thesometimesaint Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Using the logic employed by the gay rights crowd, a Muslim man in New York who was about to marry a plural wife (but who would only have one wife on U.S. soil because the two others were back in Saudi Arabia) could sue an Orthodox Jewish florist if the florist politely declined to service his plural wedding. What happened to the gay rights crowd's repeated assurance--and complaint--that "if you're not gay, gay marriage won't affect you"? Over and over they made this point and then asked, "So what difference does it make to you, since you're not gay and it won't affect you?" Yeah, well it turns out that if you're a religious person and you happen to be a florist, photographer, baker, or wedding planner, gay marriage could put you out of business and/or get you sued and/or get you fined for merely politely declining to service a ceremony that you find offensive. If the gay rights crowd would show a modicum of respect for the beliefs and values of religious people, this would not be an issue. In every single case so far, gay couples had no problem at all simply getting another vendor--another florist, another photographer, etc. They weren't "discriminated" against in any way. They were not "denied" a "basic service." On a fundamental human level, why would anyone want someone at their ceremony who they knew did not want to be there? If I were hosting a seminar on the health risks of homosexual conduct, and I walked into a print shop to have them print up some booklets to hand out at the seminar, and the printer happened to be gay and told me he did not want to print what he considered to be "anti-gay propaganda," I would simply thank him for his time and go find another printer. I would never dream of suing him or otherwise trying to get him in trouble. I would respect his beliefs and feelings, even though I found them absurd. Why can't gays show the same tolerance and respect for religious vendors who find gay marriage offensive? We're not talking about a basic service, i.e., food, lodging, car repair. We're talking about an optional convenience. No one "has" to have a baker bake a wedding cake. You can bake your own wedding cake (I know couples whose family made the wedding cake.). No one "has" to have a florist do a flower arrangement at their wedding. They can go buy their own flowers and arrange them themselves. No one "has" to have a photographer photograph their wedding. With digital cameras nowadays, a couple could easily just have a couple friends take pictures before and during the wedding and reception. That is not in question. The only question is it legal to refuse to sell those goods and services to someone based on race, creed, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation if it is your business to sell those goods and services to the public?
tonie Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) The idea behind the bill is to protect religious business owners from being sued for merely not wanting to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally offensive. There have been a number of cases in the last few years where Christian vendors were used or even fined for politely declining to service a gay ceremony, even though in each case the gay couple had absolutely no problem finding another vendor. The principle is that you can't force a Christian businessman to attend or host a ceremony that he finds offensive. This is nothing like a restaurant refusing to simply serve a couple a meal--it has nothing do with such a scenario. The Baker, the Florist, Liberty Ridge Farm, a Church owned board walk in New Jersey, are each a "public accommodation" and therefore agreed it would not discriminate in providing services. In accepting the title as a public accommodation, each agreed, under the Social Contract to the following:CERTIFIED that it would not discriminate, within the bounds of the lawCERTIFIED that would remain open to the public, within the bounds of the law. Each public accommodation failed to honor its obligation. Each failed to provide the services it agreed to provide without discriminating. Edited March 29, 2015 by tonie
Jeanne Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Weird question...I know, But..just thought of this as to what I or anyone else would do. What if you don't have your own business and work for Walmart like I do. If I as a bakery person in the store wanted to go ahead and make a weddiing cake for a gay couple..but could not because of a Walmart policy...would that be different than a religious reason..I mean, this is where you either over step government or religion..boundaries are not clarified. In any case with government and/or religion, YOUR own personal feelings and intuition would take a back seat either to law or religious principles,
Sleeper Cell Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 That is not in question. The only question is it legal to refuse to sell those goods and services to someone based on race, creed, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation if it is your business to sell those goods and services to the public?The only question? What about "Should it be legal?" Or "Should it be illegal, even if there is no evidence that the customer suffered any real harm, other than minor inconvenience?"
