Discrimination now Legal In Mississippi

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by doubletap

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I know what it's like in the Deep South. That doesn't mean that everyone there is a bigot.

Nope not everyone, just the ones who don't obey your commands and interpret the Bible the way you want them to.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

spurgeonatorsrevenge
I think the point is, he is assisting in a ceremony that is against his moral beliefs.

He's not even invited to the ceremony, much less being asked to assist it. He's being asked to make a cake, which he does every day.

I think this issue would be akin to forcing a vegan cook up a chicken for strictly carnivore patron.

It's not, though. The vegan business owner does not make chicken for anyone. We're not asking the baker to make something he never makes for other people. If the vegan business owner made chicken for his patrons, but refused to do so for a handicapped person, THEN we'd have a comparison.

I usually agree with you, but in this case I think you are wrong. Parsing it to the degree you have sort of obscures the nuance here.

In a spiritual sense, this baker is being asked to contribute a very important part of the wedding ritual. If his sense of morality tell him that the ceremony he is contributing to violates his morality, he should not be compelled to violate his sense of morality. The thing about morality/religion/spirituality is,

A: the validity of it is unprovable

B: a unique experience for each individual

C: expression of belief is not universal for all, but instead, endlessly diverse from person to person.

D: Our society recognizes that this area is sacred because of the three reasons listed above which is why there is separation between church and state.

You cannot prove that the act of baking the cake for a gay wedding is not tremendously against this persons personal beliefs, religion, spirituality etc, even if you find those reasons to be invalid or evil... EXACTLY BECAUSE this is a religious person is why this person should not be forced to construct a highly symbolic element that will used in a social and religious ritual.

would you force a Jewish cake maker who specializes in made to order cakes, to bake a cake celebrating the 70th anniversary of the "Jewish Solution"

It's just a cake

He makes cakes all the time.

Is the Jewish baker wrong?

And to turn it around, how would this violate his religious beliefs? Isn't it just a business transaction?

Gryphon66
The concept of "rights" arises from two places: our nationality and our basic humanity.

I have certain natural rights because I am a human being.

There are no "rights" that depend on or are limited by the various qualities of my humanity, e.g. my handedness, my eye-color, my hair style, or my sexual preference.

There are no Right Handed Rights, or Blue Eyed Rights or Buzz Cut Rights or Gay Rights.

I have certain legal rights because I am an American citizen.

I have the right to speak my mind, to print my thoughts and deliver those to others, to pursue a religion as I see fit or not, and to be treated equally before the laws.

The sphere of my legal rights is limited by the legal rights of those around me; my rights are not always preeminent when others are involved or when the exercise of my individual rights adversely affects the "equally equal" exercise of their individual rights.

For example, I do not have the right to say things that are harmful and untrue, to print things that are harmful and untrue, or to assign to others a lesser value and treat them differently arbitrarily because of my religious beliefs.

The last two are directly or even intimately intertwined as you can see.

For example, as an an atheist, should I have the right deny someone who comes in with a cross necklace services in my public establishment based solely on my religious non-beliefs? Let us say that I consider Christianity a mental disorder, and I do not wish the general public to see my products in the hands of someone wearing a cross because that implies that I support Christianity because I feel that might diminish my business in the eyes of intellectuals?

Or if the cross were a crucifix, by implication making them Roman Catholic, would it be right to deny them service because they might be child molesters or supporters of child molesters?

How absurd do we have to make the counter-example?

buster2010
This is what happens when you get dimwits into office that thinks companies are people and deserve religious rights. Americans that are opposed to this should petition the government to shut off all aid to Mississippi until they decide to follow the Constitution. If the people of that state want to act like a bunch of backward knuckle draggers then let them pay their own bills.

The Southern Caucus of the Democratic Party kept Jim Crow alive. The representatives of those States are now uniformly Republican. The Democratic Party and it's President pushed through the Civil Rights Acts. Further Democrat does not equal liberal does not equal progressive even today, and it certainly didn't 1868-1968.

