Again, that wasn’t the argument I was replying to. It was your assertion that any act facilitating a gay wedding would be off limits. You were crystal clear on your position. See post #550
I don’t want to give “my opinion” about anyone, but only to speak to principles and laws to the limited extent that a beginner can do.
The arguments of the Americans who justified their holding of human chattel slaves was twofold. First, they argued that the distant ancestors of those they held had offended God, and so the punishment of slavery was laid on them and on their descendants. Which argument might be held to support the position that such persons might lawfully be enslaved.
Secondly, the slave-holders argued that since their subjection to slavery had been ordained by God, the State had no right to interfere.
Both these arguments fail; the first on Christian philosophical grounds, the second on grounds of American legal philosophy. (1. Nowhere is it found that the law of Christ permits men to punish others for the sake of the sins their ancestors may have committed. And 2. Legal philosophy, even of the time, identified the injustice of condemning a man to a period of involuntary servitude without due process of law.)
Regarding the question of Christian bakers who agree to sell to any and all comers of any description any goods they may require which the bakers customarily purvey to the public, except in those cases which may arise in which the customer requests that the baker exercise his or her artistic expression in a manner that violates her conscience, it would seem that there’s a distinction between religious precept and religious counsel, and also between negative and positive directions from God.
A precept is a commandment: each Christian must obey a precept in its fullness as soon as he is old enough to be responsible for his actions. A positive precept is something the Christian must do: (“Keep holy the Sabbath day.”) A negative precept is something he must not do. (“Thou shalt not kill.”)
A counsel is advice which the Christian must treat with reverence from his earliest age of reason, but which not every Christian is morally bound to observe. And the counsels may also be positive (“Go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow me” - which only some are called to do, not all) or negative, for example, to refrain from embracing the goods of marriage and family life for the sake of the Kingdom, which only some, not all, are called to do.
No Christian may intentionally excuse himself from the words of Saint Paul, “And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17) This is a matter of precept.
Also of precept is the First Commandment which requires Jews and Christians to honor God above all things, and which would forbid them placing before God an offering of that which He has forbidden.
Among the things which God has forbidden are homosexual relationships, and by extension, homosexual marriages.
Therefore, in fulfilling the precept given by the Apostle to do all in the Name of the Lord Jesus, which is of precept, the baker offends God if she voluntarily undertakes any action that which she cannot lawfully offer to God in Jesus’ name.
And for the State to attempt to compel her to do so, is for the State to compel her to violate her conscience.
Most gay people would not want to pay a bigot to make thier cake.
I want to be able to carry on my life like everyone else without being subjected to a minefield of bigotry. I don’t want to have to waste my time researching what business may or may not reject me. I feel if a walk into a business open to the public I should be afforded the same dignaty and respect afforded to anyone else walking in the door.
The women in this case wasted a considerable amount of time going to a tasteing and debating the merits of the various designs only to be later told they they would not be served.
In your world should they be compensated for thier time? Should they just accept the loss, cross thier fingers and hope the next baker doesn’t also reject them after similar effort?
That is your interpretation. Others have other interpretations. If someone has the profoundly held religious belief that the Law of Christ does indeed permit men to punish others for their ancestral sins, who are you to argue?
So, what you said in all of that is that anything that you do that is in furtherance of allowing a SSM to take place is forbidden.
You disagree with the judge, in that the couple could not have bought a “pre-made” cake for their wedding, as it still would have been a celebration of what you claim in the name of god is forbidden.
Just so we are clear here, you are claiming that anything at all this baker does that would facilitate a SSM would offend god. And so we are clear, anything that anyone at all does to facilitate a SSM offends god.
You are looking for a much broader ruling than this.
No, the state is asking her to make a choice as to whether she wants to be open to the public and serve everyone, or not be open to the public, in which case she can do as her conscience dictates.
There is no argument that you used that cannot be used to also discriminate against anyone else that someone decides offends their god. There is no argument that you used that limits this to creative expression, or to wedding cakes, or even to SSM at all. Every argument you used can be used by any bigot to justify any discrimination that they feel like doing.
Anyway, here’s a question for you. Let’s say that the bakery is not owned by the baker, it is, as many places that actually end up being profitable, owned by someone with business and financial sense, rather than an “artist.” The owner takes an order for a wedding cake to be served at a SSM reception. The baker complains that they don’t want to have to make a cake for this, as it “violates their conscience”. Can the owner compel their employee to make the cake, on pain of termination?
I’m a full supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, but I can see the point of view of the religious baker on this. Would we compel a muslim baker to make a cake with an image of mohammed on it? We wouldn’t, because it goes against his religion, even though an image of mohammed isn’t offensive to us. I think living in the US means protecting the rights of those with whom we disagree.
