"Is Religious Freedom in the U.S. Broken Beyond Repair?"

[Kemosloby]

It's not really religion for someone simply to have moral convictions. Being free works both ways. A person with a business should be free to choose his customers. And the customers free to boycott his business. If the thought of gay marriage is offensive to the cake maker who has to think about who he is making the cake for he should not be forced to have to think about gay marrage and make cakes for them.

 

[pearl]

Your business, when open to the public, is not a stage from whence you may discriminate based on your religious beliefs.

For me, this about says it all. This is no different than in the past refusing to serve blacks or anyone other than white. We must not be allowed to force our religious beliefs on others.

 

[David T]

"If you’re secular or a progressive religious person, you might be thinking “yes”—especially in view of a high-profile case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday (Dec. 5). Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission pits the anti-gay-marriage beliefs of a cake baker against the rights of a same-sex couple to live and marry free of discrimination.

​

It rightly irritates liberals to witness a conservative Christian merchant seeking exemption from laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gay people. But even though this and other recent invocations of religious freedom taste bad in progressive mouths, the long view — backward and forward — suggests that religious freedom still has much to recommend it, regardless of how the high court rules on the Colorado baker.

Technically, free speech is the issue in the baker’s case. But there’s no separating Jack Phillips’ anti-homosexuality religious views from the heart of this matter. Indeed, it’s his religious belief that motivated Phillips to say “no” to a gay couple who sought to employ his services for their wedding cake, putting the legal wheels in motion.

To liberal sensibilities, Phillips seems the epitome of an unsympathetic character. The religious group he’s part of — conservative Christians — remains the segment of the population most outside of society’s growing and commendable acceptance of same-sex relationships. Moreover, Phillips is part of a religious demographic that wields outsized power in politics and aligns most closely with a president who is every liberal’s nightmare.

It seems ridiculous to think that this evangelical baker in Colorado is somehow beleaguered and oppressed, in need of constitutional protection if he’s to continue living and believing — and discriminating — as he sees fit. Really, isn’t he the one who’s oppressing?

There’s something valid in this sentiment. It’s true that over the course of our history, vulnerable religious minorities — including nonbelievers — have often been the ones seeking protection under religious freedom and the principle that all citizens should be free to believe, or not, in accordance with their own consciences. Several landmark Supreme Court cases follow this storyline, from Amish people appealing for exemption from mandatory school attendance to conscientious objectors seeking to avoid military combat."
source​

Place your bets on the Supreme Court's ruling, and let's hear your reason.

Kierkegaard said accurately" people demand freedom of speech as compensation for lack of freedom of thought, which they rarely use" Since freedom of thought is not the default setting in religion it then demands freedom of speech as compensation. Ironically Christianity was founded by someone who would not qualify today as being Christian. How does that work exactly and why?

 

[leibowde84]

On this topic I voted in favor of the baker. The reason I feel this way is that I feel it is not as much about discrimination as it is about forcing someone to manufacture something they do not feel right about. Example, someone comes into the store and wants to buy a dozen donuts and he refuses because he does not serve whatever group they happen to be. That would be a clear case of discrimination. I feel if the couple would have bought something he offered he would have sold it to them. They wanted something he did not offer because of his beliefs.

This would be like a person going into a book store and asking for pornography, the store owner says we do not sell that here. Is he discriminating because the store owner does not order it for him. I feel a store owner should have the right to sell what ever offering they want to carry. I know this is a bit different because he can make the cake an does make cakes complicating the matter. But in this case I think the basis of the suit is, if I remember correctly is that what is being asked is for him to artistically make something he feels is wrong. Can he be made to use his artistic talents to produce something he does not believe in. In this case being more lake a portrait photographer being asked to do a nude photo shot when they do not feel comfortable doing that.

Just out of curiosity, beyond what the cake will be used for, what makes the cake that they ordered different than other cakes he has made in the past? I mean, if it was some phallic symbol, I'd understand. But, if it's just a wedding cake, and he's made wedding cakes before, he isn't being asked to make anything that he hasn't before. The only difference is what the end product will be used for, but that is none of his business once the cake is sold.

