"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I looked up the article back when you originally posted it.  He talks about companies choosing to take their business elsewhere but that isn't them taking sides against religious liberty.  Is there another example of companies taking sides against religious liberty that I missed?

So a company refusing to do business with someone or something because the targeted entity has chosen to express its religious values is not taking sides?

I think we have entered the rockpond zone.

[Saint Sinner]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So a company refusing to do business with someone or something because the targeted entity has chosen to express its religious values is not taking sides?

I think we have entered the rockpond zone.

Should the business entity set aside their values and continue to do business with another entity that has chosen to express their religious values?

Why not simply agree not to do business with each other based on disagreement of values? No harm, no foul. Or am I missing something?

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Saint Sinner said:

Should the business entity set aside their values and continue to do business with another entity that has chosen to express their religious values?

Why not simply agree not to do business with each other based on disagreement of values? No harm, no foul. Or am I missing something?

Or the business could leave politics out of the equation altogether. 

[Saint Sinner]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or the business could leave politics out of the equation altogether. 

Could both businesses leave politics out completely? Or leave religion out completely?

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Saint Sinner said:

Could both businesses leave politics out completely? Or leave religion out completely?

In some imagined society apart from reality, sure, but not in any real society.   Religion is like death and taxes. No real way to never  have any.

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So a company refusing to do business with someone or something because the targeted entity has chosen to express its religious values is not taking sides?

I think we have entered the rockpond zone.

Yes, the rockpond zone where liberty and agency are honored. 

I thought you supported the right of a business to not serve those who may offend their sincerely held beliefs and values?

Why is it okay for a bakery to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple but it's wrong for the NCAA to refuse to bring its events to a state that passed legislation offending its values and employees? 

You apparently want those who agree with you to have the right to discriminate but if someone who disagrees wants to discriminate than they are against religious liberty.

This is the same ridiculous position you've staked out for gay marriage where being against it is a matter of religious freedom but being for it is not.  

Edited April 19, 2016 by rockpond

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You apparently want those who agree with you to have the right to discriminate but if someone who disagrees wants to discriminate than they are against religious liberty. 

That's close to the point but not quite hitting the nail on the head.  Rather than being in favor of everything, even things that really aren't good, there are people who are against things that are not good to the point of being really really truly against them.  And any person or business goes against that when they are in favor of allowing everything. 

Thus you end up with 2 sides that are against each other.  Those who want to allow anything and those who want there to be some constraints.

And selling things for money doesn't make any of those problems go away either.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or the business could leave politics out of the equation altogether. 

It's not politics... It's the values of the business, their employees, and customers.  In both cases: the bakery and the NCAA and other businesses that the op-ed author cites. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's close to the point but not quite hitting the nail on the head.  Rather than being in favor of everything, even things that really aren't good, there are people who are against things that are not good to the point of being really really truly against them.  And any person or business goes against that when they are in favor of allowing everything. 

Thus you end up with 2 sides that are against each other.  Those who want to allow anything and those who want there to be some constraints.

And selling things for money doesn't make any of those problems go away either.

I don't get your point.  The bakery is against gay marriage.  The NCAA is against discrimination.  Why is one right and the other wrong?

[Guest]

On April 17, 2016 at 11:26 PM, thesometimesaint said:

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.

No, our laws are based on scripture up,until we stopped being a Nation of Laws. It it were from the Romans, gay marriage would have been practiced from the first days,of our Nation. The Gov't got involved as is the case with most things when they learned how to tax it, via marriage Lic. I know that many would like to disagree which is your right, but one cannot invent their own truths. In order to chase down their meaning of the word "Fair". 

[Guest]

On April 17, 2016 at 9:04 PM, 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. 

Maybe it is my age, but Papa is a little slow on the uptake with your comment...please expand. 

[Freedom]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think what we need is some kind of law that allows a person to bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people they want to sell them to.  If that means the baker is not legally allowed to say his services are available to the public at large because he wishes to be selective in who he sells to, so be it. He would just have to put up some sort of a sign to say that his services are not available to the public at large and that he will agree to bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people he chooses to take on as clients. 

