No right is absolute, so at some point the state does have to step in and decide. Where that point is is debatable.
But I’ve never understood why someone would want to force a baker to bake his wedding cake when said baker is probably going to spit in the batter, or a photographer shooting his wedding who wants more than anything NOT to be there.
Presumably the adherents of the religion do; do you disagree? Why did you ask this question, Shodan?
One problem I have with forcing a cake maker to make a cake is that I would classify cake decoration as an art form. I have a real problem with the idea that the state can compel an artist to create art that the artist disagrees with or to compel them to create art at all.
You might have a point if the cake to be made is supposed to be a new, individual creation, as opposed to just following a template.
That type of legislation would violate the establishment clause. Do you have a cite confirming that such legislation has been proposed? That is actually introduced in the legislature?
Because The Tooth apparently does disagree. He/she said
Some religious adherents think their religion does require them to refuse to contribute to a gay wedding. The Tooth says with apparent authority that no, it doesn’t. Why is he/'she right but the actual adherents wrong?
Regards,
Shodan
Once again, the quote was
(bolding mine). In other words, a religion may require you to be a discriminatory asshole…but there aren’t any out there(asaik) that require you to apply said discriminatory asholiveness to any public business you may be running.
Says who? You and The Tooth say there aren’t. The religious adherents say there are.
Why should I believe a word you say about what a religion requires or doesn’t require?
Regards,
Shodan
Which religion requires a person to operate a business that will cause said person to illegally discriminate if they follow church dictates?
The quote is “No religion requires its adherents to open a bakery or photo studio but refuse to serve gay people” . That “requires” applies to the conditions on both sides of the but . There are certainly religions that might require their adherents to refuse to serve gay people. There are probably more that require adherents not to provide wedding-related products for a gay wedding. I know of no religion that requires its adherents to work at or own a business requiring wedding related products - that is, a religion that requires its adherents to work as a wedding photographer, or operate a bakery that provides wedding cakes or even that puts inscriptions on ordinary cakes ( not all do ). Their religion doesn’t prevent them from opening a school/yearbook photography business or a cupcake bakery. If there is a religion out there that requires people to work as wedding photographers or to only operate bakeries that provide wedding cakes , please provide a cite.
Do you have a cite for the actual adherents saying that their religion required them to open a bakery AND to deny service to gay people? :dubious:
But the bakery is already open.
Did said bakery arrange a “grandfather” agreement with the government stating that they don’t have to follow any rules and/or regulations passed after said bakery opens?
Let us suppose for a moment that there is such a religion. That religion requires that its acolytes have nothing whatever to do with homosexuals knowingly, either in private or public life. The penalty is disbarment from the church, excommunication.
One of the church’s members is a baker and he opens up a bakery. He is quite happy to serve members of the public equally; he has no wish at all to inquire into their private life. However two guys come in and order a cake for their upcoming marriage. The baker now has a big problem. He can serve these guys and be excommunicated or he can refuse to serve them and face federal prosecution.
Is not the state telling him that he is not free to follow the religion of his choice, or if he does he must relinquish his trade?
BTW my own position is that he should not be free to discriminate in this manner but I do have concerns that this flies in the face of the First Amendment, ie if he wishes to ply his trade then he is not free to exercise his religion.
He is free to follow his religion up to the point where following said religion breaks the law. He is still free to believe what he wants.
The same argument would hold if a religion objected to a mixed race marriage, and it’s equally against public policy. Plying one’s trade is protected on so long as it meets all applicable laws.
If he is operating in a state that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation ( not all do and I’m fairly certain Federal law doesn’t) he can simply not offer wedding cakes at all. He might lose some business , but sometimes that’s a consequence of following your religious beliefs. It’s no different from the convenience store owner who loses business because his religion doesn’t allow him to sell beer.
In your hypothetical, yes, the state is telling him that he is not free to follow the religion of his choice regarding how he runs his business.
I don’t have a problem with that re: your hypothetical.
When art is conducted as a business – I will paint a portrait for you for $3,500 – then it falls under business regulations. The artist can’t offer to paint portraits of anyone who isn’t Jewish. That form of discrimination is illegal at the business end of the transaction.
Otherwise, Jim Crow laws could pop right back up, under the pretense that Bubba’s gas station sells gasoline as “performance art” and not merely as pumping gas. “You’re black; you aren’t my intended audience.”
Do they think they’re religion requires them to open a business or be involved in catering weddings in any way? What branch of Christianity (it always seems to be Christians) requires this?