For Those Who Support Religious Liberty

[provoman]

Where the subject matter is [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports  [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion [to not celebrate the New and Everlasting Covenant of], because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The religious [couple] should choose another baker!

 

How is there religious liberty when we operate under "You can't discriminate against me because of my religious choices, no matter your deeply held religious choices."

 

Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by provoman

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, provoman said:

Where the subject matter is [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports  [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion [to not celebrate the New and Everlasting Covenant of], because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The religious [couple] should choose another baker!

 

How is there religious liberty when we operate under "You can't discriminate against me because of my religious choices, no matter your deeply held religious choices."

 

Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?

 

Because there is a public interest in businesses, who are licensed by the government, to serve the public without prejudice. No one should have to shop around for a business that won't discriminate against them. 

[thesometimesaint]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because baking and selling a wedding cake can fulfill client specifications for subject matter (which isn't really the cake) that runs contrary to the baker’s religious conscience and the menu of cake options that are in line with his conscience, I can see how forcing the issue can violate the baker’s free exercise of religion. The clients are still free to carry on with their objectionable subject matter, which isn't a cake.

 

Where the subject matter is gay marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports gay marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion, because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

 

The religious gay grooms should choose another baker!

How about this one?

Because baking and selling a wedding cake can fulfill client specifications for subject matter (which isn't really the cake) that runs contrary to the baker’s religious conscience and the menu of cake options that are in line with his conscience, I can see how forcing the issue can violate the baker’s free exercise of religion. The clients are still free to carry on with their objectionable subject matter, which isn't a cake.

Where the subject matter is interracial marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports interracial marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion, because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The interracial couple should choose another baker!

 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Where the subject matter is gay marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu.

Why is it only "where the subject matter is gay marriage"?

When the subject is interracial marriage, infertile marriage, re-marriage (post-divorce), mixed-Faith marriage, non-religious marriage, mixed orientation marriages, marriage between disabled people, any of those scenarios could violate the "deeply-held religious beliefs" of any given baker... 

But why, in each of those scenarios, can't bakers decline to bake a wedding cake in any of those scenarios--but they should be able to say no to a gay marriage...?

[mfbukowski]

Daniel 2

We disagree.  Thanks for the reply.

 

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It involves serious psychotropics, aversion "therapy" crossing the line into torture, and coercive psychotherapy. Not nice stuff

Hi, Sometimesaint,

While I am aware of the torturous use of psychotropics and conversion/aversion "therapy," I don't recall any evidence that such medical attempts actually changed any homosexuals' orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.  Rather, everything I've read on the subject indicates such individuals eventually became asexual--that is, such "treatments" ultimately resorted in a form of chemical or emotional castration, rather than a change in sexual orientation.

Can you clarify if that is your understanding, as well?  Or do you have knowledge of such medical "treatments" actually resulting in a change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Daniel2

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The government should not be permitted to discriminate based on anything at all, except for criminal history.

And I would support a business's right to discriminate against Mormons.  

I wouldn't.  It is against the law.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

How about this one?

Because baking and selling a wedding cake can fulfill client specifications for subject matter (which isn't really the cake) that runs contrary to the baker’s religious conscience and the menu of cake options that are in line with his conscience, I can see how forcing the issue can violate the baker’s free exercise of religion. The clients are still free to carry on with their objectionable subject matter, which isn't a cake.

Where the subject matter is interracial marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports interracial marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion, because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The interracial couple should choose another baker!

 

Which sounds doable. Until you are a black guy trying to get a room at a hotel in the 30s or 40s and everyone is exercising their right to discriminate and no one lets them stay there. This "find another place to go" only works if there are other options. In some cases there are but in others there are not.

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, Sometimesaint,

While I am aware of the torturous use of psychotropics and conversion/aversion "therapy," I don't recall any evidence that such medical attempts actually changed any homosexuals' orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.  Rather, everything I've read on the subject indicates such individuals eventually became asexual--that is, such "treatments" ultimately resorted in a form of chemical or emotional castration, rather than a change in sexual orientation.

Can you clarify if that is your understanding, as well?  Or do you have knowledge of such medical "treatments" actually resulting in a change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?

The immoral, illicit, and often illegal use of such "treatments" is a fascinating subject. But not one I continence, except from a prosecution standpoint. From what I have read they mostly do loose all interest in sex, and interpersonal relationships.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

How is there religious liberty when we operate under "You can't discriminate against me because of my religious choices, no matter your deeply held religious choices."

 

Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?

 

True religious freedom doesn't depend on whether or not another person approves of your religiously based choices, or on whether society at large approves of your religiously based choices. 

And it's not something that is given/ bestowed by any piece of paper, either, not even if that piece of paper contains everything written in the U.S. Constitution including every possible amendment.

It's something each of us has by virtue ot the kind of being we are, with each of us having the freedom to believe in and worship anything good or anything evil. 

