What Does Religious Liberty Mean ?
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
What if the black people want a dandelion cake to celebrate their plan to kill whitey?
Speaking of "special accommodations"....ToL sports doser!
Kit the Coyote
New member
Does the baker sell dandelion cakes to white people that say 'kill blackey'? If they do then they have a problem justifying say no.
But the courts have made it clear and that seems to be the trend that is settling into the law that a baker has a first amendment right not write specific messages on a cake as long as they don't write that message for anybody else.
So a baker has a perfect right not to write 'kill whitey' on a cake.
Kit the Coyote
New member
As you are not going to find a bakery that sells "NAMBLA FOREVER" cakes for anyone else, he is not likely to find a bakery that has any legal requirement to provide such. Particularly since pedophiles are not a protected class and never will be.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you say that with the same certainty of those of my fathers generation if they had ever been confronted with the possibility of societal acceptance of the perversion of homosexuality or adultery or divorce or pornography
coming generations will increasingly view all perversions as "normal" and "a matter of choice" and "none of my business"
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
why?
why shouldn't a private business owner get to decide who he wishes to enter into a business transaction with. regardless of his reasons?
Leaving off other arguments, the Catholic Church doesn't hold communion out to the general public. So even without the religious arguments it's a different animal.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Do you mean by 'doesn't hold communion out to the general public,' that one must be in full communion with the Church, in order to receive Holy Communion?
Right.
"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . " Guidelines for Reception of Communion
Communion within the Catholic Church isn't a thing held out to the general public. It isn't even held out to a great deal of Christendom.
Lon
Well-known member
I'd HOPE that advocating illegal activity would have him in jail, where he can enjoy his generic non-scripted cake in peace...er...piece.
Lon
Well-known member
"Sorry, I've got a better paying customer at the moment" might not work if the person thinks they are discriminated against, but we might have to pass this along to a few bakers. It'd keep them out of lawsuits. :think:
It makes sense, being capitalism, but I agree too, it is a form of discrimination. Us 'poor' people simply don't get to enjoy the same status as the rich unless we become good at the capital-gains game (he probably thought it was a grubby quarter too).
I realize that, still, how is a kid going to get a hold of that kind of cash? I'd gladly have bought 20 of those! I felt a little like Charlie Bucket finding a dollar in a grate when I bit into those delectable treats.The former is sufficient to protect him. As a rule the latter goes hand in hand, but it isn't causal.
Well, as a kid, it felt personal. I didn't get my scrumpdelicious cream filled gold that day. The 'other' man of a certain age did. It was a sad day. I at LEAST felt it had to do with my age and financial situation
As an adult, its a no-brainer: I can spend 30 minutes with10 indecisive children and make $2.50, or I can spend 5 minutes with one adult and make $25.
I think that's very important, and as I said, personally, I've no problem selling cakes but I kind of empathize with someone caught in a dilemma of believing they are 'participating in evil.' Whether misplaced or needing a bit of theology discussion, or what not, I do feel for their genuine spiritual conviction. There is, iow, a founded reason for their dilemma. As the court stated, it knew it needed to honor the founded beliefs of another and that they mattered.
Very. It is again, an empathy that cause me, personally, any kind of dilemma or interest in such discussions. I'd simply sell a cake.
Again, this is well-stated and important. I've seen parents decide on a slanted favor of one child over another. Equitable is sometimes really difficult. For me, I used to tell my kids:
See, here, you could have just let me have one :hrmph:
Empathy, with examples is more difficult. Perhaps the recent ruling that suggested a man doesn't have to put something against his values upon the cake was more of the sentiment behind what I'm getting at. If I remember correctly even the former Colorado baker's objection was 'having to attend' the wedding, rather than denying the cake altogether. I can't remember, but as I said, it still makes it a little confusing, even if not for you in particular. I'd hate to be a judge that'd have to explain my each and every decision and how they were different, btw.
In one sense, yes, but if I am sued for not going to some place that is against my values, the matter changes. All these lawsuits against Christians in particular, have been purposeful. There really are not that many gay weddings and so a sense of 'targeting' is in play on all these lawsuits with Christians, the unhappy pawns in something bigger than cakes.
I was not aware of the latter :think: Thank you.
I'm pretty sure I do. When I state other sexual matters, it meant all biblical directives regarding its proper and improper expressions.
If I'm a tattooist, for instance, do I have to paint whatever the client wants? Is there no protection for me as an artist in such a case? Isn't it true that my religious belief has a LOT to do with my aversion to doing some particular tattoos? Perhaps I don't get you when it comes to the law, but I'm fairly sure you understand scriptures as I do. I'm trying to get you to speak to both in an empathetic manner, not so much as a careful and secular judge ruling, but as both a believer and as that lawyer/judge who must serve the whole public at the same time.
Again, I'm not bothered, just asking. It is more a desire to know and understand with more clarity, not play advocate for the majority or the like, although it plays into that when I have opportunity to explain the difference or address the difference fairly, at least. :e4e:
It had nothing to do with my skin, but rather the persecution they'd be subjected to. The pastor told me cross burnings on their lawns was not a part of the long past, but more recent than that. I asked if I could stand with him against that and he said, 'but my babies will not understand.' I left with some empathy.
I think that is true, but it was a 'job' so the needs of that should have (in my unprofessional opinion) been the main consideration. To me, this goes back to the beginning where capitalism beat me out for candy. I was certainly deprived that day. I'm not sure we always have to take on the cause of the underdog, especially if it leads to mediocrity and complacency, or adversely affects a person (he did not get another secretarial job).
No, there are 'white entertainment television' by virtue of representation, but we have no station named "White" nor "Caucasian" in the title. "IF" there ever was, we'd hear NO end of it and it'd be forever declared and treated as racially segregating. The example is ONLY to show where some equality and inequality exists side-by-side in our society.
Well, you come from a wealthy Southern Family, I don't. Those kids of another color were my neighbors and I theirs.
It is one of the reasons Song of the South is no longer available, but those were representative of society. I do recognize blacks had a hard time getting any kind of thing on their own but it wasn't called 'White TV." We'd never get away with such a thing.
:think: That's why I'm not offended when I'm not
Okay, affirmative action for example. "Black" entertainment television, for another. We cannot have a "White" entertainment television. We'd be bigots and racists for even the suggestion of it. Another? A man of color only typing 85 wpm, got a job over a guy that typed over 170. Yes, I think it is true that accommodation attempts have hurt (note while the article suggests 'bigotry' is the problem, such was and is caused by Affirmative Action, it just fostered a different kind of bigotry - one of inequality and disadvantage). The Christian baker who never even had to think about gay marriage until it was made legal, had to do something dramatically different than he'd/she'd done 40 years of his/her life or more. Was it worse than before? Sure, in the cake circumstance, because there was nothing before that caused a lawsuit, loss of business, loss of money and the gay couple had no cake situation come up, prior.
What about the backlashes? Hate crimes rose as a result, though this articles says inconclusive as to 'why.'
Its a good and important topic too. We are a bit away from the religious freedom tenor of the thread, again partly due to my distraction (family health issues, would appreciate prayer for my extended family). Thank you for your meaningful input. In Him -Lon
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I'm still concerned. The Catholic Church excluding practicing homosexuals---a protected class of people---from receiving Holy Communion, sounds an awful lot like 'country clubs' excluding Jewish people from being able to play golf. Jesus's relatives' ancestors are a protected class of people today, correct?
Come to think of it, the Catholic Church excludes Jewish people too!
Kit the Coyote
New member
Because the right to do so was abused. If you abuse a right it is subject to being restricted or lost and the so-called 'right to refuse service' had that happen to it when large numbers of business owners abused the right to deny service to blacks for bigoted reasons. Resulting in the Civil Rights Act and the Public Accomodation Laws.
