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.
The issue of what a business can be forced to do via regulation, and not via the market place is a tough one. Can a kosher caterer be forced to serve non-kosher food or can it be driven by theological demands? If it can limit itself on one level, can it then claim that the same religious schema forbids it from creating content essential to idolatry? Then, what about content which enables (or condones, as this is a potential problem in Judaism) violation of other religious law? What if the material violates civil law (make me a meal with a near extinct species, the cooking of which is illegal).
In a similar vein, should a t-shirt manufacturer be required to print up shirts that have material on them which violate the first amendment (in the US)? Or what if they make a direct attack on the t-shirt maker? What can I be forced to put on a shirt, regardless of my personal/religious/emotional sensibility?
It isn't simple or even consistent.
Simple, sell at-shirt to a straight white person than you must sell a similar t-shirt to a gay or black person. Sell a tee to a straight person you are not forced to sell blue jeans to a gay person if you don't sell blue jeans to anyone else.
Same with a wedding cake , you bake wedding cakes you don't get to decide on what types of people you are willing to sell cakes to. There is no such thing as a gay cake, wedding or not.
The Muslim butcher example is plain silly. If a Muslim butcher does not sell pork to anyone he cannot be forced to sell pork to one person. A fruit stand cannot be forced to sell meat or seafood, a John Deere dealership cannot be forced to sell BMW or wedding cakes. But non of them can refuse to sell the products that they do sell to a gay, Jew a black or a woman. If a woman wishes to purchase a John Deere combine the dealer cannot say that they will only sell to men. A Muslim butcher cannot refuse to sell the products he does sell to a Christian
An pist above shows that gay weddings do not violate laws for all Jews same as not all Christians or denominations refuse to have gay weddings. How does it violate the religious rights of a Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding in a Christian Church anymore than for a Catholic to bake a wedding cake for a wedding in a Protestant Church? Or of a wedding between a Christian and a Muslim?
Back to the t-shirt, if you sell a tee to a straight person with writing on it you cannot refuse to sell a tee to a gay with the same wording. If you sell tees with no special writings on it you can refuse to sell a tee to a gay man with special writings on it. The laws are pretty clear and consistent. A wedding cake has no gender, has no obscene writing nor any parts of exotic animals in it. It's a cake.
You have changed your menu for everybody, so this is not a problem of discrimination. No different from McDonald's not serving breakfast after 10am or whatever.
No, I have only changed it for certain people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Yes, because you are discriminating against a person based upon their religion/heritage. They want the cheeseburger, they do not feel that it violates their religion, you serve cheeseburgers, it is upon you to serve them the cheeseburger.
But my religious law forbids selling it to that person no matter what he believes. So if the law forces my hand, the law infringes on my practice. Same with the ban. He doesn't accept or care that he is banned. But to force me to serve him violates my practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Do you serve others at their weddings? If so, it is not a matter of time, it is a matter of the person. Why can religious adherents not see this?
No, it is the nature of the event. How about all the same people come in to my store and buy a cookie, or a cake and sit and eat it. The baker would have no problem. Changing the place and event changes the consideration (not mine, personally, by the way, this is about the nature of religious law, not my beliefs -- some people seem to have missed that). So if the people are served then the people are served.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Do you print swastikas on shirts for some people, but not others? If so, that is discriminatory. Do you refuse to print swastikas and similar emblems on shirts for all? Is so, it is fine do refuse a request.
No -- the question was between the fact that no one would bat an eye if I objected to put a swastika on a cake or a naked woman, but would have a problem if I refused to put something else on which is as problematic to me. That makes for a subjective social standard.
What I find ironic in this thread (although it's true in many threads) is:
1. Religionists want to live their lives based on their beliefs.
2. Religionists do not want to give that same right to others.
We're talkin' secular law.
Maris et foeminae conjunctio est de jure naturae
/masras et femaniy kanjar]ksh(iy)ow est diy jiiriy natyiiriy/.
The connection of male and female is by the law of nature.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., P.967
UNNATURAL OFFENSE - The infamous crime against nature; i.e., sodomy or buggery.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p.1131
CRIME AGAINST NATURE. Deviate sexual intercourse per os or per anum between human beings who are not husband and wife and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal.
