Those who know me, know that I'm a fairly devout religious person. I go to church, I actually believe in a God, I pray every day, I fast, I tithe, etc.
And those of you who know me, know that I am also fairly progressive (as religious people go) in my attitudes, politics, etc.
So here's the rub. There's been a bit of a dust-up recently about "Religious Freedom". I put quotes around it because even though it's just a couple of words that make a good deal of sense on their own, it's also become a term that looks an awful lot like a line in the sand that forces people to choose a side. It's a piece of rhetoric that turns us into us and them.
For reasons too complicated and boring to explain, I went to a meeting last night about "defending our religious freedom". It was exactly what I expected: Some speeches about how the evil people in the world and in the government were going to squash our right to worship. There were many, many examples discussed:
-The small business pharmacist forced to fill a prescription for abortive birth control
-The Christian Student club being shut down by the university for wanting to have a Christian leader.
-The Photographer being sued and fined for choosing not to photograph a gay wedding.
So I struggle because I refuse to live in fear, but on the same token - I don't want to get told I'm going to get sued for something that is against my moral compass or religious creed.
I don't like the us vs. them rhetoric. In my perfect world - I get to live my religion the way I want, and you get to live your life the way you want. I've always thought of this topic in terms of a game of basketball:
Me and a couple (million) people want to go over here and play a game. The game has rules. No one is being forced to play any of the game. It is 100% voluntary. The rules are established by a governing body and if we choose to play, we play. If some one decides that they don't want to play by the rules anymore - and instead want to run without dribbling the ball or lower the hoop to 6ft for easier dunking - I would expect the whistle to blow. The person must then choose to play this game, or go somewhere else and start a game with people who like the altered rules.
So I ask you hubski - give me the non-believer POV. If I'm a baker and choose not to make a cake for a gay wedding, should I be sued, fined, or put out of business? If I'm a minister, should I be forced to marry a gay couple?
Can't we all just get along?
I'm an atheist who helps out with kids in a children's hospital run by a church that I honestly find offensive. Why do I do it? Sometimes doing the right thing sucks, but you do it anyway because it makes things better. I keep my views on god, faith and religion at home and they know they cannot convert me or they lose a volunteer that has been working with them for a decade. As long as the kids love playing on the computers and together we reduce the suffering and misery of the community who gives a shit about what church you go to?
If I'm a baker, should I be forced to make a wedding cake for a black couple? How about for a mixed-race couple? Is this a different issue? If so, how exactly? I know I'm asking, not answering - but I think it's worth making the comparison. It wasn't that long ago that these were relevant questions too.
absolutely. And for the record - the issue of providing services - I am 99.9% all about service to all. (maybe a cake for a hate group would be the .1% where I would decline and risk the lawsuit) But I wonder - what about the marriage ceremony? Should a minister be compelled to perform what they believe is a sacred ordinance? (I'm trying to imagine a gay couple demanding marriage at the hand of some one who doesn't believe in gay marriage - but that's some of the weird fear-based language I hear around)It wasn't that long ago that these were relevant questions too.
Understood. Imagine you're a minister from 50 or 100 years ago, and you don't believe you should have to marry a black man to a white woman, on purely religious grounds. Was that minister right or wrong? In his time, it would not even have been a question, but seen in today's eyes, it's different. What will the world look like in another 100 years? Who would Jesus allow to get married?
This is a GREAT question. And I'll give you my honest answer: Anyone should be able to marry any other consenting adult. But I really believe that a minister shouldn't be forced to marry anyone that violates the doctrine of his/her church. But I think that sounds like hate speech to some people.Who would Jesus allow to get married?
This is a whole other can of worms, but I think you just endorsed plural marriage, dude ;-)Anyone should be able to marry any other consenting adult.
I agree with you - but there are legal entanglements and advantages/obligations conferred by marriage (mostly tax-related) that need to be clearly sorted out.
The best argument I've ever heard is that marriage should be abolished as a civil institution and all tax and citizenship benefits should be transferred to civil unions, which are wholly separate from marriages. "Marriage" should be whatever you and/or your church want it to be; "civil union" should be between two consenting adults.
It's a wholly semantic issue. Marriage is part of law, because marriage is a cultural thing, and a human thing; religion simply codified it. Pair-bonding is older than humanity. The problem being, of course, many people believe not only that religion invented 'marriage,' but their religion in particular. I agree with you. They're wrong, as a matter of fact. But if it makes them less antagonistic, let them have it. I value people more than words.
Jumping in here, it doesn't sound like hate speech to me. The line I draw is between requiring someone to believe something and requiring them to do something. A church is a non-public institution providing services to its members. As such, the church is not expected to provide services, including membership and marriage services, to whomever requests them. A metaphor might be a private country club. I can't play golf there, and a hay couple can't have a wedding with a catholic priest. When a gay couple orders a wedding cake, they are not asking the baker to approve of their wedding. The baker provides services to the public as a whole; they aren't a non-public institution. Therefore (to me, a non-religious person), the baker should be expected to provide the service, barring any non-protected reason preventing them (e.g. if they're booked solid, so be it). The baker is expected to do but not expected to believe.
I think it really depends on if the minister offers marriage services to the public, or only to his congregation. If the latter, then okay, discriminate away, and ban those sinners from your church - but if those services are offered to the public (for profit or not), then such discrimination should not be allowed.
