chango
2,500+ Posts
You didn't say 'most people in Texas' - you said 'most people'. The two aren't even close.
Texas considering law similar to Indiana
- Thread starter Larry T Spider
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Religious preference carries over to discriminating against others? How is selling a cake to a gay couple trampling on your right to follow whatever religion you want? It not like that couple buying a cake if forcing you to not follow whatever god you choose. You're essentially asking to extend your religion into the public workspace. In many ways, the evangelical Christians aren't that different than the Muslim fundamentalists.
The Democrats must be loving this wedge issue. It has to be driving lots of $$ to their coffers in what seemed to be a very apathetic base.
Depends on the judges and the law.
As a constitutional law scholar myself, I do think that being forced to participate in gay wedding as a baker, photographer, etc would be a deep violation of the religious beliefs of someone who is a traditional christian, jew, muslim, etc in violation of the first amendment. It would be the state interfering with the free exercise of religion. It be the same as the government forcing a jewish kid or atheist kid to attend a meeting of the fellowship of christian athletes.
The belief that gay marriage is wrong is not some outlier belief either. Texas, North Carolina, etc passing gay marriage bans prove these strongly held beliefs are the majority in some states.
It is forcing some people to sin according to their beliefs. This is quite easy to understand if you are familiar with religion. Is it that hard to understand why some christians, muslims, jews, etc would be upset with being forced to participate in a gay wedding?
This example is different from your others. Cops have to protect the first amendment so they do have to work events protesting them. Cops are the government. A black caterer, on the other hand, would be a private individual.
Last edited:
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
I think what is being lost in the discussion is the difference between selling a product off the shelf to somebody they disagree with vs an artist creating something with their own unique abilities that they disagree with. I don't think any business open to the public should be able to turn away a customer for their sexual orientation. That means a restaurant or store of any type would have to serve a gay person their standard product. Anything else seems like a return to the Jim Crow south.
When you start talking about decorating cakes, it is almost like commissioning a work of art. Should an artist be forced to paint/sculpt/etc something that they absolutely hate? I don't think so. Art of all types are a form of self-expression and forcing them to do work against their will seems like a violation of their civil liberties. I don't think a baker should be forced to bake a Nazi cake for a Nazi. I do think that the Nazi should be able to walk into the store and buy a cake off the shelf.
When you start talking about decorating cakes, it is almost like commissioning a work of art. Should an artist be forced to paint/sculpt/etc something that they absolutely hate? I don't think so. Art of all types are a form of self-expression and forcing them to do work against their will seems like a violation of their civil liberties. I don't think a baker should be forced to bake a Nazi cake for a Nazi. I do think that the Nazi should be able to walk into the store and buy a cake off the shelf.
What is stopping a gay person from walking into a store and buying a cake off the shelf? How would a baker know if any customer was gay unless they told them. Unlike race, how do you prove someone is gay? You can only take someone at their word. This only comes into play if someone specifically tells the baker it is for a gay wedding.
The jim crow south is not the same as this. Why? Because an entire race had no equal alternative (see Brown v. Board). This only applies to a few select bakers, florists, photographers. Gay people can still go find plenty of alternate bakers, florists, photographers, etc. Black people could NOT go find an alternative equal product or service. Gay people just cannot make a particular person serve them. Sorry, but this is not the same in result.
Larry T Spider
100+ Posts
You are thinking with a big city mentality where the average person doesn't know most of the people they see on a daily basis. That is not true in small and medium sized towns all across the U.S. In these places, people know who the gays are. You are assuming people in these communities have a million other options for every product and service. I don't envision this ever really being a problem where stores have "no gays allowed" signs but as has been stated many times this whole debate is based almost entirely on hypotheticals. We are having a national debate and passing laws/amendments based on something that hardly ever happens.
This is a fair point. For arguments sake (though I do not necessarily agree with this counterpoint), the counter is that no one is entitled to a cake. Some towns do not have bakeries at all and no one in such a town has a right to have a baker in close proximity to them. Not a fan of this argument, but it would be the counterpoint.
