What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
:think: What if he pounded me in junior high? :think: I grew up with "we reserve the right to refuse anyone service for any reason."

What about the convicted pedophile who wants a cake to celebrate his release from prison, decorated with "NAMBLA FOREVER " ?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Just to chime in here on an example that I often see misrepresented (I'm not sure this is the case here but I thought it wouldn't hurt to clarify anyway).

The public accomadation laws is based around equal treatment, not special accomadations. In the example given, if you don't bake dandelion cakes for anybody, then you are not in violation of the law. If you bake dandelion cakes for white people but not for black people, then you are trouble.

What if the black people want a dandelion cake to celebrate their plan to kill whitey?
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
What if the black people want a dandelion cake to celebrate their plan to kill whitey?

Does the baker sell dandelion cakes to white people that say 'kill blackey'? If they do then they have a problem justifying say no.

But the courts have made it clear and that seems to be the trend that is settling into the law that a baker has a first amendment right not write specific messages on a cake as long as they don't write that message for anybody else.

So a baker has a perfect right not to write 'kill whitey' on a cake.
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
What about the convicted pedophile who wants a cake to celebrate his release from prison, decorated with "NAMBLA FOREVER " ?

As you are not going to find a bakery that sells "NAMBLA FOREVER" cakes for anyone else, he is not likely to find a bakery that has any legal requirement to provide such. Particularly since pedophiles are not a protected class and never will be.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
... pedophiles are not a protected class and never will be.

you say that with the same certainty of those of my fathers generation if they had ever been confronted with the possibility of societal acceptance of the perversion of homosexuality or adultery or divorce or pornography

coming generations will increasingly view all perversions as "normal" and "a matter of choice" and "none of my business"
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Does the baker sell dandelion cakes to white people that say 'kill blackey'? If they do then they have a problem justifying say no.


why?

why shouldn't a private business owner get to decide who he wishes to enter into a business transaction with. regardless of his reasons?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
How can laws support the Catholic Church's refusal to condone practicing homosexuals from receiving Holy Communion, if practicing homosexuals are a protected class?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
How can laws support the Catholic Church's refusal to condone practicing homosexuals from receiving Holy Communion, if practicing homosexuals are a protected class?
Leaving off other arguments, the Catholic Church doesn't hold communion out to the general public. So even without the religious arguments it's a different animal.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Leaving off other arguments, the Catholic Church doesn't hold communion out to the general public. So even without the religious arguments it's a different animal.
Do you mean by 'doesn't hold communion out to the general public,' that one must be in full communion with the Church, in order to receive Holy Communion?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Do you mean by 'doesn't hold communion out to the general public,' that one must be in full communion with the Church, in order to receive Holy Communion?
Right.

"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . " Guidelines for Reception of Communion

Communion within the Catholic Church isn't a thing held out to the general public. It isn't even held out to a great deal of Christendom.
 

Lon

Well-known member
What about the convicted pedophile who wants a cake to celebrate his release from prison, decorated with "NAMBLA FOREVER " ?

I'd HOPE that advocating illegal activity would have him in jail, where he can enjoy his generic non-scripted cake in peace...er...piece.
 

Lon

Well-known member
He's in the business to make money. If his time is more profitably spent with customers who are buying a greater volume then it's a legitimate business practice.
"Sorry, I've got a better paying customer at the moment" might not work if the person thinks they are discriminated against, but we might have to pass this along to a few bakers. It'd keep them out of lawsuits. :think:


Sure. That kind of discrimination is protected, because it isn't about your race, your religion, etc. It's about the purpose of business itself and what serves it.
It makes sense, being capitalism, but I agree too, it is a form of discrimination. Us 'poor' people simply don't get to enjoy the same status as the rich unless we become good at the capital-gains game (he probably thought it was a grubby quarter too).

The former is sufficient to protect him. As a rule the latter goes hand in hand, but it isn't causal. :)
I realize that, still, how is a kid going to get a hold of that kind of cash? I'd gladly have bought 20 of those! I felt a little like Charlie Bucket finding a dollar in a grate when I bit into those delectable treats.


