I’m not sure if Forever 21 would use that defense, but they’re actually a religious company. They put Bible verses on their shopping bags.
Or the graduates are flocking to states where they can actually find jobs.
I really hope the Supreme Court clears up the whole same sex marriage issue and that churches will also continue to evolve. My daughter is an Episcopal priest and is unable to perform same sex marriages because her Bishop does not yet recognize or bless them. Many others do, but she has to abide by her Bishop’s policies, even if she is asked to officiate in a jurisdiction which does recognize the same sex union. It’s very frustrating for her. Her particular church is quite liberal, as is ours, but it’s all still up to the Bishop.
Romani, no offense, but do you really think lack of gay marriage in Michigan is the reason why so many graduates are leaving Michigan? Also, aren’t boycotts about speaking out on a principle, even if it isn’t as effective in some places as in others? I’ve always been a supporter of gay marriage, but I hold the sincere belief that this action in Indiana is much more about political opportunism and the outright enjoyment of being part of a bullying mob by a lot of people. And we all know that bullies go for the easy target. The same people would never, ever ask the same hypothetical of a black Christian who holds the same view as the white pizza owner. that just would not happen because it would be politically inconvenient to split the base.
It’s sad that some people who would boycott Indiana are on the bandwagon to go to Cuba!
I’m sure you meant that “a business cannot”, since individual persons can discriminate as much as they like. You don’t ever have to invite a black, Jew, gay, or other type you may object to into your home, to lunch, or other. As an employee of a business serving the public, it’s a different matter. In some places, at least.
Because “religious beliefs” don’t come from the individual, but from “God” (or God’s books, etc.) and therefore are not up to the individual. An appeal to authority, if you will. Something that you just came up with in your head has no weight of Authority behind it. Or something.
Creepy Christian fundamentalists refuse to serve gay people, and creepy Muslim fundamentalists also refuse to serve gay people. What a shock-- there are bigots everywhere, well represented in conservative religious circles. It is currently legal to refuse service to gays in Dearborn, and that doesn’t look likely to change. Gay marriage is not legal in Michigan, though I have hopes that changes in June.
They will be more than fine in the long-run, and this has galvanized people who believe religious freedom and following one’s moral convictions to understand how there is a strain of secularists and non-believers who are just thugs if they do not get their way.
Anyway, already over $650K has been raised for the pizzeria and may top $750K by end of day. Also Christian businesses are planning a private fund that will top that above donation amount. The pizzeria will be remodeled and will be bigger and better than before. And let the threatening thugs show and see what happens to them. The Christians who do not take this bullying crap are now on the job.
In short, these people will not have to work again if they do not want to, and there are those who will make sure of that.
Awnctb, if it were the mid 60s, would you have supported the right of hotel / restaurant owners in the south not to serve blacks?
How about today - do you support the right of a restaurant owner to refuse to serve an interracial couple?
I’m deliberately choosing hotel / restaurant as it’s the same “product” regardless of the customer, unlike the wedding cake example.
Thanks in advance.
Also do you think anyone on here supports violence or threatened violence against the pizza place?
@awcntdb, when you answer this question, recall that the southern hotel/restaurant owners said that their strong and sincere religious convictions meant they could not serve black people. Their religious conviction that black people and white people should not mix were no doubt equally as strong as present-day religious conservatives’ belief that gays are yucky. Please explain to us why we should respect present-day religious conservatives’ beliefs about gays when we think 1960s beliefs about black people are abhorrent.
The pizzeria owners aren’t refusing to serve gay people, just not cater gay weddings. Hypothetically. Because they’ve never been asked by actual people with actual faces and feelings. Just reporters with an agenda.
I know that MOWC is being sarcastic, but it’s entirely possible that there would be a boycott of Forever21 if their attorneys were to take the legal position that trans people aren’t protected against discrimination (as opposed to simply denying the allegations). After all, an organized boycott of Saks was about to begin as a result of their taking that very position in the lawsuit I mentioned in comment 359, and would have been implemented (along with other public pressure that was already ongoing) if Saks hadn’t withdrawn that argument by reason of that public pressure; the case was settled shortly thereafter.
In this case, of course, it would be difficult for Forever21 to make the same argument, since the case doesn’t yet even include a Title VII federal claim, as the EEOC has not yet issued a right to sue letter. The only claims at present are brought under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, and the latter expressly protects trans people, while the New York courts have held that the former covers discrimination against them through its prohibition of sex discrimination.
