Religious conscience and providing services

[Cearbhall]

What in gehenna does that have to do with cakes? Answer: nothing.

If you think that a cake business should be able to turn away a same-sex couple, then you're saying that business owners should be able to turn away customers based on their sexual orientation. Unless you're suggesting that there should be a special law about cakes. The Pastry Exception?

 

[Cearbhall]

So discrimination is only wrong if it is against some obvious superficial feature?

In this case it is obvious when someone tells you they are a homosexual eh?

I think he's trying to say that it shouldn't be an issue when it comes to sexual orientation since you can't know for sure by looking at a person, but obviously he's wrong, or this thread wouldn't exist.

What's disturbing about his stance is that it suggests that the fault is with the people being refused service because they didn't closet themselves enough to evade detection.

 

[variant]

I think he's trying to say that it shouldn't be an issue when it comes to sexual orientation since you can't know for sure by looking at a person, but obviously he's wrong, or this thread wouldn't exist.

What's disturbing about his stance is that it suggests that the fault is with the people being refused service because they didn't closet themselves enough to evade detection.

That IS the problem though, gay people operating in society as if there isn't some inherent shame attached to being gay.

They obviously weren't expecting a religious condemnation from their baker, it's kind of out of place if you ask me.

 

[Cearbhall]

They obviously weren't expecting a religious condemnation from their baker, it's kind of out of place if you ask me.

I would expect a negative reaction in some regions of the country, but I wouldn't expect a business owner to be ignorant of anti-discrimination laws and actually try to get away with refusing me service.

 

[variant]

I would expect a negative reaction in some regions of the country, but I wouldn't expect a business owner to be ignorant of anti-discrimination laws and actually try to get away with refusing me service.

Not every time something like this happens leads to the other person taking them to court.

In this case the bakery could have simply objected to filling the order and asked them to respect their wishes then politely refer them to someone who specialized in it, rather than simple outright refusal.

I think they felt they had an absolute right to refuse such services which is not the case under their states laws.

 

[Deacon001]

edited

 

[TLK Valentine]

A bigot is, when you get right down to it, a coward. They will never stand up for their beliefs when they have something convenient to hide behind instead.

On the one hand, I agree that a person, especially a businessman, should not be required to violate their own conscience -- provided that businessman is willing to make their objections public knowledge ahead of time. for example, I know where they can get a great deal on a bulk load of "No Jews Allowed" signs -- prices reduced because the signs are in German.

(Cheap shot? Maybe -- but a small price to pay for following one's conscience, right?)

Of course, being cowards, the problem exists that, given the rock of "religious freedom" to hide under, bigots of all sorts will claim religious liberty in order to justify their bigotry.

It's never good for any religious institution to be identified as a breeding ground for hate, and I see Christianity taking quite the hit if this is allowed to happen. I don't see a legal or Constitutional way to prevent it, however; any "cure" would be worse than the disease itself.

I have been curious, however, about how genuine Christians feel about the possible outcome of this way of thinking -- from what I've seen thus far; they don't feel anything about it.

Curious.

 

[wintermile]

A bigot is, when you get right down to it, a coward. They will never stand up for their beliefs when they have something convenient to hide behind instead.[bless and do not curse]

On the one hand, I agree that a person, especially a businessman, should not be required to violate their own conscience -- provided that businessman is willing to make their objections public knowledge ahead of time. for example, I know where they can get a great deal on a bulk load of "No Jews Allowed" signs -- prices reduced because the signs are in German.

(Cheap shot? Maybe -- but a small price to pay for following one's conscience, right?)

One nation is a refuge for religious freedom. In America, a nation based upon religious freedom, an individual operating under their religious conscience can expect others to refrain from harassment when an individual states he or she will not promote homosexuality.

 

[Cearbhall]

Of course, being cowards, the problem exists that, given the rock of "religious freedom" to hide under, bigots of all sorts will claim religious liberty in order to justify their bigotry.

And this is why we have anti-discrimination laws in the first place. Where do you draw the line? There are still people who think that God doesn't want people of different races to live in the same community and that women who wear pants are going to hell. There are immigrants and ultra-conservatives who think that women shouldn't have access to things like cars and telephones.

 

[TLK Valentine]

One nation is a refuge for religious freedom.

