DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... And so it begins

People have to have a right to follow their consciences, and the dictates of their faith. If my conscience and tell me that something is absolutely wrong, is it your right to tell me I am wrong, and that I must violate the dictates of my own conscience and faith to satisfy yours? If so, then why? What puts your rights above mine if the 2 come into conflict. Why does your right to force me serve you in a way that violates my conscience and my religious beliefs overrule my freedom of religious expression? When the unalienable Constitutional rights of 2 people are at implacable odds, whose win, and whose lose?

The 1st Amendment suggests otherwise...and would trump Oregon law. What a person wants and/or should or shouldn't do is up to that person...otherwise known as liberty.

Can gay people still get married if a baker chooses NOT to bake their cake? Sure they can...their everyday life doesn't change.

Can gay people still get married if a DJ chooses NOT to perform for them? Sure they can...their everyday life doesn't change.

Can gay people still get married if a florist chooses NOT to arrange their flowers? Sure they can...their everyday life doesn't change.

See what I did there?

Remember...I personally support gay marriage. But I also support the rest of the Constitution...and freedom of religion very well may be why this country even exists today.

I do not, however, if the bakery is serving the public (which it is), then it should be serving the public as a whole...not selectively.

Fair enough...however there is "should" and then there is the 1st Amendment. "Should" is a person's opinion.

If the Constitution didn't grant freedom of religion, then in this example "should" would be replaced by laws that govern discrimination and the bakery would be out of line and breaking the law.

But there IS a 1st Amendment.

You're allowed to follow your faith. You just can't use faith to make laws. Laws could get ridiculously complicated if a "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" (dictionary definition, not mine). You'd have to respect all belief systems, enact their laws, and then have a poly-theocratic system in our country instead of a democratic republic.

Jesus served many of those who sinned. He knew, due to innate omniscience as the scriptures say, that people would continue to sin. This never prevented him from serving unbelievers, or believers who would sin. He even served those who he knew would go to Hell.

They're not asking these bakeries to marry the people, YTown. They just want a cake. It's the same "separate but equal" argument.

When you sign into a contract, whether or not it is personal or with a business or the state, it restricts your rights. I sign into exclusive Non-Disclosure Agreements all the time with companies as part of my business. It restricts my ability to talk about new products/processes/etc. Does the 1st amendment mean these agreements are invalid? No.

The only way your rights would be restricted would be if you were unable to quit your job or close your business, but we aren't saying that. All that's being said is that while you are registered with the state to run a business, you will operate under the business laws required by the state. Some of those are civil rights laws that protect against discrimination. Want to discriminate? Don't run a business.

It would be helpful if one of these businesses was able to prove that homosexuality is listed as the #1 sin and that's the reason for refusing on religious principle.

In reality if you're not going to serve sinners you're probably not in business anyway.

So it seems easy to prove these businesses are acting on bigotry in regard to homosexuality rather than principle.

They deserve to be treated as they are and go through the trouble to justify their bigotry, because it is bigotry and to argue different is impossible.

Practicing bigotry in business in this country is a sinful abomination.

They should sell their businesses and go to church to pray for their own souls.

I'm not an attorney, but I am certain that you cannot 'sign away' your Constitutional rights...those rights will trump any contract you sign...any. Same goes for any state laws that go against the Constitution.

Also, the agreements you sign are civil and are not binding to prevent your freedom of speech. You will never go to jail for violating that contractual agreement. It CANNOT be enforced (restricting your freedom of speech) but you could be fined based on the contract you sign...huge difference here.

For those not agreeing to serve due to their religious beliefs, it is not a matter of discrimination...it is a matter of religious freedom.

Choosing which religious beliefs to have and follow is far from bigotry. You are basically saying that they shouldn't have the beliefs that they do. That's a protected right.

No, bigotry is an intolerance which stems from your beliefs...

They can get their cake from another bakery...then BOTH sides get what they want / follow their beliefs.

If the baker did something TO the gay couple, that would be a different story. But compelling someone to do something they are opposed-to is wrong.

