"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

I am not advocating discrimination and I am not for repealing civil rights laws.

I guess by now I could say 1000 times my point I am trying to make, (but failing with you is); the government should not legislate how I should believe, how I should think, and how I should feel. And yes we should be able to choose our customers. I would not turn down any Native American, African American, any American, I will not refuse service to a gay man, a same sex couple, a woman,  from service of my business. I am not a racist, I am not discriminatory, I am not homophobic, I just want the freedom to choose. I am opposed to government compelled morality. I am opposed to be forced to help fund abortion,  I am opposed to forcing a baker to make a cake for a same sex couple, not because I am against same sex marriage, but because there are hundreds of other bakers willing to make the cake, and the very one who doesn't want to is because his religious beliefs disapprove of SS marriage.

There have been many (many, many, many) First Amendment cases that allows the freedom of speech to discriminate, be offensive, to be a racist, to defile the flag, to protest the government, to even burn crosses. Discrimination is allowed under the First Amendment.

Screech (sound of brakes)! Not so, fast, that very same First Amendment will not allow a man to discriminate and is forced to make a cake. Why? Well excellent question. Because The religious clauses (Establishment and Exercise clause) of that very same First Amendment is being whittled down and slowly eroded. Discrimination is well protected under speech, but when a baker wants to exercise a part of his religious beliefs, well then, STOP! The morality police steps in and fines a baker $135,000.00 for not making them a cake, when there were hundreds of other bakeries willing to do the job.

This is what is called forced morality, the government is entangling itself in peoples religion by telling people well your religious beliefs are discriminatory and because we don't like that we are going to force you how to think and act. Oh and bytheway it is against the Constitution for the government to entangle themselves in any religious belief (ironically because it breaks the First Amendment), see Lemon v. Kurtzman which is still the holding opinion today.

I seem to recall forced morality is what got the Son of the Morning Star Cast out. Oops, better not add that, a religious reference might get me fined.

There is no law stating that you can't be as racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, crass, and/or crude, as you want to be. What the law says if you own a business that is open to the public. You can't discriminate against your customers on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

How does this baker exercise his religious freedom when he is forced to make a cake that goes against his beliefs?

Call me crazy but I feel that if baking a cake goes against ones beliefs they ought not become a baker.  But that's just me.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Call me crazy but I feel that if baking a cake goes against ones beliefs they ought not become a baker.  But that's just me.

Because such benighted  ignoramuses should not be permitted to participate in Commerce, yes?

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Because such benighted  ignoramuses should not be permitted to participate in Commerce, yes?

Please re-read what I wrote.

If baking a cake goes against ones beliefs, why become a baker?

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Because such benighted  ignoramuses should not be permitted to participate in Commerce, yes?

No. But because such benighted ignoramuses deliberately violate the law.

[Daniel2]

20 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Or maybe you are terribly naive.  Based upon the writings of people involved - you don't have a clue.  I encourage you to do some reading.  Go to Amazon and pick up any book by Tammy Bruce - it will open your eyes and mind to reality.  

Nothing I have said should be interpreted that to say that idealism does not have its place - I am just saying that in this instance it was accomplished by specific agendas that crushed many people along the way and still does in order to be tolerant, inclusive, and equal.  

Here are a few:

• The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds
• The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values
• The New American Revolution

 

19 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I haven't read her books yet.

In the interests of time, in moving the conversation forward, and in deciding whether her works are worth spending time reading, can you summarize 5 or 6 of her most compelling, salient points and their supporting evidence?

Hey, Storm,

I downloaded "The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values" and will be listening to it on Audible.

In the meantime, assuming you've read the three books you linked to, would you please identify a few of the author's most compelling, salient points and the supporting evidence which you feel is most applicable to the topic at hand....?  From your perspective, what relevance did bringing up this author's books have, to this thread?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Please re-read what I wrote.

If baking a cake goes against ones beliefs, why become a baker?

The baker existed/the baker baked entirely unmolested by the bully prior to his being outlawed from baking.  Did you not notice?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

No. But because such benighted ignoramuses deliberately violate the law.

So did the Maccabees.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

The baker existed/the baker baked entirely unmolested by the bully prior to his being outlawed from baking.  Did you not notice?

Oh my.  You completely missed my point.  Not worth trying to go back and re-create all that was said.  Feel free to go back and re-read the dialogue without inserting your preconceived notions about what I was saying.

Hint:  I think that a baker should be able to refuse service to anyone s/he wants.