And it should always remain so -- no argument there.

My question has been what happens when a religion becomes a refuge for bigotry, hatred, and cowardice? It's certainly not the place for the government to fix it, which leaves the task to its own members.

In America, a nation based upon religious freedom, an individual operating under their religious conscience can expect others to refrain from harassment when an individual states he or she will not promote homosexuality.

Harassment? Certainly! Disagreement and protest? Not on your life.

Again, however, this is not what I was addressing. My issue is not with people with a genuine religious conscience, but rather, with bigots, homophobes, and other cowards operating under a false religious conscience as a smokescreen.

As you can see, my issue is a moral one, not a political one -- but still one that needs to be addressed by somebody if religious conscience is going to continue to be used as a justification for this sort of behavior.

Sadly, the only people who can address this issue refuse to even acknowledge it.

There is some good news: the state of Kansas recognized the issue before it was too late:

Kansas lawmakers retreat from religious liberty bill | MSNBC

 

[wintermile]

My question has been what happens when a religion becomes a refuge for bigotry, hatred, and cowardice? It's certainly not the place for the government to fix it, which leaves the task to its own members.

The gospel is available for all to listen to and accept. Supremacists (of any type) will not tolerate the first two commandments demonstrated in the gospel. Softened supremacists will.

Numerous Christians oppose religion as a refuge for bigotry, hatred and cowardice. Denominations are opposing the Doctrine of Discovery and are not tolerant of its further use. Proponents of the DOD are seen for what they are: Oppressors. Reminding organized groups about options available to them to express their ideas is another approach.

An individual is not a bigot or coward and is not promoting hate when refraining from promoting homosexuality.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The gospel is available for all to listen to and accept. Supremacists (of any type) will not tolerate the first two commandments demonstrated in the gospel. Softened supremacists will.

They don't need to tolerate them in order to exploit them.

Numerous Christians oppose religion as a refuge for bigotry, hatred and cowardice. Denominations are opposing the Doctrine of Discovery and are not tolerant of its further use. Proponents of the DOD are seen for what they are: Oppressors. Reminding organized groups about options available to them to express their ideas is another approach.

No group should be characterized by its worst members, but they will be characterized by its loudest. What are the loudest Christian voices preaching these days?

An individual is not a bigot or coward and is not promoting hate when refraining from promoting homosexuality.

Depends on why they're doing it. It is the intent, not the act itself, that shows a person's character.

Those who are sincerely afraid that the act of, for example, decorating a cake will be viewed (viewed by whom, anyway?) as a promotion of homosexuality might very well be seen as cowards -- but so what? The only view that matters should be their own.

Those who have been taught that a certain group of people are inferior and should be treated as such are bigots -- whether they were taught that by family, community, or even religion is irrelevant.

 

[wintermile]

They don't need to tolerate them in order to exploit them.

Decent Christians will not tolerate supremacists exploiting the gospel.

No group should be characterized by its worst members, but they will be characterized by its loudest. What are the loudest Christian voices preaching these days?

The number one issue being preached by Christians today is the gospel.

Depends on why they're doing it. It is the intent, not the act itself, that shows a person's character.

Those who are sincerely afraid that the act of, for example, decorating a cake will be viewed (viewed by whom, anyway?) as a promotion of homosexuality might very well be seen as cowards -- but so what? The only view that matters should be their own.

Those who have been taught that a certain group of people are inferior and should be treated as such are bigots -- whether they were taught that by family, community, or even religion is irrelevant.

Why False Religion is Worthless is discussed in Jeremiah 7. When individuals call Christians cowards for practicing their faith, they neglect to observe how Christians refrain from, through an avoidance of worldly practices, oppressing strangers and aliens.

Jeremiah 7:5-8
For if you thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, if you thoroughly execute judgement between man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, or walk after other gods to your hurt, then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave your fathers forever and ever.

Proverbs 17:15 teaches Christians who will be affected by faithful and unfaithful practices. A Christian who refrains from decorating a cake used in a SSM celebration, honors the just and refrains from oppressing strangers.

Proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked, and he who condems the just, both of them are an abomination to the LORD.