It doesn't touch the issue, unless he's making that cake for one sort of person and not for another. So long as the cakes he offers, the services he provides are offered and provided to anyone who has the lucre, he's golden.
Well, as a kid, it felt personal. I didn't get my scrumpdelicious cream filled gold that day. The 'other' man of a certain age did. It was a sad day. I at LEAST felt it had to do with my age and financial situation :(

As an adult, its a no-brainer: I can spend 30 minutes with10 indecisive children and make $2.50, or I can spend 5 minutes with one adult and make $25.


A baker isn't in the business of selling belief and the customers of a baker aren't attempting to purchase his approval. It's about cakes.
I think that's very important, and as I said, personally, I've no problem selling cakes but I kind of empathize with someone caught in a dilemma of believing they are 'participating in evil.' Whether misplaced or needing a bit of theology discussion, or what not, I do feel for their genuine spiritual conviction. There is, iow, a founded reason for their dilemma. As the court stated, it knew it needed to honor the founded beliefs of another and that they mattered.

True for a lot of that generation. Especially those who lost loved ones or experienced some of the horror of that war up close.
Very. It is again, an empathy that cause me, personally, any kind of dilemma or interest in such discussions. I'd simply sell a cake.


You can't legislate feeling, but you also can't let feeling dictate who has rights and how much. Either we stand equally before the law or we might as well rip the thing up and start over.
Again, this is well-stated and important. I've seen parents decide on a slanted favor of one child over another. Equitable is sometimes really difficult. For me, I used to tell my kids:
Hey, I've raised some pretty good and intelligent kids but I'm not liking what I'm hearing. I don't want to have to come back in, and I'm convinced you smart kids can work this out without my involvement. If you can't, I'll have to have consequences and stuff like that so I'd prefer to stay out of it if at all possible. Check on you guys in 10 minutes!
Happy we agree, but how is either a concession if I never held a contrary view? :think:
See, here, you could have just let me have one :hrmph:


You wouldn't feel that way if you were a racist. You wouldn't believe it if you held that blacks were cursed. Some idiots, as we discussed, felt that way. Service itself was an accommodation of sorts, a yielding of their perverse but genuinely held principle to the demands of the state. Fiat.


I disagree. I'm sure some black people want black people figures atop the cake, to note one accommodation. But really, unless it's an inventory issue, it's not an issue. And if the couple are willing to pay for the unusual topper to eliminate the cost and inconvenience, it's not even an inventory issue. That's just a way to hide the underlying and real objection, which goes back to belief and the distinction I made about service a few paragraphs ago.
Empathy, with examples is more difficult. Perhaps the recent ruling that suggested a man doesn't have to put something against his values upon the cake was more of the sentiment behind what I'm getting at. If I remember correctly even the former Colorado baker's objection was 'having to attend' the wedding, rather than denying the cake altogether. I can't remember, but as I said, it still makes it a little confusing, even if not for you in particular. I'd hate to be a judge that'd have to explain my each and every decision and how they were different, btw.


Not really true, supra.


You aren't selling and no one is buying your beliefs if you're a baker. You sell and people buy cakes.

In one sense, yes, but if I am sued for not going to some place that is against my values, the matter changes. All these lawsuits against Christians in particular, have been purposeful. There really are not that many gay weddings and so a sense of 'targeting' is in play on all these lawsuits with Christians, the unhappy pawns in something bigger than cakes.

An executive order about promotion that didn't require anything like the quota you were noting. And a number of states have actually altered their constitutions to forbid the practice at all.
I was not aware of the latter :think: Thank you.

I don't think you have my position. I agree that race has no bearing on morality, scripturally. We don't disagree on the moral nature of homosexuality either. I don't know what you mean by broader "sexual matters". If we differ it is in the reaction of the state and the law regarding that latter consideration. I am entitled to my faith, but I am not entitled to impose it upon others absent a secular justification, because we don't live in a Christian state. We live in a state that protects Christians, and Jews, etc. and has at its heart an affirmation of individual liberty and contract.
I'm pretty sure I do. When I state other sexual matters, it meant all biblical directives regarding its proper and improper expressions.
If I'm a tattooist, for instance, do I have to paint whatever the client wants? Is there no protection for me as an artist in such a case? Isn't it true that my religious belief has a LOT to do with my aversion to doing some particular tattoos? Perhaps I don't get you when it comes to the law, but I'm fairly sure you understand scriptures as I do. I'm trying to get you to speak to both in an empathetic manner, not so much as a careful and secular judge ruling, but as both a believer and as that lawyer/judge who must serve the whole public at the same time.