I don't think so. The argument I gave in a different area is the idea that you cannot selectively give service to X group, but not Y. However, in this case, the "service" is the people in some way. A religious ceremony is tied to belief, and tied to the church, the moral system, and so on. To mandate they act a certain way, within a church, isn't right. So long as the state will provide a courthouse and a secular leader to mandate the marriage, and gay people are allowed to form their own churches that can perform the ceremonies, then I think this is fine to allow discrimination on. Should a minister be compelled to perform what they believe is a sacred ordinance?
It depends whether it is a religious or a civil ceremony. If the minister carries out religious ceremonies exclusively within their own religion, then fine. They can discriminate. I wouldn't expect some orthodox Jewish rabbi to preside over my atheist or christian or whatever wedding.
I would like to think that we live in a world where such behavior would be laughable. But I don't think a wedding service is exactly like a normal marketable product, that happens to be sold by people who could be antagonistic to gay marriage.Should a minister be compelled to perform what they believe is a sacred ordinance?
I wonder if this is a point... in our church - the ministers are all completely unpaid. I wonder if collecting a fee for the service would/could be a distinction in a case such as this. I'm glad you think so too. It felt like such a straw man argument: "BUT THEN THEY WILL DEMAND THAT WE MARRY THE GAY PEOPLES". I just shook my head. It felt so fear-mongering.that happens to be sold by people
such behavior would be laughable
I think you should make the cake. If it's just a regular cake that you usually make. I don't think you should be required to make a cake and paint the statement "KKK 4ever!" or "NAMBLA rules!" on it. When it comes to your own personal art and craft, you should be able to refuse any design. No one would have an issue with a landscape painter refusing to paint a portrait, or to paint in a different style, or with different media. It's their artistic choice. I see painting a slogan - or taking specific request for design that you may not want to do - as part of that. As a comparison: let's say the baker was asked to make a "joke cake" with a chocolate turd on it. The baker doesn't want it to end up all over social media tagged with his business name. Does that make him a humourless piece of work? So be it. It's his choice what he does with his brand. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake with "gay weddings rule!" on it, or whatever else, that's his choice. Does it make him a bigot? Likely. But it's choice to have a bigoted brand.
The problem with most discussions about religious freedom is it is always explained through a selfish perspective. Here, check it out: If I'm in a gay couple and no one in town will bake me a wedding cake because it's against their religion, should I be able to sue? If I'm in a mixed-race couple and no one will officiate my ceremony because it's against their religion, are they interfering with MY religious freedom? The answer is yes. It's crystal clear. A merchant cannot refuse service to someone for their religion, their skin color, their sexual persuasion or any other constitionally-protected belief or trait. This is because majorities can become instruments of tyranny. If every lecturer at the University of Alabama decides it violates their religious freedom to educate black students, every lecturer at the University of Alabama is putting their religious freedom above the right to education held by those students. We rolled the National Guard for that. As with most things, your right to religious freedom and my right to religious freedom have to balance out. "Go find another preacher," you say. "Not all preachers will refuse to marry you." But that's how prejudice works - someone stands up for oppression and everyone else oppressive rallies behind them. This is how pogroms start. This drives the Jews out of Europe. This sends the Chinese back to the mainland after the railroads are built. If there is no mechanism protecting the liberties of the minority, the majority will abuse them. You have a game. It has rules. No one is being forced to play the game and it is 100% voluntary. But it's NOT 100% voluntary for people you don't want to play the game because your god isn't big enough for them. That's what equality is about: knowing you can't legally be told you aren't allowed to play. You know what you just defended? The "separate but equal" clause. You just backed up against Apartheid. That should give you pause. It really comes down to this: religion should not and does not give you permission to treat one person as less of a human than any other. And by saying "my religious freedom does not require me to assist you in practicing your constitutional rights" you are arguing that certain people are beneath the law... ...and certain people are above. And you're not. "Religious freedom" can mean undertaking something spiritually odious so that everyone in your society can belong.If I'm a baker and choose not to make a cake for a gay wedding, should I be sued, fined, or put out of business? If I'm a minister, should I be forced to marry a gay couple?
But it depends what you mean by "service". To sell someone a cake you already make - sure. To sell someone a cake that they want customised in a way that you don't normally do: I think you have choice here. As I mentioned in another comment, if you're an artist who paints portraits in watercolour, or in monochrome, I don't think it's reasonable for someone to demand that you paint in oil or in colours. Ultimately it goes down to your own personal artistic choice, and the kind of art and product you want your brand associated with. It's not about refusing custom to another group. It's about refusing your products to be used in a way that specifically supports the ethos or belief of that group, if you don't support that ethos or belief. No private business should be required to make a cake with a message they consider abhorrent or immoral on it. I'm a secular atheist, for what it's worth. I should equally be allowed to refuse to make a cake with "Jesus saves" on it: though selling someone the basic cake, and letting them add the custom icing elsewhere, that's fine.
