Thoughts on the gay cake case

[Tablefor9]

Ah, so if you are not allowed to discriminate it means that now you are being “harassed”? I recall the “defense” of some kids who proclaimed: “it all started when HE hit me BACK!”. And please do not exaggerate: it is not generic Christians who are “denigrated”, only the ones who feel that they should be allowed to discriminate based upon their convictions. As I said, in your house you do what you want. But if you come out into the community, you should keep the laws. You can exercise your right at the ballot box to vote for your convictions, but it looks like that in this case you lost. Don’t be a sore loser.

I’m not a sore anything. That would apply to those who would like to see religious convictions forced to the most marginal of places, certainly banishing it from the light of day. These people are not discrimating against people, but actions. They will not participate in an action that is disordered; don’t conflate the two concepts.

It’s like abortions/elective terminations in a hospital, or physician assisted suicide in a home health or hospice. As a healthcare provider, I have a responsibility to care for the needs of all persons, equally; I have the right, thus far upheld here in the States, to decline participation in the acts mentioned. Just because something is legal does not make it moral.

 

[Tablefor9]

You are mistaken. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is intact. ACTING on those is curtailed. Just like the white supremacists of the KKK have total freedom to hate the blacks, Jews and Catholics… but they are forbidden to ACT on that hatred. In your home and in your church you are free to act on your beliefs, but as soon as you come “out”, the rules and regulations take over your freedom to ACT on your beliefs.

And you should be grateful for it. It is for your protection on the long run.

I don’t think this is for my own good; no, not nearly. Worship and holy living may begin as thoughts progressing to belief, but they are worth nothing if it ends there. Every ACT of our lives WORKING in the love of God is the true worship and cooperation in salvation.

It is nothing short of sickening that this is bein compared to the KKK. But let’s use that for a moment. Let’s assume you are a florist of color. Or a Jewish baker. Or a Muslim baklava maker. Do you really want to be forced to decorate for the Klan rally? Bake the cake for the nazi sympathizers? Or cater for the Westboro Baptists?

See, there is no equality when what is demanded of Christians would never be expected of others of strong conviction.

 

[Tablefor9]

Far from converting anyone, that kind of behavior only drives people further away from the Church. One of the ways Christ won people over was simply by being cool enough and non-judgmental enough to dine with outcasts in the first place. These bakers are deliberately alienating huge masses of people by acting like holier-than-thou, sell-righteous jerks.

Ok, so to clarify: it’s the BAKERS who are going out of their way to incense and offend? Really? I’m not buying.

Seems to me that it is select homosexuals with an axe to grind and strong activist tendencies that are creating this problem. Evidently the sentiment, here, is that theirs is the only conviction that matters.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

As a healthcare provider, I have a responsibility to care for the needs of all persons, equally; I have the right, thus far upheld here in the States, to decline participation in the acts mentioned.

Cool. So you are not required to actively participate in a procedure against your conscience. As such there is no “harassment” involved. What is your problem? To prepare a cake is not the same as performing an abortion. To dispense an abortion pill would be different.

Just because something is legal does not make it moral.

Since “morality” is only an opinion, it is irrelevant.

I don’t think this is for my own good; no, not nearly.

You should. If a member of the KKK would decline to help you based on his religious conviction, you might start to change your mind. If a Muslim would deny you accommodation in his hotel, you would be rightfully upset, even if there are other hotels nearby. Your religious convictions have no place in your business activities.

Worship and holy living may begin as thoughts progressing to belief, but they are worth nothing if it ends there. Every ACT of our lives WORKING in the love of God is the true worship and cooperation in salvation.

Only if your participation is welcome.

It is nothing short of sickening that this is bein compared to the KKK. But let’s use that for a moment. Let’s assume you are a florist of color. Or a Jewish baker. Or a Muslim baklava maker. Do you really want to be forced to decorate for the Klan rally? Bake the cake for the nazi sympathizers? Or cater for the Westboro Baptists?

