Christian Baker Fined & Silenced

[Credo in Deum]

Actually - I see your point now after thinking about it a bit more. It is a good argument I think. How about this?

In our sorry past there were some religious folk who interpreted the Bible as prohibiting interracial relationships. Let us suppose that some of these folk run a bakery today. A black-white couple walks in and says "please make us a cake for our wedding". The bakery owners say "Sorry. Interracial relationships are against our religious beliefs. I will not sell you a cake."

I think most people would say that the couple has been discriminated against. But then John Smith comes along and says "No. You see, if a white couple came in and asked for a cake for a black-white wedding, the bakery also would not have sold it to them. Therefore, the bakery owners are only discriminating against an event that goes against their beliefs."

By your reasoning it would seem that the Bakery could also deny service to black-white couples on religious grounds. I assume that you believe that would be wrong (as do I). How do we distinguish the gay case from the black-white case?

 

 

Your examples are incomplete.  There is key component you're missing  and that is the business would serve them goods and service which did not pertain to the the event which went against the store owners religious beliefs.  Therefore the example should go like this:

The black-white couple ask for a cake for their interracial marriage.  Baker declines due to his own religious beliefs. Black-white couple then ask for some cupcakes to eat since they're already at the bakery.  Baker makes them cupcakes and serves them.

Then a white couple comes in asking for a cake for their friend's international marriage.  Baker declines  due to his own religious beliefs.  White couple then also ask for cupcakes.  Baker makes them cupcakes and serves them.

The baker is clearly discriminating against the nature of the wedding not the person.  The baker should have this right if interracial marriages are against his religious beliefs. If the owner's decision somehow tank is company then that's his own business, however, the government should have no right to tell him what he can and cannot believe, and they cannot force him to give service and support to something which goes against his religious beliefs.

He's free to express his faith and others are free to write reviews and shop somewhere else.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Gabriela]

Well here is a big part of the issue I think. We get to pick and choose who enters our home. When we open our doors in a place of public accommodation, we do not have complete freedom to do whatever we want. Can she say "I am not a government entity. This is a private business. I have no obligation to serve anyone. I can serve who I choose to serve and deny service to whom I choose to deny service. And I choose to deny service to all African Americans."?

Some might argue that she should have that right. The segregationists certainly did in opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

When you open your doors in a place of public accommodation the state gets to regulate your activity. One example of that for a bakery might be in the form of food safety inspections that most businesses that serve food are subject to.

I think the question we are dealing with here is - to what extent can the state put limits on our ability to discriminate? Specifically, under what circumstances should there be exceptions for  religious beliefs?

I don't think the government should regulate discrimination in private business. If a business wants to discriminate against African-Americans, the government should butt out. But I, for one, would boycott such a business. And that, I think, is the appropriate way to limit such nonsense.

Food safety laws are the bane of all small business people, and again, should not exist. With the internet being what it is today, we are better positioned than ever to shut such businesses down. "The people"—not the government—needs to take more responsibility for these issues. If we did, the government could butt out and we'd all be just fine (or at least, no worse off than we are now).

Finally, I think this thread should be moved to the Debate Table.

[Peace]

Your examples are incomplete.  There is key component you're missing  and that is the business would serve them goods and service which did not pertain to the the event which went against the store owners religious beliefs.  Therefore the example should go like this:

The black-white couple ask for a cake for their interracial marriage.  Baker declines due to his own religious beliefs. Black-white couple then ask for some cupcakes to eat since they're already at the bakery.  Baker makes them cupcakes and serves them.

Then a white couple comes in asking for a cake for their friend's international marriage.  Baker declines  due to his own religious beliefs.  White couple then also ask for cupcakes.  Baker makes them cupcakes and serves them.

The baker is clearly discriminating against the nature of the wedding not the person.  The baker should have this right if interracial marriages are against his religious beliefs. If the owner's decision somehow tank is company then that's his own business, however, the government should have no right to tell him what he can and cannot believe, and they cannot force him to give service and support to something which goes against his religious beliefs.

He's free to express his faith and others are free to write reviews and shop somewhere else.

