How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

This kind of round about semanticizing was also tried with gay marriage. 'Everyone has the same rights, no discrimination, because a heterosexual person also can't marry a same-sex person. All have the right to marry a opposite sex person.'
That didn't fly in court either. It's clear that the intention is to put barriers for gay people up.

It also wouldn't work for interracial marriage. If your reason for refusing service is a quality of the protected class, then it's illegal discrimination.

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?

You can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, gender or sexuality. You absolutely can refuse service to dicks who are just being dicks.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

I can only say what happened here. In other places they may have acted civilly. I’m not saying all if them are like that. Only here they were.

 

[syo]

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

Didn't Christ say love your enemies too? I say, bake the cake and say a prayer too!

 

[BilliardsBall]

People have a right to equality under the law, and that includes marriage. People do not have a right to go into business, and indeed they are obliged to follow the law when they do have a business. This means they can't discriminate. Christians have already been around the block with this issue, the Supreme Court has already told them no, but again and again they seek special treatment, privileges, and exemptions from the law just because they are Christian.
When you serve the public, you serve the public. Not even your Jesus said "those of this certain sin cannot eat the fish or bread, and they can't hear my ministry of receive my miracles."

If an attorney refuses an unwinnable case, is that discrimination?

If a Christian baker believers they will lose hundreds of conservative clients by making a cake for a gay wedding, then refuses the gay wedding, is that discrimination or a move toward a totalitarian paradise?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This kind of round about semanticizing was also tried with gay marriage. 'Everyone has the same rights, no discrimination, because a heterosexual person also can't marry a same-sex person. All have the right to marry a opposite sex person.'
That didn't fly in court either. It's clear that the intention is to put barriers for gay people up.

It also wouldn't work for interracial marriage. If your reason for refusing service is a quality of the protected class, then it's illegal discrimination.

"It's not religious discrimination to tear down your church! Everyone has the same right to worship at their local mosque. It's equality!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If an attorney refuses an unwinnable case, is that discrimination?

If a Christian baker believers they will lose hundreds of conservative clients by making a cake for a gay wedding, then refuses the gay wedding, is that discrimination or a move toward a totalitarian paradise?

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If an attorney refuses an unwinnable case, is that discrimination?

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.

If a Christian baker believers they will lose hundreds of conservative clients by making a cake for a gay wedding, then refuses the gay wedding, is that discrimination or a move toward a totalitarian paradise?

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.

 

[wandering peacefully]

A lot of business discrimination laws only apply to needed services. A wedding cake isn't a needed service. These days those type of law suits are just people trying to force other people to validate their views and a way to get some money.

So are you saying if you walked into my gallery wearing a cross and Maga hat and wanted to order a custom print, it's okay for me to tell you no because I don't like your lifestyle or beliefs?

 

[Shad]

So are you saying if you walked into my gallery wearing a cross and Maga hat and wanted to order a custom print, it's okay for me to tell you no because I don't like your lifestyle or beliefs?

Politics isn't covered by discrimination laws. I would just call you a stupid leftist for your silly assumption of what my beliefs are then find another business to patron.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Why should a church enjoy the benefit of paying no taxes anyway, especially when they are so hostile to the culture at large and their fellow citizens?

There really is no reason that the Church should have tax exempt status. It was given that at a time when the Church was very much part of the culture at large. Back when the U.S. was Christian. Now that the U.S is no longer Christian, it is used as leverage against the Church.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If an attorney refuses an unwinnable case, is that discrimination?

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.

If a Christian baker believers they will lose hundreds of conservative clients by making a cake for a gay wedding, then refuses the gay wedding, is that discrimination or a move toward a totalitarian paradise?

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?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

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.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Politics isn't covered by discrimination laws. I would just call you a stupid leftist for your silly assumption of what my beliefs are then find another business to patron.

No, political views do not have legal rights of protection so I would only be violating the law if I told you I don't like your religion and therefore will not provide you with my services. Are you okay with that?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I'm not going to address every single comment you made, because I feel that I would just be repeating myself a lot, but I will try to hit what I feel are the main points of this discussion.

If I miss something you really want me to address, just shout it out.

I obviously don't know about every single one of these Christian baker cases, so there may be those cases that I would agree are discriminatory, but when I address this topic I always think about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and this other case I cannot for the life of me remember the name of, nor can I find it no matter how long I keep looking.

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.

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.

I believe these two cases are exactly similar. 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.

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.

Now I will address your comments I feel are the main points of this discussion.

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.

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

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

The sexual orientation of the individuals is not necessarily the "only difference". Those who believe that homosexuality is sinful would see other differences. Crucial ones.

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.

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.

This is according to you. That is your personal opinion. Not everyone is going to agree with you.

A lot of people believe that someone who voted for Trump is endorsing fascist ideologies. That doesn't make it true though, does it?

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?

Yes, in my book, it would be discrimination.

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

Let's say that your friend wanted to have a birthday cake made to celebrate the birth of Adolf Hitler. Would you think the sex, race, religion or sexual orientation of the customer would affect the baker's decision to make that cake?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

The only difference between a "gay wedding" and a "non-gay wedding" is the sexuality of the people involved.

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.

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

Hence, to provide services to one and not provide services for the other is discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and contravenes discrimination laws.

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.

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

 

[Skwim]

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect?

Yes there is such a compromise, and part of that compromise is that the religious are constrained from certain faith based practices.

Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws?

Why should they be? If other people have to abide by certain laws why should people be exempt from them just because they're Christians or those with sincere moral or religious convictions?

After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

But the necessity of having to look elsewhere amounts to imposing a burden not imposed on others.

.

.

 

[SomeRandom]

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 found the so called “promoters of traditional marriage” equally acted atrociously. If not more, I saw way more gay bashing than religious bashing, if you like.
Hate crimes increased, people getting bashed left and right.
Deplorable behaviour of so called “Christians.” Even my Christian family were appalled.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I found the so called “promoters of traditional marriage” equally acted atrociously. If not more, I saw way more gay bashing than religious bashing, if you like.
Hate crimes increased, people getting bashed left and right.
Deplorable behaviour of so called “Christians.” Even my Christian family were appalled.

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

 

[tayla]

I am strongly opposed to special cases. If a law is good and necessary it is in place to prevent harm. Allowing some people to ignore that law must be allowing some potential harm. If there is a valid argument for some people to ignore the law, why shouldn’t everyone be free to ignore the law and at that point, why have the law at all?

Yes, good point.

I think a problem with laws is that they don't reflect considered beliefs of society for two reasons:

1. People in society are at odds, having opposing views.
2. The legislatures making the laws are not able to make good laws because of all the influences from voters and lobbyists, as well as all the political influences.

Therefore, the laws are scrambled, and we shouldn't have such a high regard for whether they reflect good moral and ethical values.

 

[tayla]

Why would this only apply to this specific issue and specific sub-set of opponents? Shouldn’t your logic extend to pretty much any law and any belief (or claimed belief)? Isn’t the entire point of a structured society is that we can’t all do whatever we want but have to compromise and work towards the general good of that society?

Seems like some people want to be exempt from any law they don't like. Maybe we should just abolish the rule of law altogether, and have anarchy?

 

[tayla]

In other words, they are going to whine if a Christian baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual. Because he has supposed rights under the Constitution.

The problem with allowing for all these religious exemptions is that they are so artificial. For example, why should an employer have to try to appease everyone's special needs? Imagine how difficult it would be to host a banquet if everyone has a special diet?