Religious Liberty Vs Civil Rights?

[thesometimesaint]

From the article, it appears that since they had previously served the women they were not discriminating against them based on their orientation....refusing to serve them at all. Instead it appears they didnt want to be involved/support a SSM which they saw as against their religious beliefs.

I don't think people should be forced into participating/contributing to something they see as sinful...a behaviour as opposed to a person. It may be extremely bigoted, but if these had refused to make a cake to celebrate a temple sealing because they saw it as false doctrine, I think they should have a right to refuse.

Only in cases where it affects one's health or safety and there is no other viable option, should the law require participation...certainly not in luxury items like wedding cakes.

And those who are refused service should have every right to picket the place to publicise the discrimination.

 

Why? Say my religion teaches blacks are mud people. Do I therefore get a free pass to not serve them at my lunch counter?

[Robert F. Smith]

..........................................................................

................................................. Should I be required to open my business on Sunday because it "discriminates" against non-Christians? Should I not be allowed to give a discount at a restaurant to people who come in with a church service bulletin if I have such a promotion? Should I be required to sell hard alcohol to people proffering food stamps? There's a long list of intrusions by the government into business transactions solely in the name of "discrimination"; they occur with some regularity where I live. Such intrusions are ultimately more harmful than the things they are supposedly trying to fix.

 

.............................................................................  

 

I'm not sure what imaginary list of intrusions by gov't you have assembled showing that businesses are required to open on Sundays, or that people can use food stamps to buy booze, etc.  Neither assertion is true, although maybe you were trying to make some sort of rhetorical point.

 

All sorts of "Blue Laws" (including Sunday closing laws in states like Utah) were done away with some years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court.  That high court intervenes from time to time to settle just the sort of disputes which are being discussed in this thread.  That is the job of judges and justices -- to decide the Constitutionality of various state and Federal laws, as well as to decide whether practices by some companies which offer public accommodations are discriminatory under statutory and Constitutional law.  Otherwise we have anarchy and the breaching of the sacred compact by which this nation was founded and continues to be governed.  Is our system of gov't perfect?  Of course not.  But you find me a better one this side of direct divine rule (theocracy).

[Calm]

Why? Say my religion teaches blacks are mud people. Do I therefore get a free pass to not serve them at my lunch counter?

"free pass"? In what sense do you mean? I think the law should allow you to make that decision, bigoted and hateful though it is. I also think it should allow anyone who feels like it to then publicise that bigotry so that any customers can then make a choice whether they want to support that discriminaton or make a public showing that they reject it and hopefully enough will do so that the bigot will not benefit in any way from such hatred and it will be demonstrated through individual action by people taking and requiring personal responsibilty rather than government mandate that your community won't nurture such intolerance.

Hopefully that "free pass" prevents you from gaining any wealth and requires you to be personally accountable for your beliefs rather than forcing you to pretend to be something you are not, therefore not allowing people to learn the type of person they are giving their money to.

[jwhitlock]

From a legal point of view, yes.  And so do the courts.  It is why the bakery is loosing.  Businesses require a license to operate.  They do so under certain restrictions as an agreement for that license.  Boycotting is not a licensed activity.  Like I said, they are two completely different things.

 

I am not easily intimidated.  I have crossed many picket lines.  It doesn't bother me in the least if I feel the picket lines are unjustified.  On the other hand, when I personally feel that the picketers have a legitimate reason for boycotting, I am more than willing to boycott along with them.  In this case, I feel like the bakery has NO legitimate claim since their actions have nothing to do with following the teachings of Christ and in addition they are breaking the agreement they made to receive a business license.  I hope the judgement against them is enforced and in addition I would certainly boycott their business if it hadn't closed.  

 

Well, thanks for letting us know that SSM supporters think that intimidating people and harming businesses is just fine.

[jwhitlock]

I'm not sure what imaginary list of intrusions by gov't you have assembled showing that businesses are required to open on Sundays, or that people can use food stamps to buy booze, etc.  Neither assertion is true, although maybe you were trying to make some sort of rhetorical point.