OK. Let's say that:

1) A black-white couple enters the store and asks to buy cupcakes. The bakery refuses to sell them the cupcakes.

2) A white-white couple enters the store and asks to buy cupcakes. The bakery sells them the cupcakes.

3) The black-white couple asks to buy a loaf of bread. The bakery sells them the bread.

4) The white-white couple asks to buy a loaf of bread. The bakery sells them the bread.

So - the bakery will sell the white couple both cupcakes and bread. The bakery will sell the black-white couple only bread.  The bakery is treating the black-white couple differently than it is treating the white-white couple. The black-white couple is being offered less than what the white-white couple is being offered. That is what we would call discrimination, is it not?

I don't think the reason why the bakery refuses to sell the black-white couple the cupcakes is very relevant to the question of whether there is discrimination. The result is exactly the same - the black-white couple is being offered less than the white-white couple, regardless of whatever the reasons are. But for the sake of argument let us suppose two Reasons:

Reason 1: The religion of the bakery owners mandates that they sell bread, but not cupcakes to black-white couples.

Reason 2: The owners are racist and believe that black-white couples are worthy of bread, but they are not worthy of cupcakes. 

The reasons become relevant to the question of whether the discrimination is justifiable. Many would say that 1) if the difference in treatment is for Reason 1 - then the discrimination is justifiable. People should have the right to treat other persons differently, in accordance with their religious beliefs; and 2) if the difference in treatment is for Reason 2 - then the discrimination is not justifiable. People should not have a right to treat others differently because of their own internal racist beliefs.

If you substitute "cupcake" with "wedding cake" then I think the example is basically the same as yours. The woman-woman couple is being offered less than the man-woman couple is being offered. It is discrimination. But we say that the discrimination is justifiable because it is being done for religious reasons.

But I understand your argument, I think. And it is a good one. It is hard for me to articulate, but I think we may just be looking at it from slightly different viewpoints, which leads us to different results.

The baker is clearly discriminating against the nature of the wedding not the person.  The baker should have this right if interracial marriages are against his religious beliefs. If the owner's decision somehow tank is company then that's his own business, however, the government should have no right to tell him what he can and cannot believe, and they cannot force him to give service and support to something which goes against his religious beliefs.

I think that your quote here is the more interesting point to discuss. If a person decided to open a business, sell wedding cakes to white-white couples, and refuse to sell wedding cakes to black-white couples, I believe that would be a violation of most laws that are currently on the books. Most state/federal anti-discrimination statues would prohibit that. Would it be safe to assume that you desire that those anti-discrimination laws be repealed?

Your quote above kind of strikes at the heart of the issue I think. If you allow that type of discrimination under the pretense of religious freedom - where does it end? One would seemingly be able to justify ANY action/non-action if done so for a declared religious belief. What would stop a restaurant owner from saying "My religion teaches me that black and white people shall not eat together. Therefore black people should only be allowed to sit on the left side of the restaurant, and white people shall only be allowed to sit on the right side of the restaurant."? Do you honestly believe that the restaurant owner should have the right to operate his business in that fashion, all in the name of his religion?

I would not go that far. We had that in the USA in the past and I do not think it is something to be proud of. I do not believe that a baker should have a right to refuse baking a cake to a black-white couple, whatever his religious beliefs may be. And I do not believe that the restaurant owner should be able to segregate his restaurant, whatever his religious beliefs are. You cannot do everything as you please in the name of your religion.

Perhaps others may disagree with that, but that is fine, I think. That is more of a personal opinion than something that can be proved as right or wrong, I think . . .

[Socrates]

They might not have problems getting served at most restaurants. But they might run into some problems getting served at a restaurant owned by a couple such as the one who refused to make them a cake. And if other people have a right to eat at the restaurant then I believe that a gay couple should as well, because sitting down for a cheeseburger has nothing to do with religion. The point is that we do not want to encourage people to use religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate in areas that have nothing to do with the expression of one's religion. There could be a slippery slope there, I think. You could end up with some folks saying things like "Well, serving gay people at my restaurant is not consistent with my religion" in the same manner that the people here said "Well, baking a wedding cake for gay people is not consistent with my religion."

