Good fact:
It probably should be noted that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class but it is a protected class in I believe about 11 states.
That said, I think that we’ll see a federal statute at some point. The case law is certainly supportive.
That said, these cases seem to do nothing but give the gay marriage camp a huge victory by being able to show themselves being discriminated against and the tide swings tremendously in their favor.
Speak the Truth, always. “Daughter, we can feel sorry that these people’s feelings are hurt, but that doesn’t mean we approve of their decision to marry someone of the same gender. I want you to treat all lovingly and with compassion, but abstain from getting yourself pulled into something you find wrong. Trust your own judgement on it.”
All such a baker, photographer or whatevah has to do is to … “I don’t think that I can adequately satisfy your expectations.” How hard is this? A statue is not needed.
Yes yes yes but
If a business responded as you said, they can still be sued.
We have examples and opposing viewpoints from several on this particular thread. I think it is sufficient to say that the law should not be used to compel someone to do something they find to be morally offensive, except in extenuating circumstances or vital circumstances. On something of value but certainly not essential to life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness, like a cake, a buyer and a seller should come to an agreement, and if they cannot they just don’t do business together. On something essential (housing, medicine, food, employment) there needs to be a reason of sufficient gravity why the seller won’t do business with the buyer.
On a moral standpoint, the threat of lawsuit shouldn’t dictate our conscience. Under US law you may bring suit against anyone at anytime for any reason, provided you claim damages in excess of $20. Your case may be dismissed before it enters docket, with prejudice, because it lacks legal merit. In a previous career I read through a lawsuit filed by a car buyer because the car ran out of gas. The dealership never promised to fill the gas tank. The buyer just thought that they should.
On a moral standpoint, we
ought to be civil to one another, but we should not allow ourselves to be brought into, nor bring others into, what we find morally objectionable. I think the Arizona bill tried to do this but in an overbroad sense. I do like the idea of some kind of stated protection - even something like a contract (“I will not perform any work I find to be morally objectionable. If I find it morally objectionable, I will tell you up-front.”) offers some protection. And yes, while it make come across as petty to some, it is important to others, and if you find yourself asking someone to do something they refuse to do, bid them good day. Don’t take them to court for a wedding cake.
It’s just a passive aggressive way of doing the same thing and everyone knows what’s really going on.
People are allowed to be passive aggressive. They don’t get my business more than once, but I like to think they’re happy brooding under their private little rainclouds.
Why are Catholic bakers not denying service to heterosexual couples who are marrying outside the church or marrying without annulment?
They should be equally alarmed about that if they truly believe baking a cake can be a participation in evil.
- They don’t know the status of the person.
- They may be denying service and the person, having no legal remedy, moves to the next baker.
- The couple know better than to go to such a baker, and instead go to one who isn’t sensitive to the issue.
- They don’t believe they bear complicity in the guilt and bake anyway.
- The baker knows full well that they bear the sin but they need the money to feed their hungry kids.
I think you were looking for #4. But really, we don’t know, and we can’t know, and we can’t paint a wide brush here. I do think - and you likely agree - that the Church needs to pay more attention to strengthening existing marriages and future marriages.
I still say that people shouldn’t be taken to Court for refusing to do something they find morally reprehensible, especially something as petty as a cake. Yes, the baker comes off as petty, yes the couple comes off as petty, and in the end everyone loses and politicians make speeches and Oxygen makes a movie (“
From Cake to Crumbs … based on a true story”) and Rush Limbaugh holds forth (“I tell you, these liberal creampuffs … mmmm, liberal creampuffs…”) and lawyers get paid. And we’re no closer to having a good society. We go to meetings and we hold up signs and we nod our heads “Tolerance is good” and shake our heads “Bigotry is bad!” and then we get in our Audis and drive downtown and buy sweaters.
