First Amendment Under Attack

[Hemodoc]

It is not the current law that is at issue my friend

It is exactly the current law that is at issue.  All the proposal does is add sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status to the list in the current law.

Your statements about the proposal are simply false.

Oh boy, you are way off base. It is the sexual orientation, gender identity that is at issue in the PROPOSED changes to the law that is at issue as the news article above denotes.

And here I must apologize.  For some time, I had been assuming that you had sought out information on this situation.  Now I realize that your only source was the single article. That appears to be the origin of your misunderstanding.

From http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Nonbias-ordinance-draws-long-and-loud-argument-4767721.php

" the proposal would bring together [existing] nondiscrimination clauses into a single chapter. It would add sexual orientation, gender identity and veteran status to the current list of protected classes, which include race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin and disability."

[..]

"It does not to attempt to legalize same-sex marriage or require businesses to provide same-sex benefits. It does not require separate bathroom facilities or monitor use. It does not regulate speech, religion or political activity."

Balderdash. I have read several articles on this issue and listed more than one. The entire issue revolves around adding the sexual orientation and gender identity. Yes, you should apologize since this has been the thrust of the entire discussion which you overlooked.

[rocker]

Balderdash. I have read several articles on this issue and listed more than one. The entire issue revolves around adding the sexual orientation and gender identity. Yes, you should apologize since this has been the thrust of the entire discussion which you overlooked.

Yes, I stated this repeatedly, and you kept insisting there was some "new law".  There is not.  And the existing law does not do any of the things you claimed it did, such as preventing someone from running for office if they hate gay people.

[Hemodoc]

First of all, I am still waiting for YOUR definition of socialism.

Secondly, where have you seen any news report that states that this law is already in place?  Sorry, but you are gravely mistaken and don't even realize it my friend. It is a proposed ordinance, not one in place at this time.

San Antonio Proposed Ordinance Bans Christians from City Government
by Bethany Monk
San Antonio City officials will discuss a proposed ordinance on Wednesday that state leaders say would severely threaten religious freedom. It could also a dangerous precedent for other cities throughout the country.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/08/27/san-antonio-proposed-ordinance-a-threat-to-christians/

Critics claim that a controversial proposal in San Antonio could be the first step in banning Christian conservatives from holding public office. The city council has proposed an ordinance that disqualifies anyone who has ever “demonstrated a bias against a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” The ordinance appears to include people who’ve spoken out about topics like gay marriage.

Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/27/san-antonio-proposal-first-step-banning-christians-holding-office#ixzz2db1usMr4

[Hemodoc]

Oregon anti-discrimination law and gay and lesbian protests shut down a Christian business in Oregon that declined to participate in a gay wedding and bake a cake. Even though the state has a religious exemption, it does not apply to private businesses. Just as in Europe, gay rights trumps religious freedom.

GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and became the subject of a state investigation has closed. . .

At question is whether Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. Oregon law doesn’t allow businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation. There is an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but private businesses can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, sex, age, veteran status, disability or religion.

The complaint will be investigated by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and is required to be completed within one year.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Gresham-bakery-wedding-cake-same-sex-Sweet-cakes-by-melissa-222006201.html

[MooseMom]

Should San Antonio include a gay rights provision and prohibit people from serving in city positions if they "discriminate" against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity. What they are calling discrimination is nothing more than religious belief that the gay lifestyle is a sin.

In short, yes. 

In this country, we are guaranteed religious freedom.  If one believes that the gay lifestyle is a sin, one has the freedom to believe that.  However, one is NOT guaranteed the freedom to have one's religious beliefs imposed on anyone else, and people who serve in local government are in positions that can indeed impose their religious beliefs on other citizens through laws they may pass.  It would be like having a member of the KKK serving as mayor.  Do you think such a person would be a fair-minded mayor of ALL citizens, even the non-white ones?  I don't think so.

By the way, the Bible says nothing about transgender people or sexual reassignment.  There is a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.

