake.

Obviously it is not the sexual orientation of the customer that leads these Christian bakers to refused to make these cakes.

What if a homosexual customer asked one of these Christian bakers to make a cake for a KKK rally? Would it be discrimination if the baker refused?

Would one of these bakers need to make a cake that says, "F**k Jesus!" on it if the customer who ordered it happened to be homosexual?

Anyone of any "protected class" can demand any service they want and can never be denied even if they reason for refusal has nothing to do with the "protected class" of the customer?

Since the sexual orientation of the customer is not the factor that leads these bakers to refuse to make these cakes then they can't claim discrimination.

 

I was more interested in picking you up on your unjustified attack on everyone who doesn't believe in God.

 

Yes they are. They are choosing not to provide a service for a particular customer because of the sexuality of those customers. It's the same cake, it's the same ingredients, it's the same event. The only difference is the sexuality of the individuals involved in it.

That means that they are unjustly discriminating on the basis of the sexuality of those involved. Providing them with a cake is not an endorsement of of gay marriage any more than a bakery providing a pie to a Neo-Nazi is endorsement of fascist ideology. It makes no sense whatsoever to think that way.

But the service is the same, the only difference is the sexuality of the couple in the event. It is still unjust discrimination.

If I went to a bakery and asked for a loaf of bread for my black friend, but the baker refused to give it to me because my friend was black, does that not count as racial discrimination in your book?

The customers are the couple whose event the cake is for.

Do you believe the baker would provide the cake if they had no idea of the sexuality of people in the event?

There is no such thing as a standard "rally cake" that can equally be used at different rallies. If a bakery offered "rally cakes" and a member of the KKK asked for a cake for their rally and was refused, they might have grounds for discrimination on the basis of their beliefs. Then again, the KKK are not protected category.

No. Bakers are allowed to refuse to put specific messages on cakes if they feel it will justifiably affect the perception of their business.

However, if a bakery offers a specific kind of cake for a specific kind of event, but refuses to provide that cake because of the sexuality of the people involved in the event, that is unjust discrimination.

Also, you have now equated providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding to making a cake for a KKK rally and writing "**** Jesus!" on a cake. I'm beginning to wonder if the problem isn't bakers rights as much as it is to do with your extremely negative perception of gay weddings.

No. Only when it does have something to do with their status, which this does. The only difference between a "gay wedding" and a "non-gay wedding" is the sexuality of the people involved. Hence, to provide services to one and not provide services for the other is discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and contravenes discrimination laws.

You are wrong. See above.

 

I just consider that God knows what’s best for us better than we do so things like different lifestyles the Prophets guide us as to whether these things are good for us or not. But people are always free to go their own way as it’s their right to choose their own path and lifestyle in life.

There was no attack intended so I don’t know what you mean there. I’m only saying I believe God knows more what’s best for us than we do but that’s just my opinion not an attack on anyone.

 

This isn't about the design of the cake. Any business has discretion to decide what products they sell and how those products should look.

... but a business serving the public has to treat its customers equitably. If it's willing to sell a particular cake design in general, then it can't decide to refuse that design to a customer if the reason for the refusal was illegal discrimination.

 

So no specialized messages right? This is what SCOTUS already covered like 2 years ago with the Colorado baker. The baker had no issue selling a generic wedding cake with no message.

 

It's more that they're refusing service on the basis of gender.

If they would sell a particular cake for the marriage of, say, a bi man to a bi woman, but not for the marriage of two bi women, then it's gender that's the basis of the baker's discrimination.

Now... as you point out, the couple getting married aren't always the people buying the cake. It could be, say, a family member or a wedding planner who actually buys the cake from the baker. Maybe that might make a difference in the laws of some jurisdictions - I don't know - but:

- the baker is still discriminating on the basis of the gender of the couple (whether or not they're the people who actually purchase the cake), whether this discrimination is legal or not.

- none of these cases that have made the news have involved someone else purchasing the cake for the couple. None that I've heard about, anyway.

 

I believe they are specifically referring to this statement:

It is quite clearly an attack on people who don't believe in God.

 

I meant when you wrote this; “For people who don’t believe in God they believe that it is their right to force one and all to comply with their wishes.”

 

Hey, @ZooGirl02 , @loverofhumanity and everyone else in this thread who's arguing for accommodation of religious beliefs: why is it that you - in this thread, at least - are only worried about accommodating religious belief when the religious person is out to hurt someone else?

