BQ 81245 Religious Rights of Business Owners

[Shrinky Dink]

BQ# 81245

This reminds me of a baker who refused to write a message on a bible shaped cake that essentially said, "God Hates Gays."The baker refused to write the message herself and instead offered to make the cake and sell the man a bag of icing so he could write the message himself, but that wasn't acceptable to him so they're going to court over it. I honestly think that this case could be substantial in ensuring religious freedom. I discussed it with my husband and we both kind of want this case to go to the supreme court so that the right to refuse service for things that you morally object to is protected.

Here's more on the issue. Unfortunately I don't think much has progressed since then even though I'm extremely curious to see how far this will go.

[Marduk]

I don't know why people are so surprised that there are limits to what freedom of speech allows you to do, religious beliefs notwithstanding. I mean, how do Mormons so easily forget that polygamy is illegal, despite what their church believes about it?

[Shrinky Dink]

I'm confused about the connection of freedom of speech and polygamy, unless you're comparing polygamy to gay marriage somehow.

[Marduk]

Religious speech. What I'm saying is the first amendment doesn't actually allow people to engage in all actions that they believe in, religiously. There are, and always have been, restrictions on what individuals can do with their religious freedom.

[Marduk]

I mean, I think the distinction is pretty clear. I really hope lawmakers and courts will get it right, and people will follow suit over time. People should not be required to do things they find unconscionable, but they shouldn't have the right to find certain people unconscionable.

(This would make the whole cake issue pretty clear cut: someone who normally provides cakes for weddings shouldn't be able to discriminate based on the people who are marrying. Someone who writes messages on cakes should not be required to write something they find to be hate speech.)

[Shrinky Dink]

This would make the whole cake issue pretty clear cut: someone who normally provides cakes for weddings shouldn't be able to discriminate based on the people who are marrying. Someone who writes messages on cakes should not be required to write something they find to be hate speech.

Now I see what you meant. It's a good point.

[NovemberEast]

I'm going to go ahead and be unpopular here.

What if the baker was refusing service to heterosexual couples until same sex marriage was allowed in his/her state? But he would provide cakes to same sex couples for commitment ceremonies or something similar.

[NovemberEast]

I mean, how do Mormons so easily forget that polygamy is illegal, despite what their church believes about it?

I'm assuming you're headed in the direction of being sealed to multiple wives and that you have a different understanding of it than I do.

[Marduk]

No. I'm making the historical argument. Polygamy has always been illegal in this country (although less explicitly at certain times than at others.) And yet, the church has believed in it at certain points. So, you've got a church that is being directly told by the government that they aren't allowed to practice their "closely held religious beliefs." And yet, the idea that the government might do the same in another circumstance means the sky is somehow falling, or that "unprecedented" attacks on "religious liberty" are happening? How can any Mormon with the least bit of knowledge of history claim that?

[Marduk]

I am referring directly to the questioner's apparent intense surprise that "What?? Actions based on religious beliefs are not protected by the First Amendment?" is somehow a tenable belief. How can anyone be so surprised that there are, in fact, limits to religious freedom? And that their OUGHT to be limits?

[Shrinky Dink]

How can anyone be so surprised that there are, in fact, limits to religious freedom? And that their OUGHT to be limits?

Not going to lie, if we really want to enforce this, then I want vaccinations to be mandatory to attend any school funded by taxes (except for those people who have allergies or compromised immune systems).

[Haleakalā]

I mean, I think the distinction is pretty clear. I really hope lawmakers and courts will get it right, and people will follow suit over time. People should not be required to do things they find unconscionable, but they shouldn't have the right to find certain people unconscionable.

(This would make the whole cake issue pretty clear cut: someone who normally provides cakes for weddings shouldn't be able to discriminate based on the people who are marrying. Someone who writes messages on cakes should not be required to write something they find to be hate speech.)

