What unmitigated horse shit.
First, catering a wedding is not participating in the ceremony—it’s working as a hired hand.
Second, marriage in the US is not a “quasi-religious ceremony.”
IT’s a contract at civil law, and has no necessary religious component.
It’s clear from your comments that you and logic are complete strangers to one another.
The First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment provide all the protection religion needs.
These phony “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts” being promoted by right-wing bigots (like you) are aimed at promoting legal discrimination against the LGBT community.
They serve no other person.
To say otherwise proves you to be both credulous and easily gulled.
You know I’m just as grossed out by all this as the next progressive but I kind of find the premise for this argument to be somewhere between flimsy & ridiculous, maybe I’m a monster…
These business owners are faced with this ‘choice’: a) do what they don’t want to do; b) don’t do what they don’t want to do and so get a thump from the Law; or c) stay out the game altogether. That’s how law works, right? More or less? As though a choice is actually free when it’s made under pain of punishment, by force of the law. Sure I can jump the gate at the station and save $1.50 but the law says that’s the wrong choice. That’s the real issue. These folks aren’t whining about the consequences of breaking the law, they are whining about the law. Just as we are, because we sure don’t want to make our choices under their shitty law.
I just don’t think it’s laughable to maintain that our government forces some of our choices. It’s sort of the function actually.
“We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.”
–Nazi Party Program of 1920
I have searched the Holy Bible from cover to cover and can find not one single instance in which Jesus of Nazareth did carpentry for a gay, lesbian or trans-gendered person!
Sorry, but they refer to themselves as Christians… and honestly, it’s not like Christianity doesn’t have a long history of being used to persecute others. I can absolutely understand why you don’t like having such jerks associated with your religion, which is (at least nominally) supposed to be based on teachings of love, compassion, and peace… but honestly, those of us who are members of often-persecuted groups do tend to find it a useful warning label. People who are strident about labeling themselves as Christian are generally folks we’re not particularly safe with.
and one should change or alter their religious convictions for the sake of somebody who wants a cake or picture taken … Seriously ?? You know the right to religious freedom, or rather religion FREE from the government is kinda part of that pesky constitution… Compelling somebody who prefers not to cater your wedding is not…
Does the perspective change if the baker shows the gay couple a book of wedding cakes–one of which contains “made in heaven”? I would submit to you that the baker would probably be required to provide such sentiment on the cake.
And that’s why in everyone of these instances with the baker or photographer the business has offered to perform a variety of task for the perspective clients but simply draw the line at participation in a wedding that they find incompatible with their beliefs… Pastor mentor love and lead by example doesn’t mean condone, participate and enable… When a service requires intimate participation and creative endeavor people should be able to draw the line and refuse to perform for ANY reason…
It simply does not alter their religion. YOU and others like you are making this tragic and unnecessary complaint because your far right religious leaders have claimed this connection–dating all the way back to 2009. The marketplace in America is a secular one and I would submit that the right of a person to not be subjected to unexpected refutation of their very being trumps the discomfort of said business owner or employees. Your way leads to “Jim Crow” like behavior directed to gays FOR NOW but not stopping with them. Our history can be our guide here as we contemplate the number of groups who have been subjected to discrimination–even the Irish didn’t escape it.
No one is asking you to alter your religious convictions, after all. That is a personal and individual matter better expressed between you and God, not in the marketplace. It’s too bad so many on the right want to be publicly declaring their righteousness–perhaps you should understand your Bible better. The parable of the rich man bragging about his contributions versus the poor woman who quietly made her contribution comes to mind. Jesus certainly didn’t see the loud boasting as a good trait. And he certainly didn’t guarantee comfort in all aspects of life, instead a division even within families.
BTW, being liberal does not preclude being Christian. Just so you know.
Our difference here is that you claim participation and I claim they are the hired help. If they don’t want to participate in the public marketplace then they need to run a private club. It really is that simple. The rest of us don’t have to accept your definition of participation.
" you’re still free to do so and deal with the consequences of breaking the law. "
No one is forcing black people into segregation! They can just break these Jim Crow laws… and suffer the consequences! It’s the ultimate freedom! - Sally Kohn
If Kohn and others are really so thick to see law as an elective measure since you get to make the choice to break it then they really are too far gone to see reason. Law, by nature, is not elective. We are subject to it regardless of our choices. Yes, we can choose to break it and become criminals, but that doesn’t mean it is any less restrictive of freedom. In this sense, no one is really ever “forced” to do anything. That woman being assaulted with a gun to her head isn’t being forced at all. “Forced” labor camps? Nah, those are voluntary labor camps! They can not work then be killed, so they made a choice. Their still free!
“As-salamu alaykum! Yes, Salam bakery? I would like to order a Mohammad cartoon cake. Yes, you have to.”
All of these laws should help an establishment of religion!
What I or you think regarding participation is really irrelevant. Its the person’s who feels their religious liberties are being violated. Its in the eye of the beholder. I know you’ll hate that, but to be truly tolerant you have to see this from their side. Why would you force someone by penalty of law to do or perform a task they find reprehensible to their belief system ? And this is about intolerance from the right ?? Hypocrisy at its finest…
The funny thing is we discriminate in business everyday… There are countless people I refuse to work for a variety of reasons. Mostly centering around their refusal to pay in a timely manner or unrealistic expectations. I have no legal issue telling tightwad mccormick to go eff himself as being an ass isn’t a protected class. However if I have strong moral objections to attending and photographing a gay wedding im in hot water… Just seems as if the lgbt needs to let this one go for if it ever makes it to scotus you’ll likely find youself with another hobby lobby ruling…
Man, I’m glad to know that I am not the only one here to see how stupid the “threat of punishment is not force” premise of this article is. This is “straight F’s” dumb.
The cake makers and florists are being forced by the government to participate in gay weddings, pure and simple.
I don’t know, why did we force segregationists to serve black people, which they found reprehensible to their belief system?
Because they ran public businesses that benefited from public works like roads, sewers, electrical grids, special legal protections, etc. which were supported by taxes from the public at large and as such all members of the public had an equal right to equal access to the services provided by these public businesses regardless of race, or as is the question today sexual orientation. Your rights end where other people’s begin, whether that right is their right to live despite your religion calling for their death or their right to engage equally with a business operating in the public sphere despite you religion calling for their exclusion. It doesn’t matter if you are religiously motivated by the fact that they bare the Mark of Ham or that they are Gay, if you operate a public business they have a right to be treated the same as any other customer.
What ridiculous false equivalence.
No, they are not.
They’re not being forced, and they’re not participating in the wedding.
They’re being told that the public accommodations clause of the Civil Rights Act requires that they treat all customers who wish to hire them equally.
Either you follow the law, made by government… or you’re put in jail, or you’re fined, etc. That’s NOT choice.