Should a Jewish Bakery Have the Right to Deny...

[emilynghiem]

We do that here, at times, but that's no freedom eh? True freedom is Anarchy. I'm a fan of that either. Tell us, why are there limits on Free Speech? Doesn't that go against the Constitution?

Freedom is the right to make your own choices, it is not the right to make other people's choices for them

And there are appropriate and Constitutional limits to one’s right to make his own choices – if one chooses to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater he’ll be arrested, and cannot make a First Amendment right to free expression claim as part of his defense.

The same is true of public accommodations laws, limiting the right one has to choose to jeopardize his local market and all interrelated markets throughout the Nation. Public accommodations laws are no different than any other regulatory measure, where such measures limit the business owner’s right to choose to abuse his employees, to pollute the local waterways, or to sell defective and dangerous products to his customers.

Hi CCJones: this is another good message!

I note that if you keep free speech within the fuller context of the REST of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights, it checks itself; you cannot ABUSE freedom of speech or religion to cause "disruption of the peace" or it violates the right of people to ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY and/or disrupts others' right of SECURITY and liberty without due process.

The problem is often taking laws or principles and enforcing them OUT OF CONTEXT.

As for your other quote, which I also thought made very good points:

The PC Police are very concerned with "the law" when it suits them.
Funny, I don't see them standing up for "the law" when it comes to illegal immigration.

That’s a consequence of your ignorance of the law, not your errant perception that the law is applied inconsistently.

As a fact of Constitutional law, undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process rights (Plyler v. Doe (1982)). Consequently, undocumented immigrants are not ‘illegal’ until such time as a court determines they are and their due process rights exhausted.

Therefore, those who advocate for equal protection rights for same-sex couples are consistent in their advocacy of due process rights for undocumented immigrants, as to seek to deny either their civil liberties is equally offensive to the Constitution.

OK CCJones
if these "equal rights" advocates are for due process before depriving people of freedom,
where is the "due process" when assuming citizens won't pay for health care or insurance WITHOUT imposing federal mandates and fines?

why is federal law used to treat taxpaying citizens one way, rigorously enforcing this ACA as a "pre-emptive" measure,
while waiting on due process BEFORE enforcing laws for "alleged" illegal immigrants?

SHORTCUT SOLUTION: Rule of Reciprocity on Equal Protection of the Laws

Why not form an agreement on interpretation, that in order to INVOKE First or Fourteenth Amendment rights, the person needs to practice them as well?

So no fair being bigoted against Christian anti-gay beliefs while suing them for infringing on you
if half the problem is equally coming from you rejecting and excluding them.
Such mutual conflicts should be settled by negotiation and dispute resolution on BOTH sides, not treat this as onesided if it isn't.

If you are truly inclusive and thus infringed upon unjustly by someone imposing a bias,
then you have standing to complain or petition to redress grievances that are imposed "one way."
Most conflicts aren't. The disputes are usually rooted in underlying clashes between conflicting beliefs equally protected under law.

If you want your consent to be respected, you cannot violate the consent of others in the process of resolving the issues.
So all conflicts and decisions under this system should be settled by consensus, to be fair to all people affected equally.
So everyone's consent is respected, and beliefs/biases included equally in the process WITHOUT judging or discriminating if people have clashing religious or political views.

CCJones: do you agree such a mutually agreed approach, to resolve personal conflicts by consent, would be more in keeping with the right to
due process, free speech and press, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the laws for all people?

 

[The Rabbi]

They weren't at the time, and all over the place we are seeing cons tell us they want to remove the Public Accommodation portion of the Civil Right Act.

And your stupid neg rep for this post must have been after you took the quiz and realized how many B's you picked -- and it angered you enough to lash out at me.

Yawn, Numbnutz.

Butt hurt much?
Yeah, you can't refute what I write so you default to insults.

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who negged me for this:


and then called me a name when he did so. Then was mad he couldn't neg me because I produced a picture of the Woolworth Counter back in the day...

The truth is that the Left now wants to do what the old racists wanted in the pre civil rights era: mandate who must do business with whom.
Today's leftists are yesterday's conservatives.

I'm just gonna let that one stand there all by it's silly lonesome.

Actually I wanted to neg you for gross stupidity, which you continue to display.
The law in AZ would in no way turn back the clock 50 years to lunch counter sit ins. That is absurd.

You demonstrate the truth that today's liberals want to do what the segregationists wanted 50 years ago: mandate who must do business with whom. There is little difference. The segregationists wanted to use the power of the state to force certain outcomes. The liberals today want the same thing.

 

[bendog]

Rabbi's got internet bully syndrome. But you knew that already.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Dig deeper, nutters! The world is passing you by. Gay Americans will have equal rights. You cannot stop the train of progress. And this fucker is moving faster than most.

I'd love for a nutter to shock me and land on the right side of an issue for a change.

