Let me give the Ducky answer, which I must admit is pretty solid:
Any bakery offers a range of designs, and no Muslim bakery would have such a cartoon cake on offer.
One of the Christian bakers here in Colorado just tried something like this. In a reverse move, he ordered an anti-gay cake from a baker in Denver. He wanted Bible verses and a picture of two men getting married with an X through the picture. The bakery refused and he tried to bring a suit but it was slapped down.
His mistake, imo, was asking for the controversial picture. Had he just asked for the Bible verse, he would have been on more solid ground.
1. If a business offers a service then that service must not be denied on the basis stated in antidiscrimination laws. Sexual preference is one of those qualities. A business should not be forced to offer a service.
2. The basis for the denial of service does not include other matters outside the antidiscrimination laws. A kosher delicatessen would not be compelled to cater Stormfront's convention as a random example.
Not perfect but we should be able to alllive with it without too much difficulty.
I would also point out that an "anti gay" cake can be construed as an entirely different legal category than a standard wedding cake which happens to have sme sex figurines (or is just being delivered for a gay wedding).
Duck, If a business offers a service then that service must not be denied on the basis stated in antidiscrimination laws. Sexual preference is one of those qualities.
Are you sure that what you're saying is actually codified?
Federal laws prohibit discriminating against sexual orientation with regard to job discrimination. That much is very clear.
Can you provide links showing that a business cannot refuse services based on sexual orientation? Perhaps that matter varies state by state?
Also, I have to wonder if certain businesses are not being targeted by gay activists because those business display certain symbols. I'm referring to the fish symbol for Christian, Bible verses, and the like. Some businesses are obviously owned and operated by Christians, some of which claim a religious basis for their stance on to whom these businesses will provide services. Other businesses, of course, do not make any such distinction.
AOW, just study Mike Pence's huge srew up. He didn't expect any resistance to the religious freedom bill and instead the reaction was so intense that he probably screwd his national political aspirations and had the Indiana legislature write sexual preference into their antidiscrimination law. This has gone on in several states.
I don't doubt Christian businesses are targeted and I think the reason is that Christians have gone out of their way to prevent gay marriage and the pushback is intense and total. Other businesses have not been as active in the denial of civil contracts to gays. Witnss Walmart's telling Arkansas to cut the crap during that religious rights bill attempt.
I also agree with Ducky that Pence screwed his national chances, and I once considered him one of the solid and politically savvy conservative politicians.
By his bold action followed by the quick cave-in, he has painted himself as a cowardly, waffling bigot.
I'm with ducky, I think that we need to make Jewish bakeries decorate holocaust cakes! They could put little ovens on top! And NY'ers should be forced to bake WTC tower cakes with klittle airliners crashing into them! How FUN!
Speedy: Excellent comment, but unfortunately, progressives are impervious to the ridiculous consequences their unhinged ideology leads to.
Anyway, New York got it even worse, having to watch the construction of the CAIR Victory Mosque near ground zero, and worst of all, other than a few pockets of protest, New Yorkers welcomed it like the good little dhimmis they are.
Under the current civil rights laws, it likely would be ruled as a violation. But why should another citizen have more of a right to my labor than I do?
"Is such a refusal of service a civil-rights violation? "
Under current law that may be. I bet, however, the prosecution is selective to the point that the "Islamic Bakery of Phoenix" would have little to worry about. Anyway color me old fashioned. As far as I'm concerned any sole proprietorship, in total compliance with all tax obligations, required licenses, etc. and that does not accept any government funding should have the right to refuse the purveyance of goods and services as it sees fit.
CI is correct. This was addressed brilliantly by John Eastman (con law professor and former Dean of Chapman U Law School) in an in-depth interview with Dennis Prager where he addressed a lot of nuances on these laws. April 6, Strict Scrutiny. Eastman clerked for Michael Luttig and Clarence Thomas. He's clear and thorough, and this interview is worth hearing. Only 'subscribers' can download it. It's 16 MB, but I can send it to anyone who's interested. If you are, we'll figure out 'how.'
If it violates email size limits, get a dropbox account for free. Place it in the dropbox\public folder, right click and "copy public link". Then post the link.
Uh-oh Ed. Dropbox is tooooo painful. I've not yet figured it out in 3 offices, and I had no better luck tonight. I will send you a big file transfer file, as I just did with AOW.
I just read of a case, I think in florida, where someone tried to order an anti-gay marriage cake from a gay baker. Screwed up. Recorded the phone call placing the order. Not legal. Now is getting sued for hate crime, or such. ok, found it. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/13/christian-who-asked-gay-rights-bakery-to-bake-anti-gay-marriage-cake-may-face-legal-action/
JMJ, As as has been previously stated by more than one administrator of this blog, you must first apologize for some of your previous comments -- drive-by spam, gratuitous insults, and the like -- in order to post comments to this blog site. That ultimatum still stands even if you post comments which are as reasoned as you can make them.
Hoot, All of those things you mentioned -- as well as the matter of my busy schedule as both caregiver and breadwinner of this household. I don't bother wasting my time in pointless exchanges.
The question, beyond laws in states, blahblahblah, is this:
Who'd want someone who doesn't celebrate one's choice to be involved in their wedding?
The people asking aren't bad; the people who live by religious conscience aren't bad; so who screwed up? The person who took the order or the person who didn't like the answer...? Or the person who knew a negative was coming so he asked in order to create a big splash?
This is America, land of the free........I'd hate like hell to be denied an Armenian Genocide cake by a goodTurkish baker, but i'm thinking i'd PROBABLY not GO to that Turkish baker because I'd be pretty assured as to what the answer would be. Just a thought.
It seems to me that this graphic aptly illustrates two parties both claiming a First Amendment right. How does one arrive to a decision as to which party wins in a situation which is, in essence, a Gordian Knot?
My position remains the same: The business decides not WHO they will serve, but what they will serve. If a baker or photographer does not offer services to gay weddings, a truly liberal government and society would leave it at that.
Under that same umbrella, the Muslim bakery is within their rights to not make a blasphemous creation.
The Denver baker who refused to put the bible passages on a cake was within her rights, but only because the law picks winners and losers rather than protect the rights of all.
That is what we've come to in America. This is the inverse of a theocracy, and it is just as egregious in a supposedly constitutional republic that believes itself to be holding up the values of a liberal democracy.
