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.
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.
Is this the same so-called "Christian" baker with so-called "sincere religious beliefs" in Colorado who accepted an order to bake a cake for a DOG wedding and a divorce celebration and likened a gay wedding to a celebration of pedophilia?
Is this the same so-called "Christian" baker with so-called "sincere religious beliefs" in Colorado who accepted an order to bake a cake for a DOG wedding and a divorce celebration and likened a gay wedding to a celebration of pedophilia?
"Religious beliefs" my foot....
Let's not forget the pagan festival cake that they agreed to bake as well.
I'm surprised they didn't fulfill an order for a golden calf cake, the poor wittle put-up cwistians.
And the baker CHOSE to offer custom cakes in their store, no one forced them to do so. But since the bakery CHOSE to offer custom cakes for sale, then they can not discriminate in who they sell those cakes to.
If a butcher CHOSE to sell custom cuts of meat, he could not refuse to sell those custom cuts of meat to the general public.
If a auto body guy offered custom paint jobs, he could not refuse to sell custom paint jobs to the general public.
If the baker can not serve the general public, then he should not offer cakes for sale to the general public.
You are like an annoying broken record. You still miss the point. You fail to understand the argument. Perhaps you do not know what doing custom work is. I guess it's just over your head.
What makes you think the baker felt "deep hatred and resentment?" Can you cite anything at all where this was reported in that case? He is a Christian. He believes marriage is only between a man and a woman. He did not wish to dignify a homosexual "marriage" with his labor by making a custom cake (that was his business) for their "wedding." I think he was well within his rights. No one should be forced to provide a service for an event which goes against their religion, forcing them to be a participant. It's that simple. I stand by that.
You people always like to misrepresent the facts and re-frame the argument to something else, in order to paint the victim (the baker) as a "homophobic hater," or worse. This wasn't about homosexual sex, sex acts or anything else that homosexuals may engage in. It was about "gay marriage," and a man's right not to participate by providing his services for something that he knows to be wrong, and against the teachings of scripture. Period.
This "gay" duo had no right to force him into their service.
Still, you are quite wrong in your thinking for this day and age. The year is 2014, not 1950. People are more enlightened these days. Homosexuals are not the monsters the public foolishly thought they were in 1950.
If I was the baker, I would have been mature enough to accept that not everybody is going to live fully under the Bible, considering how much picking and choosing goes on as to what people want to take seriously in it, and made the dang cake. Surely, plenty of white Christian bakers make wedding cakes for blacks, even though they may read in the Bible where they may interpret it to mean they are to avoid them. It also reflects a more enlightened age we live in. But some people still need to move on from their prejudices against blacks and homosexuals.
You are like an annoying broken record. You still miss the point. You fail to understand the argument. Perhaps you do not know what doing custom work is. I guess it's just over your head.
Both you, and the cartoonist are remarkably misinformed on how the constitution or equal protection laws work.
Where there are anti-discrimination laws, you cannot refuse service to customers based on their race, ethnicity, religion, handicap... and in some places, their sexuality.
The black baker in your cartoon, if he refuses to bake the cake, will be within his RIGHT to do so, because KKK is not a religion. It is...a political? viewpoint, I guess.
A Republican baker, for example, could refuse to bake a cake for the birthday of a Democratic politician he dislikes.
This is NOT rocket science, people. Truly, it's not.
Is this the same so-called "Christian" baker with so-called "sincere religious beliefs" in Colorado who accepted an order to bake a cake for a DOG wedding and a divorce celebration and likened a gay wedding to a celebration of pedophilia?
"Religious beliefs" my foot....
Really. No doubt, it's all based on the baker being highly prejudiced against people who engage in sex acts the baker takes great offense. So the baker finds the sex acts dogs do less offensive than ones human homosexuals do. People like that baker need to review the words of Jesus.
You are like an annoying broken record. You still miss the point. You fail to understand the argument. Perhaps you do not know what doing custom work is. I guess it's just over your head.
Maybe you don't realize that the KKK is not a protected class.
If a white couple (sans hoods and robes) walked in to the black bakers shop, he could not refuse service based on their race.
If a white couple walked in to the black bakers shop and wanted a cake with burning crosses and a lynch mob, he could refuse to make that cake, since he doesn't make cakes with burning crosses or lynch mobs.
If a white couple walked into the black bakers shop and wanted a cake with white fondant and sugar flowers (like other cakes he makes) then the baker can not refuse to serve them simply because they are white.
If the gay couple want a cake with an orgy scene, the baker can refuse because he doesn't do orgy scenes.
If the gay couple want a cake with two guys on top, the baker doesn't have to provide the topper.
If the gay couple want a cake with white fondant and sugar flowers (like other cakes the baker makes) the baker can not refuse to serve them based on their sexual orientation.
Bakeries are considered public accommodations under the law. It doesn't matter what you think they SHOULD be considered.
Both you, and the cartoonist are remarkably misinformed on how the constitution or equal protection laws work.
Where there are anti-discrimination laws, you cannot refuse service to customers based on their race, ethnicity, religion, handicap... and in some places, their sexuality.
The black baker in your cartoon, if he refuses to bake the cake, will be within his RIGHT to do so, because KKK is not a religion. It is...a political? viewpoint, I guess.
A Republican baker, for example, could refuse to bake a cake for the birthday of a Democratic politician he dislikes.
This is NOT rocket science, people. Truly, it's not.
I disagree. "Bob" can refuse their specifications, but he can't refuse to sell them a cake. If he did, the couple would have grounds to sue for race discrimination.
Now, if Bob's Bakery refused to sell the couple a cake, because Bob only sold cookies and pies, I don't see a case.
Maybe you don't realize that the KKK is not a protected class.
If a white couple (sans hoods and robes) walked in to the black bakers shop, he could not refuse service based on their race.
If a white couple walked in to the black bakers shop and wanted a cake with burning crosses and a lynch mob, he could refuse to make that cake, since he doesn't make cakes with burning crosses or lynch mobs.
If a white couple walked into the black bakers shop and wanted a cake with white fondant and sugar flowers (like other cakes he makes) then the baker can not refuse to serve them simply because they are white.
If the gay couple want a cake with an orgy scene, the baker can refuse because he doesn't do orgy scenes.
If the gay couple want a cake with two guys on top, the baker doesn't have to provide the topper.
If the gay couple want a cake with white fondant and sugar flowers (like other cakes the baker makes) the baker can not refuse to serve them based on their sexual orientation.
Bakeries are considered public accommodations under the law. It doesn't matter what you think they SHOULD be considered.
jjrose, you're just wasting your time trying to explain how simple law works to nononsense, westcoastrepublican and other right wingers. It's simply too much for them to comprehend.
I think it's ridiculous for any business owner to be forced by the government to serve anyone, regardless of the reason. We should eliminate all so-called "protected classes".
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.