Things that hardly ever happen are what americans care about the most! We would all rather focus on fixing something that hardly ever happens than big everyday issues like climate change, energy needs, infrastructure needs (all falls under population growth problems), the national debt, etc. Luckily, our government is generally focussed on things that hardly ever happen.
Last edited:
zork
2,500+ Posts
About 20 years ago I was working as a mortgage guy for a mortgage broker. One of my clients, mortgage guys work with RE agents, was a Real Estate agent who it turns out was gay. We did open house showings on the weekends to market our business to the community. He to pick up buyer/seller business and me to find people needing to borrow.
One particular client of his went through the whole loan application process with me. Our firm got him approved. He found a house. Then one afternoon the guy called to ask me if I was gay? My first response was incredulity as in what does that matter? He pressed on and I said that I was not gay. He said he just assumed I was gay since I was working with that Real Estate agent.
He took his business elsewhere as was his right and all the work I had done with him ended up my time wasted.
What does that little story have to do with this? I don't know really except there are idiots in all parts of life.
One particular client of his went through the whole loan application process with me. Our firm got him approved. He found a house. Then one afternoon the guy called to ask me if I was gay? My first response was incredulity as in what does that matter? He pressed on and I said that I was not gay. He said he just assumed I was gay since I was working with that Real Estate agent.
He took his business elsewhere as was his right and all the work I had done with him ended up my time wasted.
What does that little story have to do with this? I don't know really except there are idiots in all parts of life.
This convo seems to be focused on "gays", but look at the big picture.
Currently 78% of the U.S. is Christian, 51% is Protestant. (According to Wikapedia - sorry haven't figured out to imbed a link in the new format yet).
This will probably stay true for a while. But, what if it doesn't?
What if people of The Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or whatever faith become a majority? Will this mean they can refuse to do business with people of a different religion or belief?
Are we headed to businesses displaying a religious logo or Pink Triangle ala 1930's Germany (yeah, that was inflammatory). Is this where we want to go?
I agree with earlier comments that this is a "law" solving a non-existent problem. And could lead to unexpected outcomes.
Personally, I don't give business to those who support discrimination (I'm looking at you Chick Fil A). So if you discriminate, you will not get my money. Should we have a law for that?
Currently 78% of the U.S. is Christian, 51% is Protestant. (According to Wikapedia - sorry haven't figured out to imbed a link in the new format yet).
This will probably stay true for a while. But, what if it doesn't?
What if people of The Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or whatever faith become a majority? Will this mean they can refuse to do business with people of a different religion or belief?
Are we headed to businesses displaying a religious logo or Pink Triangle ala 1930's Germany (yeah, that was inflammatory). Is this where we want to go?
I agree with earlier comments that this is a "law" solving a non-existent problem. And could lead to unexpected outcomes.
Personally, I don't give business to those who support discrimination (I'm looking at you Chick Fil A). So if you discriminate, you will not get my money. Should we have a law for that?
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Woah...does Chick-Fil-A not serve or hire gay people?
Last edited:
The issue is donations to "anti-LGBT" groups. Although it has seemed to decrease recently.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/03/03/3355701/chick-fil-2012-giving/
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/03/03/3355701/chick-fil-2012-giving/
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Ahhh..."anti LGBT" groups like FCA. Ok.
If the clones here were around when Lucas made those Stat Wars prequals, he wouldn't have needed all that CGI.
If you are a gay person in Texas, you probably have a boss, a teacher/professor, doctor, mechanic, cleaners, gardners, coaches, who work with you, work for you, pay you, care for you, train you, maybe even vote for you if you're running for mayor of Houston. And chances are in Texas, a lot of these folks go to church on Sundays where they preach everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, social status, or sexual orientation is to be loved and respected, and included as family in your community. And they also believe in the traditional definiton of marriage.
Not everyone, not even your friends, will agree 100% on politics, culture, and values. And you can't force everyone to think the same way.
If the clones here were around when Lucas made those Stat Wars prequals, he wouldn't have needed all that CGI.
If you are a gay person in Texas, you probably have a boss, a teacher/professor, doctor, mechanic, cleaners, gardners, coaches, who work with you, work for you, pay you, care for you, train you, maybe even vote for you if you're running for mayor of Houston. And chances are in Texas, a lot of these folks go to church on Sundays where they preach everyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, social status, or sexual orientation is to be loved and respected, and included as family in your community. And they also believe in the traditional definiton of marriage.
