"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take your point, but I would counter that if the baker is religiously motivated in his decision, it thus becomes a matter of religious freedom.

You don't get to decide for someone else what he or she can regard as a religious rite or a personal expression of religious belief or values. That's what the free-exercise clause is meant to protect against.

 

So you want to claim that religiously motivated discrimination is a matter of 1st amendment religious freedom?

That's a dangerous path to go down. 

Do you really want people to be able to claim that baking a wedding cake is a religious rite?  Or, that the event for which someone uses your product determines that making that product is a religious rite?

Sorry... I disagree with that thinking. 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take your point, but I would counter that if the baker is religiously motivated in his decision, it thus becomes a matter of religious freedom.

You don't get to decide for someone else what he or she can regard as a religious rite or a personal expression of religious belief or values. That's what the free-exercise clause is meant to protect against.

 

This seems like a very slippery slope to me.  What if the baker was religiously motivated to opposed mixed race marriages, or believed that the Koran and the Book of Mormon were works of the devil.  Do you feel it would be right for the baker to refuse to provide a cake to the mixed race couple, a Muslim couple, or a Mormon couple?    

 

[Yirgacheffe]

15 hours ago, Anijen said:

your religious beliefs are discriminatory and because we don't like that we are going to force you how to think and act.

No the state isn't forcing you how to think a certain way,  it is simply forcing you to serve the object of your loathing the same as you would serve someone you don't loathe. You can still make your discrimination known by giving poor or crappy service, you can still voice your "discriminatory" views to the person, you just have to bake their cake, dry clean their laundry, cook them lunch.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, mtomm said:

So if I'm opposed to gay marriages how am I going to keep gay people from buying the veils, garters, rings, "something blue," invitations and thank you notes that I make? When I ship them to my resellers can I add a little label that says "Not for sale to gay people and cannot be used for gay weddings?"  

Should I be upset when resellers aren't interested in my products? Am I now being forced out of work because of my religious beliefs? How come companies no longer want to do business with me?  Should I be forced to produce my hand-crafted products for just anyone? I don't want  it to seem like my brand Holy Weddings is endorsing gay marriage!

I think Paul's counsel on meat sacrificed to idols is a comparable situation.

Short Version: Not a sin but do not make a production of it.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Umm, how about the kind of people who provide not merely "supplies" but who do bespoke work for specific events?

 

Take the money and contribute it to a good cause.

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

No the state isn't forcing you how to think a certain way,  it is simply forcing you to serve the object of your loathing the same as you would serve someone you don't loathe. You can still make your discrimination known by giving poor or crappy service, you can still voice your "discriminatory" views to the person, you just have to bake their cake, dry clean their laundry, cook them lunch.

Such could easily open the owner to civil as well as criminal sanctions. The best course of action is to provide the best goods and services you possibly can, and invite them back so you can have more of their money.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Share your idea of what a wedding ceremony is then with a baker who believes the cake is a part of a wedding ceremony and see how far that will get you,  or him.

Who knows, maybe the baker would believe you and agree to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding just as willingly as for any other kind of wedding.

Or maybe he still wouldn't want to be involved anyway even if technically the wedding cake wasn't a part of the wedding ceremony. 

In the end it doesn't really matter what the hypothetical baker believes (although any baker who thinks the cake is part of the ceremony probably has never attended a wedding and doesn't own a TV). The law is the law. Being religious doesn't give anyone a free pass to break any law they please. 

[Ahab]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, I don't agree but it isn't for lack of understanding what you've written. 

Because the baker chooses a religious reason for his refusal does not mean that his religious freedoms have been violated. 

 

How about if you were to view his choice as an exercise of his religious freedom, on one hand, while on the other hand viewing any resistance to the exercise of his religious freedom as a limit to other's acceptance of his religious freedom? 

Not that you are required to view his religious freedom in that perspective but considering that the baker could choose to view it that way.

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This seems like a very slippery slope to me.  What if the baker was religiously motivated to opposed mixed race marriages, or believed that the Koran and the Book of Mormon were works of the devil.  Do you feel it would be right for the baker to refuse to provide a cake to the mixed race couple, a Muslim couple, or a Mormon couple?    

 

So what do you recommend as a remedy for any problems you see from that much religious freedom? 

Seems to me that the most popular solution so far is to place limits on how much religious freedom someone is legally allowed to have. Not that it isn't possible to overstep those legal boundaries but still they are limits of some sort.

