thesometimesaint Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 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? Thought you might like this.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/clerk-accuses-texas-mom-of-child-abuse-for-letting-5-year-old-daughter-wear-boys-suit-for-easter/
CV75 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Beyond the label, what is the meaningful difference (i.e. legally-compelling-enough difference to allow discrimination)?That would depend on whether a protected class is involved (existing, or getting defined, redefined or dropped) for "discrimination" to be used in its legal definition. Naturally, there are likewise legally- and morally-compelling-enough differences to protect religious freedom.
danielwoods Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Beyond the label, what is the meaningful difference (i.e. legally-compelling-enough difference to allow discrimination)? There could be any number of differences. From the writing requested on the cake, to the plastic dudes kissing each other on the top. If a traditional wedding cake would have sufficed, there would be no issue, and the gays wouldn't be manipulating the government to force people to do things that are against their religious beliefs. Or in this case, asking for something that's not on the menu.
Daniel2 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) There could be any number of differences. From the writing requested on the cake, to the plastic dudes kissing each other on the top. If a traditional wedding cake would have sufficed, there would be no issue, and the gays wouldn't be manipulating the government to force people to do things that are against their religious beliefs. Or in this case, asking for something that's not on the menu.If a baker does not carry same-sex wedding toppers, anti-discrimination laws do not compel him to carry such an item that is not already "on the menu."If a baker does not wish to write certain words on a cake, anti-discrimination laws do not compel him to do so.If a baker bakes x-y-z flavor of cake and covers it with x-y-z frosting, fondant, or flowers, anti-discrimination laws require he sell that same product to members of the general public without discriminating against them based on their status of being a member of a protected class.For all the deliberate attempts to comolicate the issue, this really ISN'T rocket science, folks, and has been a matter of settled law for decades...The only objections seem to stem from the fact that gays and lesbians are now being granted the same protections from discrimination that are already granted to religion, race, gender, national origin, etc. Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2
Sleeper Cell Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 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...? Nope. My post was specifically referring to the wedding photographer. Unlike the individuals in your examples, in order for the photographer to render his services, he would actually have to attend and participate in the event.
Sleeper Cell Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 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. The issue I was discussing with another poster was whether other churches had the right to “discriminate on the basis of religion” by refusing to rent their church campgrounds to a Mormon church group. You responded by saying: 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 Now you seem to be saying that you agree with me -- that churches do have the right to “discriminate on the basis of religion” when it comes to the use of their own facilities. Since I never said that churches have an absolute right to do whatever they want, I am puzzled by your reference to poisonous snakes and human sacrifice.
jerryp48 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 I don't post much anymore but I really can't stand the law stepping in to force anyone to do anything they feel strongly against. A business should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you don't like it take your business elsewhere, whine about it online, or picket the establishment.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 I don't post much anymore but I really can't stand the law stepping in to force anyone to do anything they feel strongly against. A business should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you don't like it take your business elsewhere, whine about it online, or picket the establishment.So the civil rights act was a horrible idea in your opinion?
jerryp48 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 So the civil rights act was a horrible idea in your opinion?So in your opinion a business owner should be forced to provide his/her services for an event he/she feels is morally wrong even if other options are available?
Gray Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) So in your opinion a business owner should be forced to provide his/her services for an event he/she feels is morally wrong even if other options are available? Not addressed to me, but I'd say yes, absolutely, if you're judging the moral rightness of the event based on the kinds of people having it. Edited April 1, 2015 by Gray
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) So in your opinion a business owner should be forced to provide his/her services for an event he/she feels is morally wrong even if other options are available?Nice dodge. You stated "I really can't stand the law stepping in to force anyone to do anything they feel strongly against. A business should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If you don't like it take your business elsewhere, whine about it online, or picket the establishment." This is exactly what the civil rights act did. It forced businesses to serve people regardless of skin color. This is something that people felt was morally wrong and something that many felt very strongly about. I assume that you think this is/was a bad idea. What about Loving v Virginia. Should county clerks have been required to issue marriage licenses that they were strongly opposed to in the wake of that decision? Should Judges have been required to marry mixed race couples in marriages they found morally repugnant? It seems, based on your statement, that you think these laws and decisions were bad. I just wanted to make sure that I understood your position properly.Thanks,John Edited April 1, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 It's not about gay wedding cakes or gay photographs. It is about gay pizza. :acute: SEE http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/01/indiana-pizzeria-no-pie-for-gay-couples.html 1
danielwoods Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 What is interesting, "So, in 22 years under RFRA, how many people have successfully asserted a RFRA defense for excluding LGBT from services? Well . . . zero." http://blog.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/2015/03/31/indiana-arkansas-are-standing-for-religious-freedom-will-you/
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Discrimination against gays.SEE http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/02/2244711/15-examples-of-anti-gay-discrimination-conservatives-want-to-preserve/
Daniel2 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) It's not about gay wedding cakes or gay photographs. It is about gay pizza. :acute: SEE http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/01/indiana-pizzeria-no-pie-for-gay-couples.htmlThis was HILARIOUS to me... this will SERIOUSLY damage the BOOMING trend of catered pizza reception dinners that are SO popular right now at gay weddings.... ha!But seriously... even this lowly but defiant pizza parlor won't withstand the crushing weight of our intolerant, facist big gay steamroller!!! Mwhahahahaha... Edited April 1, 2015 by Daniel2
Mormonmaniac Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Discrimination against gays. SEE http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/02/2244711/15-examples-of-anti-gay-discrimination-conservatives-want-to-preserve/ Its tragic that its now discrimination against gays and straights by forcing straights to accommodate or be sued and shut down..
