thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 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. Why would you even want to go there? One having the ability, means, motivation classic definition of a felony crime.
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. Again there is no such thing as gay wedding cakes. One can be a gay person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. One can be a straight person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. What neither one can legally do is refuse to bake, and/or sell those cakes on the bases of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. Further I'm not gay but lets pretend I am and I want to buy a wedding cake for my straight friends upcoming wedding party. You have no legal ability to question the sexual orientation of whom it is for, let alone refuse to sell it to me. In short "Mind Your Own Business". Edited March 30, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Sleeper Cell Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 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. “A violation of human rights?” And the government forcing a church to do something against its religious principles is not a violation of human rights? These days it seems “human rights” are whatever the person using that phrase wants them to be. The first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is religious freedom. Even before freedom of speech. But when it comes to “human rights,” it seems that religious freedom is the last right. To be construed as narrowly as possible, especially when someone else’s religious beliefs conflict with yours. Can you name one instance where Dr. King or any civil rights leader of his era ever fought against the right of a church to restrict the use of its own property to those who share its religious beliefs? Your Muslim family example is flawed because it is not a matter of everybody in the town refusing them any service, but -- at worse -- one person potentially refusing to take their picture . The photographer did not refuse service, per se, to anyone for who they are. He refused service for a particular event that violated his religious conscience, but was otherwise willing to provide service to the same people. It is also flawed because professional wedding photography is hardly a basic service. A surprising number of people manage to do without it.
Mormonmaniac Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I would never cater my cake or dinner service to a gay wedding service. My work is my ministry and as such i have a constitutional right to worship how I want to.
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 “A violation of human rights?” And the government forcing a church to do something against its religious principles is not a violation of human rights? These days it seems “human rights” are whatever the person using that phrase wants them to be. The first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is religious freedom. Even before freedom of speech. But when it comes to “human rights,” it seems that religious freedom is the last right. To be construed as narrowly as possible, especially when someone else’s religious beliefs conflict with yours. Can you name one instance where Dr. King or any civil rights leader of his era ever fought against the right of a church to restrict the use of its own property to those who share its religious beliefs? Your Muslim family example is flawed because it is not a matter of everybody in the town refusing them any service, but -- at worse -- one person potentially refusing to take their picture . The photographer did not refuse service, per se, to anyone for who they are. He refused service for a particular event that violated his religious conscience, but was otherwise willing to provide service to the same people. It is also flawed because professional wedding photography is hardly a basic service. A surprising number of people manage to do without it. The government is not forcing any church to violate its basic principles. Unless you think forcing others to handle deadly poisonous snakes is a basic principle. You have every right to believe anything you want, even human sacrifice. What you have no right to do is enforce that belief on others. I know of no case where MLK did that. But he was against using the churches as a shield to protect immoral/illegal acts. He willing went to jail to enforce the 14th Amendment. No he is refusing service based on religion. No different than a lunch counter refusing to sell to a black person.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Your example of the one business closing down is flawed because this would affect everybody in the town equally. Actually it was your example (post 56) wherein you said: 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? [emphasis added] To which I replied: 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? Is it really your position that it would be preferable for everybody -- including gay people -- to be deprived of access to any professional photography services, than for one gay couple to be deprived of such services for only one event (but have access for other events)? Even if the gay couple would lose in that deal.? They would still not get their wedding photos, nor would they get any other photos (which they otherwise would have received). Suppose the conscientious objector photographer referred the couple to a comparable photographer in another town, who was willing to do the work. Suppose the CO was also willing to pay for the out of town photographer’s travel time/expenses so that the gay couple would not have to pay any more than the CO would have charged? Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Sleeper Cell Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 The government is not forcing any church to violate its basic principles. Unless you think forcing others to handle deadly poisonous snakes is a basic principle. Who are you to tell another church what its basic religious principles are? Haven’t you objected on this very board to non-Mormons telling us what we Mormons believe? Unless you think forcing others to handle deadly poisonous snakes is a basic principle.You have every right to believe anything you want, even human sacrifice. What you have no right to do is enforce that belief on others.So a church refusing to rent its facilities to another church is comparable to poisonous snakes and human sacrifice? BTW, in this case, the only one advocating the forcing of their belief on others is you. I am opposed to forcing my beliefs on other churches, even it that means my church group cannot use their facilities. I know of no case where MLK did that. But he was against using the churches as a shield to protect immoral/illegal acts. He willing went to jail to enforce the 14th Amendment.Who says a church refusing to rent its own facilities for use by a “rival” church is immoral? For that matter, who says it is illegal? Can you cite any court decisions to that effect? (Not a formal CFR, but just curious). While I strongly disagree with those evangelical churches that label us as a “non-Christian cult” -- and, indeed, find it offensive (to say nothing of un-Christian) -- I strongly support their right to deny us the use of their facilities on that basis. What good is religious freedom if we tell churches that when it comes to the use of their own facilities, they cannot discriminate against other churches on the basis of religious belief? No he is refusing service based on religion. No different than a lunch counter refusing to sell to a black person.Yes it is. The photographer is not refusing service to a person for being gay. He is refusing service for a particular event. One can acknowledge this distinction without agreeing with the photographer’s act or even with its legality 1
danielwoods Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Gay wedding cakes are made of cake and have frosting on top, right? Which means they're just cakes. Again there is no such thing as gay wedding cakes. One can be a gay person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. One can be a straight person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. What neither one can legally do is refuse to bake, and/or sell those cakes on the bases of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. Further I'm not gay but lets pretend I am and I want to buy a wedding cake for my straight friends upcoming wedding party. You have no legal ability to question the sexual orientation of whom it is for, let alone refuse to sell it to me. In short "Mind Your Own Business". Again, if that were the case there would be no issue. Since, the gay person in question is requesting a product not offered, that is the issue. Call it what you want.
