Christian Baker Fined & Silenced

[Peace]

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%?

Well. I can respect that. Compare it with the sit-in protests of the 1960's. There, African Americans could have said "Well. If you do not want me to eat at your restaurant, I will take my money and spend it at a restaurant that wants my business." They chose otherwise. They said - whatever your personal feelings are towards me are, I deserve the same service that is given to others. I think both ways of looking at it are valid. Personally, if I were to get my wedding cake and it tasted great, I could care less whether the person who made it still secretly hates my guts. That might be the very case at some restaurants that I sit down at today.

As for your question - Christianity does not teach that interracial relationships are immoral. But the warped Christianity that was practiced in the USA for a long period of time certainly did. It was also used to justify slavery. Look at what the judge in the Loving v. Virginia case wrote, for example:

But I will grant you that times have changed (thankfully). I think they changed in part because of things like the sit-ins during the 1960's.

Hmm. I dunno why but it will not let me post the quote. Here it is:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Peace

[Socrates]

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.

So what's the difference between persons being forced against their will to make shirts or signs that go against their beliefs, and persons being forced to cater an event such as a "gay wedding" that goes against their beliefs?   

Is it simply a matter of you personally preferring one scenario to the other?

 

These examples might be more directly analogous to the wedding cake issue:

Should a photographer who objects for moral reasons be forced to do a promotional photo shoot for a strip club?

Should a black caterer (or white caterer, for that matter) be forced to cater a KKK meeting?

[Norseman82]

I wonder what would happen if that father who named his son after Adolf Hitler sued the bakery for not baking the birthday cake?

I don't like "hopping in bed" with some of those cited in the examples above, but I think we may need to in order to prove the hypocrisy of the PC crowd.

[Credo in Deum]

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.

How can you say 'No' to 3, but then say 'Yes' to 4? How does the sexuality of the customer change the outcome between 3 and 4, but not between 1 and 2?  Is the business owner for the sign company in California? 

 

Edited July 6, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[CatherineM]

I remember discussing in law school about whether a female attorney could be forced to represent a rapist. 

[dUSt]

I think the problem stems from sexual preference being put on the same level as race or gender. Race and gender are not controllable. Sexual preference is. I am not saying one can choose sexual preference--I'm saying when you walk into a public place, you don't have to yell out, "I'm gay, serve me!". Just like you don't have to yell out, "I'm a Muslim, serve me!". But one really has no choice when walking into a place as a black/white or a man/woman.

Why has the world suddenly allowed sexual preference to define a person? Why is this now normal? Does my sexual preference of slightly bossy black women define who I am as a person? Should it?

[Credo in Deum]

I think the problem stems from sexual preference being put on the same level as race or gender. Race and gender are not controllable. Sexual preference is. I am not saying one can choose sexual preference--I'm saying when you walk into a public place, you don't have to yell out, "I'm gay, serve me!". Just like you don't have to yell out, "I'm a Muslim, serve me!". But one really has no choice when walking into a place as a black/white or a man/woman.

Why has the world suddenly allowed sexual preference to define a person? Why is this now normal? Does my sexual preference of slightly bossy black women define who I am as a person? Should it?

Just let your Oprahsexuality consume you, dUSt!

[Peace]

So what's the difference between persons being forced against their will to make shirts or signs that go against their beliefs, and persons being forced to cater an event such as a "gay wedding" that goes against their beliefs?   

Is it simply a matter of you personally preferring one scenario to the other?

 

These examples might be more directly analogous to the wedding cake issue:

Should a photographer who objects for moral reasons be forced to do a promotional photo shoot for a strip club?

Should a black caterer (or white caterer, for that matter) be forced to cater a KKK meeting?

How can you say 'No' to 3, but then say 'Yes' to 4? How does the sexuality of the customer change the outcome between 3 and 4, but not between 1 and 2?  Is the business owner for the sign company in California? 

 

I think the above two objections are fairly similar so I will try to answer them together.

I do not know if have a good answer, or an answer that is entirely logical, that distinguishes between the different scenarios. I was hoping that someone could help me with that.

