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

[Value Buy]

Jan 6, 2016 4:43:58 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 5, 2016 8:11:28 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Then Muslim servers should serve pork and alcohol and not be exempt if they choose to work in a place that does.

Absolutely!

If a Muslim chooses to work in a place like McDonald's then they can't eschew handling bacon cheeseburgers.

If a Muslim chooses to work in a bar-restaurant, he must serve alcoholic drinks to the patrons.

If a Muslim chooses to work at Hooters, she can't wear a burqa.

People have to do their jobs, and if your job is making wedding cakes, then make the damn cakes without turning your nose up at the homosexuals.

But what happens to the business when our government comes around and says you do not hire Muslims, and  your response is

one, "they never apply"

Two, "they refuse to follow procedures and serve all products and drinks"

Want to bet the government says you are discriminating a religious and /or sometimes, an ethnic class.

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2016 17:23:24 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 6, 2016 4:43:58 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Absolutely!

If a Muslim chooses to work in a place like McDonald's then they can't eschew handling bacon cheeseburgers.

If a Muslim chooses to work in a bar-restaurant, he must serve alcoholic drinks to the patrons.

If a Muslim chooses to work at Hooters, she can't wear a burqa.

People have to do their jobs, and if your job is making wedding cakes, then make the damn cakes without turning your nose up at the homosexuals.

I said so a long time ago that refusing to serve gays would not be the hill I'd die on as a business owner.  This is in part because if I felt strongly enough about the sacrament of marriage, I would also have to refuse second marriages unelss the first marriage ended because of unfaithfulness, and those who were getting married but living together, and others who would otherwise be denied communion or any other sacrament. Right?

But the obvious problems with being a strictly Christian bakery notwithstanding- there's no legitimate government power to declare your business public property, or to micromanage your business.  You don't check your private property rights, or any other Constitutional right at the door when you file for your selected entity type.  The 'public accommodation' notion is grossly flawed- and this issue highlights that fact.

If a business owner may not refuse anyone service for any reason, or no reason at all- that person effectively does not own their business.

The government didn't do that though. The bakery owners declared the business "open to the public". That was a choice they freely made on their own.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 6, 2016 19:03:50 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 6, 2016 17:23:24 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I said so a long time ago that refusing to serve gays would not be the hill I'd die on as a business owner.  This is in part because if I felt strongly enough about the sacrament of marriage, I would also have to refuse second marriages unelss the first marriage ended because of unfaithfulness, and those who were getting married but living together, and others who would otherwise be denied communion or any other sacrament. Right?

But the obvious problems with being a strictly Christian bakery notwithstanding- there's no legitimate government power to declare your business public property, or to micromanage your business.  You don't check your private property rights, or any other Constitutional right at the door when you file for your selected entity type.  The 'public accommodation' notion is grossly flawed- and this issue highlights that fact.

If a business owner may not refuse anyone service for any reason, or no reason at all- that person effectively does not own their business.

Well, if you refused to make cakes for gays, second marriages, divorce parties, liars, cheaters, tattooed people, tax cheats, women in pants, people living together, gossips, women with short hair, alcoholics, gluttons, etc., who, exactly, would be your customers? Oh, lets not forget "worshipping other Gods", so you couldn't sell to Jews, Muslims or Hindus, either.

You'd go out of business in a week.

It's not that simple.

The issue is whether the cake baker is actively countenancing and/or participating in a sin or whether he's simply tolerating one. Baking a cake for a wedding is a dicey issue in this regard. Is baking a cake for a wedding ceremony countenancing and/or participating in the marriage being celebrated?

I know several here have argued 'no'. The celebration is separate from the wedding. The cake is ancillary. A cake baker is by no means countenancing or participating in the marriage by baking a cake.

Others feel the answer is 'yes'. The cake is solely intended to help celebrate the wedding, and integral enough to the whole process that the baker is actually countenancing the sin. The Oregon bakers obviously felt this way.

Assuming our judgment is 'yes', note here that the sin being countenanced is the wedding itself. Is the wedding lawful in the eyes of God or is it not? The relevant predicates would be: i) Is the marriage between one man and one woman?, ii) Is the marriage legal in the eyes of the state? (Man's laws are to be respected when they don't conflict with God's laws.), and iii) Is it true that neither the man nor the woman have divorced and broken a prior marriage covenant?