thesometimesaint Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) That is a "Separate but Equal" question. Do you really want to go there?SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal Edited March 29, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Freedom Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 The only question? What about "Should it be legal?" Or "Should it be illegal, even if there is no evidence that the customer suffered any real harm, other than minor inconvenience?" It should be illegal because any person should be able to go to any establishment and make use of its services. So a photographer does not want to go to a gay wedding. What if there is only one photographer in town? Why is it ok for a photographer to refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding, but not ok to refuse to take pictures at a mormon or jewish wedding? What if a muslim photographer refused to take pictures at a christian wedding? All hell would break loose. If you do not like having to work in places that go against your cultural or religious sensitivities, then it is time to change your line of work. I recall when I was a young adult there were several camp sites with cabins and none of them would rent to us because we were mormons. All of such sites were owned by protestant churches. We could not find a camp site with the type of facilities we needed and as a result we could not go camping. This is the ramification of this bill. Such criminal discrimination will occur because it has in the past.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) The Baker, the Florist, Liberty Ridge Farm, a Church owned board walk in New Jersey, are each a "public accommodation" and therefore agreed it would not discriminate in providing services. In accepting the title as a public accommodation, each agreed, under the Social Contract to the following:CERTIFIED that it would not discriminate, within the bounds of the lawCERTIFIED that would remain open to the public, within the bounds of the law. Each public accommodation failed to honor its obligation. Each failed to provide the services it agreed to provide without discriminating. What “social contract" would that be? And what about the wedding photographer who started his business long before “gay marriage” existed? He invested in equipment and spent a lot of time and effort building up his business, only to be told years later, that “society” was now unilaterally amending his “social contract” to force him to violate his religious conscience. Or give up his business. Had he been told that from the beginning, he would have chosen another profession. But years later, it is probably too late for him to start over in another field. So your “social contract” may well cost him his home and -- considering how financial crises can impact a marriage -- possibly his family. And why? So someone doesn’t have to drive a few extra blocks to patronize another wedding photographer. Edited March 29, 2015 by Sleeper Cell
ERayR Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 You have a point.........if anyone was forced by law to provide a service like that, there's no law that says is has to be good. All they would have to do is take crappy pictures or bake a really lousy , bad tasting cake. Suppose the person even tells the customer....."by law I can't refuse you my services...but I will be upfront with you....you will NOT like what you will get for your money. It will be the worst service you ever get. So you can force me to provide for you...or...go find another service. " What would happen then, I wonder? I would never be the kind of person to force someone to do anything, because I would surely be worried about exactly those kind of consequences happening! Why would anyone want to risk ruining their important occasion like that, just to prove a point? Red (PS...just for the record, it wouldn't bother me personally, providing those type of services to gays, blacks, Muslims or pink poka dot people. It would not offend me ) In the TV series Roots there was a scene where the slave owners told a couple of slaves to fetch some water and handed her their cups.The two slaves filled the cups than spit in them and took them back to the master. Service given willingly is much better than forced service.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) It should be illegal because any person should be able to go to any establishment and make use of its services. Just because you think something is morally wrong does not necessarily justify making it legally wrong. And your “because” is hardly a “self evident truth.“ A lot of people disagree. Others have a more nuanced view (or at least are open to exceptions to the rule). So a photographer does not want to go to a gay wedding. What if there is only one photographer in town? Why is it ok for a photographer to refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding, but not ok to refuse to take pictures at a mormon or jewish wedding? What if a muslim photographer refused to take pictures at a christian wedding? All hell would break loose. If you do not like having to work in places that go against your cultural or religious sensitivities, then it is time to change your line of work. So the only photographer in town quits. Now there are no photographers in town. How does that help the gay couple get their wedding photos? “Cultural or religious sensitivities?” “Isn’t that a rather contemptuous way to refer to someone else’s deeply held religious convictions? What ever happened to the idea of trying to find a compromise when two rights conflict? For example, allowing a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." For example, the conscientious objector photographer refers the customer to an equally qualified photographer who is willing to provide a comparable service at a comparable cost. The couple get their pictures, the first photographer gets to stay true to his religious convictions, and the second photographer is rewarded for his open-mindedness. Win Win. If, on the other hand, the couple could show that a comparable service was not available elsewhere, they would have a case. Unless, of course, the “compelling state interest” is not merely to prevent actual harm to the couple, but minor inconvenience and hurt feelings. I recall when I was a young adult there were several camp sites with cabins and none of them would rent to us because we were mormons. All of such sites were owned by protestant churches. We could not find a camp site with the type of facilities we needed and as a result we could not go camping. This is the ramification of this bill. Such criminal discrimination will occur because it has in the past. You got to be kidding! Because your Mormon group couldn’t go camping on property owned by the other churches, the other churches were criminals? Do you really believe that churches -- not “merely” religious individuals, but churches -- should not be allowed to follow their religious convictions in the use of their own property? Edited March 29, 2015 by Sleeper Cell
Sleeper Cell Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 That is a "Separate but Equal" question. Do you really want to go there?SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal Besides referring to governmental policies, rather than individual business polices, in Brown v Board of Education, there was substantial evidence of real harm. The court concluded that in the case of public education, there was no way to practice separate but equal without doing substantial harm to one group. In the case of the wedding photographer, nobody even claimed that the gay couple could not get comparable service from a nearby photographer. (One who would be quite happy to do the job). So where was the harm, other than possible minor inconvenience and hurt feelings? Neither which strike me as something the government has a “compelling state interest” to prevent.
