Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[Skull Pilot]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

I think if the baker is baking the cake to order it’s differemt.
This from a recent case:


Calif. Court Rules Christian Baker Cannot Be Forced to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

"No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.
The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell cake. The 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.

For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment," he added.

The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund which represented Miller in the case said Lampe's ruling represented a win for religious liberty.

Well we disagree there.

But lets apply the refusal thing to other situations.

If your boss decides that employing women is a sin can he fire them all?
If your boss thinks employing people in mixed marriages is a sin can he fire them for it?

I’m not aware of anything in the bible that says employing people in mixed marriages or employing women is a sin.

Some people claim their religion states interracial marriage is a sin

 

[dblack]

When it comes to decisions about who we associate with - who we work for, who we serve, who hire or fire - government shouldn't be allowed to second guess our reasons.

So is that a yes or a no to the question?

That's an unequivocal 'yes'.

OK

I don't disagree with you but given the fact that we have laws to prevent such actions then until those laws are repealed anyone violating them will face the consequences.

It's my understanding that the point of the thread is discussing whether it should be illegal. The fact of the matter is that the law does violate religious freedom, as well as the more fundamental freedom of association. It should be struck down.

Wouldas shouldas and couldas have little to do with reality

Yeah - I don't get this viewpoint. We're in a thread about controversial law, and certain people keep leaning on "It's the LAW!!!", like that ends the discussion. I guess they don't get the point of political debates in the first place.

 

[bodecea]

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

When it comes to decisions about who we associate with - who we work for, who we serve, who hire or fire - government shouldn't be allowed to second guess our reasons.

So is that a yes or a no to the question?

That's an unequivocal 'yes'.

OK

I don't disagree with you but given the fact that we have laws to prevent such actions then until those laws are repealed anyone violating them will face the consequences.

It's my understanding that the point of the thread is discussing whether it should be illegal. The fact of the matter is that the law does violate religious freedom, as well as the more fundamental freedom of association. It should be struck down.

Such laws have already been deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court. The next recourse is for state legislatures to repeal their state PA laws.....that, of course, would require a majority of people in that state to push for their legislators to do so.

 

[bodecea]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No. They never even got to the point of picking a cake out...they were rejected as soon as the baker found out they were a gay couple.

 

[dblack]

When it comes to decisions about who we associate with - who we work for, who we serve, who hire or fire - government shouldn't be allowed to second guess our reasons.

So is that a yes or a no to the question?

That's an unequivocal 'yes'.

OK

I don't disagree with you but given the fact that we have laws to prevent such actions then until those laws are repealed anyone violating them will face the consequences.

It's my understanding that the point of the thread is discussing whether it should be illegal. The fact of the matter is that the law does violate religious freedom, as well as the more fundamental freedom of association. It should be struck down.

Such laws have already been deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court. The next recourse is for state legislatures to repeal their state PA laws.....that, of course, would require a majority of people in that state to push for their legislators to do so.

Skull Pilot - like this, for example.

 

[danielpalos]

So is that a yes or a no to the question?

That's an unequivocal 'yes'.

OK

I don't disagree with you but given the fact that we have laws to prevent such actions then until those laws are repealed anyone violating them will face the consequences.

It's my understanding that the point of the thread is discussing whether it should be illegal. The fact of the matter is that the law does violate religious freedom, as well as the more fundamental freedom of association. It should be struck down.

Wouldas shouldas and couldas have little to do with reality

Yeah - I don't get this viewpoint. We're in a thread about controversial law, and certain people keep leaning on "It's the LAW!!!", like that ends the discussion. I guess they don't get the point of political debates in the first place.

just frivolous suits by the right wing. how clueless and Causeless does an alleged Person of morals have to be, on a for-profit basis in public accommodation.

 

[Taz]

Which is the problem with religion.

No, that's the problem with ANY belief: there's always someone who thinks your beliefs are bullshit. Aaaaand that's why we have the First Amendment. Like I've said before, no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of; it's only needed for beliefs that go against the majority.

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

No, they don't. Legal protection is not necessary for something no one is ever going to dispute or attack. Uh, duhhhh. Sorry if I introduced a concept that required thought, instead of a kneejerk meme.

People attack the right of the majority (Christians) all the time over being able to or not teach Creationism. Sorry, better luck next time.

 

[BS Filter]

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

 

[Taz]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

A real Christian wouldn't operate that way. Nor would Jesus.

 

[dblack]

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

A real Christian wouldn't operate that way. Nor would Jesus.

Do we want the law deciding who the "real" Christians are?

 

[Taz]

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

A real Christian wouldn't operate that way. Nor would Jesus.

Do we want the law deciding who the "real" Christians are?

Anyone business owner who would refuse something to someone else isn't a real Christian. Jesus never turned anyone away.

 

[dblack]

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

A real Christian wouldn't operate that way. Nor would Jesus.

Do we want the law deciding who the "real" Christians are?

Anyone business owner who would refuse something to someone else isn't a real Christian. Jesus never turned anyone away.

Yeah. I don't really give a shit about Jesus. The question is the proper role of government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

Not according to public accommodation laws.

But answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

 

[ABikerSailor]

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

Not according to public accommodation laws.

But answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

Short answer no, not unless it's for a job where a specific religion is required like at a Catholic school or some other similar situation.

Otherwise? No. Your religion has very little to do with how you do your job.

 

[Cecilie1200]

a CAKE IS NOT A MARRIAGE

Wow, uh . . . well, thanks for sharing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not offering birth control as compensation isn't treating others badly.

Yes it is. It may put that woman at risk of illness or an unwanted pregnancy (How do you feel about abortion?)

