Texan Bigotry

[Nikolai]

Yes. And what does Paul say? The judgement is for God. But it is upheld as sin. Anyhow, a Christian, baker doctor, must be allowed to do as his/her conviction in the matter says. Not selling a cake is okay. Not doing abortions are okay. It's when violence, jail or such things come into play that he has gone way too far.

[snoopy369]

It's actually an interesting political question if you remove the Benisms and even the religion.

Nikolai, for one, you come from a perspective that is inaccurate, being from Norway. The US is a completely secular country; you are free to practice religion of your choosing, but the laws do not generally consider religious beliefs relevant, except in a few cases where it's not unreasonable to make accommodations (such as conscientious objector for the draft). If it is held that sexual orientation is a protected class under Federal (not yet) or State (in some cases) laws, religions beliefs are not relevant: you may not refuse to serve a protected class. Your held religious beliefs do not affect that obligation. (I'd also note that there is nothing in the bible that says, "Thou shalt not bake a cake for a homosexual couple holding a (civil or other-religion) marriage ceremony."; but that's beside the point.)

The reason for that is simple, and complex. The simple part is that refusal to serve a class of people is one way to marginalize that group of people. Nicer restaurants refusing to serve black people back in the 50s was one way to keep black people as second class citizens. Full participation in society is an important element in integration and recognition of a group. It would be easy to say, "Okay, go somewhere else"; and if it were one business, that wouldn't really be a big deal. But when it's many of them, it becomes a social issue: and in some cases it might even be the majority (either in a state, or in a town/region of a state) attempting to reject a minority from their society.

We do not protect every minority, however. We protect specific groups because they a) have been historically discriminated against, b) the exclusion of that group has a significant impact on society and that group, and c) the characteristics of that group are effectively intrinsic from a social point of view. (For example, religion is not truly intrinsic, but it's generally something that does not change - from a social perspective, that is intrinsic. Compare that to sports affiliation, which is not a protected class; Chicago bars can refuse to serve Packers fans, since it's not something particularly intrinsic to the nature of the individual.) Oregon has determined that sexual orientation meets these criteria. Clearly it meets a), most people agree it meets c) [if not truly intrinsic, at least as much so as religion], and Oregon believes the impact is significant enough to justify overriding the rights of business owners to conduct their business how they see fit - which is a very high bar. (Again, religion is not relevant here - the reason for the business owner's wish to not serve someone is a black box. There is no protection for their religion in terms of how they run their business. Wishing to not serve people of other races because Satan told you not to serve black people, or you think Indians are smelly, is not any better or worse from the perspective of the law.)

I personally don't know that I feel sexual orientation meets the second criteria. Not because I am anti-homosexual (I'm not), and not because I don't think they're an important element of our society (I do). I just don't think the impact to society is significant at this point - both because I think homosexuality is very nearly mainstream nowadays, and because I don't think the few areas that this is happening in (wedding cakes) are very important or hard to replace. This isn't at the level of blacks in the 1960s, or anything like that. I would allow society to work things out, because I think it clearly is - forcing it by law is how you end up with issues like this or abortion, where you make people take sides rather than letting them come to realize it doesn't ****ing matter if some gay people get married. The few businesses that do have a problem will learn relatively quickly that they either get over it, or they go out of business - and your problem is solved.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, religion is not relevant here - the reason for the business owner's wish to not serve someone is a black box. There is no protection for their religion in terms of how they run their business

This is wrong. There are protections for pharmacists and for nurses, doctors, etc as part of the package of conscience protection. You state, "America has no protections for religion". This is false. What America does have is no 'established religion' per in Norway with the Lutheran church there.

The US does protect the right of religious people to practice their faith, and has, on occasion defended the rights of people to practice their religion. This is one example of this, by extension, that freedom of conscience, religion and association, all protects the right of a Christian to work as a baker, and to refuse work which is contrary to their own conscience.