It doesn't. "I refuse to do business with you because I do not support your beliefs or practices" doesn't work when the government has recognized your beliefs and practices as protected. Your watercolor/monochrome discussion is false; if your trade is in painting watercolor, no one can force you to paint in tempera. However, if your trade is in painting klu klux klan rallies in watercolor, you have a civil case that you can't refuse to paint the Million Man March in watercolor. You should be equally disallowed to refuse a cake with "Jesus saves" on it. You're putting your prejudices ahead of your community, pure and simple. Something lost in all this is that it's a rare person who wishes to do business with someone that hates them. I think it's safe to say that in every case where your trade needs to be protected by law, you're dealing with a situation in which both parties wish there were more choice. Sometimes that choice isn't available. NO ONE benefits from you standing on your principles and refusing to put whatever the hell your customers want on their cakes. It's a fuckin' cake. But if it means that much to you, that means that you need to be compelled to decorate their fuckin' cake because society is about putting up with other people's fuckin' cakes. That's really what this is about: "religious freedom" as used by the right means the "freedom" to deny people their place in society because religion.
But I specifically said you shouldn't refuse general business. My view is that you shouldn't be forced to customise your products in a way that conflicts with your own artistic, moral, or whatever integrity. Another example: you're a tailor. You make sexy lingerie. Someone wants you to make a peephole bra for a three-year-old. It's probably not illegal, as a garment in itself. But you personally find it abhorrent and against your personal ethical and moral code. Should you be able to refuse that? What about the damage to your business if you become the "tailor who made the toddler peephole bra"? Similarly, if your cake shop operates in a tight knit religious community, what about the damage to your brand if someone forces you to make a cake with a message that conflicts with that community's (albeit bigoted) beliefs?
Yeah, still no. You can refuse service to anyone - so long as it isn't for race, religion, color or national origin. Don't want to make a peephole bra for a 3 year old? No one is forcing you to. Refuse to make a peephole bra for a 3-year-old because her dad requires it for religious ceremonies that are officially recognized by the United States government? You're shit out of luck. Damage to your brand? NONE. You're complying with the law. But do you see what you're requiring here? You're insisting that you have the right to refuse service to pedophiles. no shit. that's not the discussion. In fact, the act of conflating the rights of gay couples to be served anywhere wedding cakes are made with pedophilia is exactly the kind of alarmist, extremist, Godwin-esque argument that keeps people from seeing straight. It's entirely legal to refuse someone service because you don't like their face. It's entirely illegal to refuse someone service because you don't like their muslim face. That shouldn't be at all contentious. yet somehow the 'wingers have managed to make otherwise rational people start going "I wouldn't want to make peephole bras for toddlers, therefore wingnuts should be allowed to refuse to make cakes for gay people." This line of argument is beneath you.
I'm not suggesting they refuse service, I'm suggesting they should be able to refuse to customise their service in a specific way. I'm an atheist. I wouldn't dream of going into a bakery run by Muslims and asking them to make me a cake with "there is no God!" piped on it. If the law requires them to do that, then the law is wrong. On the other hand, when it comes to essential service, I would have no hesitation entering a pharmacy staffed by a devout Catholic and asking for the morning after pill. And if they refused, I would sue the shit out of them. This isn't about service. It's about being forced to modify your service, and offer a product that you don't normally sell.
Again, no. I don't care that you're an atheist. I don't care what you would or wouldn't do in a Muslim bakery. the law isn't for what people want to do, the law is for what people are required to do. This is something that is often lost: nobody wants to get an abortion. If you need one, you're in a black place in life. That black place is where laws happen. You're crafting this idea where it's bad manners to do business with someone not of your creed. Sure. Know what? I'm the only white guy my barber cuts hair for and he does a damn fine job and we get along great. Did I seek out a barber in Westchester? Nope. But there was a nice lady there who left and me and Marty have been getting along for five years now. Should Marty be allowed to refuse to cut my hair? You keep throwing up these boundaries so that you can keep things in the nice, logical, friendly part of the discussion where you look sensible and rational and then throw up these ridiculously offensive objections that make anyone wanting the opposite look deprived. Again, it's beneath you. If you needed a cake with "there is no God!" piped on it, and the only place you could get it was a Muslim bakery, the Muslim bakery cannot legally refuse to sell you a cake. Full stop. That's the law, has been for 50 years. How many cases of offensive atheist cakes can you think of? I'll wager "none." That's because nobody else would dream of asking for your hatecake, either... ...but it doesn't change the fact that your hatecake is legally protected. This isn't about service. This is about equality under the law, and equal access in society.
I think this reflects a kind of cultural mindset gulf between the US and perhaps European countries. To me it's absurd that someone would "need" a cake to the point that they feel they have a "right" to it. It's absurd to me - and rude - that I would impose my beliefs on someone else such that they were forced to modify their services and their own beliefs - for a non-essential product or service. I guess the split here is that you talk from a position about rights. It's all about "your rights" - the customer's absolute right to always be right and always be served. And your laws reflect that. Whereas for me - as someone from a nation for whom queuing politely and apologising when someone else bumps into you is a national pastime - it's about consideration. I don't need or want laws that legally protect a hate cake. I'm quite happy to have such speech restricted. If I have to express my own freedom of speech through other channels, that's fine. I'll do so. I'll find another cake vendor, or make my own, or perhaps put the message on a table decoration. I don't think we are going to reconcile this, because I'm not arguing from a legal point of view (and I'm outside the US anyway, so your laws don't really affect me) but I what I personally believe should be the situation. Our difference of opinion on this is a cultural one, it's a difference of attitude.
Right - that polite country of yours. Europeans looking down their noses at Americans for their civil issues is the most tired, most tawdry, most hypothetically continental move there is. In Amsterdam, this is "tradition": In Los Angeles, this is front-page scandal: The split here is you come from a homogenous society based on a homogenous culture that emphasizes homogeneity. Y'all are 87% white, maybe 7% Indian, 3% black, nothing else really in the numbers. Where I grew up, white folx were the third largest minority behind Hispanics and Native Americans. It's easy for you to be high and mighty.
