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.
I know about the lawsuits against bakers who wont sell a cake to a same sex couple for their wedding.
Is this because a baker wont "bake the cake" or wont "decorate the cake" putting two grooms on top for instance?
I'm just curious if the baker could bake and frost the cake then ask the couple to do any decorating themselves?
I know all the talk is about bathrooms these days, but I never did quite understand "the line in the sand" concerning bakers and weddings.
Thanks to anyone who might know!
The issue isn't the design, or even the customer, it's that they feel they're contributing to an event/celebration they consider immoral. It's an issue of freedom of conscience.
A lot of people think these are just biggoted, hateful Christians refusing service to gay people. It's not. One of the florists, for instance, had served the gay couple that sued her for years. She knew they were gay, and continued to serve them. But when she politely declined to provide flowers for the wedding because of her moral convictions, they sued her for discrimination.
You hear about this in the context of gay rights because those are the only people suing because of it. It's about not being forced to engage in activities that business owners consider immoral, not about serving people generally. Likewise, a gay photographer shouldn't be forced into photographing a Westboro Baptist Church event, a pro-choice person shouldn't have to cater a pro-life fundraiser, etc.
The issue isn't the design, or even the customer, it's that they feel they're contributing to an event/celebration they consider immoral. It's an issue of freedom of conscience.
A lot of people think these are just biggoted, hateful Christians refusing service to gay people. It's not. One of the florists, for instance, had served the gay couple that sued her for years. She knew they were gay, and continued to serve them. But when she politely declined to provide flowers for the wedding because of her moral convictions, they sued her for discrimination.
You hear about this in the context of gay rights because those are the only people suing because of it. It's about not being forced to engage in activities that business owners consider immoral, not about serving people generally. Likewise, a gay photographer shouldn't be forced into photographing a Westboro Baptist Church event, a pro-choice person shouldn't have to cater a pro-life fundraiser, etc.
That couple spent thousands of dollars in the florist shop before they learned that she would refuse them service. And they didn't even want arrangements, they wanted to purchase empty vases and some sticks and greenery to make their own arrangements. Do you think they may have liked to know her "beliefs" before they spent their money in her shop for years?
The same "religious freedom" claim was made right after the civil rights act passed. It wan't "that they were black, it was that they didn't believe in mixed races eating together" based on their religious beliefs.
Same argument different group discriminated against.
When this issue is brought up, my conservative friends tend to go the 'it's their business' route. Any business should be able to refuse service for any reason.
The problem: that's rarely the overall discussion.
We see this with laws that apply this principles to very specific situations. We've seen numerous 'religious freedom' bills popping up across the US as a result of this discussion. If a business should be able to refuse service to anyone, why is this issue being reduced to purely issues of religious disagreement with same sex marriage, which in no religion that I'm aware of is technically a sin.
We aren't seeing efforts to repeal laws that say bakers can refuse to serve based on race or gender. We aren't even seeing support for that. To me, it's very clear that this narrative of 'private business rights' the right is trying to create is bull****. It's specifically about gay people. Maybe it's about religion, but I personally feel like modern civilization has no use for religion being this talked about in the public sphere. Religion is a personal matter; keep it out of politics and social life. Things work better that way.
But beyond this, it comes down to an issue of consistency. If it's illegal to discriminate, why are exceptions being made for gay people? It actually is more or less the same point as above, but from a slightly different angle. Respect for 'rule of law' is a fun thing conservatives say, yet it seems to be applied unevenly here (among other places). Why?
Again, the common denominator is gay people. The issue is that we have a group of people (it's not all conservatives, to be clear) who do not consider gay people human enough to warrant the same rights as others.
The common denominator is gay people because gay rights activists are the ones demanding that businesses serve their events. You may feel that religion doesn't belong in the public spherel, but the freedom to exercise religion (not just private believe, as people on the left like to misinterpret it) is a Constitutional right.
Where is the right to have the government force a private person who disagrees with X activity to engage in that activity? Oh, right, it's not there.
That couple spent thousands of dollars in the florist shop before they learned that she would refuse them service. And they didn't even want arrangements, they wanted to purchase empty vases and some sticks and greenery to make their own arrangements. Do you think they may have liked to know her "beliefs" before they spent their money in her shop for years?
The same "religious freedom" claim was made right after the civil rights act passed. It wan't "that they were black, it was that they didn't believe in mixed races eating together" based on their religious beliefs.
Same argument different group discriminated against.
Sure they might have wanted to know, but so what? Learning that someone disagrees with you on an issue after a previously smooth relationship doesn't mean anything.
Regarding civil rights, that's apples to oranges. One group was literally enslaved for generations and subject to second class citizenship (if citizenship at all) in large swaths of the country. Gay people certainly have a history of discrimination, but nothing like what black people were subjected to. They certainly don't experience anything similar today, unlike black people at the time of the civil rights act.
The common denominator is gay people because gay rights activists are the ones demanding that businesses serve their events. You may feel that religion doesn't belong in the public spherel, but the freedom to exercise religion (not just private believe, as people on the left like to misinterpret it) is a Constitutional right.
Where is the right to have the government force a private person who disagrees with X activity to engage in that activity? Oh, right, it's not there.
That is because race, sex, and religion are federally protected classes.
The civil rights act says that businesses can not discriminate against people of those protected classes. Soon sexual orientation will be added to that list.
The common denominator is gay people because gay rights activists are the ones demanding that businesses serve their events. You may feel that religion doesn't belong in the public spherel, but the freedom to exercise religion (not just private believe, as people on the left like to misinterpret it) is a Constitutional right.
Where is the right to have the government force a private person who disagrees with X activity to engage in that activity? Oh, right, it's not there.