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

No the state isn't forcing you how to think a certain way,  it is simply forcing you to serve the object of your loathing the same as you would serve someone you don't loathe. You can still make your discrimination known by giving poor or crappy service, you can still voice your "discriminatory" views to the person, you just have to bake their cake, dry clean their laundry, cook them lunch.

... or if you don't serve those you discriminate against suffer the legal penalties. 

Let's just stop saying the state isn't placing any limits to the exercise of religious freedoms.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

How about if you were to view his choice as an exercise of his religious freedom, on one hand, while on the other hand viewing any resistance to the exercise of his religious freedom as a limit to other's acceptance of his religious freedom? 

Not that you are required to view his religious freedom in that perspective but considering that the baker could choose to view it that way.

I'll admit that I don't understand the second half of your first sentence:  I'm not sure that "other's acceptance of his religious freedom" has any relevance.

As for the first half of your first sentence:  As I said to Scott, I think that's a dangerous path to go down.  I don't think we can start calling every choice a matter of religious freedom.  And that's what this gay wedding cake thing has become, to me.  The baker's ability to fully practice his religion and believe as he wishes has not been impinged in the least by his providing the cake for a reception.  Just as my ability to live the law of chastity (a sincerely held religious belief of mine) is not hindered if an unmarried couple rents a property that I own.

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Take the money and contribute it to a good cause.

... while making at least a mental distinction between what you are doing and what THEY are doing. 

You're just selling them stuff.   Not necessarily giving any advice on how they use or what they do with the stuff you sell them.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So what do you recommend as a remedy for any problems you see from that much religious freedom? 

Seems to me that the most popular solution so far is to place limits on how much religious freedom someone is legally allowed to have. Not that it isn't possible to overstep those legal boundaries but still they are limits of some sort.

That's nothing new, though, right? Even parents who have religious reasons to avoid medical care are required to provide medical care for their children, when they need it. If I had a religious belief that required human sacrifice, my first amendment rights wouldn't trump laws against murder. And of course in the 19th century the first amendment didn't give Latter-day Saints the freedom to enter into polygamy. 

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

... or if you don't serve those you discriminate against suffer the legal penalties. 

Let's just stop saying the state isn't placing any limits to the exercise of religious freedoms.

The alternative is anarchy, persecution,  and/or the religious wars all too common in history.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

In the end it doesn't really matter what the hypothetical baker believes (although any baker who thinks the cake is part of the ceremony probably has never attended a wedding and doesn't own a TV). The law is the law. Being religious doesn't give anyone a free pass to break any law they please. 

In the end beliefs have everything to do with religious freedoms and any limits to any exercise of religious freedom can be believed.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

So what do you recommend as a remedy for any problems you see from that much religious freedom? 

Seems to me that the most popular solution so far is to place limits on how much religious freedom someone is legally allowed to have. Not that it isn't possible to overstep those legal boundaries but still they are limits of some sort.

I don't see any problem with public accommodations laws, and don't believe they violate religious freedom.

Of COURSE there are limits to "religious freedom" in America, just like there are limits to ANY and EVERY sort of freedom.

We speak of "freedom of speech," yet it's often said that you must face consequences for unbridled speech (i.e. yelling "Fire! Fire! Fire!" and causing a panicked stampede in a crowded movie theater).

"Freedom of religion" doesn't extend to refusing medical treatment for your children, or child sacrifice, or torturing others, or a variety of other religious practices that have been advocated throughout the ages.

Each and every freedom exists to the greatest extent possible, permissible, reasonable, and within the bounds the law sets.

If individuals feel their religious freedoms are being unjustly limited, they have the option of seeking redress through the court system, just as everyone else does.

Sometimes, the courts find that the law is too restrictive and allow religions more freedom (legal challenges to peyote come to mind).  Sometimes the courts find that the requests of those claiming to be oppressed are unreasonable and unworkable. 

It is the best governing system I believe we've ever had in attempting to preserve equal opportunity and personal freedoms.

[Ahab]

39 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't see any problem with public accommodations laws, and don't believe they violate religious freedom.

Of COURSE there are limits to "religious freedom" in America, just like there are limits to ANY and EVERY sort of freedom.

We speak of "freedom of speech," yet it's often said that you must face consequences for unbridled speech (i.e. yelling "Fire! Fire! Fire!" and causing a panicked stampede in a crowded movie theater).