[Daniel2]

22 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I would like to know how the LGBTQ - and whatever else goes into that acronym today - has so much power over business.  What lever do they have for such a small minority of our populace?  Mormons obviously don't have this kind of power.  Jews may have this kind of power, but only in certain fields if rumors are to be believed.  Native Indians don't have this much power.  Asians certainly don't have this much power.  Blacks have this much power.  It is interesting to study how this extremely small group became so powerful in the US.  

I believe your premise is flawed, in that I don't believe the LGBT community has any more power of business than any other class of people who's personal characteristics are protected from discrimination (i.e. gender, race, ability/disability, national origin, and religion----YES, EVEN religion, which is JUST as equally protected as any of the others on the list--including 'sexual orientation').  Big business has a vested interest in protecting ALL minorities.  By advocating for a marketplace that doesn't discriminate based on ANY minority/majority characteristic, businesses understand they can attract and keep the best and brightest talent by protecting the equal rights of ALL their employees AND customers. 

For example, I work for a U.S.-based and founded international bank which employs tens of thousands of employees across the nation and the world.  Each of the corporate banking centers has "Diversity initiatives,' including company-sponsored but employee-led committees centered around different groups; there are committees for each of the following classes of people in the workplace: Asian and Pacific-Asians, Blacks and African-Americans, Women, Seniors-in-the-Workplace, Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered, Young Professionals, and one centered around fostering Religious Tolerance and Equity.  The call center I work in employs close to 4,000 people, so in many ways, it's like it's own small city.  The company encourages and sponsors events specific to fostering understanding and mutual respect among all groups, including social and dining gatherings, lunchtime Bible Study Groups (and in my Utah-based center, Book of Mormon Study Groups), Brown Bag Educational seminars, and community and social justice involvement (volunteering in Educational Outreach programs in schools, local food banks, and other service projects, involvement in corporate activities during Black History Month, participating in Pride festivals and parades, empowering Women through Equal Pay Initiatives, etc).  Company leadership acknowledges and celebrates many different religious and non-religious holidays, including employee (and sometimes family) celebrations of Hanukah, Ramadan, Pioneer Day, Thanksgiving, Kwanza, Christmas, and Easter.  Ever few months, all employees take a Diversity Training to remind us of the importance of tolerance for all within the workplace, regardless of religion, race, gender, gender identity, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. In so doing, businesses like the company I work for are empowering ALL employees, regardless of their background (including advocating for religious tolerance).  Is it perfect all the time?  No, not always.  And sometimes there's tension, especially when certain political or religious figures or organizations speak or take action against certain controversial issues.  But the important thing is that everyone is continually trying and recommitting to tolerance and mutual respect.

The legislation which Scott is advocating for in his OP in this thread singles out ONE of those characteristics--that of religious affiliation--and seeks to give them SPECIAL privileges to single out individuals characterized in OTHER groups to refuse to do business with (ironically, INCLUDING being able to discriminate against others based on customers' own religious affilation!!!).  In so doing, it undermines the legal fabric underlying the public accommodations laws designed to prohibit discrimination and preserve religious freedom and tolerance.  Let me be clear: the laws that these southern states are passing don't PRESERVE religious liberty------they AUTHORIZE discrimination between religions by allowing ANYONE to refuse service BASED on religious affiliation.  And in so doing, they DESTROY religious tolerance and equity.  They are counterproductive to the very freedoms they claim to protect, all in the name of being able to discriminate against gays and lesbians. As one lawmaker was forced to admit, such laws protect even the KKK and would allow it to resume operating based on 'deeply-held religious beliefs' about blacks being inferior.  These laws do NOT aid liberty--they impede them.

Now, WHY do you feel as if LGBT's all of a sudden have what you perceive to be 'so much power over business'?  Because business has recognized that equality means if it is going to protect ALL it's employees and customers, it can't protect SOME at the expense of OTHERS.  In short, LGBTs DON'T have MORE power within business than any of the other classes--they just now have the SAME amount as everyone else.  But I can easily see that once you're forced to finally realize your religious affiliation no longer allows you to discriminate against LGBTs as you once did, but MUST treat them the same as everyone else, it may FEEL as if LGBTs have MORE power than you.  But in reality, they now just have the SAME amount as you've been enjoying for quite some time.

In short, rather than empowering the LGBT community over any other group (or vice versa), what you perceive as 'special power or influence' is really just businesses recognizing and affirming what Dr. King recognized when he said, "A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Quote

I find it rather deceitful to claim there is no correlation between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights.  Religions have morals and doctrines that clearly define what is acceptable and what is immoral.  Trying to sing Fa, La, La when it comes to religion and the gay agenda of cramming their specific moral standards down the throat of the American public beggars the imagination.  I am not nearly as stupid as some would believe to swallow that bit of tripe and a majority of the American public feels the same way.  

