How is the "First Amendment Defense Act" not a blatant attempt at imposing Christianized Sharia Law?

Extremism is nuts in any world.

Wacko is wacko, claiming the 1st Amendment is is only rationalization for bias and bigotry .

It is neither, just a bunch of liberal whining. If anything it is giving some autonomy to those of faith not to be sued for following what God ordain to the best of their understanding, to keep the state from forcing saints to sin by enabling the sins of others or be sanctioned.

no, you are not missing anything. That is what such a law would say and do.

Personally, I do not appreciate those who denigrate those of us who want to keep and use slaves. We have been discriminated against for over 150 years now and God did give us approval in the Bible to own other people. (Timothy 6:1–2, Ephesians 6:5, Exodus 21:2–6, Exodus 21:7–11, Exodus 21:20–21, Leviticus 25:44–46)

<big eye roll> Bamboozled <cough cough> Bamboozled by old Slew Foot.

@Hypocrisy_Central If someone is unwilling to perform key functions of their job, should they be allowed to keep that job? You are saying that people do not have to do what they are hired to do, so whether you realize it or not, you just argued against the right of an employer to terminate an employee for not doing their job. Kind of funny since protecting workers is normally a Liberal position, and here you are taking a position more liberal than Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Socialist.

Or maybe you are saying that those of faith are exempt from ever having to be gainfully employed since it’s obvious that many of them cannot handle the whole job thing. Again, funny, as that would have them living on handouts, most likely at taxpayer expense. I thought that even having those programs in the first place was considered a Liberal thing, and that Conservatives wanted to do away with those and have anyone who didn’t work starve in the streets.

Then again, if this legislation is passed, it also means that anyone who mentions Jesus or wears a crucifix can be fired or denied service for no reason other than being Christian. They could be denied an apartment or a job. They could have cashiers at the supermarket refuse to ring up your order, leaving them to choose between starvation or stealing. The door swings both ways, and those who sincerely hold non-Christian beliefs could cause just as much grief as you seem to think Christians have the right to inflict on others. Is that what you want?

And it does a real disservice to the majority of Christians who have enough of a work ethic and enough tolerance in their hearts to be able to perform the jobs they are hired and paid to do. It makes all Christians look like power-hungry bigots who want special treatment but who actually deserve to be marginalized (if not outright persecuted) as they pose an actual danger to society. It’s not exactly fair as most followers of Christ are not that way, but given the human nature of over-generalizing, that bad PR winds up hurting a lot of innocent, decent people. Do you really want that too?

This excerpt from a speech by Ronald Reagan shows how much the Republican Party has changed in the last 30 years.

” We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

…

”And there’s something else. The ideals of our country leave no room whatsoever for intolerance, for anti-Semitism, or for bigotry of any kind—none. In Dallas, we acted on this conviction. We passed a resolution concerning anti-Semitism and disassociating the Republic[an] Party from all people and groups who practice bigotry in any form.” – Full transcript

By today’s standards, that would make Ronald Reagan be considered a Liberal and get him tossed out of the party.

One can only hope that the trusty Church of Satan has something in the works to shove that law right back into their christian faces.
Whatever happened to the Baphomet statue that they wanted to erect in Oklahoma?

@jerv

Do you have a link to the precise text of this proposed law?

I’m curious about why such a boost to the first ammendment would be necessasary since there are all kinds of groups saying worse things whose rights are protected under the law as it stands (even as odious as it appears to be at times)

For example, the KKK can march down Main St. with signs espousing all kinds of despicable crap but as long as they are doing it peacefully and their permits are in order, their right to do so is protected by current law.

And as vile as Fred Phelps and the WBC church are to display protest signs at the funerals of service mem mbers killed while doing their patriotic duty, they are protected by the same law.

So, I’m not understanding why this bill (?) or law (?) is necessary or what it’s supposed to accomplish.

Is this just a red herring?

@ragingloli They retracted that once the Ten Commandments were removed.

@Buttonstc Straight from Congress.gov. As for why it’s necessary, I cannot think of any good reason that it is. All it really does is protect people who oppose same-sex unions from any repercussions caused by their discrimination.

It is not about protecting speech.
It is about legalising discrimination against homosexuals.

It’s just Jim Crow in another guise.

Haters get real pissy when you take away their hate.

Conservatives are having a very tough time of it. And if you look at this issue from their point of view, it’s understandable that these rather desperate and indefensible measures erupt like defective clockwork. I think since the close of the Second a World War, the United States found itself unable to remain an isolated and insular country, and the inevitable secularization of the society began space. I can remember when I was little and the words “under God” were abruptly inserted into the pledge of allegiance. th

A couple of years later the words “e pluribus unum were deemed unsuitable for our money and the slogan “In God We Trust” was substituted in 1956. These measures to correct the “oversights” of our founding fathers are necessary to convince us that this country was designed as a Christian nation, when it’s rather clear that the exact opposite is the truth. the founding fathers went out of their way to exclude all mention of God in order to prevent the involvement of religion in government.

And here we find the conservatives in one hell of a pickle, as their positions on social issues are increasingly defined as “RESISTANCE TO CHANGE ”. It must be frustrating and frightening as each and every one of these regressive measures is systematically slapped down by the courts. The sad truth is that as the country stumbles forward, conservatives will always find themselves on the wrong side of history, doomed to lose each and every battle, it’s just a matter of time, because this imagined defense of an America that never existed amounts to little more than standing in the way of progress.

You’re right. Like everyone else has mentioned, it is just a way to enable them to discriminate and not violate laws or lose tax-exempt status.

It’s very specific. So specific, it seems that they were quite aware that the logic of such a law would be completely unacceptable to them if it were generalized. If, for example, it were general enough to provide religious exemption for all religions, they might find themselves in an uncomfortable position re: Islam and other religions. It’s a cynical proposal that says, “Yes, we know the principles of this bill are wrong. But we’ve worded it to just allow our flavor of religious exemption”.

It is very specific and intended to eliminate situations like the baker. We’re hardly creating a theocracy here but if it gives you all a chance to hoot and howl, everybody wins.

Why would one eliminate situations like that baker?

Didn’t the judge just eliminate such a situation using existing law? Kudos to that judge.

Discrimination should be a sin.

@Jaxk If this were in a vacuum, I might agree. It isn’t, however, and I can only think of one religion in America that this would really apply to; the same religion that pushed for an employers right to make lifestyle and medical decisions for their employees.

As for eliminating situations like the baker, I’ll ask you the same question I asked @Hypocrisy_Central. If one of your employees failed to do basic functions of their job and claimed religious exemption as their deity told them they couldn’t do what you hired them to do, how long would you keep them on your payroll?

@jerv – It’s always difficult to have any reasonable discussion with you when you characterize things so unreasonably. I have no idea how you characterize lifestyle and medical decisions but the only issue I can figure your talking about is paid birth control and nobody cares if you use it. The only concern would be whether an employer has to buy it for you. That’s hardly making a medical decision for you.

As for Christians being the only group to have trouble with gay marriage, I think you totally miss. Between Christianity and Islam they cover 54% of the worlds population. Islam is even more adamantly against gay marriage than Christians.

As for employees they do need to perform the job outlined. Despite what you or Obama may think, the government is not the employer of businesses. The customers are. There are plenty of tools available for the customer base to punish any business they feel does not serve their interest without bringing the full weight of the federal government in to do it for them.

Frankly it seem highly unlikely that this will go anywhere in congress nor do I care one way or the other. I just seems that many of you are hell bent on making everyone think the same way that you and are willing to destroy anyone that thinks differently. Liberals claim to celebrate diversity but only if you join the group-think they deem mandatory.

@jerv If someone is unwilling to perform key functions of their job, should they be allowed to keep that job? You are saying that people do not have to do what they are hired to do, so whether you realize it or not, you just argued against the right of an employer to terminate an employee for not doing their job.
Having autonomy over one’s own business is hardly a precursor of Shia Law. When speaking of government, even less. People in politics don’t do their job and they work for the people, yet the people can’t fire them. If anything it is far from a theocracy when sinful whiny gay couple tried to ruin a family because they can’t get their way. Thank heavens people of conscious opened their wallets and raised over have a million dollars to combat the extortion the state is trying. Hopefully some judge with a spine will reverse it or toss it out on appeal.

Or maybe you are saying that those of faith are exempt from ever having to be gainfully employed since it’s obvious that many of them cannot handle the whole job thing.
Nope, not what I am saying.

Then again, if this legislation is passed, it also means that anyone who mentions Jesus or wears a crucifix can be fired or denied service for no reason other than being Christian. They could be denied an apartment or a job. They could have cashiers at the supermarket refuse to ring up your order, leaving them to choose between starvation or stealing. The door swings both ways, and those who sincerely hold non-Christian beliefs could cause just as much grief as you seem to think Christians have the right to inflict on others. Is that what you want?
If I was going to be denied a job because I am a Believer, then I don’t want to be there anyhow. Who would I be working with every day, a bunch of foul-mouthed unGoldy people I would have nothing in common with? If it is a business that doesn’t want to serve me because I am a Believer, fine, I don’t want to embolden them with the money my Lord entrusted me as a good steward. Maybe it would cause a rise of Christion Owned businesses where I can go and gladly give my money.

It makes allChristians look like power-hungry bigots who want special treatment but who actually deserve to be marginalized (if not outright persecuted) as they pose an actual danger to society.
Well, that could be said of other groups too, but in the end, only those who want to live like whatever and usurp people’s belief by having them go against what they believe to legitimize their wickedness.

(!) It’s just Jim Crow in another guise.
That is an interesting take, I would certainly like to see those dots connected.

@Jaxk It is very specific and intended to eliminate situations like the baker
—It was good that it happened, people of good conscious broke fundraising records to rescue them from the extortionist jaws of the state, and in addition to showing saints they best close ranks and stand against government bullying, the bakery will reopen under a new banner and supported by the saints as a testament that evil will not stand against the Children of God.

@Hypocrisy_Central You are saying that it’s okay for you to discriminate against others but not okay for others to discriminate against you. You don’t even know what you are saying when you say that religion is an excuse to not do one’s job yet deny saying that religion is an excuse to not do one’s job.

You have yet to really contribute anything useful to this discussion, though you have made a pretty solid case that maybe Christians cannot be part of the US and should leave. Again, unfair to those less fervent and more tolerant than you are, but it’s what you are doing.

I’m not going to argue with you though, merely ignore you unless you actually have anything constructive to say.

@Jaxk You actually do have something constructive. A few things, actually. Thank you for that!

You are correct that Islam is against same-sex marriage, but the demographics of the US are a bit different. More importantly, the jurisdiction of the US Congress is pretty much limited to our fifty states. And in this nation, Gallup Polls put approval of same-sex marriage at 60% and rising. If Iraq or Saudi Arabia feel differently, they have their own sovereign governments and can make up their own laws within their borders, but here in the US, both public opinion and federal law are in favor of same-sex marriage being just as legal/valid as opposite-sex marriage with equal rights and responsibilities.

You are correct that customers are the real employers, but I think you overestimate the freedom of choice that consumers really have. Having lived in a small city (under 25,000) and spent a decade in a small village miles away from that small city, I can tell you that certain things just aren’t available in some places, and other things are pretty much a monopoly. How far are you willing to drive to find an alternative supplier? 75 miles? 100 miles? With gas running about $40/tank, I can see a lot of people who have that choice made for them by their wallet. Personally, I wish the “free market” theory actually worked the way it does on paper as it would keep government out of things (something I think you and I would agree is good) but this isn’t an ideal fantasy world.

It’s funny how that works. When Conservatives do it, it’s party unity, but when anyone else does it’s trying to destroy God, America, and freedom. When those on your side of the fence acknowledge that double standard and alter their behavior accordingly, I’m sure things will change. But human nature being what it is, I don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

@Jaxk: “Liberals claim to celebrate diversity but only if you join the group-think they deem mandatory.”

Just a minor correction – conservatives claim that liberals claim that they celebrate ideological diversity. Liberals don’t. It’s true that liberals generally see far more grays than black and whites, but this doesn’t mean that many don’t have strong ideological commitments. This “liberals celebrate diversity” isn’t true.

@Jaxk: “As for Christians being the only group to have trouble with gay marriage, I think you totally miss. Between Christianity and Islam they cover 54% of the worlds population. Islam is even more adamantly against gay marriage than Christians.”

You’re correct. Islam and Christianity are huge problems that we have to deal with. But it’s important to keep in mind that approximately .8% of the U.S. is Muslim. While the U.S. military attempts to defend the U.S. against extreme Islamic terrorism, progressives and civil libertarians fight extreme Christianity here in the U.S.

@Jaxk: “There are plenty of tools available for the customer base to punish any business they feel does not serve their interest without bringing the full weight of the federal government in to do it for them.”

This might be more persuasive if we were not dealing with a minority. If Muslims went to buy groceries and were turned away for religious reasons, they’re probably not going to be able to mount an effective boycott in some small town. And more importantly – they shouldn’t have to.

@Jaxk: ” I just seems that many of you are hell bent on making everyone think the same way that you and are willing to destroy anyone that thinks differently.”

I don’t think this is a fair statement. I just don’t think the religious card can be used to violate law (or the law be changed to make it technically not a violation).

Here’s the thing. If I want to believe in God X and worship at my church and make friends with whomever I choose and pray 10 times per day to X, it’s nobodies business. But when I start a business and discriminate against a population because my interpretation of my religion requires it, it’s no longer an issue of religious freedom. If it were, then we would have to support any number of illegal activities in the name of religious exemption.

I’ll also grant that if the government forced someone to be a baker (note: it doesn’t and can’t) and bake same-sex couples wedding cakes, I would support the baker in their right to not bake the cake. However, a baker that decides to do business in the U.S. must follow U.S. law. I don’t think it gets any more simple than that.

The baker was free to make the wedding cake or not. He introduced discrimination when he told told the couple that he would not make the cake because he did not approve of their (legal) lifestyle. The result would have been the same if he’d stated that he would not make the cake because his religion did not approve of interracial/interfaith/birth defect etc, etc marriage. He wasn’t forced to make a cake for people he disapproved of, he was forced to keep his morality in check while conducting a business transaction. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”, not “We reserve the right refuse service based on our personal moral code.”

We bake for straight people only.
Ah, the good ole days.
Dot, dot, dot.

@jerv – When I brought up Islam it was only to refute your characterization that this was a Cristian law to create a Theocracy.

I think your all missing the point in your zeal to call everyone a bigot. This is about religion and not about discrimination. They were not refusing service because the couple was homosexual but rather they would not participate in a homosexual marriage. If they had wanted a birthday cake, they would have got it. Sweet Cakes did nopt refuse service but rather refused to bake a wedding cake. I am not sure any of you can tell the difference so I’ll add this. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony. The ‘Holy Bonds of Matrimony’. It has been altered by the state to become a civil union but many still see it as a religious union. It’s part and parcel with their faith. The comparison with Jim Crow and the like simply don’t apply. You want to get married, go ahead, no one will stop you but don’t expect everyone will be willing to participate.

@Jaxk: “This is about religion and not about discrimination.”

Why must they be mutually exclusive?

@Jaxk: “They were not refusing service because the couple was homosexual but rather they would not participate in a homosexual marriage. If they had wanted a birthday cake, they would have got it. Sweet Cakes did nopt refuse service but rather refused to bake a wedding cake.”

Adjusting to change is difficult for many people. But it sounds like this baker is due for some changes. Here’s a real easy one: don’t make wedding cakes any more. If you are unable to make wedding cakes without discriminating, then just make birthday cakes. If my religious beliefs include that women should not be educated, refusing to create a graduation cake for a female might be a problem. The solution – don’t offer graduation cakes, period.

@Jaxk: “I’ll add this. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony. The ‘Holy Bonds of Matrimony’. It has been altered by the state to become a civil union but many still see it as a religious union. It’s part and parcel with their faith.”

This is an odd thing to add, as it doesn’t really add to your argument. But while we’re discussing this – it may be news to people in other parts of the country, but up here in Massachusetts, it is odd to hear about religion and marriage together. I have been to a bunch of weddings – including my own – and only one was performed in a church by a religious figure. It was done to appease my friend’s wife’s family, who was paying for the wedding (and traveling from Korea). The rest of us all had justice of the peace. This also includes a same-sex wedding (my wife’s cousin) years ago. We’ve had same-sex marriage for 11 years here in Massachusetts.

But religious people are welcome to think of marriage as a religious thing. Nobody is stopping them. But that doesn’t mean they get to discriminate. Their concept of marriage is irrelevant to the reality of what marriage is – and the law.

@DoNotKnow – I’ll ignore the argument about graduation cakes. I find it amusing that you have to go to ridiculous extremes to try and justify your point. I also find it interesting that you say it is the ‘Law’ while the discussion is about a new law that tempers yet another new law.

Since you are so unyielding in your position, I assume you would have the same issue if a priest declines to marry a gay couple. Fine or imprison the priest? Or is there some room for grey areas?

Are you really stating that it’s okay to say ‘sorry we don’t do business with your kind in this village’, based on faith, sexual preference, gender, etc?

Now that’s dispicable.

Sorry, no wedding cakes for black people.
Sorry, no wedding cakes for Islamic people.
Sorry, no wedding cakes for short people.
Sorry, no wedding cakes for Jews.

Your argument that it’s okay for the majority to discriminate against a minority for whatever reason is scary. A truly moral democratic society will protect its minority, divergent groups.

Yeah, no wedding cakes for short people. If you can’t reach the counter, you don’t get a cake. Why do you all feel you must make up these ridiculous strawmen just so you can shoot them down.

It’s not a straw man.

