Matthew 25, "deeply Held Religious Beliefs", And Discrimination

[california boy]

You've had this explained to you several times now but you still don't seem to get it. Oh well. At least it has been explained to you. Maybe if you keep thinking about it you will eventually understand how and why someone would not want to do something that goes against their conscience because they would not want to be complicit in someone's sin.

 

No I got your point.  I just am not buying into the concept that it is better to discriminate rather than betray your christian conscious or beliefs that have nothing to do with the teachings and example of Christ.

[Ahab]

No I got your point. I just am not buying into the concept that it is better to discriminate rather than betray your christian conscious or beliefs that have nothing to do with the teachings and example of Christ.

You don't have to agree with me, and you don't even have to understand me. And yes my reasons for not wanting to betray my conscience do have something to do with the teachings and example of Christ, even though you do not believe they do.

[thesometimesaint]

They didn't have wedding cakes at that time in history. However Jesus certainly did talk about going outside his little group of faithful but self-righteous jerks that wouldn't show up to the wedding feast 

[Pahoran]

And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all [; and he said unto them that were with him "Give not unto the sinners".]

As a caricature of the Religious Freedom position, it completely misses the mark.

Once again, because it bears repeating: the notion that the Religious Freedom camp wants a free pass for blanket discrimination against "SINNAHS!" is a blatant and intentional falsehood.

We seek only that we not be coerced into participating in explicitly sinful acts.

That's why the maligned baker was willing to sell his "gay" customers anything in the shop; he just didn't want to produce a bespoke item specifically for a "same sex wedding."

Had he said something like "We don't serve your kind in here" (with the kind of accent that plays to Stone Holm's regional prejudices) that would constitute blanket discrimination against "SINNAHS!"

But that's not what he did.

As you perfectly well know.

Congratulations, CaliBoy; your deceitful narrative is bearing fruit.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rodheadlee]

So we have free agency as long as we don't bake cakes for sale?

[Stone holm]

So we have free agency as long as we don't bake cakes for sale?

As long as you don't offer wedding cakes for sale to the public.

[tonie]

Ugh, Pahoran, I gave myself the misfortune of reading your post, and your are wrong; despite the glaring evidence.

 

A blacket "Your kind are not welcome here" is exactly what the baker, the photographer, and the Church which rented out its pavilion wanted.

Edited February 16, 2015 by tonie

[Pahoran]

The same is true for those that would deny service based on religion. That's what American anti-discrimination laws are for.

That's nice and vague. What does it actually mean?

Funny how when gays expect the same anti-discrimination that is afforded to religions, it's "gay jihadists," but when it's anti-discrimination protecting religions, it's preserving religious freedom.

Ah. Another bogus manufactured parallel.

If a Baptist baker refused to sell an LDS family a loaf of bread because they're Mormons, that would be discrimination. If a Baptist baker refused to enter into a contract to supply Sacrament bread to an LDS ward, that would be freedom of religion.

And she could refuse that request, secure in the knowledge that we're not going to throw a spiteful, self-centred tantrum and try to sue her into financial oblivion.

We're just better than that.

It's the epitome of hypocrisy to accept civil protections against discrimination in public services based on religion, but refuse to equally extend it to those based on sexual orientation. When you campaign with equal zeal to erase anti-discrimination laws protecting religion, then you'd gain some credibility and cease being a hypocrite.

In order to "cease" something, we'd first have to begin it.

You have yet to show a single instance of anyone being subject to "discrimination" because of "sexual orientation" (which is, of course, a recent cultural artefact.)

Every single instance that your side has trotted out, and pretended that it was "discrimination" because of "sexual orientation" has turned out to represent a principled objection to being dragged into participating in a "same sex wedding."

To claim that the two things are the same is to lie outright.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Ugh, Pahoran, I gave myself the misfortune of reading your post, and your are wrong; despite the glaring evidence.

Despite the fact that the evidence supports me, you mean?

 

A blacket "Your kind are not welcome here" is exactly what the baker, the photographer, and the Church which rented out its pavilion wanted.

Really?

Did the baker refuse to bake a cake for any event other than a "same sex wedding?"

Did the photographer refuse to photograph any event other than a "same sex wedding?"

Did the church refuse to hire out their facilities for any event other than a "same sex wedding?"

What evidence -- at all -- do you have to support your accusation?

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

As a caricature of the Religious Freedom position, it completely misses the mark.

Once again, because it bears repeating: the notion that the Religious Freedom camp wants a free pass for blanket discrimination against "SINNAHS!" is a blatant and intentional falsehood.

