Gray Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 Here is where I disagree. I think the state co-opted the term open to the public. In no reasonable way does "open to the public" mean that a private business is open to whoever wants to eat, drink, stay, etc. Utilities, grocery stores, hospitals, and such businesses that are peddling in necessities, sure. Augusta National still does not allow women to be members. I think that is their right. If "Gay Bridal Boutique" doesn't want to serve Mormons that should be their right too. If "Kris's Krazy Krepes" doesn't want to serve African Americans, more power to them. If Wendy's decides to boycott those who are in favor of traditional marriage, great. Open to the public is such a stupid phrase and it is a man-made, arbitrary concept. They are and should be open to those they choose to do business with and closed to those they don't for whatever the reason. I understand the law (arguably unconstitutional) does not allow this currently, but that is my opinion on what the law SHOULD be. I continue to marvel how many members of the church online I meet with this opinion. I've never heard anyone in real life, LDS or otherwise, who seems to have a problem with public accommodation laws. It was settled decades ago.
Danzo Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 A cake could absolutely be considered speech. If I asked them to bake my up a white hooded clan cake, they could certainly refuse. If I asked for a cake in the shape of the Salt Lake Temple they could refuse. If, however, they make Salt Lake Temple cakes all the time, but won't sell one to me because I am Muslim, then we have a problem. Also for the record, I think the fine amount is obscene. I see what you mean. If the refusal was for a specific design of cake, it could be justified. If they object to the purpose of a supposedly generic cake, that would be wrong. BOLI's actions only made the problem worse.If the BOLI's purpose was to help owners better comply with the law, they would have just issued a fine of a couple of thousand dollars and the owners probably would not be a problem again and few people would have noticed. By issuing a fine of 135,000 (the threatened fine was even larger) Brad was essentially threatening them with essentially a death sentence for the business, It only makes the cake bakers more desperate determined to defend themselves both against BOLI and in the court of public opinion.
Mystery Meat Posted July 6, 2015 Author Posted July 6, 2015 I continue to marvel how many members of the church online I meet with this opinion. I've never heard anyone in real life, LDS or otherwise, who seems to have a problem with public accommodation laws. It was settled decades ago. So there has never been a law or Supreme Court decision that was settled decades ago that you disagree with? I know the current state of the law (again, likely unconstitutional IMO), but I am arguing for what I think the law should be. How I think people should behave is a completely different issue.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 6, 2015 Posted July 6, 2015 I see what you mean. If the refusal was for a specific design of cake, it could be justified. If they object to the purpose of a supposedly generic cake, that would be wrong.BOLI's actions only made the problem worse.If the BOLI's purpose was to help owners better comply with the law, they would have just issued a fine of a couple of thousand dollars and the owners probably would not be a problem again and few people would have noticed. By issuing a fine of 135,000 (the threatened fine was even larger) Brad was essentially threatening them with essentially a death sentence for the business, It only makes the cake bakers more desperate determined to defend themselves both against BOLI and in the court of public opinion.Seems like a coupke hundred dollars for a first offense would have been more than adequate. 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Are you comparing those with similar economies and historical development? It may have nothing to do with relgious position. The nonChristian states may have been much less violent if in addition to their history and current economy they were a higher Christian percentage and the same for the Christian...if their economy and history was one that promoted less violence, their Christianity may be preventing them from being much more violent. So you saying that economies and historical development help a country, and not religion or naturalism? That is why I said there are many reasons why a country is peaceful, but religion is sadly not one of them. I sincerely don't understand why most Christians do not follow their own religion, but Jesus said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Christianity may be preventing them from being much more violent. Good point, maybe, but there are many born again christians that are very arrogant and judgmental because they believe God is going to forgive them. PS The USA is very violent compared to other peaceful countries Edited July 7, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 So you saying that economies and historical development help a country, and not religion or naturalism? Absolutely not what I am saying and I don't see how you could ever come to read it that way.
