"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[thesometimesaint]

39 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

So said the second person to eat a mushroom.

That is perhaps the most nonsensical thing you've said so far.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

I'm quite aware others' sensibilities are of no consequence when they in any fashion impinge upon one's sacred cow.

But when one person is driven out of business and out of a profession, and another is counting his money, it's not hard to figure out who was bullying whom.

And it doesn't matter a d@mn that the bully is one of the pigs more equal than others.  A bully is a bully.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So said the second person to eat a mushroom.

That is perhaps the most nonsensical thing you've said so far.

I'm thinking of Gibbon and Shirer, of course, and matters of historical-political-religious import.

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

There you go. An excellent example of showing how our society is based on respect for the law.  Any law, regardless of whether or not that law is good.

So first some people came up with a law that says nobody should discriminate against anybody else due to their race (we're all the same race, the human/deity race, btw), or because of their skin color, or because of their sex, or their religion, or whatever else those people came up with when they created that law.  And now everybody is expected to follow that law that those people created.  Nevermind whether or not that law is a good law, or created in such a way that the words composing that law are always going to be used to achieve good results. Nevermind that some people can interpret that law to uphold what is evil and not good. All hail to the law!

All hail to the law!

Our courts have become churches and the man or woman in the black robe is in charge!

Silly that you think no religious belief will trump that! 

[USU78]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

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?

Looks like you'll never get anything that runs afoul of your sacred cow.  I'll try anyway.

To our religious baker, the rite of homosexual marriage is an obscenity.  To the religious baker, baking a birthday cake for a homosexual is not a problem.  That's the difference between herding goats and herding pigs:  pigs are unclean; goats are clean.  If the Greeks do not compel the herdsman to herd swine, the herdsman is fat and happy and counts his drachmas in joy upon sale of those goats to the Kittim.  It is not the baking for the homosexual, it is the baking for the homosexual wedding.  Commission the birthday cake and ou religious baker will be fat and happy and count his Benjamins in joy upon making the sale.

It is the obscene rite, not the cake.

It is the obscene rite, not the baking.

It is the obscene rite, not anything else.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm quite aware others' sensibilities are of no consequence when they in any fashion impinge upon one's sacred cow.

But when one person is driven out of business and out of a profession, and another is counting his money, it's not hard to figure out who was bullying whom.

And it doesn't matter a d@mn that the bully is one of the pigs more equal than others.  A bully is a bully.

Not a single baker has been ordered to pay a single fine that did not break the law.  And you can be a baker and still not bake wedding cakes.  I was once asked to design a label for a wine company.  I choose to not design wine labels.  I didn't have to change professions.  I just had to change what I offered to the public.  Your assertions are not based on the facts.

[Storm Rider]

32 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

Daniel, I think what has impressed me about Bruce is that she condemns all similar actions regardless of who is saying it.  What makes her so powerful is that she is criticizing her own team and the methods they use.  It is easy to throw eggs at the opposing side, but it is different thing entirely to disagree with our own team's methods.  

I did not listen to Dr. Laura and I am only aware of her story through Tammy Bruce.  Bruce indicated that she disagree with Dr. Laura on many social issues, but she felt that she was silenced for the wrong reasons and using the wrong methods.  She is clear that Dr. Laura is an orthodox Jew and she spoke from that context.  It is clear that she felt homosexuality is wrong, but she was not blind.  She was compassionate to gay causes and spoke out against violence.  The quote form the Catholic Church echoed these statements, yet clearly stated the Catholic Church was against homosexuality.  

It is not unhealthy to allow differing opinions in the public square.  It is when we try to destroy those opposing opinions is when we cross the line.  Bruce does not tolerate such actions and she certainly does not tolerate it from the Left.  

If you have kindle I think I can share a book with you if you would like to read the one I have on my phone. 

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Didn't you, rather, mean that ^?

No, not at all.  I meant what I wrote.

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There you go. An excellent example of showing how our society is based on respect for the law.  Any law, regardless of whether or not that law is good.