She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?

What the **** do you mean " sort out some for herself?" Are you actually a woman? Do you know that it can be expensive? Do you understand the benefits beyond birth control:

Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill | Center for Young Women's Health

Yes I’m a woman, and no one has EVER had to sort out my birth control for me. It’s called being a responsible adult!
Also, free birth control is available, there is no need to drag your employer into it and to force them to provide it.
Why do you lefties always push the narrative that xyz (insert preferred victim group here) are morons incapable of behaving with any responsibility or accountability?

That would be because they believe EVERYONE is a moron but them, and thus desperately needs them to take power.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In that they are forcing through government power private individuals to do things they do not want to do because other private individuals want them to do it, they very much touch on any number of rights held by private individuals. I have a right to choose not to associate with other people; they do NOT have a right to force others to associate with them. Because of this, public accommodation laws, in and of themselves, violate the Constitution. It is one thing to say that public sector entities, such as government agencies, must service everyone. It is entirely another to say that private sector entities must do so.

Furthermore, to say, "They can believe what they want; they just can't practice it" is to say "They cannot believe it". A major problem with left-think on this subject is that it conflates "belief" with "thought", and assumes that one's beliefs are merely thoughts in one's head, divorced from one's actions. The exact opposite is the truth: one's beliefs are NOT what one thinks, or even what one says. What a person DOES is the truest measure of what he believes, particularly when circumstances are most difficult. The First Amendment recognizes this by guaranteeing not only "freedom of religion" but also "the free exercise thereof".

You are still arrogating to yourself the right to approve the beliefs of others. You are saying, "They have the right to believe what they want, so long as it is acceptable to most people." The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect belief that is generally acceptable to society at large; if it's acceptable to most people, it doesn't NEED protection, because it won't be attacked. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect belief that most people find repugnant.

And yeah, I actually think you should be free to restrict your business only to well-endowed blondes, if that's what you want to do. Of course, I also think you should be free to avail yourself of bankruptcy court when your business closes two months later. What I DON'T think is that you should be legally required to pretend that you like skinny brunettes if you don't choose to.

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

And no one has ever tried to stop you, so thank you for wasting time defending against an argument never made.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

That's nice. Has it sunk in yet that no one cares what you will or won't accept, because your acceptance is irrelevant to the First Amendment?

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

And again, you're entitled to have your opinion, you're entitled express your opinion, but you're not entitled to have your opinion matter to anyone. Your approval of people's exercise of their rights or their motivations for doing so is irrelevant.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

Thank you for wasting even more time defending a right no one has disputed. The problem isn't that I think you don't have a right to "call people out"; the problem is that you DON'T have the right to make anyone care.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

WRONG. Your opinion is irrelevant because IT'S NOT YOUR BELIEF IN QUESTION. The "religious bigot" is the only opinion that IS relevant when it comes to HIS beliefs.

If you're looking for applause for how wonderful and virtuous you are, you're in the wrong place, because I think you're exponentially more judgemental and bigoted than the baker ever contemplated being.

Virtue-signal at someone who gives a crap.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

I have yet to exhibit any tendency toward hypocrisy, so I can only assume you are "wondering" because you are projecting YOUR inability to stand on principle.

Not that it's any business of yours, but my boss wouldn't HAVE to fire me, because my happy ass would quit rather than work for someone like that. As a matter of a fact, I went to a job interview once where the boss starting asking inappropriate questions such as, "Well, what would happen if you got pregnant? Would you just quit and leave us hanging?" (Yes, he really did phrase it JUST like that.) I stood up, said, "This interview is over, I don't need a job badly enough to work for you", and left.

Do keep in mind, however, that there's a big difference between "I'm taking away your paycheck" and "I don't want to bake your cake".

 

[Cecilie1200]

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another ******* baker.

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

Are you REALLY going to tell me something is acceptable and moral simply because the Supreme Court ruled it so? Have you not read my posts enough to know what the response is going to be before you even go there?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.

I'm no leftists and you haven't been around very long if you think I am.

I just don't take everything people say as the truth.

The baker didn't give a shit about serving all the other sinners in the world did he?

SO answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

It doesn't matter what the baker thinks. The baker has the right to sell his art to anyone he wants to or doesn't want to.

Not according to public accommodation laws.

But answer the question

Do you think an employer should be able to fire people because he disagrees with their religion?

Short answer no, not unless it's for a job where a specific religion is required like at a Catholic school or some other similar situation.

Otherwise? No. Your religion has very little to do with how you do your job.

But if a person can refuse service to a person because of religious his personal beliefs why can't an employer hire or fire an employee for the same reason?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another ******* baker.

But I don't care if people sin so I will do business with anyone who will pay.

Your friends the bigot bakers are the ones who don't want to serve sinners in their shop and there is a legal way for them to do that.

I didn't ask, so I have no idea why you're sharing. Your beliefs and concerns are your business, and of no interest to me.

See how easy that is? And it doesn't lead to court cases and national upheaval. Try it sometime.

There IS a legal way for them to do that. It's called "put a stop to fascistic violations of the First Amendment". It's a pain in the ass, but it has to be done.

Public accommodation laws have not been deemed by the supreme court to be a violation of the first amendment and I don't think they ever will because the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with business

Are you REALLY going to tell me something is acceptable and moral simply because the Supreme Court ruled it so? Have you not read my posts enough to know what the response is going to be before you even go there?

Do you want to talk about the real world or your own little utopia?
If your employer fired you because he believes (between him and god as you put it) that hiring women is a sin that you would be just fine with that?