I hope the people who threatened to burn down that pizza parlor are arrested. That’s way beyond acceptable.
We have no presence in Iran (it’s illegal), but our products sell in Iran, as do many American companies’ products.
This is an example of why the Internet makes people think they are smarter than they are (not speaking to you; I am talking in general). They think if it not on the Internet then it must not be true or does not exist.
Question: If it is illegal to sell in Iran, exactly which company will be saying as much publicly so that its illegal sales can be identified on the Internet, thereby opening them up to be prosecuted? Oh, and this is done with the blessing of the U.S. gov.
“When people don’t share the same religious views, does that mean they “hate” each other?”
Of course not everyone does - most people don’t give a hoot about what others do in their personal life, their religion, who they sleep with or who they marry. But I am not talking about most people. I am talking about a certain segment of society who use their religion as an excuse so they can willfully discriminate against those they find icky, and are trying to get laws passed so they can freely discriminate against anyone the hate. And yes, it’s hatred.
That’s why I always thought it would have made more sense to do what is done in Europe. The state takes care of the civil union and the religion is free to define marriage however they like. But that boat has left the dock.
I can see both sides of this issue. I think the cake maker should supply generic cakes to anyone - and most of those cakes could have been at any wedding. But I can totally see that one might not want to decorate it with something one considered offensive. And I certainly never consider the cake supplier or caterer in any way supporting an issue just because they supply food.
Not picking at you, CF… it’s just that you do have a gift for summing the argument.
The religious objections aren’t spur of the moment or held only by six goofy people who meet in an old abandoned gas station. Mainstream and longstanding, instead. Which I’d guess is precisely the problem.
Why can’t our hypothetical, discriminated against gay couple, acknowledge that not everyone is going to approve of everything anyone does and simply head over to the next shop? Vote with their feet, which numerous posts cheer as the morally superior highground? Other than the sophomoric satisfaction of grinding the first cake baker’s religious beliefs under their heel, why bother? Insecurity/approval issues?
@dstark - Great question.
The answer is rather simple. When it comes to religion, Man does not get to define what is discrimination, God does. Note that your question is based on your context and definition of discrimination, as if religion codes do not exist and govern behavior.
From the religious point-of-view, codes, such as the Ten Commandments, exist because God does discriminate between different types of behavior and what is right and wrong. And people, in the eyes of religion, can commit sins, which acts are against God’s will. God says forgive, but he does not say accept and condone what may be, according to his code, sinful behavior. In fact, he asks us to teach against such behavior, and to promote his way, not to clear the way for the practice of that behavior.
In the strictest sense, you are correct, God made everyone. But, he also says that humans do go wayward of his code and that behavior must not be condoned, as equal to what he subscribes.
Your question assumes that all behavior is equal. Well, the Ten Commamdments and the scripture make clear that to God humans are equal beings in the purest sense, but not all behavior by humans is equal and some behavior should not be given the same reverence or acceptance in his eyes.
Think of it this way - if all behavior were equal, there would be no need for a Bible or any religious codes of any sort by any religion. Therefore, yes, religions do discriminate based on what they believe as moral rights and wrongs.
The Masterpiece cake baker is not saying that the two grooms wanted him to make a cake that was offensive. It’s not like they were asking for a swastika cake or something like that. What was offensive to the baker was the marriage, not some cake design principles he was expected to follow. His claim is that he should not have to make any cake for a wedding of two men, even a cake that is identical to a cake he would provide for a man and a woman marrying.
A baker is well within his rights to say he doesn’t make swastika cakes.
A church is not a public accommodation that sells marriage services to the public, so it doesn’t have to follow the rules that public accommodations like florists and bakeries must follow.
Performing a religious marriage has always been held to be a core religious practice that’s subject to First Amendment protections regardless of any anti-discrimination laws. (Unlike serving food or baking cakes, which are neither core religious practices nor – by contrast to performing a marriage ceremony – genuinely constitute an endorsement of the “lifestyles” of the people for whom you’re baking cakes or to whom you’re serving food.) Regardless of the bogeyman of clergymen potentially being compelled to perform same-sex marriages which their church forbids, a prospect which a few people have been raising here for years and years, despite the absence of a shred of evidence that (a) it has ever happened; (b) it could ever happen under the Constitution; or © such compulsion has ever been part of the so-called “gay agenda.” Which is why this law in Indiana was completely unnecessary to protect that right – or the right, say, of a Christian clergyman not to marry two Jewish people in a Jewish ceremony, regardless of their sex…
Perhaps the best evidence of that lack of necessity is that even though the Civil Rights laws (like Title VII) outlawing racial discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, the provision of goods and services, etc., have been around for 50 years now, and even though it’s now 48 years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state prohibitions of interracial marriage, there are still churches in this country that refuse to accept interracial marriage, and clergymen of those churches that refuse to perform them, and nobody has tried to force them to do so, because as long as they are acting privately, their religious freedom prevents such compulsion. That’s different, of course, from a government clerk, acting in their official capacity, refusing to perform an interracial (or same-sex) civil marriage because of their personal religious beliefs; that is, and should be, prohibited. They aren’t speaking personally (symbolically or otherwise) in doing so.