Of course it doesn't. You made sure of that with the 60% business. But it's not a real thing. It's possible to object to nearly anything if you push the parameters of it far enough into the extreme.
Again, I'm not bothered, just asking. It is more a desire to know and understand with more clarity, not play advocate for the majority or the like, although it plays into that when I have opportunity to explain the difference or address the difference fairly, at least. :e4e:


I'd be bothered by staying in a church that didn't want me on the basis of my skin color. That's not a spirit filled assembly.
It had nothing to do with my skin, but rather the persecution they'd be subjected to. The pastor told me cross burnings on their lawns was not a part of the long past, but more recent than that. I asked if I could stand with him against that and he said, 'but my babies will not understand.' I left with some empathy.


I'm sure your friend got another position, given his ability. There's a long, involved discussion here if we get into why it was a painful but necessary good to make inroads into institutions that had systematically denied people opportunity for generations and in doing so done real damage that kept a level playing field from existing. There are real advantages for children born into households with educational traditions.
I think that is true, but it was a 'job' so the needs of that should have (in my unprofessional opinion) been the main consideration. To me, this goes back to the beginning where capitalism beat me out for candy. I was certainly deprived that day. I'm not sure we always have to take on the cause of the underdog, especially if it leads to mediocrity and complacency, or adversely affects a person (he did not get another secretarial job).

Sure there is, and until relatively recently in this country it was all the other programming. That's what made Cosby such a powerful thing. Heck, in living memory the idea of an interracial kiss in a tv program provoked outrage. So if you don't want quotas or even government attempts to promote inroads and you find blacks trying to do it for themselves problematic, what the heck are you saying, pragmatically.
No, there are 'white entertainment television' by virtue of representation, but we have no station named "White" nor "Caucasian" in the title. "IF" there ever was, we'd hear NO end of it and it'd be forever declared and treated as racially segregating. The example is ONLY to show where some equality and inequality exists side-by-side in our society.


:chuckle: No, we were the majority, one that held (and holds) most of the economic power, so we catered to us for generations.
Well, you come from a wealthy Southern Family, I don't. Those kids of another color were my neighbors and I theirs.


Sure. Racial discrimination isn't one of those things. Neither is white's only tv, which is what we had for most of its existence.
It is one of the reasons Song of the South is no longer available, but those were representative of society. I do recognize blacks had a hard time getting any kind of thing on their own but it wasn't called 'White TV." We'd never get away with such a thing.

I'm usually offended when I am invited.
:think: That's why I'm not offended when I'm not :eek:


I don't think that's true. Give me a few specifics. You said often, after all. I think you believe it to be true, but will struggle to put flesh on it.
Okay, affirmative action for example. "Black" entertainment television, for another. We cannot have a "White" entertainment television. We'd be bigots and racists for even the suggestion of it. Another? A man of color only typing 85 wpm, got a job over a guy that typed over 170. Yes, I think it is true that accommodation attempts have hurt (note while the article suggests 'bigotry' is the problem, such was and is caused by Affirmative Action, it just fostered a different kind of bigotry - one of inequality and disadvantage). The Christian baker who never even had to think about gay marriage until it was made legal, had to do something dramatically different than he'd/she'd done 40 years of his/her life or more. Was it worse than before? Sure, in the cake circumstance, because there was nothing before that caused a lawsuit, loss of business, loss of money and the gay couple had no cake situation come up, prior.


You couldn't be more wrong. You've accomplished something significant. You've pulled the practical teeth of the racist. You've taken away the societal stamp of approval and put that stamp on equality instead. Ask Sonnie Hereford about how upset those Alabama racists were when he and a smattering of his friends shattered segregation in public schools here.
What about the backlashes? Hate crimes rose as a result, though this articles says inconclusive as to 'why.'


Not to worry. Always good to talk with you.

Its a good and important topic too. We are a bit away from the religious freedom tenor of the thread, again partly due to my distraction (family health issues, would appreciate prayer for my extended family). Thank you for your meaningful input. In Him -Lon
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Right.

"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . " Guidelines for Reception of Communion

Communion within the Catholic Church isn't a thing held out to the general public. It isn't even held out to a great deal of Christendom.
I'm still concerned. The Catholic Church excluding practicing homosexuals---a protected class of people---from receiving Holy Communion, sounds an awful lot like 'country clubs' excluding Jewish people from being able to play golf. Jesus's relatives' ancestors are a protected class of people today, correct?

Come to think of it, the Catholic Church excludes Jewish people too!
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
why?

why shouldn't a private business owner get to decide who he wishes to enter into a business transaction with. regardless of his reasons?

Because the right to do so was abused. If you abuse a right it is subject to being restricted or lost and the so-called 'right to refuse service' had that happen to it when large numbers of business owners abused the right to deny service to blacks for bigoted reasons. Resulting in the Civil Rights Act and the Public Accomodation Laws.
 

Kit the Coyote

New member
you say that with the same certainty of those of my fathers generation if they had ever been confronted with the possibility of societal acceptance of the perversion of homosexuality or adultery or divorce or pornography

coming generations will increasingly view all perversions as "normal" and "a matter of choice" and "none of my business"

I disagree but only time will tell which of us can say "I told you so". But current legal trends related to child age of consent tend to be leaning in my direction.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I'm still concerned. The Catholic Church excluding practicing homosexuals---a protected class of people---from receiving Holy Communion, sounds an awful lot like 'country clubs' excluding Jewish people from being able to play golf. Jesus's relatives' ancestors are a protected class of people today, correct?

Come to think of it, the Catholic Church excludes Jewish people too!
Holy Communion, and the membership in the Church, isn't something held out to the general public, but private clubs and religious institutions are free to set whatever restrictions they want within the formation of their membership. Without that protection, the state would be the de facto author of a particular religious expression and that is strictly unconstitutional. So you shouldn't be concerned.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
For too many, religious liberty appears to mean never having to say you're serving...

Okay, back to the conversation at hand. :)

I think that's very important, and as I said, personally, I've no problem selling cakes but I kind of empathize with someone caught in a dilemma of believing they are 'participating in evil.' Whether misplaced or needing a bit of theology discussion, or what not, I do feel for their genuine spiritual conviction. There is, iow, a founded reason for their dilemma. As the court stated, it knew it needed to honor the founded beliefs of another and that they mattered.
I'm largely less sympathetic to what mostly seems to be a selective application of morality and outrage by many if not all. I mean, how many bakers making a wedding cake inquire about whether the people seeking it are of their faith, are living together, are secular atheists, etc.?

In one sense, yes, but if I am sued for not going to some place that is against my values, the matter changes. All these lawsuits against Christians in particular, have been purposeful. There really are not that many gay weddings and so a sense of 'targeting' is in play on all these lawsuits with Christians, the unhappy pawns in something bigger than cakes.
In the South, once upon a time, they were called "agitators" but it really doesn't matter if someone is targeting, provided the thing targeted is discriminatory and unjustifiable.

I'm pretty sure I do. When I state other sexual matters, it meant all biblical directives regarding its proper and improper expressions.
If I'm a tattooist, for instance, do I have to paint whatever the client wants? Is there no protection for me as an artist in such a case?
I did note the controlling nature of the thing, its purpose. A cake signifies, but is ultimately food, not art. A portrait is different. This may be another instance, but consider, what would be the particular objection? If the thing asked for isn't the sort of thing the artist prepares for anyone then it's golden.

Isn't it true that my religious belief has a LOT to do with my aversion to doing some particular tattoos?
I should think it would have a lot to do with any, but it depends on the faith.