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Its tragic that its now discrimination against gays and straights by forcing straights to accommodate or be sued and shut down.. What else do you recommend when a company willfully violates the law?
Mormonmaniac Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) What else do you recommend when a company willfully violates the law? It goes back to how the law was made in the first place. Was it made to uphold religious freedom or confront it? What if they made it a law that made it unlawful to say the word "god" in any school or government building? Just because we can pass laws does not make something right. These anti-discrimination bills now being passed scare me because they show the erosion of religious and right to voice opinions in society. Now we are going to have to have commy laws and police that run around destroying a persons free right of expression to uphold one side only. Edited April 1, 2015 by Mormonmaniac
carbon dioxide Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 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?No difference unless it is decorated differently. I guess one should just sell generic cakes that could be used for any occasion and refuse decorations that point to one thing or another. Let the customer add additional decorations if they want. That is what I would do if I was a baker.
Gray Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 It goes back to how the law was made in the first place. Was it made to uphold religious freedom or confront it?What if they made it a law that made it unlawful to say the word "god" in any school or government building? Just because we can pass laws does not make something right. These anti-discrimination bills now being passed scare me because they show the erosion of religious and right to voice opinions in society. Now we are going to have to have commy laws and police that run around destroying a persons free right of expression to uphold one side only. Equal protection under the law is a sound principle that protects the rights of religious people and (hopefully in the future) gays alike.
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 It just seems like bad business. I thought businesses were about making money.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 It goes back to how the law was made in the first place. Was it made to uphold religious freedom or confront it?What if they made it a law that made it unlawful to say the word "god" in any school or government building? Just because we can pass laws does not make something right. These anti-discrimination bills now being passed scare me because they show the erosion of religious and right to voice opinions in society. Now we are going to have to have commy laws and police that run around destroying a persons free right of expression to uphold one side only. The First Amendment is alive a well, You can still believe anything you want. I would vocally object to any such law. Never said it did. There are plenty of laws I feel are stupid, unenforceable, or dangerous to liberty. The difficulty for you is I think all laws need to pass the smell test of if the proposed law strengthens everyone's rights or decreases those rights for reasons of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. What neither public schools of government buildings do is promote or discourage any religion or the lack thereof. Where the HELL are commy laws in this country? Where in this country are police running around destroying your right to believe any thing you want? IE; You can believe "Bill" Clinton, Pope Francis, LDS President Monson is the devil incarnate or the greatest thing since sliced bread. Even publicly say and print it if you want to. You are limited in cases of public libel, and public slander of private figures but those are civilly actionable not criminal. You can't go to jail for saying your neighbor is a jerk.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 No difference unless it is decorated differently. I guess one should just sell generic cakes that could be used for any occasion and refuse decorations that point to one thing or another. Let the customer add additional decorations if they want. That is what I would do if I was a baker. There is no law requiring that you do.
Mormonmaniac Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Equal protection under the law is a sound principle that protects the rights of religious people and (hopefully in the future) gays alike. I disagree though in the way its applied. At what point does all forms of devious sexual behavior get protections? Equal protections can really only ultimately work in a morally sound society.
Mormonmaniac Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 The First Amendment is alive a well, You can still believe anything you want. I would vocally object to any such law. Never said it did. There are plenty of laws I feel are stupid, unenforceable, or dangerous to liberty. The difficulty for you is I think all laws need to pass the smell test of if the proposed law strengthens everyone's rights or decreases those rights for reasons of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. What neither public schools of government buildings do is promote or discourage any religion or the lack thereof. Where the HELL are commy laws in this country? Where in this country are police running around destroying your right to believe any thing you want? IE; You can believe "Bill" Clinton, Pope Francis, LDS President Monson is the devil incarnate or the greatest thing since sliced bread. Even publicly say and print it if you want to. You are limited in cases of public libel, and public slander of private figures but those are civilly actionable not criminal. You can't go to jail for saying your neighbor is a jerk. You simply cant begin making laws that govern every little aspect of what should or should not be "religious freedom". Thats where we are at right now. If we choose to follow the road of all these anti-discrimination deals pretty soon we are going to have to have to be monitored even in our homes!
Recommended Posts