Religious conscience and providing services

[jazzflower92]

If it was against his religion to handle pork why would he offer it to anyone?

The issue is not that dinner parties are against his religion, it's that handling pork is against his religion.

Marriage is not against the Christian baker's religion any more than dinner parties are against the Muslim caterer's religion.

Actually I think that would be a legitimate issue that a Muslim might have if they had to cater at somewhere that had pig related food items.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

To answer the OP:

Yes, if private property means anything.

 

[variant]

To answer the OP:

Yes, if private property means anything.

Yeah, private property (private buisness in this case) would be meaningless if you couldn't lord it over people.

 

[Deacon001]

Actually I think that would be a legitimate issue that a Muslim might have if they had to cater at somewhere that had pig related food items.

In reality, the Muslims I have patronized serve only their own cuisine, and their guests go there because they want their cuisine. For someone to go to a Christian baker and demand a (so-called) "gay" wedding cake is about like me going to a Muslim restaurant and demanding to be served a pork dish. You are simply in the wrong place.

Now, am I going to scream discrimination and force Muslims to serve me by force of law? No, I am going to go somewhere where I can get pork chops. But then, I am a normal person, not someone who is obsessed with forcing my beliefs on others.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yeah, private property (private buisness in this case) would be meaningless if you couldn't lord it over people.

Ownership of property necessarily entails the legal right to decide who gets access to the property and who doesn't. If you don't have the final say as who gets to come in to the house in which you live and who doesn't, it's not your house. Same thing with a business. If a business owner can be legally compelled to to business with anyone he does not wish to do business with, then his enterprise is not really his own; he simply manages it under the auspices of the state.

To those who are willing to tell me, point blank, that they approve of such an arrangement, I have nothing to say. However, in that case we ought to be honest enough to drop the pretense that businesses are "private" enterprises when they are clearly not.

 

[Sketcher]

Question: If it is a violation of religious freedom to require certain businesses (florists, bakers, DJ's, venue owners, etc.) to provide their services in support of a same-sex wedding when such unions violate the owner's religious conscience, is it not equally as great a violation if a business owner is required to provide services for interreligious or interracial weddings when they have a religious objection to those?

I'd say it's equal.

 

[variant]

Ownership of property necessarily entails the legal right to decide who gets access to the property and who doesn't. If you don't have the final say as who gets to come in to the house in which you live and who doesn't, it's not your house. Same thing with a business. If a business owner can be legally compelled to to business with anyone he does not wish to do business with, then his enterprise is not really his own; he simply manages it under the auspices of the state.

To those who are willing to tell me, point blank, that they approve of such an arrangement, I have nothing to say. However, in that case we ought to be honest enough to drop the pretense that businesses are "private" enterprises when they are clearly not.

If it's a buisness that serves the general public then it serves everyone. It's not the place for personal condemnations.

Otherwise, any group sufficiently in control of wealth would be able to enforce their will on the public as per the civil rights era.

If your reasoning wouldn't have been the excuse of bigots attempting to relegate black people to second class citizens in the recent past it might go over better.

 

[Deacon001]

If your reasoning wouldn't have been the excuse of bigots attempting to relegate black people to second class citizens in the recent past it might go over better.

And if your reasoning hadn't been the excuse of statists trying to oppress free citizens it might go over better.

 

[variant]

And if your reasoning hadn't been the excuse of statists trying to oppress free citizens it might go over better.

Right, all oppression ever starts with the idea that owning a buisness doesn't give you license to be a jerk toward people who may want your services.

We've been wallowing in tyranny ever since we made restaurants and laundromats cater to black people.

Oh the humanity.

 

[Deacon001]

Right, all oppression ever starts with the idea that owning a buisness doesn't give you license to be a jerk toward people who may want your services.

Yes, it's much better to be a jerk by telling others what they can and can't do in their own place of business when it really has nothing to do with you.

Freedom - it's a difficult concept for some.

 

[Sketcher]

If it's a buisness that serves the general public then it serves everyone. It's not the place for personal condemnations.

Otherwise, any group sufficiently in control of wealth would be able to enforce their will on the public as per the civil rights era.

If your reasoning wouldn't have been the excuse of bigots attempting to relegate black people to second class citizens in the recent past it might go over better.

Do you not believe in men's barbershops and women's salons?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It seem to me that this is a bit of a catch-22. While I find what the Christians here advocating to be morally repugnant, I can't see any legal reason to deny them their right to engage in morally repugnant behavior.

What concerns me is the chicken-or-the-egg issue -- is a person who refuses to deal with gays (or blacks, or Muslims, or Atheists, or Jews, or whoever) a sincere believer, or simply a bigot who's found a convenient excuse to hide behind? Seems to me that this could lead to Christianity gaining a bad reputation as a sanctuary for homophobes and other bigots...

...but then again, that's hardly my problem.

 

[Deacon001]

It seem to me that this is a bit of a catch-22. While I find what the Christians here advocating to be morally repugnant, I can't see any legal reason to deny them their right to engage in morally repugnant behavior.

What concerns me is the chicken-or-the-egg issue -- is a person who refuses to deal with gays (or blacks, or Muslims, or Atheists, or Jews, or whoever) a sincere believer, or simply a bigot who's found a convenient excuse to hide behind? Seems to me that this could lead to Christianity gaining a bad reputation as a sanctuary for homophobes and other bigots...

...but then again, that's hardly my problem.

That's funny, I thought it was your side was being bigoted. Unless you are gay and have been refused service because of it (and I guarantee that over 99% of the population has not been refused service because of sexual preference) you don't even have a dog in this fight. But, as usual, the left is looking for yet another thing to be selectively outraged over.