[MooseMom]

Oregon anti-discrimination law and gay and lesbian protests shut down a Christian business in Oregon that declined to participate in a gay wedding and bake a cake. Even though the state has a religious exemption, it does not apply to private businesses. Just as in Europe, gay rights trumps religious freedom.

GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and became the subject of a state investigation has closed. . .

At question is whether Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. Oregon law doesn’t allow businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation. There is an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but private businesses can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, sex, age, veteran status, disability or religion.

The complaint will be investigated by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and is required to be completed within one year.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Gresham-bakery-wedding-cake-same-sex-Sweet-cakes-by-melissa-222006201.html

I understand the spirit of this particular state law, but I think it is wrong.  While I oppose discrimination based on any of the above criteria, I believe that privately owned businesses should be allowed to conduct their business as they like.  People are free to take their business elsewhere if they don't like a shop's admittedly discriminatory practices.  Sweet Cakes openly admitted to discrimination based on their religious beliefs, and their bottom line would ultimately reflect that.

But Sweet Cakes isn't dictating policy, so their discrimination is more of an irritant that a real hindrance to people who are looking to city/local government for service and policy.  And THAT's why I agree with what San Antonio is proposing.

[Hemodoc]

In short, yes. 

In this country, we are guaranteed religious freedom.  If one believes that the gay lifestyle is a sin, one has the freedom to believe that.  However, one is NOT guaranteed the freedom to have one's religious beliefs imposed on anyone else, and people who serve in local government are in positions that can indeed impose their religious beliefs on other citizens through laws they may pass.  It would be like having a member of the KKK serving as mayor.  Do you think such a person would be a fair-minded mayor of ALL citizens, even the non-white ones?  I don't think so.

By the way, the Bible says nothing about transgender people or sexual reassignment.  There is a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity.

Well then if gay rights trumps religious beliefs, then you once again assert that the first amendment religious liberty rights is under attack let alone the right to say and speak as your conscious permits under the other half of the first amendment.

[Hemodoc]

Oregon anti-discrimination law and gay and lesbian protests shut down a Christian business in Oregon that declined to participate in a gay wedding and bake a cake. Even though the state has a religious exemption, it does not apply to private businesses. Just as in Europe, gay rights trumps religious freedom.

GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and became the subject of a state investigation has closed. . .

At question is whether Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. Oregon law doesn’t allow businesses to deny service based on sexual orientation. There is an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but private businesses can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, sex, age, veteran status, disability or religion.

The complaint will be investigated by the Bureau of Labor and Industries and is required to be completed within one year.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Gresham-bakery-wedding-cake-same-sex-Sweet-cakes-by-melissa-222006201.html

I understand the spirit of this particular state law, but I think it is wrong.  While I oppose discrimination based on any of the above criteria, I believe that privately owned businesses should be allowed to conduct their business as they like.  People are free to take their business elsewhere if they don't like a shop's admittedly discriminatory practices.  Sweet Cakes openly admitted to discrimination based on their religious beliefs, and their bottom line would ultimately reflect that.

But Sweet Cakes isn't dictating policy, so their discrimination is more of an irritant that a real hindrance to people who are looking to city/local government for service and policy.  And THAT's why I agree with what San Antonio is proposing.

Religious belief is an irritant? Well, yes, that is probably true and has been for Christians for nearly 2000 years.

No, Sweet Cakes in not dictating policy, but the policies of today infringe on their religious beliefs.

Should Colorado lock up a man and his wife who likewise refuse to participate in a gay civil union by baking a cake as well?

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/09/baker-faces-jail-time-for-refu

[MooseMom]

Well, yes, to this particular same-sex couple, the Sweet Cakes owners' religious beliefs ARE an irritant, don't you think?  They're so irritated that they made an official complaint.

The policies of today are not infringing on their religious beliefs.  The policies might be infringing on their BUSINESS practice, but I don't see anywhere that they are not being allowed to believe as they wish.

No, I don't think Colorado should lock up a man and his wife for refusing to bake a cake for a civil union ceremony, but I would hope that the same-sex couple involved would voice their displeasure and make sure that everyone knows of this couple's discriminatory practices.  Let the paying customers then decide for themselves whether or not this bakery deserves their business.  But again, this couple can believe whatever they wish, but once they begin imposing their beliefs on others in any way, even if it is just in refusing to bake a cake, they should expect those who do not agree with them to make their voices heard, too.