But I do have a sense that they are somehow different.

A T-Shirt with a Nazi symbol on it sends a message that is very different than a T-Shirt with a Care Bear on it. In #1 you do not have a situation where a product is being offered to one group of people, but essentially the same product is being refused to a different group of people. The T-Shirt maker is not saying "I will sell T-Shirt X to A but not to B." The T-Shirt maker is saying "I will not sell T-Shirt X to anyone."  

In response to that, perhaps one might argue that a "Gay Wedding Cake" is a different product than a "Straight Wedding Cake."  Perhaps that is true in some circumstances. But what if a person walks into a store and says "Please make me a Chocolate Wedding Cake that says 'Michael and Riley - Love Forever'"? It is a straight wedding cake or a gay wedding cake? It's neither. It is just a wedding cake, that could be used at either a gay wedding or a straight wedding, depending on whether Riley is male or female. I don't think the situations are quite the same.

But if the man walks in and says "Make me a wedding cake that says 'Michael and Riley - Love Forever' and please put a picture on it of two men engaging in anal sex" - well, then you are being asked to sell something different, I think. And I don't think anyone would disagree if someone objected to a cake-seller saying "I do not make cakes with people having sex on them."

Does that even make any sense? Well. I tried.

As for the caterer / photographer - I think those are distinguishable as well. The photographer and the caterer by their nature go to private events. They have not opened a store in a public area, where all sorts of people might walk in not knowing the particular likes or biases of the store owners. I think there is a general sense that if you have a store in a public area, then anyone may walk in and expect to be able to buy what is being sold in the store. I don't have that expectation with a photographer or a caterer. I can reasonably expect that they might refuse to come out to my event for numerous different reasons.  

Perhaps here the question is whether one views a baker as more akin to someone selling a roll of toilet paper, or as someone offering unique/custom goods or services to private persons (like a photographer or a caterer). It is probably a bit obvious that I don't particularly see a cake seller as selling anything unique. Sure, a wedding cake is a bit more customized than a roll of toilet paper. But to me a cake is a cake for the most part. What can I say? I don't really see walking into a store and ordering a wedding cake as anything that is much different than walking into a grocery store and ordering a pound of thinly sliced ham . . .

Another distinction is that you are dealing with situations where people have to leave where they are and physically go where they are personally uncomfortable at best, or under the threat of physical harm at worse. I do not think the photographer has to go and take photographs at a KKK Rally. But if he is running a photo store in a public area and a member of the KKK walks in and asks to buy a roll of film, it would be discrimination if the owner of the store refuses to sell him the film, while selling the film to every other person. He would be discriminating against members of the KKK (and that might be justifiable as well - haven't thought about it).

I am just kind of 50/50 on this stuff I guess. I suppose you have various competing considerations, and it is not always easy to figure out how to balance them. For me, personal freedom is important, religious freedom is important, but they do not apply in exclusion to everything else. I think the idea is this - a person has a general right to choose what to do/what not to do. But some limitations on the right to do as you please can arise when you open up in a public area, or hold yourself out as a business that is open to the public. I think that is the basic idea behind various laws that we have on the books - whether they be food safety regulations or stock-market regulations, etc. Because they have public quality to them in that they are being offered to the public, or in public areas, they have to adhere to certain common expectations (such as the food not being contaminated, or stocks being traded on inside information, etc . . .)

By the way - I did not think that question #2 and question #4 were the same question. Question # 2 does not ask whether there is discrimination (perhaps that was the intent behind the question, but I did not understand that when I answered that). I think #2 would be discrimination - not against a group of people, but discrimination against certain symbols.

That ends my ramble.

[Socrates]

 

I think the above two objections are fairly similar so I will try to answer them together.

I do not know if have a good answer, or an answer that is entirely logical, that distinguishes between the different scenarios. I was hoping that someone could help me with that.

But I do have a sense that they are somehow different.

