Colorado Judge Orders Christian Baker To Make Cakes For Same-sex Ceremonies Or Face Fines.

[RiverJordan]

Lysander,

We've been over your (what I consider) extreme libertarian views before, so there's no need to rehash them again, and there's no need to evaluate this case through the lens of a society that doesn't exist.

I for one am glad that we have a government that at least tries to protect all its citizens from discrimination. If the citizens of Colorado don't want anti-discrimination laws, then they will repeal them (or elect representatives who will). But as it stands, they obviously have chosen to have such laws and thus, this business owner is guilty of violating the law.

And no, I don't consider you to be a racist.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Lysander,

We've been over your (what I consider) extreme libertarian views before, so there's no need to rehash them again, and there's no need to evaluate this case through the lens of a society that doesn't exist.

I for one am glad that we have a government that at least tries to protect all its citizens from discrimination. If the citizens of Colorado don't want anti-discrimination laws, then they will repeal them (or elect representatives who will). But as it stands, they obviously have chosen to have such laws and thus, this business owner is guilty of violating the law.

And no, I don't consider you to be a racist.

I appreciate that, my dear

 

[RosaVera]

You're still missing the point. Whether racism is scriptural isn't the question.

You guys are arguing that if a business owner says "I refuse to serve gays because of my religious beliefs", that should be perfectly legal. By the same token then, a business owner can say "I refuse to serve interracial couples because of my religious beliefs".

What those religious beliefs are is irrelevant.

Which religion states that we don't deal with people of other color...? last time i read it said we are katolikos, for all not just some... except those that use their bodies against God's commandment...

 

[Glomung]

And where does it end?
At what point does "no discrimination" lead to assinine?
Do I have to have a statue of Rama in my business so not to "discriminate"? What about Baphomet?
Why is he forced to do that which he does not agree with? Is that not tantamount to slavery?

The problem is not that people discrminate, it is that they are not discriminating enough.
We allow much too much nonsense in this culture, all in the name of "fairness" and the curse of political correctness.

 

[RiverJordan]

Which religion states that we don't deal with people of other color...? last time i read it said we are katolikos, for all not just some... except those that use their bodies against God's commandment...

It doesn't matter to the case. Some here are arguing that merely citing "religious beliefs" exempts one from laws governing business practices. If that were the case, it wouldn't just apply to Christians, would it?

 

[RiverJordan]

Do I have to have a statue of Rama in my business so not to "discriminate"? What about Baphomet?

Show me where that's being considered.

Why is he forced to do that which he does not agree with? Is that not tantamount to slavery?

I don't agree with a 20 mph speed limit in a school zone. Is it slavery that I have to go that slow anyways?

The problem is not that people discrminate, it is that they are not discriminating enough.
We allow much too much nonsense in this culture, all in the name of "fairness" and the curse of political correctness.

I find it sad that so many Christians are on the side of intolerance and exclusion. Many Christians were on the bigoted side during the civil rights era too

Loving vs Virginia

The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race:
“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."

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I find it sad that so many Christians are on the side of intolerance and exclusion.

I kid, I kid

But I think tolerance is indeed the crux of the issue. While it's true that many people, including Christians are intolerant (and some might support this baker specifically for that reason), doesn't intolerance also extend to not accepting people's religious opinions or even just how they want to practice their business?

Keep in mind, he's not trying to stop their marriage or ruin it in any way. He just didn't want to get involved with it.

 

[Glomung]

The point, which I'm obviously doing a very poor job of making, is that legislating "politically correct" behavior
will eventually lead to a form of tyranny.
You avoid the reality that the gay couples' response was based on their hatred of anyone who would defy them.
That is the modern tyranny, hatred and persecution to any who do not bow to the modern protected classes.

 

[RiverJordan]

But I think tolerance is indeed the crux of the issue. While it's true that many people, including Christians are intolerant (and some might support this baker specifically for that reason), doesn't intolerance also extend to not accepting people's religious opinions or even just how they want to practice their business?

The business owner is free to have whatever belief he wants. No one is arguing otherwise But when he actively discriminates in his business practices, he violating the law. Using your logic, all anti-discrimination laws are "intolerant". The ones that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race are "intolerant" of racism.

Keep in mind, he's not trying to stop their marriage or ruin it in any way. He just didn't want to get involved with it.

Then he shouldn't operate a business that is open to the public in a state with non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation.

 

[RiverJordan]

The point, which I'm obviously doing a very poor job of making, is that legislating "politically correct" behavior will eventually lead to a form of tyranny.

LOL!!! Wut? o_O

So let's take your slippery slope fallacy the other direction. Just how far back do you think we should go in repealing anti-discrimination laws?

You avoid the reality that the gay couples' response was based on their hatred of anyone who would defy them.
That is the modern tyranny, hatred and persecution to any who do not bow to the modern protected classes.