And I would hope that none of these bakers would ever think of running for any kind of public office.  If you refuse to bake a cake for a same sex couple, then you can't be trusted to make public policy that works for everyone.

Have you ever personally been discriminated against because of your religious beliefs?  You just seem so angry and indignant all the time, and I'm trying to figure out where this is coming from.  The word "attack" seems to appear in so many of your posts.  I hope it is indicative only of your online persona and not of your real life!

[Hemodoc]

What if a bakery didn't want to bake a cake for the KKK on Adolph Hitler's birthday? Should you be allowed to choose who you will do business or not?

What if a bakery doesn't want to bake a cake for an openly anti-American Al Quaeda terrorist celebrating 911?

What if a Jewish baker doesn't want to make a cake for black muslims celebrating Ramadan?

Should you have the right to choose who you will or won't do business?

Who is imposing their beliefs? The bakers who don't support gay marriage, or those that are forcing this business to accept baking a cake for gay marriage putting their religious beliefs into conflict? Just who is imposing their will Moosemom. It seems to me threatening to lock up someone who opposes gay marriage and doesn't want to participate is an act of severe state sanctioned coercion taken against a person exercising their constitutional right to religious freedom and belief. Once again, where does the first amendment fit into this?

Should parents have no right to opt out of issues in public schools that infringe their religious beliefs?

Sorry, but just who is imposing their outlook on who?

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, gosh, are you so eager to be indignant that you've lost the ability to see when someone is agreeing with you?

I have said that I think anyone should be able to choose what they do with their privately owned business.  As far as I am concerned, not that any state legislator has asked me, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple who is getting married or a Klansman who wants to celebrate Hitler's birthday, that's fine by me.  I am pointing out, however, that potential customers have the right to go elsewhere with their business if they so choose.

I'm curious, though.  Why do homosexuality and same-sex marriage  seem to define "religious beliefs"?  (Whenever I hear people speaking about their "religious beliefs", it's always about sexual matters.  Why is that?)  Would these businesses make cakes for, say, an adulterer?  How about someone who does not honor his father or his mother?  Would these people bake cakes for any convicted criminals?  Thieves?  How about atheists?  Do atheists get cakes?  We've all sinned.  I'm glad I don't like cake.  Do you like cake?  Do you deserve a cake, Hemodoc?

If parents want to opt out of issues in schools that infringe upon their religious beliefs, then that's fine by me.

But you ask a very good question.  Who is imposing their outlook on who?  Perhaps you can ask the Governor of North Carolina the same thing.  There are many people in America who feel that "Christians" are imposing upon their own religious beliefs...or non-beliefs. 

[willowtreewren]

I find it interesting that when I first heard this story about the bakers and even now, I can find NOTHING about sending the couple to jail. That is a smoke screen. Their shop closed because of the outrage from the gay community which rallied against the owners and effectively eliminated enough business for them to keep their shop open. Isn't this part of freedom of speech? In fact, isn't it capitalism working just as it is supposed to work? The owners of Sweet Cakes made a business decision to discriminate and that decision had a huge impact on their business.

Because there was a complaint against them they ARE under investigation.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/03/bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding

Aleta

[Hemodoc]

Well, many interpret the first amendment as the Freedom FROM Religion instead of the correct freedom of religion.  Many people believe that Christians are looking for a theocracy. Well, in the end we are when Jesus comes and rules here on earth. But as far as a theocracy headed by man, no, that is not at all the goal of Christianity. 

However, it is interesting the dichotomy especially in Europe of how Christians and Muslims are beginning to be treated. On one hand, Christians more and more cannot exercise their faith when it comes to matters such as the Bible as hate speech, and honoring their own conscience when it comes to the gay rights issues.

