Equality Act & Religious Freedom

[loveofourlord]

Can you explain how a law that prohibits discrimination against a minority infringes on your Constitutionally protected right to practice your religion?

Or why a law against discrimination should make exceptions for discrimination?

 

[loveofourlord]

I just looked at the law. It extends existing civil rights rules to include orientation and gender identity. Thus it covers specific things,
public accommodation, education, housing, employment, credit, juries. It does not include religious activities, which would include marriage except if a church runs a commercial marriage service.

It would make clear that bakers have to sell products to gays, but does not resolve the primary constitutional issue, which is whether making custom cakes is protected speech, or indeed whether it's a public accommodation at all. If the Supreme Court decides it is or isn't, this law would not apply.

It also does not give any specifics on how it would apply to school sports. The existing law, for example, has been interpreted as requiring equal access to sports for men and women but does not mandate integrated teams. I believe the states and courts would still need to figure out what equal access to sports means for trans students.

This is far from an extremist law.

I believe the law is, though may have been mangled by religious interference is, "They have to sell a wedding cake." but don't have to a gay wedding cake, "AKA two male for the topper, or penises or other such things that might signify it's gay." It was put in one court case I think that a Jewish baker has to sell a cake to a nazi, but doesn't have to put the swastika on it, just provide them the materials to do it themselves.

 

[SilverBear]

I can see a problem with a Christian who owns a cake store not wanting to do cakes for gay weddings. But I don't see that it can't easily be remedied. All the baker has to say is that he has a competitor who will gladly bake cakes for gay weddings and point the customer to them. The only problem that would come up is if the gays feel offended and want to push the issue.

if that baker put out a sign saying he would serve white people only would it be a problem if black people felt offended or worse if they wanted to "push" the issue?

 

[SilverBear]

No one "cried and screamed and threw a fit" at all. That's a perplexing statement. Declining an event is not any of those things. The customers simply wouldn't let it go, and rushed to file a complaint because the baker was honest, and said he did not do certain events (halloween, divorce parties, same sex weddings - which were not even a thing at at the time).

He could have just lied about it and said he was booked, as less ethical people would do. But he simply said he didn't do that event. A normal person would simply thank him and move on. It's not like there weren't dozens of other bakeries who do.

I'm sure you will want to applaud the theater manager for his honesty

 

[Pommer]

I'm sure you will want to applaud the theater manager for his honesty

If “you don’t belong here” isn’t “cancel culture”, it must be “freedom”!
“Freedom” to only ever be around the people that I feel comfortable being around!
Great for clubs, churches, and the like (private, sectarian, or and generally not having business with the general population).
Not so great for businesses opened to the public.

 

[Belk]

Fair point; let me explain a little more.

I am trained in first aid. I can apply tourniquets, a first-aid procedure that is only good to do in very limited circumstances. While I voluntarily took the training to do this, there may come a time when I refuse a tourniquet to someone, on the grounds that it is an overly drastic procedure for what the person is suffering. The same could be said of the aforementioned procedures; an abortion doctor or sex change doctor may be willing to do their procedures on a variety of people, but some cases, may tell the person that they are not in a state where the procedure would be a good idea.

Does this make sense? I know how to apply sex changes/abortions/tourniquets, but in specific circumstances, I may use my professional judgement to decide against it for a patient who wants it. This is especially pertinent with adolescents who want sex changes; speaking as someone who suffered from gender confusion in my teenage years, I'm exceptionally thankful that I was not in an environment of people who would encourage me to go through with a drastic procedure. A sex change doctor may believe they should only perform on adults, but with the demands of the Equality Act, a struggling teen may demand a sex change that the doctor believes should not be performed at that age, and the professional judgement is nullified in favor of "non-discrimination".

The second half of this article describes it better: How ‘Equality Act’ Would Impose Transgender Ideology on Everyone

Much of what it talks about with sex change/gender reassignment surgeries can be explained far better by this talk. I already have the talk on CD, which is far harder to share in this online format. If any of you are interested, this blend of theology & medicine is explained exceptionally well in this talk, citing & critically analyzing medical research along the way. Give me time to find something I can share that doesn't cost anything, but anyone interested enough in a plastic surgeon & Catholic deacon beautifully explain the transgender issue, this is well worth the few dollars it charges. In any case, it comes with a 5 minute preview that explains a bit on how this "non-discrimination" legislation discriminates against those of us with theological viewpoints.

Transgenderism: A Surgeon's Perspective - Dr. Patrick Lappert


Regarding most of the posts from about halfway through Page 2....

It's times like this when I wonder...was it a good idea to start the thread at all? I wanted to start an informative thread & an intelligent discussion. The initial comments compelled me to go deeper, and after scouring articles for one that quotes the Equality Act, I gained a deeper understanding of similar legislation & the implications thereof. I never intended this to fall apart, as some of this discussion is doing. So many people accusing each other of not reading the legislation, without ever quoting the legislation to support what they mean. When God talks about regretting what He created, starting online discussions gives us a much better understanding of what He meant...

Wait. You think that this law will force a doctor to practice medicine against his professional medical opinion? Am I reading your explanation correctly?