We seek only that we not be coerced into participating in explicitly sinful acts.

That's why the maligned baker was willing to sell his "gay" customers anything in the shop; he just didn't want to produce a bespoke item specifically for a "same sex wedding."

Had he said something like "We don't serve your kind in here" (with the kind of accent that plays to Stone Holm's regional prejudices) that would constitute blanket discrimination against "SINNAHS!"

But that's not what he did.

As you perfectly well know.

Congratulations, CaliBoy; your deceitful narrative is bearing fruit.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Well i am glad I am making progress.  So how do you propose to allow every Christian, Muslin, Jew Mormon, etc to blatantly discriminate against anyone they want and claim it is based on their religious beliefs?  Or is it perfectly acceptable to you to repeal the anti discrimination laws and go back to how things were 50 years ago.

[california boy]

So we have free agency as long as we don't bake cakes for sale?

Of course you have free agency to break the laws.  You just have to be willing to accept the consequences which usually includes fines and possible jail time.  It is no different when you break ANY other law in this country.  Don't wanta pay your taxes?  Don't want to obey traffic laws?  Don't want to pay for goods?  Break the law like the baker did, and the courts make you pay the penalties for ignoring the laws.  It is not like it is some persecution of religion.  The law handles all lawbreakers the exact same way.

[Pahoran]

California boy wrote:
 

Well i am glad I am making progress.

In misleading people?

Yes, I'm sure you are.
 

So how do you propose to allow every Christian, Muslin, Jew Mormon, etc to blatantly discriminate against anyone they want and claim it is based on their religious beliefs?

But Caliboy, as you perfectly well know, nobody proposes to do any such thing.

And the claim that they do is a malicious, intentional falsehood.

 

Or is it perfectly acceptable to you to repeal the anti discrimination laws and go back to how things were 50 years ago.

This is known as the fallacy of the false dilemma.

It is frequently resorted to by people who know they don't have a valid argument.

I envision a world in which a person can confidently approach, say, a photographer and ask her to photograph his nephew's birthday party; and where the customer has no right to ask the photographer any "qualifying" questions about her religious or political views, and the photographer has no right to ask the customer about his "sexual orientation."

In that same world, the same customer could go back to that photographer a month later and ask her to photograph his daughter's christening; at which point, the photographer may reply that, being an observant Jew, it's contrary to her religious beliefs to enter a building that contains religious images such as the statues of saints.

And, in the world I envision, the customer has no right to lie in his teeth that the photographer has "discriminated" against him because of his religion, and no basis on which to start a malicious and vindictive lawsuit.

If the photographer continues to turn down commissions of that kind, she won't get as much business as those who accept them. That is a reasonable expectation, and the price she is willing to pay for obeying her conscience.

But your preferred solution, i.e. having her livelihood taken away from her, would be, simply put, evil.

 

Regards,
Pahoran

[Stone holm]

So if they can refuse to bake a wedding cake, then can they refuse to rent a motel room to a married gay couple? Where exactly does this defense end?

[california boy]

California boy wrote:

 

In misleading people?

Yes, I'm sure you are.

 

But Caliboy, as you perfectly well know, nobody proposes to do any such thing.

And the claim that they do is a malicious, intentional falsehood.

 

This is known as the fallacy of the false dilemma.

It is frequently resorted to by people who know they don't have a valid argument.

I envision a world in which a person can confidently approach, say, a photographer and ask her to photograph his nephew's birthday party; and where the customer has no right to ask the photographer any "qualifying" questions about her religious or political views, and the photographer has no right to ask the customer about his "sexual orientation."

In that same world, the same customer could go back to that photographer a month later and ask her to photograph his daughter's christening; at which point, the photographer may reply that, being an observant Jew, it's contrary to her religious beliefs to enter a building that contains religious images such as the statues of saints.

And, in the world I envision, the customer has no right to lie in his teeth that the photographer has "discriminated" against him because of his religion, and no basis on which to start a malicious and vindictive lawsuit.

If the photographer continues to turn down commissions of that kind, she won't get as much business as those who accept them. That is a reasonable expectation, and the price she is willing to pay for obeying her conscience.

But your preferred solution, i.e. having her livelihood taken away from her, would be, simply put, evil.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I envision a world where people follow the example of Christ.  So far, neither vision has worked out has it.  So now what?

[rodheadlee]

  The law handles all lawbreakers the exact same way.

Yeah that is all good and well in theory but the reality is your innocence is  directly related to how much money you have.

[Pahoran]

I envision a world where people follow the example of Christ.

