Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You're a bigot so make me a wedding cake or I'll have you put in jail.

@Dreadclaw69

I agree, selling food to someone does not necessarily amount to condoning (much less causing) their sexual orientation. OTOH - why don't they want to cater a homosexual wedding? I guess they could just be spiteful bigots. But there may be another explanation; namely, they detect a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful and being publicly associated with a celebration of a homosexual relationship. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although does it amount to a burden on their religious freedom? Would that be an issue of whether they are free to protest the very wedding they are catering? So, for example, if the government forced them to cater a wedding would they be allowed to put signs next to the food describing why homosexuality is a sin?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Honest question: was Hobby Lobby ever required to actually prove that their religion prohibits them from providing anything?

You mean other than proving that abortion causing medications as incompatible with Christian beliefs on the basis that their faith teaches that life begins at birth, all life is precious, and that killing is not condoned in the Christian faith? All those reasons are provided for in the Bible. Denying pizza for same sex couples is not.

So are you able to point me to the court record in the Hobby Lobby case where the Greens were instructed to state precisely what religious teaching prohibits Hobby Lobby from providing certain birth control to a woman. And to state for the record exactly how providing said birth control will prevent them from exercising their religion?

 Manchu wrote:
@Dreadclaw69

I agree, selling food to someone does not necessarily amount to condoning (much less causing) their sexual orientation. OTOH - why don't they want to cater a homosexual wedding? I guess they could just be spiteful bigots. But there may be another explanation; namely, they detect a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful and being publicly associated with a celebration of a homosexual relationship. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although does it amount to a burden on their religious freedom? Would that be an issue of whether they are free to protest the very wedding they are catering? So, for example, if the government forced them to cater a wedding would they be allowed to put signs next to the food describing why homosexuality is a sin?

I think thats essentially the legal argument Manchu. The signs would be an interesting touch.

All this talk of cake is making me hungry.

Brooks nailed it. This is a matter of politeness.

Even assuming everyone who does not want their business associated with pro-homosexual politics is a terrible homophobe ...

... how does forcing social and legal confrontations with such people foster a more open and tolerant society at this point?

I'm not saying such tactics have no place anywhere ever. Rather, at this time and place on this issue, the biggest impact of continuing down this path will be exchanging hatred against homosexuals for hatred against certain religious groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@d-usa

One is not required to show that one's religious beliefs accurately reflect a wider tradition, denomination, etc.

In the HobbyLobby case, the law in question required the businesses to provide the means of infanticide to its employees or face a fine. I used the word infanticide to highlight that its definition, for the purposes of the case, is religious rather than legal. Taking Plan B and the like does not constitute murder in any state, so far as I am aware.

Dreadclaw69's question (as I understand it) is what is the analog of "infanticide" in this pizza catering situation?

 Manchu wrote:


... how does forcing social and legal confrontations with such people foster a more open and tolerant society at this point?

Especially in the case of a certain pizzeria http://memoriespizza.com/ . I'm torn, if I'm honest I'll say I think the hack is funny but at the same time it does nothing to fix donkey-caves, it's just fething with donkey-caves.

Whose business is it to "fix" other people anyway? That attitude is kinda sorta the main problem here ...

 Manchu wrote:
Whose business is it to "fix" other people anyway?

Menards and/or Lowes

 Manchu wrote:
@Dreadclaw69

I agree, selling food to someone does not necessarily amount to condoning (much less causing) their sexual orientation. OTOH - why don't they want to cater a homosexual wedding? I guess they could just be spiteful bigots. But there may be another explanation; namely, they detect a contradiction between their religious belief that homosexual acts are sinful and being publicly associated with a celebration of a homosexual relationship. That seems pretty reasonable to me, although does it amount to a burden on their religious freedom? Would that be an issue of whether they are free to protest the very wedding they are catering? So, for example, if the government forced them to cater a wedding would they be allowed to put signs next to the food describing why homosexuality is a sin?