ERayR Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 It should be illegal because any person should be able to go to any establishment and make use of its services. Even God does not force our will and force us to do what we don't want. Instead he teaches us what we ought and tells us why we should.
carbon dioxide Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 It should be illegal because any person should be able to go to any establishment and make use of its services. So a photographer does not want to go to a gay wedding. What if there is only one photographer in town? Why is it ok for a photographer to refuse to take pictures at a gay wedding, but not ok to refuse to take pictures at a mormon or jewish wedding? What if a muslim photographer refused to take pictures at a christian wedding? All hell would break loose. If you do not like having to work in places that go against your cultural or religious sensitivities, then it is time to change your line of work. I recall when I was a young adult there were several camp sites with cabins and none of them would rent to us because we were mormons. All of such sites were owned by protestant churches. We could not find a camp site with the type of facilities we needed and as a result we could not go camping. This is the ramification of this bill. Such criminal discrimination will occur because it has in the past. If there is only one photographer in town and he/she will not take pictures of a gay wedding, well there is an opportunity for someone else to start a business and cater to that. If I owned a flower shop or a bakery, I would not mind selling flowers or a cake to a gay couple. They would be coming into my shop and it would be a simple business transaction. If I was a photographer I would not object to taking pictures of a gay person. Where I would object to is leaving my business and attending a gay wedding. Such an objection would not be discrimination against the gay person but against a specific event that I don't want to be a part of. In America, if someone refuses service to me for whatever reason, there is always other people that will render service. It would be rare to only one photographer within a 20 mile radius of where someone lives. Unless they literally live out in the wilderness like in Alaska or Montana.
Stone holm Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Indiana is already trying to walk back this bill. I don't give it a long shelf life. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I think someone should just talk to Indiana Bill and tell him that's not nice. 2
danielwoods Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 That is not in question. The only question is it legal to refuse to sell those goods and services to someone based on race, creed, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation if it is your business to sell those goods and services to the public? Indeed that is the question. If one sells wedding cakes, and they don't sell the type you like (in this case gay ones), you force them to make what they don't offer. That is the issue. If you as a gay person wish to purchase what they sell (traditional wedding cakes), then that's fine and dandy, here you go. 1
Freedom Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Just because you think something is morally wrong does not necessarily justify making it legally wrong. And your “because” is hardly a “self evident truth.“ A lot of people disagree. Others have a more nuanced view (or at least are open to exceptions to the rule). So the only photographer in town quits. Now there are no photographers in town. How does that help the gay couple get their wedding photos? “Cultural or religious sensitivities?” “Isn’t that a rather contemptuous way to refer to someone else’s deeply held religious convictions? What ever happened to the idea of trying to find a compromise when two rights conflict? For example, allowing a person's free exercise of religion to be "substantially burdened" by a law only if the law furthers a "compelling governmental interest" in the "least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." For example, the conscientious objector photographer refers the customer to an equally qualified photographer who is willing to provide a comparable service at a comparable cost. The couple get their pictures, the first photographer gets to stay true to his religious convictions, and the second photographer is rewarded for his open-mindedness. Win Win. If, on the other hand, the couple could show that a comparable service was not available elsewhere, they would have a case. Unless, of course, the “compelling state interest” is not merely to prevent actual harm to the couple, but minor inconvenience and hurt feelings. You got to be kidding! Because your Mormon group couldn’t go camping on property owned by the other churches, the other churches were criminals? Do you really believe that churches -- not “merely” religious individuals, but churches -- should not be allowed to follow their religious convictions in the use of their own property? If you are offering your camp site out for rent to the public, but you decide that certain types of the public are not wanted, then this is a violation of human rights. This is what African Americans fought against. This is what women fought for. Your example of the one business closing down is flawed because this would affect everybody in the town equally. If everybody in the town were Christians, and they all refused to service a Muslim family, this is a violation of human rights and is wrong.
