Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances

[Kevin_B]

Also, no one seems to like my question, either. If you want permission to violate the law because your religion tells you to (and refusing service IS violating the law), then what happens when someone claims paying taxes is against their religion? Or they demand the right to preform human sacrifice? Once you start letting people break law for religious reasons, where do you stop?

Is it legal for a fundamentalist Muslim to require women to wear a hijab in hisstore, for instance?

 

[Used2beSherryG]

I have never heard or seen of an example of it. I’ve looked for news articles and reports, discussion threads, etc.

I have found zero.

And let’s face it, it’s not as icky as homosexuality.

probably because they simply went to another shop and did business. they had no axe to grind as in the gay agenda.

 

[Jon_S_1]

probably because they simply went to another shop and did business. they had no axe to grind as in the gay agenda.

Really…

If you really believe that you delude your self.

I would challenge you to call the bakeries in your town and ask if they bake cakes for second marriages.

#unbelievable

 

[Kevin_B]

probably because they simply went to another shop and did business. they had no axe to grind as in the gay agenda.

So if a black person is refused service, should they just find another place to eat?

It’s funny: you guys claim the homosexual rights movement is “completely different” from the civil rights movement, but you keep using the exact same arguments they did!

I could totally see a lunch counter owner down south asking a black person why they won’t just move on to the next restaurant and quit promoting their agenda.

I wonder if Rosa Parks was ever criticized for “promoting the black agenda”?

Fighting for equality under the law is not promoting an agenda. The law clearly states that business owners cannot pick and choose which customers to serve. it is just as illegal to refuse service to a gay couple as to a black man.

 

[Corki]

So if a black person is refused service, should they just find another place to eat?

It’s funny: you guys claim the homosexual rights movement is “completely different” from the civil rights movement, but you keep using the exact same arguments they did!

I could totally see a lunch counter owner down south asking a black person why they won’t just move on to the next restaurant and quit promoting their agenda.

I wonder if Rosa Parks was ever criticized for “promoting the black agenda”?

Fighting for equality under the law is not promoting an agenda. The law clearly states that business owners cannot pick and choose which customers to serve. it is just as illegal to refuse service to a gay couple as to a black man.

False analogy. If a black person came into a restaurant and wanted them to cater the Black Panther reunion banquet and the baker refused because he didn’t want to be associated with their violent past, that would be justified. The refusal of service isn’t for what the person IS, it’s for what he wants to DO.

Could a baker legitimately refuse to decorate a cake for the Aryan Nation celebration or would that be discriminating on the basis of the customer being white?

How about some 50 year old men who want you to come and decorate for their NAMBLA meeting? If you refuse is it age discrimination?

This isn’t a civil rights issue. The individuals are not being discriminated against.

 

[Jon_S_1]

False analogy. If a black person came into a restaurant and wanted them to cater the Black Panther reunion banquet and the baker refused because he didn’t want to be associated with their violent past, that would be justified. The refusal of service isn’t for what the person IS, it’s for what he wants to DO.

Could a baker legitimately refuse to decorate a cake for the Aryan Nation celebration or would that be discriminating on the basis of the customer being white?

How about some 50 year old men who want you to come and decorate for their NAMBLA meeting? If you refuse is it age discrimination?

This isn’t a civil rights issue. The individuals are not being discriminated against.

This is entirely missing the point and in no way a comparison.

If a KKK member comes in and says “I want cake A from the catalogue, write Congratulations on becoming chapter president chuck” and then the baker says oh what chapter of what? And the response comes , oh it’s the local chapter of the KKK.

The baker has a legal responsibility to sell the cake:

1. it is a cake he displays and advertises that he makes
2. it is in good taste, nothing vulgar about it.
3. the end use is none of his business.

The law says that you cannot discriminate based on such things. This is why the Aryan nation and KKK are allowed to March in parades and such.

In America no individuals personal beliefs trump another’s. They are all equal and valid.

Now if you go but an island and create a Christian Theocracy then you can do what you like.

 

[Corki]

This is entirely missing the point and in no way a comparison.

If a KKK member comes in and says “I want cake A from the catalogue, write Congratulations on becoming chapter president chuck” and then the baker says oh what chapter of what? And the response comes , oh it’s the local chapter of the KKK.

The baker has a legal responsibility to sell the cake:

1. it is a cake he displays and advertises that he makes
2. it is in good taste, nothing vulgar about it.
3. the end use is none of his business.

The law says that you cannot discriminate based on such things. This is why the Aryan nation and KKK are allowed to March in parades and such.

