The Right To Serve

[mark46]

My position is that we should obey the law. My position is that it is immoral to not serve someone because of their beliefs.

I have also taken the position that I don't think that a retailer should be forced to carry any particular product. So, I am fine with anyone not selling pork. I am also fine with someone not selling wedding cake or wedding flowers. I would also be fine if the retailer had indicated that he does sell or use the "toppers" with 2 men or 2 women atop the cake.

HOWEVER, that is NOT the issue here. The issue here (as the law says) is whether the retailers refused service because of the religious beliefs of the customers OR because they were a homosexual couple. I would think that the retailer is in violation of the law in both circumstances. If you do not think that the religious beliefs of the customer is an issue, consider the case if they had been married in one of the churches that accepts two people of the same sex. The LEGAL issue is clear.

I also believe this is case of pharmacies, unless they are legally bound to sell all prescriptions of a doctor or have a contractual responsibility to an insurance company to do so.

Finally, there is the moral issue of refusing to sell cake to customers beacuse we disagree with their beliefs and their intended use. Personally, I think this morally repugnant.

Would be the right of the client to demand a roasted pig be prepared from a Muslim catering service? Even if its not on the menu?

 

[Erose]

I have also taken the position that I don't think that a retailer should be forced to carry any particular product. So, I am fine with anyone not selling pork. I am also fine with someone not selling wedding cake or wedding flowers. I would also be fine if the retailer had indicated that he does sell or use the "toppers" with 2 men or 2 women atop the cake.

HOWEVER, that is NOT the issue here. The issue here (as the law says) is whether the retailers refused service because of the religious beliefs of the customers OR because they were a homosexual couple. I would think that the retailer is in violation of the law in both circumstances. If you do not think that the religious beliefs of the customer is an issue, consider the case if they had been married in one of the churches that accepts two people of the same sex. The LEGAL issue is clear.

Finally, there is the moral issue of refusing to sell cake to customers beacuse we disagree with their beliefs and their intended use. Personally, I think this morally repugnant.

Mark what you say is correct and most of us agree with you, even Jack Phillips who owns the bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake. The problem that you have here is that you are commenting on a case you have shown ignorance of and you should educate yourself on what is happening before shooting off at the hip. Just advice and you can take it or not.

Below is a link from Huffington Post (not known as a religious supporter, and mostly is a far left leaning news source) for you to read over.

Jack Phillips, Denver Baker Who Refused Wedding Cake To Gay Couple, Defends His Stance

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Mark what you say is correct and most of us agree with you, even Jack Phillips who owns the bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake. The problem that you have here is that you are commenting on a case you have shown ignorance of and you should educate yourself on what is happening before shooting off at the hip. Just advice and you can take it or not.

Below is a link from Huffington Post (not known as a religious supporter, and mostly is a far left leaning news source) for you to read over.

Jack Phillips, Denver Baker Who Refused Wedding Cake To Gay Couple, Defends His Stance

He did exactly what I said he couldn't do:

He just couldn't say no.

He had to lecture them on their lifestyle.

 

[ebia]

Would be the right of the client to demand a roasted pig be prepared from a Muslim catering service? Even if its not on the menu?

If they are a Halal catering service, and advertise as such, then I would expect them to provide a Halal service to anyone.

 

[Root of Jesse]

OK, I don't know YOUR world. Perhaps you live in a state where it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals.

What constitutes 'discrimination against homosexuals'?

 

[ebia]

[QUOTE="mark1"
I also believe this is case of pharmacies, unless they are legally bound to sell all prescriptions of a doctor or have a contractual responsibility to an insurance company to do so.

[/QUOTE]
Pharmacies are unusual as they do have moral and often legal obligations around selling and not selling products. They are licensed as much as a public service as as a private business.

 

[mark46]

fair enough

I have singled out this group a couple of time because I am unsure of the nature of their licensing.

Pharmacies are unusual as they do have moral and often legal obligations around selling and not selling products. They are licensed as much as a public service as as a private business.

 

[mark46]

If you are in the business of selling wedding cakes, you cannot refuse to sell to
homosexuals getting married because there are homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual one. You also cannot refuse to sell to folks who religious beliefs (belief in gay marriage) is different than yours.

I will publicly eat crow here if the courts do not find the bakery guilty in criminal court (unless there is a settlement). Personally, I think that civil action is more problematic since they presumably found the product elsewhere.

What constitutes 'discrimination against homosexuals'?

 

[mark46]

The Huffington Post stated the facts reasonably.

Where do you see the difference between us relating to the legal status of this case (and the other involving wedding cake and wedding flowers?

I don't think that Phillips has to close his store. He just needs to stop selling wedding cake to the public if he cannot do so and also obey the law.

Mark what you say is correct and most of us agree with you, even Jack Phillips who owns the bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake. The problem that you have here is that you are commenting on a case you have shown ignorance of and you should educate yourself on what is happening before shooting off at the hip. Just advice and you can take it or not.