"Freedom of religion" doesn't extend to refusing medical treatment for your children, or child sacrifice, or torturing others, or a variety of other religious practices that have been advocated throughout the ages.

Each and every freedom exists to the greatest extent possible, permissible, reasonable, and within the bounds the law sets.

If individuals feel their religious freedoms are being unjustly limited, they have the option of seeking redress through the court system, just as everyone else does.

Sometimes, the courts find that the law is too restrictive and allow religions more freedom (legal challenges to peyote come to mind).  Sometimes the courts find that the requests of those claiming to be oppressed are unreasonable and unworkable. 

It is the best governing system I believe we've ever had in attempting to preserve equal opportunity and personal freedoms.

THANK YOU for simply acknowledging that there are limits placed on religious freedom EVEN IN AMERICA and that there are people who are actively and anxiously engaged in keeping particular bounds to religious freedom in place, even in some cases placing additional boundaries to religious freedom. 

Now if everybody could simply agree on what those boundaries should be everything would be hunky dory!

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The alternative is anarchy, persecution,  and/or the religious wars all too common in history.

All of those things could still happen anyway.

I repeat, let's just stop saying that the state doesn't place any boundaries or limits to the exercise of religious freedom. 

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

All of those things could still happen anyway.

I repeat, let's just stop saying that the state doesn't place any boundaries or limits to the exercise of religious freedom. 

Ever read about the Mormon experience in Missouri? 

Ps; I relatively comfortable with the restrictions on religious freedom we already have. Can there be improvements? Yes. Such as the relaxation of laws against polygamy among consenting adults.

Edited April 15, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Ever read about the Mormon experience in Missouri? 

Ps; I relatively comfortable with the restrictions on religious freedom we already have. Can there be improvements? Yes. Such as the relaxation of laws against polygamy among consenting adults.

Comfortable with restrictions,  are you.

And to make things a little more comfortable for you you would like there to be some relaxation of particular laws,  meaning less restrictions on that issue.   Hmm.

How about let's just remove all restrictions to alloe for the ultimate level of religious freedom?  Too much freedom for you to be comfortable,  maybe?  And yet everyone is now free to be as good or evil as they want to be.

[Anijen]

I have researched the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig pretty much to where I cannot learn anymore from it, that is until/if the Colorado Supreme Court  accepts their application of certiorari.

Interesting things I have learned about this particular case:

1. Colorado has a statute  that requires the courts to avoid Constitutional conflicts. In Masterpiece they did the opposite. The statute is the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) 

2. Three other bakeries in Colorado, previously to this case, had also turned down other same-sex couples for religious reasons. Yet, these Bakeries were found by the courts to be non-discriminatory. The main reasons; they used the word "creed" instead of "religion."  Despite creed being defined as "all aspects of religious beliefs, observances, and practices... [including] the beliefs or teachings of a particular religion." 

3. The same-sex couple had sought out many bakeries to make their wedding cake many said they would bake it, a few like Masterpiece Cakeshop said they would not (for religious reasons). After choosing a bakery that agreed to bake their wedding cake, (which was made, eaten and enjoyed), the couple then preceded to take legal action against one of the bakeries that refused. 

4. In Colorado to show discrimination, the defendant usually will be the one who instigates the discrimination, (for example a racist will search for an African American ,target him or his home, burn a cross, call him racial slurs, protest his business, and other forms of discrimination). But here it was the same-sex couple that searched for cake shops in a goal toward filing legal action. 

5.The Colorado Anti Discrimination Act (CADA) permits business owners to decline a customers business for a number of reasons, including "I don't like your bumper sticker." 

6. At the time of the request to bake the wedding cake, Colorado only recognized marriage solely between a man and a woman. The State legally could not punish Phillips [owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop] for following beliefs about marriage that reflected Colorado's own public policy at the time.

Wow. Anyway, in my research an expert was called and in one particular part of his testimony, said of the wedding cake; " Wedding cakes are typically a three layer cake, with the base the largest, and the top layer the smallest. These layers represent the bond between the bride, the groom, and their god, (he did not say which layer represented whom). He adamantly said a wedding cake is very symbolic of a man and a woman, whom had recently been wed and shows their commitment to each other and the marriage accepted of by their god. 

Here is the link to the appeal.

Here is a reply brief for the same case.