Perhaps I don't get you when it comes to the law, but I'm fairly sure you understand scriptures as I do. I'm trying to get you to speak to both in an empathetic manner, not so much as a careful and secular judge ruling, but as both a believer and as that lawyer/judge who must serve the whole public at the same time.
I'm not sure what you're looking for in particular. I think there is sufficient protection for legitimate religious belief and that the lion's share of the outcry is hypocritical. It's difficult for me to sympathize with willfully selective or under/ill considered moral objection. I don't want the baker to lose his livelihood, but I do want him to conform his behavior in this particular with his pragmatic model in every other. And so the questionnaire question.

It had nothing to do with my skin, but rather the persecution they'd be subjected to.
With respect, unless you were on the wrong side of that it was entirely about your skin. They made the same sad mistake a racist makes by choosing to define you by that very thing.

No, there are 'white entertainment television' by virtue of representation, but we have no station named "White" nor "Caucasian" in the title.
See, Lon, that's like saying so long as you don't slap an obvious title on a thing it's not the thing its function tells you that it is. Call a rose by any other name and it still smells. Television all but ignored minorities for generations, using them largely as stereotypical cartoons and villains when they found any real purchase. There wasn't any need to call it white anything. It was white everything.

Well, you come from a wealthy Southern Family, I don't. Those kids of another color were my neighbors and I theirs.
I'm not sure how that plays into the point, but affluent Southern families were frequently among the more progressive in attitudes about race. In part that's because it was the general rule that in those homes you found numerous employees of color and the sort of daily interaction that almost cannot help but produce a familiarity and, not infrequently, a level of affection (if often paternalistic in nature) not as present in the middle and lower classes where racial separation was more dramatic and the hostility without that interaction and humanization tended to generate more dangerous notions.

It is one of the reasons Song of the South is no longer available, but those were representative of society. I do recognize blacks had a hard time getting any kind of thing on their own but it wasn't called 'White TV." We'd never get away with such a thing.
You don't need to brand a flavor if its the only flavor. And now? Still dominating the time blocks, though you can seek out alternatives if you're a black kid who would like to see a superhero or family that more closely resembles your own.

We'd be bigots and racists for even the suggestion of it.
Well, silly at the very least and racists depending on the motivation. Black organizations are largely attempting to establish footholds and traditions aimed at breaking the crippling cycle of poverty and exclusion. What would be the white equivalent complaint and problem?

Another? A man of color only typing 85 wpm, got a job over a guy that typed over 170.
What if 85 wpm is sufficient to do the job AND the hire accomplishes something in addition that seems more important to the employer than that one attribute?

Yes, I think it is true that accommodation attempts have hurt (note while the article suggests 'bigotry' is the problem, such was and is caused by Affirmative Action, it just fostered a different kind of bigotry - one of inequality and disadvantage).
Affirmative Action wasn't a bigoted response to bigotry though. Its aim wasn't to keep another race down, to continue an institutionalized marginalization. You can't really, reasonably compare the two that way.

The Christian baker who never even had to think about gay marriage until it was made legal, had to do something dramatically different than he'd/she'd done 40 years of his/her life or more. Was it worse than before? Sure, in the cake circumstance, because there was nothing before that caused a lawsuit, loss of business, loss of money and the gay couple had no cake situation come up, prior.
Same thing happened to restaurant owners across the South once upon a time.

What about the backlashes? Hate crimes rose as a result, though this articles says inconclusive as to 'why.'
So you're suggesting that we shouldn't have desegregated schools if we'd understood there would be hostile and sometimes violent backlash? The defense and advance of equity and equality often causes societal upheavals and adjustments. True when women got the vote. True when blacks had their voting rights defended. True here, whatever you think of the moral underpinning.

Its a good and important topic too. We are a bit away from the religious freedom tenor of the thread, again partly due to my distraction (family health issues, would appreciate prayer for my extended family). Thank you for your meaningful input. In Him -Lon
A pleasure. I skipped over some agreement and a little sidebar to get at the meat that seemed to have elements in need of qualifications. :cheers:
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I disagree but only time will tell which of us can say "I told you so". But current legal trends related to child age of consent tend to be leaning in my direction.

They're completely leaning in your direction and a study of how the laws have tightened in regards to protecting children from abuse and a zero tolerance policy in regards to child abuse bears that out. Doser, apart from trolling, is indulging in a slippery slope fallacy that nobody can back up.
 
Top