What is so special about Christians and gays that Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gay people?

@Jaxk I added the short person example because I thought that it would appeal to a short person like you.

Maybe some other examples…

Should gay people be allowed to enter the restaurant and dine at the same table?
Walk hand in hand in the park?
Drive a car in a Christian state?
Kiss at a beach?
Be buried in the same grave?
Educate their children?
Be a teacher?

What’s so special about gay people and Christians that we would allow them to be discriminated against?

@Jaxk >> “a priest declines to marry a gay couple” Bad comparison. Does a priest have a business license? Other than general laws like murder (considered sacrifices in some religions), incest, and polygamy, the government doesn’t legislate what happens within the walls of a house of worship or a private residence. That’s freedom of religion. Being protected from religious beliefs in a public business or government environment is freedom from religion.

@jerv OK, let’s reload and put the cookies on a lower shelf. If I go to any establishment that is solely owned or with like-minded partners and they do not want to serve me because I have a Bible, wearing a cross, or a t-shirt professing Christ, so be it. They have exposed who they are and I would not want to sow my money to the clearly ungodly, I would take my business elsewhere, law or no law. If I am a business person and I own my own business and I don’t want to serve someone with anything going against my faith, I deserve to have autonomy of my own business I am paying taxes to have. The same measure of autonomy I have, they should have too. It is not like I HAVE to shop there, I will go where not only people of faith are desired but hopefully the owners of.

@Hypocrisy_Central

And what about if that establishment is the only establishment in town? The town as a whole may be able to sustain only one such establishment and the Christian community may be too small for a dedicated one.

Whoever owns that store enters into the market place to compete and aims to gain a position in that market. With that comes a responsibility to the whole market, as it is taking up the position that may otherwise be taken by another provider.

^ And what about if that establishment is the only establishment in town?
If they were clearly anti-God, i would go 20 miles out of the way (maybe further) before they got a dime of mine. I would make the time sacrifice and plan on going as a special trip or as part of an out of town trip where I have other destinations to hit also.

@Jaxk: “I’ll ignore the argument about graduation cakes. I find it amusing that you have to go to ridiculous extremes to try and justify your point.”

In all seriousness, I will take this statement as a concession.

But just to make sure we’re now all on the same page, I’ll follow up on the following statement you made, which further shows that we are probably in agreement…

@Jaxk: “Since you are so unyielding in your position, I assume you would have the same issue if a priest declines to marry a gay couple. Fine or imprison the priest? Or is there some room for grey areas?”

See, this is what I have been saying all along. Your church is a house of worship, which means discrimination is its function. Not necessarily in a bad way, but it is a place where people of like minds go to worship. The function it is serving in society is a free space where it is ok to discriminate. I’m an atheist who wants to be a Catholic priest? Nope. I’m a Sunni Muslim who wants to lead a prayer service in a Baptist church? Nope.

Priests can and should be able to decide who they want to marry.

It takes a lot of effort to make grey areas here. This is far simpler than you’re admitting.

Whether you like it or not marriage is tied directly to religion. In every state in the union, Priests, Ministers, and Rabbis are automatically authorized to perform legal marriages. Those are religious titles conferred by religious organizations. Graduations are not. The law we are discussing says “marriage” not graduation or any other obscure issue you wish to add in. Trust me, we are not in agreement.

@whitenoise – It’s almost funny that you argue that if it’s the only business in the area, you should be able to shut it down if they don’t do what you want. Quite a victory, now there are no businesses in the area.

@Hypocrisy_Central
Sure you would… we are not talking about your unwillingness to frequent a shop though, but about the unwillingness of the shop to serve you.

@Jaxk
Ehh? I argue what?

Okay… never mind… you read what you want to read anyway… sometimes I make the mistake that you seem open for a fair discussion.

@whitenoise – Closing down has been the result when these issues have come up. Sweet Cakes, shut down. Memories pizza, shut down. You need to follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion.

really? Why don’t you read up on your facts first: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

I’m not saying you’re lying, but you are classifying as one of those folks that just repeats Fox news nonsense. You seem utterly misinformed.

You are blaming the victim and excusing the perpetrator.

Your sweet cakes isn’t that sweet a baker, I fear:

According to a summary I found about your ‘sweet’ cakes: (see here)

The Kleins (Sweet Cakes) did not go out of business nor did they go bankrupt, contrary to what the right wing claims. They chose to close their brick-and-mortar shop and take their business online, as many companies do.

Later, the Oregon DOJ sent Cryer’s consumer complaint to the Kleins, with a cover letter requesting that they respond to the complainants. It was an attempt to encourage reconciliation.