Daniel2 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Again there is no such thing as gay wedding cakes. One can be a gay person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. One can be a straight person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. What neither one can legally do is refuse to bake, and/or sell those cakes on the bases of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. Further I'm not gay but lets pretend I am and I want to buy a wedding cake for my straight friends upcoming wedding party. You have no legal ability to question the sexual orientation of whom it is for, let alone refuse to sell it to me.In short "Mind Your Own Business".Excellent post, SS.
Daniel2 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) The photographer is not refusing service to a person for being gay. He is refusing service for a particular event. One can acknowledge this distinction without agreeing with the photographer’s act or even with its legalitySo, businesses and clerks and servers and bakers and retailers should be able to refuse to sell food to or to serve Mormon patrons because they know that Mormons are likely to pray over their food, and if the business owners can't in good conscience condone those prayers because they believe them to be profane perversions to a Satanically-inspired counterfeit religion, the business owners' freedom of religious conscience justifies and protects their ability to withhold service and sales to avoid the profane ACT/EVENT of Mormon prayer... They may refuse to sell Mormons bread because they may use it in their profane ACT/EVENT of their sacrament services... They may refuse to sell Mormons camping equipment because Mormons could use them in religiously-based scouting or girls camp or trek reenactments in which they celebrate profane ACTS/EVENTS related to their Satanically-inspired counterfeit God...Clothing retailers may refuse to sell Mormons suits or white shirts or dress clothes or olive oil to avoid such products being used in profane, Satanically-inspired Priesthood ACTS/EVENTS or Mission or church services or baptisms for the dead or temple ordinances... Wedding-related businesses can refuse to sell Mormons wedding cakes or flowers or dresses or tuxes or wedding rings because they disagree with the false and perverse ACTS/EVENTS of ordinances of "sealings" in Mormon temples... Businesses may refuse to sell Mormons cars or bikes to avoid supporting them attending the ACT/EVENTS like church services glorifying false gods or missionary tracting and proseliting to woo unsupecting believers into joining their Satanic cult or home and visiting teaching to promote false and wicked ideaologies... Transportation companies and agents may refuse to sell Mormons airplane or bus tickets to avoid supporting ACTS/EVENTS like missionary work or transfers in foreign lands to fuether promote their false and counterfeit mythology...Now, please don't misunderstand... Refusing to sell Mormons any of the above stuff wouldn't be actual discrimination against Mormons themselves, as a people, mind you... In fact, the God of those business owners' Faiths may tell them it would be blasphemous to yoke themselves with such non-believers and infidels...So withholding services and goods would just be business owners exercising their freedom of belief by avoiding having their products being used in LDS ACTS/EVENTS... namely, Mormon activites that the store owners would disagree with based on their own religious convictions against all those blasphemous Mormon prayers, religious services, priesthood roles, etc... They'd be more than happy to sell them something they wouldn't pray over, in any if their religious practices or ordinances or houses of worship or could potentially use in support of proseliting their false beliefs.Did I get that right...? Edited March 31, 2015 by Daniel2 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Who are you to tell another church what its basic religious principles are? Haven’t you objected on this very board to non-Mormons telling us what we Mormons believe? So a church refusing to rent its facilities to another church is comparable to poisonous snakes and human sacrifice? BTW, in this case, the only one advocating the forcing of their belief on others is you. I am opposed to forcing my beliefs on other churches, even it that means my church group cannot use their facilities. Who says a church refusing to rent its own facilities for use by a “rival” church is immoral? For that matter, who says it is illegal? Can you cite any court decisions to that effect? (Not a formal CFR, but just curious). While I strongly disagree with those evangelical churches that label us as a “non-Christian cult” -- and, indeed, find it offensive (to say nothing of un-Christian) -- I strongly support their right to deny us the use of their facilities on that basis. What good is religious freedom if we tell churches that when it comes to the use of their own facilities, they cannot discriminate against other churches on the basis of religious belief? Yes it is. The photographer is not refusing service to a person for being gay. He is refusing service for a particular event. One can acknowledge this distinction without agreeing with the photographer’s act or even with its legality I'm not the government. Nor do I care what any one believes. If you treat me and my idea's with respect, even if you disagree, we're good to go. Ps; Telling someone what they believe isn't illegal, but it