 

All sorts of "Blue Laws" (including Sunday closing laws in states like Utah) were done away with some years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court.  That high court intervenes from time to time to settle just the sort of disputes which are being discussed in this thread.  That is the job of judges and justices -- to decide the Constitutionality of various state and Federal laws, as well as to decide whether practices by some companies which offer public accommodations are discriminatory under statutory and Constitutional law.  Otherwise we have anarchy and the breaching of the sacred compact by which this nation was founded and continues to be governed.  Is our system of gov't perfect?  Of course not.  But you find me a better one this side of direct divine rule (theocracy).

 

You need to get out of the academic environment and into the real world a bit more, Robert, before you say I'm not telling the truth. The courts, both directly and indirectly, have ruled on these kinds of situations in the manner I've described. There are plenty of business owners who understand that someone yelling "discrimination", whether justified or not, can cause quite a bit of legal trouble unless they're appeased. Perhaps you don't think that people buy booze with food stamps, or that businesses aren't pressured legally to open on Sunday. It happens, and the person who takes a principled stand against such things often ends up losing legally. And discrimination is used as a bludgeon to rationalize that discrimination.

 

Odd that you'd bring up Blue Laws as some kind of justification for your point. The abolition of Blue Laws has had a negative effect on society in general in the real world, so I'm not sure how that supports your academic view of the role of judges. In the real world, there are all kinds of agendas being foisted upon us by the judicial system. The system has been significantly corrupted, as anyone who has been caught in it will tell you. To say that it upholds "the sacred compact" of this nation is ludicrous. To ignore the fact that the judiciary has expanded their power far beyond what was ever intended, and to couch their activity in benign terms such as "deciding Constitutionality" is to put blinders on.

 

Do you really think that businesses and people don't get screwed over in the courts on a regular basis by others claiming "discrimination" or a a variety of other things such as "my coffee was too hot and I spilled it on myself"? Having the attitude that whatever the courts decide is just fine and that once the judge has spoken, the thinking has been done, is ridiculous.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, you believe businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason? Meaning, you disagree with anti - discrimination laws...? That a business can refuse to do business with Mormons? Or Jews? Or black people? Or Asians? Or women?

Lets ask this. You as a gay guy why would you want some one that doesn't want to make a cake for you, because they are against gay marriage for religous reason, make a cake for you buy force of law?

 

To answer your question, yes I think people should be able to refuse service for any reason. If not then we don't live in a free country do we?

 

Why would I even want to do business with some one that hates mormons and protests them? I wouldn't.

 

To put this in further perspective. I don't and wont go to NY because of the things that the government there has said and the policies they have enacted. Should I sue them because what they have done goes against my civil liberites, in the most literial sense? Or should I just avoid that state? Nothing is forcing me to go there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why? Say my religion teaches blacks are mud people. Do I therefore get a free pass to not serve them at my lunch counter?

In a free country, yes you would have that right. And good folks would have the right to expose you for your lack of character.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes.

 

I believe people/businesses should be free from coercion to sell a product or service. Most of the time, money is a sufficient motivator to overcome irrational prejudices. When it isn't, there is always another vendor. Do I want to buy a taco from someone who thinks he shouldn't because of my sexual preference? No. If someone has such strong principles that they are willing to lose money for it, they should be free to do so. I'll find a taco from someone who isn't crazy enough against me to refuse my money.

Seriously nothing else needs to be said more than this.

[thesometimesaint]

"free pass"? In what sense do you mean? I think the law should allow you to make that decision, bigoted and hateful though it is. I also think it should allow anyone who feels like it to then publicise that bigotry so that any customers can then make a choice whether they want to support that discriminaton or make a public showing that they reject it and hopefully enough will do so that the bigot will not benefit in any way from such hatred and it will be demonstrated through individual action by people taking and requiring personal responsibilty rather than government mandate that your community won't nurture such intolerance.

Hopefully that "free pass" prevents you from gaining any wealth and requires you to be personally accountable for your beliefs rather than forcing you to pretend to be something you are not, therefore not allowing people to learn the type of person they are giving their money to.

