Elder Oaks speaks at Claremont on religious freedom

[CV75]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

I have to say I am a bit unclear on what your point is so, I think it is better that I don't comment on something that I can't quite figure out.  I can answer that I am against all discrimination no matter what the reason, even religious discrimination.  If some Evangelic refused to bake a cake for a Mormon wedding, I would be just as condemning of that as well.  Hope that clarifies.

Well, here you have demonstrated it: the imbalance of commitment in supporting special protections for religious freedom and in supporting equal protection for that special protection, and conflating special protection with equal protection.

Gay marriage has not been treated as an expression of religious freedom nor supported by any claim to special protection for religious freedom. It has been treated as an expression of legality, and that is where equal protection comes into play.

People say they support both special and equal protection, but when examined closely, such support is always conditional or a matter of degree. Hence the need for intelligence compromise. Those who conflate the two (intentionally or not) end up trampling one or the other (intentionally or not).

[Gray]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think this is about anyone giving their business to another. It is, unfortunately, about punishing those who fall not down and worship despite hearing the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer of the gay-rights movement. And that's far less odd ... and, to some of us, certainly more sinister.

There are all kinds of areas where religious extremists are going to run into problems when running a business, due to public accommodations laws. What if you believe that mixed race marriage is a sin - should you be allowed to refuse service to mixed race couples? Where would it end?

There are certain professions that don't work out well for people of a certain religious bent. For example, working at a blood bank is probably a bad career move for a Jehovah's Witness. 

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And I'm OK with that as long as those customer don't hold a legal gun to my head and demand that I sell them something that violates my conscience.

 http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

You must be related to Maurice Bessinger.

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[consiglieri]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 4:52 PM, USU78 said:

Of course you do.  You cannot recognize the bright line connecting compulsion of the baker to bake an offensive and obscene cake and the compulsion of the Jew to view and suffer the pig to be sacrificed in the debir to an image of Epiphanes.

Here you are incorrect, mi amigo.  Actually, I support the right of the baker to not be compelled to provide a cake for a wedding . . . any wedding . . . for any reason.

The right of the baker is based not in any religious belief, but in the freedom to serve whatever client the baker chooses, and for whatever reason.  Government has no place compelling a private citizen to provide goods or services to any customer.

Trying to argue that it is only the baker's religious basis for not providing the wedding cake is a bad argument, in my view.

It means that a baker without the religious basis may be compelled to provide the wedding cake, but a baker with the religious basis cannot be so compelled.

This makes no sense to me, and will doubtless lead to "millions of mischiefs" in courts determining what constitutes a valid "religious basis."

I should add here that this argument is based only on my analysis of the federal constitution.

Individual states can do whatever they wish, so long as it does not conflict with the federal constitution.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The right of the baker is based not in any religious belief, but in the freedom to serve whatever client the baker chooses, and for whatever reason.  Government has no place compelling a private citizen to provide goods or services to any customer.

Trying to argue that it is only the baker's religious basis for not providing the wedding cake is a bad argument, in my view.

It means that a baker without the religious basis may be compelled to provide the wedding cake, but a baker with the religious basis cannot be so compelled.

This makes no sense to me, and will doubtless lead to "millions of mischiefs" in courts determining what constitutes a valid "religious basis."

Wish I could give you a rep point for this ^^^

[consiglieri]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

No, I'm not going to apologize. One doesn't get a pass for making a snide insinuation and then acting coy about it. Not in my book, anyway.

 

I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them. 

--Elder Dallin H. Oaks

 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2108746-155/we-all-can-be-more-civil

[T-Shirt]

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That isn't the question. You're already sell custom designed T-shirts. The law is quite clear you can't refuse to sell your custom designed T-shirts on the bases of their race. creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation. IE; You are fully within your rights to make any T-shirt you want, but not to who you sell them.

