Im assuming that is a spell check error, as I do not see anything being desecrated.
If that really bothers you that much, perhaps you can bring it up at the next parent meeting.
One answer about the devout Muslims and Jews is that these ceremonies generally occur in religiously affiliated buildings, meaning mosques, synagogues, etc. Another is defilement as recognized by a religion. For example, I’ve known of kosher function halls and those are available to rent by anyone who will, of course, have a kosher ceremony. One can’t rent such a hall and serve non-kosher food because that would ritually defile the kitchen, the plates, etc. and that would mean it could no longer be used until and unless “cleansed”. If there’s overlap at all with the cake issue, it would be that maybe one can imagine a bakery losing business because its customers are so religious they won’t order from a bakery that has made a cake for a gay wedding. That’s not actual defilement requiring a cleansing with certifications from religious authorities. It is actually closer to a business serving blacks in the old South and losing white customers. (BTW, to make this more accurate, I searched for kosher function halls and all are open to anyone but have a kosher kitchen. Many are Holiday Inns, Hyatts, etc.)
@3scoutsmom At your kids’ school, they were not saying some families can have a bigger guest list than other families. They were NOT allowing some families to have siblings attend and then not letting your family have siblings attend. What was EQUAL was that ALL families at the Mommy and Me event could have their mommies present. If someone has two mommies (either a lesbian couple or a mommy and step mommy), then that child has two mommies. If your child had two mommies, both could also attend. Their point was to limit the event to the child and his/her mommy(s) and not allow additional siblings for anyone. Everyone was treated the SAME. Everyone could have their mommy or mommies present and nobody could have their siblings present. The event was not for any children other than the children in the class. Everyone had to find some child care solution for their extra kids, not just you.
You are saying you were discriminated against as your child could only have one guest but some other child had two guests. But it wasn’t merely about the number of guests. It was limited to a child’s mommy and there is no way to tell a kid who has two mommies, which one is allowed to attend. Again, you’d have a case if another child was allowed to bring siblings and your child could not.
What about a child who has NO mommy to bring to the event? I would like to think that child can bring a substitute mommy like an aunt or grandma. Does that mean all the other kids can add their grandma to their guest list too (in addition to their mom)? I think not.
What if the invitation said “no pets,” but one parent attending needed a seeing eye dog? I don’t think that means all the other families should be able to bring a dog.
“Heterosexual families were only allowed one representative per family but homosexual families were allowed two. I consider this discrimination.”
It’s a loophole. It’s not particularly hetero-discriminatory because presumably a biological mother and a stepmom of the same kid would both be allowed to attend as moms. If it bothers you that much just ask the school to close the loophole by amending the rules to say “Only one mom may attend.”
^^and the objection to having the other kids on the playground may have been that that is not allow. At my children’s grade school, you were not allowed to stay after drop off or come during the day and play on the playground with other children, even if the children were supervised. The playground was for the school kids during the school day. If you came after school AND the after school program wasn’t using the playground, you could have other children there. It wasn’t a minor issue as the 3 and 4 year old preschoolers had a shorter day so the parents would stay around to wait for the other kids to get out of class, but they couldn’t wait on the playground.
There is no ruling that the bakery has to offer any additional product to the public. I would imagine that if all this bakery offered was cakes with crosses or bible passages on the cake, and the gay couple wanted something else, the bakery could refuse. Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to carry cake toppers with two grooms just because they offer them with a traditional bride and groom. They don’t have to stock wrapping paper for Jewish holidays unless they want to. If they do offer something for sale, they have to offer it to everyone under the same terms so the Jews can buy wrapping paper with Santas on it if they chose to do so. They don’t have to be open on Sundays because atheist customers prefer to shop of Sundays. All businesses can customize their products to their customers, but if others want to spend money at those businesses they can. There are many banks in the US that cater to immigrants, like a Korean bank or a Chinese bank. They may have a lot of marketing material in the native language, but all official documents must be in English (if chartered by the Fed. govt or a state government, and if insured by the FDIC). Non-members of those communities can still bank there, but the businesses can focus all efforts on their target customers.
If two people of any faith, no faith, gay, Wican, Voodoo, mixed race, or whatever want to rent the PUBLIC hall or use a public caterer, they must be allowed to do so, but they then can’t require the caterer to have a pig roast or otherwise change the decor of the space (if that it the normal practice). The gay couple can’t require the baker to make a cake with rainbows and two guys kissing unless the baker advertises custom cakes. The business can certainly have 5 cakes that are standard and say “those are your choices, no swastikas, no rainbows, no ‘God loves Adam and Steve’”.