Maestrophil Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 It is easy to sit behind a keyboard and "I would do this or that".How often have you been explicitly discriminated against due to your religious beliefs. For instance when was the last 5 times you were denied services due directly to your religipus beliefs?Tonie, Are you insinuating that any gay person can give at least 5 examples of being refused service for being gay? I happen to know many gay people who have never been refused service for being gay. That said, I have been fired before for being LDS and kicked out of a church I was volunteering for when it became known I was LDS. I have also been physically assaulted for being LDS. I don't claim to have any huge experience with discrimination, but I have felt it. And I would still support the right of a baker to not bake me a cake for an LDS event IF the cake were somehow an expression of MY beliefs. I agree that if the reason a person refused service was because of someone's beliefs or orientation, that is problematic - the point I was trying to make is that business owners should not have to create anything that violates their core values - If that includes not making a cake that says "congrats on becoming a deacon!" then I would support that and go somewhere else. 2
Mystery Meat Posted July 7, 2015 Author Posted July 7, 2015 I am trying to figure out how it is not okay for the bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a SSM, but it is okay for Mozilla to fire a CEO who supported traditional marriage. Does that not seem completely contradictory? 3
Gray Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 So there has never been a law or Supreme Court decision that was settled decades ago that you disagree with? I know the current state of the law (again, likely unconstitutional IMO), but I am arguing for what I think the law should be. How I think people should behave is a completely different issue. I suppose so. Maybe it has to do with the rise of libertarianism and states rights rhetoric. I confess to not really "getting" where libertarians are coming from.
KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I am offended that the couple chose to target a bakery they knew would not be amenable to their request. It appears that they did so for money and notoriety. Or why not pick on a halal bakery? I am offended that the bakery chose not to bake a cake for the couple. It is not our business to impose our laws on those who have not covenanted or agreed to them at least as a social contract. I am offended that my state did not choose to enact statutes that protected gays equally when it came to benefits that heterosexual partners receive. It did not provide equal protection under the law. I am offended that the Supreme Court felt it was their business to impose other states laws on my state without consent of our citizens. It is an historical overreach that may lead to loss of freedoms for the very people who agreed with the decision. Others are offended that I am offended. I think that completes the set.
thesometimesaint Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Why should there be a distinction for grocery stores? Couldn't a black person just drive / walk / ride the bus to the next town if I don't feel like serving her? What is a necessity? Why should hospitals be forced to serve everyone? Maybe if its a publicly funded hospital, but what right do you have to demand that a private hospital serve you? Because markets aren't magic.
KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I suppose so. Maybe it has to do with the rise of libertarianism and states rights rhetoric. I confess to not really "getting" where libertarians are coming from. If you would argue against another religion imposing their standards on you (for example Sharia law in the US) then you have a bit of libertarian in you.
thesometimesaint Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 If you would argue against another religion imposing their standards on you (for example Sharia law in the US) then you have a bit of libertarian in you. Non Sequitur.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I am trying to figure out how it is not okay for the bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a SSM, but it is okay for Mozilla to fire a CEO who supported traditional marriage. Does that not seem completely contradictory?See, a business is only public when gays are involved. When no gays are involved, the business is private. With the cake business, they refused to bake a cake fore a gay wedding. That means it was a public business. The CEO of Mozilla, he was not gay there for it was just a private business acting on what it thought was best. I have been thinking about all of this. I think people forget that business are indeed privately owned and as such should be free to deny service to any one for any reason. Oh well.
KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) - If that includes not making a cake that says "congrats on becoming a deacon!" then I would support that and go somewhere else. Sucker! You could have made an easy 6 figure payday by being offended. Especially if it claimed loss of confidence, weight gain, lack of appetite (how those two work together I don't know) etc... Seriously- I've been discriminated against in job searches (verified by the recruiter whose wife was LDS - boy was he mad), my kids have been asked not to speak in ecumenical Bible Study sessions at school, and I was verbally attacked on a train for reading my Book of Mormon. And in no case did I ever feel it would be worthwhile to sue. I believe the Savior said forgive. Edited July 7, 2015 by KevinG 4
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I am trying to figure out how it is not okay for the bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a SSM, but it is okay for Mozilla to fire a CEO who supported traditional marriage. Does that not seem completely contradictory? I assume you recognize that the two are not equivalent under the law, and that you are arguing for how the law should be, correct? Can you not see a distinction between denying services to a class of people (based on religion, race, national origin, or increasing sexual orientation) and not wanting your highest profile company officer bring negative attention to your company? I work in a position such that I represent my company to both private and governmental groups. If I came out and publicly supported things that opposed my company's message, I would expect to be fired. 1
Jacob Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I am trying to figure out how it is not okay for the bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a SSM, but it is okay for Mozilla to fire a CEO who supported traditional marriage. Does that not seem completely contradictory?I agree. I do not like double standards/hypocrisy.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 And I would still support the right of a baker to not bake me a cake for an LDS event IF the cake were somehow an expression of MY beliefs. I agree that if the reason a person refused service was because of someone's beliefs or orientation, that is problematic - the point I was trying to make is that business owners should not have to create anything that violates their core values - If that includes not making a cake that says "congrats on becoming a deacon!" then I would support that and go somewhere else. This is exactly what happened here. No one asked to bakery to make a "gay wedding cake." The bakery makes wedding cakes. A person wanted to buy a wedding cake. They were denied this service based solely on their orientation. The couple buying the cake did not ask the owners to make a cake that said "Gays Rule" or "Christians Suck", they merely wanted to buy a wedding cake. Again there is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake." 2
Jacob Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I am offended that the couple chose to target a bakery they knew would not be amenable to their request. It appears that they did so for money and notoriety. Or why not pick on a halal bakery? I am offended that the bakery chose not to bake a cake for the couple. It is not our business to impose our laws on those who have not covenanted or agreed to them at least as a social contract. I am offended that my state did not choose to enact statutes that protected gays equally when it came to benefits that heterosexual partners receive. It did not provide equal protection under the law. I am offended that the Supreme Court felt it was their business to impose other states laws on my state without consent of our citizens. It is an historical overreach that may lead to loss of freedoms for the very people who agreed with the decision. Others are offended that I am offended. I think that completes the set.I am offended at all the offense taken here ;-) jk I believe that if the law does not state otherwise that the protection should be implied. A lack of right or lack of protection should be what is needing to be stated. Why do we have to state that things are protected? Why can't we rather legislate the lack thereof? Discrimination is automatically protected it seems. 1
Gray Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 If you would argue against another religion imposing their standards on you (for example Sharia law in the US) then you have a bit of libertarian in you. Well sure, everyone likes their freedom. And that's really what the gay rights movement is about. But there has to be balance.
KevinG Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Well sure, everyone likes their freedom. And that's really what the gay rights movement is about. But there has to be balance. It is when we abuse our privileges that the law steps in to restore balance. However the government tends to be a very blunt instrument that causes as much trouble with regulation as it prevents. In my not so humble opinion: That is how unrighteousness leads to loss of freedom. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I have been thinking about all of this. I think people forget that business are indeed privately owned and as such should be free to deny service to any one for any reason. Oh well. There was a time before WWII were this was routinely the case. Just a few examples:Anti Irish:http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_TDzDJIdyfw/maxresdefault.jpg Anti Black, Anti Mexican:http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/no-dogs-no-jews-no-negros.jpg Anti Jew:http://www.collive.com/pics/s_nf_10254_35353.jpg During the civil rights movement, Americans decided enough was enough. I personally am glad we did, and without the supreme court and the civil rights act, I'm not sure that free market would have ever forced integration and an end to Jim Crow era discrimination. Do you see it otherwise? 1
california boy Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I am shocked that so many Mormons have no problem with the old " we don't serve your kind" attitudes of years gone by before these accommodation laws went into effect. I thought this country was finished with racial, religious, and gender orientation discrimination. Who would have thought that followers of Christ would be demanding for the right to discriminate. And using religion of all things to justify that discrimination. 2
Storm Rider Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 I assume you recognize that the two are not equivalent under the law, and that you are arguing for how the law should be, correct? Can you not see a distinction between denying services to a class of people (based on religion, race, national origin, or increasing sexual orientation) and not wanting your highest profile company officer bring negative attention to your company? I work in a position such that I represent my company to both private and governmental groups. If I came out and publicly supported things that opposed my company's message, I would expect to be fired. Oh, you mean if it came out that a CEO was a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon? Or maybe if the company was in the south that it was found out she was Catholic? Or that a manager at a Mormon bookstore contributed to a Catholic school? Any problems there or is it just when one of these individuals would have the temerity to contribute $100 to support traditional marriage all heck should hit the fan? This is hypocrisy in action and it always amazes me that it is so hard to see for some. 3
Recommended Posts