A pig isn’t shaped like a cow, Bay. A pig’s skeleton is not the same as a cow’s skeleton.
Do orthodox butchers only cut beef? Is there a prohibition on touching meats other than beef? Most animals are edible, so a pig carcass could be similar to other similar sized animals. But I know you are just being argumentative to deflect my point.
Does the baker only make cakes for weddings his religion would “recognize”? The Catholic church doesn’t recognize marriages involving a divorced, non-annulled, catholic. BIL/SIL are considered to be unmarried and living in sin. Worse, actually, since she is considered to be married to SOMEONE ELSE. I still don’t get what, exactly, “participating” in a wedding you don’t approve of constitutes in terms of your own religion. If you don’t believe that God is actually sanctioning a LEGAL status, then it just constitutes a “pretend” event in your mind. Especially if you would otherwise serve gay people, since that would mean you are willing to interact with the sinners.
Suppose I went to the baker and wanted to have a big party with the theme of my two dogs getting “married”. Boy dog will wear a bowtie, girl dog will wear a veil, the cake topper will be two dogs, etc. Surely his religion doesn’t believe that dogs can get married, so it’s all just a fun pretend thing. The idea that the bakers, florists, etc, have to approve of the overlying meaning of the event is just ludicrous to me.
sylvan,
I am not a religious person, so I cannot answer your questions, other than to state that I think the baker’s objection was only to baking the same-sex wedding cake, not to selling other products to gay customers. And I already stated earlier that I agree that the Christian baker’s refusal to bake the same-sex cake would be the same as the Catholic baker’s refusal to bake the Catholic divorcee’s second wedding cake. They are consistent, to me. But I do not know enough about either religion to know whether they are truly analogous.
He could elect to simply not make wedding cakes, and nothing would require him to make them.
He can’t choose to make cakes for some couples and not for others based on his religion, their religion, or whether it is a gay or straight marriage.
I can’t refuse to do business with a woman wearing a chador, even though I find the chador to be oppressive. (Particularly oppressive when I see a woman in it in 95 degree weather with a husband tagging along wearing shorts and a sleeveless t-shirt.)
Yes, that is what Colorado bakers who do not want to bake same-sex wedding cakes will have to do, under the recent court decision.
" The idea that the bakers, florists, etc, have to approve of the overlying meaning of the event is just ludicrous to me. "
Conversely, why would you have to make them participate in such an event?
As for animal sacrifice, the way that animals are slaughtered according to kosher practices is to bleed them. To death. Which is torture. Their religious rights trump animal cruelty laws.
Same with this practice, a serious health risk due to lack of precautions and regulation: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.644138
“And at least 11 infant boys contracted herpes in New York City since 2000, and two died.”
They have the religious right to HARM and KILL, where very mild regulations would protect the children, but we argue about someone saying “I don’t want to serve people who go against my views of my religion”.
"But how is a pizza or wedding cake an expression of one’s faith in God? "
You don’t know that many devoutly religious people, do you?
It is very clear that the following is considered an expression of certain religious folks faith in - and fealty to - God:
- what their men wear
- what their women wear
- what they eat
- how they prepare their food
- who they socialize with
- who their children can date
- what causes they support***
- what causes they disagree with***
- how old their children need to be to get married
- how their day is organized in terms of prayer, no matter where they are
If you provide a service, and you provide it for someone who represent blasphemy to you, you are supporting in violation of your faith. The two starred items are the baker’s defense in my opinion, the appellate judge disagreed.
The inherent problem is that extremely devout (that is, strictly bound by a book or set of rules outside of common civility) people cannot do business unless they take on a strictly religious affiliation (and that must be an organized religion, yet many Christians follow their bible according to their own interpretation and do not attend church) recognized by the government, or run their business as a club.
My question is, if someone is that devout, they should run their business as a club (see one of my previous posts where I link to “clubs” that violate the civil rights of many) and require membership.