I don't know which "nutters" you are referring to,

* but the people saying SOME cases of homosexuality can be healed are RIGHT.
Not ALL cases are the same, some can be changed if people are naturally heterosexual,
but some cannot if those souls are spiritually that way.

* the principle of religious freedom works BOTH ways, govt can neither impose/establish a religion which discriminates/denies/excludes equal freedom of others AND cannot abridge the freedom of religion either.

So constitutionally, laws can neither ban nor force gay marriage, but would have to remain neutral in wording and interpretation so as neither to impose or deny either, and leave it to the people to apply in private in accordance with their beliefs.

another example of equal free choice under the Constitution:
* the opponents against ACA mandates (from both the left and the right) are RIGHT
that these mandates unconstitutionally interfere with beliefs in singlepayer, free choice of health care, AND right to pay for health care without interference by private insurance

they may not all word their objections in constitutional terms, but the fact they don't consent to paying insurance mandates can be translated into similar terms the RIGHT use

Why would you try to heal homosexuality?

What is more vile than this insane belief that homosexuality is something to be "healed"?

 

[paperview]

Butt hurt much?
Yeah, you can't refute what I write so you default to insults.

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who negged me for this:


and then called me a name when he did so. Then was mad he couldn't neg me because I produced a picture of the Woolworth Counter back in the day...

The truth is that the Left now wants to do what the old racists wanted in the pre civil rights era: mandate who must do business with whom.
Today's leftists are yesterday's conservatives.

I'm just gonna let that one stand there all by it's silly lonesome.

Actually I wanted to neg you for gross stupidity, which you continue to display.
The law in AZ would in no way turn back the clock 50 years to lunch counter sit ins. That is absurd.

You demonstrate the truth that today's liberals want to do what the segregationists wanted 50 years ago: mandate who must do business with whom. There is little difference. The segregationists wanted to use the power of the state to force certain outcomes. The liberals today want the same thing.

More insults, from the guy who said: "you can't refute what I write so you default to insults."

My picture was in direct response to this:

Quote: Originally Posted by bripat9643
The only part people are objecting to is forcing private businesses to serve people the owners don't want to server. ...

Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi's got internet bully syndrome. But you knew that already.

Rabbi has "not going to let stupid comments go" syndrome. Like your post.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Paperview: Thanks for bringing up a key point with Christians and secular law. Because Christians are called to obey both scripture and civil authority, both as given by God, this can be both good or bad. The bad news is when rescuing slaves is illegal, as stealing property, and gets people in trouble with the law; the good news is when the force of right COMPELS the laws to change to be consistent, as with the abolition movement backed by Quakers, part of the Christian Left we forget about when we focus on the Christian Right.

For your examples, I would like to point out the DIFFERENCE between Civil Obedience to the laws that doesn't compromise Christianity, vs. turning a blind eye to abuse of the laws that violates civil law itself, and is wrongful on BOTH counts as unconstitutional.

A. prolife vs. prochoice
For the Prolife Christian, the views that abortion kills a baby who by conception has a right to life before being born is placed SECOND to Constitutional laws not allowing govt to impose a faith-based belief or argument in such cases. In order NOT to impose a religious bias, people would have to AGREE on terms of banning, regulating or restricting abortion.
It cannot be based on religious arguments that people don't believe in, so prochoice remains the "default" policy that includes BOTH views of prochoice and prolife, while prolife would ban and exclude prochoice views.

This is a proper example of where Christians must follow Constitutional authority, and keep the beliefs and education on a personal and private level, not mandate or legislate them WITHOUT the consent of the people affected. There is nothing wrong with working to form a CONSENSUS on laws so there can be reform WITHIN the secular Constitutional process.

It just cannot be imposed by religious beliefs or bias without violating Constitutional laws.

B. for the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general

the PROPER enforcement of Constitutional standards would be neutral and inclusive: equally defending progay and antigay beliefs without imposing or discriminating either way

What we have instead is either unconstitutional laws forcing a policy one way or the other, either pushing gay marriage against opposing beliefs, or banning it against opposing beliefs.

Both are wrong and equally unconstitutional.

So complaints and refusals of Christians to follow a law DEPENDS if the law itself
is unconstitutional. You cannot expect Christians to blindly follow Govt authority if they are not following the Constitution equitably either!

Where laws are written by consent of the people affected, including following procedures and within govt authority, those are clearly Constitutional.

Anything based on conflicting biases or beliefs, may have Constitutional issues that need to be resolved before expecting either Christians or other citizens to respect and follow them.

Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

Also, too:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;

but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK

 

[Avatar4321]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Can't find the name Adolf Hitler in the Christian Bible. What book was he in again?

It's not. But you knew that, because you simply want to ignore the argument and deflect.

 

[Avatar4321]

No man should be compelled to work for another.

 

[Avatar4321]

...a Christian Ideology based White Power group who goes into a Jewish bakery and request a cake in the shape a HHH and a burning cross? If they Jew denied baking this cake, since it's deeply against their religious faith?

