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

[Shadow Wolf]

If someone installed central air in homes, would it be okay for them to refuse service to a gay couple? They'd like... have to be in their house for a long time while the couple is all married and gay. How uncomfortable!

How many services can use this excuse? Is it just cakes, or do you draw the line somewhere else? How is anything like this not discrimination?

Apparently, the cake people are running this trial on the idea that the cake is an artistic expression. However, the artist has never really had control over how their art is used once it leaves their hands. And in the case of the baker, he wasn't working on a basis of private commissions (such as how the Medici family commissioned artists such as Da Vinci), but is open to the public. It also opens up a nasty can of worms--one I don't think the Supreme Court will be willing to address--as it's basically asking the courts to approach the topic of "what is art?" and take a stab at defining it. That alone I think would be enough to get the Supreme Court to vote against the baker, and not even necessarily in the favor of LBGT, because such a ruling would inevitably create a far-reaching slippery slope of new cases of desired exemptions and altered definitions, all over the question of what is art. Which could lead to even the HVAC company trying to declare their own products as art to allow themselves this exemption.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then why do you engage in such stuff?

Goading won't work.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Bring back White's Only cafes then?


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.

No...just...no. You don't get to take my disdain for big government and turn it into an attack on homosexuality.

Firstly, I never claimed homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Those are your words, not mine. Marriage, however, is, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise.

Secondly, we live in a different society than back in the "whites only" cafe days. How viable do you think a "heterosexuals only" business would fair in today's society with the change in tolerance along with the ACLU and other equal rights institutions? I'm not saying what the cake maker is doing is right. However, I don't believe it's the government's right to tell a business owner that s/he is required to act against his/her religious beliefs.

Third, I must have missed where the cake maker said that he refused to make the cake because homosexuality is immoral. It's my understanding that his beliefs didn't advocate gay marriage. I don't even see the word "immoral" anywhere in the linked article except in the comments. Am I missing something here?

 

[Windwalker]

Mine doesn't say any of those things. But should a cake maker be forced to imagine ideas for gay weddings? It's obviously offensive to his conscious and makes him sick to have to think of ideas for gay weddings. He should sue the government for pain and suffering if they force him to make cakes for gays.

Oh, for Christ's sake (literally, for the sake of Christ). If he finds others so repulsive he can't imagine servicing them, then he should withdraw himself from society so he doesn't have to interact with them. This of course speaks poorly of his faith. But aside from that, typically the couple tell the person what they would like. I seriously doubt they would have said, "just come up with something for us," as they gave each other a big wet kiss in front of him. Usually the couple tells the baker what they want it to say.

And aside from that as well, since Mr. I'm too good for you Christian Baker man doesn't want to serve people who challenge his narrow beliefs, and since the law of this land says you cannot discriminate and deny services to the public based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, then he should close up shop and go join some cloister where he doesn't have to confront his prejudices against other humans. It would be a grand opportunity for him to learn about Love. He should have the gay couple come and teach him what he as a Christian fails to apprehend from his own religion.

 

[Kemosloby]

Oh, for Christ's sake (literally, for the sake of Christ). If he finds others so repulsive he can't imagine servicing them, then he should withdraw himself from society so he doesn't have to interact with them. This of course speaks poorly of his faith. But aside from that, typically the couple tell the person what they would like. I seriously doubt they would have said, "just come up with something for us," as they gave each other a big wet kiss in front of him. Usually the couple tells the baker what they want it to say.

And aside from that as well, since Mr. I'm too good for you Christian Baker man doesn't want to serve people who challenge his narrow beliefs, and since the law of this land says you cannot discriminate and deny services to the public based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, then he should close up shop and go join some cloister where he doesn't have to confront his prejudices against other humans. It would be a grand opportunity for him to learn about Love. He should have the gay couple come and teach him what he as a Christian fails to apprehend from his own religion.

Um no. He fails to learn gay misinterpretation of his religion. Going by Christian teachings the Law should be against the sexually immoral.

Warning against False Teaching
…We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.…

 

[SalixIncendium]

Public accommodations laws are valid laws, according to the Court. In Roberts v. US Jaycees, the Court held that there is a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting discrimination against certain classes of people.

I understand this. I was stating my personal opinion here, not interpreting law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However, I don't believe it's the government's right to tell a business owner that s/he is required to act against his/her religious beliefs.

It's been shown time and time again that government intervention is necessary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
And, yes, it's foreseeable that many of those businesses would thrive. A pizza joint in Indiana was supported when it said it would utilize Pence's RFRA to deny service to homosexuals, and even got tons of money in support.
When you serve the public, you serve the public. If you want to pick-and-choose your clients, then don't serve the public.

 

[Windwalker]

Firstly, I never claimed homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Those are your words, not mine.

Except I was quoting from your words. I'll highlight what I read below so you can see why I ran with that:

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?

That is a buzzword about this notion gays are a "lifestyle choice". Maybe you didn't intend that, but it sure ran the flag up the pole when I read it. Care to clarify why you chose that analogy of a "lifestyle choice" of vegetarianism to compare it with homosexuality?

Marriage, however, is, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise.

Of course. But it's no more abnormal for gays to choose that, then it is for hetro couples.

Secondly, we live in a different society than back in the "whites only" cafe days. How viable do you think a "heterosexuals only" business would fair in today's society with the change in tolerance along with the ACLU and other equal rights institutions?

It's just an extension of the same prejudicial attitudes.

I'm not saying what the cake maker is doing is right. However, I don't believe it's the government's right to tell a business owner that s/he is required to act against his/her religious beliefs.

when it infringes on other citizens right, it sure is their place! We elect them to represent our rights! It ain't the government imposing it on others. It's us! We don't want no redneck hicks denying other citizens goods and services because they can't fit the big world into their small one.