Leftwing progressives have perverted the concept of rights in this nation. There is no right to be offended, and there is no right to demand things from others.
I do find some of the left's argument effective, however.
To a Catholic, what is the difference between a gay wedding and a wedding involving someone who was previously married? Remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well about how many husbands she had?
Speaking of Catholics, I like this approach: http://m.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/christians-gays-well-accept-your-business-and-donate-your-money-traditional
As I said before, why does your right trample mine? And why is yours considered a right? Was it Silver who said, " What right do you have to my labor?".
Because we have decided as a society that discrimination is not going to be permitted.
Why should your bigotry be allowed to prevail? Let's frame it that way for my sophist Libertarian brethren.
I also don't understand what the hell is being taken away from you. You have no right to discriminate. That's been decided. Or do you have some silly "natural rights" (or worse, God given) argument to fall back on?
Duck, Deciding a a matter as a society is a problematic standard and also a problematic argument. Think about it for a moment. Do you understand what I mean?
It seems to me that when litigation trumps forgiveness, our nation is a hollow reflection of real, and enduring Christian values.
I have been following the story of Baronnelle Stutzman, the florist who declined to provide flowers for a long-standing gay client for his wedding. She could not violate her conscience. The gay man could have merely extended forgiveness to the 70 year old woman who chose not to provide flowers for his "wedding". There was a lack of malice in her decision and she is protected by First Amendment text which declares the free exercise of religion.
The person seeking the cake from the Muslim bakery could choose to forgive them and secure their cake elsewhere. But why is it that we can recognize baiting in the card graphic with a Muslim antagonist but we cannot recognize baiting and targeting of a Christian? Are both equally free under the law? Or does the law favor one over the other?
Unfortunately, it seems that a denial-of-service script is the latest prong in the gay activism community which is being used to advance agenda. Too many of these "incidents" are making the news for me to imagine that this is random. It has the scent of orchestration.
I cannot prove it. But I believe Christian businesses are being targeted. And it becomes the classic case of the bully claiming they have been bullied. I mean really! How many of us would sue a grandmother for all of her assets because she chose not to arrange flowers for us? I would like to send a little arrangement to the gay couple. Poison ivy, of course. wink
Tammy, How difficult it is to find a list of organizations which don't support same-sex marriage. Easy. See Wikipedia'sList of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. Learn that a business owner is a member of or associates with one of those groups and -- Voila! -- an activist has the targets.
For those who would like to support Barronelle Stutzman, the Alliance Defending Freedom has taken on her case. You can donate to her defense here: https://alliancedefendingfreedom.org/arlene-flowers?referral=I0215ARLF1
1. Over and over again, it is being framed that a gay couple has a right to force a particular bakery to make an overtly-gay wedding cake.
But it this really a matter of a right?
Is marriage, gay or straight, a First Amendment right?
No, because marriage requires a license. The exercise of a right doesn't require a license, IMO.
The very principle behind civil rights is equality before the law. Law and society do not equate per se.
2. Does the legality of any given thing make that thing a right? Driving, for example, is legal within specific parameters, but none of us have the right to drive.
3. What does the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 state? Of course, it is not only the text of the Civil Rights Act that impacts businesses; there is also the matter of subsequent court rulings.
Also see this squib about influence: ...The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964"—was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]"...
Marriage is the an extension of the right to associate. We bar some people from associating for the public good. The recognition of a marriage by society is it's imprimatur or sanction. If gays want to marry, that's their right. My governments imprimatur is not a right.
The civil rights act is wrong. We should only bar discrimination of government services, but not private ones. That's how we got to this mess. I understand the benefit of ADA to many. That doesn't make it right, just like income redistribution is beneficial to some, but not just. If the people decide to impose that expense on their government, so be it, but on fellow citizens?
Ed, We should only bar discrimination of government services, but not private ones.
And that matter was one of concern back in the days following the Civil Rights Act. Now our society is moving in the direction of government mandates hovering over everything and everyone.
No, because marriage requires a license. The exercise of a right doesn't require a license, IMO.
Certainly not the position of the gun control cabal. Marriage is not an enumerated right, but falls legally within contract law. For the government to prohibit the ability for consenting adults in entering into this form of contract, it must show a benefit to society that outweighs the burden upon the citizen, at what I think should be strict scrutiny.
Thus far, arguments to that end have failed miserably.
We should only bar discrimination of government services, but not private ones.
There are several things going on here. 1. No matter what they call it, a union between two people of the same sex isn't marriage. One of the tactics of the insane left is to change the definition of something. 2. I find the freedom of practicing your religion in the 1st amendment of the bill of rights. I find no mention that that right may be negated by a couple of sexual deviants by forcing someone to participate in a ritual that a large number of fundamentalists would consider blasphemous.
This is not a denial of service this is a act of religious conscience. This is the forced participation of a religious person under the color of law with an unwritten penalty for disobeying; the forfeiture of livelihood and property.
Z, leftists always require the force of law. They don't believe in Liberty.
Though these leftist homosexual radicals try to present themselves as victims, I see them as anti-Christian bigots and bully's.
No matter what they call it, a union between two people of the same sex isn't marriage.
While the term may mean something personal for you, for the citizenry writ large, marriage is a legal contract. Just as with a right to your own labor and the ability to choose whom you conduct a transaction with; Who are you to think you have the right to prohibit someone from entering into a contract?
"Who are you to think you have the right to prohibit someone from entering into a contract?"
I don't have a "right" to prohibit anyone from entering a contract and the "citizenry writ large" has no right to repeal the law of gravity or order me to recognize a civil union as a marriage let alone participate in the ceremony. Besides, the "citizenry writ large" did no such thing, the definition of marriage laws were struck down by the courts, or do you consider the courts to be "citizenry writ large". Anyway, my religious freedom trumps their court ordered bullshit and who exactly prohibited anyone from entering into a contract?
Unless you are playing devils advocate, you have a poor understanding of personal liberty for a self-proclaimed libertarian.
You speak of liberty while supporting a prohibition between two people to enter into the marriage contract? Nobody is ordering you to recognize anything.
Your religious freedom does not allow you to force others to live by your creed. That would be tyranny.
Do you, or do you not advocate for a prohibition on gay citizens to marry? And if you do, why would you deign to force a fellow citizen to live by your personal opinion? Tyranny.