I said this before: If someone held a life-saving thing and they were the only ones who had it...and they refused to allow access to a gay person due to their religious beliefs...I would say they should be compelled to allow access as life trumps religious freedom...but that's it.

I don't agree with that but...Ok. Call it what you wish...but your beliefs are YOUR beliefs and such things are specifically protected by the Constitution.

I know of no Constitutional rights that protects one from the bigotry of others.

Let's flip the script for a minute, shall we?

Suppose two devout Christians are planning their wedding. Are they going to screen the sexual preferences of every person on the catering staff? Employees of the reception venue? Extended families (brothers/sisters) of the wedding party who may still be living closeted lives?

There's a practical consideration here. How far will most Christians go to stand on a principle? How much effort should they put into making sure their lives are not 'contaminated by gay?'

No snark here... I'm sincerely curious- it's going to become a very real issue now that some devouts are standing up publicly.

If you know that the bakery is run/owned by gays, then you may not opt to buy your cake there. Should it be the only bakery in town, then you are presented with a moral dilemma that you may have to compromise your principles...

That is complete BS..There is no law that says anybody has to sell anything to anybody. Ever been to a seven eleven? Read the sign on the door "no shirt no shoes no service". there is no difference. Just because someone is in one of the "protected" groups doesn't give them extra rights.

The government forcing a business to do anything is tyranny. As a business owner you have the right to serve who you want. Aybody who thinks that a business must change their policies due to political correctness is a fool.

If I have a business and I don't want to do business with you, its MY right. Changing that right is a direct attack on the constitution.

The media and political correct politicians have brainwashed society into believing this crap.

If this baker is forced to pay the fine, it is an atrocity. This country is going to hell in a handbasket.

Which is a protected right?

Not to be discriminated against because of the way you were born or discriminated against because of specific aspects of gospel you have decided are somehow worthy of bigotry?

If you're saying "principles" carry an apparent value that can be shared by most reasonable people then I agree.

I think the Supreme Court just disagreed with you.

Being a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe, or any other thing like this is not against the law, even though the left may make you believe it. They are not right, and are very unacceptable, but they are not against the law.

Where did they do that?

FYI: I left the bigotry comment out of your post above. It just derails the debate. Now to what is shown above:

Both. That's the point I'm trying to make. Which one trumps the other? I think religious freedom is #1. The other issue at hand is the providing of a personal service.

If you own a restaurant open to the public and refuse gays service because they are gay, you absolutely lose that argument. IMO. However, if you are religiously opposed to gay marriage, you cannot be forced to cater at a gay marriage ceremony. I think there is a chasm of difference between the two points.

Trying to twist what I meant? My point is that refusing me service for no shoes is just as discriminating as not serving someone for being gay. Just because it is not in the agenda of the left, doesn't make it any different. Maybe I can't afford shoes, get my point?

The problem with the "bigot" comment, is whom you determine is a bigot. A klansman or a black panther, what's the difference? They both hate.

Just because someone doesn't agree with gay marriage, doesn't make them a bigot. That's the problem with things nowadays. Some group can label another something just because their beliefs are different. And if it fits the leftist agenda, it is accepted.

People of all colors have different cultures and lifestyles. Just because you don't believe in someone elses lifestyle does not make you bigoted. Forcing some else to accept your lifestyle, and if they don'tyou attack them with names like "bigot", makes you the bigot.

Actually no shirt, no shoes is a part of the health code. It has nothing to do with business owners.

Yes, there is, actually.. and I posted it arlier in this thread. There is a separate oregonian law that someone else posted.



it intends to ensure *equal* rights.



I bet plenty of people said this same thing in 1961.

Sorry, but most of our early laws, against theft, murder, and so on, were based directly on the Bible. Throughout the the country, entire settlements were run by the heads of the particular religious group that founded their settlements.

We have always used our innate beliefs to establish laws. Whether these beliefs are agnostic, religious, or atheist, we want to base our laws off of what we, personally believe. Like it or not, many of our laws today still have a religious basis. Laws against theft, lying, murder, and so on were basically lifted from the Bible. We have a religious background to almost everything the founders did.