Lets say that another gay couple who just happens to love chocolate walk in to the same bakery and say "please bake us a simple chocolate cake that we will eat after dinner tonight." Can the owners of the bakery refuse them?

The distinction needs to made between discrimination against persons vs. refusing to serve, cater, host, etc. specific events that are contrary to the business owner's conscience or religion (in this case, a homosexual "wedding").  Persons should not be forced by government to support with their business events they believe are intrinsically immoral or wrong.

(Not that our activist courts are likely to bother with this distinction.)

 

And this whole mess could have been avoided if the SCOTUS had not absurdly declared homosexual "marriage" a "constitutional right."  It's a bogus manufactured crisis, and the reality is that it's the "gay" lobby, not Christians, that are the aggressors.

[Peace]

I don't think the government should regulate discrimination in private business. If a business wants to discriminate against African-Americans, the government should butt out. But I, for one, would boycott such a business. And that, I think, is the appropriate way to limit such nonsense.

Food safety laws are the bane of all small business people, and again, should not exist. With the internet being what it is today, we are better positioned than ever to shut such businesses down. "The people"—not the government—needs to take more responsibility for these issues. If we did, the government could butt out and we'd all be just fine (or at least, no worse off than we are now).

Finally, I think this thread should be moved to the Debate Table.

OK. I think that your viewpoint is fair and one that I can respect. I do not share your viewpoint, but I think it is more of a matter of personal opinion than one person being right and the other person being wrong.

The government butting out works fine and dandy when the majority is righteous (a rather rare thing in history). When the majority is unrighteous and desires to lord it over the minority - you get what we saw in the American South prior to 50 years ago. You get massive discrimination against a minority that is largely powerless to prevent it. That is why the federal Civil Rights laws were enacted, and I think we can say that the state of discrimination against African Americans has been a heck of a lot better since those laws were passed than before they were.

As for food safety laws - perhaps they are the bane of small business people. But from the perspective of me (a customer) it is nice to know that the restaurant I buy my burger from is not rat infested. The same thing with drugs. When I buy medicine from a pharmacy, it is nice to know that the pills I take are will not kill me. I like having the knowledge that they have had to comply with regulations that I can look up. Sure - you could have everyone self-regulate. Whether that would produce better or worse results, I don't know. . .

Also - It seems to me that the government is made up of the people - in a representative democracy. We get to choose our government via elections. And we get to choose the laws that we live under. It is not as though we live in a totalitarian state where the government is completely unresponsive to the needs of the citizenry at large . . .

[Socrates]

I am not so sure if companies should have an absolute right to refuse service for an event. I do not see what would be so different about a company that says "I will not allow you to eat at this restaurant because of your race" and "I will not bake a cake for your wedding because of your race." I don't see what would be fundamentally wrong about refusing either company the right to engage in business.

In this case, it is discrimination based on the race of the persons; in the other, it is the nature of the event itself (a same-sex "wedding").  It's not all that complicated.

 

So am I not allowed to refuse to DJ a rap show with excessive profanity anymore? Is my DJ business no longer allowed to determine which events I can or cannot provide services for? Seems wack.

I read one article where the author gave many hypothetical examples.  Should a Christian or feminist photographer be forced against her will to do a photo shoot for a strip club?  Should musicians belonging to PETA be forced to play at a barbecue cook-off?  etc., etc.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Socrates

[Gabriela]

OK. I think that your viewpoint is fair and one that I can respect. I do not share your viewpoint, but I think it is more of a matter of personal opinion than one person being right and the other person being wrong.

The government butting out works fine and dandy when the majority is righteous (a rather rare thing in history). When the majority is unrighteous and desires to lord it over the minority - you get what we saw in the American South prior to 50 years ago. You get massive discrimination against a minority that is largely powerless to prevent it. That is why the federal Civil Rights laws were enacted, and I think we can say that the state of discrimination against African Americans has been a heck of a lot better since those laws were passed than before they were.

