Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[GreenBean]

Oh I get what you mean, but let me approach it this way..

Why don't we see cases of bakeries refusing to make a cake for someone who is getting married for the second or third time - for example? Wouldn't that be just as significant of a sin in God's eyes?

I just feel like some Christian individuals focus in a lot on the gay lifestyle (as sinful) while turning a blind eye (and even welcoming) other types of sinful lifestyles..

Homosexuality as well as Divorce are both favored agendas of the socio-fascist Liberal Mob - Both engineered toward the same ends. The destruction of anything held in higher esteem than Big Brother - The Family

Ridiculous.

Another compost-piling extremist, you'd need about twice as much sense to be a halfwit. Don't let your mind wander—it's far too little to be let out on its own.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's kind of a broad brush you got there Kevin. Not all christians do that.

With that said..I think a business has a right to refuse service to anyone. They are paying the rent, the bills, the overhead. If they want to lose customers due to a sexual preference.....then that is on them. But to FORCE them to service people is kind of..well..unamerican. Isn't it?

Kevin appears to agree with you, he's just in this to mock the Christians apparently.

I'm most certainly not here to "mock" Christians in general. I'm here pointing out something that seems like an hypocrisy and opening a dialog about it. We don't have to make this into one of those apocalyptic name calling battles.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's kind of a broad brush you got there Kevin. Not all christians do that.

With that said..I think a business has a right to refuse service to anyone. They are paying the rent, the bills, the overhead. If they want to lose customers due to a sexual preference.....then that is on them. But to FORCE them to service people is kind of..well..unamerican. Isn't it?

Hi Gracie, I never used the phrase "all Christians" and definitely didn't intend to imply that in any way. Totally understand that.

And about the law, I can honestly swing either way on it and understand the viewpoint that businesses should be able to serve whoever they please.

But the OP was addressing the point that I've heard stories of two gays being refused wedding photography services, but never of refusing service to a divorced person remarrying, or a guy who uses the lord's name in vein a lot, etc.

You know?

I believe Gracie gave an excellent answer. I agree with her on both points. I believe any business has the right to deny service to someone and that those businesses that do deny services are going lose customers.

Would I bake the cake or do the photography job? Sure. Why not? I'm a christian and I'm being given the opportunity to do my best work for people who might not even trust christians much less allow them to be in their company on any other basis.

Love would bake the cake. imo.

Oh yea with regards to the law I mentioned before I can go either way. If a business wants to refuse service, I get the argument that they have a right to and can even agree most of the time.

The post was mainly centered around the point that (in my eyes) it seems some Christians, probably due to the encouragement of media/whatnot have really focused in on the gay lifestyle (which is fine), but have seemingly abandoned focusing in on other sins (like divorce, not honoring parents, etc). I just wanted to see if that was a double standard, and a lot of people have brought up some good points on both ends thus far.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can you imagine if there was a bill that allowed people to refuse service to blacks? What's the difference?

 

[blackhawk]

Wondering if someone could explain this to me...

You don't hear many stories of a Christian business owner refusing to serve someone who uses the Lord's name in vein, or someone who works on Sunday (by choice), or someone who commits adultery, or someone who worships idols, or someone who gambles/drinks a lot, or someone who doesn't honor his/her parents, etc, but you DO hear stories of Christian business owners refusing to serve a gay customers.

Why just this ONE sin, lol? Why are all the other sins ignored?

I think that's a fair question....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/u...-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?_r=0

The key words in your post are you don't hear many stories which suggest it does happen though probably not often and I suspect the number of gays and lesbians who are refused service is pretty low as well we simply get more media coverage on them because gay rights is a more popular political issue than any of the others you mentioned.

 

[Sunshine]

Kevin appears to agree with you, he's just in this to mock the Christians apparently.

