Wedding Cakes, Wedding Dresses And A Question of Religious Liberty
[guest post by Dana]
[Sorry, guys, but we’re now moving from women’s weight to wedding dresses. This is what happens when Patterico asks a girl to write for his blog.]
So, wedding dresses. Little girls dream of wearing them, twirling in them and looking like spun sugar confections under layers of lace and tulle. But for one couple, those dreams didn’t come to fruition in the way they expected. In Pennsylvania, a couple of brides-to-be were anything but sweet confections when they were refused service at a bridal shop:
A Christian bridal shop owner in Pennsylvania had a message for a pair of blushing brides-to-be: We don’t serve lesbians.
The unidentified couple tried to schedule an appointment at W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, only to be told by an employee that the owner currently “[does] not service same-sex couples.”
Owner Victoria Miller explained:
“We feel we have to answer to God for what we do,” Miller told The Press Enterprise. “And providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God’s law.”
Not taking the refusal quietly, the lesbian couple took to Facebook to make their frustration known. As a result, the online ratings for the bridal boutique were downgraded to one-star reviews. Facebook commenters were also quick to judge:
“Jesus made everyone feel welcome, shame you are not a follower of Christ.”
As a result of the kerfuffle, the Bloomsburg Town Council will be hold a meeting to discuss the incident and whether to propose legislation that will ban businesses from refusing to serve LGBT customers, potentially providing the couple the means with which to sue Miller. Miller has already hired an attorney. Also, because of the uproar, her business is now by appointment only.
Miller, however, has her defenders:
“Instead of showing the tolerance their movement claims to practice, the women turned to social media to bully the shop – trashing its online reviews and sparking a city-wide firestorm,” said Family Research Council (FRC). “Obviously W.W. Bridal Boutique isn’t the only wedding dress shop in town. These women could have easily taken their business elsewhere – but chose to retaliate instead.”
Referring to the leftist gay activist agenda as “forced acceptance,” FRC said, “When religious liberty clashes with homosexuality – as it has from bakeries to flower shops – the storylines are all the same: conform or be punished.”
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (4dbf62) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:12 pmfrom bakeries to flower shops as if there’s some grand spectrum
nopers
mostly these are a wee half-handful of industries conspicuously run by uneducated stupid people what love them some jesus and hate them some homos
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:23 pm“low barrier to entry” businesses is the technical term i think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:24 pmIt would be kind of awkward I think for a woman to be fitting a dress on a lesbian, and not knowing if the lesbian’s nipples are hardening because it’s chilly in the room or because of her (not to get too gross about it). I think only a gay man would be a 100% comfortable fitting a dress on a lesbian.
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:30 pmi’m sure there’s some twice-sanctified-by-the-lord gay-bashing accountants out there and some lawyers too what hate the sinful homosexual abominations to the glory of jesus
but you never really hear of them ones having these problems
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:31 pmthe women turned to social media to bully the shop – trashing its online reviews and sparking a city-wide firestorm,” said Family Research Council (FRC), on their website, which is adorned with prominent buttons that will allow the properly-thinking gay-hating christian citizen to share this publication with like-minded folks.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:47 pmNothing worse than bigotry. Oh, wait.
Simon Jester (27b5e4) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:49 pmthere’s ebola for one
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:51 pmDifferent issue. On my Facebook and blog, I ask people to boycott Wisconsin beer and cheese because they murdered a little baby deer. But more than that, I think it’s just fine for people to say “If a lebian’s money is not good enough for you, then mine isn’t either”. Kicking them in the wallet is conduct of which I entirely approve.
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:52 pmI like how you put that without the insults, nk.
Simon Jester (27b5e4) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:56 pmoh like in contrast to my more abrasive approach?
what are you saying?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 9:58 pmI think you are being trolled, Mr. Feet, and nicely done.
Simon Jester (27b5e4) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:00 pmi don’t get it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:02 pmTalking to my daughter always mellows me out.
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:02 pmMuslims would have beheaded the lesbos on the spot. Good thing they walked into a Christian-owned store who just said go elsewhere.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:03 pmThis comment thread is just what I needed to stop reading Patterico.
Jim (ccd53f) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:05 pmThanks!
you’re over-generalizing about the muslims i think Mr. daley
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:06 pmohnoes
we lost Jim
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:07 pmReligion should not matter. Both sides should be entitled to have their sensibilities respected. I’ve had this conversation with aphrael in a previous thread. Do I need to say it’s against my religion, can’t I just say it bothers me, to drive you to a casino if I’m a taxidriver? You’re not just asking me to take your money for a Twinkie you took down off the shelf — you’re asking for my active participation in your activity, one that I would never engage in for myself.
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:09 pmPS. And if I lose your business and that of your friends I should not have anything to snivel about either.
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:11 pmWhy, nk, you are being reasonable, and respecting different points of view without snark or name calling! Whatever will our political masters do if this spreads?
Seriously, thank you.
Simon Jester (27b5e4) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:12 pmReferring to the leftist gay activist agenda
A very fine line between the ideology — the leftism — and the sexuality (straight, gay, bi, trans). So much so, it’s hard to know where one begins and one leaves off.
Just a hunch, but I’d be very surprised if the indignant female homosexual customers were staunch conservatives, perhaps even staunch centrists.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:20 pmThere’s also that happyfeet and I are friends of long standing, Simon.
And to answer his comment#5, as a lawyer I would defend a gay male prostitute accused of blackmail so successfully that he even got to keep the money*. I’m sure. Because I’ve done it.
*He wouldn’t have been able to pay me, otherwise. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:21 pmrun by uneducated stupid people
Yep, happyfeet. The type of people who often use “gay” in a derogatory or condescending manner.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:22 pmNk, I was only applauding your viewpoint, which I find admirable and even handed. That is all I meant, to you.
Simon Jester (27b5e4) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:26 pmThank you, Simon. Likewise.
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:29 pmToo often, words are not a means of communication, they are clubs that people use to beat each other over the head with. I’m good at that, or bad with it, depending on your point of view. But I’d rather make happyfeet an origami and change the subject to pizza toppings.
nk (dbc370) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:45 pmi’m packing up that swan and we gonna fly north for the winter
knock on wood
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/13/2014 @ 10:53 pmOh noes, poor h0omos being victimized by baking cartels all over again, intertwined with cutesy pikachu culinary references to defuse the venom. In other words, business as usual.
Gazzer (42663b) — 8/13/2014 @ 11:35 pmyou might wanna reconsider that flying north thing…
my suspicion is that this winter is going to be a lot like last years, cold as hello most places in this country, and not a fun thing.
but it won’t rain here in #Failifornia.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 8/13/2014 @ 11:38 pmI understand the outrage at the businesses that pull this. I do. But I also wonder how many people among the outraged would condemn an African-American businessman for declining to provide services for, say, a KKK rally.
When we started to force businesses to serve people they didn’t want to, because the businesses were run by Soither Redneck Jackasses, and the people they were turning away were nice clean-cut Negroes, we opened a big can of worms, and we still haven’t gotten to the bottom.
A private businessman should have the right to be a bigot. And we should have the right to point out tat he’s a bigot. But the government should butt out.
The bakers are within their rights. They are also swine. The lesbian couple are within their rights. I would have taken my business elsewhere and whined less, but that’s me.
The Bloomsburg Town Council should be tarred and feathered for even THINKING it was any of their godsdamned business. And then something should be done about their pay, or their hours, or their staff. They clearly have too much time on their hands, and idle Politicians get into mischief.
C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801) — 8/13/2014 @ 11:39 pmjust out of curiosity, what’s the point of living in a free country, if the government, or the people, can compel me to associate with people i do not wish to associate with?
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 8/13/2014 @ 11:41 pmI love it when I see this kind of reasoning. Jesus would welcome sinners, that’s true. And then He’d tell them, “Go and sin no more.” I’m guessing the couple in question would have been even more outraged at such a lecture.
Chuck Bartkowksi (ad54b9) — 8/13/2014 @ 11:46 pmI was just about to post those exact words!
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:45 amWhat CSP said about the town council…
And its good news that the bridal attire sector of our moribund economyis doing so well that they can just chase paying customers out of the shop.
I will cop out to not understanding the *wedding dress* thing. All the carrying on, and dieting (sorry for the post-override, Dana) for something to be worn for a few hours on only one day. After that one day it will hang in a closet, sealed in a plastic bag (as if it were made of something that moths would eat) as a constant reminder to the lady that she will never be small enough to fit in it again… as if there were anyplace she could wear it without causing a stir.
People would be best advised to invest the time and trouble in the marriage rather than in the wedding.
Gramps, the original (a30345) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:47 amFor being principled Christians?! For believing as almost every American did as recently as 10 years ago, and as a majority probably still do?
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:56 amI make a little bit of money building web sites for weddings. All the ones I’ve done so far were for Jewish weddings, but I’ll happily do non-Jewish ones if asked. I’ll even do ’em for same-sex commitment ceremonies or civil unions, or what have you. But I make my tiny little stand here: I will not create a site for a same-sex wedding. And here’s another line I draw: I will not create a site for the marriage of a Jew and a gentile. If both parties are Jewish, or both not, my services are available; if it’s a mixed marriage, they are not. I believe such a marriage to be wrong, and I don’t want to become an accomplice to it, exactly as I would not want to become an accomplice to a bank robbery.
I know full well that both these policies are against the laws of NY State and City, and the second one is probably against federal law too, and I don’t care. God’s law is the supreme law of this and every other land, and preempts anything the federal, state, or local legislatures have to say. No legal threats will make me change my mind.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/14/2014 @ 1:10 amDon’t brides rent them? At least where I come from they do. I’ve never heard of a bride buying her dress, as if she’s ever going to wear it again. I suppose an oldest daughter might buy one and then pass it down to her sisters, and to her brothers’ brides, as each gets married, but to buy it and then keep it in a closet seems a shocking waste, even if you’ve got oodles of money.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/14/2014 @ 1:14 amWhatever happened to “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.”
I see that posted in many establishments.
WarEagle82 (c34f27) — 8/14/2014 @ 2:06 amNow, how did the owner of the shop know they were lesbians unless they came in and rubbed it in the shop owners face? This is not about buying a wedding dress but is about lesbians wanting to force others to validate their lifestyle. Same as the AZ cake case.
sdharms (abff55) — 8/14/2014 @ 2:29 amYeah, that’s why he was crucified. He made everyone feel so damned welcome.
Are you freakin’ kidding me?
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/14/2014 @ 4:05 amWhining lesbians develop whiny, lesbian Jesus.
What’s next? Abortion enthusiasts develop cool-with-abortion Jesus, who would have driven Mary Magdalene to the abortion clinic in his Prius, had he accidentally knocked her up. And then paid for the procedure, given his famous affinity for the impoverished.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/14/2014 @ 4:24 amThe money lenders at the temple were apparently unavailable to comment.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/14/2014 @ 4:29 amFollowing up on what was said above,
Jesus made sinners feel welcome who knew they were sinners and needed mercy. He could show mercy and say “Sin no more”, and people would feel loved and empowered to go and sin no more.
People who didn’t think they were sinners didn’t like Jesus so much, as those who thought they had bigger problems than their sin (like the Romans, who they wanted kicked out of the country).
What we have are people who don’t like to have their sin pointed out, and others who also do not want their sins (of a different nature) pointed out either, so they prefer an amoral Jesus who doesn’t care about sin,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/14/2014 @ 5:27 amkind of like preferring a tame lion to a good lion (Aslan).
They clearly have too much time on their han
ds, and idle Politicians get into mischief. — C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801)
Too, too, true.