As for 'protection of religious minorities', Catholicism is a religious minority that has historically been persecuted in the United States. Thus, if, by your argument, 'the US has a desire to protect minorities from discrimination', this would, by default include Catholicism and provisions against gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. So - either way - you don't get to where you want to go from where you're starting.

The rights of a gay person do not abrogate the right of a religious person to practice their faith. The same works the other way. If a gay person doesn't want to do work of a Christian nature - the gay person has the right to refuse the work.

Arguing that 'white people, christian people' are 'acceptable targets' because they are 'in no need of help', is false. It may be that people want the law to work this way, but that's not how it works. You can't go and say, "it's ok to do x to white people because they are white' and at the same time turn around and say, black, not ok. We seem to be moving to enshrine bigotry where actions against white people and white folks are ok, but the same action against anyone who isn't white is not. This is wrong. The same law applies to everyone. White or black.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes. And what does Paul say? The judgement is for God. But it is upheld as sin. Anyhow, a Christian, baker doctor, must be allowed to do as his/her conviction in the matter says. Not selling a cake is okay. Not doing abortions are okay. It's when violence, jail or such things come into play that he has gone way too far.

Paul says that the dehumanizing nature of homosexual relationships in the Greek and Roman world, where the "receiver" is a boy slave who is used for sexual benefit and then cast aside when he becomes too old is not ok. The problem is the dehumanization, not the homosexual act - as in the problem with Onan is not obeying God in providing an heir for his brother's wife so that she could be taking care of, not the "spilling of seed".

There are Christians whose convictions led them to support slavery. Our convictions can be wrong and when they are in support of ostracism and hatred, I believe they are. Jail may be appropriate punishments. We cannot simply throw up our hands when people say their convictions tell them otherwise - what about human sacrifice?

[Sava]

Imran
Nikolai

[snoopy369]

except in a few cases where it's not unreasonable to make accommodations

Glad your reading comprehension is up to par, Ben. These accommodations are made where it doesn't otherwise harm social interests. You're also talking about people being forced to do something very significant - perform abortions - that is not only a religious belief but could be a very psychologically scarring event for some people, hence the protection. Making a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding does not rise to that level - and frankly you lessen the value of 'conscience protection' by suggesting it should apply.

[regexcellent]

Ben, just shut the **** up. You're framing the issue completely wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Glad your reading comprehension is up to par, Ben. These accommodations are made where it doesn't otherwise harm social interests.

So how is 'social interest' harmed by a Christian baker advising a gay person that he needs to find another baker?

You're also talking about people being forced to do something very significant - perform abortions - that is not only a religious belief but could be a very psychologically scarring event for some people, hence the protection.

I'm talking about a Catholic pharmacist not dispensing contraception. Do you consider this to be a 'very psychologically scarring' event?

Making a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding does not rise to that level - and frankly you lessen the value of 'conscience protection' by suggesting it should apply.

You have the onus exactly backwards. Why should the inconvenience to the couple of having to try another baker trump the Christian's refusal to prepare a cake for a wedding?

[Ben Kenobi]

Paul says that the dehumanizing nature of homosexual relationships in the Greek and Roman world, where the "receiver" is a boy slave who is used for sexual benefit and then cast aside when he becomes too old is not ok.

Really, Imran? You're trying to lie about Christianity now?

Romans 1:18-31

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[Ben Kenobi]

@ Reg

How should the issue be framed then? Same question to Dinodoc as you. I don't see how one can ban polygamy in Utah arguing that states have the ultimate right to decide.

[rah]

I'm waiting for Ben to say that Catholic hospitals should be allowed to turn away dying black patients.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm waiting for Ben to say that Catholic hospitals should be allowed to turn away dying black patients.

Why? It's contrary to our mission. If you want a church that specifically says that black people have the mark of cain I believe the Mormon church is hiring.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thank Ben for validating my point

[Sava]

Ben, just shut the **** up.

This.

[SlowwHand]

Of all the people that I've ever been acquainted with, you are definitely in the running for "Lowest Self-Esteem".