Kit the Coyote
New member
I disagree but only time will tell which of us can say "I told you so". But current legal trends related to child age of consent tend to be leaning in my direction.
Holy Communion, and the membership in the Church, isn't something held out to the general public, but private clubs and religious institutions are free to set whatever restrictions they want within the formation of their membership. Without that protection, the state would be the de facto author of a particular religious expression and that is strictly unconstitutional. So you shouldn't be concerned.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
For too many, religious liberty appears to mean never having to say you're serving...
Okay, back to the conversation at hand.
Okay, back to the conversation at hand.
I'm largely less sympathetic to what mostly seems to be a selective application of morality and outrage by many if not all. I mean, how many bakers making a wedding cake inquire about whether the people seeking it are of their faith, are living together, are secular atheists, etc.?
In the South, once upon a time, they were called "agitators" but it really doesn't matter if someone is targeting, provided the thing targeted is discriminatory and unjustifiable.
I did note the controlling nature of the thing, its purpose. A cake signifies, but is ultimately food, not art. A portrait is different. This may be another instance, but consider, what would be the particular objection? If the thing asked for isn't the sort of thing the artist prepares for anyone then it's golden.
I should think it would have a lot to do with any, but it depends on the faith.
I'm not sure what you're looking for in particular. I think there is sufficient protection for legitimate religious belief and that the lion's share of the outcry is hypocritical. It's difficult for me to sympathize with willfully selective or under/ill considered moral objection. I don't want the baker to lose his livelihood, but I do want him to conform his behavior in this particular with his pragmatic model in every other. And so the questionnaire question.
With respect, unless you were on the wrong side of that it was entirely about your skin. They made the same sad mistake a racist makes by choosing to define you by that very thing.
See, Lon, that's like saying so long as you don't slap an obvious title on a thing it's not the thing its function tells you that it is. Call a rose by any other name and it still smells. Television all but ignored minorities for generations, using them largely as stereotypical cartoons and villains when they found any real purchase. There wasn't any need to call it white anything. It was white everything.
I'm not sure how that plays into the point, but affluent Southern families were frequently among the more progressive in attitudes about race. In part that's because it was the general rule that in those homes you found numerous employees of color and the sort of daily interaction that almost cannot help but produce a familiarity and, not infrequently, a level of affection (if often paternalistic in nature) not as present in the middle and lower classes where racial separation was more dramatic and the hostility without that interaction and humanization tended to generate more dangerous notions.
You don't need to brand a flavor if its the only flavor. And now? Still dominating the time blocks, though you can seek out alternatives if you're a black kid who would like to see a superhero or family that more closely resembles your own.
Well, silly at the very least and racists depending on the motivation. Black organizations are largely attempting to establish footholds and traditions aimed at breaking the crippling cycle of poverty and exclusion. What would be the white equivalent complaint and problem?
What if 85 wpm is sufficient to do the job AND the hire accomplishes something in addition that seems more important to the employer than that one attribute?
Affirmative Action wasn't a bigoted response to bigotry though. Its aim wasn't to keep another race down, to continue an institutionalized marginalization. You can't really, reasonably compare the two that way.
Same thing happened to restaurant owners across the South once upon a time.
So you're suggesting that we shouldn't have desegregated schools if we'd understood there would be hostile and sometimes violent backlash? The defense and advance of equity and equality often causes societal upheavals and adjustments. True when women got the vote. True when blacks had their voting rights defended. True here, whatever you think of the moral underpinning.
A pleasure. I skipped over some agreement and a little sidebar to get at the meat that seemed to have elements in need of qualifications. :cheers:
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
They're completely leaning in your direction and a study of how the laws have tightened in regards to protecting children from abuse and a zero tolerance policy in regards to child abuse bears that out. Doser, apart from trolling, is indulging in a slippery slope fallacy that nobody can back up.