 

We are free to believe anything we want in this country. When you start doing something it must pass the legality test. For centuries it was a common religious belief that blacks, Indians(Native Americans), Asians, etc., etc., etc., were inferior to whites.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_State

[thesometimesaint]

In a free country, yes you would have that right. And good folks would have the right to expose you for your lack of character.

 

We already tried that under Jim Crow. Didn't work out well in our free country. See above.

[jwhitlock]

We already tried that under Jim Crow. Didn't work out well in our free country. See above.

 

You misunderstand what happened with the civil rights movement. There was actual harm and repression in this country when it came to the civil rights of blacks, and efforts to eradicate those were well placed.

 

Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction - which is typical once the government gets involved. Lawsuits based on perceived or actual discrimination where there is no physical harm, intimidation, or repression should best be worked out in the marketplace, rather than in the courts. The latter have shown a willingness to trample basic rights, such as association and religious expression in the name of suppressing any form of "discrimination" as they see it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We already tried that under Jim Crow. Didn't work out well in our free country. See above.

Yawn. I am not talking about jim crow laws. BTW that was your democate buddies that enacted legislation that segrigated people. We are talking about private citizens living accoriding to their dictates of their conscience. Those are 2 very different things. And that fact that you can't see that is really quite telling and some what scary. 

[Buzzard]

Everyone is missing one important component. None of these bakers-or photographers, etc..., has ever refused to serve a gay PERSON, They are happy to sell you bread, or a cupcake, or take your portrait. 

What they have refused to do is help commemorate an event that they consider immoral. That introduces a moral component that did not exist under Jim Crow, where the person was being refused.

And that is what makes the current "if you don't toe the line you are a despicable bigot and we will destroy your life" attitude of some-not all, but some-gay activists very scary. 

[Tacenda]

Seriously nothing else needs to be said more than this.

Coming into the discussion a little blind...so if you agree with it, do you also agree that in the civil rights era, they should still have let store/restaurant owners segregate, since it was their own establishment?

[Sleeper Cell]

Another ruling against the cake shop that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple:

Do people believe that in the public sector, us citizens have or should have a religious right to refuse service to anyone?

Daniel

 

Re: your thread title:  “Religious Liberty vs. Civil Rights?”

 

I always thought that religious liberty was a civil right.   

[CV75]

What they have refused to do is help commemorate an event that they consider immoral. That introduces a moral component that did not exist under Jim Crow, where the person was being refused.

I think this is a good point. But where their very business is based on commemorating life events, unless they are running a private club they may be confounding a business transaction with their implicit commemoration. This is understandable since it is their livelihood, their passion, their blood, sweat, and tears, etc. But they are not being forced to actually commemmorate the event they are opposed to.

But they do have other, far more effective venues through which to promote and commemorate traditional marriage, even in their own shop, while keeping the business transactions in proper perspective. For example, commercial speech (“the best cakes for sale here”), and shop decorations and public ads portraying only straight celebrants, are two different things, both permissible and protected forms of speech. And then there’s the whole political process they can participate in and contribute to, even through their shop, while still meeting the letter of the law.

It may be disappointing to have the laws change as a reflection of the world moving further and further away from God’s laws and traditional mores. But we still have freedom of expression. The Church has a lot to say about that and about preserving religious freedom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedom

There are many acceptable and effective ways to be public about our religious beliefs.

[california boy]

Well, thanks for letting us know that SSM supporters think that intimidating people and harming businesses is just fine.

Nice drive by response.  This is actually what I said concerning boycotts.

 

From a legal point of view, yes.  And so do the courts.  It is why the bakery is loosing.  Businesses require a license to operate.  They do so under certain restrictions as an agreement for that license.  Boycotting is not a licensed activity.  Like I said, they are two completely different things.

 

 

Like most that are against gay rights, you like to twist my words to make them something that they are not.  No worries, I am pretty used to that kind of dialogue from those that have to contort the law to prop up their non legal reasons for denying gay couples their civil rights.  Fortunately the courts are courts of law.  They make their rulings based on guaranteed rights of all citizens of the United States and are not inclined to this kind of twisting of the truth.  

 

I am not easily intimidated.  I have crossed many picket lines.  It doesn't bother me in the least if I feel the picket lines are unjustified.  On the other hand, when I personally feel that the picketers have a legitimate reason for boycotting, I am more than willing to boycott along with them.  In this case, I feel like the bakery has NO legitimate claim since their actions have nothing to do with following the teachings of Christ and in addition they are breaking the agreement they made to receive a business license.  I hope the judgement against them is enforced and in addition I would certainly boycott their business if it hadn't closed.  

 

 

As I also posted, I am not easily intimidated, not even by you.  I did notice that you could not provide any legitimate argument that what the bakery is doing is not based on ANY of Christ's teachings.  This bakery claims to follow Christ, who clearly ate with sinners, dismissed those that judged them and in the case of the good Samaritan, went out of his way to teach us how to care for those that are not like us.  those that are reviled by society because of who they marry. You find yourself in the uncomfortable spot of trying to defend someone who claims to be christian while exhibiting non christian behavior.  I don't blame you for turning the attack on me.  It is typical.

[california boy]

You misunderstand what happened with the civil rights movement. There was actual harm and repression in this country when it came to the civil rights of blacks, and efforts to eradicate those were well placed.

 

Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction - which is typical once the government gets involved. Lawsuits based on perceived or actual discrimination where there is no physical harm, intimidation, or repression should best be worked out in the marketplace, rather than in the courts. The latter have shown a willingness to trample basic rights, such as association and religious expression in the name of suppressing any form of "discrimination" as they see it.

 

The pendulum swung too far?  You mean when blacks were not getting their guaranteed rights, they had the nerve to take the violators to court?  They should just be happy with what is given to them without resorting to the law?  

 

Maybe you could give examples where the law "trampled on basic rights such as association and religious expression"?

[jwhitlock]

Nice drive by response.  This is actually what I said concerning boycotts.

 

 

Like most that are against gay rights, you like to twist my words to make them something that they are not.  No worries, I am pretty used to that kind of dialogue from those that have to contort the law to prop up their non legal reasons for denying gay couples their civil rights.  Fortunately the courts are courts of law.  They make their rulings based on guaranteed rights of all citizens of the United States and are not inclined to this kind of twisting of the truth.  

 

 

As I also posted, I am not easily intimidated, not even by you.  I did notice that you could not provide any legitimate argument that what the bakery is doing is not based on ANY of Christ's teachings.  This bakery claims to follow Christ, who clearly ate with sinners, dismissed those that judged them and in the case of the good Samaritan, went out of his way to teach us how to care for those that are not like us.  those that are reviled by society because of who they marry. You find yourself in the uncomfortable spot of trying to defend someone who claims to be christian while exhibiting non christian behavior.  I don't blame you for turning the attack on me.  It is typical.

 

Of course, not bothering to quote what you agreed with, which was that intimidation and harming businesses was acceptable, is misleading on your part. You prefer to use the relatively benign term "boycott", which wasn't really what I was talking about, was it.

 

Then you get even more misleading when you accuse me of being generally against gay rights. The discussion is about SSM specifically. But that doesn't stop you from expanding your accusation to this kind of generalization. So who's twisting things here? Such twisting is, after all, a time-honored tactic of SSM supporters. The overall demonization of those who oppose SSM justifies this kind of inaccuracy on your part, doesn't it.

 

Interesting, though, how you're always quick to demand all kinds of rights for gays, even if it is at the expense of someone else's basic rights.

 

As to the rant in your last paragraph, I'm not sure why you quoted someone else and applied it to me. I realize you were on a roll with your spin, but that was just plain sloppy, wasn't it.

[jwhitlock]

The pendulum swung too far?  You mean when blacks were not getting their guaranteed rights, they had the nerve to take the violators to court?  They should just be happy with what is given to them without resorting to the law?  

 

Maybe you could give examples where the law "trampled on basic rights such as association and religious expression"?

