"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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

If you don't see the difference between Tsarist Russia of the late 18th Century and the US post 1968. I really don't know what to say to you. I've never approved of bullying for ANY purpose either. Moreover neither you nor I can do a thing about the past other than learn from its mistakes.

[USU78]

3 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?

Silly boy.  It is the sacrifice of the pig, not sacrificing in general, that is the problem.

This isn't that complicated.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

The baker is the herdsman.  The baker is the haymaker.

Their contributions to true sacrifice and worship are just as integral as manning the altar and worshiping in the temple.

That's why it's important to understand their thinking.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

Because, dear rp, nobody was bullying bakers out of the baking business when they went into the business, and

Nobody was requiring bakers to participate in obscene rites when they went into the business, and

The Ist Amendment is specifically designed to prohibit people from being compelled to participate in a religious or quasireligious rite that violates their religious conscience.

How is it a good thing for bullies to bully people out of their livelihoods?

[Anijen]

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.

That is not what I said. If it were I could agree with you.

It is not the action of "baking a cake" that is against his beliefs. If that were true all cakes he made for all his customers in the past would have also gone against his beliefs.

I wonder why I even attempt to have a dialogue. I am encouraged to have a civil dialogue, but it doesn't help when people twist my words ever so slightly.

For example:

I said: it is my believe that businesses should have the right to choose who their services serve. But then I get; called out for wanting to change civil rights.

I said: Discrimination is ugly. But then I get; called out with terms such as bigotry, racism, homophobic etc.

I use law to support my posts. But then I get; a lesson telling me what the law says.

I said a baker should not have to bake a cake for a SS marriage couple if it goes against his religion. But then I get; the act of baking cake goes against someones religion?

I said the we should not have to be compelled to believe a certain way. But then I get; discrimination is bad (in which I agreed several times that is was bad).

 

No it is not the baking of the cake, it never has been. It is the state compelling the baker to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage couple, when the baker's religion disagrees with same sex marriage.

Wedding cakes have become a significant  important part of the wedding reception. People spend a ton of money on their wedding and their wedding cakes. Wedding Cakes are truly expensive. The newlywed couples are not paying for the eggs, flour, sugar of a regular cake. They are paying for an artistic creation and the talents and skills of the baker. The cutting of the wedding cake is in all the receptions that I have attended. The saving of the top piece of the wedding cake to be eaten by the couple on their first anniversary is also traditional. The wedding cake has become a symbolic portion of the wedding reception. So when a baker wants a cake for the same sex  couple no problem (the baker said he would bake them a cake, but not a wedding cake. Why? because he as the baker by using his talents, his skills, his love of his work poured into a beautiful edible creation that for him symbolizes the traditional man and woman that represents a special bond. Originally most weddings were held in church buildings which strengthened the notion of it being a sacrosanct importance that a church wedding is directly connected to religious beliefs. No it is not the baking of the cake, but what the cake represents and for this baker it would represent something his religion does not agree with. 

I can't wait for this post to be twisted out of context too.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The baker is the herdsman.  The baker is the haymaker.

Their contributions to true sacrifice and worship are just as integral as manning the altar and worshiping in the temple.

That's why it's important to understand their thinking.

If the herdsman raised and sold pigs for people to buy and slaughter, than it is not a violation of the herdsman's religious freedom if a priest buys a pig from him and sacrifices it.

Likewise, if a baker makes wedding cakes, it is not a violation of the baker's religious freedom for a gay couple to buy one of the cakes and eat it after their wedding.

 

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you don't see the difference between Tsarist Russia of the late 18th Century and the US post 1968. I really don't know what to say to you. I've never approved of bullying for ANY purpose either. Moreover neither you nor I can do a thing about the past other than learn from its mistakes.

Nobody ever learns from others' mistakes.

Everybody has to fall off the same bridge.

I disagree that you don't "approve of bullying for ANY purpose," since you approve of set-up artists bullying people out of their professions to make a political point.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Nobody ever learns from others' mistakes.

Sure they do.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Because, dear rp, nobody was bullying bakers out of the baking business when they went into the business,

Right, and they shouldn't be... as a matter of personal freedom & liberty, not religious freedom.