Third, I must have missed where the cake maker said that he refused to make the cake because homosexuality is immoral. It's my understanding that his beliefs didn't advocate gay marriage. I don't even see the word "immoral" anywhere in the linked article except in the comments. Am I missing something here?

That's straining it a bit. Of course, call it what you may. He considers it a "sin", and doesn't want to get his hands soiled with the "unclean", being the great righteous man he believes he is.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's been shown time and time again that government intervention is necessary to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
And, yes, it's foreseeable that many of those businesses would thrive. A pizza joint in Indiana was supported when it said it would utilize Pence's RFRA to deny service to homosexuals, and even got tons of money in support.
When you serve the public, you serve the public. If you want to pick-and-choose your clients, then don't serve the public.

If I'm not mistaken, I have read that the majority of the US population supports homosexuality and/or gay marriage. Hang on let me find it...

U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High

I think such issues can be handled in the private sector by way of public awareness through boycott, petitions, media coverage, etc., and that government shouldn't intervene.

 

[Skwim]

If someone installed central air in homes, would it be okay for them to refuse service to a gay couple? They'd like... have to be in their house for a long time while the couple is all married and gay. How uncomfortable!

How many services can use this excuse? Is it just cakes, or do you draw the line somewhere else? How is anything like this not discrimination?

If the court rules in favor of homosexuals there'll be no more of a line than there is right now for race, color, religion or national origin. Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long.

.

.

 

[Windwalker]

I Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long.
.

I don't think I'll agree with that. Discrimination has been going on for quite some time, and "White's Only" diners survived just fine. Minorities don't have the heavy wallets when it comes to doing business. That said however, in an urban setting, people would probably shun those owners. In rural areas, they'd be celebrated.

 

[Skwim]

If I'm not mistaken, I have read that the majority of the US population supports homosexuality and/or gay marriage. Hang on let me find it...

U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High

I think such issues can be handled in the private sector by way of public awareness through boycott, petitions, media coverage, etc., and that government shouldn't intervene.

Why shouldn't the government intervene? You feel it's alright that 1/3 (34%) of the population would be fine with businesses discriminating against married homosexuals?

.

 

[Notanumber]

I remember being up on a roof discussing some chimney flashings with a builder when the plasterer came out the back and shouted up to his mate the builder about a Coronation Street actor who had just been found doing something he shouldn’t in a public convenience.

The builder shouted back by saying, “It’s all right Dick providing they don’t make it compulsory”. The plasterer replied “Oh Bl**dy H*ll we don’t want that” which I thought was rather funny at the time.

"News in Brief: Importuning by actor". The Times. February 25, 1981. p. 4. Peter Dudley, ... was fined £200 at Manchester City Magistrates' Court yesterday when he admitted importuning for an immoral purpose in a public lavatory.

It was about this time that I found myself as a young and innocent man working in the house of a couple of gays. Even though they were not politically correct, I can’t say that those jovial comments affected my attitude in a detrimental way.

Back then, I’m sure they wouldn’t have been trying to entrap me so that they could have accused me of being a bigot. This sort of thing is a much more recent development.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Care to clarify why you chose that analogy of a "lifestyle choice" of vegetarianism to compare it with homosexuality?

I don't because I didn't. Again, you are making another assumption. I compared the "lifestyle choice" of vegetarianism to the "lifestyle choice" of gay marriage, not homosexuality.

I take exception to your assumptions and subsequent implication that I am ignorant of the fact that homosexuality isn't a choice, and that just because I support a person's right to act on his/her beliefs, that I support those actions or beliefs. My issue here is with big government and their ability to pick and choose what rights to support, not with gay marriage, or that matter homosexuality. I'm an active supporter of both.

 

[Skwim]

I Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long.

I don't think I'll agree with that. Discrimination has been going on for quite some time, and "White's Only" diners survived just fine. Minorities don't have the heavy wallets when it comes to doing business. That said however, in an urban setting, people would probably shun those owners. In rural areas, they'd be celebrated.

You misquote me. I said

"Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long."

.​

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why shouldn't the government intervene? You feel it's alright that 1/3 (34%) of the population would be fine with businesses discriminating against married homosexuals?

.

As much as I dislike answering a question with a question, do you think a business that turns away 2/3 of its potential clientele is viable?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If I'm not mistaken, I have read that the majority of the US population supports homosexuality and/or gay marriage. Hang on let me find it...

U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High

I think such issues can be handled in the private sector by way of public awareness through boycott, petitions, media coverage, etc., and that government shouldn't intervene.

National support doesn't automatically translate into regional support. If discrimination is allowed, LBGT who live in the Bible Belt states are likely to be discriminated against, with no consequences to the business, especially in smaller rural areas.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is actually a very simple case from a legal perspective. The baker in question didn't even get to the point where he was discussing potential designs or cake types with the couple. As soon as he found out it would be for a same-sex wedding, he refused.

Thus his decision to not serve the couple was based on their sexual orientation, not the artistic nature of the cake. That's the very definition of discrimination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As much as I dislike answering a question with a question, do you think a business that turns away 2/3 of its potential clientele is viable?

Where do you get businesses would turn away 2/3 of their clients? People often are not "responsible consumers," and if it doesn't effect them, they likely won't care.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Where do you get businesses would turn away 2/3 of their clients? People often are not "responsible consumers," and if it doesn't effect them, they likely won't care.

I'll concede that not all consumers are "responsible consumers" but I believe taking public actions as previously mentioned could deal a critical blow to such a business.