May the demanding couple reap what they’ve sown.
htom (412a17) — 8/14/2014 @ 5:36 am@36 Milhouse;
If you go into business with the intention of picking and choosing who to serve, you are a jerk. You have the right to be a jerk, but you are a jerk.If they wanted to preach the tenants of their belief they should have become Ministers or missionaries.
The thing is, these days all Right Thinking People will be outraged at Ostentatiously Christian Jerks, but would probably give a pass to, say, Vegetarian jerks. So the common position is that one has the right to be the RIGHT KIND of jerk.
That’s what roils my gut.
The local career ass kissers have no business passing laws about this. It’s an invasion of peoples’ God given right to be wrong. And that is what it comes to. You have a right to be wrong, because if you don’t have a right to be wrong, then you aren’t a free citizen, you are a serf.
C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801) — 8/14/2014 @ 5:40 amIf you go into business with the intention of picking and choosing who to serve, you are a jerk.
If you have specialized inventory or behavioral standards for your clientele, you are picking and choosing who to serve.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:07 amMilhouse, I looked it up. I found it interesting that Napoleon’s Rabbinical Council approved Jewish-Christian marriages, in opposition to traditional doctrine, and even today’s doctrine except among Liberal congregations. I guess God is on the side with the heaviest artillery.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:21 amThe bakers are within their rights. They are also swine.
People who insist on others’ participation in their burlesques on pain of civil penalties are swine, as are their defenders in fora such as this.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:02 am“If you go into business with the intention of picking and choosing who to serve, you are a jerk.”
Many bars and restaurants have dress codes and other criteria that they use to limit who they will server. They want to maintain certain standards of behavior. Are they jerks? You might want to think a little more about this.
pst314 (ae6bd1) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:15 amI’d like to know what Christian adoption agencies are doing.
That’s a much bigger issue than cakes or flowers. The biggest adoption agencies in the country are Christian.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:30 amFeets, as always, has his finger on the pulse. Porter’s Five Forces.
This blog needs some kind of animated laughing dog icon. FRC are a parody of a parody of themselves.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:34 amWell here you go.
http://michiganradio.org/post/how-adoption-agencies-discriminate-against-hopeful-lgbt-parents
Cakes, dresses, and flowers are being set up as precedents for bigger fish. They will end adoption as we know it, by shutting down Christian adoption agencies.
That’s what is going on.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:43 amThe bakers are within their rights. They are also swine.
Yea, and they really need to consider eventually accommodating the wishes of couples into swinging, wife-swapping or S&M. Or, more on point, the wishes of a group of women who are planning a multi-partner wedding.
Tolerance for tolerance’s sake and compassion for compassion’s sake are beautiful, noble and uplifting principles.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:44 amFeets, as always, has his finger on the pulse. Porter’s Five Forces.
Do all those college graduates with four-year degrees, working as waiters, baristas, and cleaning ladies know how easy it is to go into the bridal shop business?
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:07 amI think millhouse is totally reasonable in his actions.
It is not freedom of religious expression to be allowed to do what you want one or two hours of the week and told by the government what to do the rest of the time,
unless there is a very compelling reason.
That is not my legal opinion, that is my opinion based on general reasoning and what I’ve understood from the founding documents.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:21 am
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:10 amAs recorded in Joshua’s interaction with “an angel of the Lord” and later mentioned by Lincoln and others, the question is not “Is God on my side?”, but “Am I on God’s side?”
I was taking a dig at establishmentarianism, MD. Official religions. You may have read about this, one of the Germany-lites (Holland?) passed a law that churches must perform same-sex weddings. Last I heard, the official Lutheran Church is trying to come up with a ceremony acceptable to the government.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:18 amI, for one, do NOT agree that one who claims to have homosexual desires should be given full minority rights on that basis. I think the entire proposition is absurd. Why not accord the same protection to polygamists, bigamists, child sexual abusers, rapists, prostitutes, and anyone else who can possibly claim minority desire – which is the ONLY basis for their distinction as “gay” ?
Alternate desire does not equal a separate class of humanity. It just equals alternate desire.
These desires have always been the purview of religious belief and morals. What we are seeing today is the government enforced abandonment of respect and protection for citizens’ religious conscience related to sexual morality.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:18 amWith all due respect to CSP, Jim Crow was all about “voluntary” “individual” discrimination of this sort, taken to the point of a social commandment, and failure to discriminate often brought retribution. It had the effect of law even in places the government hadn’t commanded it.
The situation here is far from being a norm that excludes a group from society, but “We don’t serve your kind” is a statement that will ALWAYS bring a harsh response. The dress shop should expect pushback.
I suspect that both the shop owners and the lesbians are grandstanding here. Either or both could have finessed the issue but chose not to.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:22 amI think after Hobby Lobby, both the Colorado wedding cake bakers and these seamstresses would be protected by the RFRA from federal coercion. But the RFRA does not apply to the states. Hmm. What about using those cases of Muslims refusing to handle pork, liquor, or lottery tickets? The corporation institutes a policy that gays must be served. The employees* sue under and through the EEOC for religious discrimination in employment. Would the EEOC trump state law? It would be an interesting case, anyway.
*The employees could be the shareholders too. That’s black-letter corporate law.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:26 amDenmark. Of course it would be Denmark. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:29 amnk,
A closer analogy: Suppose a Muslim shop owner refused to serve Jews? Or vice versa.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:33 amI think that’s what happens when churches have the monopoly on marriage. Greece was like that until the mid-’80s. Civil unions (a la common law marriage) were not jailable but they had no official recognition. Only churches, synagogues and mosques could perform legitimate weddings and grant divorces.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:35 amI doubt the shop owner would prevail under First Amendment case law, Kevin. Or the RFRA. It would be the Court/government establishing Sharia law.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:39 amI think either Jewish or Muslim caterers could limit their businesses to kosher or halal. No liver wrapped in bacon for your wedding. Sorry, no shrimp either. We don’t touch the stuff. Go to the Greek next door.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:43 amI don’t know. Do you?
carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:49 amlimit their businesses to kosher or halal
There’s a big difference between “we won’t sell that to you” and “we don’t sell that to anyone.”
Kevin M (b357ee) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:55 amcarlitos, I’ not the one who said who agreed that bridal shops are “low barrier to entry” businesses. I think they require a large investment and uncommon skills, ranging from dress-making to business acumen.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:03 amI’=I’m
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:03 amA closer analogy: Suppose a Muslim shop owner refused to serve Jews? Or vice versa.
So what? That’s called freedom of contract and free association. Bakeries are not monopolistic common carriers.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:55 amThere’s a big difference between “we won’t sell that to you” and “we don’t sell that to anyone.”
No there ain’t. Both are exercises of discretion over one’s custom and the costs and benefits of the policy are borne by the same agent.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:56 amWith all due respect to CSP, Jim Crow was all about “voluntary” “individual” discrimination of this sort, taken to the point of a social commandment, and failure to discriminate often brought retribution. It had the effect of law even in places the government hadn’t commanded it.
Again, it was commonly incorporated into commercial law in the Southern United States. Eleanor Roosevelt had occasion to challenge restauranteurs to eject her and have her arrested for violating it (which she did on principle).
Outside the South, the situation varied according to local custom and the policies of the enterprise.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:00 amI doubt the shop owner would prevail under First Amendment case law, Kevin. Or the RFRA. It would be the Court/government establishing Sharia law.
You mean it’s ‘Sharia’ if the State of New Mexico does not compel x to do business with y?
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:01 amnk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:21 am
I found it interesting that Napoleon’s Rabbinical Council approved Jewish-Christian marriages, in opposition to traditional doctrine,
I don’t think so. I think they made the statement that they would not out their impramatur on them, but compared that to Catholic weddings, and Napoleon accepted that (inasmuch as he was not going to force Catholic clergy to solemize what they opposed.)
They may have said they had no objection if Napoleon wanted to authorize civil (non-religiously valid) marriages.
http://www.fofweb.com/History/HistRefMain.asp?iPin=ENJ0488&SID=2&DatabaseName=Modern+World+History+Online&InputText=%22rubber%22&SearchStyle=&dTitle=Napoleon's+Sanhedrin&TabRecordType=Subject+Entry&BioCountPass=50&SubCountPass=158&DocCountPass=4&ImgCountPass=9&MapCountPass=0&FedCountPass=&MedCountPass=9&NewsCountPass=0&RecPosition=49&AmericanData=&WomenData=&AFHCData=&IndianData=&WorldData=Set&AncientData=&GovernmentData=
Here we get their exact answer:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/Sanhedrin.html
This answer mixes up two different things. The marriages absolutely prohibited would be prohibited even in the case of conversion, or at least some of them are in that category.
I think before the Babylonian exile there used to be what amounted to ad hoc conversions, the person not Jewish being treated as a Jew, and the Jewis status of a person was settled when if someone wanted to eat from the Korban Pesach. Later on there was a rule that a conversion could not be for the purpose of marriage. The answer is half dishonest.
Sammy Finkelman (b0c537) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:10 amYes. This is America. The State of New Mexico has plenary police power to regulate each and every activity of its citizens, including how much water they can flush when they pee, subject only to clear and explicit Constitutional limitations and the ability of its electorate to change its legislators and the laws they enact. If some Muslim does not like Jews or some Jew does not like Arabs … ships, trains, planes, and buses leave New Mexico all the time.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:12 amQueers want no barrier on how gay they can be.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:15 amUm, when two women come in and they both want wedding dresses for the same wedding, it’s kind of hard not to know that they’re lesbians. They don’t need to rub it in anyone’s face. Do you seriously expect them to go in separately, and pretend they’re marrying a pair of fictitious men, just so people don’t know they’re lesbians?! It’s fair to expect that they not rub their homosexuality in people’s faces; it’s not fair to expect them to hide in the closet for fear of offending anyone. The shop owner is entitled to her Christian faith; and these women are just as entitled to their faith, whatever it is.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:20 amThis reminds me of some gay anchor type taking Johnny Weir to task over his flamboyance during Olympic coverage.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:20 amAh, good old happyfeet. Always ready to bring down the wrath of his god (TOLERATE OR DIE) down on those who disagree with his beliefs. I don’t find this terribly surprising – his comments are usually of a similar nature.
If you think making a wedding cake or running a bridal shop are skills that anyone can learn, it is just your ignorance showing. Wedding cakes are like edible sculpture, and if you think just anyone has the fashion sense to run a bridal shop, you might want to hang out with fewer interior decorators and models.
Here’s something to consider. This couple was told honestly that the store did not want to serve them. What if they just did a bad job instead? Put out minimal effort, charge as much as possible. The couple gets its wedding ruined, and the shop gets money at the cost of a bad review. Seriously, if I found out happyfeet was running a firm I was dealing with and he had a NO XTIANS policy, I would not sue him, I’d do business with his competitor. Why would I want to pay money to a person who despises me, and why should I expect good service from him?