Same-sex unions and polygamous unions transgress the law on point i. Weddings involving divorcees transgress the law on point iii, but it's highly unlikely that a cake baker would come into possession of this knowledge, and it could be argued from scripture that it's a sin (in particular, an unacceptable overreach into others' personal business) for a Christian to inquire. In any case, the baker is far more likely to become aware of point i than point iii in the routine course of business, which is precisely what happened in the Oregon case.

The other sins you mention: alcoholism, gluttony, tax cheating, lying, etc. have nothing to do with the wedding. Even if you're the most cautious, most hard-nosed Christian out there, you won't reasonably conclude that baking a cake for a wedding is countenancing the participants' alcoholism, or facilitating their cheating on their taxes. It's already borderline to say that baking the cake is countenancing/participating in the marriage itself. You're not going to stretch that any further.

Alternatively, suppose you're a Christian store owner with strong reservations about drunkenness, and a man you know to be an absolutely unrepentant serial abuser of alcohol (as in: there can be no doubt that if you sell him alcohol, he will abuse it) wants to buy booze from you. I would say it's the Christian store owner's duty to refuse to sell him alcohol (or at least refuse to sell him any more than a very modest quantity of alcohol that can't be abused). Meanwhile, if a flamboyantly homosexual man comes in to buy wine, the store owner should have no qualms selling it to him. It's a no-brainer: he isn't countenancing or participating in the man's homosexuality by selling him booze.

The bottom line is that baking a cake for a same-sex wedding (and for the other cases listed) is one of the borderline "countenancing or participating in" cases that some Christians are not unreasonably going to judge "yes, this is going too far". That doesn't mean they're hypocrites if they readily serve people committing other sins. We're all sinners. Christians have to exercise these judgments only to make sure we're not taking tolerance to the point of countenancing or facilitation. We want to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 6, 2016 19:20:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Virgil, do you really think kids don't buy things ever at businesses?

Sure. But you can kick kids out of your store or refuse to feed them.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[kittensaver]

Jan 6, 2016 20:08:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 6, 2016 19:03:50 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Well, if you refused to make cakes for gays, second marriages, divorce parties, liars, cheaters, tattooed people, tax cheats, women in pants, people living together, gossips, women with short hair, alcoholics, gluttons, etc., who, exactly, would be your customers? Oh, lets not forget "worshipping other Gods", so you couldn't sell to Jews, Muslims or Hindus, either.

You'd go out of business in a week.

It's not that simple.

The issue is whether the cake baker is actively countenancing and/or participating in a sin or whether he's simply tolerating one. Baking a cake for a wedding is a dicey issue in this regard. Is baking a cake for a wedding ceremony countenancing and/or participating in the marriage being celebrated?

I know several here have argued 'no'. The celebration is separate from the wedding. The cake is ancillary. A cake baker is by no means countenancing or participating in the marriage by baking a cake.

Others feel the answer is 'yes'. The cake is solely intended to help celebrate the wedding, and integral enough to the whole process that the baker is actually countenancing the sin. The Oregon bakers obviously felt this way.

Assuming our judgment is 'yes', note here that the sin being countenanced is the wedding itself. Is the wedding lawful in the eyes of God or is it not? The relevant predicates would be: i) Is the marriage between one man and one woman?, ii) Is the marriage legal in the eyes of the state? (Man's laws are to be respected when they don't conflict with God's laws.), and iii) Is it true that neither the man nor the woman have divorced and broken a prior marriage covenant?

Same-sex unions and polygamous unions transgress the law on point i. Weddings involving divorcees transgress the law on point iii, but it's highly unlikely that a cake baker would come into possession of this knowledge, and it could be argued from scripture that it's a sin (in particular, an unacceptable overreach into others' personal business) for a Christian to inquire. In any case, the baker is far more likely to become aware of point i than point iii in the routine course of business, which is precisely what happened in the Oregon case.

The other sins you mention: alcoholism, gluttony, tax cheating, lying, etc. have nothing to do with the wedding. Even if you're the most cautious, most hard-nosed Christian out there, you won't reasonably conclude that baking a cake for a wedding is countenancing the participants' alcoholism, or facilitating their cheating on their taxes. It's already borderline to say that baking the cake is countenancing/participating in the marriage itself. You're not going to stretch that any further.