I am capable of baking a wedding cake and I certainly would never agree to bake and sell a wedding cake to just anyone who asked me to sell them one. I believe I have the right to say Yes or No at my pleasure,  and that I don't even need a business license to bake and sell wedding cakes as long as I keep my sales under a certain limit for any one person during a fiscal year.

These laws exist. Lots of people provide exclusive services that require people to register. I just do not understand why, if you are trying to make a living, you would want to limit your clientele. We have been at war to protect our freedom and our liberties. The cost of freedom is not having the right to discriminate. The cost of being a good Christian is accepting all without putting labels on them. I do not judge someone if they are drug addicted, living common law, or even if they are satan worshipers. I never question their lifestyle choices. If I can enter their lives and be a good example, and offer a service with honesty and kindness I will do much more to further the Gospel then to turn my back on anyone I disagree with. There are active members of the church living in Los Vegas who are employed in casinos. Why is it ok to embrace gambling as a way to make a living but not provide a service to someone who will make up .0001% of your income. 

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, Saint Sinner said:

Should the business entity set aside their values and continue to do business with another entity that has chosen to express their religious values?

Why not simply agree not to do business with each other based on disagreement of values? No harm, no foul. Or am I missing something?

Not the same thing. Here is a better example.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/anti-government-activist-building-an-army-of-sheriffs-who-are-like-kim-davis-but-with-guns/

 

[Mark Beesley]

The problem of companies supposedly taking sides in the religious liberties debate will evaporate when we quit calling commercial discrimination religious discrimination. 

 If I offer goods or services to the public at large,  it is disingenuous to suggest that I can refuse to offer certain goods and services to a certain group of persons because of my religiously held views,  unless of course my religion requires me to be engaged in the providing of those particular goods or services which I highly doubt is ever the case.

These laws which purports to protect religious freedom, when extended to the logical conclusion, could result for example in an LDS cashier in a grocery store refusing to sell a person a bottle of wine or liquor or beer because it was against  their religious beliefs.   Yet the Church does not counsel that a LDS cashier should not sell liquor or tobacco or other such products to customers.  Indeed the Church does not even counsel the owners of stores not to sell such commodities as liquor or cigarettes. I was acquainted with a bishop just before my mission in Prescott Arizona who owned a store and he told me that the brethren told him specifically that they were not concerned with the things that he sold but that they were more concerned about being open on Sundays.

 So until a claim of religious persecution arises in the context of providing commercial goods or services  by someone who can assert that they were required by the religion to provide such good for services to other members of the public, then this whole argument that requiring people to serve this same-sex marriage with cakes or wedding license is doomed to fail.

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't get your point.  The bakery is against gay marriage.  The NCAA is against discrimination.  Why is one right and the other wrong?

The NCAA is wrong because it is showing favor to a behavior that is wrong/ not good/ evil/ not what good people should do or encourage/ promote/ say is okay. 

Say it with me this time: Discrimination is good when what you are discriminating against is not good.

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The NCAA is wrong because it is showing favor to a behavior that is wrong/ not good/ evil/ not what good people should do or encourage/ promote/ say is okay. 

Say it with me this time: Discrimination is good when what you are discriminating against is not good.

Such a invitation to anarchy. Was Loving v Virginia decided correctly?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The NCAA is wrong because it is showing favor to a behavior that is wrong/ not good/ evil/ not what good people should do or encourage/ promote/ say is okay. 

Say it with me this time: Discrimination is good when what you are discriminating against is not good.

Okay... so liberty only belongs to those who agree with your religious views?  Discriminating against a gay couple is okay.  Discriminating in favor of the gay couple is wrong?

ETA:  This still isn't evidence of companies taking sides against religious liberty, it is evidence of companies taking sides against views that they disagree with.  I still invite someone/anyone to provide the evidence of companies taking sides against religious liberty.

Edited April 19, 2016 by rockpond

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, Freedom said:

These laws exist. Lots of people provide exclusive services that require people to register. I just do not understand why, if you are trying to make a living, you would want to limit your clientele. We have been at war to protect our freedom and our liberties. The cost of freedom is not having the right to discriminate. The cost of being a good Christian is accepting all without putting labels on them. I do not judge someone if they are drug addicted, living common law, or even if they are satan worshipers. I never question their lifestyle choices. If I can enter their lives and be a good example, and offer a service with honesty and kindness I will do much more to further the Gospel then to turn my back on anyone I disagree with. There are active members of the church living in Los Vegas who are employed in casinos. Why is it ok to embrace gambling as a way to make a living but not provide a service to someone who will make up .0001% of your income. 