I would not need to be forced. “Pecunia non olet”. The KKK is allowed to organize a public march to demonstrate their “convictions”. Their right is supported by ACLU as well. Remember Voltaire’s immortal phrase: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it”. Observe… not to ACT on it, but simply to say it. That is all you can get… and be happy about it.

See, there is no equality when what is demanded of Christians would never be expected of others of strong conviction.

As soon as those others would start to behave as SOME Christians do, they WILL be subject to the same treatment.

 

[Tablefor9]

Cool. So you are not required to actively participate in a procedure against your conscience. As such there is no “harassment” involved. What is your problem? To prepare a cake is not the same as performing an abortion. To dispense an abortion pill would be different.

The right to self determine that I will not participate in another’s sin is the commonality that seems to escape you.

Since “morality” is only an opinion, it is irrelevant.

This isn’t irrelevant. It is morality, ie, the participation in the sin of another, that is the rationale for declining to bake the cake or perform the termination or hold the cross for the Klansman to light.

You should. If a member of the KKK would decline to help you based on his religious conviction, you might start to change your mind. If a Muslim would deny you accommodation in his hotel, you would be rightfully upset, even if there are other hotels nearby. Your religious convictions have no place in your business activities. irrelevant.

And back to conflating PERSONS and ACTIVITIES. Don’t want to make my Son’s confirmation cake? That’s declining to make my cake based on it being for an ACTIVITY you object to. Legit. I’ll give my cash to someone else. Decline to make an batch of baklava for me because I’m Catholic? That’s a civil rights violation. Same for gay persons. I don’t do the wedding cake, but am happy to supply the baklava for Friday night’s dinner with friends. It is becoming difficult for me to understand how this is confusing.

Only if your participation is welcome.

I would not need to be forced. “Pecunia non olet”. The KKK is allowed to organize a public march to demonstrate their “convictions”. Their right is supported by ACLU as well. Remember Voltaire’s immortal phrase: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it”. Observe… not to ACT on it, but simply to say it. That is all you can get… and be happy about it.

Fortunately, emotions aren’t yet legislated, but hey, there’s still plenty of time; I’m sure that’s on the agenda somewhere. I am not happy about even the mildest of harassment, but am learning to offer it up. I still do have the right to free speech, and will exercise it as I choose.

See, I am one of the SOME Christians. I am some Christian that loves my gay nephew, my gay cousin, my gay cousin’s partner, and my gay coworker. I love them enough to treat them with kindness and goodness, and to draw the line at condoning actions the God that created all of us teaches us are disordered. See, love isn’t real if you aren’t willing to tell someone the truth.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The right to self determine that I will not participate in another’s sin is the commonality that seems to escape you.

That is no such “right” in the public sphere. If you open a business, you cannot pick and choose whom you are going to accommodate - according to the current legal system. Rights are social constructs. If the powers-that-be declare that you are allowed to perform an act without a fear of repercussions, then you have the “right” to perform that act.

This isn’t irrelevant. It is morality, ie, the participation in the sin of another, that is the rationale for declining to bake the cake or perform the termination or hold the cross for the Klansman to light.

“Sin” is another religious concept, which has no place in the public sphere.

And back to conflating PERSONS and ACTIVITIES. Don’t want to make my Son’s confirmation cake?

Why would I object to that? What you do with that cake is none of my concern. I bake it, you pay for it, and that is ALL. What you do with it does not concern me, and it should not.

See, I am one of the SOME Christians. I am some Christian that loves my gay nephew, my gay cousin, my gay cousin’s partner, and my gay coworker. I love them enough to treat them with kindness and goodness, and to draw the line at condoning actions the God that created all of us teaches us are disordered. See, love isn’t real if you aren’t willing to tell someone the truth.

