Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[LittleNipper]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

One other clarification on the above:  I understand you personally make marital choices based on your understanding of and beliefs in The Bible.  And of course, that's entirely your right to do so, when making your own choices.

But, given the fact that the U.S. Government doesn't make laws advocating one religion over others, and since you feel that "a person has no control over his or her natural skin tone, natural hair and eye color," do you believe that wedding-related businesses and employers shouldn't be allowed to legally discriminate (i.e. withhold goods or services) against interracial couples who marry one another?

 

A Socialist government will attempt to manipulate the views of the people through bribery and threats. Private businesses should be allowed to do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing or murder, and if if the business fails, it is their fault. No one is twisting anyone's arm to shop or trade wherever they don't wish too. 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

A Socialist government will attempt to manipulate the views of the people through bribery and threats. Private businesses should be allowed to do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing or murder, and if if the business fails, it is their fault. No one is twisting anyone's arm to shop or trade wherever they don't wish too. 

We don't server coloreds.  We don't admit Jews.  Only white folks can go to this school.  We don't bake cakes for gays.  It all comes from the same mindset.  It has NOTHING to do with following the teachings of Christ.  That you can't deny.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

A Socialist government will attempt to manipulate the views of the people through bribery and threats. Private businesses should be allowed to do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing or murder, and if if the business fails, it is their fault. No one is twisting anyone's arm to shop or trade wherever they don't wish too. 

I am very much in favor of a free market, but I think some government-imposed constraints are appropriate.  For example, many hospitals are "private businesses," but surely none of us would say that they are at liberty to decline medical care based on a person's skin color, or religion, or gender, or sexual orientation, etc.

And what about landlords?  Can they refuse to rent apartments based on race, religion, gender, etc.?  Hotels?  Grocery stories?  Private colleges/universities?  What about private employers discriminating in employment (as in refusing to hire) based on race/gender/religion/orientation?  

We can nitpick about marginal issues or isolated situations, but broadly and generally, I think our society is much better off with the Civil Rights Act than it was without it.  And while I have some very real and sincerely concerns about "overreach" (mostly involving the misuse of "public accommodations laws" to punish religious conduct and speech), I think these laws pass constitutional muster.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

45 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

A Socialist government will attempt to manipulate the views of the people through bribery and threats. Private businesses should be allowed to do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing or murder, and if if the business fails, it is their fault. No one is twisting anyone's arm to shop or trade wherever they don't wish too. 

Once again, I see you haven't answered the simple yes or no questions I've posed, and we've returned to frustrating.

The United States of America is widely considered to be a Republic, or a representative Democracy, yet we've had Public Accommodations Laws on our books for over 50 years.

Of course, you've made it clear that you also don't agree with laws protecting religious individuals and institutions from discrimination, which is puzzling, considering that is a founding principle of the United States of America.

Given both of the above, do you even consider the government of the U.S.A. to be "a socialist government"?

Additionally, earlier in this thread, it appeared that you supported anti-discrimination laws regarding race, but it now appears that you're asserting that businesses should be allowed to "do whatever they like" regarding discrimination that isn't related to lying, stealing or murder. 

You assert that "private businesses" should be allowed to do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing or murder.  However, any business that's engaging with the public isn't strictly private--it's subject to the laws governing commerce.  No business can "do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing, or murder."  That's simply never been the case, even in every single type of non-Socialist government that operates with any level of commercial regulation.

Your contradicting answers make it difficult to know what your actual views are.  It appears that you're actually a strict libertarian, with occasional lapses accepting some regulations, but still just a little to the left of anarchy, depending on the given moment that you're offering a response...

Edited December 22, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

We don't server coloreds.  We don't admit Jews.  Only white folks can go to this school.  We don't bake cakes for gays.  It all comes from the same mindset.

I will respectfully disagree with that last one.  I think the problem is not "We don't bake cakes for gays", but is rather "We don't bake cakes for same-sex weddings". 

The former is a categorical denial of service that is deeply problematic.  The latter, however, involves "speech" (expressive speech, but speech nonetheless), and I have strong reservations about coercive measures which compel a private citizen to engage in speech with which he disagrees.