I don't think you understand what the word "tyranny" means.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

The business owner is free to have whatever belief he wants. No one is arguing otherwise But when he actively discriminates in his business practices, he violating the law. Using your logic, all anti-discrimination laws are "intolerant". The ones that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race are "intolerant" of racism.

No, that's not so. You're missing a very major disconnect:

When a business discriminates whomever for whatever reason (even if it is absolutely horrible), he is not intervening on their rights. Rather, he or she is exercising her rights of private property. Once they step outside those boundaries and try to stop them from doing whatever else, then they are out of line according to natural law.

When government discriminates, it restricts whomever for whatever reason for actually practicing their rights. When the government used to regard blacks as less equal, that meant the natural law wasn't being acknowledged and their rights weren't respected.

Then he shouldn't operate a business that is open to the public in a state with non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation.

Ah-ha...wouldn't forcing him to do business with someone only be promoting his business? Why not let him fail? If the majority agreed with the couple that this baker was a disgusting bigot, it would have been far more sensible to not do business with him at all and see him fail.

That's the beauty of the market. The people vote for whichever business they like every time they make a purchase. Forcing him to do business with them only allows him to keep operating.

Don't you agree with me that if he truly is a bigot and it's not just a matter of religious belief that his business should fail and another business (one who is more welcoming) ought to have more customers?

 

[Glomung]

One should never be able to freely discriminate against anyone based upon race, gender, creed, or culture.
Essentially things that one tends to be born with.
But behaviors are another issue, ever heard of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"?
A person should not be forced to serve or do business with those whose behaviors he finds appalling.
Restaurants are not forced to serve the poorly or inappropriately dressed, the church can deny any of the sacraments
to any it deems unworthy, the government itself can discriminate against and limit quite a few activities at it's discretion,
and I, if I were a baker should not be forced to provide services to persons or venues
I do not support.

 

[RiverJordan]

When a business discriminates whomever for whatever reason (even if it is absolutely horrible), he is not intervening on their rights.

Yes he is. Civil rights law is very clear on this.

Rather, he or she is exercising her rights of private property.

But he is running a business that is open to the public, and as such must abide by relevant laws adopted by that public.

Once they step outside those boundaries and try to stop them from doing whatever else, then they are out of line according to natural law.

Sorry, but whatever you think "natural law" dictates is irrelevant. Again, I'm not debating this through the lens of a society that doesn't exist. The society in which this business owner exists passed anti-discrimination laws. He is in violation of them.

Ah-ha...wouldn't forcing him to do business with someone only be promoting his business? Why not let him fail? If the majority agreed with the couple that this baker was a disgusting bigot, it would have been far more sensible to not do business with him at all and see him fail.

Except history shows that doesn't work. The Jim Crow laws in the south didn't arise in a vacuum. They were a reflection of the bigoted society in which they existed. If the majority of a town decides "we don't like blacks" and allows overt discriminatory business practices (lending, housing, education), what is a black person to do?

Again, I understand your extreme libertarian viewpoint, but I think we as a society can do better.

That's the beauty of the market. The people vote for whichever business they like every time they make a purchase. Forcing him to do business with them only allows him to keep operating.

Again, history shows that doesn't work.

Don't you agree with me that if he truly is a bigot and it's not just a matter of religious belief that his business should fail and another business (one who is more welcoming) ought to have more customers?

What if by his bigotry, he gets more business (a la Chik-fil-A)? Doesn't that tell other businesses "If you want more customers, be a bigot"?

 

[RiverJordan]

One should never be able to freely discriminate against anyone based upon race, gender, creed, or culture.
Essentially things that one tends to be born with.

What about religion? Interracial marriage?

But behaviors are another issue, ever heard of "no shirt, no shoes, no service"?

That's a safety/hygiene issue.

A person should not be forced to serve or do business with those whose behaviors he finds appalling.

?????? You don't "do business with a behavior", you do business with people.

Restaurants are not forced to serve the poorly or inappropriately dressed, the church can deny any of the sacraments
to any it deems unworthy, the government itself can discriminate against and limit quite a few activities at it's discretion,
and I, if I were a baker should not be forced to provide services to persons or venues I do not support.

You didn't answer my question.

Just how far back do you think we should go in repealing anti-discrimination laws?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Yes he is. Civil rights law is very clear on this.


But he is running a business that is open to the public, and as such must abide by relevant laws adopted by that public.


Sorry, but whatever you think "natural law" dictates is irrelevant. Again, I'm not debating this through the lens of a society that doesn't exist. The society in which this business owner exists passed anti-discrimination laws. He is in violation of them.