OmegaPaladin (a0e77e) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:24 amReally? So if you were a car rental office, you’d have no problem renting a car to someone you knew was going to use it to rob a bank? If you were a gun dealer you’d have no problem selling to a known criminal, so long as it wasn’t illegal? I don’t want to become an accomplice to a crime, and I (along with the baker and photographer and dress-shop owner) consider same-sex marriage a crime, regardless of what any court or legislature says.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:24 amAl Qaeda is seeing their recruits crucified because they object that ISIS is too Muslim.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:24 amI get it, Sammy. Both people must accept Kidduschim as sacrament. Thank you.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:25 amNapoleon’s “Sanhedrin” was a sad joke. Nobody respected the toadies who participated at the time, and nobody has ever respected them since. They were not rabbis but rabbits.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:27 amUm, no. Jim Crow was all about laws requiring segregation, against the owner’s wishes. Voluntary segregation, even if only to pander to white customers, was not Jim Crow. Voluntary segregation was common throughout the USA, not just — or even especially — the South; Jim Crow was almost entirely a Southern phenomenon.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:35 amI kind of figured it that way too, Milhouse. That’s why the “heaviest artillery”. Napoleon flexed muscle.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:40 amNo, that is not an appropriate analogy at all. None of the merchants we are discussing has ever objected to serving homosexual customers. As far as I know all of them have explicitly said they would have no problem doing so. I suppose it’s possible that there exist merchants who would have such an objection, and it’s wrong and immoral for the law to force them to do business with someone against their will, but it would be fair to express disdain for them. It is not fair to express disdain for those who simply do not want to become accomplices to ddeds they believe to be wrong.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:41 amFrankly, if homosexuals of any ilk want themselves to be tolerated, respected and accepted then they too have to tolerate, respect and accept the opinions of others. That means not calling them names, not putting out bad reviews, not picketing and not suing everyone who won’t acquiesce to their desires and wants. Unless of course the object is not to be tolerated, respected and accepted but rather to be foot soldiers in the war on Christianity. Then by all means attack! They can then join the hard left, atheists and Moslems as fellow travelers to eliminate the religion which lead mankind out of the Dark Ages and into the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and laid the groundwork for Liberty, personal freedom and Constitutional Republicanism in the West. But of what importance is Liberty and the advancement of mankind when compared to wedding cakes and dresses? Not to mention some hurt feelings. After all aren’t “feelings” what we’re all about today?
I think these a-holes have entirely too much free time on their hands.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:41 amIf I were in the food business, I might carry a few non-kosher items to sell to gentiles, but I would refuse to sell them to customers I knew to be Jews.
How do you feel about shopkeepers who sell pr0n mags to adults, but won’t sell them to kids?
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:48 am83. Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:27 am
They were not rabbis but rabbits.
They still were careful in what they said, and didn’t contradict halacha on a practical basis, and were not going to make other Jews into offenders against Napoleon by saying something was all right with Jews when it wasn’t. Of course, they were no particular authorities. They had been drafted by Napoleon.
Sammy Finkelman (b0c537) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:02 amRe: 1807 French “Sanhedrin” replies:
These answers adhere very closely, in their final conclusions, to what the law and the practice is, but the explanations are often off.
One interesting thing I noticed is they went out of their way – and this is correct – that, where it exists, there is no Biblical prohibition of “usury” – the prohibition is of any interest at all.
This must have been a big issue to Napoleon.
And while it is true, that in commercial transactions, there was interest, or the equivalent, between Jews, this was and is a work-around.
You only get into the concept of usury when and where you first can charge interest. There are, and were some unclear rules, or principles, that maybe cannot be made hard and fast in most cases,
Sammy Finkelman (b0c537) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:26 amabout not oppressing people by over-charging them (which often might mean more than the normal price, taking advantage of unusual circumstances or ignorance) and that could maybe apply to interest too, but they were better not to get into this.
1. This was the disingenuous or ignorant response of Napoleon’s “Sanhedrin”. It does not reflect genuine Jewish law.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:40 am2. Kidushin is not a sacrament. That’s a Christian term, and I’m not sure how to adapt the definition to a Jewish context, but any reasonable adaptation would not apply to kidushin.
Well Milhouse, I was in the food business for 37 years and if Jewish customers wanted bacon covered salmon with a side of shellfish and a glass of milk, they got it. They ate from the same plates, glassware and flatware as everyone else and there was never the mention of kosher or halal on any menu or item description. I might add I had thousands of Jewish customers over the years but so help me I don’t remember one single obviously Moslem guest. Perhaps the Moslems are more strict about adhering to their dietary laws than are the Jews. Either way, none of them could make me serve them on Easter or Christmas as I was closed in observation of my holiday. So if they had a Bar mitzvah, wedding, anniversary or any other function on those days, tough titty I was not going to serve them. So call me a jerk or call me a swine but that’s the way it was.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:47 amThe European prohibition against usury started around the 5th century with priests forbidden to lend money at interest. About one century later it was extended to the laity as a religious proscription. Charlemagne made it a criminal offense at around 800 AD. The Catholic Church did not impose an absolute ban until the early 1300s. There are biblical references for the priests to have hung their hats on, but it was really church-and-government-made doctrine on the principle that since money was inanimate and could not reproduce itself, it was immoral to get back more than you gave.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:04 pmFrankly, if homosexuals of any ilk want themselves to be tolerated, respected and accepted then they too have to tolerate, respect and accept the opinions of others.
It’s the unconsidered viewpoint of gay partisans, much of the legal profession, and professional-managerial types generally that that’s not the case. Social policy is nowadays largely an act of abuse by the haut bourgeois against ordinary people, with she supposed objects of intercession peripheral characters.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:10 pmNK, Dictionary.com gives three definitions for “usury”, noting that the third is obsolete. You are using that obsolete definition, which is appropriate since you’re talking about the 9th-13th century, but also confusing since you’re replying to Sammy’s comment on Napoleon’s Sanhedrin, which used it in its modern sense, which it already had by the 18th century.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:14 pmI thought Sammy was referring to conflicting religious views.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:28 pmnk @96: Where? I am not sure what this refers to. I might have. What is this in regard to?
The “sacrament” business is another thing that is off. Technically, marriage might not require any third party. Witnesses and documents are only a regulation. Marriages are conducted according to the laws of Moses and Israel.
In the last 2,000 years or so, two separate things are now done on the same day – betrothal and marriage. (A betrothal would reserve a woman to a particular man, but not constitute a marriage. There are engagements now, but it does not have the same status, and be broken without complications.)
Sammy Finkelman (b0c537) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:54 pmSammy, we’re talking about the distinction between “interest” and “usury”. You cited that supposed “Sanhedrin”, which used the modern definition, while NK was discussing the history of the Church’s attitude to it, which was at a time when it had its now-obsolete definition. That has to be kept in mind for both comments to make sense.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 12:59 pmNapoleon’s Sanhedrin and usury.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 1:02 pmWitnesses are required for kidushin, but that’s not enough to make it a sacrament, by even the loosest definition. I’m not sure what would qualify; probably circumcision, the priestly blessing, and immersion in the mikveh (which is the origin of baptism).
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 1:06 pm@nk 19:
Thats not a good analogy. A taxi driver can say that all day he is not discriminating against people. The complaint is not that the bakery to said “We dont make wedding cakes” but instead “We dont make wedding cakes for homosexuals”
Also it does not matter what your “sensibilities” are. For example a white supremacist’s sensibilities are wrong and should not be respected.
Gil (febf10) — 8/14/2014 @ 1:48 pmkeep teh ghey out of wedding cakes and bridal gowns!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/14/2014 @ 1:51 pmYou lie. You deliberately lie. There is no way that you could reach this point in the discussion and not know that that is not true.
Milhouse (7999ec) — 8/14/2014 @ 1:54 pmThere is this myth going around on the right that religious liberty is impossible if gay people have equal rights under the law. There is this myth going around on the left that gay people won’t have equal rights under the law if the law doesn’t force everyone to personally accept them. Both sides take extreme positions and demand too much from the government.
Yes, marriage laws that deny equal protection to gay couples are discriminatory and violate the 14th Amendment. Non-discrimination laws that apply to private businesses and individuals also violate people’s property and other civil rights that are also explicitly protected by the Constitution.
“Tolerance” is typically demanded by those who are not in favor with the power structure. In Rome, for example, Christians demanded tolerance when they had no influence with the Emperor and were thrown to the lions as a result. When Constantine became the Emperor and converted to Christianity the newly empowered Christians decided to throw pagans to the lions. All of a sudden the non-Christians were demanding tolerance.
Today we are seeing the same script being played out again. It was only a half century ago that it wasn’t uncommon for gay adults who had consenting sex to be thrown in jail for their sexual activities. It was only a decade ago that the Supreme Court struck down such laws as unconstitutional. Back then the LGBT community demanded tolerance. Today the LGBT community has found favor with the ruling class and they are looking to force acceptance. Literally at the point of reeducation classes. Today it is the Christians who are crying for tolerance.
For once the law should be changed to show tolerance. The government should make no distinctions between the heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual or any other lifestyle (be it sexual or otherwise) as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. Civil marriage laws should be abolished and people should be able to form whatever arrangements they wish. These contracts should be subject to standard contract law and the terms of the contract should be enforced like any other contract. If people want to enter into a “traditional” marriage they can do so. If two men or two women want to enter into a marriage they are free to do so. If three or more people want to enter into a marriage they can do so. If people want to set a time limit to their marriage they are free to do so.
On the flip side people should not be forced to cater to any arrangement they may find “immoral”. The government should let people be free to not bake a cake, measure a dress or take pictures of a wedding that may cause their god to destroy a city. People should also be free to patronize or not patronize establishments of their choosing. If I was getting married and I knew a specific bakery in town did not make cakes for gay couples, I would not do business with that bakery. Someone else might make a different decision.
The point is to let freedom reign.
Joe (33fd9a) — 8/14/2014 @ 2:26 pmSince we have a bit to go before Labor Day, I suppose they should wear white while being burned at the stake.
askeptic (efcf22) — 8/14/2014 @ 2:53 pmSo I imagine the State would also have to force any Christian pastor to perform a same sex wedding? Saying no would be discriminatory against a certain protected class.
I wonder if they would brave enough to try that with the local Imam?
MSL (5f601f) — 8/14/2014 @ 4:57 pmIt’s interesting how various liberals throughout the Western World give more latitude to and express more tolerance of Sharia-ists or Islamo-fascists than religious traditionalists within Christianity and Euro-Western culture in general.
If the left ends up incubating Islamic fanaticism, and helps allow that fanaticism to eventually bite liberals in particular throughout the industrialized world in the butt, should tears be shed for them? Okay, the thought of that as one possible future does make a micro droplet run down my cheek.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:26 pm“we don’t serve your kind here” is profoundly un-American
do unto others as you would have them do unto you
it’s that simple
it’s not even so bad that these hateful Christians are so hateful
it’s that they’re so damn tacky
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:36 pmMark, as I stated liberals constantly side with anti Christians all over Western Civilization. They are more afraid of the explicit morality of Christianity and it’s inherent “in you face” of sin and God than they are of Islamists. They are more fearful of a Christian saying “you’re a sinner” than a Islamist slicing off their head. That’s because we Christians have provided them with a safe, secure, free nation in which to abuse and berate the very people who provide it. Funny how leftist politicians, media, gay activists and atheists never seem to bitch about sue or try to use government force to make Moslems bake cakes, provide dresses or anything else. Wonder why?
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:41 pmmoslems are big cookie people too Mr. Hoagie especially the persian ones – i think they’re more cookie people than cake people really
cause of how nicely they go with the afternoon tea i think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:44 pmyou can by really nice tins of the cookies they like but i like for when people named Ali come over but pro-tip: set the cookies out between paper towels an hour or so before they come then plate them
you’ll soak off a good bit of oil that way
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:46 pmyou can *buy* really nice tins i mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:47 pm“it’s not even so bad that these hateful Christians are so hateful”
There is nothing hateful about a Christian acting according to his faith however, there is something hateful and tyrannical about trying to force him to. When people use the state to force Christians against their will to participate in gay weddings what they are really doing is creating acceptable involuntary servitude, that means institutionalized slavery in case you don’t get it. No one in a free society should be forced to perform labor for another against his will.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:49 pm“110.moslems are big cookie people too Mr. Hoagie especially the persian ones ”
I’ve noticed that happyfeet. Scores and scores of little Islamist girl scouts running around the malls during Ramadan selling Persian cookies……in tins.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:53 pmYou should stop referring to a different religious belief from yours as hate. It’s really quite vacuous.
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:54 pmi never said nothing about forcing nobody
i just said these Christians are hateful and, worse, supremely tacky
tacky tacky tacky
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:54 pmMr. A we are talking about a subset of Christians here
a viciously hateful subset what are very low class in their business dealings
they’re just anecdotes and not at all representative of Christians generally
interesting little people as sociological curiosities but you wouldn’t want your kids playing with their kids
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 6:56 pm116. Actually, this Righteousness obsession possesses people of every persuasion.
I suspect its in our genes.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:12 pmHow do you know they’re hateful Mr feet? Many Christians, the ones like me who take the Bible seriously, believe God doesn’t approve of SSM. Just as many Christians 150 years ago sincerely believed God doesn’t approve of slavery, although there were also many who thought He does.
Your statement parallels how liberals constantly call conservatives racist in a kind of circular reasoning fashion, and as I say is vacuous.
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:14 pmMr. A i would be so mortified to witness somebody told that we don’t serve you people
this has never happened to me but it would ruin my whole day
it’s just not how mama and daddy pikachu raised me up
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:20 pmand telling people that they’re too disgusting and abominationy to have some tasty cake is about as evangelical as a fart in church if you ask me
which nobody does so i just sort of chime in
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:22 pmThey are more fearful of a Christian saying “you’re a sinner” than a Islamist slicing off their head.
Hoagie, I think it’s just as much the ass-backwards mindset or nature of most liberals, where they have knack for — time and time again — transposing good and bad people, good and bad situations. Glints of that were evident in the Trayvon Martin versus George Zimmerman controversy, in the OJ versus the LAPD (or the Brown family) controversy, in the Soviet Union versus the democratic, free world controversy.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:26 pmand, worse, supremely tacky
Yea, like often using, in no less than postings to this very blog’s forum, the word “gay” in a pejorative, mocking way.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:29 pmMr. Mark you know what’s gayer than pesto in a tube?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:31 pmi got nothin
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:31 pmOf course people fart in church, happyfeet. What do you think they burn incense for?
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:31 pmI’ll bite, happyfeet. What is gayer than pesto in a tube?
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:32 pmhah for reals that one’s a headscratcher
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:33 pmObama trying to throw the first pitch in mom jeans? (I’ve used that before.)
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:34 pmbut for reals
in all the kabillions of jokes what start with two whatevers walk into a bar
the punchline is never
“we don’t serve your kind here because Jesus”
never
in fact the reason these jokes proliferated and multiplied like good little go-forthers is because the
SUBTEXT
is that pretty much anyone (of age) can walk into a bar and get served
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:36 pmChicago Bears football on August 14?
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:37 pmand that my friends is America
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:37 pmyou steppin on my flo Mr. nk
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:37 pmI cannot express the level to which such mundane, transient, earthly things as wedding cakes, wedding dresses and wedding photography in this particular context dis-interests and bores me. To each their own of course, free country and all–but the way people prioritize what’s most important to them in the greater scheme of things amid a world gone awry does sometimes amaze me.
elissa (9a7536) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:40 pmelissa i feel very passionate about wanting to live in a little country where people are not shunned and despised like low-caste trash in India
it’s just not who we should be
shining light on the hill and all that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:43 pm@Millhouse 102
That’s some excellent ground your standing on. Your counterpoint is screaming “YOU LIE!!!!!”
Gil (27c98f) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:45 pmIt says it right there in the post, the “owner currently “[does] not service same-sex couples.””
Ill humor you, explain where im lying?
elissa – SSM is sooooooo yesterday and boring. I am ready to talk about naked midget Thai tranny kickboxing. That’s a real sport!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:47 pmMr. Mark you know what’s gayer than pesto in a tube?
Happyfeet, you know as well as I do there’s something oddly laughable or peculiar about homosexuality, particularly as it involves males. That’s why even dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying liberals like Alex Baldwin, when their guard (or phony facade) is down, will find themselves slamming or mocking gays.
How many fathers, even staunch liberal ones, will proudly proclaim: “I happened to see my teenage son flirting with another boy the other day, and yowsa-yowsa, woo-woo, good for him! That-ta boy! He’s very popular with all the hot guys. Yea, he takes after the old man.”
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:48 pm“elissa i feel very passionate about wanting to live in a little country where people are not shunned and despised like low-caste trash in India”
Mr. Feets – You mean the Christians you are calling low class, trashy, haters?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:49 pmDeeply held religious convictions mean nothing to Mr. Feets unless they are held by Muslims.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:52 pmMr. daley i have been very clear
almost coulteresque if fact in the level of articulation and perspicuity what I have brought to this subject to the effect that I have emphasized to the nth degree that we are talking about a very very very teensy tiny subset of christians here
and unfortunately this subset is very tacky
and not a little ridiculous
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:53 pmalmost coulteresque *in* fact Imean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:53 pmdaley, I am ready to talk about almost anything else. And yes, like it or not, especially with respect to the 30 and under generations, there is simply no disputing that that ship has sailed.
elissa (9a7536) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:54 pmthe good Muslims have the moves like jagger, and they are the vast majority
but there’s this teensy little subset, you see
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:54 pmWe’re talking about manufactured products. Me? I think a Muslim cashier should be able to manage to ring up a sealed package of bacon for a grocery customer, and that a frosted cake can be baked and sold without the baker going straight to hell.
elissa (9a7536) — 8/14/2014 @ 7:57 pmi just find it very perplexing that normal Christians are so down with letting these freaky ones represent
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:01 pmand unfortunately this subset is very tacky
There’s a theory that people who are overtly, fanatically hostile to homosexuals may be homosexual themselves. In turn, there’s a theory that people who are overtly, fanatically hostile to people who express disapproval of homosexuals are themselves homosexual.
Happyfeet, the first profile obviously doesn’t fit you, but the second one is a bit iffy.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:04 pmWhy do you keep emphasizing your belief that this represents a small subset of Christians? Aside from the fact you’re wrong, what is the relevance?
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:05 pmTo each their own of course, free country and all–but the way people prioritize what’s most important to them in the greater scheme of things amid a world gone awry does sometimes amaze me.
First world problems, but unfortunately, this particular issue obviously has the potential for very broad consequences.
Selfishness: I want what I want when I want it – and how I want it. As Solomon wearily said, there’s nothing new under the sun.
Dana (4dbf62) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:07 pmthe relevance is that these people are behaving in a garishly un-American way to their fellow americans, and normal Christians aren’t like that
normal christians are nice people what are like how can i help you
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:08 pmI think that’s one of those pop psychology things. But as I’m trying to argue, I don’t assume these people are hostile to homosexuals at all.
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:08 pm#150
Well there’s a classic circular reasoning statement if I ever saw one.
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:11 pmI don’t assume these people are hostile to homosexuals at all.
But you do admit you’re very resentful of or strongly indignant towards people who disapprove of homosexuals. So what does that say about you, if anything?
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:12 pmthe classics are classic for a reason Mr. A
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:13 pmGerald A, disregard my previous post. My eyeballs aren’t focusing correctly and so I thought I was replying to someone else. D’oh!
Mark (5758a9) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:16 pmBetty Jo i couldn’t just let these homos have a cake I had to DO domething
Arlene well of course you did, Betty Jo – what were you supposed to do just bake some kind of homo cake and let them homos put it in their homo mouths?
Betty Jo EXACTLY but now there’s all these people on the twitter saying I’M intolerant and whatever
Arlene well Betty Jo you don’t pay them no mind you’re fighting for the LORD
Betty Jo Praise Him
Arlene amen, Betty Jo
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:18 pmI assume you mean approve of homosexuals.
No I’m only strongly indignant towards people who advocate jamming for example, and the whole fascist brain washing mindset that it represents. As for believing homosexuality is something people are born with, I think they are mistaken, that’s all.
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:24 pmWhoops I just saw post 155. But my reply is still worth reading.
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:25 pmIf two women came into my bridal shop tonight and said they wanted to get married to each other:
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:28 pmI’d tell them, “Are you out of your minds?”
“We men get trapped into spending our whole lives with one of your kind because we’re stupid.”
“But you should know your own species.”
“You’ll be sick of each other before the frosting from your wedding cake has had time to get to your hips.”
Then they’d walk out in a huff. Or laugh and offer to buy me a drink. But I wouldn’t fit them for the dress. No, sir. I’d let Maurice do it. I’d sneak into the storage room and replace the labels on the Size 16 dresses with size 10 labels.
my understanding is the lesbian divorce rate is way higher than the guy on guy one
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:29 pmDouble.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:30 pm“the relevance is that these people are behaving in a garishly un-American way to their fellow americans”
Mr. Feets – Are u talking about homo speech police what try to get people fired from their jobs for not having approved opinions, contributing to non-approved campaigns, or homo business police which try to get businesses shut down or sue them if the owners have strongly held religious beliefs which do not adhere to the approved homo agenda.
That must be what you mean, right?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:41 pmyou are confuzzled good sir
my meaning is super-clear
everybody should play nice but the instigators here are who they are, and it’s not the matrimonial homos
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:48 pmA whole lot of fascism rolled up into a couple of sentences of snark.
Pray, tell me, why should anyone want these tacky hateful Xtofascist cakes anyway?
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:52 pmcake is tasty, Mr. 57
and everybody knows it
so if you gonna hang you up a shingle offering cake for sale
you better be prepared for some bitterly disappointed people when you tell them hey no cake for you
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 8:59 pm“my meaning is super-clear”
Mr. Feets – That teeny tiny group of xtians is prolly worse than the trashy, low class, pro-life xtians you don’t want your kids hanging around wif. amirite?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:00 pmthis has nothing to do with fetuses this is about cake and dresses
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:01 pmwhich raises the question
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:02 pmif i wantered one single uno cake from the city of the angels before i depart, which cake should i have?
and you know the answer?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:02 pmi never had a king’s hawaiian my whole time here
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:03 pm“you better be prepared for some bitterly disappointed people when you tell them hey no cake for you”
Mr. Feets – Now you are confuzzled. They did not say no cake for homos. Just don’t ask us to participate in wedding celebration by making cake. Walk in buy a cake they don’t ask for proof of sexual orientation.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:03 pmyeah whatever
i know graciousness and that ain’t it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:05 pmI still like nk’s solution the best.
Simon Jester (dd1562) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:06 pmI’d sneak into the storage room and replace the labels on the Size 16 dresses with size 10 labels.
Heh. Spot on.
Dana (4dbf62) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:17 pm@Daley 140
Why should deeply held beliefs mean anything to anybody? The fact that this subset of beliefs are religious doesn’t matter. Once it was a deeply held belief that Zeus threw thunderbolts, and once that the earth was flat. It did not matter how passionate someone was about those beliefs – They were wrong and irrational. What matters is what is true – what comports to reality.
So to today. Someone can passionately believe that sin is wrong. That a virgin gave birth, that “God” laid down the law. That Joseph Smith found 2 gold tablets in upstate New York which he alone could translate. It doesn’t matter. It is irrational. Yes perhaps some good can come of it, but it doesn’t make it true, and if it’s not true we should not tip toe around people who think it is.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/14/2014 @ 9:32 pm“Why should deeply held beliefs mean anything to anybody? The fact that this subset of beliefs involve purported rights doesn’t matter. Once it was a deeply held belief that government should be the source of all rights, and once that government required a monopoly of faith. It did not matter how passionate someone was about those beliefs – They were wrong and irrational. What matters is what is true – what comports to reality.
So to today. Someone can passionately believe that religion is wrong. That reason should dictate policy, that “Science” laid down the law. That Dawkins found oblivion in consciousness which he was compelled to preach. It doesn’t matter. It is irrational. Yes perhaps some good can come of it, but it doesn’t make it true, and if it’s not true we should not tip toe around people who think it is.”
Sam (e8f1ad) — 8/14/2014 @ 10:22 pm@Sam 176
Nice try with the old “Ill substitute my words in your argument and show you how absurd/generic it is” ploy. The problem for you is that science is evidence based. It is not irrational to believe something that is evidence based and that delivers the goods (electricity, computers, cars, planes, medicine, surgery, etc). Believe is actually a bad word to use here because it can imply faith. I don’t need faith to accept the theory of gravity for example.
Why don’t you try to answer the question. Why should a belief be special because it is near and dear to one’s heart? White supremacists believe they are better than black people for example. Do you suggest we “don’t insult them” by saying they are unjustified in that position? Are we trampling on their rights by forcing them to practice equal opportunity hiring?
Gil (27c98f) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:12 pmIt’s in the Constitution. Want an atheist society? Repeal the First Amendment. Or move to Cuba. But they tattoo homosexuals with numbers inside their lower lips down there.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:17 pmAs for white supremacists, we took care of them too. Unconstitutionally with a war, and Constitutionally with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. If this is your best game, save it for the tea room.
nk (dbc370) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:21 pm“Why should deeply held beliefs mean anything to anybody?”
Gil – If the Constitution doesn’t matter to you then they shouldn’t mean anything to anybody. Otherwise, nice strawmen once again.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/14/2014 @ 11:57 pmAnd you know damn well that that’s not happening in any of the cases that have made the news. Neither the baker, nor the photographer, nor the dress shop owner have any problem serving gay people, and you know that very well. Like Gil, you are deliberately lying. Slander is also un-American, so stop it.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:04 amSo it’s a good thing nobody’s saying that. Except maybe some Moslems, I wouldn’t know. But the thing is, you know nobody’s saying that, and yet you pretend they are. That’s lying, and it’s slander, and I’m pretty sure mama and daddy pikachu had a thing or two to say about that. I also kind of doubt that they were really as cool about homosexuals as you make them out to have been, but that’s just a guess.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:14 amAnd how exactly does that translate into “we don’t serve homosexuals”? They’re quite happy to sell anything to homosexuals, so long as it’s for a legitimate purpose. If a lesbian wants a dress for a friend’s wedding, they’ll sell it to her. They’ll even sell her a dress for her own wedding, if she decides to marry a man. Or they’ll sell her a wedding dress for a costume, if she wants it. The only thing they won’t do is knowingly abet a crime against God’s law, which is the supreme law of the land, by helping a lesbian couple purport to marry each other.
Same thing for the baker, who’s quite happy to sell gay people — both singles and couples — as many cakes as they care to buy, including wedding cakes if they like, so long as a gay couple isn’t buying it for the purpose of purporting to marry each other. And the photographer is happy to take pictures of the couple doing anything but purport to marry each other.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:29 amGuns are also manufactured goods, but anyone who knowingly sold one to a criminal, for the purpose of using it for a crime, would certainly go to Hell, if there was one. And to prison, if he were caught. Many people believe that same sex marriage is criminal, and knowingly abeting it is just as bad as knowingly abeting a robbery.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:37 amIn this exact instance, it translates to “we don’t serve homosexuals”. The end. There is no amount of qualification you can do to justify it. God’s law or otherwise
Gil (27c98f) — 8/15/2014 @ 3:22 am@Daley 180
Except that despite being very religious the founders left God out of the constitution. Yes you have the right to believe what you want. Again it is quite simple to imagine a religious cult that does things in the name of their beliefs that are wrong (cults for example & teen marriage to the leader) they are all practicing religion in that case. Should they not go to jail? Should the government be prevented from “stomping on their free exercise rights”? If you are to be consistent and say law trumps religion than bakers are compelled to sell ANYTHING to gay couples. If you are to be consistent and say religion trumps law then it can be my religion that taxes are immoral and there is nothing you can do to force me to pay them.
Gil (27c98f) — 8/15/2014 @ 3:27 amA lot of people don’t have the patience to consider it, but the deeper issue is something like OS fragmentation. Fragmentation means that even though you and your friend both have Android Phones, they are each a different machine. Motorola is different than Samsung which is different than HTC. Dan replies Good question. Genetics undoubtedly play a major part. Some people are luckier than others in that department. Over the years, historians, biographers,TIA-102.AABG PDF, political scientists, an
TIA/EIA-102.AAAA PDF (fc6c31) — 8/15/2014 @ 3:33 amGil went right to “For example a white supremacist’s sensibilities are wrong and should not be respected”
Conflation of race and sexual preference is so tedious.
I am curious what the science side of this topic is, Gil. You introduced the concepts of one side doing so based on the beliefs. What science and evidence is on the other side ?
Nothing gets Gil wound up more than hating on religion, and pissing on the 1st Amendment.
JD (39402f) — 8/15/2014 @ 5:21 am@JD 188
Take a look at comment 186. There are other ideas there like cults and abstract religious beliefs if you dont like the race example – which of course is the goto because its the easiest to understand. In one case discrimination against another because of the color of skin, the other because of an equally irrelavant train such as sexual orientation. In any case it does not matter why the discrimination is happening. It doesnt matter if my God directs me that being gay is a sin or that being black is a sin.
I dont know that it is necessary to have “science on this side topic” Whatever that means. Someone above made a point along the lines of people’s sensibilities should be respected no matter what. I disagree. People can have sensibilities that are wrong.
Gil (febf10) — 8/15/2014 @ 6:53 amOops typo above. train shout be trait.
Gil (febf10) — 8/15/2014 @ 6:54 amIt is your goto because it is the most mendoucheous, not because it is easiest to understand.
JD (285732) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:01 am” People can have sensibilities that are wrong.”
That is true Gil. Leftists, communists, socialists, Moslems, atheists, believers in AGW all have sensibilities that to me are wrong. Perhaps they shouldn’t be respected as such but unless they try to force me to do something they are allowed to be wrong. For example, gay rights activists sensibilities to me are wrong but they’re entitled to them. Until they try and force my restaurant to cater their event. At that point they’re trying to enslave me to their sensibilities.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:04 amGil, I need some landscaping done. Move some 8x8s, clear out some rocks, and replace with limestone chips. It’ll be a five-hour job, or less depending on how fast you work. $100.00 guaranteed for the day, cash. Be there at 7:00 am. sharp. Bring your own gloves and knee protectors.
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:05 amGil, do you actually believe you are making any kind of sense?
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:06 amMilhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:29 am
including wedding cakes if they like, so long as a gay couple isn’t buying it for the purpose of purporting to marry each other.
I think the problem there is they wanted a message on the cake.
And the photographer would actually be part of the event.
Sammy Finkelman (b0c537) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:11 amI am always amused when Leftists preach about being fact based, or calling others anti-science. They never seem to be able to square that with their religious devotion to global cooling, global warming, global climate change, or their own history of leftist economic failure.
JD (285732) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:14 amThe problem there is they were trying to force another American to perform labor which they, for whatever reason, were either uncomfortable with or had a moral conflict with. There are thousands of bakers, photographers and bridal salons across the fruited plain. Find another, quit complaining and get a life.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:16 am==Many people believe that same sex marriage is criminal, and knowingly abeting it is just as bad as knowingly abeting a(n armed) robbery.==
You know, I can’t quite get my arms around this concept. Plus, I think you are sneakily conflating jurisprudence and religion to try to make a point. I think from what I’ve read that the wedding dress seller here had a religious objection to the “use” of the dresses–not a concern that they’d be used in a criminal pursuit.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:18 amJD you called it. Leftists use science like a samurai uses a katana. They fail to understand that at periods of history: the belief that blacks were inferior, Jews were sub-human, the earth was flat, the earth was the center of the universe ( I could go on) all were “settled science”. To an open mind science is never “settled”, it has merely plateaued at our current level of understanding.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:22 amYou and I came away with different understandings of these events, elissa. I don’t think either the baker, the bridal salon nor the photographer objected to the “use” of their products but rather to their being made to participate in an event they found immoral. It seems all three have gay patrons which they serve without incident. Only when asked to participate in something they found morally wrong did they object. As a restaurant owner I would serve a Moslem guest but I would not cater the stoning of an adulteress since I would not participate in that Moslem practice.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:38 amSo–I just need to clarify. Are you OK, then, with a unionized Muslim employee of a grocery store chain refusing to ring up a package of bacon on religious grounds and having to call in another cashier or a supervisor to do it, while the bacon customer stands there cooling her heels and the grocery line is temporarily stopped? And the store can’t fire her even though they are losing customers because of it? (This was an issue in Minnesota not too long ago, I believe.)
When undeniably sincere people cite “religious grounds” for their not wanting to facilitate or contribute toward or touch any part of the gay marketing industry they need also to consider other situations as well where religious objections would and could be used to deny service or send people elsewhere for other products. I think consistency and logic in application is harder and harder and starts to looks sillier and sillier the more one looks at the big picture. It’s selling a damn dress. It’s selling a damn pack of bacon. Geez, people.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:38 amFind another, quit complaining and get a life.
I recall the story told by Jesse Jackson that when he worked as a fry cook in a restaurant, that certain obnoxious patrons, who he probably identified as racist or bigoted, would get a little extra something in their food.
There’s the phrase “buyer beware,” and I definitely would go out of my way from getting goods or services supplied by a business that resented or disliked me.
Mark (5758a9) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:46 amBut Christians are now the ones who are expected to “hide in the closet for fear of offending anyone”. I’ve been reprimanded for talking about my faith when I was asked a direct question about my faith because someone might hear and be offended. And I was asked during break time. However, no reprimand for those talking about their homosexuality or how stupid Christians should be killed during work hours.
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:50 amThe 14th amendment does not make everyone the same, otherwise there would never have been a need for the 15th and 19th amendments.
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:55 amI’m not attempting to be combative or to change your mind, Hoagie, and I know I never could anyway. My purpose merely is to maybe show that other very logic-oriented and reasonable and practicing Christian people do see this situation through a different lens and in doing so can reach a different conclusion. There’s not just one lens through which to view the world and its people.
I think the intimidation and forcing out of Eich by the gay mafia is abominable and I loathed it. Guess I just don’t think selling a dress or cake is in the same ballpark and I was raised to pick my battles in life wisely and carefully.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:56 amUmm, no. Because if you think that pork is unclean, don’t get into the business of selling pork.
You’re approaching the issue from the wrong end of the stick. If you’re a Muslim and want to open a pet store, fine. I’ll go somewhere else if I want to buy a dog. I’m not going to insist the Muslim pet store guy sells dogs.
On the other hand, if you’re a vegan, don’t get a job in a butcher shop. And then try to put it out of business. Go work at a salad bar.
How hard is this?
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 7:57 amelissa
Muslim cab drivers for a brief time would not pick up women dressed inappropriately or not accompanied by a male relative – which is funny because in my experience that loooong passed that Saudi, Omani, Bahraini women constantly are going back and forth with drivers or in hired cars
EPWJ (abd159) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:00 amelissa, do you think that these two things are equivalent?
A) A Mormon takes a job at a liquor store, then refuses to sell ligour.