Given that I do not share their feelings towards homosexual couples I could but speculate on their motivations, but comments like;
“That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?”
and
“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” she added. “I do not think it’s targeting gays. I don’t think it’s discrimination. It’s supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”
don't make me think that this is purely religiously motivated. This may be a very technical distinction but are the pizzas being used to celebrate the wedding, or are they merely food at the wedding?

As to the question about the signs I personally believe that it would be in incredibly bad taste. Perhaps an accommodation could be reached where the pizza parlour provides the pizza without being associated with the wedding, that way their food is not associated with the celebration.

That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.

There is something ironic about intolerance of intolerance. As humorous as the yelp reviews and site hack are, it doesn't exactly make the "progressive" side of things look any better. What I mean by that is, even if the government had no legal recourse to fine these people for discrimination, citizens and consumers could still legally throw a wrench in things with yelp reviews (as they've been doing) and other forms of protest. I put forward that it's indeed possible for a racist or homophobe to make a decent pizza. Their pizza could also totally suck. But we all know people aren't reviewing the pizza.

 Manchu wrote:
Whose business is it to "fix" other people anyway? That attitude is kinda sorta the main problem here ...

I would agree with you on this. There needs to be a balance between competing rights; the right to religion and the right to sexual orientation (even if this right is not currently recognized at a Federal, or in many cases state level). This pizza shop could be the first test case that clarifies SB101, unless Pence clarifies the law.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.

You've read some research that perhaps I haven't?

While I agree that it's most likely genetic somehow, I'm fairly certain there's no concrete evidence proving that, correct?

I don't recall making an active choice one way or the other.

The law is silly, it doesnt need to be said that a business may refuse service to anyone. They just should be able to, with exception. The gas company cant say your gay so no gas for your house, etc.

The law does not condone or promote bigotry.

If someone doesnt want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, SO WHAT. That bakery lost money and they go elsewhere. Its rediclous that this needs to be stated.

Now on to gencon, that is obnoxious to threaten to leave the state over a law PROTECTING peoples rights rather then taking them away. If gencon didnt like the law then guess what, they dont have to participate in it. "good for gencon"??? Why? This law has nothing to do with the con so why must they interject themselves into the discussion?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I don't recall making an active choice one way or the other.

Well it's a good thing anecdotal evidence is the best evidence!

Like I said, I agree, but the evidence isn't there yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 namiel wrote:

Now on to gencon, that is obnoxious to threaten to leave the state over a law PROTECTING peoples rights rather then taking them away. If gencon didnt like the law then guess what, they dont have to participate in it. "good for gencon"??? Why? This law has nothing to do with the con so why must they interject themselves into the discussion?

Because taking an internet stand is the new hotness.

@Dreadclaw69:

The sound bytes from these pizza evangelicals don't play well as national news. It's weird that anyone would expect Crystal O'Connor to be articulate or even compelling. I don't mean to put her or "people like her" down; rather my point is, no one at Memories Pizza is a marketing exec, PR specialist, or professional lobbyist. Nor do any of them research or write about theology, law, or human sexuality. These are just people doing a completely unsurprisingly bad job of explaining their religious values to a skeptical and in many cases outright hostile audience.

A lot of hateful people were looking for someone to hate and Memories Pizza bumbled forward.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Whose business is it to "fix" other people anyway? That attitude is kinda sorta the main problem here ...

I would agree with you on this. There needs to be a balance between competing rights; the right to religion and the right to sexual orientation (even if this right is not currently recognized at a Federal, or in many cases state level). This pizza shop could be the first test case that clarifies SB101, unless Pence clarifies the law.

I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden. Obviously the SCOTUS somewhat disagrees with me, but that doesn't really change my opinion. A bakery won't go to hell for making a gay wedding cake, and a bakery won't go to heaven for refusing to make a gay wedding cake. The religious belief of an employee or an owner should be irrelevant to the dealings of the actual business. I would be willing to concede some ground in the case of sole proprietorships, but not for incorporated businesses.