How? By suing people into financial oblivion if they don't want to attend your "same sex wedding?"

 

 So far, neither vision has worked out has it.  So now what?

So now people who are genuine about following the example of Christ -- and not merely posturing about it -- will begin by accepting that the Religious Freedom camp are taking a principled, good-faith position.

Those who are merely posturing -- and who can't even spell the word "conscience," much less understand what it means to have one -- will naturally start from the assumption that their opponents are as devious and insincere as they are.

But if a fair solution is to be reached, it will have to start by everyone accepting two things: (1) Neither of us can reasonably expect to have it all our own way, and (2) you aren't the only people in the world who have rights worth protecting.

But is it even possible for you to grasp these two facts, let alone actually accept them?

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

How? By suing people into financial oblivion if they don't want to attend your "same sex wedding?"

 

So now people who are genuine about following the example of Christ -- and not merely posturing about it -- will begin by accepting that the Religious Freedom camp are taking a principled, good-faith position.

Those who are merely posturing -- and who can't even spell the word "conscience," much less understand what it means to have one -- will naturally start from the assumption that their opponents are as devious and insincere as they are.

But if a fair solution is to be reached, it will have to start by everyone accepting two things: (1) Neither of us can reasonably expect to have it all our own way, and (2) you aren't the only people in the world who have rights worth protecting.

But is it even possible for you to grasp these two facts, let alone actually accept them?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

So you have no proposal.  Just more name calling and belittling.  What a surprise.  I didn't see that coming.

Edited February 16, 2015 by california boy

[Ahab]

So you have no proposal. Just more name calling and belittling. What a surprise. I didn't see that coming.

The proposal was that you somehow learn to cope with someone refusing to do something for you because, for them, what you have asked them to do is offensive to their religious principles. And to be able to accept their refusal without reporting their refusal to the civil authorities, who wouldn't even know they refused to serve you unless you reported that refusal. Ideally, to just walk away feeling like it was all well and good for them to refuse to do something because it goes against their conscience and to be able to say you would also have refused to do something that went against youe conscience,

[tonie]

So you have no proposal.  Just more name calling and belittling.  What a surprise.  I didn't see that coming.

 

Some just yell, scream, complain and ridicule others.

 

It is my impression that many of the posts in favor of discrimination have used red herrings and ad hominem.

[Daniel2]

That's nice and vague. What does it actually mean?

Ah. Another bogus manufactured parallel.

If a Baptist baker refused to sell an LDS family a loaf of bread because they're Mormons, that would be discrimination. If a Baptist baker refused to enter into a contract to supply Sacrament bread to an LDS ward, that would be freedom of religion.

And she could refuse that request, secure in the knowledge that we're not going to throw a spiteful, self-centred tantrum and try to sue her into financial oblivion.

We're just better than that.

In order to "cease" something, we'd first have to begin it.

You have yet to show a single instance of anyone being subject to "discrimination" because of "sexual orientation" (which is, of course, a recent cultural artefact.)

Every single instance that your side has trotted out, and pretended that it was "discrimination" because of "sexual orientation" has turned out to represent a principled objection to being dragged into participating in a "same sex wedding."

To claim that the two things are the same is to lie outright.

Regards,

Pahoran

It means that anyone that violates anti-discrimination laws faces the consequences of violating such laws.  Such consequences are equally valid for those that break anti-discrimination laws whether their discrimination was based on either religion or sexual orientation (or race, gender, or any other protected class). 

The reason I point this out is your comments keep suggesting it is somehow appalling or objectionable that business owners face consequences for violating anti-discrimination laws based on an action/event associated with same-sex behavior--specifically, a wedding between members of the same sex, which they find objectionable.  You claim that this isn't discrimination based on sexual orientation because such business owners bake and sell cakes to gays and lesbians on a daily basis for other, non-objectionable events (i.e. birthdays, parties other than weddings, etc). 

My point is that if a baker refused to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding or a Muslim wedding or a Mormon wedding, he/she definitely would be violating anti-discrimination laws based on an action associated with a religion--specifically, a wedding between members of a religion he/she finds objectionable.  Even though such bakers may sell cakes to Jews or Muslims or Mormons on a day-to-day basis for non-wedding related events, refusing to bake them a wedding cake would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws based on religion.   

If businesses are open to the public, they are bound by public accommodation laws, including nondiscrimination laws.  Business owners can't pick and choose whether or not to sell their product based on the event their customer plans to use the product for. 