Should an anti-semite be able to refuse selling me a car simply because I'm going to use the car to drive a jewish friend of mine to synagogue?

 

[allright]

If you think the baker should be forced to this then should a Jewish baker be required to decorate a cake celebrating hitlers birthday

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know what to make about cases like this. For one thing, it's just a freakin' cake. Why would either side get so worked up over it?

How did this all come about anyway? Did the couple go into a bakery at random and simply ask for a wedding cake? Or did they go from bakery to bakery until they found one that refused, just so they could create this drama?

And as for the baker, what's his problem? Does he think that God will send him to Hell for baking a cake for a gay couple? Does that apply to other "sins" as well? If I go into a bakery and casually mention that I coveted my neighbor's oxen, does this mean he has the right to say "No cake for you!"

The whole thing is ridiculous. Over a cake.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what to make about cases like this. For one thing, it's just a freakin' cake. Why would either side get so worked up over it?

Because government is involved, the business faces financial ruin.
Old Revoltistanian saying.....
The fighting is never so vicious as when the stakes are so low.

 

[Enoch07]

"If you’re secular or a progressive religious person, you might be thinking “yes”—especially in view of a high-profile case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday (Dec. 5). Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission pits the anti-gay-marriage beliefs of a cake baker against the rights of a same-sex couple to live and marry free of discrimination.

​

It rightly irritates liberals to witness a conservative Christian merchant seeking exemption from laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gay people. But even though this and other recent invocations of religious freedom taste bad in progressive mouths, the long view — backward and forward — suggests that religious freedom still has much to recommend it, regardless of how the high court rules on the Colorado baker.

Technically, free speech is the issue in the baker’s case. But there’s no separating Jack Phillips’ anti-homosexuality religious views from the heart of this matter. Indeed, it’s his religious belief that motivated Phillips to say “no” to a gay couple who sought to employ his services for their wedding cake, putting the legal wheels in motion.

To liberal sensibilities, Phillips seems the epitome of an unsympathetic character. The religious group he’s part of — conservative Christians — remains the segment of the population most outside of society’s growing and commendable acceptance of same-sex relationships. Moreover, Phillips is part of a religious demographic that wields outsized power in politics and aligns most closely with a president who is every liberal’s nightmare.

It seems ridiculous to think that this evangelical baker in Colorado is somehow beleaguered and oppressed, in need of constitutional protection if he’s to continue living and believing — and discriminating — as he sees fit. Really, isn’t he the one who’s oppressing?

There’s something valid in this sentiment. It’s true that over the course of our history, vulnerable religious minorities — including nonbelievers — have often been the ones seeking protection under religious freedom and the principle that all citizens should be free to believe, or not, in accordance with their own consciences. Several landmark Supreme Court cases follow this storyline, from Amish people appealing for exemption from mandatory school attendance to conscientious objectors seeking to avoid military combat."
source​

Place your bets on the Supreme Court's ruling, and let's hear your reason.

The cake baker. While I don't agree with his views. He has the right to deny service to anyone he choses, at anytime. No person is entitled to the labor or services of another.

 

[Windwalker]

As should have been clear, what I consider offensive and disrespectful is forcing a Christian baker to step over his beliefs that marriage is a sacred institution of man and woman and write a message on the cake that openly opposes it (in whatever provocative way the couple may insist, examples of which I already listed in my previous post), preferably with his name under it. That is offensive.

Let me make my point clearer, hopefully. There are plenty of "Christians" who consider marriage between Blacks and Whites to be offensives as well. One need only look at very recent history to find proof of that! So to ask for a cake with an inscription to say, "Congratulations to the Happy Couple", would be taken as offensive by the Baker who is a staunch segregationist based on his and his group's reading of the Bible. Should he be protected to deny them service, when he is a public business? What about if he was a diner owner? Whites only?

You're saying they were asking for something offensive on the cake like "God sucks!" or some other such imaginary offense doesn't hold water. They weren't asking for offensive language to be inscribed on the cake. If you believe they were, then what were the offensive words? Are you just imagining it would have had to be offensive language, because you can't imagine he would refuse services to someone based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation?