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., P.371
BUGGERY. A carnal copulation against nature; a man or a woman with a brute beast, a man with a man, or man unnaturally with a woman. This term is often used interchangeably with "sodomy."
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 194
PERVERT - A person whose sexual practices or interests are considered abnormal or deviant.
IN short, the government was infiltrated by perverts who changed the courts to no longer prosecute crimes against nature.
Nothing to do with religion.
which is why I started by saying that this is not so simple.
We know it isn't "simple" to those who want to have the freedom to discriminate based off of religion. It is very simple though. Serve everyone (within reason, of course. Not talking nazi cakes or sex cakes or something), or open yourself up to problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
Sure. But empathy doesn't always have a primary and equivalent place in the world's thinking. If I am running the bakery, then I might feel bad for the guy I turn away. Should he feel qually bad for the position he is putting me in? Should he refrain from walking in?
No, he shouldn't feel bad. You are running a business. If you can't serve everyone who comes through what you currently sell to others, then that is on you, not the customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
You have just told every Jewish purveyor of a kosher food service establishment that he should either compromise his beliefs or go out of business. Can you see how that might be seen as a bit unfair? The practice of my religion is in direct conglict with societal regulation, and you have said "religion loses" which is an infringment.
Fact is, whether you agree with it or like it, in the public sphere, your religion is not important. That's just facts. Neither is mine or anyone else's. If you can't do your job without having to compromise your beliefs or go out of business, then you shouldn't be in that line of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
But serving a wedding and turning a person away are two different things. One is about a person, the other is a time/place/event.
It really isn't. To those doing the discriminating it may be, but certainly not those on the receiving end of it. The only reason they are being turned away, is because they are gay. Wedding or no wedding, that is the reason.
No, we are telling them to stop discriminating... If you can't serve everyone, then you shouldn't be in business. Jew, atheist, Christian, or otherwise.
got it you want them to abandon Judaism, and will give them economic pressure just like Christian anti-Semites
LGBT=Inquisition
Quote:
Oh, well since you quoted a rabbi from 1983, my mind is changed
No I just wanted you to understand that my position is mainstream, and that rabbi from 83 is arguably the most respected rabbi to ever live in America.
Quote:
You're right, it isn't. In this country, your religious beliefs do not govern law. Just because you claim your religion says "Don't serve gays", doesn't mean you get a free pass to discriminate. This is just more "My religion is more important than your life" nonsense. Can't do your job fully, get out. I don't care if you are Jewish or atheist.
Did you hire a independent buisness owner?
anyone who supports lgbt rights in case like wedding cake are antisemites disprove the thesis.
Quote:
So you are just one of those people that scream "Racists!" at everything, huh? Hard to take that seriously.
No if you would boycott the store I would not scream bigots even if you are one, However when you use the federal, state, or city government I will oppose bigotry just like my grandparents oppose Jim Crow. I will also call out bigotry and those bigots who espouse it.
Quote:
See above. Also, if you can't serve gay weddings, don't be in a business that serves weddings. Otherwise, you are simply asking others to let you be a discriminating bigot with no consequences, and most of us have evolved past that, thankfully. Obviously you haven't.
This is the result of saying NO JEWS can open stores, spare me your nonsense.
Simple, sell at-shirt to a straight white person than you must sell a similar t-shirt to a gay or black person. Sell a tee to a straight person you are not forced to sell blue jeans to a gay person if you don't sell blue jeans to anyone else.
Same with a wedding cake , you bake wedding cakes you don't get to decide on what types of people you are willing to sell cakes to. There is no such thing as a gay cake, wedding or not.
A blank white t-shirt is the same as one with a swastika on it? How about a blank cake and one which has two men, or "congratulations, Adam and Steve"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
An pist above shows that gay weddings do not violate laws for all Jews same as not all Christians or denominations refuse to have gay weddings. How does it violate the religious rights of a Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding in a Christian Church anymore than for a Catholic to bake a wedding cake for a wedding in a Protestant Church? Or of a wedding between a Christian and a Muslim?
