Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:53 PM
 
63,493 posts, read 39,783,865 times
Reputation: 7805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
I believe that a business person should be allowed the option to refuse to do specific things. I don't think anyone should be obligated to bake a KKK cake or to put swastikas on it.
But that's different than discriminating against the person. You're not refusing to put swastikas on a cake because of who the person is, but because of what he wants you to do. If he decided against the swastikas and instead wanted you to bake a normal cake, you'd probably do it.
But this Arizona law is allowing discrimination against the person ... which means you don't have to serve him AT ALL whether he wants a swastika on his cake or a cute dolphin or a kitten.
I don't think people are really understanding this distinction when they come up with all of these astronomically unlikely scenarios.
This is extremely insightful. You make an important distinction that should govern these issues. Unfortunately, it runs aground on some issues that have already been raised and adjudicated. You are correct that it should not be the person that is the basis of the refusal . . . it should be the specific object or service demanded. But how do you reconcile this with the notion that birth control pills should be dispensed by a pharmacist who is religiously opposed to their existence and use . . . as with your swastika example, Shirina? . . . Or that religious organizations should be compelled to provide health care coverage for them? The discrimination is NOT against the person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-26-2014, 03:54 PM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,446,046 times
Reputation: 7467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
I believe that a business person should be allowed the option to refuse to do specific things. I don't think anyone should be obligated to bake a KKK cake or to put swastikas on it.

But that's different than discriminating against the person. You're not refusing to put swastikas on a cake because of who the person is, but because of what he wants you to do. If he decided against the swastikas and instead wanted you to bake a normal cake, you'd probably do it.

But this Arizona law is allowing discrimination against the person ... which means you don't have to serve him AT ALL whether he wants a swastika on his cake or a cute dolphin or a kitten.

I don't think people are really understanding this distinction when they come up with all of these astronomically unlikely scenarios.
Guess you missed the part when the baker said he would not mind making a birthday cake for the gay couple but not a wedding cake. The photographer probably thinks the same thing. Take photos of a birthday party but not a marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,877,222 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
I believe that a business person should be allowed the option to refuse to do specific things. I don't think anyone should be obligated to bake a KKK cake or to put swastikas on it.
As usual. I agree with Shirina.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,140,447 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
Guess you missed the part when the baker said he would not mind making a birthday cake for the gay couple but not a wedding cake. The photographer probably thinks the same thing. Take photos of a birthday party but not a marriage.
If the wedding cake was like any other wedding cake he was denying a service, that he offered to others, to the couple based on the PERSON.
If a baker made swastika cakes, but refused to sell them to women, that is discrimination based on the PERSON.
If the baker did not make swastika cakes for anyone, then he is not discriminating based on the person wanting to buy one.
If the baker didn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, then there is no discrimination by refusing o sell then to a specific person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:22 PM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,303,605 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
This is extremely insightful. You make an important distinction that should govern these issues. Unfortunately, it runs aground on some issues that have already been raised and adjudicated. You are correct that it should not be the person that is the basis of the refusal . . . it should be the specific object or service demanded. But how do you reconcile this with the notion that birth control pills should be dispensed by a pharmacist who is religiously opposed to their existence and use . . . as with your swastika example, Shirina? . . . Or that religious organizations should be compelled to provide health care coverage for them? The discrimination is NOT against the person.
Well, there is no law that states refusing to give out birth control to customers is unlawful. Obviously they can do it because they do and no one has been arrested.

However, having said that, I think it's a really lousy thing to do. Someone who decides to be a pharmacist would know well in advance that he or she will have to give out birth control medication, so there is no excuse. A person shouldn't act as a deliberate roadblock to birth control access, and that is what these pharmacists are doing. It is deliberate. They have no business even becoming a pharmacist if their religion prevents them from doing their jobs.

With the cake, that's different because who really thinks they might have to bake a cake for a gay wedding? It's probably not something the baker ever foresaw before deciding to become a baker. In addition, how many people is refusing to bake the cake really affecting? But a pharmacist refusing to hand out birth control is standing in the way of large numbers of people obtaining legitimately prescribed medication. And since medical information is confidential and since the pharmacist has no idea what its being prescribed for, he really doesn't have good cause to withhold it.

To my way of thinking, medical procedures and medicines should be off limits to religious influence. There's just to much at stake, in my opinion, and no overzealous pharmacist should be overriding a doctor's prescription UNLESS the patient is taking medications that conflict with each other. Medical prescriptions and wedding cakes aren't really in the same class.