 

More misrepresentation on your part, of course. Evidently in your eyes, the government and courts are always balanced and never too far out of whack when their rulings agree with your agenda.

 

Here's a novel idea; perhaps you could actually engage in the discussion without the usual over-hyped irrelevancies that you demonstrate. We can start with this; it appears that you think the courts should intrude into and regulate all aspects of our lives, as long as it furthers your gay agenda. Is that correct?

[Robert F. Smith]

You need to get out of the academic environment and into the real world a bit more, Robert, before you say I'm not telling the truth. The courts, both directly and indirectly, have ruled on these kinds of situations in the manner I've described. There are plenty of business owners who understand that someone yelling "discrimination", whether justified or not, can cause quite a bit of legal trouble unless they're appeased. Perhaps you don't think that people buy booze with food stamps, or that businesses aren't pressured legally to open on Sunday. It happens, and the person who takes a principled stand against such things often ends up losing legally. And discrimination is used as a bludgeon to rationalize that discrimination.

 

Odd that you'd bring up Blue Laws as some kind of justification for your point. The abolition of Blue Laws has had a negative effect on society in general in the real world, so I'm not sure how that supports your academic view of the role of judges. In the real world, there are all kinds of agendas being foisted upon us by the judicial system. The system has been significantly corrupted, as anyone who has been caught in it will tell you. To say that it upholds "the sacred compact" of this nation is ludicrous. To ignore the fact that the judiciary has expanded their power far beyond what was ever intended, and to couch their activity in benign terms such as "deciding Constitutionality" is to put blinders on.

 

Do you really think that businesses and people don't get screwed over in the courts on a regular basis by others claiming "discrimination" or a a variety of other things such as "my coffee was too hot and I spilled it on myself"? Having the attitude that whatever the courts decide is just fine and that once the judge has spoken, the thinking has been done, is ridiculous.

You failed to reply to my point that the law does not require anyone to open his business on Sunday.  Now you have backtracked and used the word “pressure,” which justifies my position on the law.  Of course social pressures exist in this country and always have, but your initial statement was blatantly false.  You also sidestepped your false statement that it is legal to use food stamps to buy booze.  Deliberately spreading this and other types of false information does not help anyone understand the true nature of society.

 

As to your similarly false statement on my “academic view,” I have obviously spent far more time on the front lines and in the real world dealing with these issues than you have.  Indeed, perhaps we could get together in L.A. sometime this year and I could show you around some of harsher parts of the city, introduce you to people who used to exchange foodstamps at 50 cents on the dollar so that they could buy drugs, show you how the drug diversion system is working in the County courts (we could talk to some judges I know), get us a tour of the jail downtown, talk to some law enforcement officers about what sort of drug arrests they have been making, talk to some homeless people, and even stop by the Union Rescue Mission and talk to the people who run it.  A little reality therapy, if you will.

 

As for your slur on the sacred compact of our Constitution, some of us believe that it was inspired by God, and you will never hear constitutional law experts like Elder Oaks condemn it, or the courts.  I too have problems with the way the courts are managed, and the way prosecutions and plea bargaining are handled, but I am sure (based on what you have said) that you have no workable solutions to offer.  You simply don’t understand the system.

[california boy]

I am realizing that you have a difficult time focusing, so maybe it is better for me to just focus on your most egregious accusations.

Interesting, though, how you're always quick to demand all kinds of rights for gays, even if it is at the expense of someone else's basic rights.

Ok so you have made an accusation here.  Now can you back it up?  Just whose basic rights have I denied anyone?

[3DOP]

Not that I have ever heard of the pharmacist who refused to distribute medicine...But I think I could see my way toward forcing people in the medical profession to provide services.

 

On the other hand, would you want to take medicine from somebody that hates you? Do you want to eat a cake from somebody that hates you? Surely, this country is diverse enough that we have options that enable us to trade with people who don't despise us?

 

Cake just doesn't seem important enough to get involved with cops and courts and lawyers. Do we really want to get the government involved with making people bake things for people they don't want to bake for?

