I don’t see how. A monogram is a monogram, it’s initials. In gold leaf or whatever. I got a bible with one at my confirmation.
Well it’s celebrated in several faiths too. What does that have to do with adding a monogram?
There’s a scriptural proscription against making and icing a cake?
No, there is a scriptural proscription against weddings that do not meet the definition of wedding (in those faiths). Some - a very, very few, statistically - do not wish to be forced to participate in something that mimics but violates the scriptural meaning of “wedding” by providing services for said event. Their competing right to free exercise of religious freedom should excuse these very few.
Not saying I agree. This is the argument.
I understand what the argument is.
I don’t get how any of that relates to monograms in bibles though. I was clarifying an analogy made earlier.
Does the bible seller have the right to ask the purchaser who the bible is intended for, what the bible will be used for and whose initials are the monogramming on the bible? I think not. If they sell bibles and offer a monogramming service they have to sell you a bible and monogram it if that is what you want.
If one’s personal belief interferes then they should stop selling monogrammed bibles or non monogrammed bibles to everyone.
Scenario: Bakery receives order for cake with inscription “Happy wedding Chris and Katie.” They make it, and the customer picks it up from the store. The next week they receive an order for “Happy wedding Mary and Sue.” They refuse on the basis that they don’t make cakes for same sex weddings. Customer response: “You did last week, what changed?”
Hate to have to leave this convo so abruptly but I’ve got to get ready for hubby’s leaving-do tonight.
But again, I don’t see how baking a cake is an exercise of anyone’s religious freedom. It’s an exercise of their vocation. The fact that they are devout doesn’t mean that cake-baking is somehow transformed into a religious practice. And they remain quite free to pursue the actual practices of their religion, such as church attendance, prayer, missions, etc.
Am I missing something, or is no one considering whether accommodations for LGBTQA people are reasonable or not?
Because when the rights of the disabled are considered, the ultimate consideration is whether the accommodations are reasonable or not.
Shouldn’t the same consideration be made for LGBTQA accommodations?
And therefore, laws like requirements for extra bathrooms for people who aren’t comfortable with either bathroom should be exactly as those for the ADA - if a small business can prove that they cannot reasonably accommodate, they don’t have to accommodate.
Yes, there will be cases like there were for the ADA, where companies try to lie about not being able to make accommodations. But until they match what the ADA has, the desire for the impossible, to MAKE every company comply when it is not reasonable in certain circumstances, the LGBTQA movement to have fair treatment in terms of facilities, will not happen.
Believe me, there are government facilities that avoid the ADA because they have “proven” that accommodations are not reasonable. And certain disabled people cannot work at those facilities. Period. And there are other disabled people who deal with difficult situations, damaging their health, because their employer does not have to comply due to the “unreasonableness” (usually cost) of the accommodations.
@rhandco - It’s not like ADA where putting in a compliant bathroom or ramp has a cost that may not be possible for smaller businesses. They don’t get a pass because they don’t want to serve physically disabled people for religious or other reasons, I believe it’s only for financial reasons.
What is unreasonable in accommodating GLBTQA people in that scenario?
[quote]
Lasma: But again, I don’t see how baking a cake is an exercise of anyone’s religious freedom. It’s an exercise of their vocation. The fact that they are devout doesn’t mean that cake-baking is somehow transformed into a religious practice.
[quote]
But they don’t see themselves as sellers of widgets (cakes) as you are attempting to class them. They are not merely baking a cake. You can stop in their store any day and pick up a generic cake or cupcakes or cookies. They see themselves as artists creating a work of art for a special occasion. If you can’t force them to work happily for the KKK or Nambla, then you can’t force them to create a work of art for a wedding that violates their faith. The same argument holds for other artists such as photographers, who participate in a creation for the event.
On the other hand, a mere seller of plastic forks just ships a product and has no involvement in the special creations commissioned for this day. Not the same at all.
That’s the difference. Personally, I don’t want someone working on anything for me who doesn’t want to do it, and I will make a happy escape if I detect anyone is less than enthusiastic about a job I am offering him. I hire people regularly. Some of them prefer not to work for people like me (I will leave it to you to imagine what class I am in). That’s fine with me. There’s always someone else who wants the job. It is not like there is only one cake maker in the country, and without his particular cake, you aren’t married or something.
[Raneck: Scenario: Bakery receives order for cake with inscription “Happy wedding Chris and Katie.” They make it, and the customer picks it up from the store. The next week they receive an order for “Happy wedding Mary and Sue.” They refuse on the basis that they don’t make cakes for same sex weddings. Customer response: “You did last week, what changed?”
[/quote]
Nothing changed. The policy remained the same. Either the couple didn’t reveal the actual facts in the first instance or they were not asked (though I think they are generally asked the names of the bride and the groom). In the second case, it is an obvious violation of their ongoing policy, which should be acceptable on a faith basis (only).
It’s not fine with me, though. And I’m not a in class that gets discriminated against, except for being female. I just don’t think that any kind of discrimination is OK.
I have a huge problem with equating LGBTQ+ people to those with disabilities. (And I say this as someone who identifies under both umbrellas). One’s sexual and gender identity is not a disability and the connection bothers me on several levels.
Carry on…
Good point, romani.
Emilybee: Does the bible seller have the right to ask the purchaser who the bible is intended for, what the bible will be used for and whose initials are the monogramming on the bible? I think not. If they sell bibles and offer a monogramming service they have to sell you a bible and monogram it if that is what you want.