As I said earlier, we all want to base our laws on our closest and deepest held beliefs, whether religious, or not.

We also base our personal conduct off of our beliefs, whether religious,secular, or philosophical. We are protected as far as our religious expression by the 1st amendment. This is the exact text of the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please note that it does not say that we cannot keep people from believing their religion, but rather than we may not keep people from expressing their religious beliefs. (even publicly, and in civil and public discourse) In fact, Congress can make no laws that force a person to cease the expression of the religious beliefs, or the exercise of their religious beliefs.

In the case of these gay people who want a particular bakery to cater their wedding, and the bakery refusing based on their personal religious beliefs, we have a case of the rights of 2 people clashing. Whose rights win out? It would seem to me that the best, and easiest course of action would be for the gay couple to simply find a different baker. Is this the only baker in town? Is this bakery the only one who can bake a wedding cake? Would other bakeries be willing to bake a cake for a gay couple? There are so many ways around a situation like this without having to sue and try to put a business out of business.

Look, people have the right to their religious beliefs, and the expression of those beliefs. I am sure that the bakery might have been willing to bake a cake for the gay couple if they did not have to write a message that offends their religious beliefs, or deliver it to a ceremony they disagree with on a religious basis. Do I personally believe that the Bible says that they should not do anything that encourages sin? I do, but that is not the Constitutional test. If it is their belief, are we restricting them from the expression of their religious beliefs by virtue of this type of lawsuit? I believe so. I believe they are being told not to express their religious beliefs. This seems to be a tactic of the anti-religious lately ...... you will do as we say or we will hurt you. This couple could have gone to a different bakery. If something as minor as this permanently injures them, they their marriage has no chance,because they will certainly face more difficult challenges than that.

As far as laws ....we have many laws that have a religious basis. Most religions believe that a person should not murder another. Most believe that we should not steal. Most believe we should not lie. These are the easiest examples. Are they also based upon a need for protections in civil society? Of course. However, if we wanted all religious expression out of our laws, these laws would have to go.

Jesus did eat, drink, and sit with sinners. Did He do so just to eat? Of course not. He sat down with a tax collector, who cheated people with his collection tactics, making a nice fortune for himself by collecting Roman taxes plus his "fee". What did Jesus do with this tax collector? Did He just tell him to go on sinning? Nope .... Jesus made Levi into the Apostle known as Matthew, and Matthew repented his sins, returned all of the money he had stolen in his position as tax collector, and joined Jesus. Do you think that He did so because Jesus just sat around telling how wonderful his sinful activities were? I don't. Neither would any reasonable person. Jesus had a purpose for everything He did. He saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death. This was a really dangerous situation for Jesus, because Jewish law said that anyone caught in adultery was to be put to death, but Roman law said that only Rome could execute someone. Jesus was in a no win situation there. How did He handle it? Did he condemn the woman?No.That was not His mission. He told those wanting to kill the woman that the one who is without sin should cast the 1st stone. He also wrote things in the sand, but these were not recorded. It is suggested that he wrote some of the sins of those ready to stone this woman to death. However, that is just supposition. In the end, none of those who were ready to kill her could cast that first stone. When the crowd left, what did Jesus say to her? She was thanking Him, falling at His feet, and praising Him. Did Jesus just say "You're welcome. have a nice day."? No. He told her to go and sin no more. He told her to give up the sin she was living in. He told her to make a new decision, and change the direction of her life. He did not say "Go ahead back to your situation, your adultery will no longer result in the threat of death". He told her to sin no more.

This is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. When Jesus sat with sinners,do you think that He merely laughed at their stories of stealing from people, abusing the gullible, cheating on their wives,and soon? I doubt it. I suspect that Jesus told many of them to change their ways. Why do I believe this? Because this was His pattern.

God does many things that we will never understand. Why were the people in the church in SC, by all accounts good and God fearing people, allowed to die? Man, these are the people you would think that God would protect. However, look at some of the secondary consequences of this vile attack. The relatives of those killed came out and did not cry out for vengeance. Instead they said that they forgive him. What an incredible example for Christians everywhere. I don't know how I would react if it were one of my brothers, or my mom or dad, killed in such a way. God showed us all how to express His grace on the earth even in the face of such a brutal and entirely disgusting event. He showed the face of forgiveness on the faces of those people. I respect them so much. Maybe God knows what is going to happen, and knows that really horrific events like this get our attention, so He allowed it to bring some of His saints to Himself on that day, and to show the rest of us how to respond with a forgiving attitude.

God has a reason for everything. Maybe a man sitting with Jesus rejects Him, but speaks to a friend about Him,and that leads the friend to Christ. Remember, Christianity went from a small group, to a swelling of people who wanted to hear His teachings and get healed,to a widespread movement that turned into a worldwide belief. I am sure that Jesus has His reasons for everything He did. Maybe one man He sat with was a man who managed to talk everyone around him to believe everything he did NOT say. lol Those people certainly exist. We all know people who we would doubt if they said the sky was blue. Maybe one of those was sitting with Jesus, and went back and did nothing but speak ill of Jesus, thus convincing many to seek Him out. We do not know the reasons (or all of the reasons) God does the things He does, or why He allows the things He allows. Back to Jesus, He did sit and eat with sinners, but it would have been impossible for Him to have done otherwise if He was eating on earth. We are all sinners. Some He changed, and others refused, so He put them to use in other ways. One thing I am certain of, Jesus never once approved of a person's sin, or told them that a sin was not a sin. He never once said that a person should continue sinning. He loved the people, and He taught them all. Not all are willing to listen. Jesus knows that as well. As I said though, God may have an alternate plan that we do not know of.

I understand that people are not asking the bakery to marry the couple, but they are asking them to take part in a wedding they disagree with on religious grounds. They are asking the bakery to, essentially, approve of something they cannot approve of based on their religious beliefs.

The very 1st right outlined in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of religious expression. Why? Because if is the single most important right we have. It is the right that tyrants have always attempted to take away before all others. The founders knew this from their history with the King of England, who was also, himself, the head of the church. This is the situation the founders wanted to prevent. They did not want to keep Christianity out of the country, its laws, or its customs. They did not want a situation where there was one official, government sponsored church, where the government dictated what was allowed,and what was not. Hmm .... that sounds a lot like the battle we are fighting today. The 1st amendment says that government should not, and cannot come between a man and God. Period. They do not say that we have the right to freedom of religious expression as long as it does not offend another, or make another mad or upset. We have the freedom of religious expression. Period. This is our 1st right.This is the right on which all others stand. Take away this right,and the rest fall like dominoes.

I bet that if the wedding couple had simply asked for a cake, they would have got it. However, a bakery generally has to deliver a cake to a wedding reception. They have to use their vehicle, that generally has advertising on it. The bakery could be seen as approving of such a wedding, when this is as far from the case as can be. That is why the bakery refused in this case. This is also why they have the undeniable and irrefutable right to the free expression of their religion, and that includes what kinds of events they will participate in. The example has been used before, but does a person have the right to refuse service to a member of the Klan, while in their robes? if so,why? Can they refuse to supply for an event sponsored by the Klan when it violated their religious beliefs? If so, why?

People have a right to live by their beliefs,even if others disagree with them. We can change laws, but we have no right to demand that people change their religious beliefs.

I think some people need to read up on what the First Amendment actually means in regards to the First Amendment and "freedom of religion". What people often discuss and get hung up on is the Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court weighed in on this very topic in 1878 and determined the following -

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

The last sentence in the paragraph above is the exact reasoning why discriminating against others, i.e., in this case refusing to sell a cake to others based on religious intolerance toward homosexuality is why challenges like this will always fail. Your right to your beliefs and the exercise of your religion is protected; however, you do not have the right to impose your beliefs or practices on others including through your own religious practices, I.e., you can't pick and choose whom you are going to serve through your business based upon your religious beliefs.

But do they have the right to impose affirmation of their 'lifestyle' on those who don't agree with it?