.....or be punished or driven from the public square.
I support the right of any private business to refuse goods or service on any basis they choose. Just remember though, that applies to the faith based as well.
I don't care what anyone 'thinks' of gay marriage. I do care that they often sully the name of liberty in the denial of the same rights and privileges to American citizens, that they enjoy.
Its my contention that, simply because you have decided to accept the redefinition of the term marriage, two men or two women cannot be married, . For thousands of years marriage was defined and understood to be a union between a man and a woman.
CI said: "Do you, or do you not advocate for a prohibition on gay citizens to marry?"
I don't like your tone or your self-righteous attitude. You need to back off. I support a ban on calling it marriage.
I've got an idea, Lets redefine Barnum and Baily's clown troop as the 1st Infantry Division. I mean they chase each other around and wear paint on their faces and hit each other with paddles that go "BOOM" and we can call people that disagree with my re-defiinition bigots.
"I don't care what anyone 'thinks' of gay marriage."
The way you are trying to interrogate me puts the lie to your words.
" I do care that they often sully the name of liberty in the denial of the same rights and privileges to American citizens, that they enjoy."
I see, so in the name of liberty you wish for me to forgo my freedom of religion, conscience and association, so I don't hurt the feelings of homosexuals.
My you're defensive. Interrogation? If you truly think so, perhaps the internet is not for you. Echo chambers may be, though...
So it is I who has a 'self righteous' attitude? Heh...you DO read your own script don't you?
I see, so in the name of liberty you wish for me to forgo my freedom of religion, conscience and association, so I don't hurt the feelings of homosexuals.
I'm not certain that English is your first language, if this is the response. In the name of liberty, allowing all citizens to enjoy the same rights and privileges that you enjoy, has no bearing on your freedom of religion, conscience or association.....much less whatever you think of the feelings of homosexuals.
Should gay Americans give up pursuing the same equity that you enjoy, so they don't hurt your feelings? Should they "back off"?
I have the advantage of knowing Warren personally (face-to-face, not merely on the web) and assure you that he is not defensive. And English is his first language.
AOW - Noted. The need to repeatedly tell me to "back off" conveys defensiveness to me. I will stand by my assessment that he has odd theories of liberty v. tyranny.
CI, The warning to "back off" may have been typed in In Warren's capacity as one of the blog administrators here. Warren designed my avatar and this blog template, so he and I go back a number of years.
It is interesting to me that you and Warren are having a heated discussion. The two of you do have common ground on several issues -- particularly Second Amendment rights.
I will stand by my assessment that he has odd theories of liberty v. tyranny.
I imagine that he would say the same about your theories. And the differences in those theories do make for an interesting discussion.
Excuse me CI, I just didn't realize you were just another anti-religious bigot.
While you were busy obsessing about supposed and imaginary breaches of the liberties of homosexuals, by me, I was talking about the very real violation of the Constitutionally numerated rights of Christians. Now I understand why you don't give a damn.
As far as English being my first language, if it were my fourth or fifth, I would still be more proficient than you given your poor comprehension skills.
Internet not for me? really? I was on the "Internet" before it was known as the Internet and I seem to have weathered the attacks of those more literate than you.
"And, if you can wipe the foam and spittle from your mouth,.. Mind if I do it on your diaper?
There's that comprehension thing again. I didn't say my rights were violated, I was specifically referring to the gay activists attacks of business owners religious freedom. You know, the first amendment to the Constitution. You've heard of it haven't you or does your screen name actually mean anti-constitutional insurgent?
And although you don't care about "special legal privileges based on religion." you quite evidently believe in special legal privilege for homosexual activists.
Like I said, I get it now your just an anti-religious bigot. There isn't much point in carrying this conversation any farther.
And although you don't care about "special legal privileges based on religion." you quite evidently believe in special legal privilege for homosexual activists.
Oh, I care about them…enough to oppose them and the anti-liberty bigots who support them.
As I stated earlier, I completely agree with you that another citizen does not have a right to my [or your] labor, and that a private business should be able to refuse service to whomever they desire….based on attire, demeanor, race, sexual orientation, religious faith, etc….
Special legal privileges based on religious faith, not available to every citizen? Yes, that's what I oppose. The right of any private business to the dispensation of their labor to whomever they choose? That is what I advocate.
Now, if an argument being proffered [by Warren or others] is that only private businesses who's owner subscribes to a State sanction religious faith should be able to reuse service....that would be a special privilege.
"Now, if an argument being proffered [by Warren or others] is that only private businesses who's owner subscribes to a State sanction religious faith should be able to reuse service....that would be a special privilege."
The only place I made that argument was in your imagination.
For several reasons you are wrong, anyway; religion is specifically enumerated in the first amendment. as I hope you know by now. where the right of any private business to the dispensation of their labor to whomever they choose, is not, even if it should be it isn't an enumerated right.Therefore.forcing the service of a religious person when it is against their religious beliefs is a violation of a clearly enumerated right whereas the right of a homosexual to demand service anywhere they damned well please is obviously not.
Another reason would be the government is forbidden to sanction a specific religion. ie "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .Therefore your statement falls into the realm of fallacy
Hillsdale College offers a free online course called constitution 101. That isn't a rip, you would be well served to use it.
Warren, Yes, the matter of an enumerated right is significant in this discussion.
Today, the focus is often on the clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But, clearly, there is the other clause, too:
Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion].
I'm going to disregard Warren’s desire to be special little snowflake, as he pursues treatment and status unavailable to the citizenry writ large.
No, rights are not the same as privileges; that should be remembered when some proffer that gay Americans don't have a "right" to marry. Straight Americans don't either.
Further, while every private entrepreneur should have the right to dispense of one's labor [yet sadly doesn't], participating in the market as a private enterprise, not a religiously affiliated business [hospitals, charities, etc].....your freedom of religion is not compromised. Attempting to equate barter or tender for goods and/or services....with the freely exercised worship of ones faith....cheapens said faith in my estimation. If I were an Atheist who owned a private business, why should I not receive equal treatment under the law?
And ironically, this argument is only legal applicable to those faiths that are sanctioned by the State.
CI, I assure you that Warren has no desire to be desire to be special little snowflake.
You are correct that there is no right to marry -- in the sense of an enumerated right in the Constitution, anyway.