Your choice of words is interesting: "I can't see any legal reason to deny them their right to engage in morally repugnant behavior". That's funny, since we consider homosexuality (along with many other sexual behaviors) to be immoral as well, so by your own admission you reserve the right to define what's "immoral" while you deny that right to us, which is generally how you define hypocrisy.

So the left are hypocrites. In other news, water is still wet.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's funny, I thought it was your side was being bigoted.

That is pretty funny.

Unless you are gay and have been refused service because of it (and I guarantee that over 99% of the population has not been refused service because of sexual preference) you don't even have a dog in this fight. But, as usual, the left is looking for yet another thing to be selectively outraged over.

As an American who values justice and equality for all, I assure you I have a dog in any fight where oppression is being rationalized.

I do believe the good Reverend can put it better:

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

Furthermore, you must be familiar with the concept of evil triumphing when good men do nothing -- in fact, you seem to be counting on it.

Your choice of words is interesting: "I can't see any legal reason to deny them their right to engage in morally repugnant behavior". That's funny, since we consider homosexuality (along with many other sexual behaviors) to be immoral as well, so by your own admission you reserve the right to define what's "immoral" while you deny that right to us, which is generally how you define hypocrisy.

I thought someone would find that interesting. I also thought someone would completely miss the irony.

Looks like I'm 2 for 2 this morning.

So the left are hypocrites. In other news, water is still wet.

Is your contempt for the left a byproduct of your religious beliefs, or did you cone up with it on your own? I'm curious because it makes my point for me.

 

[Deacon001]

As an American who values justice and equality for all...

...except for Christians...

I do believe the good Reverend can put it better:

Of course, you completely missed the part where the "good Reverend" invoked St. Paul, who condemned homosexuality in the strongest of terms. MLK was also a black man talking about other black men, which is not what we are discussing here despite your attempts to turn sexual preference into a "race". I hasten to add that MLK was also called by God to be a minister in the very same church that I serve in, and he would be appalled at your Christian hate.

It may interest you to know that I was around when MLK made this speech and did not disagree with any of it, and I know that his cause was not your cause.

I thought someone would find that interesting. I also thought someone would completely miss the irony.

On the contrary, it was so obvious it stunk.

Looks like I'm 2 for 2 this morning.

Yep, you have struck out twice by trying to project your views onto someone else...

Is your contempt for the left...

Is your contempt for Christianity a byproduct of your politics, or do you just hate everyone who is not like you?

I don't have "contempt for the left", as you put it, but their utter lack of rational thought does wear me out at times.

 

[TLK Valentine]

...except for Christians...

You seem confused. Did you miss the part where I agreed with you that Christians have a legal right to discriminate according to their conscience?

It is my agreement somehow not enough for you? If so, what else do you want?

Of course, you completely missed the part where the "good Reverend" invoked St. Paul, who condemned homosexuality in the strongest of terms.

Irrelevant. I am not using Dr. King's quote to express an approval of homosexuality, but to refute your argument that I didn't have "a dog in this fight."

MLK was also a black man talking about other black men, which is not what we are discussing here

I wasn't discussing it here. Why are you?

On the contrary, it was so obvious it stunk.

Then you didn't miss it; rather, you deliberately chose to ignore it. How sad.

Yep, you have struck out twice by trying to project your views onto someone else...

Where have I done that once, let alone twice? Again you seem to have missed the fact that I said Christians do have a legal right to discriminate...

Is your contempt for Christianity a byproduct of your politics, or do you just hate everyone who is not like you?

Again, if this is how you choose to treat the people who agree with you, I'd hate to see how you treat a genuine enemy...

I don't have "contempt for the left", as you put it, but their utter lack of rational thought does wear me out at times.

Perhaps the problem simply is that you literally don't know the meaning of "contempt"? Because you've just demonstrated it again... why else would you be so combative to people on your side?

Contempt isn't a bad thing when it's warranted, so why not own up to it?

 

[variant]

Do you not believe in men's barbershops and women's salons?

I know I've had my hair cut at both.

And of course the reasons for men's barbershops and womens salons isn't about refusing services to people you want to moralize to or rebuke.

 

[variant]

Yes, it's much better to be a jerk by telling others what they can and can't do in their own place of business when it really has nothing to do with you.

Freedom - it's a difficult concept for some.

I just don't consider denying people access to services available to the public at large to make religious points to be a freedom people should have.

 

[Deacon001]

You seem confused. Did you miss the part where I agreed with you that Christians have a legal right to discriminate according to their conscience?

It is my agreement somehow not enough for you? If so, what else do you want?



Irrelevant. I am not using Dr. King's quote to express an approval of homosexuality, but to refute your argument that I didn't have "a dog in this fight."



I wasn't discussing it here. Why are you?



Then you didn't miss it; rather, you deliberately chose to ignore it. How sad.



Where have I done that once, let alone twice? Again you seem to have missed the fact that I said Christians do have a legal right to discriminate...



Again, if this is how you choose to treat the people who agree with you, I'd hate to see how you treat a genuine enemy...



Perhaps the problem simply is that you literally don't know the meaning of "contempt"? Because you've just demonstrated it again... why else would you be so combative to people on your side?

Contempt isn't a bad thing when it's warranted, so why not own up to it?

These are the kinds of mindless arguments that makes engaging the left on any kind of intellectual level maddening. It's like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight - YouTube

 

[Deacon001]

I just don't consider denying people access to services available to the public at large to make religious points to be a freedom people should have.

I don't consider your characterization of the debate to be an honest one, either.