This just a guess, but I don't think that's what he's up to. I think he's mocking hateful homophobes dressed up as Christians. Most of my friends are Christians and many of them consider homosexuality to be a sin - like the other things Kevin is asking about. But they don't have a focused preoccupation with beating down the 'homosexual agenda'. They see it as a sin, but they recognize that most of the people engaging in it are no different than the rest of us. Sinful creatures doing our best to get by. They understand that most homosexuals, sinful though they may be, are just people trying to love each other. They're not abusing children, they're not spreading disease, they're not on a campaign to lay waste to western civilization.

I agree that is about right. I believe it is a sin but no different from any other sin. Sin is sin. It doesn't fall on a curve. I've never had any agenda towards homosexuals, never attended any protests, held up any signs, called any gay person a mean name. It's never been a focus for me and I didn't hear about the wedding cake story until much later. I think most christians fall into that category but the Westboro cult people are continually held up as some sort of mainstream christianity. ( by the media / hollywood ) Which isn't true.

The crux of the issue is not that the person is gay. Unless you are told, how do you know they are gay? There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men who are not gay. The only way to know someone is gay is for them to tell you they are gay. Or to request a service like a wedding cake for a same sex couple. A good many people who think homosexuality is wrong are happy to just let it lay there and not ask as long as the gay person doesn't ask them to participate in some way. And that is what happened with the wedding case fiasco. The Christian bakers should not be forced to participate in something they believe in their heart of hearts to be wrong any more than a pharmacist should be forced to dispense birth control if it violates his religious belief. I don't even see a restaurant owner having a reason to ask unless the place is being used as a hang out by gays to the extent that their regular customers or new customers won't patronize them because it has become a gay hangout. In that instance, I believe the owner has every right to reclaim the original intent of the business which was to serve the general public.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

There is a question I have, Kevin. Exactly who are Christians to be light and salt to if not the world? How are you going to impact someones life if you are busy erecting walls to avoid them?

On the other hand, Kevin, what would possess a person to want to "force" someone into doing business with them when they didn't want to? Leave them and go find a business that is going to appreciate your business and treat you with respect.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one has proposed any business be permitted to refuse to service gays who go into their business. The controversy is whether someone can be forced to participate in homosexual activities against their will.

Even the lowly pizza delivery man has refused to deliver pizzas to the door steps in black neighborhoods.

But that's as dubious claim as well. If you're saying that an employer can't fire an employee for refusing to cater to homosexual customers (by 'participating' in their celebration), then you're simply conceding to the common liberal point of view that claims an employer's demands amount to coercion and can be considered a violation of the employees 'rights' - which is nonsense. My reading of this bill would have it prosecuting employers who fired an employee for refusing to do their job for 'religious reasons'. Is that really where you want this to go?

No one has suggested an employee be fired for participating in homosexual activities. That's not the issue. It's whether someone should be compelled to do so against their will. If the issue is photographing a same sex wedding and the employer photographer says he or she will not participate in the wedding nor attend the wedding, it doesn't matter if the employee who develops the film is willing to go. It was a business decision not to attend at all. It's very simple. What would you do with an employer caterer with a muslim employee who refuses to attend a reception based on bacon wrapped chicken livers? I can tell you right now that the employer's obligation is to make every reasonable accommodation to religious beliefs. Hasn't this been addressed in stores that require a particular form of attire for employees and dismiss women who refuse that dress and adopt the hijab instead. The stores lose. If a muslim grocery store clerk refuses to check out a customer because of bacon in the basket should they be compelled to do so? Whether that's where we want to go or not, that's where we are going.

The nation already accepts such religious freedom, as long as it's the right religious freedom.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hi Gracie, I never used the phrase "all Christians" and definitely didn't intend to imply that in any way. Totally understand that.

And about the law, I can honestly swing either way on it and understand the viewpoint that businesses should be able to serve whoever they please.

But the OP was addressing the point that I've heard stories of two gays being refused wedding photography services, but never of refusing service to a divorced person remarrying, or a guy who uses the lord's name in vein a lot, etc.

You know?

