When does personal belief get to be practiced and when not?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Reading about the fines for the Oregon bakery made me wonder about how different circumstances cause people to have different thought processes based on what they believe should be socially acceptable. On one hand, there is a belief in freedom of religion, but a business owner is not allowed to practice that belief in a public setting by refusing anybody who happens to be part of protected class of people (although everybody else seems to be fair game for the most part).  So it seems to be the case that people believe in freedom of religion as long as the person doesn't force that view down other's throats, even though in the shop example those views really weren't being forced; but they were forcefully told they weren't allowed to practice their beliefs in a public setting. 

OTOH if you are male and identify as female, it seems that the most vocal view goes against that same ideology by believing that a person's belief (even though is any other situation where a person beliefs are so subjectively different than the objective view would be classified as a psychological disorder) should be able to be forced on other people in the case of allowing transgender people to use the facilities they most identify.  Even though I have a feeling that most people feel this is wrong, there aren't enough people willing to vocally argue that is overstepping the boundary, likely for fear of retribution of being called a bigot by the most vocal. 

So when does personal belief get to be practiced and when does it not?

[billisonboard]

Dec 29, 2015 17:39:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

...
So when does personal belief get to be practiced and when does it not?

So is this a question of what the law states or is it asking for opinion?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 17:54:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 29, 2015 17:39:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

...
So when does personal belief get to be practiced and when does it not?

So is this a question of what the law states or is it asking for opinion?

Asking an opinion...

[Gardening Grandma]

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 18:32:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

But it does interfere with the ability to practice or not practice his or her religion (even if you disagree with the store owners view on what constitutes "participation"), so again, when it is acceptable to practice a personal belief and when it is not? It's not an easy question by any means, and the examples I gave where just two that came to mind when the same logic didn't apply both ways...just something to make people think and I was curious about the opinions of others.

[Gardening Grandma]

Well, imo, if you are in the business of serving others, you don't get to choose who to serve. Think of balcks in Jim Crow days having to go into the back door of a restaurant and get take out.

[billisonboard]

Thanks, just wanted to clarify.

Businesses/freedom of religion - Incorporation is what I think should make the difference.  Through our laws, we allow people to form the unnatural personhood of corporation.  There are benefits that we grant them when they do so.  One is that it builds a wall between individual assets and business assets.  I think that it is legitimate for us to say, in exchange for the benefits to incorporation, we are going to ask that you also build a wall between your individual religious beliefs and follow laws that might go against those beliefs.  If that is not something that you are willing to do, fine.  Just don't ask us to limit your liability.

I struggle with the issue of transgender and bathroom facilities.  As far as public toilets, my feeling is - once the stall is closed what is the big deal.  Shower facilities - I just don't know.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2015 18:32:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

Baker refuses hateful messages to ALL customers... Not a problem.

You can't make people sell something they don't sell, i.e. Hateful cakes.

Baker refuses to sell wedding cakes to SOME couples.... A problem.

If you sell a product, i.e. Wedding cakes, you sell them to everyone indiscriminately.

Selling a cake is not practice of religion. It's a transaction of business.

[dondub]

We also have freedom from religion. The gay couple needed that.

In the meantime, where in the Bible or anywhere near Jesus Christ is there any specificity re: commerce with gays that says it's ok to discriminate? These conservative Christians are just whiners and should get over themselves and just do the business they are in and stop making such an issue of their need to discriminate.

[Opti]

We've trod this ground before. Freedom to have a religion of your choice does not mean freedom to disobey laws you feel are against your religion ... or in your opinion should be.

[djAdvocate]

so long as it does not harm the person or property of non-consenting others, of course.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 29, 2015 18:37:40 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 18:32:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

But it does interfere with the ability to practice or not practice his or her religion (even if you disagree with the store owners view on what constitutes "participation"), so again, when it is acceptable to practice a personal belief and when it is not? It's not an easy question by any means, and the examples I gave where just two that came to mind when the same logic didn't apply both ways...just something to make people think and I was curious about the opinions of others.

there is no freedom to "practice his or her religion" which falls outside of the law.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2015 18:57:33 GMT -5 oped said:

Dec 29, 2015 18:32:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

Baker refuses hateful messages to ALL customers... Not a problem.

You can't make people sell something they don't sell, i.e. Hateful cakes.

Baker refuses to sell wedding cakes to SOME couples.... A problem.

If you sell a product, i.e. Wedding cakes, you sell them to everyone indiscriminately.

Selling a cake is not practice of religion. It's a transaction of business.

Bingo. That's the way I look at it too.

If you don't sell wedding cakes you can't be forced to make a wedding cake. If you don't sell hate cakes you can't be forced to make a hate cake. If you don't sell {insert product here} you can't be forced to sell (insert same product here}.