If you make the decision to walk up to the state and file the paperwork declaring "Smith Bakery, LLC is a separate legal entity from Mr. Smith who is a baker. Suing Smith Bakery is not the same as suing Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith is not responsible for any debts or other legal judgements against Smith Bakery" then you shouldn't be able to turn around and claim "Mr Smith is Smith Bakery and making Smith Bakery baking a gay cake goes against Mr. Smith's religion". If you want to enjoy the legal protection of having your business be a separate legal entity than yourself then you should accept the responsibilities of that.

Now if they want to pass a law saying "Baker Smith cannot be compelled by his employer to bake a cake that violates his religion" then I would be okay with that as long as the same law requires "Smith Bakery" to have the responsibility to make sure that other employees are available to step in and provide the service".

 cincydooley wrote:

Well it's a good thing anecdotal evidence is the best evidence!

I've found many posters use it almost exclusively, so it must be good, right?

 d-usa wrote:
I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden.

You are splitting hairs a bit there. Many businesses are in reality indistinguishable from the people who own them for any purpose other than liability. The abstract concept of the "business" is not the one who has to turn up to the gay wedding with the pizza.

Obviously I am not thinking of HobbyLobby here.

 Manchu wrote:
@Dreadclaw69:

The sound bytes from these pizza evangelicals don't play well as national news. It's weird that anyone would expect Crystal O'Connor to be articulate or even compelling. I don't mean to put her or "people like her" down; rather my point is, no one at Memories Pizza is a marketing exec, PR specialist, or professional lobbyist. Nor do any of them research or write about theology, law, or human sexuality. These are just people doing a completely unsurprisingly bad job of explaining their religious values to a skeptical and in many cases outright hostile audience.

They may not be a marketing executive or the like, but given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum. They did after all make their comments to an Indiana news station.

That being said I do not condone the threats of violence or having their online presence compromised.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
This isn't discrimination, we just don't serve your kind here.

Indeed. The law is so anti-gay that religious gays can use it to prevent their religious practices being substantially burdened


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden. Obviously the SCOTUS somewhat disagrees with me, but that doesn't really change my opinion.

Without wanting to sound too harsh you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The law as it stands recognizes that businesses may be constituted on a religious basis. Whether that should or should not be the case is a separate discussion

 cincydooley wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.

You've read some research that perhaps I haven't?

While I agree that it's most likely genetic somehow, I'm fairly certain there's no concrete evidence proving that, correct?

It's pretty much universally agreed upon that it isn't conscious choice. I can't just go "I'm gay now!" and have that be true. The exact cause may be unknown, but it has been proven to not be by choice.

 d-usa wrote:
If you make the decision to walk up to the state and file the paperwork declaring "Smith Bakery, LLC is a separate legal entity from Mr. Smith who is a baker. Suing Smith Bakery is not the same as suing Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith is not responsible for any debts or other legal judgements against Smith Bakery" then you shouldn't be able to turn around and claim "Mr Smith is Smith Bakery and making Smith Bakery baking a gay cake goes against Mr. Smith's religion". If you want to enjoy the legal protection of having your business be a separate legal entity than yourself then you should accept the responsibilities of that.

Does this LLC exercise practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by an individual who has control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes? If it does not then it cannot use this legislation as a shield.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden.

You are splitting hairs a bit there. Many businesses are in reality indistinguishable from the people who own them for any purpose other than liability.

However narrow the distinction may be, it was significant enough for the owner to run to the state and to take advantage of all applicable laws to declare "I am not this business". Obviously my feelings are different for sole proprietorships, but it stands for incorporated businesses.

If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
... given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum.

Is that what they expected? Or did they expect they could publicly voice an opinion without becoming the targets of threats, vandalism, and other forms of harassment?

That would be a reasonable expectation that advocates of a tolerant and open society would support ... one would think ...

TBH I think the Memories Pizza people are probably a bit provincial and did not entirely fathom how bloodthirsty the crowd is getting over this. As I said, the crowd needed someone to boo and these guys conveniently showed up. But let's remember, the desire to boo came first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.

