So Choose Another Baker and Show Your Tolerance of Others Beliefs

by lewwaters

The Iowa Supreme Court legalized same Sex Marriage in April 2009.

Did they also invalidate the First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is it really a civil rights violation if you, a private business owner, decline to do business with someone based upon your religious convictions?

With the issue once again being pushed in Washington State, does 10% of the population have a right to dictate to 90% of the population that their private businesses will do business with them, regardless of personal convictions?

Christian Baker Faces Boycott For Refusing to Make Lesbian Cake

30 Comments to “So Choose Another Baker and Show Your Tolerance of Others Beliefs”

  1. Has anyone seen a draft of the bill Rep Moeller will be co-sponsoring? I’m curious to see if there are any conscience protections in it. Lew brings up a good point. The NY bill, and apparently the Ohio law, and according to what I’ve read about the proposed WA law, all have religious exemptions to one degree or another. I haven’t heard of any protections for businesses.

    Businesses often post signs “No shirt, No shoes, No service”. Isn’t that discriminatory too? If they can legally post signs like that, why couldn’t a business post signs about who they’ll not serve (excepting of course the usual race, color, religion, etc – that’s Federal law).

    For myself, I don’t have much objection to what Moeller, Murray, etc. are proposing. I just want to make sure there are adequate exceptions protecting those who disagree.

  2. Craig, I haven’t heard what if any new bill is proposed, so I am under the assumption he is using his last bill, HB 1963

  3. I wouldn’t make a cake for Moeller, either.

  4. Gauging from how he speaks, I believe he would bake his own cake 😉

    But, the bigger picture is that it seems individuals are being denied their right to freedom of religious expression.

    A same sex wedding cake is hardly a necessity of life and there are several choices the ‘couple’ could make to get one.

    A quick google shows more than a dozen choices.

    I wonder too if the ‘couple’ did not deliberately choose this ladies business to push their point?

  5. Yes, I found it. It looks like the NY bill has stronger religious protections than the proposed WA bill has. Here’s a link to the amended NY bill that explicity protects religious institutions as well as the officials of the religion. http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/GPB_24_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY_BILL.pdf

    The WA bill only seems to protect the officials.
    “No official of any religious denomination or nonprofit institution shall be required to solemize…”. I think the WA bill should be as strong and as unequivocal as the NY law is. There is also a section in there defining relationships that are prohibited, but strangely they didn’t change that. Presumably, the way it is, a man could marry his brother or father. That will need to be changed.

  6. No protections for religious expression for anyone other than “officials of religious denominations” though. That is troubling to me. I can’t support this bill as written. It will need to be amended.

  7. My goodness, the deviants of society sure get nasty,don’t they?

  8. Maybe its just my own personal belief and not from a contextual constitutional discussion, I believe personally people should have the right to peacably do business or deny business with any perspn they so choose?

    Isn’t there a constitutional provision in the US constitution that says people can assemble or chose to do business with whomever they so chose?

  9. In the 90’s Clinton passed with democratic house help a bill fondly dubbed “the right to say no” wherein small business owners had to pay a higher tax and the excuse was they had the right to say no because they were their own bosses. Personally I think if they can raise and adopt our children then the rest is mute.

  10. Let’s get to the heart of the matter here, shall we?? When you speak of Jim Moeller, remember he is in a Protected Special Ruling Class that is exempt from criticism of any kind whatsoever.

    First and foremost, let’s not forget that Jim Moeller is leading a group of 12 Democrats in suing the people of the State of Washington in order to raise any tax they see fit, and to hell with a 2/3rds majority law AND the voters. Jim knows what’s good for you much better than any of you do, so do what he says: sit down and STFU.

    Unfortunately we don’t have any strong Conservatives* representing Clark County in the State Legislature any more so Moeller can probably count on little opposition, and plenty of demonization of anyone who tries. Anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda is a thought criminal and had better have his bags packed and keep his shovel handy, because your departure for gulag is imminent and you had better be prepared to dig your own potatoes…

    *(Note: Don Benton is no “Conservative”, but he is an outstanding Republican…)

  11. Lew, I am tired of hearing Christians chastised for their convictions. If this businesswoman were to be Muslim, you can bet it wouldn’t have been a problem to refuse the “infidels”.

    (BTW… my friend Carolyn is an awesome baker …. (lol @ Carolyn)

  12. Josephine, you are correct.

    The lesbian couple would have been told the Muslim woman had a right to her religious convictions.

    But, since she is a Christian……….

  13. I don’t agree. If she were Muslim, she would still be harrassed for her convictions. There are a lot of things Muslims and Christians have in common – both groups will be targeted by the progressives.

  14. Last I heard, Craig, Progressives are using Muslims to counter Christians with, what with the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque and catering to Muslim beliefs in schools.

    Progressives might not like Muslims any better, but if they can bash Christians with them, they will and do.

  15. “Progressives might not like Muslims any better, but if they can bash Christians with them, they will and do.”

    Yes, I agree about that. However, the more “mainstream” Muslims in America become (they even have a reality show about Muslims in America now), the more they will be criticized, castigated, and demeaned by liberals, progressives, and other assorted nuts.