The only problem here is in thinking that at some point we're all going to agree on how much religious freedom we have or should have and what those freedoms are or should be, because there never will come a day when everybody agrees on that issue. 

The war between good and evil will never end!

[Stargazer]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I wouldn't.  It is against the law.

Fine.  The law is wrong.  IMHO.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

True religious freedom doesn't depend on whether or not another person approves of your religiously based choices, or on whether society at large approves of your religiously based choices. 

And it's not something that is given/ bestowed by any piece of paper, either, not even if that piece of paper contains everything written in the U.S. Constitution including every possible amendment.

It's something each of us has by virtue ot the kind of being we are, with each of us having the freedom to believe in and worship anything good or anything evil. 

The only problem here is in thinking that at some point we're all going to agree on how much religious freedom we have or should have and what those freedoms are or should be, because there never will come a day when everybody agrees on that issue. 

The war between good and evil will never end!

You are free to believe anything you want. What you do is another question.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

You are free to believe anything you want. What you do is another question.

We are all free to do anything we can do... and by can do I mean anything we can do physically, mentally,  and emotionally.

As good or evil as each of us wants to be.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

How about this one?

Because baking and selling a wedding cake can fulfill client specifications for subject matter (which isn't really the cake) that runs contrary to the baker’s religious conscience and the menu of cake options that are in line with his conscience, I can see how forcing the issue can violate the baker’s free exercise of religion. The clients are still free to carry on with their objectionable subject matter, which isn't a cake.

Where the subject matter is interracial marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports interracial marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion, because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The interracial couple should choose another baker!

 

You’re using race as a protected class on questions that have already been answered to the satisfaction of religious freedom and where the respective jurisdictions have decided that religious exemption rules do not apply; sexual orientation as a protected class has not been fully explored and answered on this point, as there are a preponderance of religions formally holding gay marriage to be a sacramental taboo, and their adherents vote.

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Why is it only "where the subject matter is gay marriage"?

When the subject is interracial marriage, infertile marriage, re-marriage (post-divorce), mixed-Faith marriage, non-religious marriage, mixed orientation marriages, marriage between disabled people, any of those scenarios could violate the "deeply-held religious beliefs" of any given baker... 

But why, in each of those scenarios, can't bakers decline to bake a wedding cake in any of those scenarios--but they should be able to say no to a gay marriage...?

I am sticking to the subject in the posts about baking wedding cakes.

You’re using logic for specific protected classes on questions that have already been answered to the satisfaction of religious freedom and where the respective jurisdictions have decided that religious exemption rules do not apply; sexual orientation as a protected class has not been fully explored and answered on this point, largely because there are a preponderance of religions formally holding gay marriage to be a sacramental taboo, and their adherents vote.

By pushing for protected class and public accommodation for a wedding cake, marriage is clearly being treated with the same regard given to cake! Religious people tend to take he subject and the approach a bit more seriously than that, which is evident in the public discussions and the current status of who (and in what jurisdiction) can do what under religious exemption.

[provoman]

CV 

 

Where the subject matter is [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports  [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion [to not celebrate the New and Everlasting Covenant of], because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The religious [couple] should choose another baker!

 

How is there religious liberty when we operate under "You can't discriminate against me because of my religious choices, no matter your deeply held religious choices."

 

Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, provoman said:

CV 

 

Where the subject matter is [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports  [New and Everlasting Covenant of] marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion [to not celebrate the New and Everlasting Covenant of], because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The religious [couple] should choose another baker!

 

How is there religious liberty when we operate under "You can't discriminate against me because of my religious choices, no matter your deeply held religious choices."

 

Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?

If my religious choices revolve in any significant way about who I should discriminate against I hope I will begin to suspect that I have lost my religion somewhere along the way.

There are times where a stand must be taken but this these situations come across as petty and passive-aggressive because they are.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/14/2016 at 9:24 AM, provoman said:

I suggested in another threat the State of Utah should show its commitment to religious liberty by removing religion as a protected class from anti-discrimination laws. By removing religion as protect class, the State of Utah would acknowledge that religious liberty to discriminate against another based on religious beliefs or practices will be respected.

 

So you are saying that Utah should commit to religious liberty by saying it is ok to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Incidentally on a previous post, you asked me a bunch of questions including why there there are no facts, only interpretations.

Here you go.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65602-on-the-deflationary-theory/?_fromLogin=1

 

[Ahab]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If my religious choices revolve in any significant way about who I should discriminate against I hope I will begin to suspect that I have lost my religion somewhere along the way.

There are times where a stand must be taken but this these situations come across as petty and passive-aggressive because they are.

It is not so much WHO you should discriminate against but WHAT you should discriminate against, because if your religious choices don't revolve against anything in any significant way you will be pretty much open and accommodating to everything. 

Discrimination is not a bad thing as long as you discriminate against things that are bad.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Ahab said:

It is not so much WHO you should discriminate against but WHAT you should discriminate against, because if your religious choices don't revolve against anything in any significant way you will be pretty much open and accommodating to everything. 