Imagine: a parent wants to buy a new suit for their son, and enters a clothing shop.  The tailor asks, "What's the special occasion?"  The parent responds, "it's for our son's bar mitzvah."  The tailor responds, "Oh.... I'm sorry... I won't sell you a suit, then....  You see, I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in Judaism--you all deny the Christ, and in actuality, I'm doing you a favor, because I'm concerned for the welfare of your eternal soul, and I just can't support a sinful event like a bar mitzvah, which encourages the unforgivable sin of denying the Christ.  So, I can't sell you this suit, because it would be supporting a religious ceremony that I just can't in good conscience support because of my deeply felt religious beliefs.  Please don't misunderstand: it's not that I discriminate against Jews or anything.  Really, I have lots of other Jewish friends and customers, and I'd be happy to sell you a suit some other time for any other purpose--I just won't sell you one today for your son's bar mitzvah." 

Would anyone buy the above tailor's explanation as a legitimate excuse that doesn't violate anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws that prohibit  business owners from discriminating against Jews--even though it was for an event, and the tailor would sell a suit to the Jews for any other non-Jewish event....? 

In similar fashion, I would assert that your scenario of a Baptist baker refusing to sell bread to Mormons for them to use in their sacrament service definitely WOULD be a violation of anti-discrimination law---regardless of whether or not you personally believe it wouldn't.  I'd love for some baker to try to refuse the sale of bread for just such a purpose--I believe any attempt to claim they were justified in refusing service would fail on the basis of the fact that they were violating the protection of the religious liberty of their LDS customers. 

But--to give you the benefit of the doubt, and see who really is telling a lie here--can you provide any ACTUAL, REAL-LIFE cases which were successfully challenged and ruled in favor of your assertion that a religious business owner would be justified in so-discriminating? 

[tonie]

  

If businesses are open to the public, they are bound by public accommodation laws, including nondiscrimination laws.  Business owners can't pick and choose whether or not to sell their product based on the event their customer plans to use the product for. 

 

 

Of course, he and others know this, but actively choose to deny it.

 

What they want to do is no different than a person wanting a religion to change its beleifs/pratices to make the religion more palatable to the individual demanding the change.

[Daniel2]

Pahoran,

Here's what I've found regarding actual cases of religious discrimination, including listings and links for several cases that support my positions (specifically, in the "Services" section about attempts to discriminate against LGBT customers based on religious belief):

Using Religion to Discriminate

https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;

Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;

Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;

Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;

Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

LEARN MORE:

Using Religion to Discriminate Against Women

In medical care:

Across the country, we are seeing hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacies, and other health care entities discriminate against women by denying basic care – like birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion – in the name of religion. Many of these institutions receive taxpayer funding. The ACLU works to ensure that women are not denied information and the health care they need because of the religious views of their health care providers.

Challenges to the Federal Contraceptive Coverage Rule

Promoting Equality: An Analysis of the Federal Contraceptive Coverage Rule

Birth control court cases (blog)

Morr-Fitz v. Blagojevich

ACLU of Massachusetts v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al.

In employment:

We have seen a recent spate of cases in which religiously affiliated schools have fired women for getting pregnant while single or for using IVF. These cases are suggestive of a past when women were routinely pushed out of the workplace because of pregnancy. Such discrimination is now illegal, even if religiously motivated.

Fired for My Family (blog)

Religion isn't a Free Pass to Discriminate Against Employees (blog)

Inside Out and Pregnancy Discrimination

Using Religion to Discriminate Against LGBT people

In services:

In many states, businesses are barred by law from discriminating against customers based on their sexual orientation, as well as based on race, religion, or other legally protected categories. Increasingly, we see business owners claiming that they do not have to follow these laws but can instead refuse to provide services – including lodging, wedding dresses, and photography services – because the owners object to same-sex relationships. In addition, we see social service organizations that receive government funding deny services to same-sex couples. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, but when you operate a business or run a publicly funded social service agency open to the public, those beliefs do not give you a right to discriminate.

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop

Ingersoll v. Alrene's Flowers

Will We Sanction Discrimination?: Can 'Heterosexuals Only' Be Among the Signs of Today?

Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock

Baker and Linsley v. Wildflower Inn

Wathen v. Beall Mansion Bed and Breakfast

Catholic Charities v. DCFS

Recent Blogs: Masterpiece CakeshopMarriage Licenses

In medical care:

The ACLU has seen instances of students training to become mental health professionals and medical practices that have refused to treat lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. While we’re all entitled to our own religious beliefs, licensed medical providers should adhere to professional standards and not use their religion to discriminate against clients who come to them for help.