It's not "looking down their noses", it's appreciating a cultural difference. Of course your own history of migration, legacy of slavery, geographic diversity and higher extant religiosity are going to mean you need different laws. It's not about better/worse, it's about practicality and what fits the current state of society. The US needs stronger enforcements of anti-discrimation because there is still more cultural discrimination. You had enforced segregation within living memory, we did not. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint me as "high and mighty". I fully admit that your country lags Europe in some regards (I can't imagine an openly atheist president would yet be electable, for example). In some other regards, the US exceeds Europe (secularity in public schools for starters). Plus there is also a lot of diversity within Europe. Ireland and a couple of countries massively lag the rest of the developed world in terms of reproductive rights. Here in Australia, we lag horribly when it comes to gay marriage rights.
Really? I'll assume you're not considering aboriginal discrimination, then. Although I shouldn't talk, we in NZ aren't a whole lot better. At least we have legal gay marriage now, finally (c'mon over!) still more cultural discrimination (in the USA)
Seems to me that in these type of edge cases (which may require a court to decide), the rule should be based upon if the person requesting the service is being discriminated against. If you WOULD make that peephole bra for the town's crazy grandma, but NOT for the dodgy-looking dude who you think might be a pedo, then you're discriminating. If you wouldn't make it for anyone, then no-one's rights are being violated. Weird example but I hope you see what I mean. [edit - to be fair, I'm not sure I agree with myself on this. It's a tough issue]
I do see what you mean. You might argue that you only make that bra in an adult size. Likewise you might argue that you only make wedding cakes with flowers/non human figures. And if you did so, fair enough that you wouldn't want to put two brides on. There are some religions that prohibit the use of human images anyway (strict islam being one). Also to throw into the mix: you're a wedding caterer, you're Jewish, you don't make or serve food with pork. Someone asks for sandwiches with ham instead of salmon. Are you required to make those? If the wedding cake guy said: "I can't make you a cake saying "Ben and Steve's Big Gay Wedding", but I can make you cake with flowers, or one with a generic "Happy Wedding"" - would that be okay? Then back to the first example, you could offer to make the dodgy-looking dude a bra, but only in an adult size or above. Then you have the dilemma that his wife is a midget/little person...
Wait what happens when their artistic style doesn't supprt black people, or hispanic people? What you do is leave a giant gaping hole for literally the worst type of discrimination. The law protects ALL people and yes hate speech does find its way through the cracks, but it stops people from openly discriminating against huge groups of people.
Then you're a racist artist, and so be it. It's not illegal to be racist or hold racist views: just look at all those abhorrent white supremacy groups. It's not like someone is actively harmed because you only paint pictures of black people. Maybe you only like painting with dark pigment. Maybe you feel it's a specific skill you have and your work painting East Asian or Caucasian people would be poor and harm your artistic brand. Or maybe you actively dislike white people. Who's to know? (For what it's worth, I used to do amateur portraits and vastly preferred sketching old men. The crags, the wrinkles, etc. I found them much easier and more interesting to do. Had I decided to charge, I almost certainly would have refused requests from younger people, as I wouldn't feel they would be happy with the result. Is that discrimination, given it's based on age?) Either way: people need to consider if harm is really being done to the person discriminated against. Does it "harm" you if a particular artist won't make you the product you want? No. Are you harmed by a particular business not making you a cake? No. And if they had to turn your business away because they were too busy, you wouldn't have a case. In future, bigoted businesses will simply lie and say they have no capacity to fulfil your order. The worst kind of discrimination is being refused a job because of your [group]. It's being harassed or bullied. It's being killed. It's not not-having-someone-paint-your-portrait (or not-bake you a cake).
One can express racist views, but cannot act on those racist views. What you are arguing is someones inability to complete the job in which case it has nothing to do with their desire. If you can't do something physically then it isn't being racist you just lack the ability to do what these people want. This isn't an argument of ability. When does that line of thinking end? Are you harmed when a university doesn't accept you into their college? Are you harmed when you are refused a loan from a bank? Are you harmed when you don't get accepted for a job? I mean there are other universities, other banks, and other jobs right? The problem with your line of thinking is you leave an opening for greater discrimination to the point that it becomes harmful. If you cannot discriminate in one way, you cannot discriminate in anyway.
I generally shy away from "political" topics but I will say this: I am a non-believer now but went to Catholic school, went to Church at least once a week, actually read the New Testament, was an altar boy for years, etc. and everything about all of those things did nothing but reinforce the fact that the Church was a good thing. Every single priest I knew was a great guy and I still associate with one on a very regular basis. Fr. Paul is an amazing guy and actually conducted my niece's baptism where I, as godfather, was supposed to pledge to "lead her in the Church" or something and Paul took me aside ahead of time and said there was an issue as he knew I would not want to say that. So we changed the wording so it would be in the spirit of the pledge but acceptable to all. Paul has come to family dinners where there have been Jews and Muslims present and they all say there own versions of essentially the same prayer and everyone respectfully participates. No big deal. IMO Religion is supposed to be about inclusion and being a good person and respecting others and not forcing others to do or believe exactly what one thinks they should. We are all "God's creation" and should be afforded mutual respect. Now that is the way things should be IMO but legally should they be compelled? Not if they are a non-professional service as then they are just some guy who should be able to be as bigoted as they want, however odious that may be. But if one is a professional that has taken an oath of service, such as a county registrar, doctor, pharmacist, lawyer, minister, etc. then I would look at that vow to see what it says. And I doubt any of them say that you are allowed to discriminate against someone that you do not agree with. And fun fact: in my jurisdiction anyone apparently can use the Costco pharmacy, even without a membership, as legally a pharmacist must serve any one any product that is prescribed. I don't know if I even answered your question as I think I just started rambling. edit: Attributed to St. Francis of Assisi: "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words."