As for food safety laws - perhaps they are the bane of small business people. But from the perspective of me (a customer) it is nice to know that the restaurant I buy my burger from is not rat infested. The same thing with drugs. When I buy medicine from a pharmacy, it is nice to know that the pills I take are will not kill me. I like having the knowledge that they have had to comply with regulations that I can look up. Sure - you could have everyone self-regulate. Whether that would produce better or worse results, I don't know. . .

Also - It seems to me that the government is made up of the people - in a representative democracy. We get to choose our government via elections. And we get to choose the laws that we live under. It is not as though we live in a totalitarian state where the government is completely unresponsive to the needs of the citizenry at large . . .

The government does not represent us. Anyone who says differently is either delusional or running for office.

The state of our dependence on the government has reached astronomical proportions. Sure, if we want to continue consuming lazily and without all restraint, we can let the government regulate everything for us. But consuming lazily and without all restraint is bad for our culture—and for our souls. Removing the regulations would force a sea change in how we consume, and how we live. The balance of consequences would be overwhelmingly positive, both for families and for businesses.

[Credo in Deum]

 

OK. Let's say that:

1) A black-white couple enters the store and asks to buy cupcakes. The bakery refuses to sell them the cupcakes.

2) A white-white couple enters the store and asks to buy cupcakes. The bakery sells them the cupcakes.

3) The black-white couple asks to buy a loaf of bread. The bakery sells them the bread.

4) The white-white couple asks to buy a loaf of bread. The bakery sells them the bread.

So - the bakery will sell the white couple both cupcakes and bread. The bakery will sell the black-white couple only bread.  The bakery is treating the black-white couple differently than it is treating the white-white couple. The black-white couple is being offered less than what the white-white couple is being offered. That is what we would call discrimination, is it not?

I don't think the reason why the bakery refuses to sell the black-white couple the cupcakes is very relevant to the question of whether there is discrimination. The result is exactly the same - the black-white couple is being offered less than the white-white couple, regardless of whatever the reasons are. But for the sake of argument let us suppose two Reasons:

Reason 1: The religion of the bakery owners mandates that they sell bread, but not cupcakes to black-white couples.

Reason 2: The owners are racist and believe that black-white couples are worthy of bread, but they are not worthy of cupcakes. 

The reasons become relevant to the question of whether the discrimination is justifiable. Many would say that 1) if the difference in treatment is for Reason 1 - then the discrimination is justifiable. People should have the right to treat other persons differently, in accordance with their religious beliefs; and 2) if the difference in treatment is for Reason 2 - then the discrimination is not justifiable. People should not have a right to treat others differently because of their own internal racist beliefs.

If you substitute "cupcake" with "wedding cake" then I think the example is basically the same as yours. The woman-woman couple is being offered less than the man-woman couple is being offered. It is discrimination. But we say that the discrimination is justifiable because it is being done for religious reasons.

But I understand your argument, I think. And it is a good one. It is hard for me to articulate, but I think we may just be looking at it from slightly different viewpoints, which leads us to different results.

I think that your quote here is the more interesting point to discuss. If a person decided to open a business, sell wedding cakes to white-white couples, and refuse to sell wedding cakes to black-white couples, I believe that would be a violation of most laws that are currently on the books. Most state/federal anti-discrimination statues would prohibit that. Would it be safe to assume that you desire that those anti-discrimination laws be repealed?

Your quote above kind of strikes at the heart of the issue I think. If you allow that type of discrimination under the pretense of religious freedom - where does it end? One would seemingly be able to justify ANY action/non-action if done so for a declared religious belief. What would stop a restaurant owner from saying "My religion teaches me that black and white people shall not eat together. Therefore black people should only be allowed to sit on the left side of the restaurant, and white people shall only be allowed to sit on the right side of the restaurant."? Do you honestly believe that the restaurant owner should have the right to operate his business in that fashion, all in the name of his religion?

I would not go that far. We had that in the USA in the past and I do not think it is something to be proud of. I do not believe that a baker should have a right to refuse baking a cake to a black-white couple, whatever his religious beliefs may be. And I do not believe that the restaurant owner should be able to segregate his restaurant, whatever his religious beliefs are. You cannot do everything as you please in the name of your religion.