If one’s personal belief interferes then they should stop selling monogrammed bibles or non monogrammed bibles to everyone.
No, but that isn’t the issue. It isn’t personal belief, which is not constitutionally protected. It is the free exercise of religion, which is. Wedding had an established meaning throughout the history of the country and before. Now, suddenly, that has changed, they argue, but their faith that God establishes a husband and a wife in a marriage has been established forever. Everyone and anyone can still get married. But their right to decline in creating a work of art for a wedding that is the antithesis of a wedding via their faith should be respected. This applies to very few people.
It is the equivalent of someone of another faith who cannot sell liquor in a grocery store, for example, having someone else take care of that transaction. Everyone (who is of age) can still buy liquor. That particular man simply declines those transactions.
Baking a cake is not a religious practice. The baker’s beliefs do not make it one.
In the outside of the business world, there actually are cake or other food ministries. Of course, those aren’t businesses and money doesn’t change hands.
I have always been familiar with churches that do new birth and bereavement meals. I am not personally aware of any that wouldn’t include same sex families, but if a person or church or professional chose to donate a cake or a meal to families with new babies or deaths in the family, should there be consequences if same sex couples were excluded?
If you are consistent, then you are mightily upset with Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, and Bryan Adams and any other manufacturers of a product (e.g., the NBA is thinking of moving All-Star game) for pulling their events out of the states, which have passed these religious liberty laws.
Clearly, they see “selling” tickets to a concert or an event to the people in those states, as “promoting” what the people believe, and they choose not to be associated with those beliefs; and since they choose not to “sell” their goods to the people in those states, they are surely are not being forced “to sell them to everyone.” Therefore, these artists are violating the main tenant of your post that “[a] manufacturer doesn’t get to decide what their product can be used for…So don’t make [insert any product here] if you don’t want to sell them to everyone.”
Just because someone is in a protected class, does not mean they get to run roughshod over others’ beliefs and force people to do things, which are against their conscience/ religious beliefs. Note that Springsteen, Starr and Adams are acting on their conscience and their beliefs by not holding specific events in those states. Why do they get to act on their beliefs and conscience and refuse to sell their product (concerts) and refuse to associate with to those states, but the people in those states who believe the opposite of these artists do not have the same freedom to act on their conscience/religious beliefs and not sell and not associate?
Aforementioned, protected class does not mean making people do things, which are against their beliefs. Obviously, no one is making these artists perform concerts in front of people they do not want to. And it does not matter if there are protected classes in those states that want to go to their concerts - those protected classes are out of luck, just like everyone else.
The fundamental distinction you are failing to make is this: the artists mentioned above cannot prevent people in those states from downloading and purchasing their standard already recorded music; however, the artists can refuse to produce a specific concert of said music for this same people based on the fact the artists do not believe in what the people are doing and do not want to be seen as associating/promoting those beliefs by creating a specific product for people in this states.
Bottom line, if you are fine with artists and manufacturers refusing to create a specfic product for the people in these states, then to be logical and consistent, you should be fine with bakers not wanting to create a specific product for people with whose beliefs they do not to be seen as associating with or promoting.
The citizen of North Carolina are not a protected class. He is well within his rights to cancel his performance. What he couldn’t do is have a concert and prohibit a certain class of people to buy tickets. He either has to open the concert for anyone who purchases a ticket or not perform at all. He chose the latter.
Also, Bruce Sprinsteen, Ringo Starr and the NBA are in the business of performing for anyone who wants to buy a ticket. While, they may sometimes perform for a private event it is not something they do on a regular basis or for a living ( let’s say a fundraiser for a political candidate or a charity) in which case they are likely donating their services but even if they are not - that is not the business they are in.
"In the outside of the business world, there actually are cake or other food ministries. Of course, those aren’t businesses and money doesn’t change hands.
I have always been familiar with churches that do new birth and bereavement meals. I am not personally aware of any that wouldn’t include same sex families, but if a person or church or professional chose to donate a cake or a meal to families with new babies or deaths in the family, should there be consequences if same sex couples were excluded?"
IMO, If the food ministries open their doors to the public then they would indeed have to open it to everyone. Like a food pantry sponsored by a church ( which often get grants from local govt or non profits like food banks to get or purchase food stuff.) if they are only open to members of their congregation I don’t think they would be required to - but that may preclude them from getting any grants - which usually require information on who you are going to serve.
Mr or Mrs Cake Baker can donate to anyone they want to or not. If they don’t want to donate their goods to the Gay Parade organization they do not have to. What they cannot do is not sell their cakes to someone because they are gay, black, Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc.
As to the bible seller - just no. He is in the business of selling bibles. He is not a church. He is not a religion and it is no business of his who is buying his bibles or what they are doing with them.
And if a worker in a store doesn’t want to sell alcohol because it’s against his religion, if it’s okay with the owner then that’s fine. If it’s not okay with the owner then the owner has the right to not hire that person. If it’s against a store owners belief he would not carry any liquor.
Emilybee, I was talking about the type of ministry where if you become a new parent, a person known to you shows up with a meal or a cake for you. Or a person who is a baker chooses to give a cake to some people in some circumstances as a gift, but not to everyone in that circumstance. I’m specifically talking person to person, no money changing hands anywhere, and on a totally personal scale in the contest of runswimyoga’s question earlier about whether it should be legal for a roommate to decide against rooming with a gay person. I’m looking to see where posters would draw that line when commerce isn’t involved.