So now you're saying that the law does require that I print the Skin Head's shirts?  Why is his class protected and not mine?  Incidentally, the list of things that I would not print is relatively small, and I would print shirts for a gay wedding.  I just don't think the government should be making those decisions for me or any business.  As abhorrent as it is, I think a bigoted restaurant owner that wants to refuse service to a minority group should be allowed to do so.  Let the market decide if he can afford to stay open.  No one is forced to go there.  In Washington State the law has banned smoking in all businesses.  This law really benefits me as I can't stand being around cigarette smoke, but I think it is a bad law.  Why shouldn't a business owner be allowed to decide what his customers want.  If I walk into a restaurant that smells like smoke, I walk out and find another place to go.  If a restaurant owner feels he can stay in business allowing smoking, let him.  Non-smokers can go somewhere else if they don't like it.

Edited March 31, 2016 by T-Shirt

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you can't back it up then.

 

This reader has decided.

Sometimes Scott, you put your messages and thoughts across as gospel to all (IMO).  Not to say that I don't read you or try to understand your points  I just wish that you could come across more open and with a little understanding of another's point of view.

I plan on working on this myself.  Please don't be angry..but you show authority over others that  you do not have. This does not mean that I don't have respect for you.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Jeanne

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

So now you're saying that the law does require that I print the Skin Head's shirts?  Why is his class protected and not mine?  Incidentally, the list of things that I would not print is relatively small, and I would print shirts for a gay wedding.  I just don't think the government should be making those decisions for me or any business. 

Your example is interesting.

I would imagine that if someone was offended or hurt or traumatized by seeing someone wearing this shirt, they would sue you for printing it (or at least name you in a lawsuit).  So, you're liable for what you print, correct?  I'm not sure how far a case like that would get, but I can see someone suing you.

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Your example is interesting.

I would imagine that if someone was offended or hurt or traumatized by seeing someone wearing this shirt, they would sue you for printing it (or at least name you in a lawsuit).  So, you're liable for what you print, correct?  I'm not sure how far a case like that would get, but I can see someone suing you.

Never thought of it this way..but it is possible that this would happen,

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

So now you're saying that the law does require that I print the Skin Head's shirts?  Why is his class protected and not mine?  Incidentally, the list of things that I would not print is relatively small, and I would print shirts for a gay wedding.  I just don't think the government should be making those decisions for me or any business.  As abhorrent as it is, I think a bigoted restaurant owner that wants to refuse service to a minority group should be allowed to do so.  Let the market decide if he can afford to stay open.  No one is forced to go there.

That is not what the law says. What it says is that if you already print and sell Skin Head's shirts, you can't discriminate against those that want to buy them.

We already tried that under Jim Crow it didn't work out well.

Markets are not magic.

SEE http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/02/markets_are_not.htm

[T-Shirt]

This is part of the problem.  Any time government creates some new regulation on business there are always unintended consequences.  Then they create new laws to fix the old one, which creates more problems, hence more laws, and on and on.  By the time you're done you have to have expensive lawyers to figure it all out for you or close up shop.  I am not saying there should be no regulation on business, but most of it is wrong headed and, quite often, just caters to some whiny, angry little group that makes a lot of noise.  The market, generally, does a very effective job of weeding out businesses that customers don't like. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by T-Shirt

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

This is part of the problem.  Any time government creates some new regulation on business there are always unintended consequences.  Then they create new laws to fix the old one, which creates more problems, hence more laws, and on and on.  By the time you're done you have to have expensive lawyers to figure it all out for you or close up shop.  I am not saying there should be no regulation on business, but most of it is wrong headed and, quite often, just caters to some whiny, angry little group that makes a lot of noise.  The market, generally, does a very effective job of weeding out business that customers don't like. 

Come join us in the Libertarian Party!

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

This is part of the problem.  Any time government creates some new regulation on business there are always unintended consequences.  Then they create new laws to fix the old one, which creates more problems, hence more laws, and on and on.  By the time you're done you have to have expensive lawyers to figure it all out for you or close up shop.  I am not saying there should be no regulation on business, but most of it is wrong headed and, quite often, just caters to some whiny, angry little group that makes a lot of noise.  The market, generally, does a very effective job of weeding out business that customers don't like. 

Lets say you open a grocery store. You want to sell to anyone with the money to buy your goods. Your business is in a place where the overwhelming number of potential customers are bigoted against Mormons. The Mormons are so few they can't keep you in business, as they can only buy so much from you. The bigots will discourage Mormons and non-bigots from going to your grocery store thus driving you out of business.

