Gender/Transgender In The Military & In General

[BigRedBuster]

27 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

So what if a baker has a religious belief that he cannot support gender equality? He can now refuse to serve women.

 

What if the religious belief is about formal religious attire? Now women not wearing a burka can refuse to be served.

 

Or women driving? Now women who drive cannot be served.

 

Or going more political: what if he has a religious belief that cannot support registered Republicans? Or cannot support the military? Or cannot support the rich or the poor?

 

This is a terrible ruling that will quickly get out of hand because it goes against the very nature of being a melting pot that facilitates the many, many cultural groups within our country getting along together.

 

All very good questions that I don't have answers for.  I'm assuming that if a family has a religious belief that women shouldn't drive, the government can not force the woman to drive.  But, also, that family can not force their neighbor's wife not to drive.

 

Amish don't drive because of their religion.  The government can't force them to drive.

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

All very good questions that I don't have answers for.  I'm assuming that if a family has a religious belief that women shouldn't drive, the government can not force the woman to drive.  But, also, that family can not force their neighbor's wife not to drive.

 

Amish don't drive because of their religion.  The government can't force them to drive.

But that's not the issue. The issue is can a business refuse service. For example, can a family that runs a business now refuse service to the neighbors because the neighbors allow the wife to drive?

 

The reason this is ridiculous is it's not about personal freedoms - like the ones you're describing - but rather the freedoms of a business. My take: if you want to run a business, then you have to meet the personal freedoms of the society first. If you have personal freedoms that running a business conflicts with, then don't run a business.

[Waldo]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

But that's not the issue. The issue is can a business refuse service. For example, can a family that runs a business now refuse service to the neighbors because the neighbors allow the wife to drive?

 

The reason this is ridiculous is it's not about personal freedoms - like the ones you're describing - but rather the freedoms of a business. My take: if you want to run a business, then you have to meet the personal freedoms of the society first. If you have personal freedoms that running a business conflicts with, then don't run a business.

So if you're anti-guns and you own a sporting goods store, do you legally have to sell guns? 

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, Waldo said:

So if you're anti-guns and you own a sporting goods store, do you legally have to sell guns? 

No, but if you do sell guns then you can't discriminate who gets to buy them based on your own beliefs.

 

Just like the baker doesn't have to sell wedding cakes, but if they do, then they can't discriminate who they're selling to based on their own beliefs.

[Waldo]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

No, but if you do sell guns then you can't discriminate who gets to buy them based on your own beliefs.

 

Just like the baker doesn't have to sell wedding cakes, but if they do, then they can't discriminate who they're selling to based on their own beliefs.

Agreed that people should not discriminate, and I do think that this will lead to more problems. The constitution has its gray areas, but because people own a business doesn't mean they have to uphold 'societal freedoms.' 

[TGHusker]

 

This article does a good job of summarizing the ruling.  Stating how it is specifically aimed at the details of this case alone.  It appears the real issue in this case wasn't hostility of the

backer towards the gay couple but the hostility of the Co Civil Rights Commission against the baker. 

So on a national scale, this doesn't solve much - as is usually the case for these initial court cases on a subject like this. 

 

I can see both sides of this issue as being valid.  I say this as a person of faith that promotes the traditional idea of marriage.  If this was my bakery, however, I would make the cake.  I would not want to write anything that was an obvious violation of my faith on the cake  - that would be true of any phrase - I'd turn down a cake that required vulgar  language.  But as a Christian I'd do the cake as a celebration of life and as a witness of the grace of Christ.  If I think my traditional marriage views are correct, as this baker did, I should not be intimidated by doing a cake for a non-traditional situation.  I guess I ask my self - What would Christ do - I think He would put grace before dogma and allow grace to be a witness. Hard to influence others wt the rightness of your cause with dogma alone.  I say that will also knowing that Jesus was all about speaking the truth and hard sayings - so it wasn't wimpy grace.  But it is always 'Grace and Truth" - that order when you see those two words used together in scripture.   Would Jesus make a cake (or the Cake stand - since he was a carpenter's son) -  that wasn't his calling but he'd show grace and truth to us as he did to the woman caught in the act of adultery(I forgive you - grace, go and sin no more - truth). (Bible book of John chapter 8)  He would also rebuke today's self-righteous as he did then.   So while many might have religious reasons why they oppose the concept of gay marriage, grace must always be the standard of conduct.  In the same way, I'd like to be treated with grace by those who don't agree with me. 