Christians who refrain from promoting homosexuality are not declaring LGBTs, and heterosexuals who engage in the same sexual relations, are inferior. In various social settings Christians interact with LGBTs. One major requirement Jehovah put forth for His people to practice concerns those of strangers.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Decent Christians will not tolerate supremacists exploiting the gospel.

I sincerely hope so -- but so far, you're the first "decent Christian" who's even been willing to discuss this issue.

The number one issue being preached by Christians today is the gospel.

Which seems, if you don't mind me saying so, to be constantly buried in legal and political maneuvering.

Why False Religion is Worthless is discussed in Jeremiah 7. When individuals call Christians cowards for practicing their faith, they neglect to observe how Christians refrain from, through an avoidance of worldly practices, oppressing strangers and aliens.

Because Christians, and rightly so, choose not to call attention to themselves when they do so. Not that it could be any other way; "avoidance of worldly practices" is, by nature, incognito.

The issue, of course, is in those Christians who choose not to avoid worldly practices -- law, commerce, politics, etc., and choose to bring their faith into those worldly arenas... which, sadly, occasionally comes off as oppressive.

...and I'm just talking about genuine believers; never mind the cretins who will happily flock to the Christian tent because it gives them a legal excuse to be the cretins they already are.

Jeremiah 7:5-8
For if you thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, if you thoroughly execute judgement between man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, or walk after other gods to your hurt, then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave your fathers forever and ever.

Sadly, there are those who would not include the heathen, the homosexual, or (in some circles) the liberal, to name a few, in that list.

Proverbs 17:15 teaches Christians who will be affected by faithful and unfaithful practices. A Christian who refrains from decorating a cake used in a SSM celebration, honors the just and refrains from oppressing strangers.

Proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked, and he who condems the just, both of them are an abomination to the LORD.

And as I have said numerous times, those who have sincere religious objections to certain business practices should not be obligated to engage in them.

In fact, as much as I disliked the Kansas bill and am glad to see it has been killed, I do appreciate one of the conditions: If an employee refuses to provide a service to a customer due to a sincere religious belief, the business owner must provide the customer with another employee to perform the service -- they can't simply shuffle them off down the road.

Not very helpful for a Mom-and-Pop shop, where the one with the religious objection most likely is the owner, but reasonable.

Christians who refrain from promoting homosexuality are not declaring LGBTs, and heterosexuals who engage in the same sexual relations, are inferior.

Those who are sincere in their beliefs, perhaps not -- but the sincere ones aren't your problem, are they?

In various social settings Christians interact with LGBTs. One major requirement Jehovah put forth for His people to practice concerns those of strangers.

Alas, some Christians are more conscientious of that than others... and there's the rub -- These allowances for religious objections only take into account the sincerity of the religious beliefs (and how one measures that is beyond me), not their accuracy or adherence to any mainstream doctrine.

For example: Let's take homosexuality out of the equation -- the Bible condemns that; no question. Suppose, instead, the objection was to an interracial wedding. The owner could probably pull a "be not yoked with unbelievers" or something similar out of his hat as justification, and no matter how wrong he was, no matter how wrong you or any other Christian could show him to be, it wouldn't make a bit of difference, because he believed it to be true -- or at least, could convince a judge that he believed it.

...and that's an example involving a misguided but sincere believer -- imagine what a less scrupulous "Christian" could get away with? A headache for the legal system; a nightmare for "decent Christians" who don't want to be yoked to the cretins.

 

[wintermile]

Sadly, there are those who would not include the heathen, the homosexual, or (in some circles) the liberal, to name a few, in that list.

Then they need to emulate The Fair Hope Benevolent Society. After all their amazing contributions to society, they are troubled by social ills occuring at the Footwash. How do they treat the stranger? The documentary explains it all.

The Contradictions of Fair Hope

 

[Sketcher]

In this case they are one in the same.

You and I call it harassing and oppressing (because you disagree with it) but they would call it the height of morality and a rebuke (because they felt it was justified).

Depends on the perspective.

So what moral rebuke were the Klansmen giving black people? If a Christian were to give a moral rebuke to a gay person, it would be, "Do not practice homosexuality." The practice of homosexuality is distinct from the orientation of homosexuality, so one can say that just as easily as one can tell a glutton to diet. The condition is distinct from the action. But with black people, there is no action. Black is who they are, you can't tell a black person not to be black anymore.