On the other hand, England now has allowed aspects of Sharia law and taken tolerance of Islamic views to a very surprising level. For instance, a shop owner cooking pork and bacon had turn off her fan because Muslims complained about the smell infringing their religious liberties.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322435/Cafe-owner-ordered-remove-extractor-fan-case-smell-frying-bacon-offends-passing-Muslims.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

[Hemodoc]

I find it interesting that when I first heard this story about the bakers and even now, I can find NOTHING about sending the couple to jail. That is a smoke screen. Their shop closed because of the outrage from the gay community which rallied against the owners and effectively eliminated enough business for them to keep their shop open. Isn't this part of freedom of speech? In fact, isn't it capitalism working just as it is supposed to work? The owners of Sweet Cakes made a business decision to discriminate and that decision had a huge impact on their business.

Because there was a complaint against them they ARE under investigation.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/03/bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding

Aleta

Two different cases, one in Oregon, the other in Colorado.

[rocker]

Who is imposing their beliefs? The bakers who don't support gay marriage, or those that are forcing this business to accept baking a cake for gay marriage putting their religious beliefs into conflict?

I guarantee you that each and every person who walks into that shop has committed a sin in the Christian religion.  What gives these bakers the right to sit in judgement of only selected sins? 

Should parents have no right to opt out of issues in public schools that infringe their religious beliefs?

Of course all parents have the right to homeschool their children.  Is there somewhere this is prohibited?

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, as you know, I lived in the UK for a long time, so I'm not going to fall into the trap of discussing how the Muslim community is treated/discriminated against/favored.  The sociological history of Muslims in the UK and continental Europe is very different from that in the US.  Besides, I'm sure you don't really care all that much about European affairs.

So getting back to who deserves cake, I have some questions about Sweet Cakes and other businesses that adhere to "religious beliefs".  So, they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  Would they sell a birthday cake to a same-sex couple?  I mean, if they're against same-sex marriage, I am assuming they are anti-gay in general, so does that mean they would sell NOTHING to gays?  If that's the case, then why not just post a sign by the front door saying, "We Don't Serve Gays"?

What if a person comes into their shop and they suspect s/he is gay?  What then?

[Hemodoc]

Who is imposing their beliefs? The bakers who don't support gay marriage, or those that are forcing this business to accept baking a cake for gay marriage putting their religious beliefs into conflict?

I guarantee you that each and every person who walks into that shop has committed a sin in the Christian religion.  What gives these bakers the right to sit in judgement of only selected sins? 

Should parents have no right to opt out of issues in public schools that infringe their religious beliefs?

Of course all parents have the right to homeschool their children.  Is there somewhere this is prohibited?

Rocker, not the issue. First of all, Christians understand greatly that we are ALL sinners. That is not the issue. They don't wish to participate in a gay marriage in any manner. Should they be forced otherwise?

Secondly, why yes, Germany prohibits home schooling apparently after the well publicized case just in the news recently.  BTW, Obama opposes granting asylum to this family.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/29/US-Government-Seeks-To-Deport-Family-Threatened-in-Germany-For-Homeschooling

[UkrainianTracksuit]

Would these businesses make cakes for, say, an adulterer?  How about someone who does not honor his father or his mother?  Would these people bake cakes for any convicted criminals?  Thieves?  How about atheists?  Do atheists get cakes?  We've all sinned.  I'm glad I don't like cake.  Do you like cake?  Do you deserve a cake, Hemodoc?

I must say, as a PhD candidate, this is one the best arguments I've ever heard.     Now, I'll leave this and let you guys carry on.  I just had to give my praise!

[Hemodoc]

Would these businesses make cakes for, say, an adulterer?  How about someone who does not honor his father or his mother?  Would these people bake cakes for any convicted criminals?  Thieves?  How about atheists?  Do atheists get cakes?  We've all sinned.  I'm glad I don't like cake.  Do you like cake?  Do you deserve a cake, Hemodoc?

I must say, as a PhD candidate, this is one the best arguments I've ever heard.     Now, I'll leave this and let you guys carry on.  I just had to give my praise!

Well it is entertaining reading, but unfortunately Moosemom suffers from a quite vivid imagination and in such does not stick to the facts of the case very well. No one has made any of the accusations she is proposing against the bakers in with her questions above.