Should the Jewish baker be forced to bake such a cake.


I mean few people argued the Baker was wrong when he refused to bake the cake "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!"

Adolf Hitler denied his birthday cake - Telegraph

Yet in AZ one can not conceive that a religious baker has any argument in not baking a cake for a gay marriage.

The vast vast majority of Christian bakers that don't want any part of a gay marriage ceremony would be fine selling to gays for any other occasion.

I personally disagree with a baker not making money for a gay marriage ceremony, but I can see their argument.

Go back to the birthday cake for Adolf Hitler, I think that baker was in the right and so did most people!

Can't find the name Adolf Hitler in the Christian Bible. What book was he in again?

You're trying to be an asshole?

No, he's succeeding.

 

[dblack]

No man should be compelled to work for another.

Apparently some folks didn't get the memo.

 

[jillian]

No man should be compelled to work for another.

Apparently some folks didn't get the memo.

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

 

[emilynghiem]

What is more vile than this insane belief that homosexuality is something to be "healed"?

With some people, yes, they have been healed.

For example in cases of people who were naturally heterosexual,
but due to ongoing sexual abuse they had attractions and actions that were homosexual.
And then after going through forgiveness therapy and healing of these past abuses,
broke free from that cycle, and returned to their original state.

This happens all the time with people who were not born
drug addicts, but became "totally different people" because of abuse,
and after they are healed return to their natural selves.

Why is that insane?

It seems more insane to assume that ALL cases of homosexuality are natural,
when lots of people can testify to roots in abuse that WASN'T natural and WASN'T a "free choice."

If you think that sentences people to always suffer the rest of their
lives in cases of sexual abuse, how cruel is that? to deny people
the access to effective therapies that HAVE healed people of abuse
so they don't keep suffering from things that happened in childhood.

How sick is that to selfishly assume YOU know better
than the people who HAVE healed people, or the people who HAVE been healed.

That you know better than they who have experienced it for themselves?
Who are you to assume this is insane, made up or otherwise fictitious?
To judge people before even meeting or talking with them, that they are all liars or insane?

Really, Luddly? He who fights against bigotry and prejudice?
Is this coming from you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do do the Christians only choose to deny services to only homersexuals and not other people that are sinners???

Do you expect them to require their patrons to fill out a questionaire on their life story?

I expect them to have the right to refuse any customer they choose.

Even yourself??

Yes. Did you think PW somehow means that people are allowed to refuse any customer than him/her?

 

[dblack]

No man should be compelled to work for another.

Apparently some folks didn't get the memo.

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

But you're enforcing that by compelling them to work for another against their will. You can't ostrich it away.

 

[Avatar4321]

No man should be compelled to work for another.

Apparently some folks didn't get the memo.

no one is "compelling them to work for another" as in slavery.

you simply can't mindlessly discriminate against entire classes of people

If you tell me I have to bake a cake for some event that i don't want to be involved in for whatever reason, you are compelling me to work for another.

You, of all people, should understand this

 

[Avatar4321]

If I have no choice but to labor for someone else, how am I not being compelled? Even if they pay me. Im still being compelled.

Slaves were given room and board by their masters. With your logic the slave holders could have said: look we compensate them for their work, we aren't forcing them into anything.

That is totally BS.

 

[paperview]

Wow.

 

[bendog]

I think I mostly agree with Emily, though my focus is different.

I think Goldwater opposed civil rights prohibitions on individual discrimination, as opposed to govts being able to pass laws treating one group differently than another for no good reason. Goldwater was a Jew, who knew discrimination first hand. But, if you force a fundy Christian baker to do what he believes his religion forbids inorder to practice his trade ... you give him an untenable choice. Rather, the Elizabethan compromise underlying our religious freedoms is basically that one may believe whatever one wants, but he may not commit treason against the civil authority.

Still, Goldwater had no issue with finding it illegal for a govt to treat one group differently from another group without stating a good reason. (He did feel the fed govt's power in elections was limited, though I'm not sure if he'd have had a problem with suing individual states to strike down Jim Crowe laws via the 14th amend. Compelling states to have the fed govt decide their voting districts was too much for him)

In short, the govt should not force individual behavior.

I don't understand this, "What we have instead is either unconstitutional laws forcing a policy one way or the other, either pushing gay marriage against opposing beliefs, or banning it against opposing beliefs."

I'm not compelled to do anything when the state is forced to recognize a glbt marriage in way mine is already recognized.

 

[Iceweasel]

Trying to get C_Clayton_Jones to see the errors in his "logic" is like trying to explain the color red to someone who has been blind from birth.

I'm getting that impression as well.

B. for the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general

the PROPER enforcement of Constitutional standards would be neutral and inclusive: equally defending progay and antigay beliefs without imposing or discriminating either way

States have the right to define marriage. There is no Constitutional definition.