Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive

[Katzndogz]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

But the merchants are making that determination with homosexual couples only. Had the merchant sincere concerns about sin, why doesn't that merchant vet each and every customer? That merchant could imperil his soul by selling to other sinners without knowledge! His only concern is disrespecting the gay couple.

The merchant is deciding not to commit a sin himself. That is knowingly and with deliberation commit a sin. For monetary gain.

Should people be required to act against their principles?

When those "principles" exclude other Americans from public businesses, then hell yes!

If those so-called "principles" were part and parcel, basic tenets of Christianity, you might have a point. But such so-called "principles" both fly in the face of the basic tenets and are born solely of dogma.

Yes. They are born solely of dogma. That's what makes them religious principles.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's not easy for gays to find the Christian business to persecute. In the case of Masterpiece bakery they had to call 25 bakeries in town before they got turned down.

 

[Nosmo King]

No, baking a cake or arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt. The same sex marriage is sinful and corrupt. Enabling it and participating in it should be voluntary.
Or should we force people who are against capital punishment for religious reasons to prepare the execution room?

Baking and floral arraigning are not holy rites or sacramental rituals. They are, in fact, the stock and trade of merchants who happen to be bakers and florists.

Yes they are and compromising your religious beliefs should be voluntary. I think civil unions are fine but homosexual marriages are an abomination. I refuse to participate in an abomination. Your mileage may vary.

No one is asking these wedding vendors to participate in anything. Bakers do not participate in the wedding. They bake, decorate and deliver a cake. Period.

Ya know who DOES participate? The wedding party, perhaps a clergyman or a municipal official or a captain on the high seas. The invited guests participate. But the vendors are plying their trade, not officiating, participating or approving the wedding.

If I believe that providing a cake or flowers is participating, who are you to say it is not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The free exercise of my religion prohibits my participation.

Yours may not. By all means, bake a cake. I have no problem with how you practice your faith.

The whole argument supporting these repressive acts is based on two statements that are both hyperbole and untenable. First the notion of harm. That does not come from the basic tenets of Christianity. Christ taught forgiveness, love and inclusiveness. These claims of harm stedm from dogma.

Next, the notion of participation. Wedding vendors do not participate, they provide goods and services. They do not approve of the wedding, they do not dance and sing and bring a gift to the wedding. They simply ply their trade, make sure the check clears, enter the transaction in their accounts and move on. Calling them participants exceeds the breech of what vendors are required to do.

 

[Nosmo King]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether or not it harms anyone is besides the point, it won't harm gays if they have to shop around for a non essential services, either. Besides, there are plenty of "adult" oriented novelty bakeries around that would be happy to make a profit here, so what's the big deal?

What's the big deal. Precisely. What do you imagine a wedding cake for a same sex couple looks like? What do you imagine a same sex wedding reception looks like?

Why should same sex couples be forced to "shop around" to find an accommodating wedding vendors? Should the Coloreds shop around for a lunch counter that would serve them? Bigots never understand.

 

[rightwinger]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether or not it harms anyone is besides the point, it won't harm gays if they have to shop around for a non essential services, either. Besides, there are plenty of "adult" oriented novelty bakeries around that would be happy to make a profit here, so what's the big deal?

Whats the big deal with treating all customers the same regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientaion?

Most of America has no problem doing it

 

[Katzndogz]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether or not it harms anyone is besides the point, it won't harm gays if they have to shop around for a non essential services, either. Besides, there are plenty of "adult" oriented novelty bakeries around that would be happy to make a profit here, so what's the big deal?

What's the big deal. Precisely. What do you imagine a wedding cake for a same sex couple looks like? What do you imagine a same sex wedding reception looks like?

Why should same sex couples be forced to "shop around" to find an accommodating wedding vendors? Should the Coloreds shop around for a lunch counter that would serve them? Bigots never understand.

This isn't walking in and sitting at a lunch counter. Gays do that all the time. This is requiring someone to commit a very personal sin for at best monetary gain.

My personal view is somewhat different. Cake decorating, flower arranging and photography are all artistic endeavors. No artist should ever be required to create against their will. They don't need a reason.

 

[Katzndogz]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether or not it harms anyone is besides the point, it won't harm gays if they have to shop around for a non essential services, either. Besides, there are plenty of "adult" oriented novelty bakeries around that would be happy to make a profit here, so what's the big deal?

Whats the big deal with treating all customers the same regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientaion?

Most of America has no problem doing it

Good. Then there's no problem finding another vendor.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

But of course if you're a Muslim and you're forced to do something against your religious beliefs, the Obama administration will sue for you:

EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination
Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs

PEORIA, Ill. - Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., Civil Action No. 13 C 01240-JES-BGC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, assigned to U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at EEOC Home Page

EEOC Sues Star Transport Inc. for Religious Discrimination

 

[Nosmo King]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs. The immortal souls of merchants is not at risk by doing business. Providing the exact same services to both heterosexual and homosexual weddings does not endanger anyone's soul.