For many years, most religions had (and many still do, in the southern states) morals and doctrines that clearly defined what is acceptable and what is immoral regarding interracial relationships and even the status of blacks in the pre-existence which prohibited them from receiving equal rights and responsibilities within many religions.  Trying to sing Fa, La, La, when it comes to religion and the Civil Rights agenda of cramming their specific moral standards of racial equality down the throat of the American public beggars the imagination.

Yes, many religions are anti-gay, just as many religions were/are anti-black.  That didn't stop the Civil Rights movement--which is based on social justice and secular equality and eliminating discrimination within the marketplace, without dictating or regulating religious doctrines and/or belief.  So, what's your point....?

Edited April 14, 2016 by Daniel2

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oh my.  You completely missed my point.  Not worth trying to go back and re-create all that was said.  Feel free to go back and re-read the dialogue without inserting your preconceived notions about what I was saying.

Hint:  I think that a baker should be able to refuse service to anyone s/he wants.

Good.  TSS doesn't.  Certainly Dan'l and Caliboy don't.

I'm reminded of the prohibition on Jews' farming in the Pale after they'd been specifically invited to enter what became the Pale only later.  Perfectly peaceful farmers thrown off their farms because of their religious belief and practice.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is no law stating that you can't be as racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, crass, and/or crude, as you want to be. What the law says if you own a business that is open to the public. You can't discriminate against your customers on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.

Thank you.  I do know what the law says. I just think some are bad laws. After all we did have Dred Scott v. Sanford, Korumatsu v. U.S., Plessy , Kelo, it goes on and on...

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So did the Maccabees.

And they paid a price didn't they?

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

And they paid a price didn't they?

That'll teach them to object to pigs being sacrificed to idols in the debir, won't it?

"Comply!" sez the bully with the full backing of the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force.  "Sorry, good bully sir, but I shan't!" sez the benighted ignoramus.

I'm curious.  You truly approve of this confluence of events?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Good.  TSS doesn't.  Certainly Dan'l and Caliboy don't.

I'm reminded of the prohibition on Jews' farming in the Pale after they'd been specifically invited to enter what became the Pale only later.  Perfectly peaceful farmers thrown off their farms because of their religious belief and practice.

I think the baker should be allowed to refuse on the grounds of person freedom and liberty.  I struggle to understand it as a matter of religious freedom:  a baker bakes cakes... so baking a cake for a gay couple and their friends/loved ones doesn't seem like a violation of their religious freedom.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Call me crazy but I feel that if baking a cake goes against ones beliefs they ought not become a baker.  But that's just me.

As a baker, I more than agree.  There is no reason in the world for not giving satisfaction to customers and to yourself than to share a talent.  My co-worker at work, who strictly does just cakes, and who is very active in the church, is hoping that management will give her cake decor that will attribute to all wedding cakes.  Of course, she doesn't work for herself, but she has no qualms about sharing the joy of her work to any customer.  That is the essence of making her living.

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Good.  TSS doesn't.  Certainly Dan'l and Caliboy don't.

I'm reminded of the prohibition on Jews' farming in the Pale after they'd been specifically invited to enter what became the Pale only later.  Perfectly peaceful farmers thrown off their farms because of their religious belief and practice.

Apples and Rutabagas. Since 1968 when was the US the same thing as Tsarist Russia of the late 18th Century?

[USU78]

Just now, rockpond said:

I think the baker should be allowed to refuse on the grounds of person freedom and liberty.  I struggle to understand it as a matter of religious freedom:  a baker bakes cakes... so baking a cake for a gay couple and their friends/loved ones doesn't seem like a violation of their religious freedom.

Let me elucidate my thinking.  There are a herdsman and a haymaker in Seleucid Judeo-Syria.  The herdsman herds goats and horses and cows and sheep.  The haymaker provides provender to the herdsman on barter.  There is also a priest and a worshiper in nearby Jerusalem.  They participate in their respective roles in the ancient worship rites of Israel, Isaac and Abraham in the 2nd Temple.

The Seleucid King quite legally decrees that all within his kingdom/empire shall worship his image as g-d on hearth, Epiphanes, in all their houses of worship and shall offer, as part of that worship, sacrifices in the Greek fashion:  burnt swine.  Antiochus IV had made a finding that a compelling state interest demanded such a state of affairs.