Edited March 31, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Well, here you have demonstrated it: the imbalance of commitment in supporting special protections for religious freedom and in supporting equal protection for that special protection, and conflating special protection with equal protection.

 

Gay marriage has not been treated as an expression of religious freedom nor supported by any claim to special protection for religious freedom. It has been treated as an expression of legality, and that is where equal protection comes into play.

 

People say they support both special and equal protection, but when examined closely, such support is always conditional or a matter of degree. Hence the need for intelligence compromise. Those who conflate the two (intentionally or not) end up trampling one or the other (intentionally or not).

 

You know we go back and forth on this discussion board about gay marriage and who should or should not serve wedding cakes to gay couples until we have all lost count of the number of threads on this issue.  All of this doesn't matter one bit.  The law is clear.  Gay marriage is legal.  The law is also clear.  Businesses can not discriminate.  But even that is not important.

The real issue is this.  Those claiming to follow Christ are doing the work of satan himself by defending these bakers that refuse to serve a sinner.  I am sure Christ is weeping when He sees the twisted belief that He constantly tried to teach all of his followers.  Serve others, especially the sinners!!!  Eat with them.  Love them.  Don't shun them.   Yet churches and many of their members have lost sight of that basic message.  How could followers of Christ got this so wrong.  Did Christ hand out the fish and loaves only after deciding if a person was sinning?  No one ever brought anyone closer to Christ by self righteously declaring that they would not serve those not like them because they are sinning.  Do you think for one moment that these bakers are bringing people to Christ?  Can you really justify not serving someone because you think gay marriage is a sin??  "Their lips draw near, but their hearts are far from Me."  I and many Americans are disgusted with how religion operates today. Bowing down to Christ on a cross is NOT living the gospel He gave us. 

When bakers or any other business decides to discriminate because of "personally held religious beliefs" they are doing more to lead people away from Christ than satan could possibly do on his own.  Millions are leaving organized religion EVERY SINGLE  YEAR.  And one of the main reasons that I keep pointing out is 67% of people leaving organized religion are because of these little political wars.

So go ahead.  Give yourself a rep point.  You think you have won some unimportant argument.  Enjoy the admiration of others that are leading this fight to not serve sinners.  You are all marching further away from the gospel of Jesus Christ and bringing others with you. The gays are not the only ones sinning.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

The real issue is this.  Those claiming to follow Christ are doing the work of satan himself by defending these bakers that refuse to serve a sinner.  I am sure Christ is weeping when He sees the twisted belief that He constantly tried to teach all of his followers.  Serve others, especially the sinners!!!  Eat with them.  Love them.  Don't shun them. 

Amen!

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Here you are incorrect, mi amigo.  Actually, I support the right of the baker to not be compelled to provide a cake for a wedding . . . any wedding . . . for any reason.

The right of the baker is based not in any religious belief, but in the freedom to serve whatever client the baker chooses, and for whatever reason.  Government has no place compelling a private citizen to provide goods or services to any customer.

Trying to argue that it is only the baker's religious basis for not providing the wedding cake is a bad argument, in my view.

It means that a baker without the religious basis may be compelled to provide the wedding cake, but a baker with the religious basis cannot be so compelled.

This makes no sense to me, and will doubtless lead to "millions of mischiefs" in courts determining what constitutes a valid "religious basis."

I should add here that this argument is based only on my analysis of the federal constitution.

Individual states can do whatever they wish, so long as it does not conflict with the federal constitution.

Consig, I think I would agree with you if the context was a baker that made generic goods, put them on the shelves and sold to the public.  In the process of selling their goods they chose not to sell to people of their choosing .  

The situation where a baker will provide a specific service for events or actions which violate religious convictions or those that have a conscientious objection - these individuals have a fair, legitimate position that should be protected.  They should not be forced to provide an additional service that the public at large does not receive on a daily basis.  

Further, it seems far more dangerous to allow individuals to have no basis to refuse service except how they are feeling.  As I write this I realize that I do like your argument and it is a safer play.  Gay couple comes in, requests a cake, and baker just says no.  Provides no excuse just says they won't provide the service without providing a reason.  This is definitely the right answer because it prevents the gay couple the right to destroy their company solely because of their religious convictions.  It is shame that people cannot have religious convictions when it comes to special, protected classes of people like gay people.  Anyone else would just go down the street, but the LGBT community is on a witch hunt until all bow at their feet and not just tolerate them but actively support their cause.  I support your position after all. 