Below is a link from Huffington Post (not known as a religious supporter, and mostly is a far left leaning news source) for you to read over.

Jack Phillips, Denver Baker Who Refused Wedding Cake To Gay Couple, Defends His Stance

 

[Tallguy88]

You can't refuse to rent a house or apartment to a cohabitating couple (gay or straight) in some states. The Civil Rights Act as amended in 1980 forbids housing discrimination based on marital status.

Is it a violation of your religious freedom if the government says you can't refuse to rent to a cohabitating couple? What about the couple's right to fair housing?

 

[mark46]

????

The law give the couple the right to fair housing.

BTW, this law usually only applies to rentals of a certain number of units.

You can't refuse to rent a house or apartment to a cohabitating couple (gay or straight) in some states. The Civil Rights Act as amended in 1980 forbids housing discrimination based on marital status.

Is it a violation of your religious freedom if the government says you can't refuse to rent to a cohabitating couple? What about the couple's right to fair housing?

 

[Tallguy88]

????

The law give the couple the right to fair housing.

BTW, this law usually only applies to rentals of a certain number of units.

I'm asking those who say its a violation of their religious freedom to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or to buy health insurance that covers contraceptives whether they feel being made to not discriminate against cohabitators in housing is also a violation of their religious freedom.

 

[Erose]

He did exactly what I said he couldn't do:

He just couldn't say no.

He had to lecture them on their lifestyle.

He didn't say he lectured and neither did they. He was honest with them and said he could not in good conscious make them a wedding cake. That isn't lecturing in any dictionary.

What you advocate is lying, and the last I checked that is also a sin.

 

[Erose]

Pharmacies are unusual as they do have moral and often legal obligations around selling and not selling products. They are licensed as much as a public service as as a private business.

Not all pharmacies (if any) carry every single drug a doctor can prescribe. My wife was once prescribed a drug that only one pharmacy in a city of 250,000 carried.

 

[mark46]

I presume that other pharmacies might have ordered the drug.

Not all pharmacies (if any) carry every single drug a doctor can prescribe. My wife was once prescribed a drug that only one pharmacy in a city of 250,000 carried.

 

[Erose]

The Huffington Post stated the facts reasonably.

Where do you see the difference between us relating to the legal status of this case (and the other involving wedding cake and wedding flowers?

I don't think that Phillips has to close his store. He just needs to stop selling wedding cake to the public if he cannot do so and also obey the law.

Because you have been misrepresenting the case in this thread. You have claimed that this baker refused to sell anything to homosexuals, where as I have told you over and over and over that this isn't a factual claim.

2nd if you are wanting a world where religion takes a back seat to religion. People in this country and by extension, companies as well, do have rights. And trampling on them for something that isn't even level in Colorado yet, is well wrong.

 

[Erose]

I presume that other pharmacies might have ordered the drug.

Maybe in a different city, but not in Shreveport. There is a pharmacy here that deals with unique drugs that no other pharmacy deals with, in this city.

 

[Erose]

I'm asking those who say its a violation of their religious freedom to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or to buy health insurance that covers contraceptives whether they feel being made to not discriminate against cohabitators in housing is also a violation of their religious freedom.

IMO yes. Yes it would be. But I don't think that marital status or cohabitation is protected under the Fair Housing Act. It prohibited discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.[5] In 1988, disability and familial status (the presence or anticipated presence of children under 18 in a household) were added, according to Wiki.

 

[mark46]

I don't think I could be much clearer. However, I will try.

PREFACE
I have not suggested that the baker refused to serve ANY products to homosexuals. I presume from the little we have that this is not the case. We are talking about a particular product: wedding cake. In other courts, the issue is the selling of flowers for a homosexual wedding or reception.

1) Offering wedding cake to the public and refusing to sell this product to homosexual couples is a violation of the law. Clearly, the baker sold cakes to heterosexual couples.

2) Offering cakes to the public and refusing to sell cake to someone who differs in religious belief (in this case about marriage) could also be construed to be breaking the law. This would clearly be the case if the customer was to be married in a church. Here this would be discrimination because of religion.

I have been wrong before; it happens. However, I would be surprised if the courts do not convict. presuming the facts are as they seem to be. And, yes, I support such a verdict. I also think that a civil case could be won. However, I would set the compensation at $1, which is not all that unusual. It really is the principle that is at issue.

Because you have been misrepresenting the case in this thread. You have claimed that this baker refused to sell anything to homosexuals, where as I have told you over and over and over that this isn't a factual claim.

2nd if you are wanting a world where religion takes a back seat to religion. People in this country and by extension, companies as well, do have rights. And trampling on them for something that isn't even level in Colorado yet, is well wrong.

 

[Erose]

I do find it surprising how many people have posted that they have no problem violating their conscious because the government told them they had to. Where is the religious conviction? Seriously are you really willing to throw away you faith to sell a $100 wedding cake? Pretty sad.