I believe Gracie gave an excellent answer. I agree with her on both points. I believe any business has the right to deny service to someone and that those businesses that do deny services are going lose customers.

Would I bake the cake or do the photography job? Sure. Why not? I'm a christian and I'm being given the opportunity to do my best work for people who might not even trust christians much less allow them to be in their company on any other basis.

Love would bake the cake. imo.

Oh yea with regards to the law I mentioned before I can go either way. If a business wants to refuse service, I get the argument that they have a right to and can even agree most of the time.

The post was mainly centered around the point that (in my eyes) it seems some Christians, probably due to the encouragement of media/whatnot have really focused in on the gay lifestyle (which is fine), but have seemingly abandoned focusing in on other sins (like divorce, not honoring parents, etc). I just wanted to see if that was a double standard, and a lot of people have brought up some good points on both ends thus far.

If a Christian bakery is asked to bake a "happy divorce" cake, and have to attend the happy divorce party to care for the special order cake, I have no problem with them refusing to do it. Why was it okay for a bakery to refuse a child's birthday cake because the kid was named Adolph Hitler?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This just a guess, but I don't think that's what he's up to. I think he's mocking hateful homophobes dressed up as Christians. Most of my friends are Christians and many of them consider homosexuality to be a sin - like the other things Kevin is asking about. But they don't have a focused preoccupation with beating down the 'homosexual agenda'. They see it as a sin, but they recognize that most of the people engaging in it are no different than the rest of us. Sinful creatures doing our best to get by. They understand that most homosexuals, sinful though they may be, are just people trying to love each other. They're not abusing children, they're not spreading disease, they're not on a campaign to lay waste to western civilization.

I agree that is about right. I believe it is a sin but no different from any other sin. Sin is sin. It doesn't fall on a curve. I've never had any agenda towards homosexuals, never attended any protests, held up any signs, called any gay person a mean name. It's never been a focus for me and I didn't hear about the wedding cake story until much later. I think most christians fall into that category but the Westboro cult people are continually held up as some sort of mainstream christianity. ( by the media / hollywood ) Which isn't true.

The crux of the issue is not that the person is gay. Unless you are told, how do you know they are gay? There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men who are not gay. The only way to know someone is gay is for them to tell you they are gay. Or to request a service like a wedding cake for a same sex couple. A good many people who think homosexuality is wrong are happy to just let it lay there and not ask as long as the gay person doesn't ask them to participate in some way. And that is what happened with the wedding case fiasco. The Christian bakers should not be forced to participate in something they believe in their heart of hearts to be wrong any more than a pharmacist should be forced to dispense birth control if it violates his religious belief. I don't even see a restaurant owner having a reason to ask unless the place is being used as a hang out by gays to the extent that their regular customers or new customers won't patronize them because it has become a gay hangout. In that instance, I believe the owner has every right to reclaim the original intent of the business which was to serve the general public.

I used to be a master paperhanger and I never turned down jobs from gay clients. I wallpapered their bedrooms and never felt any conviction I was doing something wrong. I would not feel wrong about making them a cake. I would expect if I had talent as a baker ( I don't really ) I would find the same satisfaction from their being happy over my work as I would when they were happy over the new wallpaper. They appreciated my work and I appreciated that they were willing to wait for me if I was booked. Some of my gay clients even wanted to tell me their thoughts on God. I listened and hung my paper while they talked. If I had it to do all over again, I would. There is no conflict there for me. None. I can bloom wherever I'm planted.

 

[dblack]

No one has proposed any business be permitted to refuse to service gays who go into their business. The controversy is whether someone can be forced to participate in homosexual activities against their will.

Even the lowly pizza delivery man has refused to deliver pizzas to the door steps in black neighborhoods.