What you THINK is the “truth”. But we do not talk about “telling” what you consider the “truth”. The baker conducts a public business. He is required to accommodate everyone, regardless of what he considers a “sinful” usage of his cake.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Since “morality” is only an opinion, it is irrelevant.

Since it is ONLY your opinion that “morality” is only an opinion, it is entirely relevant.

The premise that “morality” is only an opinion hasn’t been established by you or anyone else, therefore you can’t use the statement as if it is simply presumed to be true.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Sin” is another religious concept, which has no place in the public sphere.

What is the criteria according to which you have decided so emphatically what it is that DOES have a place in the public sphere? Would you care to define the means by which what belongs in the public sphere is adjudicated? In particular, what gives you, personally, the authority to say religious concepts have NO place?

 

[minkymurph]

You are mistaken. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is intact. ACTING on those is curtailed. Just like the white supremacists of the KKK have total freedom to hate the blacks, Jews and Catholics… but they are forbidden to ACT on that hatred. In your home and in your church you are free to act on your beliefs, but as soon as you come “out”, the rules and regulations take over your freedom to ACT on your beliefs.

And you should be grateful for it. It is for your protection on the long run.

I am not mistaken and my comments are not an indication that in my opinion the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is not in tact, and 'poor us our freedom to practice our religion is not longer in tact. If that is what you thought I meant. If it is what you thought I meant you are missing my point which is a point of law. Nothing more nothing less. My comments relate to the legal basis of the judgement rendered and the judges interpretation of law. I am not mistaken as to the judges interpretation of the law in this case.

European Convention rights exist as absolute rights, qualified right, and limited rights. The right to life is absolute and in Robinson, the right to life trumped freedom of speech (in this case freedom of reporting in media) The right to privacy would not have trumped freedom of speech (reporting).

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15697688

The judges reasoning in this case was centered on breach of contract and the provision of services. The bakery was obliged to bake the cake on the ground they had entered into a valid contract to do so. The arguments they made in terms of being released from the contract were on religious grounds, and this was held to be discriminatory. Thus, the precedent has not been set that in Contract Law and in the provision of services, the right not to be discriminated against prevails over freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

If you think I am in error on this point of law you are of course free to challenge what I have stated.

I would also add that I personally do not endorse refusing to enter into a contract or provide services to individuals or groups on the ground of their sexual orientation.

 

[minkymurph]

And you should be grateful for it. It is for your protection on the long run.

It’s not a case of gratitude. I don’t see why I should be ‘grateful’ for anything I have an entitlement to.

 

[shockerfan]

Good comments folks.

The major issue in this case is the right not to be discriminated against may trump the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Is there a right to “not be discriminated against”? We discriminate, legally, every day. I can’t be a Navy pilot because I’m too old, too fat, and have poor eyesight. We give preference in government contracts to minorities, women and veterans over white people, men, and non-veterans. The list is endless. What this boils down to is this: should I be forced against my will to use my creative talent as part of a celebration, or be force to be at a celebration, that I find violates my deeply held belief.

Compounding the problem is a large percentage of the population that really don’t understand the difference between “material cooperation” and “formal cooperation”. The Indiana pizza maker is an example of someone who doesn’t realize making the same pizza you always make, and allowing a gay person to buy the pizza, isn’t formal cooperation.

The people who have the issue would be the cake maker who has to make a non-standard cake using their creative talents, or the photographer who must be at the (so-called) wedding, or a minister who owns a for-profit wedding chapel who must have the wedding at his chapel AND officiate or face legal consequences.

Nobody should be forced against their will (like indentured servants) to be at an event they don’t want to be at, that violates their deeply held beliefs. (by the way, forcing firemen to be IN a gay parade, not just AT a gay parade, is also at issue)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Thus, the precedent has not been set that in Contract Law and in the provision of services, the right not to be discriminated against prevails over freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

As I said before: no judge can regulate what you think and what your religious convictions are. They can only prohibit to ACT on those beliefs. Freedom of thought does not equal to freedom to act on those thoughts.