 

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Nobody was requiring bakers to participate in obscene rites when they went into the business

Baking a cake is not an "obscene rite".

 

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The Ist Amendment is specifically designed to prohibit people from being compelled to participate in a religious or quasireligious rite that violates their religious conscience.

Baking a cake is not participating in a religious rite.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Anijen said:

That is not what I said. If it were I could agree with you.

It is not the action of "baking a cake" that is against his beliefs. If that were true all cakes he made for all his customers in the past would have also gone against his beliefs.

I wonder why I even attempt to have a dialogue. I am encouraged to have a civil dialogue, but it doesn't help when people twist my words ever so slightly.

For example:

I said: it is my believe that businesses should have the right to choose who their services serve. But then I get; called out for wanting to change civil rights.

I said: Discrimination is ugly. But then I get; called out with terms such as bigotry, racism, homophobic etc.

I use law to support my posts. But then I get; a lesson telling me what the law says.

I said a baker should not have to bake a cake for a SS marriage couple if it goes against his religion. But then I get; the act of baking cake goes against someones religion?

I said the we should not have to be compelled to believe a certain way. But then I get; discrimination is bad (in which I agreed several times that is was bad).

 

No it is not the baking of the cake, it never has been. It is the state compelling the baker to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage couple, when the baker's religion disagrees with same sex marriage.

Wedding cakes have become a significant  important part of the wedding reception. People spend a ton of money on their wedding and their wedding cakes. Wedding Cakes are truly expensive. The newlywed couples are not paying for the eggs, flour, sugar of a regular cake. They are paying for an artistic creation and the talents and skills of the baker. The cutting of the wedding cake is in all the receptions that I have attended. The saving of the top piece of the wedding cake to be eaten by the couple on their first anniversary is also traditional. The wedding cake has become a symbolic portion of the wedding reception. So when a baker wants a cake for the same sex  couple no problem (the baker said he would bake them a cake, but not a wedding cake. Why? because he as the baker by using his talents, his skills, his love of his work poured into a beautiful edible creation that for him symbolizes the traditional man and woman that represents a special bond. Originally most weddings were held in church buildings which strengthened the notion of it being a sacrosanct importance that a church wedding is directly connected to religious beliefs. No it is not the baking of the cake, but what the cake represents and for this baker it would represent something his religion does not agree with. 

I can't wait for this post to be twisted out of context too.

And I agree that the state has no business compelling a baker to bake a cake (or any type) for any person or couple.

I just don't see it as a matter of religious freedom.

A wedding reception is a party.  It is not a religious rite.

 

[california boy]

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.

I think every baker should be able to bake a cake for anyone they want. That is what they do. They just can't break the law and not expect punishment. If you don't like the law change it. But also expect real consequences for passing laws that discriminate and also expect lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of those laws.  Even though you are in favor of discrimination, most Americans are not. Being religious does not put you above the law nor does it trump the constitution. The only place a religion trumps law is a theocracy.  We don't have one.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If the herdsman raised and sold pigs for people to buy and slaughter, than it is not a violation of the herdsman's religious freedom if a priest buys a pig from him and sacrifices it.

Likewise, if a baker makes wedding cakes, it is not a violation of the baker's religious freedom for a gay couple to buy one of the cakes and eat it after their wedding.

The herdsman was herding sheep and goats and horses and cows.  In my example he is compelled to herd swine against his will and in violation of his religious sensibilities.  Did you miss that?  The haymaker was providing provender to the herdsman which would be used for feeding sheep and goats and horses and cows.  As the herdsman is compelled to take on and herd pigs, he is compelled to feed those pigs.

The bullies forced religious herdsmen and haymakers from commerce or, if they will submit, to participate in pig-sacrificing and idol-worshiping by making their contributions to temple worship.  The bullies force religious bakers from commerce or, if they will submit, to participate in a rite as vile to them as pig-sacrificing and idol-worship by making their contributions to an obscenity.

[Storm Rider]

These conversations are pointless and ridiculous.  They serve no purpose because there is no dialogue and because no one is going to change their mind or listen to the other side.  Each of you have chosen you will serve and what you think is right.  Agree to disagree and move on.  