In America no individuals personal beliefs trump another’s. They are all equal and valid.

Now if you go but an island and create a Christian Theocracy then you can do what you like.

What law says that? No law that I have ever seen has guaranteed public accommodation for anything other than what characteristics a person possesses. The whole reason these baker and florist cases are such big news is that they are court attempts to extend the law in ways that it never has been interpreted before. There has never been a public accommodation law that says that a person who opens a business must provide services to anyone for any purpose - only that a person cannot be denied service because of who he or she is.

In fact, some of these very same groups that say the baker must provide a cake for a same sex “wedding” were demanding that Chick-fil-A not be allowed to provide sandwiches for a traditional marriage group.

The Aryan Nation and the KKK are allowed to hold marches because they are on public streets and the permits are issued by **government **entities. And even then, they can’t just march in any parade. A MLK parade would reject their application outright with no legal issue whatsoever. That’s a whole different expectation than for a person who conducts business in a company he owns on private property.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Too frustrated talking to all the walls!

Taking a break and Praying for humbled hearts and for all to not forsake mercy for piety.

 

[Tzimisce]

Since our ruling overlords have decided that the Constitution is an obstacle that they no longer feel they have to abide by, nothing can be done.

Even if we elect new people, court precedent has already been set.

 

[Tzimisce]

This is entirely missing the point and in no way a comparison.

If a KKK member comes in and says “I want cake A from the catalogue, write Congratulations on becoming chapter president chuck” and then the baker says oh what chapter of what? And the response comes , oh it’s the local chapter of the KKK.

The baker has a legal responsibility to sell the cake:

1. it is a cake he displays and advertises that he makes
2. it is in good taste, nothing vulgar about it.
3. the end use is none of his business.

The law says that you cannot discriminate based on such things. This is why the Aryan nation and KKK are allowed to March in parades and such.

In America no individuals personal beliefs trump another’s. They are all equal and valid.

Now if you go but an island and create a Christian Theocracy then you can do what you like.

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
-Sign on most business walls.

That said: Alcoholism is considered a disability under the “Americans with Disabilities Act”.

Are bar tenders and liquors required to serve drunk people?

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms. The courts have decided this is an individual right. Is a gun shop owner forced to sell weapons to people he thinks are crazy or dangerous?

Are Tattoo parlors and strip clubs required to let in people under the age of 18?

Now if you can’t discriminate, you can’t discriminate.

We’re talking actual law here - not just your unenforceable opinions.

Legally the US Constitution trumps everything else - including state and federal law.

And the Constitution says the government can NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I suppose you could argue about the limits of Amendments if we were talking about human sacrifices or something like that.

But we’re not. We’re just talking about a handful of elites personal egos and agendas.

 

[Tzimisce]

Also note that there are now several gay businesses who are OPENLY refusing customers who disagree with them politically.

Seems some animals are more equal than others (where have we heard that before?)

 

[meme1961]

I am opposed to homosexual “marriage”

But, I in know way can understand how you can refuse to serve someone over it.

There is no approval or participation in evil by making a cake.

It’s called “the sin of giving scandal.”

From the Summa:

newadvent.org/summa/3043.htm#article4

thus, yes, participation would be mortal sin.

The best analogy I can think of is this: if someone came to you, a gun retailer, and asked you to recommend and sell to you the best possible weapon for killing someone, would you be committing a sin by selling this person a weapon?

Would you, if seen to be selling this weapon, be giving scandal?

 

[meme1961]

Way to take my quote out of context.

What will not be won is the fight to deny business from a public place to anyone. You can’t do that.

You can, and quite easily.

There is a huge difference between refusing service to someone based on a state of being (being black, for instance), vs. refusing to take part in an action of which one is morally opposed.

The best analogy I can think of: One may not refuse to sell a movie theater ticket to a man who one know’s to have Tourette’s syndrome. One may, however, eject that man from the theater and refund his money if he starts acting or vocalizing in such a way as to impair the ability of the other patrons to enjoy the movie.

Thus a business may not refuse to serve someone for BEING black, but they may refuse service to someone who is ACTING in way contrary to the rules of the business.

This is the heart and soul of religious liberty protections: to be protected from being required to ACT in an immoral fashion.

 

[meme1961]

If a Nazi walked into a Jewish bakery and picked a cake out of the bakery’s catalog I see no reason why he should not be served.

So, if that Nazi wanted the Jewish baker to make a special cake, one that celebrated the Holocaust, the Jewish baker would be obliged to bake and decorate a cake that rejoices at the murder of six million of his fellow Jews?

Some of who may have been family?