It is similar to someone who is devoutly religious, and decides to be a public school teacher. At some point, they may be better off pursuing working at a private school instead, if they want to follow their interpretation of their religion. Certainly many religions require proselytizing, but most people in those religions do not pursue that aspect at work. But some do.
This is an interesting corollary:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/02/06/384043496/being-with-people-like-you-offers-comfort-against-deaths-chill
At what point would that sort of community be forced to admit anyone who wants to move there, and thus destroy what the point of the community is?
OMG, I’ve never heard of that before. Seriously creepy and disgusting.
"…I think the baker’s objection was only to baking the same-sex wedding cake, not to selling other products to gay customers. And I already stated earlier that I agree that the Christian baker’s refusal to bake the same-sex cake would be the same as the Catholic baker’s refusal to bake the Catholic divorcee’s second wedding cake. They are consistent, to me. But I do not know enough about either religion to know whether they are truly analogous. "
Yes, exactly.
If the situation of selling a wedding cake to Catholics remarrying after divorce never came up before, I can see how the decision could seem capricious to some.
So what do we do? In both cases, do we just slap the bakers with $500 fines and say “don’t let it happen again” or do we FORCE them to do business with people who violate their religious tenets?
That is the very interesting part - can we force people to pay for their religious beliefs (like in the Hobby Lobby case - can you make them pay extra to take b/c coverage off of their employee health insurance policies so their employees can get separate insurance through the ACA?) or do we just fine them (if the HL case was decided differently)?
What is the recourse for this? If someone is fired because they married someone of the same sex, do they just get money for it, or do you force the company to rehire them? To me, that’s the interesting part.
Bay, I’ll take your repeated posts about Kosher butchers and pigs to be intentionally provocative instead of resoundingly dense. A Kosher butcher only deals with animals which meet two (or three) tests. First, it must be an animal that can be eaten according to kashrut. Second, it must be killed according to the kashrut rules. Beyond that, the third is that the animal is inspected after it is killed and that draws a line between kosher and glatt kosher, which is, for example, that an animal with adhesions in its lungs is kosher if the adhesions can be flicked away with a finger but it can’t be glatt kosher, which requires no adhesions. So no, kosher butchers don’t touch animals that aren’t capable of being kosher. A kosher slaughterhouse can’t touch animals that aren’t capable of being kosher or it will no longer be a kosher slaughterhouse. In most cases, a butcher receives kosher meat that has already passed the inspection so it is kosher, not kosher capable.
As I noted in post #121, kosher raises the issue of religious defilement, something that isn’t true of baking cakes. An equivalent would be that since the Communion service means nothing to me, why shouldn’t we make Catholic churches use white wine or beer? Or ban them from using alcohol at all? It would defile the entire meaning of Communion, just as your repeated assertions about kosher butchers and pigs would defile the entire meaning of kashrut. For Catholics, it would mean they have not entered into Communion, either individually or as a worshipful community. Or for a Mormon: after a Temple has been consecrated, it is ritually rendered unclean if non-Mormons (and I believe Mormons on the bad list) enter, but since that doesn’t matter to Bay why not require them to have an Open House every other Friday? Or serve alcohol (which is banned as a “hot drink”)?
The concept that baking a cake is the same as requiring defiling a Temple or requiring Kool-Aid at Communion is absurd. The simplest point, which I made earlier, is that defilement affects a community while baking a cake may, at most, anger the baker but has nothing to do with his or her participation in his or her religious life and community. Is the baker unclean? Is the baker unable to attend Church? Are other Christians unable to touch the baker without rendering themselves unclean as well?
I’m not dense, Lergnom, you are just biased. Your religious beliefs are legitimate to you, but you think others’ are ludicrous. I see them as all made up. We either respect them all or ignore them all. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones are protected under the Constitution.
