Jeanne Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 22 minutes ago, ttribe said: Well, there's always these guys - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy's_Baking_Company - They seemed like a "nice" couple. What a nightmare!
ttribe Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 12 minutes ago, Jeanne said: What a nightmare! A nightmare of their own making; they're idiots.
Ahab Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: A nightmare of their own making; they're idiots. They're chefs who often work on Sundays. What else would you expect?
ALarson Posted April 15, 2016 Posted April 15, 2016 (edited) 47 minutes ago, ttribe said: Well, there's always these guys - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy's_Baking_Company - They seemed like a "nice" couple. Ok, I watched this episode (don't laugh, my wife loved watching Kitchen Nightmares and she'd occasionally rope me into watching too ). It was entertaining, but they (the couple) were just awful. . Edited April 15, 2016 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted April 16, 2016 Author Posted April 16, 2016 23 hours ago, california boy said: Scott, if you think that the constitution gives religion the right to discriminate, then why are you posting on a discussion board. Why aren't you bringing a lawsuit against the government for requiring businesses to discriminate when it violates their closely held religious beliefs. Quit your whining and do something about it. Challenge the civil rights laws. Take a page out of the LGBT play book. When they felt their constitutional rights were being withheld from them, they brought a case against the states that had such laws. It was a lot of work, but worth every bit of effort. Surely you recognize that expensive litigation is not the only way to affect public policy in a free society. Other ways are electing representatives and lobbying them. Or exercising one's First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press in the court of public opinion. Or helping businesses to understand that taking sides in a political debate has its costs either way. This must have you worried, or you wouldn't be trying to shout me down with insults. 2
california boy Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Surely you recognize that expensive litigation is not the only way to affect public policy in a free society. Other ways are electing representatives and lobbying them. Or exercising one's First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press in the court of public opinion. Or helping businesses to understand that taking sides in a political debate has its costs either way. This must have you worried, or you wouldn't be trying to shout me down with insults. The courts are a third branch of our government. They were put in place to guard our constitunal rights. It is foolish to not seek redress before the courts unless of course you think religious belief doesn't trump the law and no matter what your religious belief, it doesn't mean that your business can't discriminate Church members spent 40 million dollars on prop 8. The constitutionality of Prop 8 was still challenged, and went down in flames. You can't pass laws that are against the constitution no matter who you elect. Last election over a billion dollars were spent on the presidential election. Litigation is relatively cheap The point is, quit your whining and do something if you really think that freedom of religion gives you the license to discriminate. I thinh we both know you will loose.
Anijen Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 2 hours ago, california boy said: freedom of religion gives you the license to discriminate. If you are using the Constitution as your rule, then you are right it does not give any US citizen the right to discriminate. But the freedom of speech does. Using ones artistic talents to make or not make a wedding cake that is symbolic in itself, the message of the cake is "content-based", therefore you can choose to or choose not to. If you choose to it is protected speech.
california boy Posted April 16, 2016 Posted April 16, 2016 4 hours ago, Anijen said: If you are using the Constitution as your rule, then you are right it does not give any US citizen the right to discriminate. But the freedom of speech does. Using ones artistic talents to make or not make a wedding cake that is symbolic in itself, the message of the cake is "content-based", therefore you can choose to or choose not to. If you choose to it is protected speech. Which is why no bakery is required to write ANYTHING on the wedding cake. Is all they have to do is provide their standard wedding cake they provide for everyone. 3
Guest Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 On April 13, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Freedom said: I am all for religious freedom, but Herein lies the fear, a fear that religious freedom should have no qualifier. Marriage was the first institution God established, and for (until recent history) every faith marriage is a holy ceremony and sacrament. So it must be protected and kept within the boundaries of scripture. If the State wants to marry who they will, so be it. But it cannot be reduced to bake goods or flowers, but about conscience.
Freedom Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 34 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: Herein lies the fear, a fear that religious freedom should have no qualifier. Marriage was the first institution God established, and for (until recent history) every faith marriage is a holy ceremony and sacrament. So it must be protected and kept within the boundaries of scripture. If the State wants to marry who they will, so be it. But it cannot be reduced to bake goods or flowers, but about conscience. So would you deny service to a heterosexual couple who live together but will not get married? I do not see the connection between freedom of religion and selling products.
Storm Rider Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Freedom said: So would you deny service to a heterosexual couple who live together but will not get married? I do not see the connection between freedom of religion and selling products. Freedom, I agree with you. If it is a product - pick anything off the shelf or in the store room; if it is a service - a restaurant that serves the public and all the public pick off a menu and the service is immediately performed. I don't see why there should be any discrimination; all should be served. However, I do find an issue when someone asks for a specially made product. If I don't want to work - regardless of the reason - I as a business owner should not be forced by the government or anyone else to provide a special service. If a person has an issue of conscious - the US has long respected conscientious objectors to war for religious reasons - then that should be respected by all citizens. It does not matter if you or anyone else has a different belief system - their religious beliefs or whatever their belief system, they should be allowed to practice their religion as long as their religion does not physically harm anyone else. As many options that exist in the US for the entire range of services, I see no problem not buying at one store when I can just go down the street and buy from another. Even better, every time a business denies service it creates an opportunity for another business to begin or to expand their service. I don't see how anyone is harmed when we step back and allow the market to take care of itself.