But that's as dubious claim as well. If you're saying that an employer can't fire an employee for refusing to cater to homosexual customers (by 'participating' in their celebration), then you're simply conceding to the common liberal point of view that claims an employer's demands amount to coercion and can be considered a violation of the employees 'rights' - which is nonsense. My reading of this bill would have it prosecuting employers who fired an employee for refusing to do their job for 'religious reasons'. Is that really where you want this to go?

No one has suggested an employee be fired for participating in homosexual activities. That's not the issue. It's whether someone should be compelled to do so against their will.

And would you consider an employee threatened with dismissal to be 'compelled'? Because that IS the issue the law address. It's not disputing public accommodations laws. It's disputing the right of the employer to require that an employee do something that goes against their religion, and the employer's right to fire them if they refuse.

The nation already accepts such religious freedom, as long as it's the right religious freedom.

I'm not sure if you meant this to be ironic, but yeah - that's exactly the problem.

 

[KevinWestern]

Wondering if someone could explain this to me...

You don't hear many stories of a Christian business owner refusing to serve someone who uses the Lord's name in vein, or someone who works on Sunday (by choice), or someone who commits adultery, or someone who worships idols, or someone who gambles/drinks a lot, or someone who doesn't honor his/her parents, etc, but you DO hear stories of Christian business owners refusing to serve a gay customers.

Why just this ONE sin, lol? Why are all the other sins ignored?

I think that's a fair question....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/u...-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?_r=0

The key words in your post are you don't hear many stories which suggest it does happen though probably not often and I suspect the number of gays and lesbians who are refused service is pretty low as well we simply get more media coverage on them because gay rights is a more popular political issue than any of the others you mentioned.

Sure, and that might be the whole discussion here. Maybe it's the media that's blowing it all out of proportion.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wondering if someone could explain this to me...

You don't hear many stories of a Christian business owner refusing to serve someone who uses the Lord's name in vein, or someone who works on Sunday (by choice), or someone who commits adultery, or someone who worships idols, or someone who gambles/drinks a lot, or someone who doesn't honor his/her parents, etc, but you DO hear stories of Christian business owners refusing to serve a gay customers.

Why just this ONE sin, lol? Why are all the other sins ignored?

I think that's a fair question....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/u...-businesses-to-refuse-to-serve-gays.html?_r=0

The real question is HOW do these 'Christian' business owners identify who is gay and who is straight? By appearance? By name??

So if you are masculine, and have a virile name, your OK...

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I don't believe an employer has the right to fire an employee for refusing to do something that violates their conscience.

 

[KevinWestern]

I believe Gracie gave an excellent answer. I agree with her on both points. I believe any business has the right to deny service to someone and that those businesses that do deny services are going lose customers.

Would I bake the cake or do the photography job? Sure. Why not? I'm a christian and I'm being given the opportunity to do my best work for people who might not even trust christians much less allow them to be in their company on any other basis.

Love would bake the cake. imo.

Oh yea with regards to the law I mentioned before I can go either way. If a business wants to refuse service, I get the argument that they have a right to and can even agree most of the time.

The post was mainly centered around the point that (in my eyes) it seems some Christians, probably due to the encouragement of media/whatnot have really focused in on the gay lifestyle (which is fine), but have seemingly abandoned focusing in on other sins (like divorce, not honoring parents, etc). I just wanted to see if that was a double standard, and a lot of people have brought up some good points on both ends thus far.

If a Christian bakery is asked to bake a "happy divorce" cake, and have to attend the happy divorce party to care for the special order cake, I have no problem with them refusing to do it. Why was it okay for a bakery to refuse a child's birthday cake because the kid was named Adolph Hitler?

What I'm saying is that in some forms of Christianity if you cannot remarry because you already gave vows before God with person #1, so the wedding #2 is no more than an adultery-fest. When you make that cake you're supporting sex out of marriage, etc. Get my point?

But the whole severity of divorce thing has seem to fallen out of favor with Christians (maybe due to convenience?).

 

[KevinWestern]

Again, everyone - let me restate.