Wouldn't it be fair to say that their 1st amendment rights are null and void?

The #1 sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is the only unforgivable sin, and a person who does so would never allow himself to place himself in a position under anyone, including God. It is the only sin that will never be forgiven, but in truth, it will never have to be,because a person who would do so will never ask for God's forgiveness.

As far as people holding homosexuality above other sins,I do agree that this is happening, and unfairly in many ways.However it is the topic of the day, and that is why it is in the news so much today.

The problem with homosexuality as a sin is that it has to, specifically, be approved of by the vendor.

In the event of a man having a birthday party for his mistress, there is no way of knowing that "Mindy" is not his wife, or that he is unmarried and she is hos girlfriend. No one buys a cake saying "Congratulations on murdering so and so ....or "Great job stealing your 100th car!" Most sins are hidden. They are easily concealed. However, if a man walks into a bakery and asks for a cake saying "Congratulations Robert and William on your marriage", with a topper with 2 men kissing, then there is no doubt what the situation is. Anyone can easily see that sin, even if neither party takes part in ordering the cake.

I suspect that the bakery in question would also refuse an order for a cake with the topping "Congratulations Bob on having sex with your neighbor", or "Great job cheating those widows out of their life savings", or "Great job starting a riot and creating a situation where others were injured or killed."However, those situations do not arise, or if they do, they are very rare. Most bakeries will never be faced with such a situation. Maybe they refuse to cater a person's 2nd wedding, after they have divorced their 1st spouse. Even that might be difficult to know, however. I believe that mistakes might get through, in good conscience. However, a gay wedding is fairly inescapable.

No, but it does give them equal rights.



You sincerely see no difference between a health code violation and a civil rights violation?

If they do, then it would be within their rights to do so, especially if they are having an overtly religious wedding service. Would it be a reasonable use of their time? I don't know. However, if their religious beliefs said that they should not have any gay, divorced, or adulterous people involved int heir wedding, well, that's their choice. I have no idea how they would manage such a thing though.

Where is this happening?

There is a difference between baking a cake, and taking part in something in which they object on religious grounds.

If a gay couple came in to order a cake .... just a cake ..... that they would enjoy after dinner with their family ...... and the bakery refused, well,that I would disagree with, and would agree that it is discriminatory. The customer is not doing anything except baking a cake, and the involvement of the bakery ends when the customer picks up the cake. However, supplying a cake specifically for an event that they morally disagree with is a different story.

Uhhh….the bakery that just got fined for $135k?

Make me a cake or lose your life savings? That's pretty much an imposition wouldn't you say?

I'm still not seeing where one is forced to affirm something they don't agree with. The baker is beyond free and clear to say "I don't approve of same sex marriage" or "I don't agree with your lifestyle" as they provide their service, just as the segregationist who has to serve a black person isn't forced to believe in or accept the notion equality. They're merely bound to observe it in their business practices.

Choosing which religious beliefs to have is a wonderful thing and a protected right.

I'm not sure where you thought I said otherwise.

Having a business that refuses to serve selected portions of society based on that religious belief is bigotry.

Your argument is making sense. If a bakery bakes sexually explicit cakes and such, and we know some do, my guess is it would be easy to charge discrimination for refusing to make anything related to gay sex.

If someone makes wedding cakes that say Congratulations Adam and Eve, but refuses to bake one that says, Congratulations Adam and Steve! That is discrimination and is illegal.

If someone only bakes wedding cakes, birthday cakes, anniversary or whatever and refuses to sell Adam a cake that says, Hey Eve! Nice Ass! Then I don't think they'd have problem saying no I wont do that and I imagine it would be the same for Adam and Steve.

If a baker is ok when Adam comes in and asks for a cake that says, To Eve, My One True Love!, but then refuses the same to Adam and Steve then I think there's a problem.

I don't think these bakers are being sued for refusing to sell cakes in the shape of gay sexual devices. I think they're doing it based on. "I don't like gays". Of course the courts can decide based on evidence provided.

I've never seen a wedding cake saying anything. Where do they make those, Walmart?