And so the herdsman is compelled to herd swine  ...  and the haymaker to provide provender for the swine  ... and the priest to sacrifice the swine on the altar of the G-d of Jacob in the Temple  ... and the worshiper to not only suffer the sacrifice but to participate in the ritual.

The reluctant herdsman, the reluctant haymaker, the reluctant priest and the reluctant worshipper object to the policy and practice imposed by legal decree on religious grounds:  they are not permitted by their G-d to herd swine, or assist in swineherding by providing provender therefor, or sacrifice swine on G-d's altar, or to worship a graven image while witnessing the sacrifice of swine to the g-d-on-earth.

Do you believe such a policy made law is not violative of the US Ist Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?  Or is it only for the priest?  Or is it only for the worshiper?  Or is it for the herdsman?  Can it be for the haymaker?

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Apples and Rutabagas. Since 1968 when was the US the same thing as Tsarist Russia of the late 18th Century?

When people get bullied out of their livelihoods because of their religious beliefs, I see no substantive difference.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Good.  TSS doesn't.  Certainly Dan'l and Caliboy don't.

I'm reminded of the prohibition on Jews' farming in the Pale after they'd been specifically invited to enter what became the Pale only later.  Perfectly peaceful farmers thrown off their farms because of their religious belief and practice.

Bakers always have a choice to refuse to bake cakes for anyone they don't want to bake for by either facing the legal consequences of violating the law, seeking to change/maintain public accommodations laws, or changing professions.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Hey, Storm,

I downloaded "The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values" and will be listening to it on Audible.

In the meantime, assuming you've read the three books you linked to, would you please identify a few of the author's most compelling, salient points and the supporting evidence which you feel is most applicable to the topic at hand....?  From your perspective, what relevance did bringing up this author's books have, to this thread?

For some reason these books are on my iPad and not on my computer.  The cover shows on Kindle but the content is not there.  I have contacted Amazon to get some assistance.  It has been several months since I read them.  Once I have access on my computer I will highlight the basic points she presented on the agenda of the Gay movement to achieve their objectives and how they operated to achieve their objectives. As I recall, the first book I read was first printed in 2004.  She was intimately involved in the Dr. Laura Schlessinger being fired and losing her show.  Why?  Because she had the temerity to REPEAT, not say herself, but simply repeat a quote from the Catholic Church's comments on homosexuality on a single show.  The gay agenda was so distraught with this episode she was protested to the point of losing her show.  How was she protested by the gay agenda/activists?  Lies - nothing they said she had said were here words they were all their own words.  Where was the Corporate world?  That bastion of equality and fairness - swallowing hook, line, and sinker whatever came out of the gay activists mouth.  No review, no collaboration of facts, nothing.  Time interviewed Dr. Schlessinger and she defended herself.  Quoting as Time's actions, "Letting Dr. Laura be heard without the din of the Thought Police, however, was too fair for Time.  In what seems to be an unprecedented move, Time then ran an essay by Joan Garry in the next issue specifically to refute Dr. Laura's comments.  

I have it on my phone and I will quote some of her book - the salient points.  No need to wait since you and Cal both have asked for it.  This is from the book, "The New Thought Police" mentioned above:

• Speaking of GLAAD - ...it went from character building to character assassination.  Fattened up with new found power, it chose not to debate those with differing opinions but to try to destroy them."
• "I was at an organizing meeting for a gay-pride group that shall remain nameless.  One of the bigger arguments at the meeting involved whether or not to have a giant penis on a float, a la the Rose Parade.  After a contentious debate, the Giant Penis Float lost out, but just barely.  The women in the room were not amused, and a discussion ensued about how negatively the gay community appears to the rest of the country when our ambassadors are men dressed as female high school teachers.
• Bruce speaking, "When we being, however, to demand the silencing of someone because we're offended by his or her opinion, we've crossed the line."
• Laura told me (Bruce) that this letter led to a conversation with Rabbi Fine, in which he filled in the details:  If she appeared at teh San Francisco conference, Rabbi Lipner had been warned, the conference would be bombed. Not only would the conference attendees be in danger, he was told, but so would his students at the Academy itself."
• "Unidentified supporters of the GLAAD campaign embraced the decision that harassment and terrorism would be much more effective than the drudgery of a traditional education campaign."
• Dr. Laura is being attacked and Eminem is not (there were several paragraphs on Eminem's lyrics, etc.), I believe, for specific reasons. First, her audience is mainstream America - exactly the people upon whom the speech code needs to be enforced. Second, because Laura "Go-Do-The-Right-Thing" Schlessinger and her audience care, there is the possibility that complaints of discrimination and intolerance, regardless of merit, may have some impact, giving GLAAD's constituency the impression that they are achieving success on an issue.
• "Furthermore, I've heard too many times, publicly and privately, that gay people who don't agree with silencing our critics are "self-hating" and "traitors."  
• "...the left-wing power elite is small and interconnected. Different groups have overlapping constituencies and share a similar history and tactics, allowing for tacit agreements about attitude and approach."
• "As you know, five friends got together to launch stoplaura.com on March 1, 2000, out of concern that there was no national voice calling Paramount to drop Dr. Laura's TV show. ...we were the first national voice to unequivocally demand that Paramount drop the show, and that is why we launched and ran the nationwide - no, worldwide, campaign to stop Dr. Laura.  National voice? No, more like five friends on the Internet."
• "..the Left doesn't want you tolerating anything they won't tolerate."