B) A customer walks into a halal grocery store and demands it stop selling ritually slaughtered meat products.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:05 amSteve you did not read my bacon scenario carefully. So your reply is not responsive to what I asked. It was a large grocery store. The Muslim cashier is an employee and union member. Try again.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:09 amah yes. the cabbies. that’s another good example epwj.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:19 amThey did it in Chicago and at JFK – it was put down REAL QUICK
EPWJ (abd159) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:23 amAre the cab drivers employees or do they own their cabs? If the former, they are properly bound by their employer’s work rules. If they work on their own account, they properly have discretion unless they are bound by some sort of franchising agreement. It should only be an issue if the cab service is a functional monopoly or cab services are operating a cartel (which should be legally proscribed in any case).
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:25 am” Are you OK, then, with a unionized Muslim employee of a grocery store chain refusing to ring up a package of bacon on religious grounds and having to call in another cashier or a supervisor to do it, while the bacon customer stands there cooling her heels and the grocery line is temporarily stopped? And the store can’t fire her even though they are losing customers because of it? (This was an issue in Minnesota not too long ago”
No elissa, I am not okay with that. Because ringing up a pack of bacon is NOT participating in the slaughter, preparation, handling or eating of said bacon. As I stated elissa, all three persons sell to gays they just refuse to participate in what they perceive as an immoral celebration. Handing someone a pound of bacon or selling them a cake is not participating. I’m also not okay with that because having a Muslim in a union is the most foolish idea I’ve ever heard. Who came up with that stupidity, Al Gore? Muslim’s by faith and culture cannot participate in a free society and therefore are totally ill equipped to participate in labor unions which are there to promote service workers. But that’s another thread.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:32 amNo, elissa, I did read it carefully. It doesn’t matter how large the grocery store is. What matters is who has veto power over what business it’s in. As you may have guessed, I have definite ideas on this.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:33 amBecause ringing up a pack of bacon is NOT participating in the slaughter, preparation, handling or eating of said bacon but when your employee signs up for an insurance policy which might someday cover that employee’s decision for to have an abortion that makes you an accomplice to murder.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:40 amAnd…
inanity ensues.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:42 amlayers and layers of nuance
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:45 am“but when your employee signs up for an insurance policy which might someday cover that employee’s decision for to have an abortion that makes you an accomplice to murder.”
Only if I choose to buy or am forced to buy against my will a policy which includes abortion. Once again happyfeet, just because you want an abortion or Obama thinks abortion MUST be included in a policy does not give either of you the right to make someone else pay for it or participate in it, does it? Unless you’re a tyrant.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:46 ami don’t want an abortion and i don’t think it should be mandatory that they should be covered by insurance
what i want right now is a big-ass professional-type can-opener, but i guess since I might could be moving I’m a wait on that
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:49 amIf I were a Mormon owning and operating a liquor store, you might have a basis to accuse me of hypocrisy if I then refused to fund my employees’ abortions because they violated my religious beliefs.
But if I refuse to go into the business of selling liquor because of my religion, I think you should just leave me alone.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:49 amI’m going to lunch, have Mexican food and a few margaritas and contemplate this issue.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:55 amI hope you don’t have a Muslim bartender who refuses to serve you.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:58 amI have a fatwa here that declares your Margarita haram.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:59 amMuslim’s by faith and culture cannot participate in a free society and therefore are totally ill equipped to participate in labor unions which are there to promote service workers.
Did you ever consider empirically testing this proposition?
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:08 am“Except that despite being very religious the founders left God out of the constitution.”
Gil – The founders left religion in, right there in the First Amendment. If the intersection of law and religion continues to frighten and confuse you, rather than making up how it should be resolved, I suggest you review the ample body of Supreme Court precedents which have addressed these questions. It would save us all the trouble of seeing your drivel.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:17 amSteve57, um no, it is NOT like a Mormon becoming an employee of a liquor store which sells– wait for it–almost exclusively liquor!, and then flat out refuses to ring up any liquor. It is NOT like a strictly halal butcher shop where someone goes in and wants them to stop killing things in the back lot and selling certain products. The very very simple scenario I was hoping y’all would consider without going out on a flight of “what ifs” up to and including abortion is: The Muslim scarfed employee of the large mainstream grocery store chain can and does ring up bread and laundry products and batteries and gum and potato chips. She is cheerful and friendly and honest. But when the bacon reaches her on the conveyor belt every time she refuses to ring up sealed packages of bacon on religious grounds even tho the filthy pig was killed elsewhere and many days ago. The union backs her up and seeks accommodation against the store management’s wishes, which, as her employer believe they should have the right to expect an employee to serve all their customers and to ring up any product being purchased (unless the cashier is underaged and cannot legally ring up wine or something.) If you don’t want to engage this real world scenario that’s fine. Nobody’s going to insist. All I wanted to know is, do you stand with “Kroger”, or do you stand with the Muslim cashier. But if you can’t or don’t want to answer that question then please quit changing the scenario so you can use a totally different argument on a totally different scenario.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:20 amElissa, is it in the union contract or not?
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:26 am“If you don’t want to engage this real world scenario that’s fine.”
elissa – As I recall that was a real world scenario with the influx of Somali immigrants to the Minneapolis area several years back. I forget how it turned out.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:33 amRight, science is evidence based – like global warming.
And science is evidence based – like atheism.
And that is why you don’t answer why the belief that same sex marriage, which is near and dear to so many hearts, is so special as to trump the feelings of those who believe otherwise.
This is why I regularly point out:
Sam (e8f1ad) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:35 amAtheism is the second most intolerant religion on the planet.
Art, Don’t know if it’s in a contract now. But it was definitely not in any contract or even contemplated when the situations first occurred– and it was not just in a single store as I recall. The “accomodation” for the employee was for customers to wait in line and seethe while someone else was found and could come over to the line to ring the bacon. The basic principle I’m asking about would be the same with or without a union I think. Do folks stand with the cashier and her religious objections or with “Safeway”?
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:39 am#IStandWithKroger #bringbackourbacon
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:43 amAnd you keep lying through your teeth. How does “we do serve homosexuals” translate to “we don’t serve homosexuals”? This is exactly like a taxi driver refusing to take a minor to a casino; that doesn’t mean he won’t serve minors.
Complying with God’s law doesn’t need justification. It’s the supreme law of the land, and preempts any other law, local, state, federal, or international.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:45 amWhy would He be there? He’s in the Declaration of Independence, where He belongs. The constitution is about what laws Congress can or can’t make, not about statements of principle. What they did put in, because it belongs there, was specific protection for the free exercise of religion. Congress is specifically prohibited from making any law that abrogates that right. That gives the exercise of religion a special place in our legal system, and entitles it to deference.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:48 amBackground:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/business-us_business/t/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:50 amI have no idea what you could possibly mean by that. Religion is law. God’s law, which is the supreme law of this and every other land.
Again, those two things are identical. Same-sex marriage is a crime, just like armed robbery.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:53 amMore Background:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/disneyland-employee-sue-wear-hijab-work-article-1.1135427
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:55 amYou’re saying the exact same thing in different words, and imagining they’re different. How would they be participating in the event? By providing their product to be used in it. In exactly the same way that the gun dealer who knowingly sells a gang the weapons for a robbery participates in that robbery.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:56 amAnd nor would you sell them the stones, right? That’s exactly what we’re talking about.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:57 amThanks, daleyrocks, for filling in the details. That article lays out the pork situation well and was the exact one I was remembering.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:58 amWhy wouldn’t the store be able to fire her, if it wants to? It’s not her store. There are laws in some states, perhaps including Minnesota, that require employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employees’ religious needs, so if there’s someone else readily available to make the sale, and therefore no customers will be lost, then that’s what should happen. But if they’re going to lose customers over it then the accommodation requested is not reasonable, and no law requires or can require the store to keep employing her. Now tell me what any of this has to do with what we’re discussing, which is when it’s her store.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:03 amRinging up a package of bacon, selling a dress, conducting an armed robbery, and stoning an adultress to death. Yeah I can definitely see the similarities. /sarc
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:05 amEmployment accommodation for religion is also federal law, at least as interpreted by the EEOC. There’s an interesting case going on now in downstate Illinois about Muslim truck drivers, for a beverage company, who refused to deliver liquor.
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:12 amI wasn’t joking in an earlier comment about the bakers and the seamstresses using religious discrimination precedents in employment as a defense.
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:14 am“Now tell me what any of this has to do with what we’re discussing, which is when it’s her store.”
Milhouse – It is very simple if you take a moment to think it through. Both are examples of whether we will respect the religious beliefs of members of our society or trample on them. The ownership of the store is just an additional fact.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:14 ami vote trample
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:15 amArt, Don’t know if it’s in a contract now. But it was definitely not in any contract or even contemplated when the situations first occurred– and it was not just in a single store as I recall. The “accomodation” for the employee was for customers to wait in line and seethe while someone else was found and could come over to the line to ring the bacon. The basic principle I’m asking about would be the same with or without a union I think. Do folks stand with the cashier and her religious objections or with “Safeway”?
1. As an employee, she’s bound by her employer’s rules. Those rules are nestled within labor law and (more selectively) within union contracts. No, state and federal labor law should not compel the employer to offer an accommodation (or much else, but that’s a different argument).
2. The union has to husband their attention and pick their battles, both in contract negotiations and in grievances. Personally, I think I’d be inclined to tell her not to press the point and that if foodstuffs were an issue for her she should try working at Home Depot. Of course, I never did have the union spirit enough to attend more than one meeting a year.
3. As regards social ethics, I think it’s unreasonable to expect people to do contextually odd things for your benefit. Many years ago, my mother had a conversation with a congenial acquaintance about private schooling. The woman lived in a suburb which had the reputation for having the best schools in the area, but she could and did afford to send her children to private schools. Her reason? “My children are in a minority and they have to learn that they are in a minority and they are not going to learn it there”. The woman was Jewish and the school district was, if not majority Jewish, than Jewish enough that you would get that impression, so they were set to a day school dominated by country-club WASPs.
4. The foregoint is particularly true with regard to immigrant populations. Having raised that, though, you abut the ‘leapfrogging loyalties’ and implicit hierarchy of cool maintained by our professional-managerial bourgeoisie (often with the force of law). Richard Rodriguez once wrote something to the effect that the culture suffered from “the surrender to the romantic cult of the outsider”. Nowadays, it is often manifest in petty harassment and displays of contempt at common-and-garden non-exotic working-class people, like grocery store foremen.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:16 am“There’s an interesting case going on now in downstate Illinois about Muslim truck drivers, for a beverage company, who refused to deliver liquor.”
nk – Read the link in #234. Muslim cab drivers in the Twin Cities were also refusing to carry service dogs. Not covered in that story.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:16 amCould a truck driver for a laundry service refuse to service a legal brothel in Nevada and not be fired, do you think?
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:17 amElissa – I think the store owner should get to decide how they wish to handle that situation. I think if the employee feels that strongly about it, they should be prepared to take a principled stand, and risk getting fired. And then, should consider not applying for jobs that have the likelihood of violating their conscience.
JD (b90286) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:18 amA different question arises as to whether these sorts of controversies arise because our social betters throw rubbing alcohol on open flames (indubitably that’s true) or whether certain communal groups are more likely to respond to social friction with self-assertion and even arrogance. The latter just might be true.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:19 amall of these cases are about ridiculously immature juvenile improperly-socialized loser people who seize an opportunity to make a pedestrian situation all about them
well it’s not always all about you sweet pickles
now just your stupid whining hillbilly mouth and get the woman her dress por favor
k thx
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:19 amoops
now just *shut* your stupid whining hillbilly mouth is what that’s supposed to say
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:20 amAmericans like dogs a lot more than they like Muslims, daleyrocks. They’ll lose in every case that goes to court. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:22 am“There’s an interesting case going on now in downstate Illinois about Muslim truck drivers, for a beverage company, who refused to deliver liquor.”
nk – Read the link in #234. Muslim cab drivers in the Twin Cities were also refusing to carry service dogs. Not covered in that story.