I guess the problem goes back to the definition of the word marriage. It has both religious and civil connotations; as far as I know, the church can perform a marriage ceremony, but it isn't a legal union without the registration of the marriage at the government department which registers such ceremonies.
The definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman wasn't disputed until recently, however, was it? Disputed to any extent, I mean.
More to the point, however, is the matter of free exercise as that term applies to enumerated rights. Matters of faith require living that faith, and I cannot imagine that the authors of our Constitution didn't understand that aspect of faith.
--------------------
I have a question, and I don't mean it to be snarky in any way: What about polygamous marriages? Should they be recognized as legal? My point in asking this question: How shall we now define marriage if not in the traditional sense of a union between one man and one woman?
CI, If I were an Atheist who owned a private business, why should I not receive equal treatment under the law?
Offhand, I say that if as an atheist florist you refused to be a part of a religious ceremony to which you have strong objections, you would be within your personal rights. Question: Do atheist businesses get targeted the way that some Christian businesses are apparently be targeted the past few years?
Do atheist businesses get targeted the way that some Christian businesses are apparently be targeted the past few years?
Targeted is a loaded and biased term; I've not ever heard of an Atheist business denying someone the right to their labor [which they should be able to]. I agree with you that they shouldn't be forced to, but have Atheists filed suit in order to be lawfully able to refuse goods or services? One would think, that somebody would have brought suit based on religious discrimination, had that occurred.
Without much evidence to go on it's difficult to say.
I get that; but aren't all people sinners? Doesn't Romans 3:23 say "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard"? In living the faith, business owners provide goods and services to sinners, arguably, every time they conduct a transaction. Is "living the faith" an act of prioritizing sin?
How shall we now define marriage if not in the traditional sense of a union between one man and one woman?
Polygamy is a good question. I'm no more a personal fan of this form of marriage than I am same sex......but marriage is a legal contract. It has a deeper religious meaning to many, but it is contract law. There is no small amount of history for legal contracting among multiple, consenting adults. There is also legal mechanisms available to skirt the current prohibition [aside from Biblical precedent], so it really boils down to not a question of lawfulness, but of a perception of morality. Certainly some mormons would question why such restriction is codified in law.
It's an interesting tangent, thank you for raising it, but I'm still in Europe, and it's getting late here.
CI, I'm introducing some of those topics because I'm trying to take the long view. What are -- or could be -- the unintended consequences of various issues, law suits, and court rulings?
We'll have to postpone continuing this discussion. Bad weather moving in here, so I'll be shutting down the computers for the night.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Should we just throw out the whole works?
Notice, these people didn't say they wouldn't provide service to homosexuals they said they wouldn't provide a "wedding" cake. If they provide a wedding cake they become part of the wedding and they cannot countenance a same sex wedding. By scripture, it isn't a wedding at all.
Would you force an Orthodox Jew to work on the Sabbath even though it is against rabbinical law? There are a lot of examples I could use but I just don't have that kind of time.
Whenever our society became pampered and entitled. Hard to put a date on that....but it's also difficult to sympathize with a demographic that has historically treated another demographic poorly...when they now feel that they are being treated likewise.
Two wrongs never equal justice....but context in how we move forward is always useful.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
Let me give the Ducky answer, which I must admit is pretty solid:
ReplyDeleteAny bakery offers a range of designs, and no Muslim bakery would have such a cartoon cake on offer.
One of the Christian bakers here in Colorado just tried something like this. In a reverse move, he ordered an anti-gay cake from a baker in Denver. He wanted Bible verses and a picture of two men getting married with an X through the picture. The bakery refused and he tried to bring a suit but it was slapped down.
His mistake, imo, was asking for the controversial picture. Had he just asked for the Bible verse, he would have been on more solid ground.
SF,
DeleteAny bakery offers a range of designs, and no Muslim bakery would have such a cartoon cake on offer.
Don't most bakeries do offer "custom-designed cakes"? For example, something that reads like this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGracious of you Silverfiddle, thanks.
DeleteI can sum up my position fairly succinctly.
1. If a business offers a service then that service must not be denied on the basis stated in antidiscrimination laws. Sexual preference is one of those qualities. A business should not be forced to offer a service.
2. The basis for the denial of service does not include other matters outside the antidiscrimination laws. A kosher delicatessen would not be compelled to cater Stormfront's convention as a random example.
Not perfect but we should be able to alllive with it without too much difficulty.
I would also point out that an "anti gay" cake can be construed as an entirely different legal category than a standard wedding cake which happens to have sme sex figurines (or is just being delivered for a gay wedding).
DeleteDuck,
DeleteIf a business offers a service then that service must not be denied on the basis stated in antidiscrimination laws. Sexual preference is one of those qualities.
Are you sure that what you're saying is actually codified?
Federal laws prohibit discriminating against sexual orientation with regard to job discrimination. That much is very clear.
Can you provide links showing that a business cannot refuse services based on sexual orientation? Perhaps that matter varies state by state?
Also, I have to wonder if certain businesses are not being targeted by gay activists because those business display certain symbols. I'm referring to the fish symbol for Christian, Bible verses, and the like. Some businesses are obviously owned and operated by Christians, some of which claim a religious basis for their stance on to whom these businesses will provide services. Other businesses, of course, do not make any such distinction.
AOW, just study Mike Pence's huge srew up. He didn't expect any resistance to the religious freedom bill and instead the reaction was so intense that he probably screwd his national political aspirations and had the Indiana legislature write sexual preference into their antidiscrimination law.
DeleteThis has gone on in several states.
I don't doubt Christian businesses are targeted and I think the reason is that Christians have gone out of their way to prevent gay marriage and the pushback is intense and total. Other businesses have not been as active in the denial of civil contracts to gays.
Witnss Walmart's telling Arkansas to cut the crap during that religious rights bill attempt.
I also agree with Ducky that Pence screwed his national chances, and I once considered him one of the solid and politically savvy conservative politicians.
DeleteBy his bold action followed by the quick cave-in, he has painted himself as a cowardly, waffling bigot.
Duck,
DeletePlease explain what you mean by an entirely different legal category.
As for Mike Pence, this blog post is neither supportive nor critical of him.
