Gay activism, wedding cakes, religious liberty and Jim Crow (fence, working, against)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a Federal law, in place since the 1960s, that says exactly that (and I believe all 50 states have similar state laws). The Supreme Court upheld this law as Constitutional (in a unanimous decision).
Isn't it hilarious what some people on this site think is the truth? How many times have we heard someone say: "there's no right to marriage."
In a piece by Erick Erickson over at Red State, the question of "involuntary servitude" is once again raised in a case concerning a "Gay Wedding." The question is, "should a Christian who believes a wedding can only be between a man and a woman be forced to provide goods and services to a "gay wedding?"" Would this not be "involuntary servitude," a violation of the 13th Amendment?
I raised this point in a thread on Arizona's proposed law (now vetoed by Governor Brewer’s cowardice) a while back, based on the observation of another writer, whom I believe (if memory serves) is an attorney. That writer was referring to the case of the Christian bakery that baked custom wedding cakes, and refused to provide a cake for a "gay" couple, because of his Christian beliefs. The client sued, the court ruled against the baker, and the baker was forced out of business. Similar cases involve a photographer who refused to photograph a “gay wedding” and a florist who refused to do the flower arranging for a “gay wedding.” In each case, they argued that because of their religious beliefs, they could not provide the requested service.
These court cases relied on a religious liberty argument based on the First Amendment. As Erick points out, "committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work they can share the gospel and glorify God." Erick points out that the claim of "gay rights" activists is that Jesus would have baked the cake; so Christian bakers should too. However, Jesus "affirmed in the Gospel of Matthew that marriage is between one man and one woman. He also told the various sinners he encountered to “sin no more.” So it becomes highly dubious that Christ would bake a cake for a “gay wedding,” and he most certainly would not preside over the service."
But the other constitutional question involves the Thirteenth Amendment question of involuntary servitude. How can a person be forced to provide a service against his will? If a Christian is forced against his will to participate in a ceremony, which he believes to be debauchery, that it dishonors God, and that such participation would be causing him to sin, is that not involuntary servitude?
Should a Muslim or Jewish caterer be forced to provide food and services for a pig roast or pork barbeque?
The MSM and the “gay” activists in these cases have mischaracterized laws such as SB1062 as anti-gay. They are not. They are aimed at protecting the Liberty of religious people to refuse to be used in celebration something that violates their beliefs.
I believe that these businesses have been deliberately and specifically targeted because of their beliefs, for the purpose of bringing suit, in order to advance the gay agenda, tear down the traditional moral codes of society, and destroy the Christian Faith as a relevant belief system, declaring it antiquated, homophobic, racist, backward, and anti-progress.
Your last paragraph says it all. That's been the agenda all along--not to "love who we love," but to force others to accept it. And your point is a good one about forcing people into involuntary servitude, too. We're not talking about lunch counters here, we're talking about being forced to provide services (most of which are contractual, BTW) and actually take part in the service.
Interestingly, there's no hoopla about the gay bar in Hollywood that has established a policy of not booking heterosexual bachelorette parties in which the women "flaunt their heterosexuality" until, as they say, homosexual weddings are allowed everywhere. Apparently, they (gasp!) went elsewhere, though this establishment is a popular one.
One establishment's owners (targeted by gays) were lucky enough to be able to work out of their home, and had the resources to be able to do so; most aren't so lucky, and have been driven out of business by mean-spirited, immature gays and activists.
Is that a serious question? Your posting history makes it quite clear you hate gays. That's the entire point of these nonsense threads, to further demonize gay people.
I certainly see it as a religious liberty issue, not a gay hating issue. Performing a service that contributes to an activity that violates your religious freedom is an infringement on the service provider's rights. If they operate a business that caters to gay weddings, they have to suddenly choose between their faith and their business. The laws have suddenly changed, but many of these people have been running their businesses for decades. Are they supposed to just walk away from what they've built and the business they've poured their lives into? The answer from gay rights advocates (now that the law is on their side), is adapt now or close your business.
Allowing business providers to decline business that infringes on their religious beliefs protects their religious liberty. Most businesses would be happy to accommodate baking a cake, doing photography, DJing, planning, etc. for a gay wedding. Why force someone under threat of law to do it? Why should a gay couple even want to patronize a business that opposes homosexuality? Wouldn't you prefer to support a business that wanted to cater to you?
The recent growth of gay rights is a massive and sudden paradigm shift in our culture. Expecting things to change overnight will only lead to conflict. Religious exemptions allow protection of religious freedom during the coming years as this shift continues to take place, rather than just shifting oppression from homosexuals to religious business owners.