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Indeed that is the question. If one sells wedding cakes, and they don't sell the type you like (in this case gay ones), you force them to make what they don't offer. That is the issue. If you as a gay person wish to purchase what they sell (traditional wedding cakes), then that's fine and dandy, here you go. NO I can't. Say I own a grocery store and I personally don't like green beans. There is no law that says I have to carry or sell green beans. ONLY if I do carry and sell green beans I can't legally refuse to sell them to you. I am not a gay person. Nor do I support gay marriage. But I can find no legally consistent means to make or keep it illegal. Really it is none of the governments or my business. Or as Dear Abbey used to say "Mind Your Own Business". Edited March 30, 2015 by thesometimesaint 2
danielwoods Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 NO I can't. Say I own a grocery store and I personally don't like green beans. There is no law that says I have to carry or sell green beans. ONLY if I do carry and sell green beans I can't legally refuse to sell them to you. I am not a gay person. Nor do I support gay marriage. But I can find no legally consistent means to make or keep it illegal. Really it is none of the governments or my business. Or as Dear Abbey used to say "Mind Your Own Business". It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but it's hard to tell. There is no law that says I have to carry or sell green beans, just as there is no law that says I have to carry "gay marriage" cakes. 1
Gray Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 It sounds like you are agreeing with me, but it's hard to tell. There is no law that says I have to carry or sell green beans, just as there is no law that says I have to carry "gay marriage" cakes. You mean wedding cakes? If you offer them to straight couples you must also offer them to gay couples.
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 There is no such thing as gay wedding cakes or gay green beans.
rodheadlee Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 No but what about green beans with bacon bits? Or even blackberry jelly? I can only find jam so I can sue and force them to carry blackberry jelly? They carry grape jelly why not blackberry jelly?
danielwoods Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 You mean wedding cakes? If you offer them to straight couples you must also offer them to gay couples. There is no such thing as gay wedding cakes or gay green beans. IF a store only offers wedding cakes in the traditional manner, that's what they offer. It wasn't until someone wanted something different that a qualifier had to be added. So, is there no such thing as a gay wedding cake? That's not what they say. If a regular wedding cake would have sufficed, then who cares, there wouldn't even be an issue. Have it delivered here, thanks!
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 IF a store only offers wedding cakes in the traditional manner, that's what they offer. It wasn't until someone wanted something different that a qualifier had to be added. So, is there no such thing as a gay wedding cake? That's not what they say. If a regular wedding cake would have sufficed, then who cares, there wouldn't even be an issue. Have it delivered here, thanks! Sure you can legally only produce wedding cakes in any style you want. It is not a wise business move, but the choice is yours. Just like I have every right not to sell green beans if I don't carry them. What I can't legally do is refuse to sell them to you if I carry them and have them for sale.
danielwoods Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Sure you can legally only produce wedding cakes in any style you want. It is not a wise business move, but the choice is yours. Just like I have every right not to sell green beans if I don't carry them. What I can't legally do is refuse to sell them to you if I carry them and have them for sale. Right, and now it sounds like you are agreeing with me again!
Gray Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 IF a store only offers wedding cakes in the traditional manner, that's what they offer. It wasn't until someone wanted something different that a qualifier had to be added. So, is there no such thing as a gay wedding cake? That's not what they say. If a regular wedding cake would have sufficed, then who cares, there wouldn't even be an issue. Have it delivered here, thanks! Gay wedding cakes are made of cake and have frosting on top, right? Which means they're just cakes.
Recommended Posts