This book's focus is, following after her title, the Thought Police of the Left and how the Left is extremely active in destroying any that dares to have an opinion that conflicts with their own.  This book has only a single chapter on the Gay Left agenda and focuses primarily on Dr. Laura Schlessinger and how they destroyed her television show, radio show, and life.  The methods are repeated and exerted upon corporations to ensure that they tow the line of of the Left.  

Bruce is an advocate for the gay marriage and the social acceptance of the gay lifestyle.  She is not an Uncle Tom or whatever else the Left has leveled at her because she does not support wrong-headed, dishonest, evil methods to destroy people.  She actually supports the American system, shockingly for someone on the Left, and wants the right of free expression to be open to all rather than just the Left.

I will wait to add more from the other book I have of her's - New Revolution. 

•  

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Daniel2 said:

Bakers ALWAYS have a choice to refuse to bake cakes for anyone they don't want to bake for by changing professions.

No they DON'T!  {hey, hollering is fun!}

Not if, like Jeanne and her buddy, their greatest joy compels their participation in a particular subset of the economy.

Besides, how in the name of Simon Cowell is bullying people out of their professions because of their religious beliefs a good thing?

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Let me elucidate my thinking.  There are a herdsman and a haymaker in Seleucid Judeo-Syria.  The herdsman herds goats and horses and cows and sheep.  The haymaker provides provender to the herdsman on barter.  There is also a priest and a worshiper in nearby Jerusalem.  They participate in their respective roles in the ancient worship rites of Israel, Isaac and Abraham in the 2nd Temple.

The Seleucid King quite legally decrees that all within his kingdom/empire shall worship his image as g-d on hearth, Epiphanes, in all their houses of worship and shall offer, as part of that worship, sacrifices in the Greek fashion:  burnt swine.  Antiochus IV had made a finding that a compelling state interest demanded such a state of affairs.

And so the herdsman is compelled to herd swine  ...  and the haymaker to provide provender for the swine  ... and the priest to sacrifice the swine on the altar of the G-d of Jacob in the Temple  ... and the worshiper to not only suffer the sacrifice but to participate in the ritual.

The reluctant herdsman, the reluctant haymaker, the reluctant priest and the reluctant worshipper object to the policy and practice imposed by legal decree on religious grounds:  they are not permitted by their G-d to herd swine, or assist in swineherding by providing provender therefor, or sacrifice swine on G-d's altar, or to worship a graven image while witnessing the sacrifice of swine to the g-d-on-earth.

Do you believe such a policy made law is not violative of the US Ist Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?  Or is it only for the priest?  Or is it only for the worshiper?  Or is it for the herdsman?  Can it be for the haymaker?

Being compelled to do a job that one does not wish to do is a violation of personal freedom.

Being compelled to participate in a religious ritual is a violation of religious freedom.

And, obviously, the King's decree would be a violation of the US 1st Amendment.

But only the first of those three points has applicability to a baker baking a cake example.

 

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the baker should be allowed to refuse on the grounds of person freedom and liberty.  I struggle to understand it as a matter of religious freedom:  a baker bakes cakes... so baking a cake for a gay couple and their friends/loved ones doesn't seem like a violation of their religious freedom.

Is there a religion that prohibits baking cakes?  Is there even a religion that prohibits baking cakes for gay couples?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is there a religion that prohibits baking cakes?  Is there even a religion that prohibits baking cakes for gay couples?

And if there were a religion that prohibited baking cakes, why would an adherent/believer of such a religion voluntarily go into the cake-baking business?

Edited April 14, 2016 by rockpond