A T-Shirt with a Nazi symbol on it sends a message that is very different than a T-Shirt with a Care Bear on it. In #1 you do not have a situation where a product is being offered to one group of people, but essentially the same product is being refused to a different group of people. The T-Shirt maker is not saying "I will sell T-Shirt X to A but not to B." The T-Shirt maker is saying "I will not sell T-Shirt X to anyone."  

In response to that, perhaps one might argue that a "Gay Wedding Cake" is a different product than a "Straight Wedding Cake."  Perhaps that is true in some circumstances. But what if a person walks into a store and says "Please make me a Chocolate Wedding Cake that says 'Michael and Riley - Love Forever'"? It is a straight wedding cake or a gay wedding cake? It's neither. It is just a wedding cake, that could be used at either a gay wedding or a straight wedding, depending on whether Riley is male or female. I don't think the situations are quite the same.

But if the man walks in and says "Make me a wedding cake that says 'Michael and Riley - Love Forever' and please put a picture on it of two men engaging in anal sex" - well, then you are being asked to sell something different, I think. And I don't think anyone would disagree if someone objected to a cake-seller saying "I do not make cakes with people having sex on them."

Does that even make any sense? Well. I tried.

As for the caterer / photographer - I think those are distinguishable as well. The photographer and the caterer by their nature go to private events. They have not opened a store in a public area, where all sorts of people might walk in not knowing the particular likes or biases of the store owners. I think there is a general sense that if you have a store in a public area, then anyone may walk in and expect to be able to buy what is being sold in the store. I don't have that expectation with a photographer or a caterer. I can reasonably expect that they might refuse to come out to my event for numerous different reasons.  

Perhaps here the question is whether one views a baker as more akin to someone selling a roll of toilet paper, or as someone offering unique/custom goods or services to private persons (like a photographer or a caterer). It is probably a bit obvious that I don't particularly see a cake seller as selling anything unique. Sure, a wedding cake is a bit more customized than a roll of toilet paper. But to me a cake is a cake for the most part. What can I say? I don't really see walking into a store and ordering a wedding cake as anything that is much different than walking into a grocery store and ordering a pound of thinly sliced ham . . .

Another distinction is that you are dealing with situations where people have to leave where they are and physically go where they are personally uncomfortable at best, or under the threat of physical harm at worse. I do not think the photographer has to go and take photographs at a KKK Rally. But if he is running a photo store in a public area and a member of the KKK walks in and asks to buy a roll of film, it would be discrimination if the owner of the store refuses to sell him the film, while selling the film to every other person. He would be discriminating against members of the KKK (and that might be justifiable as well - haven't thought about it).

I am just kind of 50/50 on this stuff I guess. I suppose you have various competing considerations, and it is not always easy to figure out how to balance them. For me, personal freedom is important, religious freedom is important, but they do not apply in exclusion to everything else. I think the idea is this - a person has a general right to choose what to do/what not to do. But some limitations on the right to do as you please can arise when you open up in a public area, or hold yourself out as a business that is open to the public. I think that is the basic idea behind various laws that we have on the books - whether they be food safety regulations or stock-market regulations, etc. Because they have public quality to them in that they are being offered to the public, or in public areas, they have to adhere to certain common expectations (such as the food not being contaminated, or stocks being traded on inside information, etc . . .)

By the way - I did not think that question #2 and question #4 were the same question. Question # 2 does not ask whether there is discrimination (perhaps that was the intent behind the question, but I did not understand that when I answered that). I think #2 would be discrimination - not against a group of people, but discrimination against certain symbols.

That ends my ramble.

Personally, I found your arguments pretty weak, and you seemed to dance around and avoid the core issue of government forcing persons in private business to do things contrary to their conscience or beliefs.

I don't think the t-shirt and sign maker examples are really all that different than the others.  In each of these cases, a person is being forced against their will to do something they find offensive or contrary to their deeply held beliefs.  In the first two, it's making something with a message or symbol they disagree with; in the others, it's doing or supplying something directly to an event that they cannot in good conscience support in any way.

(Also, a Confederate flag is not a Nazi symbol, but I'm not going to hijack the thread to argue about that.  The point remains the same.)