Here is the agency order that denied Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Courts remedy orders (punishments) that Masterpiece Cakeshop has to comply to, (for example; they are compelled to take training, to take remedial measures, and to submit quarterly reports of their progress in following these orders, and some others.

Here is a respondent brief.

 

Hope some of this helps. Hope some of this is at least persuasive for those who are not yet made up their mind.

Constitutionally yours ~Anijen

[california boy]

An article in the Huff/Post got me thinking about North Carolina and Mississippi

How Corporate America Became A Major LGBT Ally

This is a quote from the article that I would like to comment on 

Quote

 

“There’s a frustration I’m sensing from companies about going from whack-a-mole to whack-a-mole here,” said Bob Witeck, a communications strategist on LGBT issues in Washington, D.C. “This is leading us to a tipping point. The tipping point is coming, and the tipping point is when businesses will be major movers in passing federal nondiscrimination legislation.”

 

Ironically, it was completely legal in North Carolina and Mississippi to discriminate against LGBT.  Only a handful of cities in these states had passed any kind of discrimination protection.  These states have never passed any kind of legal protections to the LGBT community.  Businesses in these state could have simply said, "we don't serve gays" or "You are fired for being gay" or "We won't rent to you because you are gay" and there was nothing a gay person could do.In fact, only 32 states have such anti discrimination laws protecting gays from discrimination.

Many people credit the effort of the Mormon church for passing Prop 8.  At the time it passed, I was very angry at the church for working to take away the civil rights of anyone.  But later I realized that by passing Prop 8, it got a national discussion going about the civil rights of the gay community.  Support for gay marriage went from 39% to 59% and growing.  When people heard multiple discussions, panels, interviews etc, they came to believe the injustice of denying gays their civil rights. Perhaps it was God's way of righting a wrong.  

I believe the same thing may very well happen with these latest attempts of states to institute discrimination against gays.  Perhaps it will open up a more urgent need to enact federal protections (The Equality Act) that has been languishing for years.  The more political the religious right get, the more constitutional rights gay are reaffirmed to all Americans, including gays.  

[deli_llama]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

An article in the Huff/Post got me thinking about North Carolina and Mississippi

How Corporate America Became A Major LGBT Ally

This is a quote from the article that I would like to comment on 

Ironically, it was completely legal in North Carolina and Mississippi to discriminate against LGBT.  Only a handful of cities in these states had passed any kind of discrimination protection.  These states have never passed any kind of legal protections to the LGBT community.  Businesses in these state could have simply said, "we don't serve gays" or "You are fired for being gay" or "We won't rent to you because you are gay" and there was nothing a gay person could do.In fact, only 32 states have such anti discrimination laws protecting gays from discrimination.

Many people credit the effort of the Mormon church for passing Prop 8.  At the time it passed, I was very angry at the church for working to take away the civil rights of anyone.  But later I realized that by passing Prop 8, it got a national discussion going about the civil rights of the gay community.  Support for gay marriage went from 39% to 59% and growing.  When people heard multiple discussions, panels, interviews etc, they came to believe the injustice of denying gays their civil rights. Perhaps it was God's way of righting a wrong.  

I believe the same thing may very well happen with these latest attempts of states to institute discrimination against gays.  Perhaps it will open up a more urgent need to enact federal protections (The Equality Act) that has been languishing for years.  The more political the religious right get, the more constitutional rights gay are reaffirmed to all Americans, including gays.  

The Law of Unintended Consequences. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This seems like a very slippery slope to me.  What if the baker was religiously motivated to opposed mixed race marriages, or believed that the Koran and the Book of Mormon were works of the devil.  Do you feel it would be right for the baker to refuse to provide a cake to the mixed race couple, a Muslim couple, or a Mormon couple?    

 

I don't believe I would want to give such an individual my business anyway. I certainly wouldn't stand there and try to compel him to make the cake just to show him who's boss, as it were, not when there were more congenial bakeries around. I don't see anything lastingly productive or wholesome coming from such a chip-on-the-shoulder mentality. It strikes me as petty and juvenile  

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't believe I would want to give such an individual my business anyway. I certainly wouldn't stand there and try to compel him to make the cake just to show him who's boss, as it were, not when there were more congenial bakeries around. I don't see anything lastingly productive or wholesome coming from such a chip-on-the-shoulder mentality. It strikes me as petty and juvenile  

Well, there's always these guys - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy's_Baking_Company - They seemed like a "nice" couple.