I’m sorry, I’m not following you.
It’s late; I’m tired, and I’ve answered quite a number of these messages.
Could you take it from the top, please, either this evening, or tomorrow? Because I don’t understand.
It’s NOT A LAW!!!
CMC fnord!
I wonder how Euphrosyne would have felt about those who used the bible to justify slavery. Can the government make a law against slavery when the bible says that slaves should obey their masters?
I didn’t ask you to think of one nor was I presenting a hypothetical in which someone did starve.
The question is ‘In your opinion, if my deeply held religious beliefs are such that I believe homosexuals should starve, why can’t I refuse to use my artistic ability to refuse service to all homosexuals?’ Why is your belief I should be able to refuse to create wedding cakes OK, but not my prohibition against feeding homosexuals the fruits of my artistic endeavors?
Should the government be deciding what religious beliefs merit protection?
As a Catholic you should know that versions of the bible differ.
There are numerous other religions with their own sacred texts. Through individual interpretation nearly any belief system can be established. If a KKK members firmly established religious belief is interracial marriages are unholy, why shouldn’t they too be allowed to non-violently refuse service to you, who actively or passively supports racial integration? The question is not whether you’d pursue business with them, it is about their right to refuse service.
You seem to be of a belief that you or the government can decide what beliefs merit protection and are arguing your particular beliefs are firmly held but are comfortable denying the beliefs of others, subject to your interpretations. That to me is abhorrent to the 1st amendment.
I’m a Catholic.
Many of our people have been putting a single in the basket each Sunday since they were a kid during WWII. And they haven’t looked back.
So I don’t know much about a church that would demand of its people that they pay 10% of their income to the church, or else. Most churches I know have encouraged people to be as generous as they can, but they’ve always been . . . humane, accepting of people’s financial situations and ability to contribute.
“Give whatever you can. A little is better than nothing.” Etc.
So I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.
The law of God commands the Christian people to obey the lawful requirements of the civil authorities. The income tax is generally a lawful requirement. And if you don’t pay it, then one of these days, the tax boys will make the bank freeze all your accounts, will put a lien on your house, seize your car, and maybe even put you in jail.
There are laws that allow the government to do those things to its citizens, and those laws are perfectly in accord with the Constitution.
I’m not sure I agree that the income tax laws, as currently written, are particularly just, but let’s just skip over that for now. Let’s say all is hunkey-dorey with the 1040 brigade.
Now to the church.
If because of the income tax he owes, and his other unavoidable expenses, the man in your scenario is unable to pay his church tithe, then he’s unable to pay his church tithe.
As a Catholic, I would hope that his pastor would have enough God-given common sense to understand that, and would accept what this man could pay, and would continue to welcome him and his family to services.
Maybe the pastor would work out with the man that he spend a part of every other Saturday morning mowing the church lawn, or washing the windows, or some other chore that would allow the church to save some dough.
I know this isn’t much of an answer, but . . . common sense is common sense.
No need. You don’t seem to fully understand the “American experiment”. The Constitution, and federal law in general, supersedes state laws like the Unruh Act.
Are you kidding? Yes, I’m quite aware of that.
And sure I exaggerated. The Constitution lays out the framework of American democracy but it also has a bunch of bulwarks against straight up democracy.
The Catholic Church teaches - and I can’t speak to what other faith communities teach - but the Catholic Church teaches that the slavery which existed among the Jews of Saint Paul’s time was much more comparable to the institution of indentured servitude, as it existed in England and in Colonial America, than it was to U.S. slave trade which featured Arab kidnapper/slave-traders, a forced trans-Atlantic crossing, and a life of hard labor with virtually no meaningful rights or recognition of life, limb, property, family, the need for education, etc.
Indentured servants were the countrymen and women of their masters, and of the same stock. They sold themselves as it were, into a specified, agreed-upon period of labor. The master had no right to inflict serious injury on the servant, and certainly not to kill him. The servant retained his rights as a husband or wife, a son, or daughter, to maintain a relationship with his or her family. And so on. The servant, however, received no wages because he had already received all his wages in advance, as an advance on a salary of two years, or of three or five years. People would have used that money to pay off a debt, or to arrange for a daughter’s dowry, etc.
This institution endured for many centuries. And today, we see it as unjust, but its injustice is not to be compared with the injustice of the institution of trans-Atlantic slavery.
We as Catholics believe that persons who have been forced into slavery against their will, are victims of a radically and intrinsically unjust institution. As such they are under an obligation to obey their oppressors.
But that wasn’t the situation of the Jewish slaves [indentured servants] of St. Paul’s time.
===============================
"You seem to be of a belief that you or the government can decide what beliefs merit protection and are arguing your particular beliefs are firmly held but are comfortable denying the beliefs of others, subject to your interpretations. That to me is abhorrent to the 1st amendment.
[/QUOTE]
"
OK.
Fair enough.
What’s your solution to the dilemma you outline?
The articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the most foundational, the most fundamental, the most basic laws that are on the books - or have ever been on the books - in these United States.
Civics 101. Look it up.
Would filling the car with gas constitute an act of artistic expression or of free speech?
Huh? So why have you got a problem obeying Caesar? Seems like the mere indentured servitude of the Jewish slaves.
Then we are talking past each other. I agree with your position.
And those bulwarks are a feature, not a bug.
OK, that’s it. I need to stop.
I wrote the exact opposite of what I meant to write.
I intended to write, “as victims of a radically and intrinsically unjust situation . . . they were under ***no ***obligation to obey their oppressors.”