Alternatively, suppose you're a Christian store owner with strong reservations about drunkenness, and a man you know to be an absolutely unrepentant serial abuser of alcohol (as in: there can be no doubt that if you sell him alcohol, he will abuse it) wants to buy booze from you. I would say it's the Christian store owner's duty to refuse to sell him alcohol (or at least refuse to sell him any more than a very modest quantity of alcohol that can't be abused). Meanwhile, if a flamboyantly homosexual man comes in to buy wine, the store owner should have no qualms selling it to him. It's a no-brainer: he isn't countenancing or participating in the man's homosexuality by selling him booze.

The bottom line is that baking a cake for a same-sex wedding (and for the other cases listed) is one of the borderline "countenancing or participating in" cases that some Christians are not unreasonably going to judge "yes, this is going too far". That doesn't mean they're hypocrites if they readily serve people committing other sins. We're all sinners. Christians have to exercise these judgments only to make sure we're not taking tolerance to the point of countenancing or facilitation. We want to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Hopefully that makes sense.

It makes sense if you somehow feel you're entitled to impose your religious beliefs on a civil, non-sectarian society. But guess what - you're not . At least not in the United States. So stop trying. You can come here and expound the "Christian perspective" all you want - and you're even entitled to cherish and uphold that perspective FOR YOU all you want - but it doesn't make any difference to this argument. This is a civil matter pertaining to civil law, and religion is not allowed to run The State.

Time to get over it and move on.

Ps: I'm NOT "Christian bashing" here - I'm one myself, although my brand is clearly very different from yours.

[Opti]

Jan 6, 2016 20:09:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 6, 2016 19:20:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

Virgil, do you really think kids don't buy things ever at businesses?

Sure. But you can kick kids out of your store or refuse to feed them.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

It appeared to me you were saying my argument was without merit because only adults buy stuff from businesses.

"We're talking about adults here. An adult who comes into your store is not a minor under your care and supervision. There are no issues of abandonment or neglect in the picture.

In short, as far as "you can't legally abandon children": apples and oranges."

If you were trying to make a different point, I missed it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 6, 2016 20:36:45 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 6, 2016 20:09:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sure. But you can kick kids out of your store or refuse to feed them.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

It appeared to me you were saying my argument was without merit because only adults buy stuff from businesses.

"We're talking about adults here. An adult who comes into your store is not a minor under your care and supervision. There are no issues of abandonment or neglect in the picture.

In short, as far as "you can't legally abandon children": apples and oranges."

If you were trying to make a different point, I missed it.

I'm saying your argument is without merit because the only circumstances under which one isn't permitted to kick children out of one's home (or business) or to deny them food, etc. is when doing so constitutes abandonment. Abandonment is applicable if and only if i) the individual being kicked out is a minor, ii) the person kicking them out is their legal guardian, and iii) the person kicking them out hasn't taken measures to ensure the minor will be taken care of after being kicked out. In any other case, abandonment isn't an issue. The home owner is at liberty to kick people, including children, out of his home. A store owner is at liberty to kick children out of his store.

It was implicitly understood by the architects of free societies that the right to determine who was allowed on one's privately owned property and to determine who was served by one's privately owned business rested immutably with the owner.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 6, 2016 20:23:33 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

It makes sense if you somehow feel you're entitled to impose your religious beliefs on a civil, non-sectarian society. But guess what - you're not . At least not in the United States. So stop trying. You can come here and expound the "Christian perspective" all you want - and you're even entitled to cherish and uphold that perspective FOR YOU all you want - but it doesn't make any difference to this argument. This is a civil matter pertaining to civil law, and religion is not allowed to run The State.

Time to get over it and move on.

Ps: I'm NOT "Christian bashing" here - I'm one myself, although my brand is clearly very different from yours.

"impose your religious beliefs" is a meaningless construction. It means nothing.

Are we talking about Christians acting in accordance with their religious beliefs in a way that affects others? Yes.

Have the courts ruled that US citizens, including US Christians, may not categorically refuse service to protected groups in accordance with their religious beliefs? Yes.

Should this ruling be so? Is it constitutional? Is it consistent with the ideals of a free society? This is the 16th thread we've had to debate the issue on our board. It should be obvious by now that neither side is getting over it or moving on.