is the height of bad taste. Any church can legally refuse to allow any other church using its facilities. Churches are specifically exempt from the public accommodation sections of Civil Rights laws. It's an analogy not a comparison. Churches are specifically exempt from the public accommodation sections of the Civil Right laws. I've said neither. What I have consistently said is the public commercial enterprises can not legally discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation. Again churches are specifically exempt from the public accommodations sections of the Civil Rights laws. Any church can teach that blacks can't hold the priesthood because of the actions of Cain. They can refuse to have blacks in any/all of their church ceremonies. There is neither any law preventing those dismal teachings, nor any law preventing any church from implementing those dismal teachings. Edited March 31, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Daniel2 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I'm not the government. Nor do I care what any one believes. If you treat me and my idea's with respect, even if you disagree, we're good to go.Ps; Telling someone what they believe isn't illegal, but it is the height of bad taste.Any church can legally refuse to allow any other church using its facilities. Churches are specifically exempt from the public accommodation sections of Civil Rights laws. It's an analogy not a comparison.Churches are specifically exempt from the public accommodation sections of the Civil Right laws.I've said neither. What I have consistently said is the public commercial enterprises can not legally discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex and increasingly sexual orientation.Again churches are specifically exempt from the public accommodations sections of the Civil Rights laws. Any church can teach that blacks can't hold the priesthood because of the actions of Cain. They can refuse to have blacks in any/all of their church ceremonies. There is neither any law preventing those dismal teachings, nor any law preventing any church from implementing those dismal teachings.Once again, an excellent post.These issues seem so clear to me, and are issues of long settled law.I'm not sure why there's so much muddying of the waters, now...
Brian 2.0 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 "Businesses" owned by religious people do not have the same rights as "religions."People need to stop conflating the two. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Once again, an excellent post.These issues seem so clear to me, and are issues of long settled law.I'm not sure why there's so much muddying of the waters, now... Thank you. Great minds think alike. To me too. The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. Unfortunately there are more than enough hiccups along the way.
rockpond Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 So, businesses and clerks and servers and bakers and retailers should be able to refuse to sell food to or to serve Mormon patrons because they know that Mormons are likely to pray over their food, and if the business owners can't in good conscience condone those prayers because they believe them to be profane perversions to a Satanically-inspired counterfeit religion, the business owners' freedom of religious conscience justifies and protects their ability to withhold service and sales to avoid the profane ACT/EVENT of Mormon prayer...They may refuse to sell Mormons bread because they may use it in their profane ACT/EVENT of their sacrament services...They may refuse to sell Mormons camping equipment because Mormons could use them in religiously-based scouting or girls camp or trek reenactments in which they celebrate profane ACTS/EVENTS related to their Satanically-inspired counterfeit God...Clothing retailers may refuse to sell Mormons suits or white shirts or dress clothes or olive oil to avoid such products being used in profane, Satanically-inspired Priesthood ACTS/EVENTS or Mission or church services or baptisms for the dead or temple ordinances...Wedding-related businesses can refuse to sell Mormons wedding cakes or flowers or dresses or tuxes or wedding rings because they disagree with the false and perverse ACTS/EVENTS of ordinances of "sealings" in Mormon temples...Businesses may refuse to sell Mormons cars or bikes to avoid supporting them attending the ACT/EVENTS like church services glorifying false gods or missionary tracting and proseliting to woo unsupecting believers into joining their Satanic cult or home and visiting teaching to promote false and wicked ideaologies...Transportation companies and agents may refuse to sell Mormons airplane or bus tickets to avoid supporting ACTS/EVENTS like missionary work or transfers in foreign lands to fuether promote their false and counterfeit mythology...Now, please don't misunderstand...Refusing to sell Mormons any of the above stuff wouldn't be actual discrimination against Mormons themselves, as a people, mind you...In fact, the God of those business owners' Faiths may tell them it would be blasphemous to yoke themselves with such non-believers and infidels...So withholding services and goods would just be business owners exercising their freedom of belief by avoiding having their products being used in LDS ACTS/EVENTS... namely, Mormon activites that the store owners would disagree with based on their own religious convictions against all those blasphemous Mormon prayers, religious services, priesthood roles, etc...They'd be more than happy to sell them something they wouldn't pray over, in any if their religious practices or ordinances or houses of worship or could potentially use in support of proseliting their false beliefs.Did I get that right...? Yes, you got it right. I think that, as a minority, we (Mormons) are crazy to be supporting such legislation.