Not everyone, not even your friends, will agree 100% on politics, culture, and values. And you can't force everyone to think the same way.
Last edited:
They say that people that believe in traditional marriage are on the wrong side of history. They say that everyone is turning in favor of gay marriage. However the same people then say that if a few bakers, florists, or photographers are not forced by the government to participate in gay weddings, we'll have Jim Crow and Pink Triangles. Apparently the gay rights movement is so weak that a handful of dissenting photographers, florists and cake bakers who simply do not want to be forced by the government to participate in a gay wedding could derail the entire gay rights movement and bring about jim crow!
Apparently, the only way to prevent 1930s germany in this county is to refuse to tolerate dissenting opinions or dissenting religious minorities. In fact, the best way to prevent this country from turning into 1930s germany is to demonize dissenting opinions and religious minorities by calling them names like "bigots" because we can all agree we cannot tolerate bigotry. Maybe we will even call them traitors at some point. If a few bakers, florists and photographers want to peacefully tolerate but not accept gay marriage, the government needs step in and force them to accept it by forcing their participation in gay weddings... their religious liberty be damned. Everyone must think the way!
The gay rights movement is so strong that dissent, even small dissent, cannot be tolerated.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Selling a cake or flowers to a gay couple is participating? You're jumping to the most 1% use case while neglecting that this law could impact the other 99% more severely. In that case, do we need a law to protect against the 1%? Isn't that taking a meet cleaver to a solution that requires a surgeons knife?
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
I agree. I think a baker should be required to sell a standard red cake to a Nazi. If the Nazi wants to buy extra black icing and a tool to paint a swastika on the cake, fine. But the baker shouldn't be required to paint the swastika on. Same for gay marriage. If you don't want to put two groom statuettes on the same cake, fine. But if I buy a cake and two grooms and put them on myself, that's my business.
The issue becomes particularly relevant in a one-baker town. There are plenty of places in Texas and elsewhere where the second-closest baker is 100+ miles away. The nearest open-minded baker could be a half-day's drive away. What then? Gays can't have cake at their wedding?
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
The way I think of it is that you have to do business with gays, but you don't have to speak in support of gayness, whether explicitly or implicitly.
Designing a "gay wedding" cake is an implicit expression of support for the process. A baker should not be forced to do that. But selling a cake to a gay person is not speech; it is commerce. If you want to be a baker, you should be required to sell your wares to everyone.
I feel the same about race, btw. A baker should be required to sell a cake to a black person. But a baker should not be required to design a cake for an NAACP rally.
Designing a "gay wedding" cake is an implicit expression of support for the process. A baker should not be forced to do that. But selling a cake to a gay person is not speech; it is commerce. If you want to be a baker, you should be required to sell your wares to everyone.
I feel the same about race, btw. A baker should be required to sell a cake to a black person. But a baker should not be required to design a cake for an NAACP rally.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Seattle, I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps the point of this law is to apply to only those "1%" situations? I really don't know. Call me a skeptic, but I don't think the diatribes on facebook postings are based 100% on the facts.
From what I understand also, muslim prisoners may be exempt from shaving their beards when in jail.
Last edited:
Interesting. True, the Nazis didn't tolerate dissent. They legalized the final solution to take care of those on the margin (they didn't like those of the Jewish faith, Gays, etc. - these unwanted minorities had to go). Gays are a minority in America today (rumor is 10%) so Gays are unlikely to bring about Nazi horror in modern day America. Will there be Laws preventing the free exercise of religion? Can't see that happening.
At one point, the bible was used to argue that Whites and Blacks should not marry. I'm a Presbyterian (from the more Liberal branch) and I don't believe Jesus would preach this to his followers.
A Capitalist should not want to minimize the opportunity to make money - Gays have money! I'm a Capitalist and believe in a free market. I spend my money where it is wanted! This is the way a Capitalist society should operate.