It’s not a case of gratitude. I don’t see why I should be ‘grateful’ for anything I have an entitlement to.

Because in case someone would like to discriminate against you on THEIR religious grounds, you will be protected, too. Laws are fluid things. They can be repealed or modified.

 

[minkymurph]

As I said before: no judge can regulate what you think and what your religious convictions are. They can only prohibit to ACT on those beliefs. Freedom of thought does not equal to freedom to act on those thoughts.

Because in case someone would like to discriminate against you on THEIR religious grounds, you will be protected, too. Laws are fluid things. They can be repealed or modified.

What we think and what we would like to do has nothing to do with the legal basis for the ruling which is what I was discussing. What’s your point?

 

[minkymurph]

Is there a right to “not be discriminated against”? We discriminate, legally, every day. I can’t be a Navy pilot because I’m too old, too fat, and have poor eyesight. We give preference in government contracts to minorities, women and veterans over white people, men, and non-veterans. The list is endless. What this boils down to is this: should I be forced against my will to use my creative talent as part of a celebration, or be force to be at a celebration, that I find violates my deeply held belief.

It is law in the UK individuals have the right not to be discriminated against. The point I was making at the outset of the thread is some individuals on CAF who ardently support capitalism agree discrimination is not acceptable, but are opposed to legislating against discrimination.

This thread seems to have gone astray from the arguments I was making at the beginning. That’s OK - that happens but I’d just like to post a reminder.

I said at the beginning of the thread -

***What I am asking is how those who support unregulated capitalism, who argue the market regulates itself on the basis of supply and demand, we should be free to contract with whomever we choose yet simultaneously argue this practice upholds the rights of the individual and all this is compatible with Catholicism can validate these arguments in light of this case?

---

Compounding the problem is a large percentage of the population that really don’t understand the difference between “material cooperation” and “formal cooperation”. The Indiana pizza maker is an example of someone who doesn’t realize making the same pizza you always make, and allowing a gay person to buy the pizza, isn’t formal cooperation…

That’s a good point. Thank you for making it.

I would agree that material cooperation should not offend the individual conscience.

 

[minkymurph]

As I said before: no judge can regulate what you think and what your religious convictions are. They can only prohibit to ACT on those beliefs. Freedom of thought does not equal to freedom to act on those thoughts.

Because in case someone would like to discriminate against you on THEIR religious grounds, you will be protected, too. Laws are fluid things. They can be repealed or modified.

With respect, I think you have missed my intentions entirely and the issues I was raising as you appear to be of the impression I am arguing the ruling in this case denies individuals freedom of thought conscience and religion.

My intention was to prompt a discussion on the relationship between unregulated capitalism, Contract Law and legislating against discrimination.

This is what I asked for a response to -

** In terms of contract, should there be a law that individuals should be able to avail of services irrespective of their sexual orientation or not? Should you be compelled to enter into a contract with an individual to provide a service if for reasons of individual conscience you do not want to? If not, does that uphold the individual right to avail of services irrespective of sexual orientation?

Do those that support unregulated capitalism also think a commercial business is free to discriminate in terms of contract? If so, what of the rights of the individual? If not, then do we need legislation regarding discrimination? If so, can the state determine the commercial conscience?**

In a nutshell and in order to bring the thread back on track , do you think:

We should legislate for discrimination, or should individuals be free to refuse to enter into a contract with another individual or group of individuals irrespective of the reason?

Yes or No?

 

[schaeffer]

** In terms of contract, should there be a law that individuals should be able to avail of services irrespective of their sexual orientation or not? Should you be compelled to enter into a contract with an individual to provide a service if for reasons of individual conscience you do not want to? If not, does that uphold the individual right to avail of services irrespective of sexual orientation?

