That’s basically the foundation for organized religion…so yes! 
OTOH they might have a legitimate claim to denying service if the KKK members were being disruptive; that is, denial on the basis of actions rather than race or group affiliation. The odds of a KKK group going to a soul food restaurant and behaving themselves politely seem long, frankly.
msmith537, I’ll be around later to set fire to your housepets. Because God told me to.
Yes, I burning you dog.
Why on earth would you expect religion to “make sense”? Does the constitution say that religious freedom is protected but only if it makes sense to non-believers?
I don’t think being in a minority or majority stats nessesary dictates why people cry free market or not. Some people do or do not because they are or are not assholes.
If you are going to force the courts to decide if your religion should allow you to violate the law, making sense to the rest of society goes a long way.
Yeah, me too. Cakes and flowers are not intrinsic necessities to the “marriage rite” … they’re products supplied to enhance the event. That baker or florist is no more a part of the religious ceremony than they are an invited birthday party guest (which they baked a cake for) or a prom attendee (that they sold corsages for) - in other words, not at all. Supplying such a product or service only grants “approval” of the ceremony in their own minds.
For folks to say, “Well, they’d certainly sell a cake to gay people. Just not a wedding cake!” boggles my mind. The baker’s cake doesn’t transfer approval/agreement/religious requirement from one to the other, except perhaps within their own minds. It’s a business transaction. Also, wouldn’t you think the proper tactic for a religious baker to do is add a little extra prayer into the batter, so their vengeful God could exact revenge on the unholy gay marriage? Or does it work better to make a public show of how righteous and moral your bakery is?
I’m still waiting for magellan or anyone else to explain why this only comes up with same-sex marriages. Marriages of divorced people or those bringing out-of-wedlock children into a marriage should surely require these religious bakers to deny them cakes, right? Why is it just the gays, hmm?
Some would say that thier creations are more than the sum of the parts - the ‘art’ itself, etc - I think there was a t-shirt shop case that went along those grounds.
Of course, I think its bullocks.
I would also counter that there is no such thing as a ‘private’ business in this sense, that they are all public shops.
If you want to truly be a private business - you don’t hang a shingle up in a public space, you do your work ‘from home’ with word of mouth as your model.
You’re right, they are not intrinsic necessities. So why would somebody go as far as to sue merchants in court to force a particular baker or florist to provide them?
Apparently christianity only requires moral rectitude in the face of blatant immorality. It’s one thing to stand up to Satan’s minions, it’s something else entirely if you have to work at it.
Not really. There is a public safety aspect that has to be taken into account, but if Jews don’t believe in doing work on Saturday, we would be remiss in holding elections on that day. But does the injunction against pressing a button on Saturday “makes sense”? Of course not.
They were not suing to force a baker or florist to provide anything. The sued because the baker or florist violated the law. Same would apply if a convenience store clerk refused to sell them a pack of gum.
Under an existing law (please identify) or one you’ve made up (please describe)?
Poor wording on my part. Apologies.
A business can refuse service to klansmen, circus clowns, shriners, sports fans, or any other given group as long as it is not because the members of that group are of a protected class.
If history teaches us anything about Christians it is surely that there is no vile thing, from torture to burning people at the stake, in the past, to condoning slavery and discrimination, to modern day judgement of others people’s sins, that their book cannot be interpreted to cover. And has been. Often.
For that reason alone, this line of reasoning should be stopped dead in its tracks in my opinion
“Free market” is not synonymous with “being an asshole”. It is synonymous with the belief that people should be free to enter into whatever legal business deals they chose and be able to negotiate the best deal they can. People who believe in free markets often do so because most of the time, it is a fair and efficient system for distributing goods and services that maximizes personal choice.
It is not a perfect system however, nor is it one that defines or enforces morality. After all, the Confederates had a pretty good free market for buying and selling black people.
In this particular case, these individuals support the “free market” because they probably believe that the gay market for wedding cakes is small enough to have a negligible effect on business.
I would guarantee you and the position were reversed where businesses were refusing to sell to Christians (much like 1930s Germany did with the Jews), they would be making a huge stink.
Actually it’s not. At least not in the way you think it is.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
IOW, you can go practice your religion all you want, much in the same way you are free to assemble and talk about most anything. But the State does not exist to ensure that you have the ability to practice your religion. It’s a subtle distinction. But one that erroneously leads people to conclude that just because something is a “religious belief” it automatically overrides or otherwise treated as an exception to the law.
IOW, there is no “religious protection” and for intents and purpose your religion is “just another group that feels bad”.
Maybe you should join a religion that doesn’t promote bigotry? “It’s my religious belief” doesn’t give a person a free pass on being an asshole.
At the very least, maybe stop being a hypocrite and trying to frame the argument as a matter of “rights” when the “right” you are advocating for is the right to discriminate against people who are different.
The issue I have with religion has nothing to do with whether it is or is not “silly”. It’s that religious people, because they believe they serve a higher universal power, feel that their beliefs and values are inherently superior to everyone else’s and deserve special consideration.
OK, that’s easy. Just pass a constitutional amendment overriding or modifying the 1st amendment.
You overstate the issue. True, any random religious belief is not immune from the legal system. But, we have the 1st amendment and we have RFRA, which is a law that passed almost unanimously, that tells us how we must interpret the 1st amendment. True, “the State does not exist to ensure that you have the ability to practice your religion”, but the state does have a responsibility not to be overly intrusive on how you practice your religion. Hence, the Hobby Lobby case.
John Mace,
" but the state does have a responsibility not to be overly intrusive on how you practice your religion. Hence, the Hobby Lobby case" JM137
Hmmm…perhaps true where it only impacts the professing individual, but the state does have an interest in how you exercise your religion with respect to others.
I do not know of any direct references to same gender marriage in the Bible. I understand that some clerics condone it for women but not men.
However, there are specific prohibitions against associating with uncircumcised men. Christian merchants honoring this taboo might bring a new dimension to the phrase:
“Please check in with the hostess”
Crane
You keep coming back to this fallacy.
The restaurants are not able to offer kosher food to Jews, but refuse to sell it to gentiles. The restaurants are not able to sell hamburgers, but refuse to sell them to Italians. The restaurants are not able to sell pancakes, but refuse to sell them to people in wheelchairs.
The restaurants are in no way obliged to carry kosher food, hamburgers, or pancakes. (It’s a pizza restaurant, for Christ’s sake!)
You continue making this primitive error.
and there is no difference in a ‘gay wedding cake’ and a ‘wedding cake’ save for the decorations on top (if that). contrasted with preparation requirements between kosher and non-kosher, which is a very specific religious tenet -