Instead, Aaron Klein posted the discrimination complaint to Facebook (not taking the precaution of redacting the couple’s name and address from the document). “This is what happens when you tell gay people you won’t do their ‘wedding cake,’” he posted.

The Kleins then took to the news and media. They cozied up to anti-gay hate group Family Research Council, campaigning at appallingly anti-gay hate rallies, for their business’ totally-fictional right to discriminate against LGBT people.

After filing the discrimination complaint, the Bowman-Cryers became the victims of death threats — as well as outrageous and horrific claims by conservative media outlets and anti-gay groups.

After the ruling was finalized, in stories about the discrimination case, some right wing sites, and some anti-gay users of social media depicted gays, and implicitly the Bowman-Cryers, as fascists, the BOLI as the “Minister of Thoughtcrime,” and the $135,000 fine as a “gay fascism tax.”

All they’d done was file a discrimination complaint. That’s all.

[...] [Those] details in this report come from the State of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) final finding of fact that I linked above.

Sweet Cakes owners have even received over 300 thousand in support dollars from anti-gay movements. They made money out of this!

@Jaxk While closing down may well be the end result for those who place religious beliefs above legal dictates, it’s a trade best for the society overall.

@whitenoise – The shop, despite your claims is closed. BTW, your link doesn’t work.

@Jaxk Not closed, just online. To get the other side of the story, click here.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

Hmm… this one works during editing and then flutter does something strange with it..
Change the last part of the URL in your browser that results from the click into exactly as written above. Fluther – for whatever reason – injects extra characters in the URL.

It changes Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf into Sweet%2520Cakes%2520FO.pdf.

The Kleins didn’t close their shop due to this complaint by the couple that was their victim. I understand they turned it into an online shop because they couldn’t survive in the brick and mortar market.

@jerv that’s the same link I included. Anyways… facts may not be relevant.

@Jaxk Now, I know why you brought up Islam, but as most businesses in the US cater solely to a local clientele, I think that the demographics of the US are far more relevant. And an interesting thing about that is which religious affiliation makes up the second largest demographic in the US and fourth largest in the world, big enough to make commerce or elections difficult at best if offended. Nope, not Islam. Not Hinduism either. It’s “None”.
When you consider that the Bible has things about marriage such as a rape victim having to marry their rapist to men buying women from the woman’s father, I’m not so sure that marriage is a religious institution any more than a lease; it seems more like a commercial transaction or property rights than anything else, at least under Christianity.
Then again, when I got married, the only reason the baker of our cake was even there was because they were family. If making the cake is “participating” then Bic participates in millions of birthdays every day since so many use a Bic lighter to light the candles.

@whitenoise I thought there may have just been a missing or extra character that broke it; it gave me issues as well.

Sweet Cakes owners have even received over 300 thousand in support dollars from anti-gay movements. They made money out of this!
Now THAT is real lurve that count, unlike that which is here and of no value :-D

@Hypocrisy_Central Thank you for dialing it down a bit.

It does sound like you have only ever lived in major metropolitan areas where there are multiple options for most things. Imagine if you had to drive 20 miles just to find a baker who did wedding cakes at all though. I used to drive that far just for basic groceries, so I have a different take on that from someone who lives where the Yellow Pages comes in multiple volumes because there are so many businesses for even the most esoteric things.

The real issue here though is how it was handled. There are right and wrong ways to handle things, and from everything I’ve seen, the Kleins handled it the wrong way and thus caused their own suffering. Maybe they wanted to make themselves look like martyrs, maybe they are just socially inept, I don’t know. What I do know is that the situation could and should have been handled in a way that sent the Bowman-Cryers to another bakery without all this.

I hope you uphold The Ten Commandments Ministry’s followers’ right to racial discrimination bias just as staunchly, @Hypocrisy_Central & @Jaxk.

I’m 54 and in the 1970’s I was taught at a rural Christian church in Missouri that Cain was marked by God for killing Able, and that that mark was dark skin. By your argument, I should be allowed to legally discriminate against blacks in my business because: I was raised in the belief that blacks are inherently inferior; the argument is still in active practice today; such a belief is supported by the Holy Bible.

Forget about an Americanized woman being served in a traditional Muslim bakery.

^ [... I was raised in the belief that blacks are inherently inferior; the argument is still in active practice today; such a belief is supported by the Holy Bible.
The rub is, that is a doctrine of men, poor saints who try to use the Bible for their good not God’s, the Bible I always read never supported it,

Sorry, my links got messed up, or hijacked, @Hypocrisy_Central.
I was trying to post good Christian folks’ proof that God segregated the races, and it’s an abomination for them to interbreed.
It’s in The Book.