Do those that support unregulated capitalism also think a commercial business is free to discriminate in terms of contract? If so, what of the rights of the individual? If not, then do we need legislation regarding discrimination? If so, can the state determine the commercial conscience?**

In a nutshell and in order to bring the thread back on track , do you think:

We should legislate for discrimination, or should individuals be free to refuse to enter into a contract with another individual or group of individuals irrespective of the reason?

Yes or No?

I think we do need legislation to prevent discrimination. People applying for business licenses need to legally agree to certain rules and regulations. The state does have the responsibility, for the protection of both consumers AND business owners, to create laws and impart enforcement.

If a person is unwilling or unable to meet those requirements then they cannot get a license to do business.

However, a business owner does have the right to state which goods and services they will provide. If a printing states they do not print shirts with ( list of cuss words and body parts) on them, clearly and up front I think that is fair. Or a photographer to state they do not take photos of pets. However, if a bakery provides wedding cakes they do not have the option of choosing whom they sell the cakes too. They may opt not to sell wedding toppers of a particular variety, or state upfront they cannot make cakes that have more than three tiers, or purple frosting. That’s their option, the type of good or svc, but not whom they will serve.

Unless there is actually some particular good “homosexual wedding cake” and it can be clearly defined you cannot refuse to make a wedding cake because you don’t agree with the people’s choice of partner.

I cannot refuse to sell an item on my shelf to you because I suspect I don’t like the way you will use it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I said before: no judge can regulate what you think and what your religious convictions are. They can only prohibit to ACT on those beliefs. Freedom of thought does not equal to freedom to act on those thoughts.

Because in case someone would like to discriminate against you on THEIR religious grounds, you will be protected, too. Laws are fluid things. They can be repealed or modified.

Again, so many issues arise with your inability to grasp that laws have to be grounded in sound ethical thinking.

If judges can prohibit individuals from acting on their religious beliefs, it is necessary to stipulate the warrant judges would use to prohibit such acts. The warrant simply could not be that one person’s actions infringe on another person’s religious beliefs, because, in that case, the judge would arbitrarily be siding with one religion over another or siding with a non-religious belief over a religious one. No, the point is that judges must use sound ethical principles in order to properly protect the moral rights of all from being infringed by anyone’s “beliefs,” whether those beliefs be religious or not.

It isn’t that a judge prohibits actions of one religion BECAUSE those actions infringe on the religious beliefs of others; a judge can only prohibit actions that infringe upon the moral rights of others.

The problem, for you, is that you think moral rights are only the opinions of some, which completely undermines the ground you could possibly provide for judges prohibiting acts at all. At the very least, it undermines any claim you could make that such rulings by judges are non-arbitrary and “correct” in any sense of the word.

I am sure, you will cite “civil rights” and appeal to democratic process. That, unfortunately, does nothing to answer the issue of tyranny by majority, which is a prevailing issue with democracies that have become untethered from sound moral principles. How do we know - absent a sound moral code - that the majority is right or justified in inflicting its view on minorities? Is the majority right purely by virtue of being a majority? That would be the implication of your view.

Ethical relativism collapses into mob rule where it consciously becomes the political flavour of the day.

 

[Peter_Plato]

European Convention rights exist as absolute rights, qualified right, and limited rights. The right to life is absolute and in Robinson, the right to life trumped freedom of speech (in this case freedom of reporting in media) The right to privacy would not have trumped freedom of speech (reporting).

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15697688

The judges reasoning in this case was centered on breach of contract and the provision of services. The bakery was obliged to bake the cake on the ground they had entered into a valid contract to do so. The arguments they made in terms of being released from the contract were on religious grounds, and this was held to be discriminatory. Thus, the precedent has not been set that in Contract Law and in the provision of services, the right not to be discriminated against prevails over freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

If you think I am in error on this point of law you are of course free to challenge what I have stated.

I would also add that I personally do not endorse refusing to enter into a contract or provide services to individuals or groups on the ground of their sexual orientation.

There is a wickedly delicious irony at play here.