 

[KCfromNC]

You are correct that the belief itself held by the person cannot necessarily be changed; but it is possible to demand compliance in performance of some act despite a religious belief.

Good thing that's not the case here.

Does make me wonder why it would be brought up rather than discussing what is actually in this law, though.

 

[KCfromNC]

said he did not do certain events (halloween, divorce parties, same sex weddings - which were not even a thing at at the time).

I notice only one of these is discriminating based on the gender of the customer. And that he was never asked to "do an event", just sell a cake. Which seems like something a baker would traditionally not have a problem with - except in this case, where the customer was the wrong type of minority.

But if I remember correctly, the cake wasn't for a wedding, it was for a party celebrating a wedding that happened a while ago. Did the baker have a long history of not making cakes for parties which celebrate marriages that happened in the past? Or did he only have a problem doing that for very specific types of customers?

And back to the subject of the thread, it is really a requirement that religious believers are exempt from the law for them to actually have religious freedom?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm sure you will want to applaud the theater manager for his honesty

Complete non-sequitur, commonly made by a particular element.

Race is an immutable characteristic, just a skin color, always there, always present, having nothing to do with behavior.

Sexual behavior most decidedly is not an immutable characteristic. Stop conflating separate issues and address the statement actually made.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If “you don’t belong here” isn’t “cancel culture”, it must be “freedom”!
“Freedom” to only ever be around the people that I feel comfortable being around!
Great for clubs, churches, and the like (private, sectarian, or and generally not having business with the general population).
Not so great for businesses opened to the public.

Many businesses are open to the public yet do not provide all services any of the public may want.

Try ordering that bacon cheeseburger at a Kosher Jewish place. They will tell you you can get a cheeseburger and maybe you can even get cheese, but they don't mix meat and milk products for religious reasons based on their scriptural tenets.

Exact same reasoning for the baker. You can buy your cake, pie, cupcake, brownie off the shelf but he doesn't perform certain events for religious reasons based on scriptural tenets.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I notice only one of these is discriminating based on the gender of the customer. And that he was never asked to "do an event", just sell a cake. Which seems like something a baker would traditionally not have a problem with - except in this case, where the customer was the wrong type of minority.

But if I remember correctly, the cake wasn't for a wedding, it was for a party celebrating a wedding that happened a while ago. Did the baker have a long history of not making cakes for parties which celebrate marriages that happened in the past? Or did he only have a problem doing that for very specific types of customers?

And back to the subject of the thread, it is really a requirement that religious believers are exempt from the law for them to actually have religious freedom?

Completely inaccurate. Cake decorating is an art form, that takes many hours to do, limiting other jobs. It is an event that is accepted. No one can command an artist to do their particular event, no matter its nature. Only an autocrat even thinks that is acceptable. Somehow you might see that if they had demanded he do a pro-Trump event, for example (though this was pre-Trump, but you get the idea).

He would sell a cake all day long, and he offered to do so to these particular customers. He wasn't going to do the whole wedding cake thing for what was not a wedding even legally in the state (and yes, a reception for a wedding is where the "wedding cake" comes in anyway, so same thing).

They were to free to accept "a cake" or move on to another baker. Instead of either of those rational options, they chose to go file a complaint, which is inexplicable, considering it wasn't even a legal event they were demanding he do.

 

[SilverBear]

Complete non-sequitur, commonly made by a particular element.

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
Noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
A conclusion or statement that has an apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it

Since you don't seem to know what it means

Race is an immutable characteristic, just a skin color, always there, always present, having nothing to do with behavior.

Orientation is also independent of behavior. Religion on the other hand is not immutable and is entirely a behavior.

So if your honest and heroic baker put out a "no Jews" sign Would you be applauding him for his honesty about that?

Sexual behavior most decidedly is not an immutable characteristic. Stop conflating separate issues and address the statement actually made.

Bigotry is not an immutable characteristic either

 

[SilverBear]

Many businesses are open to the public yet do not provide all services any of the public may want.

Just like the Broadway Theater of Knoxville Tennessee doesn't provide services to all of the public

Try ordering that bacon cheeseburger at a Kosher Jewish place. They will tell you you can get a cheeseburger and maybe you can even get cheese, but they don't mix meat and milk products for religious reasons based on their scriptural tenets.

do they sell bacon cheeseburgers to everyone except a single minority?

No.

Exact same reasoning for the baker. You can buy your cake, pie, cupcake, brownie off the shelf but he doesn't perform certain events for religious reasons based on scriptural tenets.

does he design and make wedding cakes for everyone except for a single minority?

yes, that is exactly what he does.

So is your deli thing reflective of the situation.

Not at all.

 

[SilverBear]

Completely inaccurate. Cake decorating is an art form, that takes many hours to do, limiting other jobs. It is an event that is accepted. No one can command an artist to do their particular event, no matter its nature.

doing something that one does for anyone else is not an event

He would sell a cake all day long, and he offered to do so to these particular customers. He wasn't going to do the whole wedding cake thing for what was not a wedding even legally in the state (and yes, a reception for a wedding is where the "wedding cake" comes in anyway, so same thing).