Should you persist in trying to talk words will be twisted, and meanings will be turned upside down in an effort to win points for themselves.  You certainly are not going to win points from the other side.  You talk past one another.  Worse, individuals have already admitted they have no desire to learn more or to hear another voice - i.e. their minds are closed because they have chosen - there is nothing left to discuss.  

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Because, dear rp, nobody was bullying bakers out of the baking business when they went into the business, and

Nobody was requiring bakers to participate in obscene rites when they went into the business, and

The Ist Amendment is specifically designed to prohibit people from being compelled to participate in a religious or quasireligious rite that violates their religious conscience.

How is it a good thing for bullies to bully people out of their livelihoods?

Not quite true. The government can compel a Federal/State/ County(Parish)/Local private businesses to operate within the law. What you are recommending is nothing less than Nullification.

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Silly boy.  It is the sacrifice of the pig, not sacrificing in general, that is the problem.

This isn't that complicated.

Looks like you got my point.  It is a silly argument that providing service to a sinner is against some persons religion.  Dp you know of a Christian religion that prohibits serving sinners?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

The herdsman was herding sheep and goats and horses and cows.  In my example he is compelled to herd swine against his will and in violation of his religious sensibilities.  Did you miss that?  The haymaker was providing provender to the herdsman which would be used for feeding sheep and goats and horses and cows.  As the herdsman is compelled to take on and herd pigs, he is compelled to feed those pigs.

The bullies forced religious herdsmen and haymakers from commerce or, if they will submit, to participate in pig-sacrificing and idol-worshiping by making their contributions to temple worship.  The bullies force religious bakers from commerce or, if they will submit, to participate in a rite as vile to them as pig-sacrificing and idol-worship by making their contributions to an obscenity.

I didn't miss those points.  I responded to them... I stated that compelling someone to do a job that they don't wish to do is a violation of their personal liberty but not their religious freedom.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

The only place a religion trumps law is a theocracy.

The Bill of Rights would disagree, as it expresses what humanity possesses quite independent from government.

Quote

They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Remember that?

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just don't [care if it is] a matter of religious freedom.
 

Didn't you, rather, mean that ^?

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not quite true. The government can compel a Federal/State/ County(Parish)/Local private businesses to operate within the law. What you are recommending is nothing less than Nullification.

The rights granted by the Ist Amendment are prior to government and prohibit the Federal/State/County-Parish/Local laws from compelling religious thought and practice.

Did you ever notice that "nullification" is always in the 2nd or 3rd person, never the 1st?  "So Carolina's nullification of the tariff" "Obama's nullification of RFRA"  When it's me doing it, it's called respecting the constitution.

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Anijen said:

That is not what I said. If it were I could agree with you.

It is not the action of "baking a cake" that is against his beliefs. If that were true all cakes he made for all his customers in the past would have also gone against his beliefs.

I wonder why I even attempt to have a dialogue. I am encouraged to have a civil dialogue, but it doesn't help when people twist my words ever so slightly.

For example:

I said: it is my believe that businesses should have the right to choose who their services serve. But then I get; called out for wanting to change civil rights.

I said: Discrimination is ugly. But then I get; called out with terms such as bigotry, racism, homophobic etc.

I use law to support my posts. But then I get; a lesson telling me what the law says.

I said a baker should not have to bake a cake for a SS marriage couple if it goes against his religion. But then I get; the act of baking cake goes against someones religion?

I said the we should not have to be compelled to believe a certain way. But then I get; discrimination is bad (in which I agreed several times that is was bad).

 

No it is not the baking of the cake, it never has been. It is the state compelling the baker to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage couple, when the baker's religion disagrees with same sex marriage.