Do you think a publisher should be compelled by force of law to print materials he may find morally objectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I will respectfully disagree with that last one.  I think the problem is not "We don't bake cakes for gays", but is rather "We don't bake cakes for same-sex weddings". 

The former is a categorical denial of service that is deeply problematic.  The latter, however, involves "speech" (expressive speech, but speech nonetheless), and I have strong reservations about coercive measures which compel a private citizen to engage in speech with which he disagrees.

Do you think a publisher should be compelled by force of law to print materials he may find morally objectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well we are just going to disagree.  I think it is the same mindset.  I have seen this mindset for years.  While religion has been used every single time to justify that kind of behavior including the current we don't bake wedding cakes for gays, there has never been any scriptural or doctrinal support for ANY of that kind of treatment of others.  

Bakers do have to bake a wedding cake.  They do NOT have to provide a same sex topper.  They do not have to write anything on the cake.  A tee-shirt company does have to sell tee shirts to everyone.  They do not have to print offensive messages on shirts.  I would guess that publishing is the same.  Publishers do have to publish books for everyone.  They do not have to publish books that contain offensive material.  It is my understanding that the courts have drawn a clear line between providing services that you offer to other customers and what is written on those products.  

You are the lawyer.  I think it should be you telling us if there is a difference ACCORDING to the LAW between baking a wedding cake that is generic to all customers and publishing a book that contains offensive material.  

Mostly I object to "christians" that think they are ABOVE the law and can make up their own rules, and then whine when the law penalizes them for breaking such laws.  I am all for civil disobedience.  But those that engage in it should fully be expected to pay the price for breaking the laws of the land.  If people like our LittleNipper here feels like business should be able to discriminate against whoever they want, then he should be willing to work to repeal the Civil Rights laws.  If LittleNIpper is not willing to try and repeal the very laws that requires him and others to not discriminate, then he should quit whining about it, and provide the cakes.  Or be willing to be punished under current laws.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I will respectfully disagree with that last one.  I think the problem is not "We don't bake cakes for gays", but is rather "We don't bake cakes for same-sex weddings". 

The former is a categorical denial of service that is deeply problematic.  The latter, however, involves "speech" (expressive speech, but speech nonetheless), and I have strong reservations about coercive measures which compel a private citizen to engage in speech with which he disagrees.

Do you think a publisher should be compelled by force of law to print materials he may find morally objectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

If the publisher normally publishes material that you find morally objectionable. They can't refuse to sell it to you.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well we are just going to disagree.  I think it is the same mindset.  

I'll meet you halfway: It may be "the same mindset" for some.  But surely you can accommodate the possibility that not everyone who disagrees with you about cake-baking is a loathsome, hateful bigot?

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have seen this mindset for years.  While religion has been used every single time to justify that kind of behavior including the current we don't bake wedding cakes for gays, there has never been any scriptural or doctrinal support for ANY of that kind of treatment of others.  

"Never been any scriptural or doctrine support" that you personally find persuasive, I think.

And it's not just about "scritpure" or "doctrine."  There are strong Free Speech implications as well.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Bakers do have to bake a wedding cake.  They do NOT have to provide a same sex topper.  They do not have to write anything on the cake.  A tee-shirt company does have to sell tee shirts to everyone.  They do not have to print offensive messages on shirts.  I would guess that publishing is the same.

What are your thoughts about this:

Quote

Govt tells Christian ministers: Perform same-sex weddings or face jail, fines
Officials threaten to punish senior citizen couple – both ordained pastors – if they decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies
Saturday, October 18, 2014

COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

“The government exists to protect and respect our freedoms, not attack them,” Tedesco added. “The city cannot erase these fundamental freedoms and replace them with government coercion and intolerance.”

The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is across the street from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office, which issues marriage licenses. The Knapps, both in their 60s and who themselves have been married for 47 years, began operating the wedding chapel in 1989 as a ministry. They perform religious wedding ceremonies, which include references to God, the invocation of God’s blessing on the union, brief remarks drawn from the Bible designed to encourage the couple and help them to have a successful marriage, and more. They also provide each couple they marry with a CD that includes two sermons about marriage, and they recommend numerous Christian books on the subject. The Knapps charge a small fee for their services.

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

Virginia McNulty Robinson, one of nearly 2,500 private attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel on behalf of the Knapps in Knapp v. City of Coeur d’Alene, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.