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Again, if that were the case there would be no issue. Since, the gay person in question is requesting a product not offered, that is the issue. Call it what you want. I own a printing press. A person comes to me an requests that I print his porno mag. Should I have the right to refuse service based on my religious convictions were I view pornography as immoral? After all a printing press is just ink and paper. There is no such thing as a porno mag it just a mag. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Again there is no such thing as gay wedding cakes. One can be a gay person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. One can be a straight person who bakes, and/or sells wedding cakes. What neither one can legally do is refuse to bake, and/or sell those cakes on the bases of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. Further I'm not gay but lets pretend I am and I want to buy a wedding cake for my straight friends upcoming wedding party. You have no legal ability to question the sexual orientation of whom it is for, let alone refuse to sell it to me. In short "Mind Your Own Business".That is your problem, refusing to accept what is reality. The cake is a for a gay wedding. Hence a gay wedding cake. I think I could see things like you if refused to see reality. So, this pontification of yours falls apart from the start because you made a false statement.
tonie Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 That is your problem, refusing to accept what is reality. The cake is a for a gay wedding. Hence a gay wedding cake.I think I could see things like you if refused to see reality. So, this pontification of yours falls apart from the start because you made a false statement.A mormon enters a Christian book store, buys to purchase a Bible....the retailer says "we dont have mormon bibles, because if you buy one of my Chrostian Bibles, it turns into a Mormon bible if you purchase it"Your logic is undeniable Mola 1
tonie Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 there is a certain cowardice coming from the Indiana Governor. The law does and will allow discrimination against gays. Indiana does not and will not in the near future treat gender identity or sexial orientation as a protected class. Even without the rfra in indiana discrimination against gays is permissible and the Governor has no current plans to prohibit it.
Daniel2 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) That is your problem, refusing to accept what is reality. The cake is a for a gay wedding. Hence a gay wedding cake.I think I could see things like you if refused to see reality. So, this pontification of yours falls apart from the start because you made a false statement.Is an interracial wedding cake different than a same-race wedding cake?Is a divorcee wedding cake different then a virgin wedding cake?Is a Jewish wedding cake different than a Catholic wedding cake?Is a black couple's wedding cake different than a white couple's wedding cake?Is an atheist wedding cake different than a believer wedding cake? Edited March 31, 2015 by Daniel2 1
CV75 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Is an interracial wedding cake different than a same-sex wedding cake?Is a divorcee wedding cake different then a virgin wedding cake?Is a Jewish wedding cake different than a Catholic wedding cake?Is a black couple's wedding cake different than a white couple's wedding cake?Inasmuch as you are labeling them to differentiate between them, obviously!
Daniel2 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Inasmuch as you are labeling them to differentiate between them, obviously!Beyond the label, what is the meaningful difference (i.e. legally-compelling-enough difference to allow discrimination)? Edited March 31, 2015 by Daniel2
Gray Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I own a printing press. A person comes to me an requests that I print his porno mag. Should I have the right to refuse service based on my religious convictions were I view pornography as immoral? After all a printing press is just ink and paper. There is no such thing as a porno mag it just a mag. You can refuse to print pornography. That refusal isn't based on the characteristics of the customer.
Gray Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 That is your problem, refusing to accept what is reality. The cake is a for a gay wedding. Hence a gay wedding cake. I think I could see things like you if refused to see reality. So, this pontification of yours falls apart from the start because you made a false statement. Could McDonald's refuse to sell female hamburgers? A female hamburger being defined as a hamburger that a female intends to eat.
thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 That is your problem, refusing to accept what is reality. The cake is a for a gay wedding. Hence a gay wedding cake. I think I could see things like you if refused to see reality. So, this pontification of yours falls apart from the start because you made a false statement. I don't feed trolls.
Recommended Posts