Wedding cakes have become a significant  important part of the wedding reception. People spend a ton of money on their wedding and their wedding cakes. Wedding Cakes are truly expensive. The newlywed couples are not paying for the eggs, flour, sugar of a regular cake. They are paying for an artistic creation and the talents and skills of the baker. The cutting of the wedding cake is in all the receptions that I have attended. The saving of the top piece of the wedding cake to be eaten by the couple on their first anniversary is also traditional. The wedding cake has become a symbolic portion of the wedding reception. So when a baker wants a cake for the same sex  couple no problem (the baker said he would bake them a cake, but not a wedding cake. Why? because he as the baker by using his talents, his skills, his love of his work poured into a beautiful edible creation that for him symbolizes the traditional man and woman that represents a special bond. Originally most weddings were held in church buildings which strengthened the notion of it being a sacrosanct importance that a church wedding is directly connected to religious beliefs. No it is not the baking of the cake, but what the cake represents and for this baker it would represent something his religion does not agree with. 

I can't wait for this post to be twisted out of context too.

The reason your arguments are shot down is because the logic of those reasons are fundamentally flawed.  You want to discriminate and then pretend you are not discriminating.  You want to break the civil rights laws and then not be punished for breaking the law or be responsible for repealing those laws.  You want to make marriage a religious experience for everyone when it is not.  In short, you want the world to accept your religious beliefs without doing the hard work.  If you don't like the laws, then change them.  But like I said, if you do change the laws, you can expect most Americans and business to push back.  Just ask the governors of North Carolina and Mississippi.  I hate to point this out to you, but like it or not, we are a country of laws.  No religious belief is going to trump that.  

[Daniel2]

59 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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. 

•  

Thanks for the response.  Some of the examples you provided surely do seem uncalled for (having Dr. Laura's show cancelled because she discussed Catholicism's views on homosexuality on a single show...?  I used to listen to Dr. Laura... she said ultra-conservative, highly controversial stuff all the time... something about that account seems off to me--but as I said, I'll listen to her book and examine her evidence to verify whether her characterization is accurate). 

That being said, the actions you've described certainly aren't limited to The Left.  One Million Moms, the National Organization for Marriage, the Liberty Counsel, The Family Research Counsel all employ similar tactics on a regular basis of protests and boycotts to coerce individuals/organizations/businesses to reflect their values, as well (including cancelling shows, losing employment, etc).

Even so, I absolutely do agree that critics shouldn't be silenced.  From my perspective, legal and social LGBT-equality is often best-served, adopted at a more effective manner, and quicker pace when discussion continues to occur, because the flaws in anti-gay arguments are more readily exposed.

After listening to her book, I will return and share more of my thoughts.  Thanks for the recommendation.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is some of the most bizarre thinking I've ever read. 

That's okay. I've become accustomed to the fact that not everybody is comfortable with all that I think or thinks that my thinking is good.

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sure they do.

The Greeks and Romans would disagree.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The Greeks and Romans would disagree.

Maybe, but your statement is still not correct.

[Daniel2]

41 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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?

First: I apologize if my use of capital letters for emphasis read as 'hollering.'  I meant it as emphasis, rather than shouting, and that was quicker and easier on my phone since italics is harder to format.  So as not to confuse that point, I edited my original post and replaced the capitals with italics, so as to better reflect my intent.  I will attempt to employ italics going forward.

That being said, I disagree with your assertion that bakers don't have a choice to change professions (you'll note in my edit of my previous post that I also added a couple of other options:

49 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

I am glad that both Jeanne and her co-worker find joy in their chosen profession.  And, if I understand her correctly, it sounds as if her LDS co-worker doesn't have any qualms about baking cakes for others, regardless of her customers' divergent beliefs or marital choices.

That being said: I find it puzzling that you assert that bakers cannot choose other employment... as if the only possible occupation that any given baker could ever have (or even find joy in) is baking wedding cakes for heterosexual customers.  I have changed professions four times throughout my life, thus far.  Some changes occurred because of choices I made to pursue other opportunities, and other changes were made because of restructuring, market or economic changes, or powers beyond my control.  I have felt varying degrees of fulfillment and joy in each case.  Everyone always has a choice, when it comes to occupation and making a living.  None of us are trapped.  At least in the United States of America.

When it comes to "bullying people out of their professions," you seem to have it reversed; the people doing the bullying are those that are discriminating against their customers.  The very concept of public accommodations laws were based on businesses bullying minority groups based on religion or race.  In the USA, you simply cannot claim the 'right' to discriminate based on protected classes.  Asserting a right to do so is the act of bullying, not the law which attempts to prevent it.