 

[meme1961]

That’s not what’s happening. Instead the baker says, you can’t order cakes here from my catalog, you can’t order off my website, you aren’t welcome here.

Actually, that is NOT what is happening here. In point of fact, one of the defendants made this very point: they happily sold birthday cakes to homosexuals, but refused to participate in a “gay marriage.”

The panel, unable to understand the essential difference between a state of being, and an action, refused to recognize that the baker was not discriminating against the couple based on their “sexual orientation”, but was instead refusing to take part in an immoral act.

 

[meme1961]

But that doesn’t mean they weren’t cooperating in evil. They are just putting their head in the sand.

Of course baking a cake is not a cooperation in anything but selling dessert so hopefully people can realize that.

Actually, this is a sin. It is the sin of giving scandal. And it is a mortal sin.

Your posting is akin to saying: “It isn’t wrong to sell someone a camouflage suit when you know that they will be using it in the commission of a sniper attack on an innocent person. It’s just the selling of clothing, and hopefully people can realize that.”

But in fact, it would be a sin. The sin of giving scandal is the act of being seen to approve of or give material support to the commission of a sin.

Remember what Jesus said about leading children astray . . .

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually, this is a sin. It is the sin of giving scandal. And it is a mortal sin.

Your posting is akin to saying: “It isn’t wrong to sell someone a camouflage suit when you know that they will be using it in the commission of a sniper attack on an innocent person. It’s just the selling of clothing, and hopefully people can realize that.”

But in fact, it would be a sin. The sin of giving scandal is the act of being seen to approve of or give material support to the commission of a sin.

Remember what Jesus said about leading children astray . . .

A camouflage suit materially advances the cause of the sniper. He uses it in the commission of his crime. Without it he may very well be stopped from his crime. A cake does not materially advance the illicit cause of the couple. It is used at a celebration in which no illicit sexual act is performed. The absence of a cake would not have any effect on the subsequent commission of illicit sexual acts. It is not scandalous to proved food to unrepentant sinners.

I don’t think the reluctant baker is so concerned about giving scandal as he is about making life miserable for people he finds uncomfortable.

 

[Jon_S_1]

A camouflage suit materially advances the cause of the sniper. He uses it in the commission of his crime. Without it he may very well be stopped from his crime. A cake does not materially advance the illicit cause of the couple. It is used at a celebration in which no illicit sexual act is performed. The absence of a cake would not have any effect on the subsequent commission of illicit sexual acts. It is not scandalous to proved food to unrepentant sinners.

I don’t think the reluctant baker is so concerned about giving scandal as he is about making life miserable for people he finds uncomfortable.

EXACTLY!

A gay marriage ceremony is in no way sinful. No more than two gay people meeting for a Lions club meeting. It is a commitment ceremony.

The immoral act is not being best friends, or committed to each other, or loving each other or living together or combining bank accounts.

The sinful act is sodomy and other sexual acts. So if they ask the baker to make an edible underwear cake then your right.

Otherwise it is just food for a ceremony that means nothing from our perspective.

Scandal would be in attending not catering.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Actually, this is a sin. It is the sin of giving scandal. And it is a mortal sin.

Your posting is akin to saying: “It isn’t wrong to sell someone a camouflage suit when you know that they will be using it in the commission of a sniper attack on an innocent person. It’s just the selling of clothing, and hopefully people can realize that.”

But in fact, it would be a sin. The sin of giving scandal is the act of being seen to approve of or give material support to the commission of a sin.

Remember what Jesus said about leading children astray . . .

Answer this (I noticed all your answers ignored it )

Is it a sin of scandal for a baker to bake a cake for a second or third marriage?

Is it a sin of scandal for a baker to bake a cake for Catholics marrying outside the church?

If so,

Provide ONE, even just ONE example of it occurring. (Good luck)

 

[sallybutler]

Actually, this is a sin. It is the sin of giving scandal. And it is a mortal sin.

Your posting is akin to saying: “It isn’t wrong to sell someone a camouflage suit when you know that they will be using it in the commission of a sniper attack on an innocent person. It’s just the selling of clothing, and hopefully people can realize that.”

But in fact, it would be a sin. The sin of giving scandal is the act of being seen to approve of or give material support to the commission of a sin.

Remember what Jesus said about leading children astray . . .

How far do you take this?

Then it is a sin for gun sellers, not just camouflage suit sellers, if any of their customers used a gun in a crime. And for the people who make the guns.

Is it a sin to shop or work at a WalMart since they sell camouflage suits and cakes and condoms that could be used in the commision of a sin?