The principle of the thing.  That's why.  What if money was not a factor and a gay "couple" asked you to bake them a wedding cake for their "wedding"?

Ih nevermind. You'd probably just make it anyway out of the "goodness" of your own heart, even if they would not be paying you any money.  You'd likely do ANYTHING anyone ever asked you to do for them, regardless if whether or not you were promoting something you thought was evil, just so everyone you served would think you are a very nice guy and want to be exactly like you.

I, on the other hand, will not go out of my way to do anything that I think might give someone the idea that I agree with what they are doing when they are doing something that I think is wrong, and I certainly would never actively participate in helping someone to do what I think is wrong either.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The principle of the thing.  That's why.  What if money was not a factor and a gay "couple" asked you to bake them a wedding cake for their "wedding"?

Ih nevermind. You'd probably just make it anyway out of the "goodness" of your own heart, even if they would not be paying you any money.  You'd likely do ANYTHING anyone ever asked you to do for them, regardless if whether or not you were promoting something you thought was evil, just so everyone you served would think you are a very nice guy and want to be exactly like you.

I, on the other hand, will not go out of my way to do anything that I think might give someone the idea that I agree with what they are doing when they are doing something that I think is wrong, and I certainly would never actively participate in helping someone to do what I think is wrong either.

You are still subject to the law. Your business can be sued out of existence.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Such a invitation to anarchy. Was Loving v Virginia decided correctly?

Anarchy to a particular secular government entity doesn't equate to anarchy to every form or entity of government.  I strive with all my might and soul to obey the righteous laws of God but the evil laws of men that uphold/ promote evil can go take a flying leap from a very high place.

I don't know that particular case, but if ultimate freedom was the goal then I am all for it as long as I get to continue to object and fight against anything that is evil.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

You are still subject to the law. Your business can be sued out of existence.

I'm sure I could find a legal way to bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people I chose to bake them for, not selling them to people I don't want to bake for.  I wouldn't be doing it with the goal or dream of baking them for everybody and I'd be happy just to be making a profit, even baking some without charging any money.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Such a invitation to anarchy. Was Loving v Virginia decided correctly?

Usually a per curium decision is not wrong. I would also agree with the opinion in Loving v. Virginia.

But your habit of just throwing up a link, a video, and in this instance a famous case, without hardly any regard to explanation, as if this answers everything, makes it appear that you are always right and in a condescending type manner.

Was Dred Scott v. Sandford decided correctly? See I can do it to. IOW just splashing a video, a link, a case really does nothing to advance the dialogue, unless you accompany it with; for example; "I found this interesting, take a look and watch this (read this, listen to this...) and tell me if you agree or not."  

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm sure I could find a legal way to bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people I chose to bake them for, not selling them to people I don't want to bake for.  I wouldn't be doing it with the goal or dream of baking them for everybody and I'd be happy just to be making a profit, even baking some without charging any money.

There already is a way to legally "bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people I chose to bake them for, not selling them to people I don't want to bake for".

Don't open your business to the public. The down side is that it limits your customer base, but that is your right. IE; The Relief Society Distribution Center is only open to LDS members with Temple Recommends. Its operations are perfectly legal.

[Ahab]

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There already is a way to legally "bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people I chose to bake them for, not selling them to people I don't want to bake for".

Don't open your business to the public. The down side is that it limits your customer base, but that is your right. IE; The Relief Society Distribution Center is only open to LDS members with Temple Recommends. Its operations are perfectly legal.

The only thing I wouldn't be offering to the public is an implicit agreement to bake everybody's wedding cake, or anything else wouldn't want to offer to the entire public.  I'm sure I could still accept requests from the entire public, though, just as long as I didn't offer an implicit agreement.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

You are still subject to the law. Your business can be sued out of existence.

...  which you approve of?