But what is X activity and how does it apply here? The assumption is that you disagree with gay marriage. You don't like that. The thing is, no one is forcing anyone to engage in that activity. Have you been forced to marry a man (unless your a woman, in which case I'd ask if you've married a woman)? I'm guessing no.
So, there is no right to force people to engage in activities they don't agree with. So far, that's been not been violated.
But you're issue is what, baking a cake for something that will be at an event you don't agree with? Is that really just an issue of your rights? In terms of how that effects you... it doesn't. You do the same activity for every cake baked; how the cake is used in NEVER actually relevant. The fact is, if I come in and buy a wedding cake saying it's for a traditional, Christian wedding, then go home and **** the cake, nothing happens to you, even if you're against people having sex with food.
So, the issue of a baker's rights being violated don't really seem valid here as the "right" could be violated without a person's knowledge and no adverse side effects could feasibly happen. This is distinct from rights being violated without knowledge that do have adverse side effects, such as privacy rights.
Now, on the end of the consumer, there are anti-discrimination laws in place. It most states, and in some areas at the federal level, discrimination based on sexual orientation is actually a violation of civil law. Many would argue it violates the constitution as technically we're basing the validity of the wedding based on one's sex, which is specifically defined as unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. So, by my count, only one side's rights are being violated.
In relations to freedom of religion, you are still allowed to oppose gay marriage. The issue however is that under civil law, businesses cannot discriminate. There are exceptions based on issues of security, for example, if I bring a gun and start shooting in the air at your shop, you have the right to kick me out or refuse service. That would hold up. But if it's because I'm black, you'd have less of an argument. Between these two scenarios, which does being gay and getting married sound more like?
Sure they might have wanted to know, but so what? Learning that someone disagrees with you on an issue after a previously smooth relationship doesn't mean anything.
Regarding civil rights, that's apples to oranges. One group was literally enslaved for generations and subject to second class citizenship (if citizenship at all) in large swaths of the country. Gay people certainly have a history of discrimination, but nothing like what black people were subjected to. They certainly don't experience anything similar today, unlike black people at the time of the civil rights act.
So a little discrimination is ok but only against those you think it's ok for?
You realize that religion is also protected under the civil rights act. How much discrimination has there been against Christians in public accommodations? They haven't been enslaved, or even systemically discriminated against yet they have those same protections.
That is because race, sex, and religion are federally protected classes.
The civil rights act says that businesses can not discriminate against people of those protected classes. Soon sexual orientation will be added to that list.
Right--one is a (potential) statutory right, the other is a Constitutional right.
Within Constitutional and reasonable limits, people should be free to not engage in certain activities or promote certain message. This should apply to everyone (Christians, Muslims, gay people, racial minorities) who has a moral objection to an activity, at least for small businesses.
If all the sudden neo-Nazis, started suing Jewish businesses who refused to cater their events, I think most would agree that "discrimination" in this sense is reasonable and that the Jewish business shouldn't be forced to serve the event.
That belief requires tolerance, which is unfortunately a one-way street on the left.
Right--one is a (potential) statutory right, the other is a Constitutional right.
Within Constitutional and reasonable limits, people should be free to not engage in certain activities or promote certain message. This should apply to everyone (Christians, Muslims, gay people, racial minorities) who has a moral objection to an activity, at least for small businesses.
If all the sudden neo-Nazis, started suing Jewish businesses who refused to cater their events, I think most would agree that "discrimination" in this sense is reasonable and that the Jewish business shouldn't be forced to serve the event.
That belief requires tolerance, which is unfortunately a one-way street on the left.
So you expect me to tolerate someone being intolerant to me? Really?
Do you think that a Christian would tolerate being refused service in a public accommodation, or refused housing or employment due to their religious beliefs?
If you have a moral objection to gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you have a moral objection to baking cakes, don't open a bakery. No one is forcing anyone to do either.
But what is X activity and how does it apply here? The assumption is that you disagree with gay marriage. You don't like that. The thing is, no one is forcing anyone to engage in that activity. Have you been forced to marry a man (unless your a woman, in which case I'd ask if you've married a woman)? I'm guessing no.
So, there is no right to force people to engage in activities they don't agree with. So far, that's been not been violated.
But you're issue is what, baking a cake for something that will be at an event you don't agree with? Is that really just an issue of your rights? In terms of how that effects you... it doesn't. You do the same activity for every cake baked; how the cake is used in NEVER actually relevant. The fact is, if I come in and buy a wedding cake saying it's for a traditional, Christian wedding, then go home and **** the cake, nothing happens to you, even if you're against people having sex with food.
So, the issue of a baker's rights being violated don't really seem valid here as the "right" could be violated without a person's knowledge and no adverse side effects could feasibly happen. This is distinct from rights being violated without knowledge that do have adverse side effects, such as privacy rights.
Now, on the end of the consumer, there are anti-discrimination laws in place. It most states, and in some areas at the federal level, discrimination based on sexual orientation is actually a violation of civil law. Many would argue it violates the constitution as technically we're basing the validity of the wedding based on one's sex, which is specifically defined as unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. So, by my count, only one side's rights are being violated.
In relations to freedom of religion, you are still allowed to oppose gay marriage. The issue however is that under civil law, businesses cannot discriminate. There are exceptions based on issues of security, for example, if I bring a gun and start shooting in the air at your shop, you have the right to kick me out or refuse service. That would hold up. But if it's because I'm black, you'd have less of an argument. Between these two scenarios, which does being gay and getting married sound more like?
So as long as you aren't the one actually getting married, your rights can't be violated? That seems like an incredibly narrow definition. That's like saying the government saying "hey, you need to go to a church service each week, but we're not violating your rights because you don't have to actually pray or sing or listen to the sermon."
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.