Except history shows that doesn't work. The Jim Crow laws in the south didn't arise in a vacuum. They were a reflection of the bigoted society in which they existed. If the majority of a town decides "we don't like blacks" and allows overt discriminatory business practices (lending, housing, education), what is a black person to do?

Again, I understand your extreme libertarian viewpoint, but I think we as a society can do better.


Again, history shows that doesn't work.


What if by his bigotry, he gets more business (a la Chik-fil-A)? Doesn't that tell other businesses "If you want more customers, be a bigot"?

I mean no disrespect, so forgive me--I don't mean to say this as being snobby or arrogant, but you are severely missing the point. You are misunderstanding my argument for natural law (regardless of law that is implemented).

You're using flawed analogies, misunderstanding what tolerance means, and even assuming laws like Jim Crow were reflective purely on the public, not the government. Even certain states nullified the Jim Crow law despite what govt. said.
Again, I don't mean this as being harsh--I think you are rightfully concerned for the dignity of others, as an I. I just think our positions are extremely far apart that we won't reach much of a common ground.

Don't take this negatively--I think this is a difference of opinion. This isn't personal. I rather enjoy reading your posts.

 

[ixoye_8]

It's pretty simple. We're a country of laws, and among those laws are businesses that are open to the public are prohibited from discriminating in their business practices. This is no different than if the baker had been a racist and refused to serve an interracial couple.

And I question the baker's justification of citing "his Christian beliefs not to partake in another man’s sins". Really? Does he refuse to serve obese people (gluttony)? The super wealthy (greed)? Anyone who's ever....well, done anything wrong?

sure it's simple .. but you nor the judge are seeing the law correctly ..

sure there is a difference .. if the gay guy wanted a birthday cake, I'm sure he would gladly bake it for him .. it is the sin he does not want to be a part of, which is not discrimination against the person .. and the Constitution states the Gov shall make NO law restricting religion ..

now you are being silly .. obesity is not a sin, being rich is not a sin, nor is the past sins of someone make you a part of it .. and how would you know if they did not repent of them .. an active sin is very different ..

I can't believe how hard you try justifying sin and circumventing our Constitutional rights ..

 

[Panda]

Let's expand this for the sake of argument. As a pastor, I am supposed to have the right to refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for whoever I choose. That's a pretty well established right. I've known more than one pastor that refused to perform ceremonies for couples that they knew were having sex before the wedding, or were from an incompatible religion. So then, should I be forced to accept a situation where two gay men want me to perform their wedding, despite the fact that my entire ability to perform marriages is based on my religious affiliation and that homosexual weddings are contrary to my religious beliefs?

Now, admittedly this situation is a bit different, but the company is doing their best to be consistent with their own religious beliefs. By forcing a company to act contrary to their established religious convictions, there is a direct infringement on their freedoms. From what I remember of this particular case, there was an additional issue that they were known for producing divorce cakes, which they admitted were also against their religion. As such, they acted inconsistently, and that was the main reason they were subject to the discriminatory laws.

 

[ixoye_8]

From what I remember of this particular case, there was an additional issue that they were known for producing divorce cakes, which they admitted were also against their religion. As such, they acted inconsistently, and that was the main reason they were subject to the discriminatory laws.

I totally agree with you that inconsistently would make them subject to discriminatory laws .. however, when that took place might make a difference .. if that was in the past, and they have refused to make divorce cakes since, then their religious convictions should be upheld and therefore exempt them from discriminatory laws .. as they show a precedence in complying to their own religious standards ..

also one may note in the NT that Jesus did condone divorce for infidelity .. thus a divorce cake for such a reason would not be inconsistent to their beliefs ..

 

[Panda]

I totally agree with you that inconsistently would make them subject to discriminatory laws .. however, when that took place might make a difference .. if that was in the past, and they have refused to make divorce cakes since, then their religious convictions should be upheld and therefore exempt them from discriminatory laws .. as they show a precedence in complying to their own religious standards ..

also one may note in the NT that Jesus did condone divorce for infidelity .. thus a divorce cake for such a reason would not be inconsistent to their beliefs ..

Personally, I wouldn't agree. Whether allowable or not, it's not something that should ever be celebrated. However, it's really not an issue here. There are many, many Christians that don't really even blink at such a thing as divorce. I was only bringing it up because as I remember it, that was the reason that this particular lawsuit had traction when other similar actions had been dismissed. At least, that's what I seem to remember, but I'll be honest, my memory isn't all that reliable.

 

[Glomung]

RiverJordan - please try to read my posts more carefully.

Interracial marriage would come under creed and culture.
Aside from all that, you are harping on an issue that was never part of the conversation, that being the racial tensions of the middle 20th century.

People whose behavior I find appalling are people (whose behavior I find appalling).

What question did I not answer?

We should not repeal any of the laws, we should apply them with a dose of common sense and not cater to every
dimwit and pervert with a grievance.