"Part of a having a religious conviction is you practice what you believe, not believe one thing and practice another. "
You appear to have strong religious convictions; for example, you’ve mentioned your moral code does not allow for premarital sex, if I recall properly (and please correct me if I don’t). I’m assuming if you ran a bakery you wouldn’t bake the cake for the gay couple’s wedding; but wouldn’t that make you a hypocrite if you baked the cake for a hetero couple who had premarital sex?
IYou’ve mentioned being a “live and let live” libertarian - how do you determine what “moral failings” of others you just kind of let slide by and which ones you take a stand on? That must get complicated.
But the Masterpiece bakery owners are refusing to serve actual gay and lesbian people with feelings, and awc says they should be allowed to refuse to serve actual people with feelings.
I read the affidavits in the Masterpiece cake. They were pretty sad, actually. There were three different cases, and in all three cases, the happy couple didn’t want to make a statement, and they didn’t realize they would be refused. They just wanted cake.
In one case, two women went in to get cupcakes for a commitment ceremony. They were sitting in the bakery, trying different flavors of delicious cupcakes, talking with a clerk about flavors and how the cupcakes were to be displayed at the reception when all of a sudden the clerk realized that they were both brides and told them she couldn’t serve them.
In another case, the case where Craig and Mullen eventually filed a complaint, they were expecting a festive occasion tasting cake. They went to the bakery recommended by the venue where they’d be having the reception. They went into the bakery, expecting to discuss cake, and found themselves refused. It was supposed to be fun, they’d brought Craig’s mom along, and out of left field this bakery told them they couldn’t have wedding cake because they were gay.
There’s a reason Colorado businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate against LGBT people-- because LGBT people aren’t second-class citizens, and don’t deserve slaps in the face from businesses.
My apologies for not responding earlier. I did not see this earlier, and just stumbled upon this post. You do ask an excellent rhetorical question. I wish I saw your post earlier.
My reasoning is, as per the Constitution, religion is an individual matter above and beyond the purview of government via the freedom of religion clause. More importantly, religion is not an issue of governance, but an issue of personal conviction, and as aforementioned, is above and beyond the reach of government.
In contrast, social issues are issues of governance because they involve group interactions of people of differing religious beliefs.
Thus laws, as per the Constitution, must respect differing religious beliefs and should not force one to act contrary to one’s religious beliefs. If there are fifty people with fifty different religions, no law should force any one of the fifty people to act contrary to his religious beliefs.
The Constitution guarantees this protection, not by statute, but by being the supreme law of the land that governs all statutes passed after the ratification of the Constitution. Specifically, the Constitution codifies the religious rights cannot be infringed. However, the Constitution does not say one’s social beliefs cannot be infringed upon. Therefore, in terms of our Republic, the freedom of religion overrides any social beliefs people say they have.
The IN’s RFRA only affirms an individual’s right to exercise his religious freedom and religious beliefs. And that religious freedom, by definition, need not comport to the social constructs of others (or to other’s religious beliefs as well).
Now, if people want social rights protections, which were granted by statutes and the right to force people to act against their religion, the proper way is to call a constitutional convention and add a clause that says that the exercise of one’s religious beliefs is subject to complying with the present-day social beliefs, as expressed by current laws passed by the State. Obviously, the problem would be that to get that clause one would first have to repeal the First Amendment.
This isn’t true, and moreover, you don’t believe it’s true. Otherwise, you would think that the Boston bomber should be acquitted because he bombed people because of sincere religious beliefs.
Rights collide, and we have to decide where your rights stop and someone else’s rights start. Your right to not be bombed overcomes a religious bomber’s right to bomb. That’s an easy case, but it demonstrates that religious rights are not absolute. We have to draw the line in hard cases too.
Here is a very good article about why this is not the same as the civil rights issue that people try to compare it to.
People really do not know the difference between Jim Crow laws and RFRA laws.
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2015/04/03/rfra-not-like-jim-crow-laws-at-all-n1980337
What would you do about Catholics, who are told by their church in the here and now, that gay marriage is intolerable? Any compassion for the conflict such a person would be presented with?
So far, there are allegations, yet so many people here already want a boycott.