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.
They were willing to bake a cake for them under OTHER circumstances, such as a birthday. This wasn't a blanket refusal. It was a very specific situation that they objected to.
It was a blanket refusal. If they offer a specific service they can't discriminate who they offer that service to. A service they provide is wedding cakes, if they offer it, they can't discriminate on who they offer it to. Providing them with a birthday cake or another type of cake doesn't change the fact they are refusing to provide them a specific service they offer.
What about clerks that have refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples? Are they protected under the reasonable accommodation laws? Seems like they should be. It's the same issue as the Muslim who refused to transport alcohol for religious reasons. Another clerk could step in just like another driver could transport the booze.
Going back to the whole Davis situation, when it came down to it, she didn't have to issue the licenses herself. She wound up being held in contempt of court because she not only refused to do it herself, but refused to allow and blocked her deputy clerks from issuing them. She was then let out after she agreed not to interfere with her deputy clerks from issuing the licenses.
Going back to the whole Davis situation, when it came down to it, she didn't have to issue the licenses herself. She wound up being held in contempt of court because she not only refused to do it herself, but refused to allow and blocked her deputy clerks from issuing them. She was then let out after she agreed not to interfere with her deputy clerks from issuing the licenses.
That makes perfect sense. She shouldn't be forced to do something that violates her religion, but neither should she be permitted to foist her beliefs on others. So in the case of the bakery, had a clerk refused to take the order due to religious belief, but another clerk or the bakery owner took the order and filled it, that would have been legal. Right? Makes sense that individuals have rights not afforded to business entities.
That makes perfect sense. She shouldn't be forced to do something that violates her religion, but neither should she be permitted to foist her beliefs on others. So in the case of the bakery, had a clerk refused to take the order due to religious belief, but another clerk or the bakery owner took the order and filled it, that would have been legal? Makes sense that individuals have rights not afforded to business entities.
In the bakery case it was the owners and not a clerk, but yes. They could have been able to get away with not providing the service if someone else who worked there did, however that isn't what happened.
To add to it, a key component of the fine was the back and forth that went on after the initial dispute in which the owner's released the personal information of the couple involved.
What about clerks that have refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples? Are they protected under the reasonable accommodation laws? Seems like they should be. It's the same issue as the Muslim who refused to transport alcohol for religious reasons. Another clerk could step in just like another driver could transport the booze. Either we accomodate ALL religious belief or none.
And that is exactly what that clerk was told to do, allow someone else in the office to issue the licenses. The only problem is that she didn't even want to allow that.
Do you have any evidence of a business owner who happens to be a Muslim breaking anti-discrimination laws and got away with it. This has NOTHING to do with the religion of those involved other than those who wish to make it so. This is about NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
It was a blanket refusal. If they offer a specific service they can't discriminate who they offer that service to. A service they provide is wedding cakes, if they offer it, they can't discriminate on who they offer it to. Providing them with a birthday cake or another type of cake doesn't change the fact they are refusing to provide them a specific service they offer.
So if a neo-Nazi walks into a Jewish bakery and demands a cake with a black swastika on it and the words "Incinerate all Jews"to celebrate Hitlers birthday the Jewish baker should be required to bake it?
If a KKK member walks into a black bakery and demands a cake with a noose and the words "Hang the Negros" on it to celebrate the founding of the KKK the black baker should be required to make it?
Kim Davis, an elected, government representative, is a completely separate issue from the rights of private businesses to discriminate.
Davis broke her Oath of Office when she not only refused to issue the marriage licenses but prevented anybody in her office from doing so. If she is unable to uphold her oath for religious reasons, the only option for her is to resign. Due to separation of church and state, she does not have the right to use the office of county clerk to enforce her religion upon Rowan County citizens who don't share her religious beliefs.
Now, the private sector is a bit more complicated. Personally I think the most fair way is to have different requirements for corporations vs sole proprietorships. Since the Hobby Lobby decision ruled that corporations are people, this would never work and complicates this entire issue.
However, in an ideal world, corporations would be subject to federal laws including Obamacare and non-discrimination laws including sexual orientation, no exception. Hobby Lobby would have to cover the entirety of Obamacare and Wal-Mart would have to bake a same-sex wedding cake. No corporation could hire or fire based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc.
Sole proprietorships on the other hand, as extensions of individuals, should get a little more leeway. I am not sure exactly what the perfect solution would be for sole proprietorships but I think religious conviction should be allowed to play more of a role than in government or a corporation. Of course, this might open the door to discrimination and that is definitely not a good thing. How could this be handled in a way that is fair for both ethnic and sexual minorities AND business owners who might have religious convictions that prohibit them from providing a specific service? Could it even be done?
I really can understand both sides of this issue. I understand the plight of the LGBT community for whom being denied service by a bakery or photographer isn't far off from the "WHITES ONLY" diners of the '50s. It's discrimination and its wrong. However, I can understand the Christian perspective in which their religious conviction does not allow them to support same-sex marriage, which in this case their only option would be to go out of business. I don't think either is fair. Allowing businesses to discriminate is unfair to the LGBT community. A blanket, one-size fits all non-discrimination policy from the government down to the family business will be unfair to some with strong religious convictions. Can a compromise be had?
Last edited by bawac34618; 12-29-2015 at 05:48 PM..
So if a neo-Nazi walks into a Jewish bakery and demands a cake with a black swastika on it and the words "Incinerate all Jews"to celebrate Hitlers birthday the Jewish baker should be required to bake it?
If a KKK member walks into a black bakery and demands a cake with a noose and the words "Hang the Negros" on it to celebrate the founding of the KKK the black baker should be required to make it?
If the Jewish baker OFFERS swastika cakes then he has to offer them to anyone that wants to purchase on, if he doesn't OFFER them for sale to anyone then he doesn't have to make them for anyone. Same goes for the black baker. The issue is that the baker OFFERED wedding cakes for sale, but didn't want to sell them to everyone that is called discrimination and is not allowed under anti discrimination laws.
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.