steve, forgive me, cause I'm about to get preachy here. So, I know I'm late to the party here. Originally I wasn't going to join in this conversation at all. They're not my cup of tea. Everybody always wants to over analyse what is said, pick the conversations apart and find faults in it, and then attribute those faults to the people who post. It always happens. It's always frustrating. Here I am though, but I'm not going to focus on semantics, origins of religious law, or anything of the sort. I just want to look at things from spiritual health aspect. At the end of the day, that's what religion is about. Above all, it is important to remember that God forgives. He forgives us of all our sins great and small. This forgiveness comes by both faith and by deeds, and if you keep your heart open and honest, they become one and the same. Religious laws, much like secular laws, exist for a reason. They're there to keep us healthy, keep us safe, keep us productive, and on and on. We read about it all the time, how courts and judges follow the letter of the law and not the spirit and the outcome can often be unfair and unjust. The same can be said of Religious laws. If by following a religious law you cause yourself or others to suffer, you're doing both your fellow man and God a disservice. This can obviously be argued by degrees, but you get my point. If, for some reason, that you feel by breaking a religious law you'll be doing someone a service, God will forgive you. He knows what's in your heart. To Him, that matters more than anything. So this brings me to what I really want to talk about here . . . This meeting came about because the people who decided to hold it are feeling a lot of negative feelings. They're feeling scared. They're feeling frustrated. They're feeling disrespected. On and on. Heck. You're making this post because you're feeling negative feelings. You're feeling conflicted, confused, and a little lost. All of that is OK. For both them and you. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Negative feelings, like positive feelings, are a tool to help us gauge the world around us so that we may better navigate through it. We have them because they motivate us to try to find ways to avoid situations that cause them. What's not okay though, is letting those negative feelings overwhelm you. This is where faith and deeds go hand in hand. If you let yourself be guided by your negative feelings, you're going to be more prone to act negatively. You need to open yourself up to your faith and the love that it brings you. Think positive. Feel positive. Give and be glad. Support others around you and offer them strength and by sharing their burdens, you'll make yourself stronger. Hate and anger multiplies. So does love and joy. What do you want to share? Who do you think God appreciates more? A man who follows his word to the letter, but brought others harm? Or a man who is flawed, but shared God's love. Matthew 7:17-20 (Of course he's referring to false prophets, but it also speaks to our actions as a whole.)I went to a meeting last night about "defending our religious freedom". It was exactly what I expected: Some speeches about how the evil people in the world and in the government were going to squash our right to worship. There were many, many examples discussed
Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
No forgiveness required. This is a great post. I appreciate the encouragement. I'm not sure I'm as lost myself - as I am trying to understand and work through why so many people seem to be. I'm trying to understand the struggle. I wasn't being flippant when I said "Can't we all just get along?". I really feel like through some civil discussion with a dose of compassion, a portion of love and a pinch of understanding and forgiveness, this whole issue doesn't have to be an issue. We can choose to live our lives in such a way that makes us feel true to ourselves. Thanks again for the comment. I knew this topic was a steamer when I threw it out there, but I think it has gone well. Thanks everyone!steve, forgive me, cause I'm about to get preachy here.
You're feeling conflicted, confused, and a little lost. All of that is OK.
I feel you, 100%. Sometimes, for whatever reason, we make things harder on ourselves than it has to be. You strike me as a good man though, and I'm not saying that to sound pandering. I hope you keep on trying your best to do right by the world. :)I really feel like through some civil discussion with a dose of compassion, a portion of love and a pinch of understanding and forgiveness, this whole issue doesn't have to be an issue. We can choose to live our lives in such a way that makes us feel true to ourselves.
I'm an atheist and a secularist. If you run a bakery where a cake with "Hail Satan" on it is not part of your normal product offering, then you should not be required to make it. If you make regular wedding cakes, and you simply refuse to sell one of your existing cake to a gay couple, that's not okay. If you receive any public money or similar for your business, then you should be required to serve all customers. So if you work for a council, or the government, as a registrar, then absolutely you should be required to register gay unions or resign. If you are a minister in a private religion, or an independent civil celebrant, it's up to you whom you choose to preside over. Again, any public money involved, then you cannot discriminate. If your church receives any public funding, and rents its premises from time to time for non-religious events there as many churches do, then it cannot refuse a gay event. If you're a pharmacist and you won't prescribe certain medication due to religious beliefs, you should resign.
You repeatedly express the belief that it's okay to discriminate as long as you don't accept public funds (in certain situations, granted). I don't agree with that. I believe that if you offer a public service, you should not be allowed to discriminate, regardless of your funding. ALL businesses receive benefits derived from public funds (roads, fire protection, etc etc), so I don't see why public-fund CASH should make a difference.