Could you clarify the legal distinction you see between these two scenarios? I'm still not clear on that. In both cases, I believe the business owners should not be required to participate in actions they find morally objectionable despite the fact that they normally provide that service. (catering weddings, writing words on a cake.) You see a legal distinction between these two scenarios, but your explanation about finding people unconscionable versus actions isn't clear to me.

Thanks.

[Marduk]

Because the cake maker does not believe making cakes to be immoral.

Perhaps an analogy would help. Let's say you sell guns. Now let's say someone comes into your shop to purchase a gun. They have a license and all other legal requirements fulfilled. So you sell them the gun. Then they use the gun to rob a store. As the gun shop owner, are you responsible for the robbery, which you believe to be immoral? No, absolutely not. You fulfilled your legal requirements.

Now, if you have reason to believe that the person will commit the crime, that's a different story. However, your reason cannot be based on what that person IS, only what that person DOES. So, if you don't sell it to them because they are black, and you believe black people want weapons to commit crimes, THAT would be both immoral and illegal. See what I'm getting at?

The same holds for the cake. Just because the individuals might do something with that cake that you believe to be immoral does not give you the right to refuse service.

In this analogy, no one would be required to perform a wedding that they disagreed with, something that has been legally murky. The distinction the courts have made thus far is between religious observance and for-profit wedding services, one which seems to make sense.

Does that clear up the distinction for you?

[Shrinky Dink]

Your gun analogy seems flawed to me. How about a better one since your's seems to try to compare someone's view of homicide/theft to another's view of gay marriage and that's not a very good comparison if you ask me.

Let's say you have a few guns that you are looking to sell. You may have quite a few in your collection and you sell them regularly to private buyers. You may have made a purchase of many guns with the intent to sell them later as an investment. Now let's say you're a selling a gun and you have a buyer who can legally purchase and own a firearm. That buyer happens to mention that they plan on doing something with the gun that's not necessarily illegal, but you believe it to be immoral. Perhaps they are tired of being a dog owner and plan on shooting their dog in the head humanely so it doesn't suffer. Maybe the dog bit someone, maybe it's old and sick, maybe it's perfectly healthy and mild mannered. It's legal to humanely kill an animal, but you don't necessarily agree with it. Maybe you're even a vegetarian and/or a member of PETA.

As a private person, you have no legal obligation to sell a gun to this person, so why should you as a small business owner?

I agree that large businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate on a matter such as this, but why should a smaller business when the smaller business is not that much different from the private seller in my analogy?

[Portia]

I feel like the crux of the argument rests on animus, but IANALATINLA.

[Shrinky Dink]

On a side note, personally, I think that same sex marriages should be legal and recognized the government and large businesses, but I don't think an individual or small business should have to participate or offer support of any union they disagree with. If I personally were in the wedding industry, I think I would do work for a same-sex couple if I was hired to do so, but I wouldn't want to force someone else to.

[Marduk]

Do you feel that individuals should have those same rights with respect to a mixed-race marriage?

[Shrinky Dink]

Do I think it's right to discriminate? No
Do I think individuals have the right to discriminate? Kinda

Do you think it would be ok for their to be a baker/florist/photographer that only did LGBT weddings and refused heterosexual couples?
I think most of us would be ok with this because it only is reducing the business's opportunity to make money and a heterosexual couple likely wouldn't choose that baker/florist/photographer because their idea might not match and a hetero couple has more options. The hard part is that too many businesses discriminate against one type of couple. That's why I want to limit it to small businesses, really small businesses. I'll even clarify that for me a small business is one that has less than 3 or 5 non-family employees and gross less than $100,000 per employee each year. If you have too many employees or make too much money, then you legally can't discriminate.

[Katya]

What if the baker was refusing service to heterosexual couples until same sex marriage was allowed in his/her state? But he would provide cakes to same sex couples for commitment ceremonies or something similar.

I would also consider this to be wrong.

[Portia]

The line of reasoning in re gross sales per year makes no sense to me. Either behavior is constitutional, or it's not.