Jim Crow was a regional function, and apparently, still would be today.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had to make what was meant by "public accommodation" painfully clear, and yes, that law and a constellation of other laws both statutory and common clearly demonstrate that when a business offers products for sale to the public, then they have an obligation to serve the public.

I am not an expert on sin. Sin is a fictional control mechanism inflicted by religious entities. However, when the claim is made repeatedly that an act is a sin, and sin (for Christians, for example) is defined in their Scriptures, then it is completely reasonable to expect that a Christian claiming that a certain act (for example, cake-baking) is a sin could demonstrate where in their Holy Handbook that is stated.

IF not, it seems to me, it's a matter of personal preference only. In either case, for a State to mandate the superiority of religion over law is in violation of the First Amendment.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


See, I have no problem with a cake maker having certain rules on how they will decorate a cake. For example, they can say that they will not put a plastic penis on a cake, or depict two people having sex on a cake, or they could even say they won't put two grooms on a cake. But to say they simply won't sell a cake to a specific person is discrimination, and it's just plain wrong. So they can sell a cake to the person celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Holocaust, but they should be able to refuse to write on the cake "Happy 70th Anniversary of the Holocaust", if they so choose. But their rules of what they will/won't put on a cake should apply to everyone, i.e., they can't say that they will put a penis on a cake for a heterosexual woman, but they won't for a homosexual man. Either they will put a penis on a cake or they won't - same rules have to apply for everyone equally.
If they are willing to make a multi-tiered, white frosting cake with pink roses on it as a wedding cake, then they have to sell that cake to whomever asks for it.

The most ironic part of all of this... Jesus, according to every version of the Bible in use, welcomed sinners... with open arms, and offered forgiveness. He kept company with sinners, without judgement, just told them that through him and his teachings they would find salvation and eternal life in His Father's Kingdom.

That's exactly why I had to part ways with organized religion. So much said and judged, so little actually followed.

Here's my question with this issue: Why would you want to force someone to do business with you if they don't want to do business with you?
I've encountered "religious discrimination" only once. Before our marriage we needed to rent a house to accommodate our blended family while our home was being built. We consulted the local rental list and began talking to landlords. One guy asked if we were married. We were truthful and told him that we were not and didn't plan to marry for several months. He told us that he didn't rent to unmarried couples because he believed that was wrong. We thanked him for his time, left and found a landlady who didn't care about our legal status.
We had friends and relatives who, when they heard of this were outraged on our behalf and even suggested we should sue him! What? I simply don't understand why anyone would want to have a business relationship in those circumstances. Why? Just to force someone into an association?
I'm fairly sure that with the inventive nature of the human mind, the one forced to perform could find a way to monkey-wrench the transaction. I certainly wouldn't want to take that chance with something as important as a wedding, as in the case of the now-famous bakery.
Perhaps I'm just too thick to understand but I truly don't understand the motivation. We all practice "discrimination" in some form, some ad companies even play on the idea with ads that tout products for the "discriminating customer."
I do understand laws prohibiting discrimination by governmental agencies---that before the law we are all to be viewed as equal and I have some serious reservations about certain laws that negate that premise---but in my private business?

Kali74
The most ironic part of all of this... Jesus, according to every version of the Bible in use, welcomed sinners... with open arms, and offered forgiveness. He kept company with sinners, without judgement, just told them that through him and his teachings they would find salvation and eternal life in His Father's Kingdom.

That's exactly why I had to part ways with organized religion. So much said and judged, so little actually followed.

the irony is, I think modern day American Christians would be the first to put Jesus "on a cross".

reply to post by diggindirt


I was thinking the same thing. If gays want the government to force objectors to make cakes for their wedding, the bakery could always make the worst tasting cake this planet has ever seen. Then they can whine about their hurt feelings and how the cake ruined everything.