This is an essential question and is important to discuss -- in Judaism, there are times when others' behavior impacts me, so my reaction to it is vital. A homosexual wedding might not violate the participants' version of Judaism, but it does violate (hypothetically, again, this isn't about me, but the nature of law in Judaism) the baker's. It isn't therefore a violation for me to bake a cake, but to appear to condone something which I can't abide by. This subtlety of law is no less a protected expression of religion but causes all sorts of difficulties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Back to the t-shirt, if you sell a tee to a straight person with writing on it you cannot refuse to sell a tee to a gay with the same wording. If you sell tees with no special writings on it you can refuse to sell a tee to a gay man with special writings on it. The laws are pretty clear and consistent. A wedding cake has no gender, has no obscene writing nor any parts of exotic animals in it. It's a cake.
But that's the subtlety of Jewish law (which you might object to, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of religious expression). Let's say you come in and say "I want a cake for my gay wedding" and then order a completely blank cake. It isn't about what is on or not on it (according to one understanding of the law, and no one can mandate what understanding of Judaism I choose to follow) but providing service for an event. If you came in and ordered the exact same blank cake and didn't tell me why then I would hand it over. It isn't the cake that is gay, it is the impact on ME of providing a service which enables something which is against my belief.
Again, this might not make sense to people, but there are concepts in Jewish law which teach this explicitly (whether they are applicable here is a matter for religious experts to decide) and to say that I can't follow my laws the way I have been taught them is problematic.
We know it isn't "simple" to those who want to have the freedom to discriminate based off of religion. It is very simple though. Serve everyone (within reason, of course. Not talking nazi cakes or sex cakes or something), or open yourself up to problems.
"within reason" -- whose reason? clearly not mine because I'm religious. This then becomes discrimination AGAINST my religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
No, he shouldn't feel bad. You are running a business. If you can't serve everyone who comes through what you currently sell to others, then that is on you, not the customers.
So empathy should only go one way. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Fact is, whether you agree with it or like it, in the public sphere, your religion is not important. That's just facts. Neither is mine or anyone else's. If you can't do your job without having to compromise your beliefs or go out of business, then you shouldn't be in that line of work.
But my practice of it is protected. Within reason, it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
It really isn't. To those doing the discriminating it may be, but certainly not those on the receiving end of it. The only reason they are being turned away, is because they are gay. Wedding or no wedding, that is the reason.
And since they don't have to have any empathy, they must be served no matter what. Within reason...
OK, you are being discriminatory, and are subject to lawsuits.
Quote:
But my religious law forbids selling it to that person no matter what he believes. So if the law forces my hand, the law infringes on my practice. Same with the ban. He doesn't accept or care that he is banned. But to force me to serve him violates my practice.
OK, you are being discriminatory, and are subject to lawsuits.
Quote:
No, it is the nature of the event. How about all the same people come in to my store and buy a cookie, or a cake and sit and eat it. The baker would have no problem. Changing the place and event changes the consideration (not mine, personally, by the way, this is about the nature of religious law, not my beliefs -- some people seem to have missed that). So if the people are served then the people are served.
Do you support that event for other people? Do you allow others to take the cookies and cake off-premises? Then you must allow all to do so. You keep trying to make it about the event, but it really is not. It is about treating people differently.
Quote:
No -- the question was between the fact that no one would bat an eye if I objected to put a swastika on a cake or a naked woman, but would have a problem if I refused to put something else on which is as problematic to me. That makes for a subjective social standard.
Again, as long as you are consistent with what you do and the rules are not written so as to discriminate, fine. If you feel very strongly that puppies should not be depicted on shirts, simply post a sign or a contractual disclaimer stating you do not print swastikas, naked women or puppies. That does not discriminate against anybody.
If you are not comfortable offering a service to all, then you should not offer it to anybody. Offering it to only some is a problem.
Awesome, thank you. The site keeps freezing on me for some reason (on my phone), but from what I have gotten to read, it seems like they are saying that you can serve something like a gay wedding (they used frankincense and pagan worship as the example), even though it is forbidden, you can sell the item, as long as you aren't "enabling"?? Is that correct? I am going to try and pull up on my computer here in a minute, see if I can finish reading. Seems to say you can sell things, as long as you aren't "endorsing" it. I guess that can be up for interpretation as to what endorsing is though...
Doesn't change my stance whatsoever though.
Deciding Jewish law based on a site like this, is like deciding medicine by a health blog instead of going to doctor.
That's a dishonest response to what he actually posted.
actually it was the perfect response, because I was told multiple times that it is not against my religion.
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.