I'm with ducky, I think that we need to make Jewish bakeries decorate holocaust cakes! They could put little ovens on top! And NY'ers should be forced to bake WTC tower cakes with klittle airliners crashing into them! How FUN!
DeleteSpeedy: Excellent comment, but unfortunately, progressives are impervious to the ridiculous consequences their unhinged ideology leads to.
DeleteAnyway, New York got it even worse, having to watch the construction of the CAIR Victory Mosque near ground zero, and worst of all, other than a few pockets of protest, New Yorkers welcomed it like the good little dhimmis they are.
As I am sure Ducky would agree, the customer is ALWAYS right! :)
DeleteUnder the current civil rights laws, it likely would be ruled as a violation. But why should another citizen have more of a right to my labor than I do?
ReplyDeleteCI,
Deletewhy should another citizen have more of a right to my labor than I do?
That's an excellent question, but I don't see others here responding to it. I'm not sure why.
Erratum:
DeleteBaysider did address your comment a bit. Scroll down.
"Is such a refusal of service a civil-rights violation? "
ReplyDeleteUnder current law that may be. I bet, however, the prosecution is selective to the point that the "Islamic Bakery of Phoenix" would have little to worry about. Anyway color me old fashioned. As far as I'm concerned any sole proprietorship, in total compliance with all tax obligations, required licenses, etc. and that does not accept any government funding should have the right to refuse the purveyance of goods and services as it sees fit.
CI is correct. This was addressed brilliantly by John Eastman (con law professor and former Dean of Chapman U Law School) in an in-depth interview with Dennis Prager where he addressed a lot of nuances on these laws. April 6, Strict Scrutiny. Eastman clerked for Michael Luttig and Clarence Thomas. He's clear and thorough, and this interview is worth hearing. Only 'subscribers' can download it. It's 16 MB, but I can send it to anyone who's interested. If you are, we'll figure out 'how.'
ReplyDeleteBaysider,
DeleteCan you email me that file? My email addy toward the top of the sidebar.
If it violates email size limits, get a dropbox account for free.
DeletePlace it in the dropbox\public folder, right click and "copy public link".
Then post the link.
I'm going to try that, Ed. Failing that I have AOW's email and use a big file sending service.
DeleteUh-oh Ed. Dropbox is tooooo painful. I've not yet figured it out in 3 offices, and I had no better luck tonight. I will send you a big file transfer file, as I just did with AOW.
DeleteGoogle Docs and storage (free) is also an option. You can make a folder and make the properties public, and then send someone a link to it.
DeleteGo ahead. Order a "Je Suis Charlie" cake. But be aware, they don't print "inapproriate" images... whatever THAT means.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should ask Hamas.
DeleteThersites,
DeleteThanks for those links.
I doubt that a pro-Hamas cake would cause nearly the kind of furor that we're seeing now as bakeries and other businesses are targeted by activists.
I just read of a case, I think in florida, where someone tried to order an anti-gay marriage cake from a gay baker.
ReplyDeleteScrewed up.
Recorded the phone call placing the order. Not legal.
Now is getting sued for hate crime, or such.
ok, found it.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/13/christian-who-asked-gay-rights-bakery-to-bake-anti-gay-marriage-cake-may-face-legal-action/
Ed,
DeleteWhat???
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJMJ,
DeleteAs as has been previously stated by more than one administrator of this blog, you must first apologize for some of your previous comments -- drive-by spam, gratuitous insults, and the like -- in order to post comments to this blog site. That ultimatum still stands even if you post comments which are as reasoned as you can make them.
HAH HAH!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteHoot,
DeleteAll of those things you mentioned -- as well as the matter of my busy schedule as both caregiver and breadwinner of this household. I don't bother wasting my time in pointless exchanges.
The question, beyond laws in states, blahblahblah, is this:
ReplyDeleteWho'd want someone who doesn't celebrate one's choice to be involved in their wedding?
The people asking aren't bad; the people who live by religious conscience aren't bad; so who screwed up? The person who took the order or the person who didn't like the answer...? Or the person who knew a negative was coming so he asked in order to create a big splash?
This is America, land of the free........I'd hate like hell to be denied an Armenian Genocide cake by a goodTurkish baker, but i'm thinking i'd PROBABLY not GO to that Turkish baker because I'd be pretty assured as to what the answer would be. Just a thought.
If someone asked you to deliver something celebrating the genocide you would be well within your rights to deny them as most anyone would.
DeleteIf someone asks you to deliver a service and you deny them because they are Turkish it's discrimination.
No need to make this overly difficult.
If someone asked me to photograph a gathering celebrating the Holodorma I'd refuse and be well within my rights to o so.
Why? Because it offends your sensibilities?
DeleteIsn't that our point?
For discussion:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this graphic aptly illustrates two parties both claiming a First Amendment right. How does one arrive to a decision as to which party wins in a situation which is, in essence, a Gordian Knot?
My position remains the same: The business decides not WHO they will serve, but what they will serve. If a baker or photographer does not offer services to gay weddings, a truly liberal government and society would leave it at that.
DeleteUnder that same umbrella, the Muslim bakery is within their rights to not make a blasphemous creation.
The Denver baker who refused to put the bible passages on a cake was within her rights, but only because the law picks winners and losers rather than protect the rights of all.
That is what we've come to in America. This is the inverse of a theocracy, and it is just as egregious in a supposedly constitutional republic that believes itself to be holding up the values of a liberal democracy.
Leftwing progressives have perverted the concept of rights in this nation. There is no right to be offended, and there is no right to demand things from others.
I do find some of the left's argument effective, however.
To a Catholic, what is the difference between a gay wedding and a wedding involving someone who was previously married? Remember what Jesus said to the woman at the well about how many husbands she had?
Speaking of Catholics, I like this approach:
Deletehttp://m.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/christians-gays-well-accept-your-business-and-donate-your-money-traditional
Ed: Absolutely brilliant!
DeleteEd,
DeleteThat is a useful tactic! Thanks for bringing that information to our attention.
As I said before, why does your right trample mine?
ReplyDeleteAnd why is yours considered a right?
Was it Silver who said, " What right do you have to my labor?".
Actually, that was CI, but I am of the same mind.
DeleteAll three of us at least.
DeleteAny society must have a method to adjudicate conflicts of interest.
DeleteYour right to your labor does not include a right to discriminate.
Deal with it.