Freedom Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Freedom, I agree with you. If it is a product - pick anything off the shelf or in the store room; if it is a service - a restaurant that serves the public and all the public pick off a menu and the service is immediately performed. I don't see why there should be any discrimination; all should be served. However, I do find an issue when someone asks for a specially made product. If I don't want to work - regardless of the reason - I as a business owner should not be forced by the government or anyone else to provide a special service. If a person has an issue of conscious - the US has long respected conscientious objectors to war for religious reasons - then that should be respected by all citizens. It does not matter if you or anyone else has a different belief system - their religious beliefs or whatever their belief system, they should be allowed to practice their religion as long as their religion does not physically harm anyone else. As many options that exist in the US for the entire range of services, I see no problem not buying at one store when I can just go down the street and buy from another. Even better, every time a business denies service it creates an opportunity for another business to begin or to expand their service. I don't see how anyone is harmed when we step back and allow the market to take care of itself. What is a specialty made product or a special service? This is semantics in my view. All services are special. I have no skill in making socks or installing toilets so to me this is a special service. If I had a child that was gay, I would be very upset of a plumber refused to install a toilet in their house because they are gay. Taking photographs is just a service like installing a toilet or making socks. It is all much ado about nothing. 3
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 9 hours ago, Anijen said: If you are using the Constitution as your rule, then you are right it does not give any US citizen the right to discriminate. But the freedom of speech does. Using ones artistic talents to make or not make a wedding cake that is symbolic in itself, the message of the cake is "content-based", therefore you can choose to or choose not to. If you choose to it is protected speech. There is no unlimited freedom of speech. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Pa Pa said: Herein lies the fear, a fear that religious freedom should have no qualifier. Marriage was the first institution God established, and for (until recent history) every faith marriage is a holy ceremony and sacrament. So it must be protected and kept within the boundaries of scripture. If the State wants to marry who they will, so be it. But it cannot be reduced to bake goods or flowers, but about conscience. We don't get our marriage laws from the ancient Hebrews, but the ancient Roman's. It is a Civil Rite, and not a religious one. 1
mikegriffith1 Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) On 4/13/2016 at 9:30 PM, Freedom said: I am all for religious freedom, but I am not convinced that a business should be allowed to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preferences. I do not see this as infringing on religious freedom. I have on a few occasions accommodated gay couples and I would never consider not providing them service. I understand where there may be a difficulty if it involved servicing a gay wedding but those same people who are affronted by having to service a gay wedding have no problem servicing a heterosexual couple who are not married. But is it "discrimination" to politely decline to photograph a gay wedding because you find it spiritually and morally offensive? I don't get how that is discrimination. Being allowed to force a religious photographer or other vendor to attend and service your gay wedding does not seem like a "right," especially not a right that should trump a person's First Amendment right to religious freedom. Why can't the gay couple just go get a different photographer? Go use a different baker? Find a different caterer? So gays have a right to force a religious vendor to service their wedding but the religious vendor has no right to politely decline? If a photographer who happens to be religious can be forced to attend and photograph a gay wedding, then it's only a matter of time before bishops/pastors/priests can be forced to perform a gay wedding in a church. If a gay couple should not have to find a different baker or photographer, why should they have to find a different pastor and church? Edited April 17, 2016 by mikegriffith1 1
Storm Rider Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Freedom said: What is a specialty made product or a special service? This is semantics in my view. All services are special. I have no skill in making socks or installing toilets so to me this is a special service. If I had a child that was gay, I would be very upset of a plumber refused to install a toilet in their house because they are gay. Taking photographs is just a service like installing a toilet or making socks. It is all much ado about nothing. We disagree with one another. Where you find an issue of semantics I find a significant difference. I respect your right to have your opinion; my opinion is just opposed to yours. Nothing new in a world of so many opinions. The more one's service to others demands that the servicer be drawn into the lives of others the more the servicer should have the right to say yes or not without being compelled. I see a significant difference between going into a bakery and buying bread off the shelf versus the baker going to your house and baking bread just for you and your guests. The is a wide spectrum and some will feel completely comfortable along the entire spectrum where others will not feel comfortable. I would be curious how opinions change given the kind of work people do. I wonder if people who own their own small business have a different opinion than those who don't. It would be an interesting study. I don't expect it would change anyone's opinion, but I suspect it would differ between the two groups. The last thing is I have called plumbers and appliance repair people to do work and have been rejected many times simply because their schedule does not work with my needs. The answer for me? I called another plumber or appliance repair business until I found someone that fit my schedule. Not difficult, did not rock my world, did not make me think about suing them because I am an ugly, fat, white guy that is also a Mormon. Imagine that. Edited April 17, 2016 by Storm Rider 2