That's not why they were fined by the State of Colorado, because they were asking for a "F* God" inscription. Why would they have? It was their wedding! You can read the facts of what it was about here, if you're interested in knowing what really happened. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

 

[Windwalker]

The cake baker. While I don't agree with his views. He has the right to deny service to anyone he choses, at anytime. No person is entitled to the labor or services of another.

Like this?



You may wish to educate yourself about our history and why we have the laws we do today. If you were a minority, you might appreciate them. Thank God our country is based on the rule of law, not one's personal religious beliefs.

 

[Stevicus]

Because government is involved, the business faces financial ruin.

Well, it's also religion being involved, too. If an individual puts his own religious principles ahead of business, then that's certainly his choice, but if he faces financial ruin because of that choice, that's still on him, not the government.

Old Revoltistanian saying.....
The fighting is never so vicious as when the stakes are so low.

Yeah, some people might say "it's the principle of the thing."

 

[idav]

As a business owner, the cake owner should have the freedom to provide or not provide services to whom he wishes at the time of his choosing. While this might not be the best business decision from a profitability standpoint, it's not for the government to say who he has to serve or when.

If I only have a taste for a fried chicken sandwich on a buttery roll with pickles only on Sundays, and my lifestyle as a vegetarian allows me to eat chicken only on Sundays, can I demand the Chik-Fil-A open their doors on Sundays?

You'd be opening the door to businesses discriminating on things of there choosing based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Businesses still have to follow some laws. Businesses can refuse a person for not having a shirt, what they can't do is refuse service for having a Jesus or Buddha shirt.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it's also religion being involved, too. If an individual puts his own religious principles ahead of business, then that's certainly his choice, but if he faces financial ruin because of that choice, that's still on him, not the government.

I wouldn't exculpate government just because they don't make the choice to put or not put
the message on the cake. Government has the responsibility to use its ultimate authority
in a wise & just fashion. In this case, the harm done by the baker pales in comparison to
that done by government.

This is a case of 2 competing rights. There are wide divisions on the issue, apparently even
on the Supreme Court. When something is so legally murky, when rights of one come at the
expense of another, & where the damage to the aggrieved party is minimal, I say it's wrong
for government to weigh in with such harsh sanction.
In this case, government, not the baker, poses the real danger to society.

 

[Windwalker]

As a business owner, the cake owner should have the freedom to provide or not provide services to whom he wishes at the time of his choosing. While this might not be the best business decision from a profitability standpoint, it's not for the government to say who he has to serve or when.

Bring back White's Only cafes then?

If I only have a taste for a fried chicken sandwich on a buttery roll with pickles only on Sundays, and my lifestyle as a vegetarian allows me to eat chicken only on Sundays, can I demand the Chik-Fil-A open their doors on Sundays?

First off, being homesexual is not a "lifestyle". It's not a "choice". Science has proven this. Just look at nature. Are homsexual animals making a "lifestyle choice"? That's absurd, and a projection of the phobic own sexuality calling it a "choice" for others.

Secondly, they are going to the counter on the day they are selling the same products to everyone else. They were just denied service because of the beliefs of the owners that homosexuals are immoral. The law stated clearly otherwise, and like it or not, he is not allowed to discriminate against someone because they are homosexual, or Black, or Hispanic, or Muslim, or Catholics, or.........

Why not just put a sign in his window that says, "Hetrosexuals Only."? How is that different than "Whites Only"? Explain.

 

[Revoltingest]

Question....
If The Westboro Baptist Church wanted a cake with its name on it,
should a bakery owned by gay folk be legally required to make it?

 

[Enoch07]

Like this?

View attachment 19708

You may wish to educate yourself about our history and why we have the laws we do today. If you were a minority, you might appreciate them. Thank God our country is based on the rule of law, not one's personal religious beliefs.

Like I say I don't agree with the baker. So understand that before you get all emotional.

But nobody is entitled to anyone else's labor or services. Forcing people to work for you is a bad thing. Do you understand that?