"Why can’t our hypothetical, discriminated against gay couple, acknowledge that not everyone is going to approve of everything anyone does and simply head over to the next shop? "
Why couldn’t black people just find another lunch counter to eat at? Why couldn’t Rosa Parks just find another bus to ride?
Awctnb, with all due respect, your personal religious beliefs aren’t of any concern to any of us, and you don’t get to lecture us that they are the Sole Truth, no matter how much you may want them to be.
Your question assumes that all behavior is equal. “Well, the Ten Commamdments and the scripture make clear that to God humans are equal beings in the purest sense, but not all behavior by humans is equal and some behavior should not be given the same reverence or acceptance in his eyes.”
Exactly! That’s why I’m pleased to see that you don’t eat milk and meat together, or wear mixed fibers, or strike a match on the Sabbath.
Aside from the fact that the Declaration of Independence has no force of law, and that the Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to God – or even an unnamed Creator – what happens when your pursuit of happiness conflicts with the pursuit of happiness by (or the liberty of) a same-sex couple who wants to purchase your goods or services for their wedding? Suppose you’re the only available provider of such goods or services? Whose pursuit of happiness prevails? And supposing hypothetically that your religious beliefs required you not to sell goods or services to an interracial couple, or to black people in general, as many Christians used to believe as recently as a half-century ago? Would you view the laws requiring you to do so as violating your inalienable rights?
That a religious belief is mainstream is not and should not be dispositive; the Amish are far from mainstream, but they still don’t have to pay Social Security taxes. And that a religious belief is longstanding is also not dispositive. People have longstanding religious beliefs in polygamy, but we still don’t allow polygamy in our country.
People had a mainstream, longterm religious belief that interracial marriage was wrong. Too bad. They lost. Religions don’t have to marry interracial couples, or any other couples they don’t want to marry, but neither are the rest of us required to kowtow to their bigoted beliefs.
“Well, if forced to promote, in any way, something contrary to my religious beliefs that directly disrupts my moral pursuit of happiness and is direct violation of my inalienable rights.”
You pay taxes, don’t you? Do you approve of everything your taxes get used for?
I thought Jesus threw out all that stuff and said the only thing that mattered was to love your neighbor. But that’s neither here nor there.
I actually belong to a non-mainstream religion that won a Supreme Court case revolving around whether a member could be a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. (He could.)
If you’re saying “two grooms, exquisitely rendered, on my cake” is today’s Selma, I’m losing you.
I’m looking forward to the day, not far off it seems, when the shoe store owner who doesn’t stock the particular style our hypothetical customer might consider trendy is picketed.
OTOH, awctnb’s expression of their religious thoughts probably provides a clearer window to their position than anything else they could say. While I may not agree, at least it’s crystal clear where they are and where they are coming from. At least to me.
I’m only going on recollection (not being a lawyer) but isn’t standing an integral component of a legal complaint? That, without injury, you might as well just tell your spouse all about how outraged you are and how badly it’s made you feel?
I’m not sure how you’d go about measuring the hurt of not getting your first choice vendor for that cake, just as it’s up in the air as to what roundfiling a lifetime of religious conviction is going to cost the baker. Lawyers are good at that sort of thing, though and when the inevitable suits begin we’ll all find out.
In the case of the Colorado bakery, the male couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission found the bakery in violation, and ordered them to stop discriminating. The order was appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals. I guess that a person who claims discrimination has standing to lodge a complaint, which is what happened here.
In the Appeals Court briefs, the baker is claiming that he is an artiste who couldn’t possibly create a wedding cake for two men. But that appears to be a pretext; the bakery also at one point refused to supply trays of cupcakes for a commitment ceremony of two women.
Amusingly, the bakery had no problem agreeing to make a wedding cake for the “wedding” of two dogs. It was to be in the shape of a bone.