Some observations about the above story here:

Quote

It is one of the tenets of the current movement toward gay marriage. They get to get married, Christians are forced to provide goods and services if they demand it, but — and this is the key caveat of it all — but Christian ministers will not be forced to wed gays because of their religious concerns.

That was last week. This is this week where the government of Coeur D’Alene, Idaho is forcing two Christians pastors to marry gays.
...
For the rest of us, the Knapps are Christians. They run their Hitching Post as a ministry and their weddings are religious affairs with quotes from scripture, etc.

That does not matter.

According to the state, the Knapp’s must provide gay marriages if they are to marry anyone at all.

You will be made to care. The Knapp’s will be made to care. And all the people who said this would never happen will move the goal posts.

Again: "You will be made to care. ... And all the people who said this would never happen will move the goal posts."

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Publishers do have to publish books for everyone.  

What does this mean?

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

They do not have to publish books that contain offensive material.  

Why is that?  Why do publishers get to decline to provide a service on that basis?

Why can't a person morally opposed to same-sex marriage likewise be allowed to decline to provide a service pertaining to a same-sex marriage on that same basis?  

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is my understanding that the courts have drawn a clear line between providing services that you offer to other customers and what is written on those products.

Could you provide a reference for this?  I question how "clear" such a line can be.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are the lawyer.  I think it should be you telling us if there is a difference ACCORDING to the LAW between baking a wedding cake that is generic to all customers and publishing a book that contains offensive material.

I am not an expert on this area of law.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Mostly I object to "christians" that think they are ABOVE the law and can make up their own rules, and then whine when the law penalizes them for breaking such laws.  

I think you are characterizing Christians (most of 'em, anyway) unfairly.  I don't think they feel they are "above the law."  I just think they do not like the idea of being coerced, under penalty of law, into participating in an event which they find to be morally problematic.

Meanwhile, I take exception to "homosexual" who are seeking - with some success - to use the power of government to punish "Christian" who disagree with them about same-sex marriage.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am all for civil disobedience.  But those that engage in it should fully be expected to pay the price for breaking the laws of the land.  If people like our LittleNipper here feels like business should be able to discriminate against whoever they want, then he should be willing to work to repeal the Civil Rights laws.  If LittleNIpper is not willing to try and repeal the very laws that requires him and others to not discriminate, then he should quit whining about it, and provide the cakes.  Or be willing to be punished under current laws.

I can't speak as to these points.  I only read one post from LittleNipper, and I posted my disagreement with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

Being a Christian isn't a get out of jail free card.

SEE https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Edited December 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[smac97]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

If the publisher normally publishes material that you find morally objectionable. They can't refuse to sell it to you.

I wasn't speaking of selling.  I was speaking of publishing in the first instance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Once again, I see you haven't answered the simple yes or no questions I've posed, and we've returned to frustrating.

The United States of America is widely considered to be a Republic, or a representative Democracy, yet we've had Public Accommodations Laws on our books for over 50 years.

Of course, you've made it clear that you also don't agree with laws protecting religious individuals and institutions from discrimination, which is puzzling, considering that is a founding principle of the United States of America.

Given both of the above, do you even consider the government of the U.S.A. to be "a socialist government"?

Additionally, earlier in this thread, it appeared that you supported anti-discrimination laws regarding race, but it now appears that you're asserting that businesses should be allowed to "do whatever they like" regarding discrimination that isn't related to lying, stealing or murder. 

You assert that "private businesses" should be allowed to do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing or murder.  However, any business that's engaging with the public isn't strictly private--it's subject to the laws governing commerce.  No business can "do whatever they like that doesn't involve lying, stealing, or murder."  That's simply never been the case, even in every single type of non-Socialist government that operates with any level of commercial regulation.

Your contradicting answers make it difficult to know what your actual views are.  It appears that you're actually a strict libertarian, with occasional lapses accepting some regulations, but still just a little to the left of anarchy, depending on the given moment that you're offering a response...

I feel that laws protecting race are reasonable; however, they are being abused to promote the normalization of homosexual behavior --- which is simply a form of hedonistic eroticism. You may enjoy Pottersville but I prefer Bedford Falls. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Being a Christian isn't a get out of jail free card.