Again the conversation is focused on Gays. Today it is "Gays" tomorrow it is "fill in the blank". I'd rather vote with my money than have another Law in search of a reason to exist.
"All Men are Created Equal" and "Freedom of Religion" - can't we all get along?
Amendment I
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.
Most of the people angry about the Indiana law are not gay. In my experience, liberal whites (especially those in favor of socialism and strong central governments) are the least tolerant people on earth.
I guess you have not seen city ordinances banning discrimination against gays by businesses or the parts of the affordable healthcare act dealing with birth control that resulted in a big controversy.
Find me where in the Bible blacks and whites cannot marry. I can find where homosexuality is a sin in the old and new testament. I can also find where it says marriage between a man and a woman. The problem with this argument is that the Bible did not actually say blacks and whites could not marry while the Bible makes its opinion on homosexual activity quite clear. There was an entire long thread on hornfans about the Bible and homosexuality and nature and homosexuality and I am trying to avoid rehashing those really long threads where I think just about ever point was made by all sides. Rather than rehash those arguments, I have focussed on the blacks and whites cannot marry comparison.
Okay, will let's give photographers, bakers, and florists that do not want to participate in a gay wedding the right to refuse service and let the free market decide whether they stay in business.
Yes. Participation = the action of taking part in something
If your cake is at the ceremony, you took part in it.
Re: The Bible. I agree, the Bible does not forbid interracial dating/marriage. But that didn't/doesn't stop people from interpreting the Scripture to meet their beliefs.
This next section is from a Christian Bible Reference Site http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_interracialMarriage.htm
A number of attempts were made to use the Bible to justify those bans on interracial marriage. Vague assertions were made that God intended for the races to remain separate. Some verses (Exodus 34:10-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14, etc.) were quoted in part or otherwise out of context in an attempt to show that God opposed interracial marriage.
Exodus
10Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. 11Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. 15"Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
Corinthians
14Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?
These are generally believed to apply to People of different faiths not races, but...
Southerners didn't like the government enforcing laws about segregation/discrimination, but I believe that was a good move by the Federal government. I'm all for change that generate new ideas (and financial growth).
Free Exercise of Religion. I generally interpret that as being able to gather and worship one's faith (not an Attorney, just how I view that Amendment). It is the commerce that complicates things.
There is an Asian restaurant next to a Mosque (customer base is primarily Arabic). I've been in it twice and as a non-Muslim female I feel out of place and not welcomed. That could just be me being paranoid, but I'm not going to sue for discrimination; I'm not going to give them any more of my business. Does that make me a racist? If I felt welcomed, I would go back. The food is good. My loss I guess. There are Arabic owned restaurants that make me feel welcomed and I visit those. Don't want to get into another faith discussion!
I'm all for the free market to let this discrimination argument shake out. I just want to minimize laws that are ridiculous one way or the other (imho).
This next section is from a Christian Bible Reference Site http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_interracialMarriage.htm
A number of attempts were made to use the Bible to justify those bans on interracial marriage. Vague assertions were made that God intended for the races to remain separate. Some verses (Exodus 34:10-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14, etc.) were quoted in part or otherwise out of context in an attempt to show that God opposed interracial marriage.
Exodus
10Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you. 11Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. 14Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. 15"Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
Corinthians
14Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?
These are generally believed to apply to People of different faiths not races, but...
Southerners didn't like the government enforcing laws about segregation/discrimination, but I believe that was a good move by the Federal government. I'm all for change that generate new ideas (and financial growth).
Free Exercise of Religion. I generally interpret that as being able to gather and worship one's faith (not an Attorney, just how I view that Amendment). It is the commerce that complicates things.
There is an Asian restaurant next to a Mosque (customer base is primarily Arabic). I've been in it twice and as a non-Muslim female I feel out of place and not welcomed. That could just be me being paranoid, but I'm not going to sue for discrimination; I'm not going to give them any more of my business. Does that make me a racist? If I felt welcomed, I would go back. The food is good. My loss I guess. There are Arabic owned restaurants that make me feel welcomed and I visit those. Don't want to get into another faith discussion!
I'm all for the free market to let this discrimination argument shake out. I just want to minimize laws that are ridiculous one way or the other (imho).
