Wedding participation

[DaisyDay]

The argument is stupid but valid. Discrimination should not be discriminaywd against, the market will punish bad actors to the degree warranted by the discrimination. This running to the courts and whining is a waste of time and resources. Gay bakers should have a heyday with all the customers they can get now, would you not do business with someone who supports your race, lifestyle etc. than someone who does not.

This is only recently true. Attitudes changed after the law did.

 

[Rationalt]

So asking for the same services that are provided to others in intimidation. Right.

Not when you are asking but demanding makes it intimidation or coercion.

 

[cow451]

I was hired once to help set up chairs, tables, etc. for a wedding. That did not make me a participant in the wedding. It made me one of the guys that helped set-up.

 

[Archivist]

Not when you are asking but demanding makes it intimidation or coercion.

So it works like this:

Heterosexual couple: "Hi! We would like to place an order for a cake for our upcoming wedding reception."

Not intimidation or coercion.

Same-sex couple: "Hi! We would like to place an order for a cake for our upcoming wedding reception."

A clear case of intimidation and coercion.

 

[cow451]

So it works like this:

Heterosexual couple: "Hi! We would like to place an order for a cake for our upcoming wedding reception."

Not intimidation or coercion.

Same-sex couple: Hi! "We would like to place an order for a cake for our upcoming wedding reception."

A clear case of intimidation and coercion.

Somebody ought to pass a law against these intimidators!

BTW, the late Dale Earnhart has told the Long Island Medium to tell you people that the term "Intimidator" is trademarked and to cease and desist.

 

[mafwons]

No, it isn't a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It is because individuals have chosen to engage in a public business. Having done so they need to provide service to the public at large without discriminating against anyone.

If they want to establish their business as a private club then they can limit their customer base.

Corprate entities yes, sole proprietorships no, private or not, only makes sense.

 

[Rationalt]

So it works like this:

Heterosexual couple: "Hi! We would like to place an order for a cake for our upcoming wedding reception."

Not intimidation or coercion.

Same-sex couple: "Hi! We would like to place an order for a cake for our upcoming wedding reception."

A clear case of intimidation and coercion.

No, It doesn't work like that. It is intimidation when the gay couple starts threatening the baker to drag them to court.Works even better when the gay couple (male , of course ) start making out in the bakers premises.

 

[Rationalt]

Corprate entities yes, sole proprietorships no, private or not, only makes sense.

I was thinking of making a similar post.

 

[Archivist]

Corprate entities yes, sole proprietorships no, private or not, only makes sense.

So the l;aw does not apply to sole proprietors? The US Supreme Court would disagree. Have you read Katzenbach v. McClung? It is available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/294.

 

[Archivist]

No, It doesn't work like that. It is intimidation when the gay couple starts threatening the baker to drag them to court.Works even better when the gay couple (male , of course ) start making out in the bakers premises.

I see. But the opposite-sex couple can do what ever it wants.

 

[Supreme]

One of the situations where I can genuinely see both sides of the argument. As such, I'm not going to take a side.

 

[parsley]

In Matt 19, Jesus describes the heart of the law, and I doubt was intending to create a new one. In the old one, divorce was legal but adultery was not.

7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives."

Moses defined the Law; Jesus came to fulfill it.

He continued, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given....He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

That is not as cut and dry as the Law.

Go bake the cake.

Even people on death row need to eat.

 

[Billnew]

I believe the act passed in Indiana and other places, should be limited to a case by case basis. IE there should be the right to refuse to serve at a wedding that you have religious objection too. Be it SSM, second marriage of either or both individuals(that would be adultery in most cases), marriage where the woman was pregnant(adultery), even if the baker was against another religion. (Why a baker would seek this profession and have that idea is beyond me, but I could support it.)

I don't see religious grounds being a reason to refuse any other job or service. All other aspects of a persons life has no impact on a persons religion. Two people rent a room, the hotel is not endorsing premarital sex, not endorsing gay or straight lifestyle they rented a room. A person enters a resturant, who appeals to them sexually doesn't matter, they are paying for food.
No other part of a persons lifestyle matters to anyone else except for a wedding. Any direct part of the celebration of the wedding is supporting the wedding.
Who would this apply? Bartenders, caters, the venue owners(wedding and reception), photographers, bakers (limited to the professional wedding stuff, if they bought them from a resturant and served them at the wedding they would not), servers, all participants in the wedding, clergy,
basically any job that a wedding or reception requires would apply. And there are several other people offering the same services without religious problems.

No. You outsource the job of baking the cake because bakers are better at it. Same with the flowers, dress, invitations, etc. I don't plan to invite those strangers to be part of my wedding, so the idea that they would think their opinion on it should matter is amusing. Just do your job, bakers.

I agree except for the wedding cake maker. He/she is creating a special piece for the wedding, not just a carbon copy for just anyone. I could see the flowers if the florist comes to the location to set them up.

If the person is serving directly in the ceremony or primarily in the reception, as the wedding cake is, then I believe they can have religious objections.
Even after offering other suggested religious problems above, I can't say they are being unfair if they serve one sinner but not another,(any variation or combonation thereof.) It depends on the beliefs of the person.

Should a couple sue if their Muslim caterer refuses to serve pork or alcohol at the wedding? (or refuses to do business with the couple because they have a bartender at the same reception as his catering business?)

IMHO find someone that doesn't have a problem with what you want them to do. Why force people to serve you when it goes against thier beliefs?

I am divorced, if a caterer refused to do business with me because its my second wedding and my first spouse is still alive, I'm not taking them to court, I'm going to find someone that doesn't object to my new marriage.
An unhappy emplyee, doesn't do their best to make your special day ,special.

If we can't allow people to have their(very limited and focused) religious beliefs, are we really still a free society?

The wedding is the union of two people, the reception is the celebration of the wedding. Thus support of either is condoning or endorsment of the wedding.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON



This will remain closed. Please see the SoP.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7864311/


MOD HAT OFF

 

[Hammster]

.