Again, if they own their truck or own their cab, let them limit their custom within what is permitted given contractual obligations to private entities. The one sticky point would be if they were effective recipients of some public benefit – such as a berth at the metropolitan airport.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:22 am“As an employee, she’s bound by her employer’s rules.”
Art Deco – Tell that to the government. A first year teacher here in Chicago decided that she was called by her religion to make the hajj to Mecca, coincidentally between Thanksgiving and Christmas, which would have given her essentially a six week vacation. Her employers said no, you have not yet earned the right to that time off, go on your hajj later. The Obama DOJ intervened and forced the Chicago schools to give her the time off.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:23 amSi a tu tienda venga una lesbia
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:25 amTratala con carino toda la dia
Cuentale tu dinero bien tu mercado
Entonces va cocinar un buen stifado
Art Deco, that’s discrimination against the disabled if it’s service dogs. It’s protected group versus protected group. That’s why I think there’s fertile ground for litigation, i.e money for lawyers, here.
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:28 am*todo el dia* Stupid gender declensions.
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:29 am“The one sticky point would be if they were effective recipients of some public benefit – such as a berth at the metropolitan airport.”
Art Deco – Or a public benefit such as a hack license of which there may be a limited number.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:37 amWell Okay now, add immature juvenile, improperly socialized loser lesbian people what don’t respect the beliefs of others to the list.
Projection. It’s what’s for lunch.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:40 amArt Deco – Or a public benefit such as a hack license of which there may be a limited number.
That’s the case in New York, but these sorts of regimes are never legitimate unless the franchise in question is a common property resource and you have to regulate consumption. If you have that sort of medallion system, you need to end it.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:44 amArt Deco, that’s discrimination against the disabled if it’s service dogs. It’s protected group versus protected group. That’s why I think there’s fertile ground for litigation, i.e money for lawyers, here.
Je m’en fou.
(I’ve had to conclude that the trouble caused by anti-discrimination law exceeds any social benefit so the justification for interfering with freedom of contract fails).
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:47 amArt Deco – Tell that to the government.
She wasn’t asking the government.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:48 amThe Obama DOJ intervened and forced the Chicago schools to give her the time off.
1. Every lawyer Eric Holder hired should be fired the day his successor takes office.
2. The federal statute in question should be expunged.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:49 amnonono lunch is gonna be a salad
somewhere on ventura i think but i’m not 100% sure I’m in the mood for boozhie today so it could be charlie’s pantry, it could be pick-up stix
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:51 am“She wasn’t asking the government.”
Art Deco – Her employer was the government. A higher level of government overrode her immediate employer. This is not difficult.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:52 amThere’s nothing in the article about anyone seething, or even about any significant wait being involved. Don’t you think it depends on the size of the store, and how many people there are?
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:56 amIt’s not trampling on someone’s beliefs to tell her that a particular job is only available to those who are willing to do it.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:59 amBut there isn’t a comparison between the two. If you have a religious objection against selling 100% of what I stock, and can only sell 75%, don’t work for me.
On the other hand, if you pretend to be my customer, don’t protest me because I’m not supplying a service or not stocking an item I’m opposed to.
So, yeah, I’m with Safeway. Why should I pay you if you don’t want to work for me?
And bake your own damned cake if you don’t like how I’m running my business.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:59 amIt is trampling on someone’s beliefs to tell them that they may not operate a business according to their own lights. Operating a business is a fundamental human right, one of the privileges and immunities protected by the 14th amendment. Being employed by someone else is not.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:00 amPut another way: neither the government nor “society” is a business owner’s employer. She doesn’t operate her business by their grace and good will.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:01 amNo, selling bacon, a dress, a gun, or stones. Those are all exactly the same. Same sex marriage, armed robbery, and stoning someone; those are all exactly the same too, to the people we’re discussing. They’re all wrong for the exact same reason: because God said so.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:03 amHow many times have you had to wait in line at the supermarket when the under-21 cashier shouted “21” for somebody to ring liquor for her. What did Scheherezade the Deliicate shout, I wonder. “Pig!” Is she allowed to say “pig”?
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:05 amOK, but it’s still subject to the accommodation being reasonable. If there are plenty of drivers who have no such objection, and only a few who do, and there are enough customers who don’t order alcohol for the Moslem drivers to be assigned only such deliveries, then it’s reasonable to do so. Win win. Why would any employer of good will not agree to such an accommodation? (Generally the answer is unions. The employer is fine with it, but the union is not.)
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:06 amIt’s not her dress, it’s mine, and that makes it about me. It’s not always about me, most of the time it’s not, but this time it definitely is, because it’s my dress, and you’re demanding that I, not someone else, sell it to her.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:10 amWhich is a comment on Holder’s DOJ, not on the situation. And also on the Chicago school district, which was too ready to cave, where a private employer would have taken it to court and won.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:12 amwhen you in the business of selling dresses what you do is, you sell the dresses
let’s just keep it simple
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:13 amDefinitely.
The statute in question does not require unreasonable accommodations.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:15 am(Generally the answer is unions. The employer is fine with it, but the union is not.)
Great minds think alike. I was just about to say that it’s a safe bet that there’s featherbedding going on. The union wants an extra worker to be the liquor person or the pig person, or the dog person, etc.
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:19 amAnd when you in the business of selling guns what you do is, you sell the guns. None of yore bidness what they’re going to be used for, right? Wrong. If you know they’re going to be used for a crime, you have a duty not to sell them, and if you sell them anyway you become an accomplice in the crime.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:21 amA year or so back I visited a friend in Kali and shot a hog. He had called around beforehand and found a butcher shop run by what happyfeet would call chinesers who were more than happy to turn them hogs into Italian sausage.
The Mexicans working the muffler shop next door dropped everything to come look at the kill. They were keenly interested in what we were shooting. 270 Win in my case. I Am NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT. But I digress.
Point being I did not stomp into a kosher or halal butcher shop and demand they turn my pig into sausage.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:22 amYes, let’s keep it simple. I go into the dress making business because I admire the female form. I want to pay tribute to the female form.
Then one day some guy walks into my shop and demands I make him a dress.
Simply stated, this is not why I went into the dress making business.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:27 am“It is trampling on someone’s beliefs to tell them that they may not operate a business according to their own lights. Operating a business is a fundamental human right, one of the privileges and immunities protected by the 14th amendment. Being employed by someone else is not.”
Milhouse – Both situations plainly involve the exercise of religious freedom. It is not my fault if you are too blind too see that and focus on irrelevant differences.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:28 amIt could be that. But in general, unions don’t like flexibility. They’re all about laying down hard rules, and raising hell if they’re broken, even at an employee’s request. E.g. the union rules say the work day is 9 to 5, and any time outside that is overtime. Employee asks to work 8 to 4, because it’s more convenient for her, or to accommodate her religious needs; employer says “no problem”, and union says “yes problem; if she works before 9 without being paid overtime, we’ll close the place down”. Not because it makes any sense, but because they’re the union and they will be respected.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:29 am“Which is a comment on Holder’s DOJ, not on the situation.”
Milhouse – I believe it is a comment on both Holder’s DOJ and this administration’s willingness to bend over backwards to preference one religion at the expense of others. In the absence of knowledge of what threats were made to the local education authorities as is the practice of the current administration, I don’t believe it is possible to comment on their actions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:32 amYou’re free to exercise your religious freedom, but not at my expense. That’s the fundamental difference between the two situations. A business owner is not an employee, is not anything like an employee, and no comparison between them is useful.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:32 am“A business owner is not an employee, is not anything like an employee, and no comparison between them is useful.”
Milhouse – If neither person claimed to be acting on religious beliefs which caused them to engage in behavior affecting third parties there would be no situations to discuss. Religious freedom is the starting point for both, then fact patterns come into play.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:47 amThe statute in question does not require unreasonable accommodations.
Tangling over ‘reasonable’ v. ‘unreasonable’ accommodations still has a corps of lawyers second-guessing your business practices. Kill the statute.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:55 amMilhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:48 am
What they did put in, because it belongs there, was specific protection for the free exercise of religion. Congress is specifically prohibited from making any law that abrogates that right. That gives the exercise of religion a special place in our legal system, and entitles it to deference.
That’s the First amendment. In the original constitution, they put in a “no religious test” clause.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
Article VI, Clause 3:
Sammy Finkelman (b0c537) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:57 amArt Deco – Her employer was the government.
What does Elissa’s employer have to do with this??
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:01 pmNo, the starting point is that one is an employee and one an independent person. That is fundamental. The businesswoman has a right to run her business; the employee has no right to her job. Thus the employee is at most entitled to reasonable accommodation of her religious needs; the businesswoman has no need to ask anyone for accommodation, reasonable or otherwise. The customer has no rights either way; the dispute (if any) is between the employee and her employer, and between the businesswoman and….whom? Nobody.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:06 pmokay, so what if its Turkey Bacon, its trying to violate Hala but fails?
EPWJ (29d77c) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:08 pmdaleyrocks gets it. Whether we’re discussing the specifics of the dress seller, the cashier, the cabbies, or the teacher–it’s their personal expression of religious freedom or their expression of religious objections toward someone else’s pursuits that drives all those scenarios. As this thread proves, people’s opinions definitely vary (and morph) based on whose ox they perceive is getting gored.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:19 pmI don’t think the customer, or the employee, should get decide how I choose to run my business.
JD (b90286) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:39 pmPerhaps he gets what you’re trying to say. But you don’t seem to get it. I don’t seek to impose my religious objections on anyone. I seek to live by my religious beliefs, and not have others imposed on me.
I’m an employer. I pay people money. I’m sure some of that money goes toward things I’d disapprove of. But that’s no up to me; it’s a free country. On the other hand I will not be forced to do things against my conscience; it’s a free country.
Or it used to be.
Again, how hard is this? If you don’t like the business I’m in, don’t take the paycheck and then refuse to do the work. If you don’t like the business I’m in, shop somewhere else.
I am so totally on Safeway’s side it’s crazy. There’s a Halal market down the street. Being sort of on the side of the Sikhs I don’t shop there, not being into the whole ritual slaughter thing (sorry, Jewish friends). But I’m not going to try and protest the place out of existence. I’m not going to apply for a job.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:52 pmWhat he said. Times 10.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:53 pmIt’s not someone else’s pursuits when they demand that the first person participate.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:55 pmYeah, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make.
The whole thing reminds me of the Roman empire. Most notoriously Diocletian. I will not sacrifice to the Roman gods, even if you tart it up as a women’s health issue. Nor for the children. Ain’t happening.
Sorry for the obscure reference. I could flesh it out, but I don’t think anyone wants that.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 1:05 pmThis is a fascinating thread. The trajectory has been quite interesting.
==I don’t think the customer, or the employee, should get decide to how I choose to run my business.
JD (b90286) — 8/15/2014 @ 12:39 pm==
I agree with this very strongly. Yet they do. All the time. And the government “helps”. And the courts “help”. And the unions “help”. Business owners only think they are in control of their businesses, unfortunately.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 1:11 pmBusiness owners only think they are in control of their businesses, unfortunately.
Somehow I think they are more cognizant of their compliance costs than you are.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 1:25 pmI was not aware that you knew me, or what I do, or what I’m cognizant of, Art Deco. But whatever.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 1:29 pm@Tanny
The second section of the 14th Amendment repealed and replaced the three-fifths clause of Article 1. This provision also provided a formula for reducing the representation in House for any state that denied the vote to “male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime”.