Being a Christian does not force me to take a ride to the lion's den, either.  The Constitution guarantees a balance of my rights with your rights, and being black, gay, transgender, disabled, does not put you at the head of the line for protection of rights over a Christian.

I will bake you a cake, regardless of your sexual orientation or skin colour, but I will not violate my conscience by celebrating, in my view, ungodly and deviant sexual activities, choices and behaviour.

You have the right to purchase my cake, and I have a right to preserve the dignity of my religious beliefs.  Equality under the law.

Edited December 23, 2016 by cdowis

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'll meet you halfway: It may be "the same mindset" for some.  But surely you can accommodate the possibility that not everyone who disagrees with you about cake-baking is a loathsome, hateful bigot?

I don't think that everyone who disagrees with baking a cake for a gay wedding is a hateful bigot, but I do think that anyone who thinks that being a Christian allows them to break the laws and then when they are punished for breaking those laws is proof that Christians are persecuted.  There is no gay juggernaut.  There is however laws that protect minorities.  And it is breaking those laws that are punishing them.  The gay community may very well boycott a business, but they can not issue legal opinions. That is done by judges that have been appointed whose job requires them to punish those that break the laws of this country.  Until you can write in a constitutional amendment that Christians are above the law and don't have to follow it because of their personal views, we are stuck with forcing them to follow current laws.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Never been any scriptural or doctrine support" that you personally find persuasive, I think.

And it's not just about "scritpure" or "doctrine."  There are strong Free Speech implications as well.

Well I personally have never heard a reasonable explanation to how Christ taught his followers to behave under the laws of the land allows them to break the law and not receive any legal penalties.  (going the extra mile when the law compels you to and rendering unto Caeser that which is Caeser as well as the 12th Article of Faith.)  In fact, I have more scriptural support that when a baker is compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple, they should at the very least do their very best job.  

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What does this mean?

There may be many reasons to not publish a book.  But race, religion, gender etc is not a criteria for refusing publish someone's work.   If the publisher said, "I don't care what you have written, I am not going to publish something written by a (fill in the blank),"  I think that person would have legal recourse.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why is that?  Why do publishers get to decline to provide a service on that basis?

Because there are freedom of speech issues.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why can't a person morally opposed to same-sex marriage likewise be allowed to decline to provide a service pertaining to a same-sex marriage on that same basis?  Could you provide a reference for this?  I question how "clear" such a line can be.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that T-shirt companies do not have to print obscene or hateful or any other message that they don't normally offer.  Bakers do not have to decorate a cake with any message that they don't normally offer to their other customers. You are a lawyer for heavens sake.  Instead of reading and reposting the sensationalized newspaper reports regurgitated by the religious right, why don't you try reading the actual rulings.  They are very clear why the courts have come down on these issues.  I would much rather discuss this issue from a legal point of view rather than personal opinion.  Everyone has a personal opinion.  It means nothing in a court of law where it really matters.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I am not an expert on this area of law.

I think you are characterizing Christians (most of 'em, anyway) unfairly.  I don't think they feel they are "above the law."  I just think they do not like the idea of being coerced, under penalty of law, into participating in an event which they find to be morally problematic.

Meanwhile, I take exception to "homosexual" who are seeking - with some success - to use the power of government to punish "Christian" who disagree with them about same-sex marriage.

Well that is the whole point I have made to LittleNipper and now you.  Christians are not above the  law.  If they don't like the laws, then they should fight to change the laws.  But no one is picked on Christians when they break the law and then are punished.  "Homosexuals" naturally seek the law to address their grievances.  What the heck do you expect them to do.  That is exactly what the court system is for.  Without it, you would be out of a job.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak as to these points.  I only read one post from LittleNipper, and I posted my disagreement with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Kenngo1969]

Thanks to various court decisions handed down in recent decades (including Obergefell v. Hodges) "Free exercise of religion" is quickly coming to mean, "Sure, you are absolutely 'free' to 'exercise' your religion ... within the walls of your holy place on your holy day," when that is not at all, I don't believe, what the Founders intended (notwithstanding the Obergefell majority's magnanimous declaration that religious believers may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish with respect to gay intercourse and gay marriage).  One of the reasons why the Founders valued religion is because they saw moral virtue, as inculcated by religion, as inextricably bound up in civic virtue.  In any event, whether or not one sees moral virtue as a sin qua non for civic virtue, and whether a society which devalues religion necessarily is morally impoverished, such a society is, indeed, at the very least culturally impoverished, and everyone, gay or straight, religiously devout, religiously indifferent, or religiously antipathetic, is the poorer for it.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about this:

Some observations about the above story here:

Again: "You will be made to care. ... And all the people who said this would never happen will move the goal posts."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I wanted to address this issue separately becaue this is a separate issue from what we have been talking about in this thread.  I also want to address this issue separately because your post is a stemic problem with many Christians who feel they are being persecuted.  You go to Christian web sites that take the issue and twist and turn it to suit their own agenda.  It seems like you, as a lawyer would want to go to the actual court case and read the ruling for yourself to better understand the legality of the ruling.  At least read the article as it was reported by the Coeur d'Alene newspaper.  Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

Read this article which reports what this case was really about and what the results actually were.  The Hitching Post originally was a for profit business.  After the city told them they had to comply with accommodation laws, THEY REORGANIZED AS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. and as such did NOT have to perform weddings to anyone including gays.  

 

 

Quote

 

Coeur d'Alene Says Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

By JESSICA ROBINSON • OCT 24, 2014

TweetShareGoogle+Email

 

Originally published on October 24, 2014 12:11 pm

 

The city of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, says the Hitching Post, a for-profit wedding chapel owned by two ministers, doesn't have to perform same-sex marriages.

 

CREDIT JESSICA ROBINSON / NORTHWEST NEWS NETWORK

The city has been embroiled in controversy ever since the owners of the Hitching Post sued the city. They say a city anti-discrimination law threatened to force them to marry same-sex couples now that gay marriage is legal in Idaho.

The story lit up conservative and gay-rights blogs. Wedding chapel owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp said they feared jail time or fines if they declined marriage services to a same-sex couple.

 

Initially, the city said its anti-discrimination law did apply to the Hitching Post, since it is a commercial business. Earlier this week, Coeur d'Alene city attorney Mike Gridley sent a letter to the Knapps’ attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom saying the Hitching Post would have to become a not-for-profit to be exempt.

But Gridley said after further review, he determined the ordinance doesn’t specify non-profit or for-profit.

 

“After we've looked at this some more, we have come to the conclusion they would be exempt from our ordinance because they are a religious corporation,” Gridley explained.

Court filings show the Hitching Post reorganized earlier this month as a “religious corporation.” In the paperwork, the owners describe their deeply held beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

The Knapps' attorney said the city is about to be tested on its approach. He said the Knapps have been contacted by the police about a complaint filed on Thursday by a same-sex couple who were turned away at the Old West themed chapel.

Leo Morales of the ACLU of Idaho said the exemption makes sense as long as the Hitching Post primarily performs religious ceremonies.

 

“However, if they do non-religious ceremonies as well, they would be violating the anti-discrimination ordinance,” Morales said. “It's the religious activity that's being protected."

Filings with the Idaho Secretary of State show the Hitching Post became a limited liability company on September 12. Court documents in the Knapps’ federal lawsuit show they signed a business operating agreement on October 6 that lists the following as the purpose of their LLC:

“The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs and in accordance with their vows taken as Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

 

UPDATE, 10/24/14, 11 a.m.: The group that helped create Coeur d'Alene's anti-discrimination ordinance says the Hitching Post shouldn't have to perform same-sex marriages. The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations says in a letter to the mayor and city council that the Knapps fall under the religious exemption in the law.

 

 

 

You made a false assumption.  No religious organization has been compelled to perform a gay marriage.

Edited December 23, 2016 by california boy

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks to various court decisions handed down in recent decades (including Obergefell v. Hodges) "Free exercise of religion" is quickly coming to mean, "Sure, you are absolutely 'free' to 'exercise' your religion ... within the walls of your holy place on your holy day," when that is not at all, I don't believe, what the Founders intended (notwithstanding the Obergefell majority's magnanimous declaration that religious believers may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish with respect to gay intercourse and gay marriage).  One of the reasons why the Founders valued religion is because they saw moral virtue, as inculcated by religion, as inextricably bound up in civic virtue.  In any event, whether or not one sees moral virtue as a sin qua non for civic virtue, and whether a society which devalues religion necessarily is morally impoverished, such a society is, indeed, at the very least culturally impoverished.