Ward v. Wilbanks

Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley

Benitez v. North Coast Medical Group

The "Services" section supports what I have been saying, Pahoran.

As I said previously, I'd be open to reading cases with judgements that support your interpretation of how anti-discrimination laws are applied.

In the meantime, the cases I've found indicate that your opinion of how the law is or should be applied does not match the reality of how it actually is applied.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

My point is that if a baker refused to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding or a Muslim wedding or a Mormon wedding, he/she definitely would be violating anti-discrimination laws based on an action associated with a religion--specifically, a wedding between members of a religion he/she finds objectionable.  Even though such bakers may sell cakes to Jews or Muslims or Mormons on a day-to-day basis for non-wedding related events, refusing to bake them a wedding cake would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws based on religion.   

If businesses are open to the public, they are bound by public accommodation laws, including nondiscrimination laws.  Business owners can't pick and choose whether or not to sell their product based on the event their customer plans to use the product for.

 

 

I would agree about discriminating against customers, but what about discrimination based on products?

 

It would be illegal for a baker to sell a cake to Christians and Muslims, but not Jews.

But would it be illegal for a baker to refuse to bake/sell a kosher cake at the request of a Jewish customer?  Would it be illegal for them to sell Christmas cakes but not Hannukah cakes?

If it's not a product they normally carry I would say no.  Stores have the right to only carry the products they want.

 

So as far as SSM goes, the question becomes, is a "same sex wedding cake" a different product than a regular wedding cake?

I would say generally no, but if the cake in question featured a same sex figurine couple on top (as a silly over-the-top example) then they have to right to say they don't carry products like that.

 

Then if you get into the goods vs services debate things get trickier - is a bakery that makes wedding cakes providing a service or selling a product?  They can limit the products they sell, but they can't discriminate who receives their services.

[Daniel2]

I would agree about discriminating against customers, but what about discrimination based on products?

It would be illegal for a baker to sell a cake to Christians and Muslims, but not Jews.

But would it be illegal for a baker to refuse to bake/sell a kosher cake at the request of a Jewish customer? Would it be illegal for them to sell Christmas cakes but not Hannukah cakes?

If it's not a product they normally carry I would say no. Stores have the right to only carry the products they want.

So as far as SSM goes, the question becomes, is a "same sex wedding cake" a different product than a regular wedding cake?

I would say generally no, but if the cake in question featured a same sex figurine couple on top (as a silly over-the-top example) then they have to right to say they don't carry products like that.

Then if you get into the goods vs services debate things get trickier - is a bakery that makes wedding cakes providing a service or selling a product? They can limit the products they sell, but they can't discriminate who receives their services.

I don't think it's complicated at all, and I agree with you that anti-discrimination laws do not (and should not) compel businesses to carry or sell a new product that they normally don't carry.

As far as I am aware, that is the legal reality, as well.

If a Jewish bakery makes cakes and provides icing in a variety of customizable colors (including red and green) that customers may choose, the bakery couldn't refuse to bake a cake decorated with red and green frosting because "those are Christmas colors." But if the Jewish owner doesn't carry creche cake toppers, he won't be required to start carrying them simply because a customer demands it.

Similarly, a Christian bakery couldn't do the same if a Jewish customer asked for a blue and white cake because "those are Hannukah colors," and same with a minorah topper.

As for wedding cakes--I believe the law is coming down on considering that a wedding cake is a wedding cake, regardless of the race, religion, or genders of the couples involved.

As for wedding toppers: as I understand it, bakers can't refuse to sell any toppers they currently carry (i.e. customers buying two individual bride figurines or two individual groom figurines). However, if bakeries have dual-figurine toppers (that are a single, indivisible topper), all of which were opposite-sex couple toppers, they wouldn't be required to start carrying dual-figurine same-sex couple toppers.

When my husband and I got married here in Utah last December, we couldn't find any local bakeries that carried same-sex couple toppers that we liked, so we ordered the toppers we liked online, bought the cakes from local bakeries, and put the toppers on ourselves (we had two cakes, so we had two topper sets... one was a set of porcelain Mickey Mouse hat ornaments themed as groom's tuxedos, and the other cake had figures of Flynn Rider and Prince Phillip.... we like Disney )

Edited February 16, 2015 by Daniel2

[pogi]

Right, nondiscrimination does not force a store to carry products they do not wish to sell.

 

I think the courts have decided a wedding cake is a wedding cake.  The product does not change description based on the buyer.

 

Right, they do not have to carry or display SS figurines, and they can also refuse to write any SS oriented messages on the cake due to free-speech rights.