@Hypocrisy_Central ”... the Bible I always read never supported it.”

That’s pretty much the issue though. In practical terms, this legislation allows people’s interpretation of the Bible to become de facto law. To be sure, a small percentage will use their own non-Christian holy texts as well, and a lot of Christians have inoffensive interpretations, but if someone who interpreted the Bible totally different from you decides to act in a manner contrary to your understanding of the Bible and/or your beleifs, say, by “justifying” racism using the same scripture you use, this proposed legislation would allow them freedom from the legal repercussions of their acts.

Without this legislation, the government’s attitude towards religion is pretty similar to the Wiccan Rede; “An ye harm none, do as ye will”. So long as you aren’t hurting anyone, you can believe whatever and however you wish. Want to have a peaceful gathering somewhere for a little communal prayer? Go ahead! Want to sacrifice a virgin to the Sun Gods? Well, the law frowns on that, but not for reasons of religious persecution; they don’t care about the religious aspect, they just oppose the taking of the life of another. We already have quite a bit of religious freedom, and the law only steps in when practicing that freedom leads to harm to society.

The ones who get in legal trouble are those that do harm others. The Christians claiming persecution are often merely trying to evade culpability for their actions. What sort of Christian tries to avoid penance for their sins anyways? Personally, I’d excommunicate the unrepentant. Considering the demographics in this nation as well as plenty of events in recent and not-so-recent history, and the current state of things here in the states, I can’t see that as a good thing. And I really don’t want to see our allegedly secular government condone religious intolerance.

@ibstubro I was trying to post good Christian folks’ proof that God segregated the races, and it’s an abomination for them to interbreed.
It’s in The Book.
I will give you that, it is in the book, now finish what you started. Who was that directed to and why?

@jerv We already have quite a bit of religious freedom, and the law only steps in when practicing that freedom leads to harm to society.
I or anyone else having autonomy over their own business to avoid things that are against their faith is no different if I or others decided not to do something unethical but not illegal.

And I really don’t want to see our allegedly secular government condone religious intolerance.
If there is any intolerance it seems to be more on the side of secular government and not the church or any religion.

@Hypocrisy_Central “If there is any intolerance it seems to be more on the side of secular government and not the church or any religion.”

Whenever I’ve seen the government involve itself, it’s been because the church/religion side has violated laws in such a way that is harmful to society at large. For instance, most civilized societies agree that kiddy-diddling is wrong, and the secular government has some pretty strict laws about that. And how is it not harmful to society to lynch someone, or to trespass on their property and do damage in the form of vandalism? Note that all of those things involve victims.

The government has actually sided with religion on occasion as well. Notably, they have decided that the Westboro Baptist Church exercised their rights to freedom of belief, freedom of speech, and freedom to peaceably assemble in their protests. WBC has been careful not to cross the line into what is legally considered “hate speech”, nor have they caused a riot or beaten anyone. In short, they have restrained themselves enough to not run afoul of secular law.

On the other hand, many pro-lifers do things like block public access, harass, assault, and occasionally murder people. In other words, assemble less-than-peaceably, and it’s not unknown for them to commit one of the most heinous crimes we have laws against. Scott Roeder wasn’t prosecuted for his religious beliefs; it was the fact that he committed a premeditated murder that got him in trouble. The secular government will not tolerate that sort of behavior even if it is religiously “justified”.

Government does not allow victimizing others. Whether through discrimination, physical assault, mental anguish, or property damage, the harming of others is clamped down on by the government. If you don’t want to run afoul of secular government, just don’t hurt anyone!

If, however, by “intolerance” you merely mean “failure to cater to one in a preferential manner”, then you are correct, and I hope for all our sakes that it remains so.

@jerv Government does not allow victimizing others. Whether through discrimination, physical assault, mental anguish, or property damage, the harming of others is clamped down on by the government. If you don’t want to run afoul of secular government, just don’t hurt anyone!
There is always some form of discrimination, if you want to call not going along or supporting something discrimination. If one wants to really peel the veil back, people who smoke are discriminated on, even in ways in which no one can truly say their health is at risk. Smokers get discriminated on because the laws that oppose them were mostly enacted by those who do not smoke. So, because most people do not smoke does that make not allowing people to smoke in a restaurant even with proper measures to contain the smoke, in a wide open park where a puff of smoke would be like a container ship in the middle of the Atlantic smokers are not discriminated on? One could say it is for the good of society to marginalize smokers. Those who decide not to rent to smokers, are they exercising their rights, or discriminating because they personally do not smoke or like smoking done in their units? If they simply say ”I do not rent to smokers because of their disgusting habit” is it harming anyone really? If they have the only units in town and no one else owned any then it might, if they smoker can find half a dozen or more places to rent, they suffered no harm.