Let's be clear on the Obergefell v. Hodges   ruling.  EVERY SINGLE federal and district court ruled in favor of the constitutionally protected right for gay couples to marry.  This even includes LDS judges ruling in favor of gay marriage.  I remind you that even the judicial courts in Utah ruled in favor of gay couples right to marry.  It is not an attack on religion.  It is an affirmation that gay couples have every right under the Constitution of the United States to marry.  I might also add that the vast majority of the country agrees with this ruling, even other Christians.  

You are right about one thing.  If it was up to churches to rule on gay marriage, then it would probably fail.  But in this country, it is the Constitution that guarantees rights, not churches.  It is every judges sworn duty to uphold those rights no matter what their personal religious views are.  They have done just that. I personally would not want to live in a country  where religious leaders make the laws.  I wish more Americans felt that way.

I 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Being a Christian does not force me to take a ride to the lion's den, either.  The Constitution guarantees a balance of my rights with your rights, and being black, gay, transgender, disabled, does not put you at the head of the line for protection of rights over a Christian.

I will bake you a cake, regardless of your sexual orientation or skin colour, but I will not violate my conscience by celebrating, in my view, ungodly and deviant sexual activities, choices and behaviour.

You have the right to purchase my cake, and I have a right to preserve the dignity of my religious beliefs.  Equality under the law.

You indeed have the right to break the Civil Rights laws.  But you don't have the right to not be punished for breaking the law.  If you want to repeat the Civil Rights laws, then feel free to.  Until then, you are going to face penalties for breaking the law.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I will respectfully disagree with that last one.  I think the problem is not "We don't bake cakes for gays", but is rather "We don't bake cakes for same-sex weddings". 

The former is a categorical denial of service that is deeply problematic.  The latter, however, involves "speech" (expressive speech, but speech nonetheless), and I have strong reservations about coercive measures which compel a private citizen to engage in speech with which he disagrees.

Do you think a publisher should be compelled by force of law to print materials he may find morally objectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

How about we don't bake cakes for black weddings or for mormon weddings?  Where does it end?  Where is the line drawn on how much and what type of bigotry is acceptable?  We to stop this.  We need to prove by our actions that religion is not about exclusion, but about inclusion.  I was taught as a child that church is not a sanctuary for saints but a hospital for sinners.  Sadly, this does not seem to be the case anymore.

[cdowis]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

You indeed have the right to break the Civil Rights laws.  

You didn't read my post, did you.

Let's not waste any time on this discussion.

[cdowis]

14 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

How about we don't bake cakes for black weddings or for mormon weddings?  Where does it end?

If you don't want to put a topping message  on the black Mormon cake, fine.  Assuming I am ina protected class, you MUST sell me the cake and I'll find someone to decorate it.  OR I will ask you to put on a topping that you will not find offensive.  OR you tell me a baker who will do the entire cake, including the topping.

Now that wasn't hard, was it.  I get my cake and you keep your dignity.

 Where is the line drawn on how much and what type of bigotry is acceptable?  We to stop this.  We need to prove by our actions that religion is not about exclusion, but about inclusion.  I was taught as a child that church is not a sanctuary for saints but a hospital for sinners.  Sadly, this does not seem to be the case anymore.

Compromise and tolerance may take patience and imagination where BOTH of us have our rights protected.  

And where indeed does that end == where one person tramples on the other's rights?

 

[sunstoned]

We are really not that far apart in our points of view.  Most folks would be fine with baking a cake and then having the customers supply their own toppings.  However, my initial post was in response to  smac97 statement of: "We don't bake cakes for same-sex weddings".  And that is a much different question than figuring out who supplies the topping.

 

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We are really not that far apart in our points of view.  Most folks would be fine with baking a cake and then having the customers supply their own toppings.  However, my initial post was in response to  smac97 statement of: "We don't bake cakes for same-sex weddings".  And that is a much different question than figuring out who supplies the topping.

