Supreme Court Leans in Favor of a Christian Website Designer’s Right to Turn Away Same-Sex Weddings

[chevyontheriver]

Does that include interracial marriage? A lot of people don't believe in that either.

Of course. You and I know they would be wrong. You and I could explain to the shopkeeper that interracial marriage IS acceptable in God’s eyes. You and I could figure out how to provide the specialized service requested for an interracial wedding. And you and I could carry our protest signs in front of any shop that would not bake a specialized cake for an interracial wedding. Further, we could just not buy any cakes or pastries from such a shop. But we would not force them to violate their conscience for any reason.

 

[rturner76]

Of course. You and I know they would be wrong. You and I could explain to the shopkeeper that interracial marriage IS acceptable in God’s eyes. You and I could figure out how to provide the specialized service requested for an interracial wedding. And you and I could carry our protest signs in front of any shop that would not bake a specialized cake for an interracial wedding. Further, we could just not buy any cakes or pastries from such a shop. But we would not force them to violate their conscience for any reason.

I think the civil rights laws would actually force them to provide services to an interracial couple. But I digress, that is not the topic of this thread. It seems to be a conflict between civil rights and religious freedom (which is a civil right).

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think the civil rights laws would actually force them to provide services to an interracial couple. But I digress, that is not the topic of this thread. It seems to be a conflict between civil rights and religious freedom (which is a civil right).

It seems that an interracial couple who was denied the ability to buy a pastry at a bakery would be a big deal. They would be wrongly denied based on who they were. But a specialty cake compels the free speech of the baker, which is a different matter.

Your civil rights end when you start forcing me to violate my civil rights. You cannot force me to endorse what is objectionable. One thing to tolerate it, but another to endorse and participate in it. My civil rights should quite simply protect me from that. It SHOULD be a no brainer. But in woke America that little bit of common sense has been lost.

 

[WarriorAngel]

There would be an unpopular tone on the cake shop for being prejudiced against inter racial marriage, but that's up to him. Perhaps he'd lose all business. That's up to him.

I have not run across such a situation. Nor heard of it. And perhaps the skin heads [is that what they call themselves] an open KKK type group does not even have such petitions to consider.

But civil rights cannot or should not dominate someone's conscience or faith. Just move it along is the way it goes.
If the cake shop threatened the people with injury, there's a problem.
But if not, move it along and go find someone who will bake it.

One persons rights do not exclude the other persons.

 

[chevyontheriver]

There would be an unpopular tone on the cake shop for being prejudiced against inter racial marriage, but that's up to him. Perhaps he'd lose all business. That's up to him.

Such a person would lose my business if I knew that attitude existed. Not that I would be morally obligated to boycott such a place but I just would prefer another store.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Such a person would lose my business if I knew that attitude existed. Not that I would be morally obligated to boycott such a place but I just would prefer another store.

It's a big turn off for sure.
I doubt I would go to them. Unless I was gonna go on the capacity to eventually let the convo unfold naturally so as to perhaps plant a seed.

Because in the long run hate cannot coexist in faith whereas we must love others.
Whereas in immoral actions, we do not have to love.

 

[rturner76]

It seems that an interracial couple who was denied the ability to buy a pastry at a bakery would be a big deal. They would be wrongly denied based on who they were. But a specialty cake compels the free speech of the baker, which is a different matter.

Your civil rights end when you start forcing me to violate my civil rights. You cannot force me to endorse what is objectionable. One thing to tolerate it, but another to endorse and participate in it. My civil rights should quite simply protect me from that. It SHOULD be a no brainer. But in woke America that little bit of common sense has been lost.

That's what I mean about the question of who trumps who. Civil rights of the patron or civil rights of the baker?

 

[chevyontheriver]

That's what I mean about the question of who trumps who. Civil rights of the patron or civil rights of the baker?

Both have their rights. The patron should be served but has no right to force speech from the baker. The baker should serve everyone but not be compelled to approve of or be a forced accomplice to immorality.

 

[rturner76]

Both have their rights. The patron should be served but has no right to force speech from the baker. The baker should serve everyone but not be compelled to approve of or be a forced accomplice to immorality.

I'm not aware of how this has played out in court. Can you fill me in?

 

[RDKirk]

There would be an unpopular tone on the cake shop for being prejudiced against inter racial marriage, but that's up to him. Perhaps he'd lose all business. That's up to him.

I have not run across such a situation. Nor heard of it. And perhaps the skin heads [is that what they call themselves] an open KKK type group does not even have such petitions to consider.

But civil rights cannot or should not dominate someone's conscience or faith. Just move it along is the way it goes.
If the cake shop threatened the people with injury, there's a problem.
But if not, move it along and go find someone who will bake it.

One persons rights do not exclude the other persons.

At some point we, as a society, have to determine that public policy must be designed for the peak of the bell curve, not for outliers. We can develop exceptions, as appropriate, for the outliers, but we should not design public policy around them.

 

[RDKirk]

Both have their rights. The patron should be served but has no right to force speech from the baker. The baker should serve everyone but not be compelled to approve of or be a forced accomplice to immorality.

If the baker has it on the shelf, he should provide it. But, yes, I see issues when the requirement is for personal creativity. That is "compelled speech."

I'm speaking as a portrait photographer. In order to avoid such situations in my own work, I don't do things such as boudoir, nor do I even do less sexualized poses of men and women...so that if contracted to do portraits for homosexual people, I won't have to do them in poses that would be morally problematic for me. I can provide the same service to anyone.

OTOH, I know a Christian wedding photographer who would have no problem doing a wedding for a homosexual couple. First (like me), he doesn't hide his Christianity in his business. He makes it clear up front that he's a Christian, and his Christianity won't be hidden from his clients...any of them. They all get the same customer service and the best creativity he can muster. But they may get a bit of evangelizing as well, which all his customers get. He figures that if that's clear to a homosexual couple up front--and they still want to hire him--then it must be an appointment set by God.

 

[RileyG]

People should follow their conscience as they see fit and no one- absolutely no one- has the right to say otherwise.

 

[RDKirk]

People should follow their conscience as they see fit and no one- absolutely no one- has the right to say otherwise.

I don't think you've fully thought out the consequences of that sentiment.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If the baker has it on the shelf, he should provide it. But, yes, I see issues when the requirement is for personal creativity. That is "compelled speech."

Exactly. There may be creative ways to navigate the issue but compelling speech is not one of them.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm not aware of how this has played out in court. Can you fill me in?

Well, in Colorado it seems to work out that speech and artistic expression can be compelled unless the US Supreme Court overturns specific cases and says it can't.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Do not seer the conscience.
[and Paul was speaking about eating meat]
I have no doubt the Apostles would not approve of todays 'rights' which are not human rights if of a sexual nature.