However... if you DO sell wedding cakes, you have to sell them to everyone that wants to buy one. If you DO sell "hate cakes" you have to sell them to EVERYONE that wants to buy one. If you DO sell {insert product here} you have to sell them to everyone.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 29, 2015 22:11:09 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 29, 2015 18:57:33 GMT -5 oped said:

Baker refuses hateful messages to ALL customers... Not a problem.

You can't make people sell something they don't sell, i.e. Hateful cakes.

Baker refuses to sell wedding cakes to SOME couples.... A problem.

If you sell a product, i.e. Wedding cakes, you sell them to everyone indiscriminately.

Selling a cake is not practice of religion. It's a transaction of business.

Bingo. That's the way I look at it too.

If you don't sell wedding cakes you can't be forced to make a wedding cake. If you don't sell hate cakes you can't be forced to make a hate cake. If you don't sell {insert product here} you can't be forced to sell (insert same product here}.

However... if you DO sell wedding cakes, you have to sell them to everyone that wants to buy one. If you DO sell "hate cakes" you have to sell them to EVERYONE that wants to buy one. If you DO sell {insert product here} you have to sell them to everyone.

this really IS it.  a cake business is not a religious organization.  it is a bakery.

if you want to run a religious organization, start a church, and bake cakes in it.

which is pretty much how this whole thing ended up.  i think it is quite a satisfying conclusion, myself.

[justme]

Religion that you practice by baking cakes? How come they never did THAT in the services when I was growing up. Praise God by baking heterosexual cakes, everyone will have a gay ol' time!

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2015 22:24:27 GMT -5 justme said:

Religion that you practice by baking cakes? How come they never did THAT in the services when I was growing up. Praise God by baking heterosexual cakes, everyone will have a gay ol' time!

[justme]

Dec 29, 2015 22:27:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 29, 2015 22:24:27 GMT -5 justme said:

Religion that you practice by baking cakes? How come they never did THAT in the services when I was growing up. Praise God by baking heterosexual cakes, everyone will have a gay ol' time!

What? I thought gay meant happy? 

[Deleted]

I'll take my previous comment one step further...

If you sell wedding cakes you must sell them to everyone that wants to buy them... BUT if you only sell "Bride & Groom" toppers for those wedding cakes then you can't be forced to sell "Bride & Bride" or "Groom & Groom" toppers....

Do you know why?

Because you don't carry them! It's not a saleable object/item you normally carry!



Basically, practice "Personal" belief on "personal" time. Once you get to work to serve the general public... serve the general public equally.

[marvholly]

From day 1 I thought the bakery owners wer DUMB in how they handled this.  They should have just asked the date and/or checked their booking log and then said: sorry we are all booked up on that date.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 22:08:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so long as it does not harm the person or property of non-consenting others, of course.

So what constitutes "harm to non-consenting others?" What about the case of the transgender person being able to use or not use the same facilities (i.e. showers, etc) as the gender they identify with? People want to talk about the religious aspect of one of the examples I used, but this isn't the right board for that; just pointing out two cases where the beliefs of one are considered to be protected and the beliefs of the other are not considered protected to practice. 

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 29, 2015 22:47:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll take my previous comment one step further...

If you sell wedding cakes you must sell them to everyone that wants to buy them... BUT if you only sell "Bride & Groom" toppers for those wedding cakes then you can't be forced to sell "Bride & Bride" or "Groom & Groom" toppers....

Do you know why?

Because you don't carry them! It's not a saleable object/item you normally carry!



Basically, practice "Personal" belief on "personal" time. Once you get to work to serve the general public... serve the general public equally.

I doubt that would fly because I'm pretty sure the courts would have said it would not cause an unreasonable burden on the bakers to obtain different toppers. But that is missing the point, in asking how to determine when personal belief is allowed to be practices and when is it not?

[swamp]

Dec 30, 2015 6:33:22 GMT -5 marvholly said:

From day 1 I thought the bakery owners wer DUMB in how they handled this.  They should have just asked the date and/or checked their booking log and then said: sorry we are all booked up on that date.

makes me think there was someone backing this making to make a point.

[Opti]

Dec 30, 2015 8:51:11 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 22:47:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll take my previous comment one step further...

If you sell wedding cakes you must sell them to everyone that wants to buy them... BUT if you only sell "Bride & Groom" toppers for those wedding cakes then you can't be forced to sell "Bride & Bride" or "Groom & Groom" toppers....

Do you know why?

Because you don't carry them! It's not a saleable object/item you normally carry!



Basically, practice "Personal" belief on "personal" time. Once you get to work to serve the general public... serve the general public equally.

I doubt that would fly because I'm pretty sure the courts would have said it would not cause an unreasonable burden on the bakers to obtain different toppers. But that is missing the point, in asking how to determine when personal belief is allowed to be practices and when is it not?