I certainly see it as a religious liberty issue, not a gay hating issue. Performing a service that contributes to an activity that violates your religious freedom is an infringement on the service provider's rights. If you're a strongly religious person, there are suddenly many businesses you can no longer start or operate. If they operate a business that caters to gay weddings, they have to suddenly choose between their faith and their business. The laws have suddenly changed, but many of these people have been running their businesses for decades. Are the supposed to just walk away from what they've built and the business they've poured their lives into? The answer from gay rights advocates (now that the law is on their side), is adapt now or close your business.
Allowing business providers to decline business that infringes on their religious beliefs protects their religious liberty. Most businesses would be happy to accommodate baking a cake, doing photography, DJing, planning, etc. for a gay wedding. Why force someone under threat of law to do it? Why should a gay couple even want to patronize a business that opposes homosexuality? Wouldn't you prefer to support a business that wanted to cater to you?
The recent growth of gay rights is a massive and sudden paradigm shift in our culture. Expecting things to change overnight will only lead to conflict. Religious exemptions allow protection of religious freedom during the coming years as this shift continues to take place, rather than just shifting oppression from homosexuals to religious business owners.
Should we have enacted religious exemption for those that opposed "mixing of the races" based on religion? (And yes, there were and ARE those who have religious beliefs that blacks and whites shouldn't mix, and should be segregated).
They got over it in the 1950s-60s. They'll get over it in the 2010s.
The couple didn't even get to the point of describing what they wanted on the cake. The baker refused service as soon as he learned that it was a same sex couple. So, you can not claim that the baker was opposed to the decorations on the cake.
That kind of detail was not described in the story I read (I may not have seen the original story). However, I maintain that the baker was within his rights to refuse to bake them a cake, because doing so would be forcing him to violate his beliefs, becoming a participant in something he firmly disagrees with.
That isn't the same as someone refusing to serve someone on the basis of their skin color, or any other criteria. It was against the teachings of his faith. And that was all the Arizona bill was about.
That kind of detail was not described in the story I read (I may not have seen the original story). However, I maintain that the baker was within his rights to refuse to bake them a cake, because doing so would be forcing him to violate his beliefs, becoming a participant in something he firmly disagrees with.
That isn't the same as someone refusing to serve someone on the basis of their skin color, or any other criteria. It was against the teachings of his faith. And that was all the Arizona bill was about.
Bakers are not participants in weddings. They do not give away the bride, officiate, sign the marriage license, or even ATTEND the wedding. They are there to deliver a cake, then leave. Generally they deliver the cake to the reception hall while the wedding is taking place elsewhere, so they never even see the couple at the wedding or reception.
If baking and delivering cakes is against your religion, don't open a bakery.
I certainly see it as a religious liberty issue, not a gay hating issue. Performing a service that contributes to an activity that violates your religious freedom is an infringement on the service provider's rights. If they operate a business that caters to gay weddings, they have to suddenly choose between their faith and their business.
If I was a mean spirited person, I would choose not to do business with those people whom I hate.
The difference between me and the baker, is I am an atheist and he is a Christian. I don't have a book of dogma to use a crutch, like he has. I can't discriminate against anyone.
Bakers are not participants in weddings. They do not give away the bride, officiate, sign the marriage license, or even ATTEND the wedding. They are there to deliver a cake, then leave. Generally they deliver the cake to the reception hall while the wedding is taking place elsewhere, so they never even see the couple at the wedding or reception.
If baking and delivering cakes is against your religion, don't open a bakery.
For some reason the gay hating religious people struggle with this simple fact.
In the Oregon case, the baker never even got to the cake specifications, and refused to do ANY wedding cake for the couple based on them being two brides.
In the Colorado case the baker stated that he would not do ANY wedding cake for a same sex couple due to his religious beliefs.
It wasn't the decorations in either case, but who was ordering the cake.
Incorrect. When the couples in question were asked to name the bride and groom, the usual procedure with traditional wedding cakes, that was when it was revealed that the cake wasn’t for a wedding that is in line with the bakers’ religious beliefs of marriage being only a man and woman but instead for a homosexualized “wedding”. The baker then informed them that he would not make a cake for a homosexualized “wedding”. It was what the cake was for, a homosexualized "wedding", not who was ordering it.
Incorrect. When the couples in question were asked to name the bride and groom, the usual procedure with traditional wedding cakes, that was when it was revealed that the cake wasn’t for a wedding that is in line with the bakers’ religious beliefs of marriage being only a man and woman but instead for a homosexualized “wedding”. The baker then informed them that he would not make a cake for a homosexualized “wedding”. It was what the cake was for, a homosexualized "wedding", not who was ordering it.
Why does the name matter when it comes to making a cake? They aren't getting a birthday cake made, the name of the couple isn't important. Also, what if the wedding cake was for Robert and Elliott? Elliott could be a girl or boy's name. Asking a baker to bake a cake has nothing to do with religion, one doesn't need to pray to got to make a cake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
until, as they say, homosexual weddings are allowed everywhere. Apparently, they (gasp!) went elsewhere, though this establishment is a popular one.