Why Ducky? Why does your 'right' to not be discriminated against, trump my right to despise with my labor in a manner that I see fit?
DeleteWhy should you have a 'right' to take from me, that which is mine?
Because we have decided as a society that discrimination is not going to be permitted.
DeleteWhy should your bigotry be allowed to prevail?
Let's frame it that way for my sophist Libertarian brethren.
I also don't understand what the hell is being taken away from you.
You have no right to discriminate. That's been decided.
Or do you have some silly "natural rights" (or worse, God given) argument to fall back on?
Duck,
DeleteDeciding a a matter as a society is a problematic standard and also a problematic argument. Think about it for a moment. Do you understand what I mean?
Exactly. When society determines genocide is ok, is it?
DeleteEd,
DeleteThat's the point I making.
Come on guys, isn't it obvious?
ReplyDelete"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
Finntann,
DeleteYes, that's it!
It seems to me that when litigation trumps forgiveness, our nation is a hollow reflection of real, and enduring Christian values.
ReplyDeleteI have been following the story of Baronnelle Stutzman, the florist who declined to provide flowers for a long-standing gay client for his wedding. She could not violate her conscience.
The gay man could have merely extended forgiveness to the 70 year old woman who chose not to provide flowers for his "wedding". There was a lack of malice in her decision and she is protected by First Amendment text which declares the free exercise of religion.
The person seeking the cake from the Muslim bakery could choose to forgive them and secure their cake elsewhere. But why is it that we can recognize baiting in the card graphic with a Muslim antagonist but we cannot recognize baiting and targeting of a Christian? Are both equally free under the law? Or does the law favor one over the other?
Unfortunately, it seems that a denial-of-service script is the latest prong in the gay activism community which is being used to advance agenda. Too many of these "incidents" are making the news for me to imagine that this is random. It has the scent of orchestration.
I cannot prove it. But I believe Christian businesses are being targeted. And it becomes the classic case of the bully claiming they have been bullied. I mean really! How many of us would sue a grandmother for all of her assets because she chose not to arrange flowers for us? I would like to send a little arrangement to the gay couple. Poison ivy, of course. wink
Tammy
Well said.
DeleteTammy,
DeleteLitigation and the fear of litigation are strong weapons.
I believe Christian businesses are being targeted.
I think so, too. I wonder if we on the web can ferret out the information.
Tammy,
DeleteHow difficult it is to find a list of organizations which don't support same-sex marriage. Easy. See Wikipedia's List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States. Learn that a business owner is a member of or associates with one of those groups and -- Voila! -- an activist has the targets.
For those who would like to support Barronelle Stutzman, the Alliance Defending Freedom has taken on her case. You can donate to her defense here: https://alliancedefendingfreedom.org/arlene-flowers?referral=I0215ARLF1
DeleteA few questions I have...
ReplyDelete1. Over and over again, it is being framed that a gay couple has a right to force a particular bakery to make an overtly-gay wedding cake.
But it this really a matter of a right?
Is marriage, gay or straight, a First Amendment right?
No, because marriage requires a license. The exercise of a right doesn't require a license, IMO.
The very principle behind civil rights is equality before the law. Law and society do not equate per se.
2. Does the legality of any given thing make that thing a right? Driving, for example, is legal within specific parameters, but none of us have the right to drive.
3. What does the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 state? Of course, it is not only the text of the Civil Rights Act that impacts businesses; there is also the matter of subsequent court rulings.
Also see this squib about influence: ...The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964"—was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]"...
Marriage is the an extension of the right to associate.
DeleteWe bar some people from associating for the public good.
The recognition of a marriage by society is it's imprimatur or sanction.
If gays want to marry, that's their right.
My governments imprimatur is not a right.
The civil rights act is wrong.
We should only bar discrimination of government services, but not private ones.
That's how we got to this mess.
I understand the benefit of ADA to many.
That doesn't make it right, just like income redistribution is beneficial to some, but not just.
If the people decide to impose that expense on their government, so be it, but on fellow citizens?
Ed,
DeleteWe should only bar discrimination of government services, but not private ones.
And that matter was one of concern back in the days following the Civil Rights Act. Now our society is moving in the direction of government mandates hovering over everything and everyone.
No, because marriage requires a license. The exercise of a right doesn't require a license, IMO.
DeleteCertainly not the position of the gun control cabal. Marriage is not an enumerated right, but falls legally within contract law. For the government to prohibit the ability for consenting adults in entering into this form of contract, it must show a benefit to society that outweighs the burden upon the citizen, at what I think should be strict scrutiny.
Thus far, arguments to that end have failed miserably.
We should only bar discrimination of government services, but not private ones.
Exactly.
Who'd want someone who doesn't celebrate one's choice to be involved in their wedding?
ReplyDeleteIt boils down to that, in my opinion. When did we become people who whine if we're turned down? When did we need a law to force people to do anything?
I know I'm late to the show but....
ReplyDeleteThere are several things going on here.
1. No matter what they call it, a union between two people of the same sex isn't marriage. One of the tactics of the insane left is to change the definition of something.
2. I find the freedom of practicing your religion in the 1st amendment of the bill of rights. I find no mention that that right may be negated by a couple of sexual deviants by forcing someone to participate in a ritual that a large number of fundamentalists would consider blasphemous.
This is not a denial of service this is a act of religious conscience. This is the forced participation of a religious person under the color of law with an unwritten penalty for disobeying; the forfeiture of livelihood and property.
Z, leftists always require the force of law. They don't believe in Liberty.
Though these leftist homosexual radicals try to present themselves as victims, I see them as anti-Christian bigots and bully's.
No matter what they call it, a union between two people of the same sex isn't marriage.
DeleteWhile the term may mean something personal for you, for the citizenry writ large, marriage is a legal contract. Just as with a right to your own labor and the ability to choose whom you conduct a transaction with; Who are you to think you have the right to prohibit someone from entering into a contract?
"Who are you to think you have the right to prohibit someone from entering into a contract?"
DeleteI don't have a "right" to prohibit anyone from entering a contract and the "citizenry writ large" has no right to repeal the law of gravity or order me to recognize a civil union as a marriage let alone participate in the ceremony. Besides, the "citizenry writ large" did no such thing, the definition of marriage laws were struck down by the courts, or do you consider the courts to be "citizenry writ large". Anyway, my religious freedom trumps their court ordered bullshit and who exactly prohibited anyone from entering into a contract?