Discrimination is not a bad thing as long as you discriminate against things that are bad.

A meaningless distinction. When you are discriminating in not providing a good or service to someone you are for all practical purposes discriminating against a person.

Why do some LDS want to undo the Civil Rights Movement. We are a minority and are regularly disliked. Why do we want to cut not only our neighbor's throats but possibly our own by precedent.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A meaningless distinction. When you are discriminating in not providing a good or service to someone you are for all practical purposes discriminating against a person.

Why do some LDS want to undo the Civil Rights Movement. We are a minority and are regularly disliked. Why do we want to cut not only our neighbor's throats but possibly our own by precedent.

So you're pretty much already in favor of everything and against nothing at all???

Who are you and what have you done with The Nehor that I love?

[The Nehor]

Just now, Ahab said:

So you're pretty much already in favor of everything and against nothing at all???

Who are you and what have you done with The Nehor that I love?

I am against all kinds of things. I am against businesses denying someone goods and services on the basis of not liking them or their actions and views in some way. It alienates the children of God we are trying to reach, sends no meaningful message, convinces no one, and makes us appear petty.

The Brethren encouraged the fight against SSM and when it was over told us it was over and to be gracious in defeat. Some want to carry on the fight for some reason in puerile ways. I am strongly opposed to this.

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/14/2016 at 0:33 PM, Daniel2 said:

Couple of thoughts....

In religions which bless the marital unions of same-sex couples, gays and lesbians are exercising their religious freedoms when entering into the religious rite of marriage in their houses of worship and sanctified by their clergy members.  Such religions certainly preach and promote that gays and lesbians should be true to their sexual orientation just as much as other religions may condone heterosexual relationships.  My own experience with Unitarian Universalism reflects both of the preceding sentences.

I'm not sure how you made the leap from "if religion is a choice" then "gayness is also a choice."  That is not the case at all.  Science has found no evidence that individuals can change their sexual orientation from 'gay' to 'straight' or from 'straight' to 'gay.'

In fact, just the opposite is true--findings indicate attempts to change orientations are highly unsuccessful and that homosexual or heterosexual orientations are immutable.

Sexual orientation may not be a choice but what one does with that orientation is a choice.  Having gay relationships including marriage for example are all choices. I don't have a choice about the kinds of music I like or don't like.  Either the music is good or it sucks.  I have a choice in whether to play good music or bad music.

 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am against all kinds of things. I am against businesses denying someone goods and services on the basis of not liking them or their actions and views in some way. It alienates the children of God we are trying to reach, sends no meaningful message, convinces no one, and makes us appear petty.

The Brethren encouraged the fight against SSM and when it was over told us it was over and to be gracious in defeat. Some want to carry on the fight for some reason in puerile ways. I am strongly opposed to this.

 

 

Saying businesses discriminate against people makes it seem a little less personal than it really is.  Businesses are composed of people, so let's talk as if people are doing the discriminating to reflect what is really going on here.

So now we are saying that people are discriminating against other people, which still isn't quite clear enough yet because there are particular reasons for why people are discriminating agsinst other people, so let's talk as if people are discriminating against particular things that other people do or ideologies that those other people stand for. 

To discriminate against something is to show displeasure or disagreement with whatever is being discriminated against. It's a way of someone saying they don't like it, or don't agree with it, or don't think those things should be allowed or highly favored.  That those things are bad things.  That those things should be rejected or considered unacceptable in society.  

And who told you the fight against SSM is over?

You've got some very bad ideas that I will continue to be discriminating against, and I don't think any of your bad ideas are trivial.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

A meaningless distinction. When you are discriminating in not providing a good or service to someone you are for all practical purposes discriminating against a person.

Why do some LDS want to undo the Civil Rights Movement. We are a minority and are regularly disliked. Why do we want to cut not only our neighbor's throats but possibly our own by precedent.

The flip side is if you force someone to give a good or service to someone they would prefer not to give, they might not provide the best service or goods as they would otherwise get from someone else that is not being forced.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, provoman said:

Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?

You’re forgetting that religion is a protected class, so the LDS couple in your example is able to purchase their wedding cake like anyone else. Sexual orientation does not share that same protected class status everywhere, so constitutional special protections for religious freedom are honored. Religions do not condemn another faith’s marriage sacrament because of the denomination (which is protected), but because of their own proven doctrines about the sacrament. This is the basis upon which they can refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage, whether performed by religious or secular authority; the gay couple's religion, which is protected, has nothing to do with it. So your example really doesn’t hold water, and is why bakers may act on their religious conscience depending on their jurisdiction’s public accommodation laws. As well they should be able to do everywhere that this right has been disregarded.

Even if a church can prove by its long-term history and practices that gay marriage is a fundamental doctrine that was formulated on the same basis as its other doctrines, gay couples might be able to claim protected class status (religion)... but still not sexual orientation in many jurisdictions. And then constitutional special protection would require that people of that religion cannot coerce a public accommodation from people of another persuasion on the basis of religious belief.