I get that if you are offering an essential service. Like a pharmacy, or grocery store. But a wedding cake? It's very much a discretionary item. I could equally feel indignant that a local boutique won't stock my size, but ultimately I'm not going to unduly suffer just because I have to shop elsewhere. If I was unable to buy contraceptives in the only pharmacy for 100 miles or more (and this has happened in rural Australia) then that's a massive issue.
I hear what you're saying, but I still disagree. Discrimination only on non-essential services is still discrimination. To use your example (AFAIK size is not yet a discriminatory quality) - If the only reason a local boutique doesn't stock large sizes is because they don't want fat customers - I don't think that's fair or right.
You are free to worship whatever you like, but if you own a business, operate to the public, and so on, you do not have the right to discriminate or choose religion over the rights of others. Churches are well known for blowing the stories you hear WAY out of the water, and exaggerating every aspect. If you provide a service to a group, you must provide it to all people, even if you dislike their life choice or whatever. Refusing to provide medical service, or not photograph people is wrong. Society, the rights of individuals, always come first. The only iffy thing I see on your list is "student club being shut down" and even that isn't really a huge deal, as it's on a university and they are well known for making shitty, overgeneralized, kangaroo-court type decisions. Yes, we could, if people stopped refusing to provide services to others, to spit in their face, for opinions or actions they do not agree with, but hurt nobody. Imagine not being served in a restaurant because you were a Christian. Imagine not running for office because people think you are immoral for not believing in god. America, at least, is very much a Christian nation (in terms of majority opinion, not as defined in government), and while there is a culture of people who will hate on Christians, stereotype them, and so on, the religious freedom of christian belief systems is nowhere near disappearing.Can't we all just get along?
Thank you so much for responding. I am really trying to get this straight in my head so I can better formulate my conversation with other believers. I want to keep them off the ledge. I want dialog not vitriolic screaming matches. This is too true, too often. While I agree on the surface - I have to ask... no matter what? I mean - we could go to some dark places pretty fast. Where is the line here? (and I SWEAR I'm not trying to pick a fight - just trying to really understand)Churches are well known for blowing the stories you hear WAY out of the water, and exaggerating every aspect.
If you provide a service to a group, you must provide it to all people
I would draw the line at two factors - whether it is a public or private space, and whether exclusion is based on action or identity. If you don't want certain kinds of people entering your home, nobody can stop you from being a bigot on your own lawn. But in a public space like a shop or street everyone should be able to exist. Only if they cause serious trouble (actions) you can throw people out - that's why businesses have house rules. The real world is often more nuanced than this but it's a good rule of thumb, I think.
Legally (caveat: I am not a lawyer), you can't discriminate based on a person being in a protected class. So the baker can't turn away someone for being Muslim or gay, but they can refuse to bake a cake celebrating the death of a customer's nemesis. Taking glee in the death of the neighbor with the pink house isn't a protected class. That said, most things aren't black and white. Are there some uncomfortable scenarios you can describe? I'll offer one I'm not sure of: if the wedding photographer was hired for a satanic wedding, what options do they have? If it's functionally similar to a Christian wedding, I think they're obligated to offer their services. If the ceremony takes place at midnight on Halloween and includes a simulated goat slaughter, I think they're not obligated as they would not provide service for any such ceremony, Christian, secular or satanic. Put another way, those who provide services to the public must provide the same services to people regardless of their protected class.no matter what?
I edited my comment, not sure if you saw the revisions, but you may want to look over it again. Any rules must be applied to all people, and be applicable to all people unless for some very specific reason. "I through you out if you yell and scream" is fine. "I throw you out if you walk into this place wearing symbols of hatred" is fine as well. "I throw you out because of who you are" is not. Being gay isn't a decision people make, it's not a choice a person has in their life. Heck, there is even argument that the same is true for belief, that we are set up over years to believe what we do, and we can't just change that on a dime. To not serve someone, especially in a nation where so many may share your views, can hurt them in a severe way, can isolate them from society, drive them to desperation, make them feel hated. That's why all people have the right to be treated well, and why Christians do not have the right not to serve gay people. It hurts them, it hurts society, just as much as any other crime. At the end, laws, rights, and rules are a question of "what's best for us". Religious practice is a right because we all deserve to believe without being told we cannot. However, when that right infringes on the rights of another, when that right hurts someone else, it should not be given.While I agree on the surface - I have to ask... no matter what?
I'm a bit late, but I thought I'd just give you my two cents. I'm a Christian as well, and pretty serious about my faith. Over the past few years gay marriage/abortion have been huge talking points here in Ireland, and this topic is inherently part of that discussion. The Bible is not something on which we can reliably base a society. It's an unfortunate fact that Christianity is an incredibly fragmented religion; the Bible talks a lot about compassion and unification, but even within our faith we're very fragmented and uncompassionate. If we can't even come to a consensus ourselves, why should we then start forcing our beliefs down the throats of other people? Your game analogy isn't entirely accurate. Simply by functioning in society you are including everyone else in your game; and there is no referee. My philosophy is that we need to make a clear distinction between the "societal" teachings in the Bible, and the "spiritual" teachings in the Bible. The spiritual teachings are time-invariant and as applicable now as they ever were. The societal teachings are useful because they show us how times have changed and how people used to live. It's up to you to look at the world, look at the Bible, and come to a conclusion that makes sense to you. The root of Jesus' teachings was the individual, and their relationship with God. When it comes to issues of society as a whole all you can do is think things through as objectively as possible, and then come to your own conclusion. So to take it back to one of your examples, if I were a baker, should I be able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? In my opinion, yes I should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, but then I shouldn't be surprised when people start calling me an asshole and my sales dry up. As far as I can tell, it's a more "Christian" act to make the damn cake, and to celebrate and contribute to the joy and happiness of my fellow man.