Unless you are playing devils advocate, you have a poor understanding of personal liberty for a self-proclaimed libertarian.
You speak of liberty while supporting a prohibition between two people to enter into the marriage contract? Nobody is ordering you to recognize anything.
DeleteYour religious freedom does not allow you to force others to live by your creed. That would be tyranny.
"You speak of liberty while supporting a prohibition between two people to enter into the marriage contract?"
DeleteReally? Exactly where did I do that or force anyone to live by my creed?
Faith-based organizations and individuals are being forced to compromise their beliefs, or be punished or driven from the public square.
Who is the tyrant?
Are you trying to shame me into accepting "gay marriage"? I tolerate it, I have no choice, but I won't accept it.
Go try and browbeat someone else, I'm not buying what you're trying to sell.
Do you, or do you not advocate for a prohibition on gay citizens to marry? And if you do, why would you deign to force a fellow citizen to live by your personal opinion? Tyranny.
Delete.....or be punished or driven from the public square.
I support the right of any private business to refuse goods or service on any basis they choose. Just remember though, that applies to the faith based as well.
I don't care what anyone 'thinks' of gay marriage. I do care that they often sully the name of liberty in the denial of the same rights and privileges to American citizens, that they enjoy.
I don't accept your premise!
DeleteIts my contention that, simply because you have decided to accept the redefinition of the term marriage, two men or two women cannot be married, . For thousands of years marriage was defined and understood to be a union between a man and a woman.
CI said: "Do you, or do you not advocate for a prohibition on gay citizens to marry?"
I don't like your tone or your self-righteous attitude. You need to back off. I support a ban on calling it marriage.
I've got an idea, Lets redefine Barnum and Baily's clown troop as the 1st Infantry Division. I mean they chase each other around and wear paint on their faces and hit each other with paddles that go "BOOM" and we can call people that disagree with my re-defiinition bigots.
"I don't care what anyone 'thinks' of gay marriage."
The way you are trying to interrogate me puts the lie to your words.
" I do care that they often sully the name of liberty in the denial of the same rights and privileges to American citizens, that they enjoy."
I see, so in the name of liberty you wish for me to forgo my freedom of religion, conscience and association, so I don't hurt the feelings of homosexuals.
My you're defensive. Interrogation? If you truly think so, perhaps the internet is not for you. Echo chambers may be, though...
DeleteSo it is I who has a 'self righteous' attitude? Heh...you DO read your own script don't you?
I see, so in the name of liberty you wish for me to forgo my freedom of religion, conscience and association, so I don't hurt the feelings of homosexuals.
I'm not certain that English is your first language, if this is the response. In the name of liberty, allowing all citizens to enjoy the same rights and privileges that you enjoy, has no bearing on your freedom of religion, conscience or association.....much less whatever you think of the feelings of homosexuals.
Should gay Americans give up pursuing the same equity that you enjoy, so they don't hurt your feelings? Should they "back off"?
CI,
DeleteWarren defensive?
No, he isn't.
I have the advantage of knowing Warren personally (face-to-face, not merely on the web) and assure you that he is not defensive. And English is his first language.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAOW - Noted. The need to repeatedly tell me to "back off" conveys defensiveness to me. I will stand by my assessment that he has odd theories of liberty v. tyranny.
DeleteCI,
DeleteThe warning to "back off" may have been typed in In Warren's capacity as one of the blog administrators here. Warren designed my avatar and this blog template, so he and I go back a number of years.
It is interesting to me that you and Warren are having a heated discussion. The two of you do have common ground on several issues -- particularly Second Amendment rights.
I will stand by my assessment that he has odd theories of liberty v. tyranny.
I imagine that he would say the same about your theories. And the differences in those theories do make for an interesting discussion.
CI,
DeleteAddendum: Not defensiveness, IMO, but rather irritation.
And the differences in those theories do make for an interesting discussion.
DeleteI agree!
Excuse me CI, I just didn't realize you were just another anti-religious bigot.
DeleteWhile you were busy obsessing about supposed and imaginary breaches of the liberties of homosexuals, by me, I was talking about the very real violation of the Constitutionally numerated rights of Christians.
Now I understand why you don't give a damn.
As far as English being my first language, if it were my fourth or fifth, I would still be more proficient than you given your poor comprehension skills.
Internet not for me? really? I was on the "Internet" before it was known as the Internet and I seem to have weathered the attacks of those more literate than you.
Defensive? Go piss up a rope!
Thank you for showing your true colors. Petulant rage is always entertaining. It's good to know who the trolls are.
DeleteAnd, if you can wipe the foam and spittle from your mouth, what Constitutional, enumerated rights are you being denied based upon what you believe?
DeleteI give a damn about liberty for American citizens, not special legal privileges based on religion.
"And, if you can wipe the foam and spittle from your mouth,..
DeleteMind if I do it on your diaper?
There's that comprehension thing again.
I didn't say my rights were violated, I was specifically referring to the gay activists attacks of business owners religious freedom. You know, the first amendment to the Constitution. You've heard of it haven't you or does your screen name actually mean anti-constitutional insurgent?
And although you don't care about "special legal privileges based on religion." you quite evidently believe in special legal privilege for homosexual activists.
Like I said, I get it now your just an anti-religious bigot. There isn't much point in carrying this conversation any farther.
And although you don't care about "special legal privileges based on religion." you quite evidently believe in special legal privilege for homosexual activists.
DeleteOh, I care about them…enough to oppose them and the anti-liberty bigots who support them.
As I stated earlier, I completely agree with you that another citizen does not have a right to my [or your] labor, and that a private business should be able to refuse service to whomever they desire….based on attire, demeanor, race, sexual orientation, religious faith, etc….
CI,
Deletea private business should be able to refuse service to whomever they desire….based on...religious faith, etc….
Wait a minute. I thought that you have been arguing that a Christian business can indeed refuse service based on religious convictions?
That's exactly what I've been saying. Any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone. What made you think that I was saying otherwise?
DeleteCI,
DeleteHaven't you been railing against religious privilege or something along those lines?
How is it religious privilege if any reason is the right to refuse service to anyone?
This has been a long thread, so I can't readily find the exact comment I'm seeking.