mikegriffith1 Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) I don't have a problem with requiring businesses to provide take-out service to all people, but I draw the line when you start talking about making the vendor attend your event to service it. So, if a gay couple walks into a bakery and wants a wedding cake with two guys on it, I say bake them the cake and donate a part of the profit to your favorite pro-family cause. But it's quite a different matter when a gay couple wants a religious photographer or caterer to attend their wedding in order to service it. Then you're forcing someone to attend a ceremony that they don't want to attend, and I think that crosses the line and infringes on the vendor's valid rights. Just on a basic human level, putting aside political considerations, why would you want anyone at your wedding who you knew didn't want to be there anyway? Why? You see, the desire to force religious vendors to attend gay weddings smacks of ulterior motives and negative agendas that have nothing to do with any supposed "rights." Edited April 17, 2016 by mikegriffith1 3
ALarson Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) 59 minutes ago, mikegriffith1 said: I don't have a problem with requiring businesses to provide take-out service to all people, but I draw the line when you start talking about making the vendor attend your event to service it. So, if a gay couple walks into a bakery and wants a wedding cake with two guys on it, I say bake them the cake and donate a part of the profit to your favorite pro-family cause. But it's quite a different matter when a gay couple wants a religious photographer or caterer to attend their wedding in order to service it. Then you're forcing someone to attend a ceremony that they don't want to attend, and I think that crosses the line and infringes on the vendor's valid rights. Has there been a case where a gay couple has tried to do this? (I would really like to read about it, if so.) If this has occurred, did it end up in the courts (as with the cake)? (If not, then who is trying to "force" anyone to attend a ceremony?) . Edited April 17, 2016 by ALarson
california boy Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: We disagree with one another. Where you find an issue of semantics I find a significant different. I respect your right to have your opinion; my opinion is opposed to yours. Nothing new. The more one's service to others demands that the servicer be drawn into the lives of others the more the servicer should have the right to say yes or not without being compelled. I see a significant difference between going into a bakery and buying bread off the shelf versus the baker going to your house and baking bread just for you and your guests. The is a wide spectrum and some will feel completely comfortable along the entire spectrum where others will not feel comfortable. I would be curious how opinions change given the kind of work people do. I wonder if people who own their own small business have a different opinion than those who don't. It would be an interesting study. I don't expect it would change anyone's opinion, but I suspect it would differ between the two groups. The last thing is I have called plumbers and appliance repair people to do work and have been rejected many times simply because their schedule does not work with my needs. The answer for me? I called another plumber or appliance repair business until I found someone that fit my schedule. Not difficult, did not rock my world, did not make me think about suing them because I am an ugly, fat, white guy that is also a Mormon. Imagine that. When you don't see the difference between discrimination and scheduling issues then we are a long ways from understanding this issue 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 4 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said: But is it "discrimination" to politely decline to photograph a gay wedding because you find it spiritually and morally offensive? I don't get how that is discrimination. Being allowed to force a religious photographer or other vendor to attend and service your gay wedding does not seem like a "right," especially not a right that should trump a person's First Amendment right to religious freedom. Why can't the gay couple just go get a different photographer? Go use a different baker? Find a different caterer? So gays have a right to force a religious vendor to service their wedding but the religious vendor has no right to politely decline? If a photographer who happens to be religious can be forced to attend and photograph a gay wedding, then it's only a matter of time before bishops/pastors/priests can be forced to perform a gay wedding in a church. If a gay couple should not have to find a different baker or photographer, why should they have to find a different pastor and church? Churches are not public accommodations.
Ahab Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 48 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Churches are not public accommodations. In what way are they not?
thesometimesaint Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 44 minutes ago, Ahab said: In what way are they not? Because membership is not open to the public.
Anijen Posted April 17, 2016 Posted April 17, 2016 19 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: There is no unlimited freedom of speech. I agree, I have never claimed there was.
Russell C McGregor Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 On 15/04/2016 at 4:19 PM, sunstoned said: This seems like a very slippery slope to me. What if the baker was religiously motivated to opposed mixed race marriages, or believed that the Koran and the Book of Mormon were works of the devil. Do you feel it would be right for the baker to refuse to provide a cake to the mixed race couple, a Muslim couple, or a Mormon couple? Absolutely.
Ahab Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Because membership is not open to the public. Ours is, thank goodness. Where else would we get members if not from the public. For more information please visit lds.org or contact any other member near you, but you. With just a few official formalities and we can make anyone from the public a member. Edited April 18, 2016 by Ahab typo, again
Recommended Posts