You do understand that the point has nothing to do with the accuracy of their theological arguments, yes?
It’s about the right to claim religious freedom to go against the law of the land, in particular when that action hurts someone else.
So, irrespective of whether you agree with their arguments, they believed them. So, should they be allowed to continue with slavery because they claim the bible ok’s it?
Your claim against marriage equality is as offensive to me as the biblical justifications for slavery were. And I don’t want people to hide behind the important first amendment protections to force their religious beliefs on others.
As has been pointed out in this thread on many, many occasions, the baker is not being asked to do anything the baker does not already do for straight couples getting married. There is absolutely no similarity between the baker refusing to make the same cake as she would for a heterosexual wedding, and asking a muslim to do something that they have never, and would never do.
Good sentiment. That is why we have anti-discrimination laws, in order to protect the rights of people from those who disagree with them.
I do see the distinction. And yet, the similarity is, in both cases, the bakers are being asked to do something they don’t want to do. Personally I can see why the government shouldn’t compel someone (the baker) to create or make something they don’t want to, though I might think the baker’s reasons are stupid.
The reason that the baker is being compelled to do something that “they don’t want to do”, is because they have opened their doors to the public. They chose to do that, with the knowledge that they would have to serve all members of the public, and may not refuse service based on protected classes.
If I own a restaurant, and I “don’t want to” serve black people, do you see any reason why the govt should compel me to do so?
This. One of the sentences from the judge’s ruling that I read in the article was: He State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.
The “design[ing] and creat[ion] of a cake she has not yet conceived” phrasing strikes me as key to the judge’s decision; and to the best of my ability to discern, the factual value of this component of the argument has not been established, and indeed, has been disputed (and maybe refuted).
An analogy: Let’s say that I’m a sculptor with my own facilities in which I can mass-produce (to a certain extent) reproductions of my works a la The Franklin Mint. In my catalog, I have two set pieces of little porcelain figurines depicting members of a wedding party. One depicts a bride, a maid of honor, and three bridesmaids; and the other, a groom, a best man, and three groomsmen. I advertise the availability of these set pieces in bridal magazines, with the suggestion that it would be adorable to display them at the bridal party’s table at the reception, and they can be given as . gifts to the attendants afterwards. I’ve been making these sets to order for several years, and I offer bride and groom sets separately because I perceive that the market demanded that I do so.
One day, I receive an order for my set pieces for a wedding to be held six weeks hence. The happy couple want two sets (cha-CHING), and they specify that they want both sets to be brides with attendants.
May I decline to accept the order on account of objecting to my artistic expression being compelled?
We tried that. It didn’t work. I see no reason to go back and try again. I do not support using minorities in a social experiment as guinea pigs and hoping we get different results.
Do you think the civil rights act was a mistake? Should we have continued with the status quo, allowing businesses to openly discriminate? Were the black men at the Woolworth’s lunch counter wrong to protest how they did?
Bottom line: this is a secular country. This is not a theocracy. Secular law is paramount.
I’ve had to make may compromises to observe my religious beliefs, especially since secular society isn’t arranged to make it easy to do so, as it is for many common Christian holidays and observances.
Owning a bakery is not a right. If your religion is so fundamental to your life that you can’t function in secular society, the perhaps different choices are in order. The burden here is just not that high- bake a cake, send it on its way, and pray for the souls of the happy couple of you must.
With that, I’ve said all I need to.
So you would be okay with someone having to surrender one or more of their 1st Amendment rights on order to get a license to bake a cake?
This gets down to the heart of the whole thing. Yes, in the eyes of those who want to find a way to discriminate against SSM, the black men were in the wrong to demand that they be treated the same as everyone else, because the bigots didn’t want to treat them the same as everyone else.
Please articulate what rights they are surrendering.
Do you think that the first amendment is just a carte blanche for anyone to use in anyway they wish? That just calling something speech doesn’t mean that it is beyond reproach?
Lets put it this way, there are many 1st amendment “rights” that a baker gives up. They may not make a cake with a call to violent action, they may not make a cake with chld pornogrphy on it, they may not make a cake divulging state secrets. Is this “surrendering” their 1st amendment rights?
It’s a little different with a cake with which they’re celebrating one of the most precious moments of their lives. It’s nothing like filling up your car. I wouldn’t think it’s a moment you’d want tarnished by a creep. Still, their decision.
Post #453
Hmmm, must be a problem there, as there is not a single mention of “violating democratic processes” in that post, much less whining.
Maybe another post you are thinking about?
You don’t think that having someone refuse you service because they claim that your love is offensive to their god isn’t tarnishing the moment by a creep?
Yes, however beware, your 1st Amendment rights end at the tip of my nose.
Otherwise, I’m pretty sure they were pretty important to the Founding Fathers as they edged out the right to a public trial and bail.