The problem here, as I pointed out, is that if you do not believe homosexual activity is a sin, you are interpreting the scriptures to meet your beliefs. The scriptures are explicit, old and new, about homosexual activity. If someone views it is as sin, they are not necessarily twisting the scriptures to cover bigotry. Interracial marriage on the other hand would be a twist of the scriptures to cover bigotry. My point is that there are completely legitimate, not hateful reasons for one to not want to participate in a gay wedding (even if as a florist, baker, photographer, etc.)
Here is the interesting thing about the constitution: People like to change the meanings and even the originalist meaning over time to fit their beliefs. Ultimately, no, free exercise of religion is not simply limited to gathering for worship. This idea is new. A conservative counter example would be the idea that the second amendment gives you the right to gun for personal protection. That is a modern idea that has become widely accepted. (It was about the individual right to own a gun to protect the people's right to form a militia, but that's a topic for another thread.) There are many ways people can exercise their religion outside of gathering for worship. One example would be the right of people to pray wherever they wish.
Last edited:
snek
500+ Posts
Fuckin' Chango. The king of the short, in your face honest answer that smacks with reality check time and time again. Very well said. I wold rather know than not know. I just wouldn't support certain businesses and let it be with that.
If we are going to protect the right of gays to buy cake from anyone selling cake, we should also protect gay bakers by forcing heterosexuals to buy cakes from them. If there are two bakers (one gay and one not) in town selling the same quality and type of cake for the same price, but buyers are discriminating against the gay baker by buying only from the heterosexual baker, the state has the right to prohibit such discrimination against sexual orientation by forcing the purchase of cake from gay bakers. The buyer's religion and free speech are not being trampled on, and they get the same product at the same price, so why shouldn't the state step in and protect the gay baker?
Chango is a bastion of brevity.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Ahhh...Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Bakery. He feels that simply by making a cake that will be consumed at a gay wedding he's "participating" in the wedding. We're not talking about a cake in the shape of two men mounting each other but a traditional cake that the couple wanted to pick up. He then goes out and asks other bakeries to make cakes which anti-homosexual bible verses ON THE CAKES and says that is somehow equivalent? Y'all on the right need to find better examples to support your cause because every one of these examples is making your viewpoint look worse and worse.
Nobody, left or right would expect Jack to attend a gay wedding which most would consider "participating". Baking a rainbow colored layer cake for the couple to pickup wouldn't equate to "participating" to most individuals. The writing on the top was merely a congrats Dave and Charlie message. It wasn't a "we love homosexuality" message or any other overtly gay statement other than the color of the cake itself.
For Colorado specifically, they do have an anti-discrimination against LGBT and other demographics.
After reading all of your posts in this thread, I think I understand your argument now. It's okay to discriminate as long as you agree with the discrimination. Thanks for clearing that up.
SH, I try to leave my personal bias (that comes from being against gay marriage) at the door, but respectfully, I have to challenge your rationale, because I think it has some flaws. First, what makes a wedding cake "traditional?" I think one could reasonably make the argument that the minute you include rainbow layers and put the names of two men on it, the cake stops being a traditional wedding cake. How many traditional weddings have you been to that had a cake that looked like that?
Second, both cakes at issue make a statement. Obviously, the cake with the Bible verses communicates a statement. However, the gay wedding cake has rainbow layer, which as I'm sure you're aware, is the gay pride symbol. Essentially, it makes the opposite statement. True, context matters. If you put a rainbow on a child's toy, it's probably not a gay symbol. Put it on a cake that references two guys getting married, and it is overtly gay. One message is more explicit, but other than that, I don't see much of a distinction except content.
The bottom line is that both cakes offend the consciences of their respective bakers. However, in one context, the state is willing to use its power to enforce the offender's will on the baker's conscience, but in the other context, it is not. I really don't see how that's debatable. To me, the big question is "Why." And I think the answer is that one to one group which happens to hold power in places like Texas and to a lesser degree, Indiana, homosexuality is a course of conduct. To another group that holds power in Colorado, it is an identity. Until that issue is overwhelmingly resolved, this fight isn't going to end. It's going to get worse.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
