One fewer Christian-owned bakery after religious freedom fight

[Brendan]

It wasn’t a religious freedom fight. The bakery was fighting for the right to discriminate against people. They rightly lost.

No it was the right to refuse to participate in an event.

Discriminating against the person would be refusing to sell them a dozen glazed donuts because they were gay.

What happened was that the gay couple wanted them to participate in an event, their wedding.

An event is not a person, there was no discrimination against the PERSON, only the event.

This would be no different than accusing a a black print shop owner of racial discrimination because he refused to print flyers for a Klan rally. The race of the buyers would be immaterial, it is the event itself that is being opposed.

 

[AbideWithMe]

No it was the right to refuse to participate in an event.

Discriminating against the person would be refusing to sell them a dozen glazed donuts because they were gay.

What happened was that the gay couple wanted them to participate in an event, their wedding.

An event is not a person, there was no discrimination against the PERSON, only the event.

This would be no different than accusing a a black print shop owner of racial discrimination because he refused to print flyers for a Klan rally. The race of the buyers would be immaterial, it is the event itself that is being opposed.

Exactly. The baker was being asked to participate creatively in an event.

 

[AbideWithMe]

In this case, the couple was turned away before any decorating was discussed. If they are anything like most couples, they were probably looking at a catalogue of stock cake designs. I have been to many weddings, and I have yet to see a wedding cake with words or pictures on it.

For your amusement, check out the Cake Wrecks website for examples of wedding cakes with toppers of the wedding couples in fondant or inedible materials, or for wedding cakes with the couple’s names and other writing. The “Sunday Sweets” section is less hilarious, but it has some pretty amazing portfolios of work.

My brother just left his long-time job as the manager of an upscale bakery which did wedding (and other special occasion) cakes. From him, from a couple of friends who did wedding cakes, and from the Sunday Sweets directory on the Cakes Wrecks site, I gather that people bring pictures and ideas to these kinds of bakers, who have portfolios like other artists rather than catalogues.

 

[dcnmike51907]

“We lost our business,” Melissa Klein said in a February 2016 video produced by First Liberty Institute. “You work so hard to build something up, and something you’ve poured your heart into and was your passion, to lose that has been devastating for me.”

From CNA News here

There is an interesting legal problem here. Does a private business-any private business- have the right to do business with whomever it wishes? Suppose that method is discriminatory. Does the government have the right to intervene if it is deemed to be so? It would seem the state has both a right and a responsibility to act in the case of things like public education, public transportation, public housing and the like but the Constitutional Waters get muddied up a bit once mandated associations enter into the realm of regulation of personal interactions between businesses and members of the public.
All of these arguments have been hashed out, of course, during the civil rights struggles of the 20th Century. We decided as a country that the intrusion of government was not only acceptable but necessary to rid ourselves of the evil that was the immorality of racism. Oversimplification, I know but stripped own to its essentials, that was our solution. Let the government tell all those bigots that they had to treat everyone the same and could not decide for themselves who to hire or fire, who to rent or sell to, or who to serve at their lunch counters…or in their bakery.
But all laws, no matter how good the intention, no matter how noble, no matter how many thousands of words are crafted to confuse the issue, they need to pass Constitutional muster. The very first article of the Bill of Rights states very plainly and without any equivocation whatsoever, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
NO LAW, period! No exceptions. Nowhere does it say that if you start a business you lose your citizenship and all the rights, privileges and obligations that go with that citizenship. If a business owner makes a business decision to do or not do something because of his or her religious beliefs they should be free to do so, even if it offends those who have nothing to do but get offended at everything they do not understand without being driven out of business by legal challenges, defamation and vitriol from those oh so tolerant blowhards. You know, the ones screaming for tolerance when they tolerate nothing and no one that does not toe the progressive party line.

 

[JonNC]

You can have our baked goods… just not those ones, those are only for straights.

It isn’t the baked goods. It is the ceremony. The courts are now turning the first amendment on its head.

 

[JonNC]

I assume you oppose traffic laws then?

What is the religious context of traffic laws? Are you saying that there is a religious objection to stopping at a stop sign?

 

[JonNC]

Yes. Doesn’t say much about the customer but they’re free to do so.

So, if another baker who does sell wedding cakes to gay couples, but refuses to buy flour from a wholesaler who is African American is good to go?