 

But let's just just imagine that baked goods are really, really important. I think there are still ways of getting around some of these "problems".

 

Okay, hypothetically, IF the person that hates me has THE CAKE that I must have, I'll pay whatever it takes! People haters are sometimes money lovers.

 

Another option...find a broker! The person whose cake you must have hates you? Give some kid riding past the shop on a skateboard the cost of the cake plus $5 to him as broker to order for "himself" that wonderful cake that is really for you! Tell him the other fiver will come when he delivers you the cake tomorrow. No lawyers. Problem solved! 

[california boy]

Not that I have ever heard of the pharmacist who refused to distribute medicine...But I think I could see my way toward forcing people in the medical profession to provide services.

 

On the other hand, would you want to take medicine from somebody that hates you? Do you want to eat a cake from somebody that hates you? Surely, this country is diverse enough that we have options that enable us to trade with people who don't despise us?

 

Cake just doesn't seem important enough to get involved with cops and courts and lawyers. Do we really want to get the government involved with making people bake things for people they don't want to bake for?

 

But let's just just imagine that baked goods are really, really important. I think there are still ways of getting around some of these "problems".

 

Okay, hypothetically, IF the person that hates me has THE CAKE that I must have, I'll pay whatever it takes! People haters are sometimes money lovers.

 

Another option...find a broker! The person whose cake you must have hates you? Give some kid riding past the shop on a skateboard the cost of the cake plus $5 to him as broker to order for "himself" that wonderful cake that is really for you! Tell him the other fiver will come when he delivers you the cake tomorrow. No lawyers. Problem solved! 

I think the concept here is insuring that businesses operate within the law.  When the business received their license to operate, they made certain agreements with the state in order to operate.  If they are not in compliance with what they agreed to, then sometimes the authorities are asked to enforce the laws that they originally agreed to abide by as condition of their business license.  If the gay couple could have simply told the bakery that they were in violation of the law and then the bakery apologized and agreed to bake the cake, then no legal action would have been required. But as you know, that is not what happened.

 

If you went to a restaurant and found out that they didn't refrigerate their potato salad for 3 days, you might not want to eat potato salad there ever again, but you also might want to ask the county health inspector to do a little investigating to make sure the restaurant is no in violation of the health laws.  Hope that clarifies what the issue is about.  It is not just about a wedding cake.

[3DOP]

I think the concept here is insuring that businesses operate within the law.  When the business received their license to operate, they made certain agreements with the state in order to operate.  If they are not in compliance with what they agreed to, then sometimes the authorities are asked to enforce the laws that they originally agreed to abide by as condition of their business license.  If the gay couple could have simply told the bakery that they were in violation of the law and then the bakery apologized and agreed to bake the cake, then no legal action would have been required. But as you know, that is not what happened.

 

If you went to a restaurant and found out that they didn't refrigerate their potato salad for 3 days, you might not want to eat potato salad there ever again, but you also might want to ask the county health inspector to do a little investigating to make sure the restaurant is no in violation of the health laws.  Hope that clarifies what the issue is about.  It is not just about a wedding cake.

 

Hi california boy.

 

I don't think the thread is as narrow as you seem to think it is. I'll bow out if everybody, especially the thread owner, wants to exclude all discussion except interpretation of the law. I think there is probably agreement about interpretation of the law. In my opinion, it is much more interesting to speculate about whether the law is prudent. Here is a question from the original post which prompted me to reply as I have so far. 

 

"Do people believe that in the public sector, us citizens have or should have a religious right to refuse service to anyone?"

 

I go much further than religious rights. What about the simple freedom to not want to sell something or do something without any justification whatsoever? That is what I think is best for both buyer and seller, for the hater and the hated. I have been defending the idea that refusal of service shouldn't require any kind of reason, especially for something as insignificant as cake. (See my notes above regarding a possible modification of this rule for something so vital as medicine.)

 

You talk about rotten potato salad? If you want worse than rotten potato salad, just start having the cops and the courts make people in any field serve those they truly hate.

 

3DOP