So first some people came up with a law that says nobody should discriminate against anybody else due to their race (we're all the same race, the human/deity race, btw), or because of their skin color, or because of their sex, or their religion, or whatever else those people came up with when they created that law.  And now everybody is expected to follow that law that those people created.  Nevermind whether or not that law is a good law, or created in such a way that the words composing that law are always going to be used to achieve good results. Nevermind that some people can interpret that law to uphold what is evil and not good. All hail to the law!

All hail to the law!

Our courts have become churches and the man or woman in the black robe is in charge!

Silly that you think no religious belief will trump that! 

Sorry, we don't live in a theocracy.

Every single law including the constitution of the United States can be changed. That is how this country works.  There are other countries were religion does trump clvil law. You have options.

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There you go. An excellent example of showing how our society is based on respect for the law.  Any law, regardless of whether or not that law is good.

So first some people came up with a law that says nobody should discriminate against anybody else due to their race (we're all the same race, the human/deity race, btw), or because of their skin color, or because of their sex, or their religion, or whatever else those people came up with when they created that law.  And now everybody is expected to follow that law that those people created.  Nevermind whether or not that law is a good law, or created in such a way that the words composing that law are always going to be used to achieve good results. Nevermind that some people can interpret that law to uphold what is evil and not good. All hail to the law!

All hail to the law!

Our courts have become churches and the man or woman in the black robe is in charge!

Silly that you think no religious belief will trump that! 

 

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not a single baker has been ordered to pay a single fine that did not break the law.  And you can be a baker and still not bake wedding cakes.  I was once asked to design a label for a wine company.  I choose to not design wine labels.  I didn't have to change professions.  I just had to change what I offered to the public.  Your assertions are not based on the facts.

Tautology 

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Looks like you'll never get anything that runs afoul of your sacred cow.  I'll try anyway.

To our religious baker, the rite of homosexual marriage is an obscenity.  To the religious baker, baking a birthday cake for a homosexual is not a problem.  That's the difference between herding goats and herding pigs:  pigs are unclean; goats are clean.  If the Greeks do not compel the herdsman to herd swine, the herdsman is fat and happy and counts his drachmas in joy upon sale of those goats to the Kittim.  It is not the baking for the homosexual, it is the baking for the homosexual wedding.  Commission the birthday cake and ou religious baker will be fat and happy and count his Benjamins in joy upon making the sale.

It is the obscene rite, not the cake.

It is the obscene rite, not the baking.

It is the obscene rite, not anything else.

Serving blacks BarBQue is an obscene rite.

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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

Remember that?

So you interpret the constitution that religion can decide what is law and what is not regardless of the vote of the people or whether it denies others their constitutional protections? Can religion break any law?

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Serving blacks BarBQue is an obscene rite.

You've eaten my cooking then

[Anijen]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Being religious does not put you above the law nor does it trump the constitution.

No it does not, however, there are exceptions that have been found Constitutionally permissible. Are the Amish above the law? No they are not.  But the Amish have been exempted for religious reasons from paying unemployment, welfare benefits, or social security. Paying into these systems would go against their religious beliefs. Are they breaking the law? No. Are they being discriminatory? No, are they being discriminated against? No. is the religion of the Amish put them above the law? Well it looks that way. But they are not, because of the exception. But the religious baker is breaking the law. I say a bad law. A bad law not because of religion but because it forces compelled belief and if you don't comply here is a fine for $137,000.00

In almost all states students are compelled to attend school until they are 17. In some states such as Maine you cannot leave until 17 years old. Yet, for religious purposes are allowed exemption from those laws. The very reason they allow it is because many religions believe higher education will promote ideas counter to Christian values. Hmm, wasn't baking a cake counter to the Bakers Christian values?

  

Quote

The only place a religion trumps law is a theocracy.

Well it seems the Amish religion is trumping law. So the US is now a theocracy?

 

 

Quote

We don't have one.

Thank goodness.

 

Also wanted to add. I get very involved in the issues I talk about. If I have offended anyone, I apologize.

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It is the obscene rite, not the cake.

It is the obscene rite, not the baking.

It is the obscene rite, not anything else.

Then bake the cake, but don't attend the rite.  Simple.

 

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

But there are deep religious ties to the wedding reception. The parable of the oil and the Bridegroom.