Then you advocate for the right of members of The 10 Commandments Ministry to discriminate on the basis of race, @Hypocrisy_Central? That people of color are inferior should be refused service if they become ‘uppity’ and attempt to ‘go around with’, and use facilities intended for, whites?
Because that is their fervent Christian belief, allowable under the First Amendment Defense Act, and backed up by the Bible.

@Hypocrisy_Central When such cases arise and it’s impossible to avoid harm, any civilized society prefers to err on the side of the greater good while still respecting the rights of the minority as much as is feasible.

As a smoker myself, I understand as cigarette smoke trapped in a small space with mediocre ventilation does nasty things to the walls. That’s why I go out on the porch. (Well, that and habit from my Navy days where all smoking areas were weatherdecks outside the skin of the ship.) Cleaning the apartment up for re-rental is more expensive for the landlord, and it is justifiable for a landlord to not wish to incur that added expense. I have had landlords relax their “No Smoking” policy under the condition that I smoke only outdoors. Similarly, restaurants may not wish to renovate nor incur the expense of the added cleaning to keep their place attractive to diners. (In my experience though, those places tend to also have buttcans somewhere outside nearby.) As smoking does, in fact, inflict financial harm to the property owner, it’s not entirely victimless.

Of course, the same could be said of handicapped people and the remodeling required to accommodate them, but that is where you see a bit of common sense kick in. A smoker can step outside for a smoke a lot easier than a paraplegic can step, well, anywhere. Smokers have more choice in where to smoke than the wheelchair-bound have in where to lose use of their legs. So the law decided that, while it was okay to prohibit a voluntary action on one’s property, you are not allowed to discriminate or bar entry for involuntary things like being handicapped. Or black for that matter; people don’t choose what skin color they are born with, so no discriminating against those of different races either. And given the strong evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality, that’s also considered “involuntary” (no matter how many say they can pray the gay away, the law cites scientific evidence as taking precedent over anecdotal evidence) and thus likewise illegal to discriminate against.

Religion is a bit tricky as it’s both voluntary and involuntary. On the one hand, your upbringing strongly molds you and it’s natural to grow up like your parents, so odds are that you will share their belief system. In that respect, it’s involuntary in that many people’s early years determine what sort of person they grow up to be. However, it’s also voluntary for a couple of reasons. First, one can change their religious beliefs all on their own. People convert all the time.

Second, and more relevant to this legislation, religion has the option to be either tasteful and respectful, or to be offensive and disruptive. With the divide between two sides is irreconcilably wide, there is no getting around the fact that one side or the other will be offended regardless and thus the best course of action is one that causes the least total harm and is most closely aligned with the general morals of the majority.

The least harmful way is to have the business owner accept that all jobs have us do things we don’t like. Biting one’s tongue but being compensated for by sale is generally considered profitable, and profit isn’t harmful, so it’s a reasonable alternative. But if the job is one where those “things you don’t want to do” are morally objectionable, the general consensus is that you knew the risks when you took the position and should’ve taken a different job that was less offensive to you. In fact, you should quit now and go look for a job you find acceptable.

When working retail, you deal with all sorts of people. I don’t know of any retail worker that likes dealing with meth-heads doing a grab-n-go with a case of beer, but it’s a risk that you run when you work at a supermarket. Likewise, with so many same-sex couples around that want to get married now that it’s legal, those who have anything to do with weddings run the risk of having a same-sex couple try to obtain their goods/services. If that risk is unacceptable to a business, they should’ve chosen a different business plan. In fact, they are entirely free to do so.

The fact that business owners, employers and property owners have a choice in how they behave and what risks they take effectively stacks the deck against them, so any sort of resolution will likely be in favor of the side that have less choice. When a ship and a lighthouse are on a collision course, which one do you expect to be responsible for changing course? Personally, I think that the party that can move is the one responsible for avoiding casualties. However, this legislation is basically telling the lighthouse to move instead. Asking the impossible for the convenience of the self-entitled is generally seen as preferential treatment whereas asking one side to inconvenience themselves to make things possible for others is generally seen as the closest thing we can get to fairness.