 

[JonNC]

By running a business you are volunteering to follow the laws that regulate businesses. Businesses are held to stricter standards than individuals. It is not an attack on religious freedom to not allow discrimination against LGBT people because no one forced you to run a business in the first place, you chose to do so and follow those antidiscrimination laws.

“Congress shall make no law…”
Where is the caveat, "unless you run a business "?

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Perhaps by telling people that they cannot follow their religion if they are a baker or a photographer.

If you get your way and public accommodations are exempted from current anti-discrimination laws and may refuse services based on their strongly held beliefs, I hope you’re prepared for the fact that inter-faith and inter-racial couples are going to be refused services too. For that matter, why should a bakery owned by Seventh Day Adventists be required to provide a wedding cake to a Catholic couple? Ever talk to an SDA about the Catholic Church?!! People who object to same sex marriage aren’t the only ones who have rights in this country. You’d be foolish to believe that as a Catholic, you or someone you know will notl be refused services as well. I trust you won’t complain when people start turning you away.

 

[stevegravy]

If you get your way and public accommodations are exempted from current anti-discrimination laws and may refuse services based on their strongly held beliefs, I hope you’re prepared for the fact that inter-faith and inter-racial couples are going to be refused services too. For that matter, why should a bakery owned by Seventh Day Adventists be required to provide a wedding cake to a Catholic couple? Ever talk to an SDA about the Catholic Church?!! People who object to same sex marriage aren’t the only ones who have rights in this country. You’d be foolish to believe that as a Catholic, you or someone you know will notl be refused services as well. I trust you won’t complain when people start turning you away.

It really is no big deal unless the accommodation is the only game for miles and miles around.

In the bad old days before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, (the little law that ate the constitution) there was thriving minority owned businesses in areas that had large minority populations. Now Do I think it was ideal, nope. Segregation sucks. Could the act been written to legally ban segregation with out forcing people to associate with folks they don’t want to associate with, you know like the first amendment was suppose to guarantee. That’s the problem that should have been answered.

 

[Usige]

If you get your way and public accommodations are exempted from current anti-discrimination laws and may refuse services based on their strongly held beliefs, I hope you’re prepared for the fact that inter-faith and inter-racial couples are going to be refused services too. For that matter, why should a bakery owned by Seventh Day Adventists be required to provide a wedding cake to a Catholic couple? Ever talk to an SDA about the Catholic Church?!! People who object to same sex marriage aren’t the only ones who have rights in this country. You’d be foolish to believe that as a Catholic, you or someone you know will notl be refused services as well. I trust you won’t complain when people start turning you away.

Nope, I wouldn’t complain. I’d simply move on and find another business that would work with me. I guess I gave up throwing temper tantrums and yelling “it’s not fair… it’s not fair…” when I was about 4 or 5.

After re-reading the Old Testament and how the Israelite adopted pagan practices when they intermarried with Canaanites, Edomites, et cetera I see parallels for Christians and think we’d all be better off to become more insular. If being pluralistic means accepting the unacceptable rather than proclaiming repentance, then being of the world does no good.

 

[stevegravy]

The fact of the matter is the owners were not very smart.

All they had to do was wait for the same sex couple to plan their big day and oops, the bakers had to be busy or on vacation and not able to help. Oh So Sorry.

 

[JonNC]

If you get your way and public accommodations are exempted from current anti-discrimination laws and may refuse services based on their strongly held beliefs, I hope you’re prepared for the fact that inter-faith and inter-racial couples are going to be refused services too. For that matter, why should a bakery owned by Seventh Day Adventists be required to provide a wedding cake to a Catholic couple? Ever talk to an SDA about the Catholic Church?!! People who object to same sex marriage aren’t the only ones who have rights in this country. You’d be foolish to believe that as a Catholic, you or someone you know will notl be refused services as well. I trust you won’t complain when people start turning you away.

The SDA baker shouldn’t be required to participate in a Catholic wedding, but don’t turn the argument away from events and into who one is. The SDA baker (and I’m not sure SDAs would do this) refusing to serve a Catholic because he is Catholic is quite different than refusing to participate in a Catholic wedding.

But even if the law requires it, I think the baker is better served by, for instance, posting that all profits from the sale of wedding cakes to gay couples will be donated "the National Organization for Marriage "

 

[Michael1978]

The SDA baker shouldn’t be required to participate in a Catholic wedding, but don’t turn the argument away from events and into who one is. The SDA baker (and I’m not sure SDAs would do this) refusing to serve a Catholic because he is Catholic is quite different than refusing to participate in a Catholic wedding.

