Gay rights vs. Religious freedom

[Nelvan]

I'm not sure if this point has been brought up in a previous post.. the following is a hypothetical question concerning gay marriage versus religious freedom:

Most RF members are familiar with the case of the Christian owned bakery rejecting business from a gay couple for a gay wedding.  Some say it is against the owner of the bakery's belief and his right.

But imagine that there is a new religion and this new religion is against interracial marriage because their holy book forbids it.  The owner of the local bakery in town happens to be a new convert of this new religion, and he rejected an interracial couple request for a wedding cake.  How is this different from the gay couple?

[john doe]

I believe it would be bigotry based on race rather than on religion.  In America we get to hate and discriminate against who we want to .. or would if the courts would respect our god given rights.









[That is parody in case you can't tell.]

[Questions11]

This has been discussed in some detail before, by those who feel it is different and those who don't (and yet who fall on either side of supporting the right to refuse service to whoever they want).  A search can probably find the relevant threads for you, along with the threads on the baker story(ies) themselves.

For the story threads, this is a good first place to look:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/culture-war-links-growing-collection-v2-6030040.0.html

[igr]

In principle it is no different.  In both cases it is discrimination, not religious freedom.  Nothing prevents the believer performing rituals, celebrations etc in their place of worship.  Nobody mandates which religious belief to hold.

Now if the religion also stated in the Holy Book that any business run by a member was required not to supply goods/services to an inter-racial couple, would there be protection under thew law?  Who wins - the Holy Book or the Law of the Land?

[aleph naught]

There's no difference, in both cases it's just religious people throwing a temper tantrum.

[Questions11]

That seems a particularly unirenic and uncharitable assessment.  And incorrect to boot.  Do better.

[Trinity]

There is a significant difference between race and sexuality. Race is a state of being, homosexual conduct is a behaviour. Discriminating against a state of being is categorically different from discriminating against a behaviour. State of being is amoral, while behaviour can either be moral, immoral or amoral.

[Lion IRC]

There's no difference, in both cases it's just religious people throwing a temper tantrum.

I agree there is no difference.
But there's nothing in the Op about temper tantrums.
Adhering to your own conscientious objection isnt having a tantrum.

Whats that gay lobby argument? ...if you don't want same sex marriage then don't have one

Well if you don't want to shop at a filthy, racist, homophobic, Christofascist cake shop - then don't.

But as we have seen, the gay lobby seem to manage to stalk and find Christian businesses and by amazing coincidence, some gay couple turns up who want to buy their gay wedding cake from that business and no other.

Methinks that even if a city like San Francisco had 50 gay-friendly wedding cake shops, and only one owned by conscientious objector Christians, gay activists would be lining up wanting to buy their cakes from you-know-who.

How comes it that a Christian video store or bookshop owner can legally refuse to sell gay porn but a Christian baker can't say, oh I'm sorry we don't sell THAT product?

[bdsimon]

Good post Lion.

IMHO selling goods is neither moral nor immoral in and of itself unless you are selling something that is deemed harmful or illegal. Selling cakes is (once again, IMHO) not a religious act and should not be objected to for reasons such as you don't like what the cake is being used for. Now, making it say something objectionable or offensive is another story and anyone should have the right to refuse that (including happy gay wedding).

[hellofriend]

i guess business can serve who they want, and hire and fire who they want, like that mozilla fella, sports journos, etc.

[Steve B]

No secret what I'm going to say. . . the government should stay out of it.  It's a clash between two different ideologies.

We should never force someone, under color of law, to violate their conscience.  Boycott the baker if you want.  Advertise a competing baker who will make cup cakes with logos that support gay marriage ideas if you want.  Debate the baker's views on gay-marriage.

But don't require someone to violate their religious conscience. That's taking it too far.

------------

Refutation

People will say to me, "what if they refuse service to black people?"  First, I think ethnicity and sexuality is a false-equivalent.  I know the LGBT likes to frame the debate as if they are the same, but I would fundamentally contest their framing of the debate as if they are somehow equivalent.

Besides this, I think the civil rights movement went too far when it started forcing private companies (companies that do not receive tax payer dollars) to service ethnic minorities.  I would have liked to see the civil rights movement progress without such legal impositions.

In other words, I would have liked to see racist businesses boycotted.  And non-racist businesses frequented.  Asking the government step in, I think, fundamentally undermined the civil rights movement.  It took the power away from the people to enact social changes, and it effectively put that power in the government's hands instead.

Change peoples minds.  Stop trying to legislate morality.  All we are doing is creating cry babies who are failing to learn how to deal with views they disagree with.

[Aaron Massey]

Massive diffrence.   You cant change the colour of your skin, there is no choice.

You can choose not to have homosexual affairs, which are part and parcel with Gay marriage.

Most people are against people having homosexual relations.

Colour is pre-determined.   choosing to have sex is not.

[Nunovalente]

I'm not sure if this point has been brought up in a previous post.. the following is a hypothetical question concerning gay marriage versus religious freedom:

Most RF members are familiar with the case of the Christian owned bakery rejecting business from a gay couple for a gay wedding.  Some say it is against the owner of the bakery's belief and his right.

But imagine that there is a new religion and this new religion is against interracial marriage because their holy book forbids it.  The owner of the local bakery in town happens to be a new convert of this new religion, and he rejected an interracial couple request for a wedding cake.  How is this different from the gay couple?

The law has been applied subjectively that the customer felt it discriminatory (even though the refusal was on the grounds of the political campaign, not the orientation of the customer), and yet objectively that is it wrong to discriminate.

Basically, the only criterion necessary is the subjective opinion of the "victim". Its an abuse of the law, the same abuse that the LGBT community claimed they were victims of when legislation was in place regarding men meeting in toilets.

[Nelvan]

Saying that a person of color can not change their color, but a gay person can change their behavior is not a good argument when specifically addressing the OP.  In the OP, person A marries person B who happens to be of a different race.  Person A could have married a person of the same race but CHOSE not to.  It is still a matter of behavior.  If dating a person of another race is seen as bad in society, then one should BEHAVE in a way where the chances of dating a person of another race is avoided.  There was a time in the south where a black man would have been lynched for catcalling a white woman.  So one would avoid any unnecessary contact with a white woman like eye contact for instance in order to eliminate any sort of misunderstanding. 

[Trinity]

In one case, the marriage is between a man and a woman. In the other case, the 'marriage' is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Here is the conundrum:

If anything goes with regard to marriage, then why stop at SSM?
If not anything goes with regard to marriage, then why begin with SSM?