This provision didn’t protect a person’s right to vote so much as punish a state that didn’t allow certain people to vote. The 15th Amendment rectified this problem. By only supporting the right to vote for males the 14th Amendment could be cited to support denying the vote to women. The 19th Amendment rectified this problem. It should also be noted that this part of Section 2 was never really enforced. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed on the authority of the 15th Amendment.
Outside of voting, however, the 14th Amendment does say that all people are equal under the law. In this respect the 14th Amendment was a significant step forward in realizing the uniquely American idea that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
Joe (33fd9a) — 8/15/2014 @ 4:05 pm#182
Well said Millhouse. As I said happyfeet’s thoughts on this are consistently vacuous.
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/15/2014 @ 6:14 pmConsistency is cool
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 6:17 pmjust maybe not in pennsyltucky
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 6:19 pmAtheism is evidence based?
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/15/2014 @ 6:37 pmgo get im Mr. A
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 6:39 pmelissa
msl (5f601f) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:01 pmI say that, I would wait in line while they had to change out the cashier out for the pork cashier so I could get my bacon on. Granted I think they should give that “cashier” I different job, but nonetheless I would wait. Yeah it’s inconvenient and all, but I would respect their religious convictions although they differ from mine (jews) (muslims). And I would question why they placed such a person in said position, but that’s another story.
I’m glad you’re on my side!
Gerald A (9e3e6a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:02 pmlet me be super clear for the record I don’t think the intolerant wedding business people should face sanctions by the government
but I sanction them up one side and down the other with my comments
take that, you big meanies
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:11 pm“It’s not someone else’s pursuits when they demand that the first person participate.”
Milhouse and Steve57 – I would not describe it this way and did not. It is the first person’s following their own religious beliefs when it collides with the interests of third parties that gives rise to the situations discussed on this thread. The starting point is religious beliefs which then clash with the interests of customers in the case of the bridal shop and customers and employer in the case of Target.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:19 pmYou mean the free exercise of religion? I believe I’ve read about that somewhere. Sorry if that gives rise to the situations discussed on this thread, but on the other hand I suspect that’s why the first amendment anticipated and headed off such discussions.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/15/2014 @ 8:30 pmI was not aware that you knew me, or what I do, or what I’m cognizant of, Art Deco. But whatever.
I tend to assume that proprietors understand their businesses better than random combox denizens, sister. I play the averages.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:13 pmSays nothing about people being equal. It does talk about due process under the law. That all people are treated equally under the law. They had anti-sodomy laws for over 200 years before they were made null. The men who passed the 14th amendment did not see it as giving what we think of today as “equal rights”.
Tanny O'Haley (f5a155) — 8/15/2014 @ 9:36 pmCongratulations msl. You are one of the very few to notice that most people here are strong advocates of a business owner or sole proprietor being able to actualize his/her religious beliefs by denying services or refusing to do business with those they disapprove of, or whom they feel go against their personal values and religious tenets. Religious beliefs rule the day for them. But yet, curiously, most of these same commenters seem not to be so vociferously concerned at all about acknowledging and respecting any other people’s religious rights and beliefs-employees for example. Employees should toe the line, should be forced to take another job, or be fired, some said, if because of religious beliefs they refuse to serve customers against the owners’ wishes.
Look, for me this whole thread has been all about exposing the hypocrisy and the double standard. If the baker and photog as part of the social contract hold their noses but perform the services anyway which they personally object to on the basis of their religion, then it’s very reasonable that lowly cabbies and the cashiers should have to do the same with things in the workplace that they object to on the basis of their religion. But if the cabbie and cashier don’t have the religious freedom to refuse certain customers or products when it defies their religion, then why does a business owner have those special religious rights? We either have free exercise of religion in this country or we don’t. Which is it?
And yes, daleyrocks–it is the struggle of people in all religions and all walks of life to follow their religious beliefs even as they collide with the rights and interests of other parties that makes this discussion necessary.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:35 pmHow can you not see the difference between the role of the emloyee, and the employer? Why does the owner have a differs right than the employee? Really? Nobody is saying the employee doesn’t have rights. I would say they have the exact same rights, but they come with different potential consequences.
JD (285732) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:44 pmJD, Obviously I do see and know the difference in the roles. I only ask you and others to acknowledge there must be some commonality of rights especially related to religious beliefs spread across those roles.
elissa (c7165f) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:54 pmThere is no right to a job. An employer can fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, as a general rule. The same way the employee can quit for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. Absent a contract, individual or collective, up to when we were born. The rules for religious accommodation and disability accommodation are very recent pasteons. And they’re a taking of the employer’s property to some degree. Let’s assume that I, the owner, want to sell wedding gowns to lesbians. What do I do with the shop clerk who won’t ring the cash register for them because she’ll go to Hell if she does? Hmm? There’s a conflict there, but it’s an artificial one created by laws with unforeseen consequences.
nk (dbc370) — 8/15/2014 @ 10:56 pm“Sorry if that gives rise to the situations discussed on this thread, but on the other hand I suspect that’s why the first amendment anticipated and headed off such discussions.”
Steve57 – Don’t apologize, just stop pretending it’s all about whether somebody is an employee or employer/owner instead. Stick to the basics.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:04 pm“I tend to assume that proprietors understand their businesses better than random combox denizens, sister. I play the averages.”
Art Deco – Better to play dumb rather than make an azz of yourself since a lot of folks populating this board have a lot of business experience and you give off the vibe of having none.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:06 pm“I would say they have the exact same rights, but they come with different potential consequences.”
JD – That’s why I keep pointing out the starting point is the exercise of religious beliefs. What happens next is a different matter.
elissa understands. Others on the thread want to start from a conclusion and work backward.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/15/2014 @ 11:11 pmthem republican bidness people would never treat us black people like that
i mean c’mon
ain’t like we gay or nuffin
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/16/2014 @ 12:17 amOne of the basics I’m sticking with is, “Who is risking the capital?”
I don’t think I have any more right to religious liberty as a business owner than an employee does. But I do think I have the right to know if I hire you to do X,Y, and Z, you’ll do X,Y, and Z. And that it’s unfair if after I hire you to do X,Y, and Z, I discover it was only your intent to do X, as you have moral objections to Y and Z.
I really need employees who are in the X and Y and Z business. I need to know these things up front.
On the other hand, I find fake customers protesting because I’m not in the A, B, and C business royally cute. If I thought there was a market there, I’d be in the A, B, and C business. One of the classics was a left coast protest against Mickey D’s because they didn’t service vegetarians.
Face palm, six ways from Sunday. Let’s start with this. “Sounds like there’s a real opportunity there.” No, wait their isn’t. Or else they’d be fulfilling it. Instead, they want somebody else to lose money on it. They won’t put up their capital.
But no. I don’t think I have more of a right to my own conscience because I paid for it, if that is your question.
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/16/2014 @ 4:36 am*No, wait
Steve57 (5f6c2a) — 8/16/2014 @ 4:40 amtheirthere isn’t.*You really don’t understand anyone on here other than those that walk in lockstep with you, do you? The freedom to enter into contract is considered sacrosanct by most of us, but it has to be between 2 willing individuals. We don’t support forced slavery, but you clearly do.
In your scenario, the cashier knew that part of the job would be to ring up items that the store carries. If she did not object to doing the job with pork products beforehand, then she misrepresented herself and the company has a right to terminate her for that misrepresentation. If the company knew about her “condition” and hired her anyway, then there’s no issue because both parties agreed to the conditions of contract.
In the case of the wedding dresses, wedding cake, wedding photographer, etc., one party has clearly not consented to the contract for employment, but you are trying to force them to do so anyway. You want to make them produce something against their will through the force of government. Enjoy your totalitarianism.
P.S. I didn’t need to mention religion once because the right to enter into contract is the issue here and you’re trying to muddy the waters in order to attack Christians, whether or not you realize it.
P.P.S. Why does anyone bother responding to the “miserable-footed” one? All he ever posts is nonsense and tries to derail the conversation repeatedly.
NJRob (d47c97) — 8/16/2014 @ 10:27 amYeah I’m a clueless bitch. This post was never about religious liberty even though that’s the title of Dana’s post. Go with that if it works for you NJRob.
elissa (94b049) — 8/16/2014 @ 11:12 amWhen did Patterico hire “girls?” Or are you a woman who has not become an adult in language? Your answer would cement my impression of you. So many “girls” have developed “hurt feelings” as personal philosophy especially in the internet world commentary. Just asking??!
MJBees (461fe4) — 8/16/2014 @ 12:15 pmUmmm . . . wasn’t the sarcasm in that obvious from the rest of what I wrote there?
If not, and in case you weren’t aware:
According to those who worship Science and believe in anthropogenic global warming, Atheism is not merely evidence based but is an actual Scientific law.
Sam (e8f1ad) — 8/16/2014 @ 12:47 pmFalse argument. The article mentioned religion, but commenter’s arguments focused on the freedoms of contract and association. Sorry if you didn’t want to discuss what people were actually saying. I know it’s difficult to formulate new arguments when the topic goes in a way you didn’t plan.
njrob (4b4be3) — 8/16/2014 @ 7:01 pmtrenchant Mr. rob
but you can catch more honey with vinegar than flies, that’s what winnie-the-pooh says
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/16/2014 @ 7:03 pmyou can catch more honey with vinegar than flies, that’s what winnie-the-pooh says
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/16/2014 @ 7:03 pm
Painted Jaguar: Umm, Mr. feets, have you had a little too much to drink or something?
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b) — 8/16/2014 @ 7:09 pmI don’t think that is quite what Winnie the Pooh said…
Or are you trying to do that hedgehog and tortoise thing?
I’m just saying
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/16/2014 @ 7:12 pmI don’t think Mr. njrob likes me but fortunately since it’s a comment section on a blog I can live with that.
elissa (94b049) — 8/16/2014 @ 7:22 pmsaucy
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/16/2014 @ 7:28 pmThe difference is blindingly obvious, and it’s astonishing that you don’t get it. The business owner is her own boss. She does not answer to anyone, she needs nobody’s permission to run her business, doing so is her right. Thus it’s not only wrong for the government to coerce her to violate her conscience, it’s also wrong to denounce her or call her a bigot for doing so. The employee has the same freedom of exercise of religion, and the government may not compel her to violate her conscience, but her boss is not the government. She’s not entitled to her job, she has no right to it, she holds it only by her boss’s permission and good will, and the only reason he hired her was so she would do the work that needs to be done.
Now this is America, so he ought to make reasonable accommodations for her religious needs, if it’s convenient for him. If calling someone else to ring up the bacon is not a big deal, then that’s how the problem should be solved. Or maybe, if there are a lot of customers who don’t buy bacon, it would be efficient to make a “no bacon” line, just like there are “10 items or fewer” lines. But at the end of the day, the only purpose of her employment is to make money for her boss, and if her conscience interferes with that, then he has no reason to continue to employ her.
Suppose she developed a disability that made it impossible for her to continue working efficiently as a cashier; it’s not her fault at all, but the fact is that she’s no longer suitable for that job. If the boss can find something else for her to do that will be worth her pay then it would be right and proper for him to reassign her to that and keep her on, but if not then he will and should stop employing her. This is the same. Her conscience makes her unfit for the job. Whereas if a business owner develops a disability that prevents her from doing her job properly, but wants to stay open anyway, that’s her decision and only her decision, and it’s nobody else’s business.
Milhouse (9d71c3) — 8/16/2014 @ 9:04 pm