But that's my opinion. Obviously the law says differently - at least for now - but like I said: I think it's a really stinky* thing to do to the patients when you KNEW beforehand that you would have to honor MANY scripts for birth control.

*I had to use such a childish word because the word I wanted to use would show up as a series of asterisks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:27 PM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,303,605 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
Guess you missed the part when the baker said he would not mind making a birthday cake for the gay couple but not a wedding cake. The photographer probably thinks the same thing. Take photos of a birthday party but not a marriage.
But that's not what the Arizona bill is all about. It opens up the door to discriminate against ANYONE for ANY reason that can be tagged to religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:31 PM
 
63,493 posts, read 39,783,865 times
Reputation: 7805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Well, there is no law that states refusing to give out birth control to customers is unlawful. Obviously they can do it because they do and no one has been arrested.

However, having said that, I think it's a really lousy thing to do. Someone who decides to be a pharmacist would know well in advance that he or she will have to give out birth control medication, so there is no excuse. A person shouldn't act as a deliberate roadblock to birth control access, and that is what these pharmacists are doing. It is deliberate. They have no business even becoming a pharmacist if their religion prevents them from doing their jobs.

With the cake, that's different because who really thinks they might have to bake a cake for a gay wedding? It's probably not something the baker ever foresaw before deciding to become a baker. In addition, how many people is refusing to bake the cake really affecting? But a pharmacist refusing to hand out birth control is standing in the way of large numbers of people obtaining legitimately prescribed medication. And since medical information is confidential and since the pharmacist has no idea what its being prescribed for, he really doesn't have good cause to withhold it.

To my way of thinking, medical procedures and medicines should be off limits to religious influence. There's just to much at stake, in my opinion, and no overzealous pharmacist should be overriding a doctor's prescription UNLESS the patient is taking medications that conflict with each other. Medical prescriptions and wedding cakes aren't really in the same class.

But that's my opinion. Obviously the law says differently - at least for now - but like I said: I think it's a really stinky* thing to do to the patients when you KNEW beforehand that you would have to honor MANY scripts for birth control.

*I had to use such a childish word because the word I wanted to use would show up as a series of asterisks.
I understand. The automatic censor is frustrating. Thank you for elaborating . . . I hope it gives others the ability to see all the complexities in such issues. The most troubling aspect of our discourse on these issues is the simple-mindedness with which they are addressed. Reconciling competing rights and interests is never a simple process . . . though it is too often approached as if it was. Great posts and analyses, Shirina. Still can't rep you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:38 PM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,446,046 times
Reputation: 7467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
But that's not what the Arizona bill is all about. It opens up the door to discriminate against ANYONE for ANY reason that can be tagged to religion.
I agree, it should not be a bill that can allow just anyone to do anything. It needs to have strict guidelines.

Medical conditions should not be refused for anyone. If a business is private than do what the libertarians say. If businesses don't provide a good service they will not be open for long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:54 PM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,672,953 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
But that's not what the Arizona bill is all about. It opens up the door to discriminate against ANYONE for ANY reason that can be tagged to religion.
That's simply not the case. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2014, 10:51 PM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,446,046 times
Reputation: 7467
Default Would Jesus Bake a Cake For and Attend a Homosexual Wedding?

Would Jesus Bake a Cake For and Attend a Homosexual Wedding? - Conservative Byte

[LEFT]It is really sad when liberals try and go on about Jesus hanging out with sinners. We are all sinners. The point is Jesus never participated in sin or encouraged it.
Check it out:
Does anyone think that a Jewish baker should be forced to make a cake for a group that wants to celebrate the birthday of Adolf Hitler? Should a black photographer be forced to photograph a KKK-themed wedding?
Was it wrong for a supermarket in New Jersey to refuse to write the name of a couple’s 3-year-old son in frosting on a birthday cake? The child’s name is Adolf Hitler Campbell.
Of course, liberals want to attack Christians, so they’re calling on the Bible for help.
Liberals love the Bible except when they hate the Bible. Their favorite verse is Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” Their least favorite verse is Matthew 7:2: “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”
Consistency in judgment is the biblical ideal. In John 7:24, Jesus said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” So what’s the right judgment on this issue?

Continue Reading on godfatherpolitics.com ...

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top