Let’s try something that is not religion-based. I’m sure people come to the bakery wanting things that could be deemed pornographic. I’m not into pornography and believe it is not a positive in our society, in general. I have no inclination to make pornographic baked goods. But since I’m not making that product for ANYONE, that should be ok. I’m discriminating against an OBJECT rather than against a PERSON.
How hard is it to see the difference between an object and a person? A pig is an object, a cake is an object, a flower basket is an object, alcohol is an object.
sylvan,
Actually, the customer is not the problem with the bakers. The bakers will sell products to gay customers. If two straight people walked into the shop and ordered a cake for a same-sex wedding, the response of the baker would be the same - i.e., he would not bake it. The cake is the object.
I am so very happy all my friends and relatives now have the right to get married if they choose. I am profoundly sad some still look for a way to discriminate against them. The tolerance of intolerance argument doesn’t work for me at all. If I know bakers are discriminating, I won’t buy anything from them and I’ll support a boycott of that bakery.
We don’t have a choice but to work with it, unless we amend the Constitution.
That is incorrect. If it were correct, we wouldn’t have civil rights at all.
Civil rights do not apply to religious practices. As a woman, you should know that.
"Is the baker unable to attend Church? Are other Christians unable to touch the baker without rendering themselves unclean as well? "
But I think that is an inherent problem with religion. Too many people feel that organized religion, which has a hierarchy, places of worship, and rules that are codified, is what religion is to all people. But there are many people who follow a religion and either the religion includes only home worship as part of the religion, or their interpretation of the religion includes no hierarchy or superior - no one between them and their god(s).
The latter often leads to people thinking that “well, if she says she is Christian, but she doesn’t attend church and she doesn’t have a pastor or priest, and she doesn’t follow a particular branch of Christianity that is recognized, then she isn’t a Christian”. So therefore, someone who interprets Christianity per the Bible and/or any other teachings that they see fit, is automatically not a Christian (same for other religions) and any religious reasons must be pure bigotry.
To protect someone who practices their faith in a non-traditional way (and that is in the eye of the beholder or the particular church or holy person) is just as important to protect someone who practices their faith according to clearly outlined practices of a major religion.
And that’s why doubting the baker’s reasoning is doubting his religion and denying his right to practice, even if we know that there are many many Christians who embrace same-sex marriage as they do opposite-sex marriage. To say “he hates gays” while ignoring the basis for him denying service to a same-sex couple for their wedding is saying his religion is wrong.
It will be interesting to see as this goes up the court pipeline.
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
We could say, as others mentioned, it is the event that is being discriminated against, not the couple, as evidenced by noting that if they wanted to buy items at his shop otherwise, he would sell anything else to them. Could a store employee refuse to fit a man for women’s clothes if it is against their religion for men to dress as women?
Doesn’t this open the floodgates? If Jane goes into the home store and wants to buy a stand mixer for Bob and Stan as a wedding present, does the clerk/owner have a right to not sell her that mixer? Can Bob and Stan not do wedding registers at various department stores? Should every store/business post a sign clearly indicating what the rules are regarding purchases and one’s subsequent use of them?
Oh please.
The bakers aren’t withholding their services because the two people are homosexuals; they aren’t saying “No soup for you” due to their sexuality. The bakers are saying “No soup for you” because that particular request, baking a cake for a same-sex ‘wedding,’ does fit into their faith. If the two asked for a cake for their pet dog’s one year birthday I’d bet they’d make it. If one of them requested a cake for their partner’s birthday I’d bet they’d make it.
But people are being forced to bake a particular wedding cake that they don’t want to.
If I walk into a store without shoes and a shirt I’d be led to the exit. That’s discriminating if I don’t own each, though I have money to pay for whatever item. If I ask a baker to make a cake that says “White Race. The Real Race.” and they say “no,” I’d have a case for discrimination.
Long way to go? Compared to what country? Sweden? I bet. That country is basically worshiped when it comes to these sort of social issues. What’s hilarious to me is when people say "This country has a long way to go … " in these situations.
“Long way to go.” Give me a break.