 

So what happens to the photographer who is obviously expected to attend the "wedding" and the reception, and take "romantic" pictures? What about the card shop owner who has only husband and wife wedding cards or generic (Hope Your Special Day is Filled with Happiness)? What happens to the business owner who realizes that the only reason Bobby married Bruce was to gain healthcare access for Bruce to cover his HIV treatments which is going to cause the company's healthcare premiums to skyrocket for all the other employees? What about the bed and breakfast owner who doesn't want his establishment to become a hedonistic pit stop? What happens to the church that lets its music director go, because it finds out that he is dating a male? The cat is out of the bag and what the Federal Government thinks it is going to do now, should be of concern for every citizen and not hidden in some Supreme Court closet.

Edited December 23, 2016 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

So what happens to the photographer who is obviously expected to attend the "wedding" and the reception, and take "romantic" pictures? What about the card shop owner who has only husband and wife wedding cards or generic (Hope Your Special Day is Filled with Happiness)? What happens to the business owner who realizes that the only reason Bobby married Bruce was to gain healthcare access for Bruce to cover his HIV treatments which is going to cause the company's healthcare premiums to skyrocket for all the other employees? What about the bed and breakfast owner who doesn't want his establishment to become a hedonistic pit stop? What happens to the church that lets its music director go, because it finds out that he is dating a male? The cat is out of the bag and what the Federal Government thinks it is going to do now, should be of concern for every citizen and not hidden in some Supreme Court closet.

Nearly all insurance is based on risk to the group, not the individual. BTW The experts are quick to note that, worldwide, it is heterosexual men and women who are by far the majority of those who are infected with HIV. Still, more than 30 years into the AIDS epidemic, gay and bisexual men remain especially vulnerable to infection despite a heavy emphasis on condoms and HIV testing; these men make up the bulk of HIV cases in the United States and other Western countries.

If you offer your services to the public. You can't legally discriminate against that public. That is not a closet in USSC, but laws written by Congress.

A church's membership is not open to the public, and they can set any membership standards they want.

[Rock_N_Roll]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

So what happens to the photographer who is obviously expected to attend the "wedding" and the reception, and take "romantic" pictures?

He takes the same pictures he would for any other wedding, or he finds a new line of work.

What about the card shop owner who has only husband and wife wedding cards or generic (Hope Your Special Day is Filled with Happiness)?

Nothing – they do not have to provide material they don’t already stock.

What happens to the business owner who realizes that the only reason Bobby married Bruce was to gain healthcare access for Bruce to cover his HIV treatments which is going to cause the company's healthcare premiums to skyrocket for all the other employees?

The same thing that would happen to the business owner who realizes that the only reason Bobby married Betty was to gain healthcare access for Betty to cover her cancer treatments…nothing.

 What about the bed and breakfast owner who doesn't want his establishment to become a hedonistic pit stop?

How does this bed and breakfast owner know that something hedonistic is going on behind closed doors?  Whether it be between a gay or a straight couple, it’s none of his business.

What happens to the church that lets its music director go, because it finds out that he is dating a male?

The same thing that happens to a church that lets a straight Primary teacher go once they become suspicious that the teacher is living a blatantly immoral lifestyle…nothing, because a church is a private organization, they can enforce any rules they want. 

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by Rock_N_Roll

[cdowis]

40 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

So what happens to the photographer who is obviously expected to attend the "wedding" and the reception, and take "romantic" pictures?

He takes the same pictures he would for any other wedding, or he finds a new line of work.

I agree.  There is nothing here to indicate his personal approval of the SSM.d  These are merely another group of individuals who want to have a photograph taken of their activities.

40 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

 What about the bed and breakfast owner who doesn't want his establishment to become a hedonistic pit stop?

How does this bed and breakfast owner know that something hedonistic is going on behind closed doors?  Whether it be between a gay or a straight couple, it’s none of his business.

He can have a policy that he rents only to married couples.  He has to get used to the idea that it only becomes a "hedonistic pit stop" when unmarried single individuals co-habit the room.  I agree what happens between a married couple is none of his business.  He should treat them with respect as any other customer.

He may tell them upfront, "I personally strongly disapprove of same sex marriage and the gay life style, but I will treat you with the same courtesy as I do any of my customers."   This will make it clear that he is not encouraging them to recommend his establishment to his friends as "gay friendly".

Edited December 23, 2016 by cdowis