I would like to keep a cool head about this, and only consider the law. And ultimately, that’s what should happen. But when I’m seeing people comparing this to forcing an Orthodox Jew to butcher a pig, or arguing that their CHILD should be admitted to an event where only PARENTS are invited , I don’t think it’s possible. And the “Why would you want to…they’ll spit in it?” argument ??? Oh brother, well that solves everything. Don’t buy food if you think somebody’s going to spit in it. That was easy. And while you’re at it, stop being gay.
Re #72, major typo! My gay friend was not interested in my sexually. At the time he just didn’t seem to be interested in anyone. There were plenty of people in grad school who were openly gay, he wasn’t one of them…
I’ll bet some devout Christians do see being forced to participate in a gay wedding by baking the cake as equivalent to this. Why don’t you?
Because it’s not the same at all. These pretend devout Christians that you just made up bake cakes all the time. The very real Orthodox Jews out there never butcher pigs.
I didn’t make them up. They are defendants in very expensive lawsuits. Apparently their beliefs are extremely important to them. Nothing will happen to an Orthodox Jew if he touches pork. That is just as “made up” in my mind. Whose opinion on this matters?
This is why the court system is so messed up.
Oregon does have a non discrimination law, but they could have just made their own cake.
Actually, Bay, you do bring up a valid point, but I’d say that forcing a small business to create a product that they NEVER produce for religious reasons is very different from being forced to provide a product or service that you DO produce to customers that you object to for religious reasons.
So you’re right. So how far do you have to go to establish that you have a religious reason for not doing something you don’t want to do? What constitutes a valid religion? Do we examine Holy Scripture, the Talmud, the Qur’an? Or can anybody just invent a religious reason for violating somebody else’s rights? Do we have to prove that we are devout believers? Or do citizens have rights that are protected from discrimination.
This is what I meant when I entered this conversation.
“I didn’t make them up. They are defendants in very expensive lawsuits. Apparently their beliefs are extremely important to them. Nothing will happen to an Orthodox Jew if he touches pork. That is just as “made up” in my mind. Whose opinion on this matters?”
It’s not the same because the constitutional rights of Americans are not being infringed upon by the butcher who doesn’t serve pork. And the opinion that matters is the Supreme Court.
The Civil Rights Act made it so that this was illegal for a Black couple (or a White couple, any couple based on their race). I don’t see why the two situations are different. If it should be legal to refuse service based on sexual orientation then it seems to me it should be legal to refuse service based on race. You might say this is based on religion, but we also have the right to our political beliefs, and one’s political beliefs could indicate that it’s inappropriate for people of different races to interact to the level required here.
Unless the religion dictated that followers are not to interact with anyone who violates the tenants of the religion then I don’t see how this violates freedom of religion. But now I wonder what will happen when that religion is invented.
The butcher wouldn’t butcher the pig for a Jew either. They don’t do pigs at all. The equivalent in the wedding would be if the gay couple went in and said they didn’t want a cake, they wanted pie instead, and demanded that the baker make it. The baker doesn’t have to make them pie, they only do cake.
Right to your political beliefs would almost undeniably be covered by the 9th Amendment. It is indeed analogous.
Now this is an interesting question…
Obviously the polygamy analogy is not analogous today, but until very recently it would have been.
Since polygamy is far less politically popular than homosexuality, I wonder what would happen if a polygamist suited against a baker refusing service to them.
Yes.
My analogy (which I stated wasn’t a perfect analogy), of an Ortho Jew being forced by the government to butcher pork for a pig-toting customer, was to provide a present example. The baker bakes cakes and the butcher cuts meat all day; that is what they do. Put a blindfold on each, and hand one a slab of pork and the other an order for a same-sex wedding cake, tell them to do their jobs and they can each provide their customer with exactly what he wants. When their blindfolds are removed and the truth revealed, I don’t see how the butcher’s claim to outrage would be more righteous than the devout Christian baker’s. Their injuries are the same.
I haven’t done the research on this, and from memory, I think the US Supreme Ct decided Hobby Lobby without needing to address it, but earlier I stated my understanding that religious objection must be legitimate; it can’t be made up. I think there are some cases that address this to some degree; perhaps someone else has looked at them or has time to do so.
Editing to add: We already do know that same-sex marriage is prohibited by some religions; that is not in issue. Whether baking the wedding cake would be considered participating in the prohibition is another question.
If a butcher can’t tell the difference between a side of beef and a half of pork, blindfolded, they’re in the wrong business.
I thought they had never touched pork. So how would they know what it feels like?