No fault divorce is basically the oxymoronic ruling that two individuals who freely enter into a contract with each other, can, legally speaking, unilaterally breach that contract at any time for any reason.

According to you, the judge was using contract law involving a cake to force the baker(s) into living up to a contract which, in basic principle, forces the baker(s) into accepting, against better judgement, a tacit undermining of contract law where marriage is concerned.

In otheir words, the judge was forcing the bakery owner(s) to act against their beliefs that a marriage contract is a grave and serious enterprise between a man and woman by appealing to the sticky principles of contract law where something as innocuous as cake is concerned. That is the epitome of delicious irony - with a very perverse coating of sugar.

A “revision” of what a marriage is - if it means anything - is most certainly a further crippling of how two people are bound together in “marriage” under the law.

A further irony is that the judge seems to think that protecting a contract involving a cake is much more crucially important to society and to the state than a contract between a man and a woman where the lives, well-being and futures of those children they bring into existence are at stake. Cakes are much more important than the lives of children to this judge, apparently, since he is far more willing to protect contracts involving cakes than those where children are in jeopardy. Good thing the judge has his priorities in good order.

Justice, it does seem, is truly BLIND - and with a sweet tooth, it seems - in such matters.

 

[minkymurph]

I think we do need legislation to prevent discrimination. People applying for business licenses need to legally agree to certain rules and regulations. The state does have the responsibility, for the protection of both consumers AND business owners, to create laws and impart enforcement.

If a person is unwilling or unable to meet those requirements then they cannot get a license to do business.

However, a business owner does have the right to state which goods and services they will provide. If a printing states they do not print shirts with ( list of cuss words and body parts) on them, clearly and up front I think that is fair. Or a photographer to state they do not take photos of pets. However, if a bakery provides wedding cakes they do not have the option of choosing whom they sell the cakes too. They may opt not to sell wedding toppers of a particular variety, or state upfront they cannot make cakes that have more than three tiers, or purple frosting. That’s their option, the type of good or svc, but not whom they will serve.

Unless there is actually some particular good “homosexual wedding cake” and it can be clearly defined you cannot refuse to make a wedding cake because you don’t agree with the people’s choice of partner.

I cannot refuse to sell an item on my shelf to you because I suspect I don’t like the way you will use it.

That’s a very good analysis - and a balanced answer.

I would agree with you. We do need legislation to prevent discrimination but no one should be forced to sell goods or provide a service if it contravenes their conscience to do so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I cannot refuse to sell an item on my shelf to you because I suspect I don’t like the way you will use it.

There is something quite unsettling about this claim because it appears to leave no wiggle room.

Suppose, Bob, non-Jewish and anti-theist, decides to hold a “secular” Bar-Mitzvah ceremony for his son because he likes the idea of this kind of right of passage. He further plans for a celebratory meal and orders a Bar-Mitzvah cake from the local Jewish bakery.

Would you suppose that a Jewish baker would have legitimate grounds for not providing a Bar-Mitzvah celebratory cake, given that Bob’s “celebration” is not according to the deeply held religious beliefs of the baker. Bob may not, in fact, have any malicious intent regarding the ceremony, but the fact that his intention for the ceremony does not stem from Jewish religious conviction should, in itself, be sufficient to dispense the baker from providing the cake.

Ditto with those from religious traditions which have a certain perspective of what a marriage is. They are not (necessarily) trying to stop others from providing gay “marriage” cakes, but simply, and justifiably, refusing to act contrary to their own deeply held convictions about what a marriage truly is by endorsing the idea. (Cf. On Taking Your Chimp to a Beautician) For a judge to force those who have a certain view of what constitutes a marriage to act contrary to those beliefs is unconscionable. AND for gay couples to intentionally target such individuals is a ridiculous ploy, which, I hope, gives right-thinking people deep insight into what is actually going on with progressive liberalism. It isn’t as benign as it purports to be.