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/6/4/17424804/masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court-baker-ruling-gay-wedding-cake

Quote

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

 

 

[RedDenver]

Just now, Waldo said:

Agreed that people should not discriminate, and I do think that this will lead to more problems. The constitution has its gray areas, but because people own a business doesn't mean they have to uphold 'societal freedoms.' 

Why not? The entire concept of a business is one of social interaction.

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, Waldo said:

because people own a business doesn't mean they have to uphold 'societal freedoms.' 

 

Kinda does. See:  Title II of the Civil Rights Act (1964)

[BigRedBuster]

I'm uncomfortable with either side of this issue.

 

a)  I don't like people discriminating against others.

 

b)  I don't like people being forced to do something or be a part of something they don't believe in.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm uncomfortable with either side of this issue.

 

a)  I don't like people discriminating against others.

 

b)  I don't like people being forced to do something or be a part of something they don't believe in.

I hear where you're coming from but being part of a society means having to cooperate and sometimes compromise with others. And no one is being forced to do something in this case - the baker could decide to not sell wedding cakes if that's what their personal beliefs demand.

[Danny Bateman]

That's always kind of been my understanding as well. If you offer a public service (like cakes), you're liable to get into trouble if you discriminate against customers on the basis of sexuality, gender or race. The reasons you discriminate are not really all that important.

Apparently the court disagreed. But at least it was a narrow ruling, so it hopefully shouldn't change all that much. It certainly won't be as damaging as, say, DC vs. Heller or Citizens United.

[BigRedBuster]

I had a friend who wanted to buy his little son a motor cycle.  The dealer told him that he wouldn't sell him a motor cycle for the kid because he thought he was too young and would get hurt.

 

I remember after the Las Vegas shooting, they interviewed a gun shop owner in Vegas.  He said that he does back ground checks and also wouldn't sell a gun to someone if he has a feeling the person is not responsible or has intentions of doing harm with the gun.

 

So....should all decisions like this be illegal as a judgement call when selling something to the public?

[NM11046]

@RedDenver is covering all my thoughts.  I'd just add though, if only serving customers that align to your beliefs is a thing, then it seems to me that everyone that walks into a business is going to be asked a line of questions to see if that person will be allowed to continue shopping in the store or doing business with that person ... send them right back out the revolving door if they don't match up.  Fair right?

 

Otherwise, the bakery could decide to only serve members of a particular congregation I guess, but then they'd not be able to advertise themselves as a business anywhere other than that church bulletin.  Seems like the answer to those who hold religious beliefs close, and would want to do business with only those they agree with - wonder how many would be able to stay in business if they started only selling to those who think like them?

[NM11046]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I had a friend who wanted to buy his little son a motor cycle.  The dealer told him that he wouldn't sell him a motor cycle for the kid because he thought he was too young and would get hurt.

 

I remember after the Las Vegas shooting, they interviewed a gun shop owner in Vegas.  He said that he does back ground checks and also wouldn't sell a gun to someone if he has a feeling the person is not responsible or has intentions of doing harm with the gun.

 

So....should all decisions like this be illegal as a judgement call when selling something to the public?

Interesting thoughts  BRB ... I'm going to have to think further.

 

So would a man marrying another man be a danger to society?  Or potentially harm one of those men?  Both the above decisions involve issues that already have guidelines assigned (legal driving age, gun purchase regulations) in order for the business owners to make the call.  To my knowledge no such thing exists with baked goods.  (though I wish that someone would decide I'm too pudgy for more cake and stop selling me cupcakes).

[BigRedBuster]

37 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Interesting thoughts  BRB ... I'm going to have to think further.

 

So would a man marrying another man be a danger to society?  Or potentially harm one of those men?  Both the above decisions involve issues that already have guidelines assigned (legal driving age, gun purchase regulations) in order for the business owners to make the call.  To my knowledge no such thing exists with baked goods.  (though I wish that someone would decide I'm too pudgy for more cake and stop selling me cupcakes).

The examples I gave were examples where a business owner didn't sell something they normally sell because they didn't feel comfortable going through with the transaction.  They legally were allowed to sell the product, but didn't personally feel right about it.