The two examples I gave were designed specifically to avoid the issue being about the product itself (which would, at least in the catering example, be neutral), but about the event being supported.  It looks like you tried to weasel away from the issue of people being forced to support things against their conscience by shifting the concern to physical safety.  Let's assume for purposes of argument that these people were safe from harm, and did not feel physically threatened.  (We can say, for instance, that the caterer is white, though he strongly objects morally to the KKK).  I also don't think whether or not a person has to physically travel to a location makes that much difference in this issue.  If a plumber, or a pizza delivery guy, refused to come to my home, barring a real physical issue preventing him to, that could raise problems.  As for "feeling uncomfortable," that's also very subjective - I might feel uncomfortable baking a cake or shooting photos for a "gay wedding."  That's not the point.

Your judgments on what discrimination is and isn't "justified" also seem pretty arbitrary.

It's best for the state to respect the rights of business owners to both free practice of religion and freedom of association, rather than force them at gunpoint to support events that violate their consciences - whether you personally agree with those beliefs or not.

I find the whole "slippery slope" argument that unless we to force bakers at gunpoint to bake cakes for homosexual "weddings," we'll plunge back to the days of Jim Crow, to be silly and unrealistic.

[Peace]

Personally, I found your arguments pretty weak, and you seemed to dance around and avoid the core issue of government forcing persons in private business to do things contrary to their conscience or beliefs.

If this is the core issue then I think I can put it fairly briefly. I believe that the government does have a right to force people in private business to do things that are contrary to their conscience or beliefs. If you open a MacDonald's and say "serving black people is contrary to my conscience or beliefs" - I believe that the government has a right to levy a hefty fine on your business for discrimination. Apparently so do most of the other people in America - we have laws that prohibit that.

I find the whole "slippery slope" argument that unless we to force bakers at gunpoint to bake cakes for homosexual "weddings," we'll plunge back to the days of Jim Crow, to be silly and unrealistic.

Well. I don't think the cake issue will force us back into Jim Crow either.

But if you think that the USA could not slip back into that, I think that would be fairly naive. Societal change can and has happened lightening quick. You see a Hitler rise up out of nowhere in a decade or two. And the vast majority of the history of the USA was marked by slavery and legalized racism. Our history knows much more of that than it does of the tolerance that we have today. I do not think we are at a point where we should cease to be vigilant in those areas.

[Peace]

Personally, I found your arguments pretty weak, and you seemed to dance around and avoid the core issue of government forcing persons in private business to do things contrary to their conscience or beliefs.

And I would think that you also agree that the government has a right to force people to do things contrary to their conscience or beliefs.

Can a person who objects to his money being taken and used to feed the poor (as you have objected to previously) or a person who objects to various military actions (innocent people killed in wars, by drones, bombs, etc.) refuse to pay his taxes? Can the government force that person to pay taxes and throw him in jail if he refuses? You seem to think so. You already stated that a legitimate purpose of the government is to provide a military. And some people are forced to pay tax who disagree with what our military does. So it would appear that you agree that the government has a right to force people to do things contrary to their conscience or beliefs.

 What if the very act of paying tax itself conflicts with someone's conscience or beliefs? The government has no right to force them to pay tax then?

Again - I agree with a large degree of personal and religious freedom. But it is not an absolute right to do or not do whatever you want under any circumstances.

[Guest]

The Christian couple was lying lol Imagine that. Lame.

 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Guest

[Yaatee]

It amazes me that people spend so much time online discussing these issues.

Don't y'all have something better to do ?

[Peace]

It amazes me that people spend so much time online discussing these issues.

Don't y'all have something better to do ?

If we did we would be doing it!

[Yaatee]

Hmmmm.  I think that online forums are a sort of addiction.  Most people have something other and better to do.  And stuff they ought to do.  I know I do. I always feel guilty about posting, as I do now.  In PhM's previous life, I posted long pieces on this and that.  Now I am much shorter and am trying avoid big debates.  When I look at all those words.  You realize that you aren't going to change anyone's mind?   The most constructive post is a short piece of advice to someone who is asking for it.

Over and out....for now.