But even if the law requires it, I think the baker is better served by, for instance, posting that all profits from the sale of wedding cakes to gay couples will be donated "the National Organization for Marriage "

Now that’s thinking outside the box!

 

[mikekle]

I feel sorry for the bakers. They didn’t bargain for this back when they invested in a bakery and worked in it. A court suddenly decides homosexual “marriage” is equivalent to actual marriage as it has been for the memory of man, and suddenly one has to participate in something he/she feels is morally wrong.

But sooner or later, everyone will accept it.

Reminds one of the English reformation. It took awhile for Englishmen to accept it that the king of England was the head of the Church. Some who didn’t accept it right away were confiscated, punished or even killed. But eventually, the rest went along.

Hillary Clinton informs us we must “change our religion” to accommodate abortion. The only real remaining question is the methodology she intends to use to make us do it.

You are forgetting though, that our bill of rights and constitution give us, as citizens, the right to throw off such govts, in fact we are required to do so if we are able. Nowhere does it say though, we all must remain obedient for the sake of our own personal quality of life, as in any arrest or imprisonment resulting in failure to obey or attempting to revolt.

‘Going along to get along’ is not the american way.

The sad thing about modern times in the US, people still hold the Constitution high, but its like they expect a tyrannical govt to announce itself to be tyrannical and tell them when a revolution is needed. LOL

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It really is no big deal unless the accommodation is the only game for miles and miles around.

It is a big deal, even if there is an alternate accommodation right next door. That’s because the dignity of the human person is threatened when someone is refused accommodations solely because of their religion. It is demeaning and insulting and contrary to the gospel.

In the bad old days before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, (the little law that ate the constitution) there was thriving minority owned businesses in areas that had large minority populations.

Correlation does not mean causation. There are many factors that could have led to the decline of minority owned businesses. It is only speculation that the Civil Right Act was the cause.

Now Do I think it was ideal, nope. Segregation sucks. Could the act been written to legally ban segregation with out forcing people to associate with folks they don’t want to associate with, you know like the first amendment was suppose to guarantee.

You are misinterpreting the first amendment. Here is the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I assume you are referring to the “right of the people peaceably to assemble”, because nothing else in that text even comes close to guaranteeing the right of “non association”. Well, the “right of the people peaceably to assemble” means only that. They can assemble. It does not mean, for example, that you can refuse to be arrested because you don’t want to associate with that policeman. And it does not mean you can open your store to whites only. It just doesn’t say that.

Or, maybe you mean the right to freely exercise your religion. That is also inapplicable, but it obviously does not give one the right to practice child sacrifice if that’s what one’s pagan religion requires.

 

[Indigo_Cardinal]

Nope, I wouldn’t complain. I’d simply move on and find another business that would work with me. I guess I gave up throwing temper tantrums and yelling “it’s not fair… it’s not fair…” when I was about 4 or 5.

It’s very easy for you to say that now, when discriminating against you is against the law and you don’t actually have to deal with the possibility of going from store to store to store, or driving thirty miles out of your way to be serviced.

I suspect if it became legal for people to discriminate against you and you had to do these things…you’d quickly be singing an entirely different tune.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The sad thing about modern times in the US, people still hold the Constitution high, but its like they expect a tyrannical govt to announce itself to be tyrannical and tell them when a revolution is needed. LOL

It is only a sad thing if the government really is tyrannical and needs to be overthrown. You are not advocating that position, are you?

 

[JonNC]

Now that’s thinking outside the box!

It’s the same approach pharmacists who oppose abortifacients, etc. but are required by law to carry them should take: “NOTICE. We oppose abortifacients and similar forms of birth control, but we also obey the law. All profits from the sale of these drugs will be donated to National Right to Life”

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Nope, I wouldn’t complain. I’d simply move on and find another business that would work with me. I guess I gave up throwing temper tantrums and yelling “it’s not fair… it’s not fair…” when I was about 4 or 5.

After re-reading the Old Testament and how the Israelite adopted pagan practices when they intermarried with Canaanites, Edomites, et cetera I see parallels for Christians and think we’d all be better off to become more insular. If being pluralistic means accepting the unacceptable rather than proclaiming repentance, then being of the world does no good.

Glad to hear it. I’m sure you’re not one of those people then complaining about basketball game/tournaments being taken from cities or businesses moving their headquarters or not establishing headquarters in states whose laws they find offensive.