Call it guerilla warfare via baked goods.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


That's exactly what most of them would do. Feed the poor? Nope. Judge not? Nope. Let he who is without sin... nope. Most decry every behavior or notion Jesus had as evil Leftist. I have no doubt in my mind that 90% of ATS would gladly put Leftists to death if they could get away with it.

reply to post by doubletap


Yeah. Let's keep pretending this Law only allows bakers to not make cakes for gay people.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Again, the problem is with the cake and what it represents... not the sexual orientation of the customer. I wouldn't produce a wedding cake that has 2 grooms on top of it for anyone regardless of who they are.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't make cakes for gay PEOPLE, it means I won't make cakes for gay WEDDINGS. There is a very big difference.

Bone75
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Again, the problem is with the cake and what it represents... not the sexual orientation of the customer. I wouldn't produce a wedding cake that has 2 grooms on top of it for anyone regardless of who they are.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't make cakes for gay PEOPLE, it means I won't make cakes for gay WEDDINGS. There is a very big difference.

Yeah, the difference is, weddings don't buy cakes, PEOPLE buy cakes. A gay wedding cake is made out of the exact same ingredients as a non-gay wedding cake. To say that you will make and sell a cake with white frosting and pink roses to one couple, but refuse to make a sell that same cake to another couple is flat out discrimination. The old examples of a Muslim being forced to sell bacon, or a Jew being forced to decorate a cake like the Holocaust just don't work here.

Kali74
reply to post by doubletap

 

Yeah. Let's keep pretending this Law only allows bakers to not make cakes for gay people.

And let's also pretend that if we hadn't passed this law before passing gay marriage, gay rights advocacy groups and opportunistic lawyers wouldn't be calling every bakery in MS to find out if they can get a cake for a gay wedding.

And by the way, if signs start going up that says "No gays allowed", or if Christian businesses start making customers fill out surveys upon entering their establishments, I will be the first to stand up and say this law needs to go. But at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of religion bashers pose as Christians just to hang hateful signs and make the rest of us look like monsters.

Kali74
. I have no doubt in my mind that 90% of ATS would gladly put Leftists to death if they could get away with it.

I'm not religious at all, never voted for a repiblican, and I definitely would. Leftists are a cancer and deserve to be treated as such.

Kali74
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

That's exactly what most of them would do. Feed the poor? Nope. Judge not? Nope. Let he who is without sin... nope. Most decry every behavior or notion Jesus had as evil Leftist. I have no doubt in my mind that 90% of ATS would gladly put Leftists to death if they could get away with it.

I'll admit that you lefties are the most stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude, and manipulative people on the face of the planet, but I still love you all no matter how frustrating conversing with you may be.

Maybe you're aware of these traits within yourself, which might explain your irrational paranoia?

Kali74
reply to post by doubletap

 

Yeah. Let's keep pretending this Law only allows bakers to not make cakes for gay people.

Now that IS a good point. Can this be extended to help institutionalize a new wave of Southern segregation?

doubletap

Kali74
. I have no doubt in my mind that 90% of ATS would gladly put Leftists to death if they could get away with it.

I'm not religious at all, never voted for a repiblican, and I definitely would. Leftists are a cancer and deserve to be treated as such.

Kill Zem All!

Wipe Zem out Like cancer!

"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings." Adolf Hitler, 1939

Bone75

Kali74
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

That's exactly what most of them would do. Feed the poor? Nope. Judge not? Nope. Let he who is without sin... nope. Most decry every behavior or notion Jesus had as evil Leftist. I have no doubt in my mind that 90% of ATS would gladly put Leftists to death if they could get away with it.

I'll admit that you lefties are the most stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude, and manipulative people on the face of the planet, but I still love you all no matter how frustrating conversing with you may be.

Maybe you're aware of these traits within yourself, which might explain your irrational paranoia?

edit on b20144America/Chicago75 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

Have you never met a "rightie" that was stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude and manipulative?

What exactly is a "leftie"?

Further is every "leftie" you meet equally stubborn, unreasonable, insensitive, disrespectful, rude and manipulative?

That would make me wonder if perhaps those traits were not mine that I projected onto others.