No, I’d suggest YOU look the difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a law, how they’re passed, who passes them and how they’re repealed . . . ya, know Civics 101.
CMC fnord!
While I don’t want to participate in the hijacking of this thread . . . the slavery which existed among the Jews of Saint Paul’s time was very much NOT ONLY comparable to the institution of indentured servitude. Mayhaps someone would like to start a new thread on it.
A decision in a very similar case was handed down last year by the Washington Supreme Court. The California case involves a wedding cake for a gay marriage; Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers involves flowers for a gay wedding. In both cases, the business owners claimed Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion protections. In both WA and CA, sexual orientation is a protected class, and the decision in Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers, which refers to SCOTUS rulings, might settle some disputes on this thread.
The following are from the slip opinion, as for some reason, I’m unable to access the decision itself. Stutzman is the proprietor of Arlene’s Flowers and claims she is one of the floral arrangement designers. All bolding is mine.
[bolding mine]
Hope this helps.
I’m afraid it doesn’t. For you see, the fact that Washington Supreme Court and the Colorado Court of Appeals have ruled opposite, their decisions clearly don’t understand the First Amendment like this judge does. And if the Supreme Court affirms the Colorado decision that doesn’t matter either because Supreme Court decisions don’t effect California.
The scenario with the flowers reminds me of a story my mother told years ago . . . I’m sure it was apocryphal.
A husband and wife walked into a millinery shop carrying the new hat the wife had bought just the day before. The man held the hat up and showed it to the shop owner. “$350? For this!” he demanded, “it’s nothing but a velvet base worth about $20, a few flowers, a few feathers, a bit of veiling . . . the makings of this hat are worth no more than $40 at most. And you have the nerve to charge my wife $350 for it?”
The milliner calmly took the hat from the man, set it on the counter, took a pair of snips, and quickly dismantled her creation into its constituent pieces. “Here you are, sir,” the milliner said, handing the man the small pile of loose materials. “I’ll keep $40 for the materials, return to you the $310 balance . . . and you’ve just bought yourself a new hat.”
“What am I supposed to do with these?” the man asked the milliner. “Why, you’re holding a $40 new hat.” replied the milliner.
If, as the Court found, floral arrangements are “not inherently expressive,” then I suggest that it makes no difference whether the florist delivers beautifully arranged displays of blooms, stems, and leaves . . . as opposed to a few boxes of packed, cut flowers and some empty vases that the customer may arrange herself or himself. And if the customer says to the provender, “oh, you must arrange them for me,” the florist might reply, “oh? you would like them arranged? Here!”
And she grabs the vases and walks them to the sink, fills each one halfway, and plops an armful of cut blooms into each one.
Moments later, the floral designer calls out, “all done! Good-bye and good luck!”
If you don’t think the designs of hats, cakes, and flowers are “expressive,” then it won’t make the slightest difference to you - will it? - if these providers simply deliver the unassembled parts and pieces, and let you, the customer, arrange them as you please . . . .
It’s not hard. The “freedom” you are arguing for is the freedom to discriminate against gay people. You are specifically advocating that people should have the right to discriminate against people like Miller. You are directly threatening his ability to live as an equal citizen of the United States of America.
What these people disguise as freedom of speech is actually an attempt to use their “religion” to deprive other people of their rights because they believe they are sinners. They have not been deprived of their ability to speak.
And I put “religion” in quotes because, as both you and I know as Christians, God never said anything about not making food for sinners. In fact, Jesus himself ate with tax collectors and sinners.
These are people using claims about religion as an excuse to discriminate. Anyone with eyes can see that Christians, the majority religion in the United States, are not under any threat whatsoever from the government. My freedom of speech has never been under threat for speaking about my religion.
But LGBT people still face threats to their rights to this day. This is one such threat: a cake maker discriminating against people because they are gay. If everyone was allowed to simply not make goods for gay people, then gay people would not be able to freely participate in society. It would not be difference from when people were allowed to discriminate against black people.
My uncle is gay. If he was unable to get a cake made because some “Christian” refused to make it for him, there is no way I would sit back and defend that as their “freedom of speech” or “freedom of religion.” First off, I’d probably work to get them the cake anyways, not letting the cakemaker know it was for a gay wedding until it was too late. But then I’d be right there with them, fighting for their rights.
All men are created equal and were endowed by God the Creator himself with certain unalienable Rights, among these Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Only one side is having their rights deprived, and its not the LGBT people.
This is a ridiculous argument. I could easily argue that none of these things are expressive, while at the same time argue that the people involved had not produced the product or done the work I paid them for. Whether the items in question are forms of expression has no bearing on the situation.
Furthermore, what you are doing is essentially making everything into expression. You could argue that a mechanic is being expressive because what they do is different from giving you the tools and making you do it yourself. Someone you pay to drive you is doing a form of expression because they could just give you the keys and make you drive yourself. Pick any job out there, and I could turn it into expression by your logic.
Not that freedom of expression is absolute. Some guy creates paintings for people. This is expression. A bunch of people come in and want the guy to paint a picture of them. The painter paints all the white people, but turns away the two black people. That painter has just discriminated against the black people, and they would win a discrimination suit against him.
He could try to argue that his religion said that it was wrong to paint black people. He could argue that his freedom of speech allows him to not paint people. But, since he offered his business to the public, he is still guilty of discrimination. And no one would be arguing that this racist was a “man of faith.”
So even if I admit that making a cake is expression, so what? Why does he get to treat LGBT people unequally? The answer: he doesn’t. As a Christian and an American, I will still fight for their equality.