Perhaps others may disagree with that, but that is fine, I think. That is more of a personal opinion than something that can be proved as right or wrong, I think . . .

Your examples are still not following what is happening and I'm kind of tired of trying to show that.  Instead of continuing further I'm just going to leave it.  

[Socrates]

It is clearly written in the bill of rights that there is freedom of religion. This is her business and she has the right to serve who she wants to and deny those she wants to. Would I be fined if I didn't serve a drunk? If I didn't serve a male that walked into a female bathroom? If I didn't serve someone with a gun? ETC.. It angers me that the govt. has done this. But on the other hand, we as Christians are called to serve and love others. This is quite the opposite. She can call her religion what she wants, but to call it Christian is wrong. 

Christians are not required to give aid to the sin of others.  True charity may require us to do the opposite.

[Didacus]

Is it me or gay couples never go to a Muslim run bakery?????

That is So islamophobic!  And homophobic at the same time too!

Repent now - or all catholics will pay for your ignorance!!!

Edited July 5, 2015 by Didacus
I wanted to edit my post.

[dUSt]

So - the bakery will sell the white couple both cupcakes and bread. The bakery will sell the black-white couple only bread.  The bakery is treating the black-white couple differently than it is treating the white-white couple. The black-white couple is being offered less than what the white-white couple is being offered. That is what we would call discrimination, is it not?

This is not what is happening.

The business will sell both the black and white people the same products.

The business will deny service for both black and white people for a specific product.

Should a black owned t-shirt maker be forced to sell t-shirts with a confederate flag on it? What if the person ordering them was black or gay? The product they are asking for is still the same.

Should a pro-choice sign maker be forced to make signs for a pro-life rally? What if the person ordering the sign was gay? Are they discriminating against gay people?

[Peace]

Your examples are still not following what is happening and I'm kind of tired of trying to show that.  Instead of continuing further I'm just going to leave it.  

That's cool. I am kind of tired of it too. As I suggested - I think it comes down to a difference of opinion concerning the extent of religious freedom. If you believe that it is OK for a person to deny a black-white couple service if it conflicts with his religious beliefs, then we will ultimately disagree wherever the conversation goes. I can't sign on to that - but I do respect your viewpoint.

[dUSt]

I am white, and my wife is black. If we were denied service at a restaurant I would be very upset--and take action. If that same restaurant said they couldn't cater our wedding because they didn't believe in interracial marriages, I would look elsewhere. They have already showed us that they are not denying us service because of our relationship--but catering an interracial marriage will attach their name to something they do not believe in. I understand that. I would go elsewhere for my catering, and wouldn't eat at the restaurant anymore either.

Even the above is a bad example though. There is a difference between "personal beliefs" and "religious beliefs". What religion teaches interracial marriages are immoral. Maybe 1%? What religions teach gay marriage is immoral. Maybe 99%?

[Peace]

OK. I will bite.

1) Should a black owned t-shirt maker be forced to sell t-shirts with a confederate flag on it? No. I do not think so.

2) What if the person ordering them was black or gay? I don't think that would change the answer.

3) Should a pro-choice sign maker be forced to make signs for a pro-life rally? No. I do not think so.

4)  What if the person ordering the sign was gay? Are they discriminating against gay people?  Yes. I think it would be discrimination. But I think that here the discrimination would be justified.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Peace

[dUSt]

OK. I will bite.

1) Should a black owned t-shirt maker be forced to sell t-shirts with a confederate flag on it? No. I do not think so.

2) What if the person ordering them was black or gay? I don't think that would change the answer.

3) Should a pro-choice sign maker be forced to make signs for a pro-life rally? No. I do not think so.

4)  What if the person ordering the sign was gay? Are they discriminating against gay people?  Yes. I think it would be discrimination. But I think that here the discrimination would be justified.

Oh man, you are totally gonna get sued. Everybody has to serve everybody. They are public businesses!!! If you serve the public you have no right to determine what your product is used for!!!