[thesometimesaint]

That is exactly how "Redlining" of blacks occurred

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Consig, I think I would agree with you if the context was a baker that made generic goods, put them on the shelves and sold to the public.  In the process of selling their goods they chose not to sell to people of their choosing .  

The situation where a baker will provide a specific service for events or actions which violate religious convictions or those that have a conscientious objection - these individuals have a fair, legitimate position that should be protected.  They should not be forced to provide an additional service that the public at large does not receive on a daily basis.  

Further, it seems far more dangerous to allow individuals to have no basis to refuse service except how they are feeling.  As I write this I realize that I do like your argument and it is a safer play.  Gay couple comes in, requests a cake, and baker just says no.  Provides no excuse just says they won't provide the service without providing a reason.  This is definitely the right answer because it prevents the gay couple the right to destroy their company solely because of their religious convictions.  It is shame that people cannot have religious convictions when it comes to special, protected classes of people like gay people.  Anyone else would just go down the street, but the LGBT community is on a witch hunt until all bow at their feet and not just tolerate them but actively support their cause.  I support your position after all. 

So it becomes a wich hunt when the gay couples stands up for their principles.   Hummm.  

Maybe that gay couple isn't buying into the idea that Christ taught to discriminate, not serve sinners, shun those who sin.  Maybe it is that gay couple that is trying to teach the baker to follow the teachings of Christ and serve all, saint or sinner.  

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

wedding cakes

***

The real issue is this.  Those claiming to follow Christ are doing the work of satan himself

***

So go ahead.  Give yourself a rep point.

I haven’t been talking about wedding cakes; haven’t mentioned them once in our conversation. The fact that you think otherwise betrays your blinders to the real issue, which is: how (and how well) we balance our support and application of special protection (constitutional) and equal protection (legal), both as an individual and as part of the greater communally, and not hysterically accusing people of doing Satan’s work (as you are), which is about as sensible as hawking hobo-flavored cake.

And of course I give myself rep points—I’ve been given a special dispensation on this board to do so.

[Storm Rider]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

So it becomes a wich hunt when the gay couples stands up for their principles.   Hummm.  

Maybe that gay couple isn't buying into the idea that Christ taught to discriminate, not serve sinners, shun those who sin.  Maybe it is that gay couple that is trying to teach the baker to follow the teachings of Christ and serve all, saint or sinner.  

What principles?  It is my private business and I don't want to do a special order.  Do you think any customer has the right to force a private business to work if they don't want to?  Or do you feel if you are gay you get to force anyone you want to perform a service?  Which is it?

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

What principles?  It is my private business and I don't want to do a special order.  Do you think any customer has the right to force a private business to work if they don't want to?  Or do you feel if you are gay you get to force anyone you want to perform a service?  Which is it?

The law doesn't require you to do special orders. What the law does say is that if you already do special orders you can't discriminate against those that want your special orders.

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The law doesn't require you to do special orders. What the law does say is that if you already do special orders you can't discriminate against those that want your special orders.

So you run a small business.  Are you saying you must accept to do every order that comes in the door?  If not, when is the business owner entitled to say, "no thank you"?  

At some point a business owner is forced to discriminate about how much work she can do and how much she cannot do.  What you said above does seem to allow for common sense, which dictates saying I don't want to work 24/7.  

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Serve others, especially the sinners!!!  Eat with them.  Love them.  Don't shun them.   

If the bakers are the "sinners" in this case, it seems that the gay community in general does not share your compassion.  

On that same note, do you?

Edited March 31, 2016 by ERMD

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So you run a small business.  Are you saying you must accept to do every order that comes in the door?  If not, when is the business owner entitled to say, "no thank you"?  

At some point a business owner is forced to discriminate about how much work she can do and how much she cannot do.  What you said above does seem to allow for common sense, which dictates saying I don't want to work 24/7.  

There is nothing in law that compels you to work 24/7. But such an excuse won't work if the next customer coming in the door gets served.