BQ 81245 Religious Rights of Business Owners

[vorpal blade]

No Dice, interesting ways of looking at it. I agree with you. I apologize that my expression of what I was trying to say was not very clear.

I just wanted to add that I am also opposed to discrimination and bigotry against gays. We should be active in this cause. We should also be active in promoting religious rights and we should strongly oppose compelled speech.

[Portia]

But the St. Patrick's parade people let the gay groups into their parade this year.

Regardless of the legal grounds of this issue, I think that the sheltered Hoosier cake bakers will need to get with the times to be profitable and viable.

In a world where hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Syrians are refugees, taking such umbrage and saying God will bring down condemnation upon this Once Great Nation over a gay couple's wedding cake is tone deaf and ridiculous.

[No Dice]

Regardless of the legal grounds of this issue, I think that the sheltered Hoosier cake bakers will need to get with the times to be profitable and viable.

In a world where hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Syrians are refugees, taking such umbrage and saying God will bring down condemnation upon this Once Great Nation over a gay couple's wedding cake is tone deaf and ridiculous.

Your second bit is a straw man. These businesses aren't the Westboro Baptist Church, and you have no warrant to reconstruct their position in a way that seems easier for you to combat. They serve gay patrons every single day.

Also recall that that "sheltered" Memories Pizza place has already gotten more than $400k in contributions from people who think they shouldn't have to serve pizza at a (fictional, because, really) gay wedding. But maybe you have a different definition of "profitable." On that point, everyone please read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... cebook-pin. Too lazy to hyperlink, sorry.

One last thing: We have a word for consistent degradation of someone or their beliefs: intolerance. When those beliefs are religious, we have a different word: bigotry. Just a reminder that neither side of this debate decisively occupies the moral ground. And terms like "sheltered" and "tone-deaf" and "ridiculous" when directed even at (straw man constructions of) religious beliefs are not exactly a good place to start.

[Portia]

What kind of God is that petty, though? I just don't get it. "Forsooth, though shalt not serve celebration pastries unto he that lieth with man."

You're aware of how many Old Testament proscriptions Christians ignore every day? It's a pretty warped view of personal morality. I really do think it's a slippery slope to discrimination and hate crimes.

[Amity]

You're aware of how many Old Testament proscriptions Christians ignore every day?

Relevant: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfu ... ing-cakes/

[No Dice]

I just don't get it.

None of these people are asking you to "get it." They're asking you to believe that they get it.

There are loads of religious people everywhere who believe stuff that strikes me as genuinely nuts. That doesn't mean that their beliefs are insincere, that they don't belong in polite society. And this sort of "Ah, but look at all these other OT things you've jettisoned" Patheos nonsense fundamentally misunderstands how religion works and how tolerance of different religious viewpoints works. But, you know, if taking potshots at easy targets makes them feel better, okay. Hating on religious people is always a good time.

Look—I know I'm not going to persuade you that the folks who won't make cakes for gay weddings are correct. I just want you to understand how far we've strayed from the tolerance baseline here. You might think that LGBT anti-discrimination rights trump religious rights every time. That's a reasonable position to hold. Lots of smart people hold it. But you don't have to denigrate the religious beliefs or label the people who hold them backward in order to get there.

[Portia]

When one's religious beliefs trample the civil rights of others is where I draw the line at belonging in "polite society."

I'm straight, but the amount of money the state of Utah has spent tilting at windmills on this issue is enough to make any thinking person pissed off.

[No Dice]

I'll bow out now, because there's no use kicking against the pricks. Just a few final things. First, Utah is widely seen as being a leader in resolving these issues—even, it will shock you, by people who think. I know taking shots at Utah is always good sport, but almost anyone would tell you that you're off base here. RFRAs are important laws to have. Anti-discrimination laws are important laws to have. Getting them to coexist is not tilting at windmills.

Second, it's not clear to me that people have a civil right to have their wedding cake made by any wedding cake maker. You might think that they do. But my point is that you're glossing past issues that matter.

Finally—and I've made this point twice now, but it seems not to have set in—when we expel people from polite society because of the things they believe, we cede any potential moral high ground. People have a civil right to believe freely and to state their beliefs freely. The notion that keeping the religious right out of business is the "good" civil rights position should immediately seem absurd to—wait for it—any thinking person.

Cheers, all. I hope the Actual Legal Background was helpful here.

[Digit]

Interesting thought.

If it seems my position is confusing, it's because I'm contradicting myself. I think refusing service to anyone for a theoretical disagreement is stupid, stupid, stupid. And I also think that if we make stupid illegal, everyone goes to prison.

[Cognoscente]

No Dice: Again (once #82055 posts, anyway), I disagree with your conclusions, but I respect your arguments. And I think my fellow liberals have been guilty of some pretty shoddy logical fallacies.

Religious rights are a good thing. Denying service based on who people are is an awful thing. I think everyone sensible agrees on that. Where we disagree is the implementation. And I have faith that a balance will eventually be worked out.

[Digit]

Interesting quiz on the legality of some cases similar to the bakery case in Indiana.