To say the least, the comment itself reflects a deficient understanding of what Christianity is or isn't. We have a saying in church, to get saved you first have to get lost. What that means is most folks think, I am "good" person, failing to understand we are all sinners. Understanding that all of us have a multitude of sins to answer to God is the fist step in understanding the gospel of Christ.The entire aspect of becoming born again is predicated on the need for a Saviour in the first place. So, what does the Bible say to all of those that follow Jesus:

Romans 3:10    As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11     There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12     They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13     Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14     Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15     Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16     Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17     And the way of peace have they not known:
18     There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19     Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20     Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21     But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22     Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23     For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So the answer is yes, every day I am sure that they served adulterers, gays, or whatever sin you wish to name since EVERY man, woman and child who walked through their doors falls into those categories just like you and I as well.

Secondly, although Moosemom's argument is entertaining, it is not at all original. If you recall the Chick Fil A controversy last year, that was exactly the same argument used as well. However, when a whole lot of folks ventured that same argument against Chick Fil A, they came up against a stone wall of truth in that all of the allegations were false. It turns out they were not guilty of any of those false accusations at all. I would also remind folks of the overwhelming amount of support this company received as well. Is religious diversity and freedom really honored any longer in America? It seems like it is not.

So, I could respond to every one of Moosemom's myriad entertaining imaginations, but chasing rabbit tales becomes a unfruitful event. Sufficient to say, where have you seen any of those accusations documented against this couple whatsoever?

Simply because a couple does not want to participate directly in a gay marriage is quite different than the false treatise above. Should you be able to abide by your religious belief's in the land founded for religious freedom?

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, I haven't made any accusations at all.  Where do you get that idea?  I'm asking questions, that's all.  What accusations do you think I am making?
 

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, I haven't made any accusations at all.  Where do you get that idea?  I'm asking questions, that's all.  What accusations do you think I am making?

Moosemom, while quite entertaining, indeed, your questions are very provocative but accusatory questions made even more so by virtue of the fact that the questions themselves are devoid of any evidence to even bring them up.

Here is what the baker in question stated:

Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals -- but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/#ixzz2dtRGFu4g

As a Christian who has repented of their own sins and asked forgiveness for them, it is completely evident that this man's religious beliefs led him to not participate in what he believes is a sinful act to the great detriment of his business and personal life.  This man has paid a great price for living out his beliefs. So the answer to all of your accusatory questions above appears to be no.

[MooseMom]

I guess my real question is, if the owners of Sweet Cakes know that we are all sinners, why would they specifically target same-sex couples with their "religious beliefs"?

[Hemodoc]

I guess my real question is, if the owners of Sweet Cakes know that we are all sinners, why would they specifically target same-sex couples with their "religious beliefs"?

That is not the issue. It is a matter of directly participating with willful knowledge.

Once again, with all due respect, I believe that you are asking the wrong question. Where have seen any evidence that they "targeted" the same sex couple in question? Sorry, but that is once again an accusatory question.

BTW, when did you stop beating your children?

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, thanks for that link. 

I am not pleased that you keep accusing ME of accusing THEM of anything, so please stop it, OK?  They made a decision that, while costing them financially, seems to have been right for them personally, so I am happy for them. 

It is unfortunate if it is true that threats were made against this business; I don't condone that.  One can exercise their freedom of speech without resorting to threats on Facebook.

I know gay people who have paid a great price for living out their beliefs, too, so Sweet Cakes don't have a monopoly on that.

Did you ever figure out the whole wearing a military uniform to church thing?

[MooseMom]

I guess my real question is, if the owners of Sweet Cakes know that we are all sinners, why would they specifically target same-sex couples with their "religious beliefs"?

That is not the issue. It is a matter of directly participating with willful knowledge.

Once again, with all due respect, I believe that you are asking the wrong question. Where have seen any evidence that they "targeted" the same sex couple in question? Sorry, but that is once again an accusatory question.

BTW, when did you stop beating your children?

OK, I understand the concept of "directly participating with willful knowledge."