If you have a legitimate buisness reason to discriminate. Specialization is a fine reason. We only work on ford trucks. This is a gynecologists office we don't do prostate screening. Our play area is built for children under the age of 12.

Then what's wrong with specializing in heterosexual or Christian weddings?

The Jewish baker is also free to refuse to decorate his cakes with anti-Semitic slogans or images. The baking and selling of a cake is not protected speech, but the decoration of a cake can be considered protected speech.

So to be consistent, you would say it is fine to refuse to decorate a wedding cake in honor of two men or two women getting married?

 

[morningstar2651]

If a Christian were to give a moral rebuke to a gay person, it would be, "Do not practice homosexuality.

But if they don't practice, how are they supposed to be any good at it?

 

[Maren]

So what moral rebuke were the Klansmen giving black people? If a Christian were to give a moral rebuke to a gay person, it would be, "Do not practice homosexuality."

The rebuke to Blacks was for "mixing the races", typically meaning associating with white people, at least outside the employee-employer relationship. It could be a Black person taking what was seen as a white job; being too "friendly" with a white person, particularly with the opposite sex, which could be simply being seen having a conversation on the street. To a certain degree, the message was "go back to Africa".

Additionally, the "rebukes" could also happen with White people if it was felt they were being overly friendly with Blacks. Granted, the rebukes were much milder than what Blacks might receive; they would likely be called things like "n[word]-lover" and be somewhat ostracized among other Whites, and possibly a cross being burnt in their yard.

The practice of homosexuality is distinct from the orientation of homosexuality, so one can say that just as easily as one can tell a glutton to diet. The condition is distinct from the action. But with black people, there is no action. Black is who they are, you can't tell a black person not to be black anymore.

As I pointed out, the actual offense was not typically being Black, it was for "racial mixing"; an action. Beyond that, the fact is that many Christians do not see a difference between homosexual orientation and action. If they did see a difference, we wouldn't see ex-gay groups trying to change homosexuals, instead we would merely see counseling to help them remain celibate (which is basically promoted by Paul as the best option for Christians).

Additionally, much of the persecution of gays has little to do with homosexual activity. For example, bullying in schools is against people thought to be homosexuals, which often includes heterosexual children who are different in some way, and therefore thought of as gay (such as this example).

There are plenty of Christians on this site who have an idea that being homosexual is somehow "chosen", and this is a common believe among some Christian groups. With this believe is the idea that merely being homosexual is wrong (again, playing into the reason gays are sent to ex-gay groups).

Then what's wrong with specializing in heterosexual or Christian weddings?

If you wish to be a "Christian Only" bakery, most states will allow that. Of course, you then become limited to what you can sell and who you can sell to (basically, only Christian themed items and only to Christians).

The issue with only heterosexual weddings is that, in terms of baking a cake or even wedding photography, there is little real difference with a same sex wedding. For example, with photography you typically take shots at the ceremony (little difference, especially since just doing heterosexual weddings will have you do a variety of religious and secular weddings), pictures of the couple alone, with their family, and of each spouse with best man/bridesmaids and family. Just because both spouses are of the same sex doesn't change the basic package of pictures that couples expect.

With the baker, again, there is little difference. There may be some decorations that can be refused. For example, if he only has toppers with a bride and groom that are one piece, he can't be forced to find and buy a topper with two males or two females, or even the individual bride and groom pieces. OTOH, that is likely something the couple getting married can find (there seems to be a selection on eBay) and place on their own after they have taken delivery of the cake.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then they need to emulate The Fair Hope Benevolent Society. After all their amazing contributions to society, they are troubled by social ills occuring at the Footwash. How do they treat the stranger? The documentary explains it all.

They need to, but they won't.

 

[morningstar2651]

I'd like to point out that Christian stores don't verify your religious affiliation before selling you merchandise. I've made purchases at a Christian bookstore before. I was Christian at the time, but I was never asked for proof and I attended a different church than the owner did.

My hometown was a small town in Iowa (population just over 9000). We didn't have anywhere to buy books but the Christian bookstore or the "friends of the library" room of the local public library (which was over-flowing with terrible romance novels).