Special legal privileges based on religious faith, not available to every citizen? Yes, that's what I oppose. The right of any private business to the dispensation of their labor to whomever they choose? That is what I advocate.
DeleteNow, if an argument being proffered [by Warren or others] is that only private businesses who's owner subscribes to a State sanction religious faith should be able to reuse service....that would be a special privilege.
"Now, if an argument being proffered [by Warren or others] is that only private businesses who's owner subscribes to a State sanction religious faith should be able to reuse service....that would be a special privilege."
DeleteThe only place I made that argument was in your imagination.
For several reasons you are wrong, anyway; religion is specifically enumerated in the first amendment. as I hope you know by now. where the right of any private business to the dispensation of their labor to whomever they choose, is not, even if it should be it isn't an enumerated right.Therefore.forcing the service of a religious person when it is against their religious beliefs is a violation of a clearly enumerated right whereas the right of a homosexual to demand service anywhere they damned well please is obviously not.
Another reason would be the government is forbidden to sanction a specific religion. ie "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .Therefore your statement falls into the realm of fallacy
Hillsdale College offers a free online course called constitution 101. That isn't a rip, you would be well served to use it.
Warren,
DeleteYes, the matter of an enumerated right is significant in this discussion.
Today, the focus is often on the clause Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But, clearly, there is the other clause, too:
Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion].
CI,
DeleteSpecial legal privileges based on religious faith, not available to every citizen? Yes, that's what I oppose.
Wait a minute.
Aren't we talking about rights? Rights are not the same thing as privileges.
How much authority should the government have over rights, especially enumerated rights?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm going to disregard Warren’s desire to be special little snowflake, as he pursues treatment and status unavailable to the citizenry writ large.
DeleteNo, rights are not the same as privileges; that should be remembered when some proffer that gay Americans don't have a "right" to marry. Straight Americans don't either.
Further, while every private entrepreneur should have the right to dispense of one's labor [yet sadly doesn't], participating in the market as a private enterprise, not a religiously affiliated business [hospitals, charities, etc].....your freedom of religion is not compromised. Attempting to equate barter or tender for goods and/or services....with the freely exercised worship of ones faith....cheapens said faith in my estimation. If I were an Atheist who owned a private business, why should I not receive equal treatment under the law?
And ironically, this argument is only legal applicable to those faiths that are sanctioned by the State.
CI,
DeleteI assure you that Warren has no desire to be desire to be special little snowflake.
You are correct that there is no right to marry -- in the sense of an enumerated right in the Constitution, anyway.
I guess the problem goes back to the definition of the word marriage. It has both religious and civil connotations; as far as I know, the church can perform a marriage ceremony, but it isn't a legal union without the registration of the marriage at the government department which registers such ceremonies.
The definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman wasn't disputed until recently, however, was it? Disputed to any extent, I mean.
More to the point, however, is the matter of free exercise as that term applies to enumerated rights. Matters of faith require living that faith, and I cannot imagine that the authors of our Constitution didn't understand that aspect of faith.
--------------------
I have a question, and I don't mean it to be snarky in any way: What about polygamous marriages? Should they be recognized as legal? My point in asking this question: How shall we now define marriage if not in the traditional sense of a union between one man and one woman?
CI,
DeleteIf I were an Atheist who owned a private business, why should I not receive equal treatment under the law?
Offhand, I say that if as an atheist florist you refused to be a part of a religious ceremony to which you have strong objections, you would be within your personal rights. Question: Do atheist businesses get targeted the way that some Christian businesses are apparently be targeted the past few years?
Do atheist businesses get targeted the way that some Christian businesses are apparently be targeted the past few years?
DeleteTargeted is a loaded and biased term; I've not ever heard of an Atheist business denying someone the right to their labor [which they should be able to]. I agree with you that they shouldn't be forced to, but have Atheists filed suit in order to be lawfully able to refuse goods or services? One would think, that somebody would have brought suit based on religious discrimination, had that occurred.
Without much evidence to go on it's difficult to say.
Matters of faith require living that faith.....
DeleteI get that; but aren't all people sinners? Doesn't Romans 3:23 say "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard"? In living the faith, business owners provide goods and services to sinners, arguably, every time they conduct a transaction. Is "living the faith" an act of prioritizing sin?
How shall we now define marriage if not in the traditional sense of a union between one man and one woman?
Polygamy is a good question. I'm no more a personal fan of this form of marriage than I am same sex......but marriage is a legal contract. It has a deeper religious meaning to many, but it is contract law. There is no small amount of history for legal contracting among multiple, consenting adults. There is also legal mechanisms available to skirt the current prohibition [aside from Biblical precedent], so it really boils down to not a question of lawfulness, but of a perception of morality. Certainly some mormons would question why such restriction is codified in law.
It's an interesting tangent, thank you for raising it, but I'm still in Europe, and it's getting late here.
CI,
DeleteI'm introducing some of those topics because I'm trying to take the long view. What are -- or could be -- the unintended consequences of various issues, law suits, and court rulings?
We'll have to postpone continuing this discussion. Bad weather moving in here, so I'll be shutting down the computers for the night.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo Kid, its not that simple.
ReplyDeleteFirst amendment of the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Should we just throw out the whole works?
Notice, these people didn't say they wouldn't provide service to homosexuals they said they wouldn't provide a "wedding" cake. If they provide a wedding cake they become part of the wedding and they cannot countenance a same sex wedding. By scripture, it isn't a wedding at all.
Would you force an Orthodox Jew to work on the Sabbath even though it is against rabbinical law? There are a lot of examples I could use but I just don't have that kind of time.
I see a good discussion ongoing at this thread.
ReplyDeleteI have this question....
When did we get to the point that personal convictions which have a basis in our Constitution become so problematic?
I can't imagine that religious-convictions matters such as refusal of service did not come up previous to the Civil Rights Act.
It seems to that the difference now may be the deliberate targeting.
Warren, Kid, and CI, I am looking forward to any responses you may have to my question.
Possibly of interest: Ryan T. Anderson.
DeleteWhenever our society became pampered and entitled. Hard to put a date on that....but it's also difficult to sympathize with a demographic that has historically treated another demographic poorly...when they now feel that they are being treated likewise.
DeleteTwo wrongs never equal justice....but context in how we move forward is always useful.