Jump to content
Pam is free to not give her blessing... that has nothing to do with the services her business offers to the public. If someone's religion tells them not to serve black people, that's illegal. If someone's religion tells them not to serve muslims, that's illegal. If someone's religion causes someone to refuse to make cakes for christians, thats illegal... and christians would be up in arms. Religion cannot be used in public business as cause to discriminate. This is not slavery. This is the cost of doing business.
To answer your question, yes i do support the state forcing christians, muslims, gay people who hate heterosexuals and vice versa... to do what their conscience and faith forbid when it infringes on the rights of fellow americans. there are radicalized muslims whose faith and conscience would run reckless in the public sphere if not checked by the state... sharia law! there are many fringe groups who would discriminate against christians. you want them controlled, well it's a double edged sword then. Thats freedom of religion. freedom of religion stops at discriminating against others because that infringes on their rights as fellow americans. What if other businesses begin discriminating? drugstores discriminating sound like a good idea? no medicine for you, go to your christian-friendly drugstore... they are all out? well, dems da brakes... someone's religion may want to discriminate against YOU.
this isn't about blessing. its about cakes and the slippery slope that is created when you allow discrimination in public commerce.
On Discrimination... yes we are all free to discriminate... in the private sphere of life. every example you gave was a from the private sector. Customers are free to discriminate at their pleasure, businesses are not. you cannot force people to buy products, that would actually be slavery. If the homosexual community boycotts her business it is neither good nor bad. it's the cost of doing business. I support any boycott that succeeds because then it has the power of the consumer behind it. what's the resolution? force people to buy? nope. this includes a homosexual couple who starts a cake baking business that operates in the public space. you and anyone else are free to boycott them and if they fail... they need to reevaluate.
this isn't about bullies. Businesses operate by the grace and the consumption of the consumer... not the other way around. I didn't see your reply until today. my apologies on my belated response.
In reference to your question... If you operate a business and a livelihood that operates in the public space... it is subject to the public laws. It is not slavery or oppression. You're free to not give cakes away to whoever you want.
I do not think that homosexuality is a federally protected class yet. So pam may have the right to refuse service. I am unfamiliar with the state laws in Oregon however. Privately you can discriminate against anything for any reason. Publicly however... if that is where you wish to take advantage of the environments that society provides for you to run a business to make a living... you cannot trample on the rights of others. It is the social contract you enter into by deciding to continue to live in this nation.
Pam is not encouraging these people to engage in homosexual sex. Pam bakes cakes. Folks are going to do what they are going to do with or without cake. Her objection does nothing to stop them. Hence it is not about stopping them. It is about disdain and judgement... something best left to GOD anyway.
Your point resonates with me however... IF a law is passed that states that Pam must encourage and demand the couple have sex with each other... then i am standing up with you in major protest.
but this is not the case, Pam operates a business in the public space... BAKING CAKES
©2016 Eagle Newspapers, Inc.
Desktop version |