Instead of either of those rational options, they chose to go file a complaint, which is inexplicable, considering it wasn't even a legal event they were demanding he do.

They were to free to accept "a cake" or move on to another baker.

Just like those black people were free to move onto another theater


But no, those black people were just unreasonable and demanded they be treated just like everyone else and look what happened to that brave manager who was just being honest.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
Noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
A conclusion or statement that has an apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it

Since you don't seem to know what it means

Orientation is also independent of behavior. Religion on the other hand is not immutable and is entirely a behavior.

So if your honest and heroic baker put out a "no Jews" sign Would you be applauding him for his honesty about that?

Bigotry is not an immutable characteristic either

You mentioning race and conflating it with behavior is indeed a non-sequitur. No one was speaking about race in any way, but you trotted it out to avoid the assertion actually made.

You then follow with another entirely false equation. The baker did not refuse to sell to ANYONE. Full stop. End of your inquiry.

Anyone was welcome to come in his shop and buy a cake, cupcakes, whatever. The baker was not obligated to do anyone's EVENT however. If the Jewish customer said, "Hey, I want you to do my "Let's level Palestine" event" or even my "Seder celebration with a specially decorated cake" or any other event whatsoever, questionable or not, Baker is fully within his rights to decline, saying he doesn't do such events, exactly as he did here. No one is able to take Baker hostage, making him perform a decoration event he does not wish to do.

Several nut jobs harassed him for a long time. Colorado baker's protagonist allegedly requested satanic cakes that other bakeries wouldn't create

Another non-sequitur at the end, thrown in for good measure, I suppose.

Did you not follow this at all?:
"Phillips, however, maintained during an interview with “Today,” that he would “serve everybody.”

“It's just that I don't create cakes for every occasion they ask me to create,” he said.

“I don't discriminate against anybody — I serve everybody that comes in my shop,” Phillips said. “I don't create cakes for every message that people ask me to create."

 

[SilverBear]

You mentioning race and conflating it with behavior is indeed a non-sequitur. No one was speaking about race in any way, but you trotted it out to avoid the assertion actually made.

Discrimination is a evil thing no matter what minority it is directed at

However you made the connection between your praise of discrimination and my pointing out a parallel example. So defiantly not a non sequitur

You then follow with another entirely false equation. The baker did not refuse to sell to ANYONE. Full stop. End of your inquiry.

he did however refuse to provide a service he makes available to the population at large because the couple in question was a minority. so yeah he did refuse to sell to someone after all

Anyone was welcome to come in his shop and buy a cake, cupcakes, whatever. The baker was not obligated to do anyone's EVENT however.

he wasn't offering his services to anyone's event. he was offering to make a cake...except to a particular minority.

If the Jewish customer said, "Hey, I want you to do my "Let's level Palestine" event" or even my "Seder celebration with a specially decorated cake" or any other event whatsoever, questionable or not, Baker is fully within his rights to decline, saying he doesn't do such events, exactly as he did here. No one is able to take Baker hostage, making him perform a decoration event he does not wish to do.

was he offering to do any event much less a "Let's level Palestine event"? Nope, he was offering to make wedding cakes....except to a particular minority.

Several nut jobs harassed him for a long time. Colorado baker's protagonist allegedly requested satanic cakes that other bakeries wouldn't create

which refusing to do isn't discrimination

Another non-sequitur at the end, thrown in for good measure, I suppose.

Did you not follow this at all?:
"Phillips, however, maintained during an interview with “Today,” that he would “serve everybody.”

“It's just that I don't create cakes for every occasion they ask me to create,” he said.

“I don't discriminate against anybody — I serve everybody that comes in my shop,”

Unless you are gay.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm sure you will want to applaud the theater manager for his honesty

Playing the race card when you've already lost the argument is not very graceful.

 

[Pommer]

Playing the race card when you've already lost the argument is not very graceful.

Oh burn.

 

[KCfromNC]

Completely inaccurate.

This would be more convincing if you at least tried to answer a single question from my post.

Cake decorating is an art form, that takes many hours to do, limiting other jobs.

The guy made cakes for dog "weddings". Let's not pretend that this wasn't a cake-making business.

He would sell a cake all day long, and he offered to do so to these particular customers. He wasn't going to do the whole wedding cake thing for what was not a wedding even legally in the state (and yes, a reception for a wedding is where the "wedding cake" comes in anyway, so same thing).

Did he create all these special rules and hoops to jump through for members of other minority groups, or just gay people? I mean, if a dog could get a cake for a wedding (something also not legal in the state) it seems that there are some very specific rules that apply to the wrong types of minorities in play here.

They were to free to accept "a cake" or move on to another baker. Instead of either of those rational options, they chose to go file a complaint, which is inexplicable, considering it wasn't even a legal event they were demanding he do.

What specific law were the couple breaking by trying to buy a cake for a party?

 

[KCfromNC]

You mentioning race and conflating it with behavior is indeed a non-sequitur.

I appreciate the irony of arguing that behavior shouldn't be protected in a thread about protecting the freedom of religious behavior.