Its pretty simple - is it against the law or not?

For example say you practice voodoo and own a deli. Health dept laws are going to prohibit sacrificing chickens in the deli. Depending on your local animal cruelty laws it may be OK or not, to do so in the privacy of your own home or on your property.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Dec 30, 2015 6:33:22 GMT -5 marvholly said:

From day 1 I thought the bakery owners wer DUMB in how they handled this.  They should have just asked the date and/or checked their booking log and then said: sorry we are all booked up on that date.

Its interesting how people look at things so differently. I consider myself a Christian woman. To me, that means that I should love my neighbor. Making an excuse or lying to get out of selling them a cake....I don't know. That doesn't seem to me to be what I was taught. They weren't asking the baker to stand up and witness with them.  They weren't asking him/her to have a threesome. They wanted a cake. It's my feeling, as a Christian woman, that they get their cake without my judgment. That's not my job. Baking cakes is.

[Deleted]

You can believe anything you want at any time. You can choose not to practice anything you want personally. I.e. You can believe for yourself that homosexuality is wrong and choose not to personally have sex with someone of the same gender. 

You cannot force other people to abide by your beliefs or restrict their own rights to act, or cause them harm. 

You can disprove of adultery and choose not to have an affair, but you don't get to stone adulterers. 

You can believe 'the little lady' should never buy a car without her husband or father... But you can't actually refuse to sell her one if she doesn't have a male present. 

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 9:10:06 GMT -5 oped said:

You can believe anything you want at any time. You can choose not to practice anything you want personally. I.e. You can believe for yourself that homosexuality is wrong and choose not to personally have sex with someone of the same gender. 

You cannot force other people to abide by your beliefs or restrict their own rights to act, or cause them harm. 

You can disprove of adultery and choose not to have an affair, but you don't get to stone adulterers. 

You can believe 'the little lady' should never buy a car without her husband or father... But you can't actually refuse to sell her one if she doesn't have a male present. 

So again, what constitutes "causing harm?" I again bring up the court cases about transgender people being allowed access to the facilities that are for the gender they identify with...is that forcing their belief on others? Does that constitute harm? It seems many are of the same opinion about the bakery owners, but what about other situations?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 8:56:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 30, 2015 8:51:11 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I doubt that would fly because I'm pretty sure the courts would have said it would not cause an unreasonable burden on the bakers to obtain different toppers. But that is missing the point, in asking how to determine when personal belief is allowed to be practices and when is it not?

Its pretty simple - is it against the law or not?

For example say you practice voodoo and own a deli. Health dept laws are going to prohibit sacrificing chickens in the deli. Depending on your local animal cruelty laws it may be OK or not, to do so in the privacy of your own home or on your property.

Not really that simple since laws are usually showing what people in general find acceptable or not....

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 9:09:55 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Dec 30, 2015 6:33:22 GMT -5 marvholly said:

From day 1 I thought the bakery owners wer DUMB in how they handled this.  They should have just asked the date and/or checked their booking log and then said: sorry we are all booked up on that date.

Its interesting how people look at things so differently. I consider myself a Christian woman. To me, that means that I should love my neighbor. Making an excuse or lying to get out of selling them a cake....I don't know. That doesn't seem to me to be what I was taught. They weren't asking the baker to stand up and witness with them.  They weren't asking him/her to have a threesome. They wanted a cake. It's my feeling, as a Christian woman, that they get their cake without my judgment. That's not my job. Baking cakes is.

If your belief was that this was a form of participation, would you feel the same way? So again, where do we draw the line at when personal belief is allowed to be practiced and when is it not?

[Deleted]

I've been giving you different situations...

Transgenders using their identifying sex bathrooms cause me no harm. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Dec 30, 2015 9:18:18 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:10:06 GMT -5 oped said:

You can believe anything you want at any time. You can choose not to practice anything you want personally. I.e. You can believe for yourself that homosexuality is wrong and choose not to personally have sex with someone of the same gender. 

You cannot force other people to abide by your beliefs or restrict their own rights to act, or cause them harm. 

You can disprove of adultery and choose not to have an affair, but you don't get to stone adulterers. 

You can believe 'the little lady' should never buy a car without her husband or father... But you can't actually refuse to sell her one if she doesn't have a male present. 

So again, what constitutes "causing harm?" I again bring up the court cases about transgender people being allowed access to the facilities that are for the gender they identify with...is that forcing their belief on others? Does that constitute harm? It seems many are of the same opinion about the bakery owners, but what about other situations?

I suppose what causes harm is subjective.  There are many ladies here who have said it wouldn't bother them to have men in a woman's locker room.  It would bother me.  I'm quite modest.  I get to choose the men who see me naked.  They don't get to choose.  To me, that is harm.  To others, it isn't.  That doesn't make me right and them wrong - just different.