The claim that is does stems not from the basic tenets of the faith, but from dogma. The basic tenets of Christianity maintain love for your neighbor, not judging lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone. But the notion that baking a cake of arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt is a notion born from peculiar dogma. I'm a Christian and if the fear of servicing homosexual customers in the same manner every other customer is not part of the liturgical teachings in my church. If serving homosexuals was so grave a danger businesses would fear for the standing of their souls, that would be universal among Christians.

What these Religious Restoration Acts do is provide legal cover for repressive bigotry. And that also flies in the face of the basic American tenets of faith: all men are created equal and they are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether or not it harms anyone is besides the point, it won't harm gays if they have to shop around for a non essential services, either. Besides, there are plenty of "adult" oriented novelty bakeries around that would be happy to make a profit here, so what's the big deal?

What's the big deal. Precisely. What do you imagine a wedding cake for a same sex couple looks like? What do you imagine a same sex wedding reception looks like?

Why should same sex couples be forced to "shop around" to find an accommodating wedding vendors? Should the Coloreds shop around for a lunch counter that would serve them? Bigots never understand.

This isn't walking in and sitting at a lunch counter. Gays do that all the time. This is requiring someone to commit a very personal sin for at best monetary gain.

My personal view is somewhat different. Cake decorating, flower arranging and photography are all artistic endeavors. No artist should ever be required to create against their will. They don't need a reason.

Cake decorating for a same sex couple is a 'very personal sin'?!? Could a homosexual walk into a bakery and buy a dozen sugar cookies without 'forcing' the baker to 'commit a very personal sin'? Or is it providing the exact same services they provide to any other couple sinful And that every other couple, do the vendors vet them so they can deal with them without imperiling their immortal souls?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The baker is not judging the customer unworthy. The baker is not committing a sin himself. A baker might bake a wedding cake for a teacher accused of molesting students and still refuse to deliver a cake to an underage orgy.

You see this as an issue of the merchant judging the customer where he is really judging himself and refusing to commit what that merchant considers a sin.

When the government redefines religion in its own image and decides what beliefs people should have then there is no separation of the church from the state. The state has seized control of religion and dictates what others should believe and what they should do in accordance with that belief.

Fallacy: the government does not redefine religion.

Fact: the government protects all citizens.

 

[MaryL]

All this comes down to is intimidation and impinging on one group's freedom to reinforce another's freedom.... this isn't what freedom is about. No, this is Orwellian and it's hypocritical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't get to redefine Christian beliefs to suit yourself or your agenda.

Tell that to the merchants. Because that is precisely what they are doing.

No. They are conducting their affairs in accordance with what they believe. Not imposing on anyone else.

Business does not have the right when offering service and goods to the entire public to discriminate against any of that public based on religious values.

 

[JakeStarkey]

First, no harm befalls a merchant when servicing same sex weddings and affairs.

Wrong. The foundation is flawed so the rest is meaningless.

Wrong. Your statement is flawed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Baking a cake is not a religious exercise.

 

[Nosmo King]

How is it today that companies can seek legal cover for discrimination?
Why the Hobby Lobby decision! SCOTUS finds that corporations, in the words of Mitt Romney, are people. And the rights of people now extend to corporate entities.

And the so-called religious compacting as Christians in the traditionally accepted sense, but more and more like the Westboro Baptist sect. The same bunch of so-called religious folks so widely despised for their peculiar interpretation of scripture and their general rudeness.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government is not to endorse or denigrate religious belief or worship.

To allow religious values to govern the offer of goods and services in public commerce violates the 1st Amendment.

 

[MaryL]

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Please no masks or hoodies...seen those signs? Discrimination. Come on now. I refuse to equate homosexuals with racial or ethnic groups because one is an norm, the other is dysfunctional sexuality. Not even on the same level. Apples and oranges.

 

[Nosmo King]

All this comes down to is intimidation and impinging on one group's freedom to reinforce another's freedom.... this isn't what freedom is about. No, this is Orwellian and it's hypocritical.

Stretching the meaning of "freedom" to include the freedom to discriminate is what's Orwellian and hypocritical.

 

[Nosmo King]

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Please no masks or hoodies...seen those signs? Discrimination. Come on now. I refuse to equate homosexuals with racial or ethnic groups because one is an norm, the other is dysfunctional sexuality. Not even on the same level. Apples and oranges.

Shirt, shoes hoodies are a matter of safety for customers and employees.

And, in spite of your outmoded views, homosexuality is not dysfunctional. Folks who study human behavior have developed a science of that study. They employ scientific methods and reproducible outcomes. Just because you have not heard of psychiatry does not mean it does not exist and produce facts rather than anecdote.

 

[2aguy]

This is why it is religious freedom....we interpret our beliefs and our religion according to our own faith.....it is not your business to tell others what they should believe...hence the First Amendment of the constitution.....you can say whatever you think someone else's religion should be and do....and that is fine for you....but they are equally correct for their own faith...and hence the slippery slope if you impose government sanctions on people for what you believe they should believe...