That's a common Classical Liberal ("Libertarian") belief. Liberty means I should be able to do whatever I want if it doesn't directly harm you. The problem is, what happens when every baker in the state refuses to bake a cake for gay couples? Then, if you're gay, you simply can't get a cake. Or a haircut. Or clothes. Or a job. That's exactly what happened in the US South, to black people. Other white Southerners didn't call them assholes – they praised them. That's why the US has anti-discrimination laws, and why they're necessary. I have a friend who's mostly Classical Liberal, but uses this analogy: you own a house on some land. I purchase all the land surrounding yours and build hundred-foot walls around it. I've committed no violence against you, per strict Classical Liberal theory. Moral: there is such a thing as economic violence.In my opinion, yes I should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, but then I shouldn't be surprised when people start calling me an asshole
So I wrote up a long answer, but my train of thought was difficult to follow, and I was addressing a lot of things at once, so I'll just try and break things down and get more information. I don't know much about U.S. history. When those laws came into place, was it popular opinion that black people were being discriminated against? On some level people just know when somebody is being hard done by. In the case of the Classical Liberal theory thing you were talking about, the analogy works because people know it's unfair. You seem to be implying that the law changed the way people feel, but I would say it's the other way around. Also, in order for a gay person to be discriminated against on the level you were illustrating would require a huge cultural and political shift which I simply don't see happening. My original post wasn't the "general case", it was making the assumption that we are living in today's society and with no major reversals of social progress.
It was not opinion, it was fact. And still is. I lived in Texas for 7 years, I can give you plenty of examples if you like. As it becomes less socially acceptable, racists have also become more insidious. The point of the analogy is that economic violence is possible. Having established it as possible, it doesn't require an extreme instance, like all bakers refusing service, or a physical wall around your property. For example, suppose there are 10 bakers in my city, competing to my benefit per our Lassiez Faire economic system. One baker refuses me service based on my class (black, gay). Now there are 9 bakers competing for my money. Not only is competition reduced, harming me economically, but I have less selection. I really liked a cake that bigotted baker won't sell me. Now, that's far less harmful than all 10 bakers, or a wall around my house. But I have still been economically harmed, to some small degree. By refusing to provide me service based on my class, the baker has committed economic violence against me. Ergo, I believe the law should recognize economic violence, and make significant acts of it illegal. Yes, you could come up with ridiculous examples. The baker has harmed me economically by refusing to make a cake with dicks on it for my flamboyantly gay wedding. I'm not arguing for extreme laws against any conceivable harm to the slightest degree. But I do believe the law of a Free government should recognize the concept. And that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do.was it popular opinion that black people were being discriminated against?
in order for a gay person to be discriminated against on the level you were illustrating
Okay, hold on a minute. I didn't say that those events were a matter of opinion, I know that black people went through a hell of a time over there. Fucking hell. I was simply asking about people's overall attitude at the time; commonly referred to as 'popular opinion'. Also, I'm mixed race and know very well that racism isn't dead yet, but I also can appreciate that had I been born 50 or 60 years earlier things would have been a lot different. Overall our attitudes towards racism have shifted dramatically. As for the rest of your comment, fair points and food for thought. I didn't initially come here to argue with you about the ins and outs of racist cake legislation, but it's been a good run. All I was saying is that either way, somebody's an unhappy person indeed. HomophoBaker will feel that his right to practice religion is being compromised, or the gay person will feel hard done by, and rightly so; and there is no easy solution. The "ideal" bigoted baker (never thought I'd say that) in my hypothetical world I created in my first post would refuse the gay person his services, but then be judged in turn by society for being an ass. Yes, an "economic violence" has been committed, and now the customer doesn't get his cake. On the other hand, now the baker has to pay for it with a big smear on his business' reputation and lose sales. You win lose you some some. In my mind, a situation like that is probably better than a legal situation where someone is forced by law to do something that they feel is morally unacceptable. If they really feel it's morally unacceptable, then fine, let them do it and let them be a victim of their own decision. You obviously disagree, and I see why. In your mind (as far as I can tell), the customer should never be discriminated against in the first place, and everybody should have equal access to everything. Also, you don't trust society to make the right decision. This is a fair way of looking at things; I can see your train of thought and I definitely don't disagree. All I can say is, if I was refused a service because I'm brown I wouldn't try to sue them, but I would sing from the rooftops about what a shitty person the owner is.It was not opinion, it was fact. And still is...