First, please don't load the issue: whether Mr. Smith "likes gays" or not is not the same thing as Mr. Smith's religious values regarding homosexuality. Second, I have heard this argument before -- but I don't understand it; or rather I suspect those who make it do not understand how/why businesses can be considered distinct from their owners. The distinct personhood of the business is a legal fiction for the sole purpose of limiting liability. Back in reality, Mr. Smith is the guy who has to bake the cake.

 cincydooley wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.

You've read some research that perhaps I haven't?

While I agree that it's most likely genetic somehow, I'm fairly certain there's no concrete evidence proving that, correct?

More likely it's an epigenetic feth-up. Genetic screw up that lead to those sorts of phenotypes tend to work themselves out of populations right damn quick.

Edit: Didn't word that right. Meant that it's fairly certain that it isn't genetic, meaning there isn't any gay gene, but that its reasonably well accepted that something fethered up somewhere, and whatever that particular thing is (probably a variety of things)it leads to the anomalous phenotype. So while it isn't likely 'genetic', as most people understand that term, that doesn't imply anyone has any more of a choice.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
... given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum.

Is that what they expected? Or did they expect they could publicly voice an opinion without becoming the targets of threats, vandalism, and other forms of harassment?

That would be a reasonable expectation that advocates of a tolerant and open society would support ... one would think ...

TBH I think the Memories Pizza people are probably a bit provincial and did not entirely fathom how bloodthirsty the crowd is getting over this. As I said, the crowd needed someone to boo and these guys conveniently showed up. But let's remember, the desire to boo came first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.

First, please don't load the issue: whether Mr. Smith "likes gays" or not is not the same thing as Mr. Smith's religious values regarding homosexuality. Second, I have heard this argument before -- but I don't understand it; or rather I suspect those who make it do not understand how/why businesses can be considered distinct from their owners. The distinct personhood of the business is a legal fiction for the sole purpose of limiting liability. Back in reality, Mr. Smith is the guy who has to bake the cake.

Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.

 d-usa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I just don't agree that a business has any sort of right to having a "religion", or claiming that as a burden.

You are splitting hairs a bit there. Many businesses are in reality indistinguishable from the people who own them for any purpose other than liability.

However narrow the distinction may be, it was significant enough for the owner to run to the state and to take advantage of all applicable laws to declare "I am not this business". Obviously my feelings are different for sole proprietorships, but it stands for incorporated businesses.

If I can't sue Mr. Smith for falling on a wet floor inside Smith Bakery then Smith Bakery shouldn't get to refuse me business because Mr. Smith doesn't like gays.

Well the other problem with mr. smith not liking gays is that it doesn't tend to go hand in hand with being psychic, short of him asking everyone's sexual preference before ordering.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
... given the intensive media coverage the past while they cannot reasonably expect that their comments would not remain in a vacuum.

Is that what they expected? Or did they expect they could publicly voice an opinion without becoming the targets of threats, vandalism, and other forms of harassment?

That would be a reasonable expectation that advocates of a tolerant and open society would support ... one would think ...

I apologize if I was unclear, when I said that their comments would not exist in a vacuum I meant that given the controversy it was almost inevitable that it the comments would reach a wide audience. It would be nice to think that those demanding tolerance of others would be more inclined to lead by example. Sadly that was not the case.

 Manchu wrote:
TBH I think the Memories Pizza people are probably a bit provincial and did not entirely fathom how bloodthirsty the crowd is getting over this. As I said, the crowd needed someone to boo and these guys conveniently showed up. But let's remember, the desire to boo came first.

I agree with that. The desire to boo seems to have been evident since before this law's inception. These were just the first people to stick their heads out of the trench

 Manchu wrote:
First, please don't load the issue: whether Mr. Smith "likes gays" or not is not the same thing as Mr. Smith's religious values regarding homosexuality.

And how exactly does that work?

The distinct personhood of the business is a legal fiction for the sole purpose of limiting liability.

And for taxes, and for selling the business, etc. The problem here is that certain business owners want to claim all of the benefits of their business being a separate entity but none of the obligations. Either your business is separate or it isn't, you shouldn't be allowed to change its status depending on whether it benefits you.