Why no mention of other sorts of religious accommodation problems? For instance:

- a lack of halal and kosher meals in prisons

- problems getting time off from work or school for religious holidays

- substandard "spiritual care" for hospital patients who belong to minority religions

- company uniforms that don't comply with religious rules of dress

- a lack of female doctors in certain communities (since religious rules around interaction between sexes can get in the way of a male doctor giving effective care to a female patient, depending on the religion of the patient)

Are you only interested in religious accommodation when it can disadvantage a gay couple looking to get married or deny someone medical care, or do you still support religious accommodation when it might cause a bit of expense or inconvenience for a big corporation?

 

I should have been more specific so I retract that statement. I was referring specifically to people who have been promoting same sex marriage. There was a lot of hostility towards people who didn’t agree I felt.

But in general people who don’t believe in God are good upright people who respect the rights of all. I sincerely apologise for not making it clear that I was only referring to the same sex agenda.

 

That’s incorrect on my part. I was referring in my mind to the same sex issue only but didn’t state it clearly. My wrong. Sincere apology. People who don’t believe in God respect the rights of others.

 

I agree. Somewhere the thread got sidetracked with the same sex issue. There are all sorts of issues you mentioned that need addressing. My wife and sister recently lower abdomen problems and the doctor would not treat them. We waited 4 hours in hospital until a western dr treated us and all they had to do was examine her abdomen but the other dr stalled until he went off duty.

 

I was thinking more about reluctance from the patient. Are you saying that the male doctors at the hospital refused to examine a female patient on religious grounds?

If so, I don't think those doctors should be practicing at all. Someone who is unwilling to provide basic medical care to a patient has no business being a doctor.

 

To be fair, it wasn't sidetracked; the OP brought up the issue.

Still, on the issue of religious liberty, if I ask someone "what's important to your religious life that has been taken away from you or is being threatened?" and the first or most important answer that comes to their mind is some variation of "my ability to mess with gay people who are getting married," I'm going to quickly come to the conclusion that this person is a jerkish member of a jerkish religion.

 

I would disagree with that too.

That is like arguing that the Civil rights protesters under Martin Luther King "believed that it is their right to force one and all to comply with their wishes". Nobody is being "forced to comply" with anything beyond allowing others equal rights. That's not forcing complicity, that's demanding equality. It's the religious groups who oppose gay marriage that believe everyone should bend to their will, not the other way round.

Look at the OP. They literally ask why can't religious individuals have a special exemption from the law just because they are religious. They believe that the religious deserve the right to impose their will on others and deserve special status that puts them above others.

Thank you, apology gratefully accepted.

 

You will likely only get an answer that is worth something from those that see some good in religion. And not just “they feed the poor” type of good but has felt and lived in glimpses of it in such a manner that it has penetrated their faculties. The in vogue answer will likely limit the religious mind as much as possible in whatever way they can in the name of tolerance. Limiting what kind of business a person may engage in……..again, in the name of tolerance. They don’t really live and let live…that ship has sailed. They will gladly bind those things they deem destructive until the next wave takes it further down the rights seeking fox hole. Not really understanding the complexity of how these things will affect the societal consciousness in its entirety. One may be so bold as to say that some simply don’t give a crap so long as they get their rights. A quick glimpse into the number of conservative gays may lead one to ponder how many of them really didn’t care for the ideas of the political camp they happen to be a part of and made the move once they got their rights or at the very least disarmed themselves. I haven’t been here long enough lately to know if that is indeed the case here, so I hope I am dead wrong.
A quasi-libertarian approach would be as far as I can muster at the moment a good solution. I don’t particularly care for porn shops but I don’t see mobs of religious folks trying outlaw them with any veracity. Even though a case can be made of the harm it causes the manly psyche [and or] the family. Those things that cause immediate and clear damage should be outlawed for example. Those pushing for the legalization of such things can and will eventually push for it and I don’t see how this is going to get stepped with the new wave of arguments coming through.

 

We can’t prove that but the doctors involved both refused to examine my sister and wife’s private parts. We waited 4 hours until a western dr turned up examined her in a couple of minutes and said she was ok. The doctors that refused to examine them were both Eastern. It could be religious or cultural or both but through a friend we brought this issue to the attention of the hospital administration. It could be bad if it was life threatening.

We agree if they can’t bring themselves to examine women then how can they call themselves doctors!

 

In Australia it got ugly with people who disagreed being attacked physically. Some advocates filled in multiple ballots to push the issue through. People who disagreed were abused and intimidated. Everyone should have the right to openly speak their mind without being harassed. This was not the case here. Posters promoting traditional marriage were torn down. Those advocating it didn’t respect those who felt differently.

 

I'm certain there were also a lot of anti-gay marriage groups who were equally aggressive, and I'm also certain that there were many, many more who were pro-gay marriage who were peaceful, respectful, and debated reasonably.

Tarring an entire group with the same brush is not a fair way to address this issue. There were also violent elements within the black civil rights movement, but you don't call the movement itself violent or thuggish.