If a Nazi hires a gay baker to make swastika cupcakes should they be forced to make It? Under your law they would have to support beliefs not of their own. Right or wrong doesn't matter.

 

[Stevicus]

I wouldn't exculpate government just because they don't make the choice to put or not put
the message on the cake. Government has the responsibility to use its ultimate authority
in a wise & just fashion. In this case, the harm done by the baker pales in comparison to
that done by government.

This is a case of 2 competing rights. There are wide divisions on the issue, apparently even
on the Supreme Court. When something is so legally murky, when rights of one come at the
expense of another, & where the damage to the aggrieved party is minimal, I say it's wrong
for government to weigh in with such harsh sanction.
In this case, government, not the baker, poses the real danger to society.

Well, if we're talking about "danger to society," that's a different matter than a single baker's potential financial ruin (which may or may not happen). If a baker faces financial ruin because of his own choices, that's still the consequence of making that choice. If this is a rights issue, then "financial ruin" is totally irrelevant to the case. The government doesn't care about people's financial ruin. If they did, they'd have outlawed outsourcing a long time ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, if we're talking about "danger to society," that's a different matter than a single baker's potential financial ruin (which may or may not happen). If a baker faces financial ruin because of his own choices, that's still the consequence of making that choice.

I don't buy into the public policy philosophy that government isn't responsible for sanctions it
imposes upon us, if we have any choice in the matter. When government infringes upon our
rights, the choice to exercise them in the face of punishment does not inherently justify the
infringement & level of sanction.

If this is a rights issue, then "financial ruin" is totally irrelevant to the case.

I disagree.
We've a major problem with government in that it is so often insensitive to the damage it does to us.
The shining example is cops being trained for overkill if they perceive even the slightest threat to themselves.
We don't really matter that much to them....except when they're pandering for votes.

The government doesn't care about people's financial ruin.

We can agree on that point.

If they did, they'd have outlawed outsourcing a long time ago.

Fortunately, Americastanian socialists don't have enuf power to turn us into Venezuela.

How would you answer post #36?

 

[Windwalker]

Like I say I don't agree with the baker. So understand that before you get all emotional.

I'm not getting "all emotional." I'm getting all rational.

But nobody is entitled to anyone else's labor or services. Forcing people to work for you is a bad thing. Do you understand that?

Refusing goods and services to someone based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation is a discriminatory practice. It's not like they were being rowdy or rude as a customer. It's because of their sexual orientation, which is not any different than refusing service to a Black or Hispanic. It's not a race-style choice. It's nothing you can change. Do you not understand this? To refuse service to someone because they are born a certain way, is illegal. How is it you don't understand this?

If a Nazi hires a gay baker to make swastika cupcakes should they be forced to make It? Under your law they would have to support beliefs not of their own. Right or wrong doesn't matter.

Being a Nazi is in fact a choice. Nazism is an ideology. Homosexual is not. It's no more a choice than being Black or Hispanic. I think this is the source of the issue. Basic ignorance about what homosexuality actually is. Do you believe it's a choice?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not getting "all emotional." I'm getting all rational.


Refusing goods and services to someone based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation is a discriminatory practice. It's not like they were being rowdy or rude as a customer. It's because of their sexual orientation, which is not any different than refusing service to a Black or Hispanic. It's not a race-style choice. It's nothing you can change. Do you not understand this? To refuse service to someone because they are born a certain way, is illegal. How is it you don't understand this?


Being a Nazi is in fact a choice. Nazism is an ideology. Homosexual is not. It's no more a choice than being Black or Hispanic. I think this is the source of the issue. Basic ignorance about what homosexuality actually is. Do you believe it's a choice?

I don't think something being a "choice" or not matters.
One could say that religion & political affiliation (eg, Nazi) are choices.
But are they?
When one is called to a belief or dis-belief, it could very well be involuntary.
I know that I could not choose to be anything other than an atheist.
I'd be a libertarian whether I belonged to the party or not. No choice there.
A better view would be to consider how important one's (potentially) protected
group (legal usage there) status is to one. Race, gender, religion....all are the
same with regard to level of legal protection.