Having said this, I'm not here to bash my head against the wall in that debate. I'm here to cover territory we haven't covered before, such as Weltz's questions about which circumstances (vis a vis moral objections) in the Oregon bakery case are unique and which extend to other situations.

If you want to continue the debate on the could-be and should-be legality of discrimination against protected groups, there are at least a few posters here interested in locking horns with you. I'm not one of them. I called it quits somewhere back around thread #5.

[Green Eyed Lady]

It was #6.

[kittensaver]

Jan 7, 2016 3:14:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 6, 2016 20:23:33 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

"impose your religious beliefs" is a meaningless construction. It means nothing.

Ah but sorry - it means some very concrete things out there in the real world.

When you tell someone they cannot have a civil license protecting property and a relationship status in a civil arena because it offends your religiosity - that's an imposition on someone else with real meaning and real consequences for them.

When you tell someone you offer services to the general public but won't serve them because their sexual orientation offends your religiosity - that's an imposition on someone else with real meaning and real consequences for them.

I could go on forever, but I'm probably wasting my breath. You say you don't want to get into it and I acquiesce - - when Christians disagree their arguments always seem to devolve into a silly game of Dueling Bible Verses, and no one ever wins.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 7, 2016 13:46:36 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jan 7, 2016 3:14:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"impose your religious beliefs" is a meaningless construction. It means nothing.

Ah but sorry - it means some very concrete things out there in the real world.

When you tell someone they cannot have a civil license protecting property and a relationship status in a civil arena because it offends your religiosity - that's an imposition on someone else with real meaning and real consequences for them.

When you tell someone you offer services to the general public but won't serve them because their sexual orientation offends your religiosity - that's an imposition on someone else with real meaning and real consequences for them.

I could go on forever, but I'm probably wasting my breath. You say you don't want to get into it and I acquiesce - - when Christians disagree their arguments always seem to devolve into a silly game of Dueling Bible Verses, and no one ever wins.

I have a problem with the expression itself, not with the idea you intend it to communicate. I agree with the first three paragraphs above.

The act of "imposing one's religious beliefs" doesn't match the description you give. My successfully "imposing my religious beliefs" on you means I've compelled you to believe (or at the very least act in a way that suggests you believe) the same things I do. This clearly doesn't happen when a Christian baker denies service to a homosexual customer.

Where does the expression "imposing one's beliefs" apply? Forced indoctrination. Mandatory race-, gender-, and LGBT sensitivity training in schools, universities, and workplaces. Mandated pro-LGBT curricula in primary schools. Government funding for pro-carbon-credit climate research only.

The goal in these cases is expressly to indoctrinate. While not all indoctrination is a bad thing, the only entity with the legal power to forcibly indoctrinate people in our society is the state--or more specifically, the special interests that control the state. If you want to talk about "imposing one's beliefs", that's presently the only place in our society where the expression has any validity. Anywhere else the expression is a lie, or as I prefer to think of it, an erroneous stand-in for "acting in accordance with one's beliefs in ways that impact others".

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

the state loves to tell people what to do, or else...

So what to do? Simple.

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Wanna bet there'll be no crackdown on this, and no lawsuits, and no administrative law judges imposing fines?


www.nysun.com/national/new-in-america-not-muslim-no-taxi/46220/

Nor, by the way should there be.  If a muslim taxi driver wants to refuse your seeing eye dog because a dog's saliva is sacrilege, that's their right. Because, as I've repeatedly pointed out: A business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all.  Your property, business as well as personal, is NOT public property managed and directed by the government.

I'm only posting this to show there's a huge double standard.

And that double standard exists because leftwing activists aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting to criminalize the Christian faith.

[billisonboard]

Jan 9, 2016 10:46:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Wanna bet there'll be no crackdown on this, and no lawsuits, and no administrative law judges imposing fines?


www.nysun.com/national/new-in-america-not-muslim-no-taxi/46220/
...

And now the followup from 2015 to your 2007 story.

Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), the governing body of the airport, adopted a new policy of punishing taxi drivers who refused to transport travelers with booze. The policy called for a 30-day suspension for the first offense and progressively became more severe, up to license cancelation. www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-airport-s-somali-workforce/295525991/

[Tennesseer]

Jan 9, 2016 10:56:36 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 9, 2016 10:46:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Wanna bet there'll be no crackdown on this, and no lawsuits, and no administrative law judges imposing fines?


www.nysun.com/national/new-in-america-not-muslim-no-taxi/46220/
...

And now the followup from 2015 to your 2007 story.

Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), the governing body of the airport, adopted a new policy of punishing taxi drivers who refused to transport travelers with booze. The policy called for a 30-day suspension for the first offense and progressively became more severe, up to license cancelation. www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-airport-s-somali-workforce/295525991/

I bet it didn't take too long to find the follow up article on the Internet. What a little research and no rush to judgment can do.

[weltschmerz]

Jan 9, 2016 10:46:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Wanna bet there'll be no crackdown on this, and no lawsuits, and no administrative law judges imposing fines?


www.nysun.com/national/new-in-america-not-muslim-no-taxi/46220/

Nor, by the way should there be.  If a muslim taxi driver wants to refuse your seeing eye dog because a dog's saliva is sacrilege, that's their right. Because, as I've repeatedly pointed out: A business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all.  Your property, business as well as personal, is NOT public property managed and directed by the government.

I'm only posting this to show there's a huge double standard.

And that double standard exists because leftwing activists aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting to criminalize the Christian faith.

Wrong. As usual.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 9, 2016 11:11:47 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jan 9, 2016 10:46:49 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Wanna bet there'll be no crackdown on this, and no lawsuits, and no administrative law judges imposing fines?


www.nysun.com/national/new-in-america-not-muslim-no-taxi/46220/

Nor, by the way should there be.  If a muslim taxi driver wants to refuse your seeing eye dog because a dog's saliva is sacrilege, that's their right. Because, as I've repeatedly pointed out: A business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all.  Your property, business as well as personal, is NOT public property managed and directed by the government.

I'm only posting this to show there's a huge double standard.

And that double standard exists because leftwing activists aren't fighting for rights, they're fighting to criminalize the Christian faith.

Wrong. As usual.

I'm correct.  You just don't understand the difference between right and wrong and illegal and legal; or the difference between rights and demands.

[Deleted]

So when you said there would be no crackdown, no fines.. You were correct? 

When end you said there is a visible double standard with this matter... You were correct? 

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 5, 2016 10:30:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've considered. I'm going to move this thread to Religious Discussions. Just remember, there are special rules there. Don't shove your beliefs down the throats of others, and no name-calling - at all! I'm doing this rather than start deleting posts, guys. The matter under discussion boils down to religious beliefs and/or lack of same. It's not a matter of politics, really. By moving the thread, you can continue your discussion with a little more freedom of expression than you have here.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

I leave for a few days and what happens, you move my stuff around after I put it right where I wanted it.

[mmhmm]

Jan 10, 2016 17:10:37 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 5, 2016 10:30:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've considered. I'm going to move this thread to Religious Discussions. Just remember, there are special rules there. Don't shove your beliefs down the throats of others, and no name-calling - at all! I'm doing this rather than start deleting posts, guys. The matter under discussion boils down to religious beliefs and/or lack of same. It's not a matter of politics, really. By moving the thread, you can continue your discussion with a little more freedom of expression than you have here.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

I leave for a few days and what happens, you move my stuff around after I put it right where I wanted it.

LOL! It's a woman-thang, don'cha know!   

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jan 10, 2016 17:10:37 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 5, 2016 10:30:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've considered. I'm going to move this thread to Religious Discussions. Just remember, there are special rules there. Don't shove your beliefs down the throats of others, and no name-calling - at all! I'm doing this rather than start deleting posts, guys. The matter under discussion boils down to religious beliefs and/or lack of same. It's not a matter of politics, really. By moving the thread, you can continue your discussion with a little more freedom of expression than you have here.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

I leave for a few days and what happens, you move my stuff around after I put it right where I wanted it.

It had to be put down. It was the humane thing to do.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 11, 2016 9:35:46 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jan 10, 2016 17:10:37 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I leave for a few days and what happens, you move my stuff around after I put it right where I wanted it.

It had to be put down. It was the humane thing to do.

It's definitely the board to send it for that to happen.

[Green Eyed Lady]

You got it!