With regards to the law I actually might side with the business in some cases to refuse service. That's OK. If it's against your religion not to participate in a gay wedding that's fine - you're your own person. Is it smart business? No. Do I think it's silly? Yes. But that's my viewpoint.

HOWEVER, the point I'm making is that there are SO MANY sins that some Christians in today's society seem to ignore completely. Again, worshiping idols, divorce, sex out of wedlock, using the lord's name in vein, working on Sunday, etc, etc? It is a fair statement to say that sometimes the gays are targeted because it's "the other's" lifestyle and therefore an easy scapegoat (whereas criticizing yourself or others for getting divorced might be a bit more difficult)?

.

 

[dblack]

I don't believe an employer has the right to fire an employee for refusing to do something that violates their conscience.

? Really? So, I guess you'd need to know pretty much everything about a applicant's 'conscience' before hiring them, eh?

 

[Sunshine]

I agree that is about right. I believe it is a sin but no different from any other sin. Sin is sin. It doesn't fall on a curve. I've never had any agenda towards homosexuals, never attended any protests, held up any signs, called any gay person a mean name. It's never been a focus for me and I didn't hear about the wedding cake story until much later. I think most christians fall into that category but the Westboro cult people are continually held up as some sort of mainstream christianity. ( by the media / hollywood ) Which isn't true.

The crux of the issue is not that the person is gay. Unless you are told, how do you know they are gay? There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men who are not gay. The only way to know someone is gay is for them to tell you they are gay. Or to request a service like a wedding cake for a same sex couple. A good many people who think homosexuality is wrong are happy to just let it lay there and not ask as long as the gay person doesn't ask them to participate in some way. And that is what happened with the wedding case fiasco. The Christian bakers should not be forced to participate in something they believe in their heart of hearts to be wrong any more than a pharmacist should be forced to dispense birth control if it violates his religious belief. I don't even see a restaurant owner having a reason to ask unless the place is being used as a hang out by gays to the extent that their regular customers or new customers won't patronize them because it has become a gay hangout. In that instance, I believe the owner has every right to reclaim the original intent of the business which was to serve the general public.

I used to be a master paperhanger and I never turned down jobs from gay clients. I wallpapered their bedrooms and never felt any conviction I was doing something wrong. I would not feel wrong about making them a cake. I would expect if I had talent as a baker ( I don't really ) I would find the same satisfaction from their being happy over my work as I would when they were happy over the new wallpaper. They appreciated my work and I appreciated that they were willing to wait for me if I was booked. Some of my gay clients even wanted to tell me their thoughts on God. I listened and hung my paper while they talked. If I had it to do all over again, I would. There is no conflict there for me. None. I can bloom wherever I'm planted.

I had many patients who were homo, bi, and trans sexual. Many of them had issues with their sexual identity. I learned to ask their sexual orientation and sexual practices on evaluation. And I taught my students to ask in a non judgmental way. All you have to do is ask, 'do you have sex with men, women, or both.' And then determine if the person is comfortable with their answer. This was something I learned the hard way. 6 months into treatment of depression and someone isn't getting better, then you know there is some issue there that you don't know about. So, back to square one. You just have to know to be effective. But not in every business. If you are in the restaurant business and you see your business going away because of something then, I think you should have every right to deal with that issue. America is as much about commerce as it is about religion and the laws of the land favor commerce.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's kind of a broad brush you got there Kevin. Not all christians do that.

With that said..I think a business has a right to refuse service to anyone. They are paying the rent, the bills, the overhead. If they want to lose customers due to a sexual preference.....then that is on them. But to FORCE them to service people is kind of..well..unamerican. Isn't it?

I think bringing back legalized racial discrimination is unAmerican.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well it is the owner's business and if he wants to have less revenue from opting out on providing service to gays, then that should be his choice.. It is what we call "Freedom" in this country..

No, it's what we call discrimination in this country, at least those of us who are civilized.

If you believe the segregated South was a symbol of American 'freedom', you are lost.