Unless it's strictly a job requirement (as in, stated in the contract you've signed), neither of those. You'll be an asshole, but we don't have laws against those (as far as I'm aware of the US' law; Russia doesn't seem to). If it's your bakery, nobody should be capable to force you out by the means of the law (and as much as I don't support assholes, I support abusing law - as, I imagine, might be the case with such laws - even less). People spreading the word that you're an asshole to this or that group is fair if it's true: I'd like to know that this guy doesn't appreciate whatever group I might belong to so as to not cause myself more problem than necessary. It, too, might be abused, of course. I've seen on the community page somebody's comment on that you don't have to be an asshole. Something to the sense of "I'm not comfortable doing the thing you ask for, but here's how you can find someone who is". I support that, though I see how many would disagree with me because to them, the people are wrong - not what they do or how they do it, but what they are - and this existential confict of a person's way of life and the way of somebody's life they don't understand, this clash of natures is what causes an outrage among those less capable of controlling their expression of emotion. Some people just want to destroy those who, by those' sheer existence, disturb one's accepted "true" way of living: their bubbles are thin, and it crushing is scary. This is meant as an explanation, not as a support letter; not sure how necessary it is, but shit, I do like to ramble about stuff I perceive. May I ask: what motivates you to believe in God? Why do you think it's better for you to believe than not to believe? As a life-long atheist, I've always been wondering that.If I'm a baker and choose not to make a cake for a gay wedding, should I be sued, fined, or put out of business? If I'm a minister, should I be forced to marry a gay couple?
Proverbs 15:17 Better a bowl of vegetables, if love go with it, than a fatten oxen eaten in hatred. I think that those people who want a bigot to make their wedding cake are insane or just want to make some cash off a lawsuit. Maybe they want want to take a stand against bigotry but I'd be surprised if that stand isn't just a stab at five minutes of fame and fat check. The one thing I'm sure that these people don't give a shit about is having a delicious wedding cake. The idea that you want to put something IN YOUR MOUTH made by someone who despises you is farcical, like wise that you want such a person to take pictures of your "special day". I'm not ready to take a stance on weather people should be legally obligated to make wedding cakes but no sensible person should want such a cake. County clerks that can't enforce the laws, pharmacists that can't dispense lawful medication need to get fired. Their names should be watchwords of shame in the medical and legal professions. Should they be legally obligated? I'm not sure but there should be no penalty for firing such a person and there is no way in hell they should receive unemployment benefits. Christianity likes to be persecuted. As much as you might like to pretend it's about love and forgiveness persecution will always play better to the crowd. If people really believed in love and forgiveness they would toss that first half of the book back to the Jews. As much as you might want to fight the knee jerk reaction toward paranoia and anecdote inspired fear you'll probably usually lose. Don't know too many particulars about how hated your particular sect feels historically but my general impression is that it runs sorta deep. What does the group pushing fear stand to gain? I'm sure gain something from pushing a message of fear, even if it's just attention. Good luck staving it off. Fear sells, fear motivates, fear gets people attention.
It all begins and ends with the separation of church and state. Businesses, federal/state/municipal services, and so on act outside of religion. They have to act outside of religion because then we wouldn't have religious freedom. If for example we allowed the total religious freedom that many faiths desire we would simply have no country. No one really has the right to deny someone a secular service. The only thing that I could probably see being as wrong is if let's say a Catholic priest refuses a gay couple from having a ceremony in the church and is then sued. The priest is not actually hindering their ability to be married in the eyes of the law, he is simply saying that the church can't do it which seems fine to me. I used to be more religious and even then I didn't struggle with this ideal of religious freedom. The way I looked at it was like Jesus said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." The way I interpret that passage is as simple as the separation of church and state.
I believe there is a basic or 'golden' rule when it comes down to rights. You are entitled to your rights up until the point where they infringe on others. Any religious rights must be weighed against other's rights to to be free from discrimination or persecution. I can't practise or exercise any religious beliefs that might cause anyone else to be denied of their rights. If I were bus driver would it be reasonable to to deny black people access to the bus I drive because integration is against my religious beliefs? This scenario is functionally no different than a photographer discriminating against people because of their beliefs. I can't speak for the US but in the UK it would be illegal to force someone as part of their job to do something against their beliefs (not just religious, this could apply to vegetarianism for example). The notable exception to this is when what you are being asked to do would be reasonably expected of a person in your job. In your analogy. You can play the game of basketball you want. No one can deny you from playing or setting the rules you agree. But you can't play all the time. Sometimes you need to let someone else use the court.
I've thought of this before - because my analogy breaks down on the physical space aspect. It makes it sound like I'm trying to keep people out of a physical space - but it's not that at all... I can't think of another analogy at the moment - It's just... maybe a totally flawed analogy. :-)Sometimes you need to let someone else use the court.
I'll admit to twisting the phrasing bit to fit the analogy. What wanted to tie into was: participating in a freedom should 'keep people out' of the freedoms they are attempting to participate in, such as marriage or access to healthcare. There are a couple of 'impasses' where it gets conflicted, the government can't compel you to do anything in regards to private association or property, but for businesses or public services I think their is an obligation to certain behavior and to certain codes of conduct
I'll address the point of the pharmacist. Lets say you're a pharmacist who also happens to be a Muslim. There is a common drug that treats a life-threatening illness that contains bacon fat. Short version, it's haraam to you. You can't take it, you don't like it when other people take it, etc. Do you still have to dispense it to the public? Yep. Because it's not up to you to decide if the population at large can have it. People who sell guns know that they could be used to kill people. If they want to not feel bad about that, they can change profession.
The pharmacist scenario discussed last night really bugged me. Sure... I can go to another pharmacist in town - but c'mon.... the job is to dispense what the doc says and to watch for drug interactions... not to make moral decisions for other people. sheesh.
Common problem among the devout of every faith. Christianity happens to be historically entrenched enough in the US that people can sometimes get away with this kind of behavior. But America is NOT a Christian nation. not to make moral decisions for other people.