 

The wedding line, the toast, the white dress, the wedding cake, the gifts, even throwing of the bouquet, all have some history that can lead to a religious connection. It might be just a party now, but it wasn't all just a party  back then it had some religious symbolism and roots.

[thesometimesaint]

Anyone can apply for exemption from paying Social Security taxes. But usually it only applies to other governmental agencies like the State/County/Local governmental agencies with their own SS tax exempt retirement programs.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Anijen said:

But there are deep religious ties to the wedding reception. The parable of the oil and the Bridegroom.

 

The wedding line, the toast, the white dress, the wedding cake, the gifts, even throwing of the bouquet, all have some history that can lead to a religious connection. It might be just a party now, but it wasn't all just a party  back then it had some religious symbolism and roots.

The baker isn't being asked to greet the wedding party, toast the brides/grooms, wear the dress, pray over the cake, give a gift, or throw the bouquet.  The baker is just doing what the baker does -- baking a cake.

As the owner of rental properties, am I somehow playing a part in fornication/adultery if an unmarried couple has sex in a unit I rented to them?

Again, I believe the baker should have the liberty to say no to making a cake.  I just don't believe it's a matter of religious freedom... unless baking a cake violates his religious beliefs (in which case, as I have asked, why would said baker have gone into the cake business in the first place).

 

[USU78]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then bake the cake, but don't attend the rite.  Simple.

When does the rite begin?  The haymaker who provides fodder for the Paschal Lamb after it is weaned and the herdsman who maintains the herd and cherishes, feeds and cares for it are just as much a part of the Paschal sacrifice as the priest with the knife, tinder, and coals.  The cake is sine qua non of the wedding rite as much as the rings and the padre.

The herdsman is the baker; the haymaker is the baker:  compelling the baker's participation in the obscene rite is barbarous.

Edited April 14, 2016 by USU78
unruly

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

When does the rite begin? 

Not with a stranger (baker) baking a cake.

.

Edited April 14, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

So you interpret the constitution that religion can decide what is law and what is not regardless of the vote of the people or whether it denies others their constitutional protections? Can religion break any law?

We hold these TRVTHS to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights  ...

Do you know why there was no listing of rights in the Constitution upon ratification?  The framers thought it silly to limit people's G-d-given rights by listing them in a document.  The Bill of Rights was, accordingly, controversial:  not for what it said, but for what it implied:  that governments, not G-d, controlled what somebody's rights are.  They thought G-d gave Man rights that are inherent in his very being, and that any attempt to curtail those rights was a tyranny to be quashed with prejudice.

Very few impositions upon the believer's exercise of his belief are, can be or ought to be cognizable.  Compelling a particular baker to participate in an obscene rite must never be one of them in a remotely free society.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You want to discriminate and then pretend you are not discriminating.  

I don't want to discriminate. I never said that. I want a baker to be able to exercise his own agency, his own conscious  to choose not to make a cake because of religious beliefs, without the fear of being punished. But on another point thank you for telling me what I want. 

 

Quote

You want to break the civil rights laws and then not be punished for breaking the law

No I do not.

 

Quote

You want to make marriage a religious experience for everyone when it is not.

I love how you know me better than I know myself. It must be awesome being you.

 

 

Quote

 In short, you want the world to accept your religious beliefs without doing the hard work.

Er, well, yeah, I would like the world to accept my religious beliefs, if that is a possibility, I would work very hard. After all one of my most complimented attributes is my work ethic.

 

Quote

 If you don't like the laws, then change them.

 I am trying. 

 

Quote

 I hate to point this out to you,

Actually, I kind of getting a vibe that says you get a kick out of it.

 

Quote

but like it or not, we are a country of laws.  No religious belief is going to trump that.  

Yes we are, and profoundly enough,  if you think about it, religious beliefs are law.

 

Oh and just an FYI,  I will be graduating from law school soon, with Constitutional Law  being one of my fields of specialty.

Yours truly 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Sorry, we don't live in a theocracy.

Because the pigs who are more equal take G-d's place in the scheme of things, yes?

[Anijen]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Anyone can apply for exemption from paying Social Security taxes. But usually it only applies to other governmental agencies like the State/County/Local governmental agencies with their own SS tax exempt retirement programs.

So, your point being? The exemption the Amish have is purely because of their religious beliefs.