  16. Yet another reason Josephine Wentzel will never be elected. I am saving this quote for the next election she decides to enter.

  17. Lefties are “blessed” with extreme arrogance, Greg. It’s what makes them always stick out like a sore thumb.

  18. Just to respond to the title of this post, I have tolerance for other people. I do not, necessarily, have tolerance for their beliefs. Tolerance, like respect, must be earned.

  19. Then you are just fooling yourself on this imaginary tolerance you claim.

    The very definition of the word tolerance does not entail any earning like respect does.

    Look it up in your Funk and Wagnall.

  20. Jack: It is arrogance that causes someone not to make a cake for someone else because of their orientation. This person probably doesn’t really know the demographic of all of her customers and will most likely lose more business. People are learning, especially in this economy, that the dollar speaks loudly, particularly for small businesses. How many cakes has this person made for others she might disapprove of, “sinners” of various lifestyles, that she doesn’t even know about? I hope she can afford to refuse business, that in turn will most likely decrease other business, because of her decision to discriminate.

  21. Perhaps she felt that by baking a cake for the couple, she was participating in the celebration of their marriage, thereby ‘approving’ of homosexual marriage. I don’t see that as arrogance. I see it as wrong-headed thinking, misguided to be sure. That would be like a television repairman refusing to repair the TV of a Republican politician because of all the ‘evil things they do’ (in his opinion). After all, the politician might use the TV to watch FOX News or something (as horrible as that would be).

  22. Greg, it is not arrogance to live by ones religious values, unless you force them on someone else.

    Craig, Her denying baking the cake did not interfere at all with the lesbians getting married or having a cake. She explained her view politely and declined.

    Your analogy is irrelevant in this situation. A more relevant analogy would be to force Muslims to eat pork at a function.

    If a baker is mandated to supply goods for an event that is counter to their beliefs, even though currently there are protections for clergy, could not one day those protections disappear by a gay couple suing a church if they are denied a church wedding they want because some other church performs them?

    I guess heteros should go to gay strip bars with all male reviews and demand an equal number of female strippers be performing, just in case a hetero wishes to frequent that particular gay club.

  23. Lew – my analogy had to do with misguided thinking. She is clearly construing providing a service for lesbians as the same as validating the choices they’ve made. That is misguided thinking.

    In my opinion, she just as clearly has the right to do that. This is not a ‘civil rights’ case by any stretch of the imagination. That would be like forcing you to work for someone you didn’t want to work for.

  24. The problem is, Lew, that if we all stopped acting as a community because of our differences, we would no longer be a community. How divisive would it be if she hung a sign on her door that said, “Sorry, no homosexuals will be served”? The next thing that would happen would be the grocery store down the street hanging up a sign that said “Sorry, no Christians will be served.” The hardware store would next hang a sign that said, “Sorry, no cost accountants served”.

    Is that how we, as a community, really want to start acting?

  25. “Is that how we, as a community, really want to start acting?”

    Obviously no. And the great majority of people don’t/wouldn’t conduct themselves like that. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to do so. The best way to let business owners like Christine Baker know that you disapprove of her conduct is to boycott her business – not pass laws or concoct some phoney ‘civil rights’ charge against her.

  26. Craig, it is misguided in your view and where the issue of tolerance comes in. She reinforced her values and doing so does not prevent the lesbians from marrying or having cake made as they can easily have it done elsewhere. That she is willing to forgo the business and profit is the price she is willing to accept for standing on what she believes. Just like Gays who boycott businesses like hers for not catering to them, she also has a right to boycott their business transaction based on her values.

    Greg, you are stretching as that is already done. Shouldn’t diversity accept her right to her views, so long as she is not actually denying them their rights to marry?

    And, if you think such denials of others views isn’t currently going on, go to any of the Occupy events and do a Mic Check and begin speaking in glowing terms of Republicans at one of their non-partisan gatherings and see how long you will be allowed to speak.

    Besides, I thought you all didn’t believe in the slippery slope? Every time one of us have brought it up, your side is the loudest telling us it’ll never happen. Yet, here you are describing just that.

  27. Lew, you originally said:

    “Is it really a civil rights violation if you, a private business owner, decline to do business with someone based upon your religious convictions?”

    What’s this “issue of tolerance” you’re referring to? This is a civil rights issue we’re discussing. I maintain, as you state above, that she does have the right to refuse business to anyone, for any reason, without it being a violation of another persons rights. I just think she’s misguided is all.

  28. Craig, the “issue of tolerance” is that the lesbians are even considering a civil rights suit and that this even made the news.

    After all, hasn’t it been the Gay community crying for “tolerance” all of these years?

    Yet, they are intolerant of others?

  29. Oh…I get it. I guess I’m slow today. 🙂

    Yeah, you’re right. I guess “tolerance” is OK as long as those who benefit from it don’t have to be tolerant of others in return.

  30. What I think Lew was trying to suggest was that Tolerance is a two way street and if its only benefiting one party, it is an unequal balance…

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: