A crock of a complaint and way overreach of govt. into our lives.

[LittleWyvern]

Now, as good LDS people, we've been taught the value of adversity, no matter how slight. We could argue, and even complain. But we'd probably just shrug it off and find another cake shop.

We would NOT be organizing picketing in front of the store, harassing the owners, threatening vendors or anything else as was described in the article. I do NOT support this action at all.

I'm sure many same-sex couples have done just that in response to this situation. We only hear about this one because it's notable and it meets some sort of standard/goal of the site that posted it. Some people just have different reactions when they experience what they feel is injustice, I suppose, this being one of the more active responses.

[skippy740]

I would go to another store that makes cakes with Temples.

It's really not rocket science. It happens everyday. A Catholic Store will not sell you a blessed artifact unless you are Catholic. The distribution center will not sell you garments unless you're endowed. AllState will not sell you car insurance if you have 12 points on your driver's license. If you're not wearing a shirt, a theater won't sell you a ticket. If I don't like your attitude, I can kick you out of my restaurant. If a photographer thinks you're a wife beater, she should not have to be forced to take your wedding photos. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Hold on. You added facts or situations where I didn't add anything.

I didn't say that the store was a "Catholic" cake shop. I didn't say that it was a religious store of any kind. I called it the 'best cake shop in town'.

I didn't call it anything that required any kind of underwriting - like insurance, or credit, or anything else where a background, medical, or credit check would cause an increase in rates.

I didn't add anything in regards to negative attitude at all.

Your last line is probably the most controversial: "If a photographer thinks you're a wife beater, she should not have to be forced to take your wedding photos." However, that implies that you know something about someone's private life. I didn't add anything like that to the scenario.

I'm not even talking about going to an Orthodox Jewish Kosher Bakery (focused on dairy, not meats... so no eggs in the recipe) to buy a cake and telling them that I want them to put bacon in the cake.

I'm talking about walking into a plain store front that happens to be the "Best Cake Shop in Town"... and wanting to buy a wedding cake that happens to have a picture of the temple on it. They don't know you, and you don't know them... except by professional reputation. They refuse citing a religious difference. That's it.

Yes, we would end up going somewhere else... just to get it done, but I wouldn't just take it. I'd end up complaining because of religious intolerance. Once I would file my complaints, I would call it 'done' and move on.

Now, if I picked a few Catholic cake stores and TARGETED them in order to try to get my goods and services... to spark up controversy and create a complaint scenario... that's not honorable behavior. I won't rule out that it could be the case here, but according to the article, we don't know if they are BRANDED a "Christian bakery" or not.

Should a store be BRANDED a certain way in order to have such protections of it? That would be an interesting discussion too.

Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740

[skippy740]

You're misinterpreting that. There are two genders - male or female. Gender is a protected class. A lesbian, gay, transgender, or bisexual, active or inactive does not make them un-female or un-male... Meaning that just because a male likes to jiggy with another male does not make him an "it" causing him to lose his protected status as a male person.

Make sense?

No. Any discrimination against another person because of their "status" is discrimination. The question we have to ask is this: is it legal or not?

What is discrimination? The word itself has a negative connotation to it, however we 'discriminate' or judge all the time.

According to dictionary.com:

dis·crim·i·na·tion

noun 1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

In this case, and for the purposes of this thread, we're using definition #2.

The link itself is in regards to hiring practices, so let's keep it consistent there.

You are hiring for a new clerk for your office. You have two identical candidates: Candidate A and Candidate B.

Both candidates are eligible for the position, have very similar skill sets, dress professionally and are articulate. They both would qualify. However, for this example, Candidate B has the showings of having same-sex attraction attributes. Candidate B's car parked in the parking lot outside shows such supporting attitudes, in addition to having a certain kind of speech pattern.

(Hey, we can tell for some people it seems that they lean a certain way by the way they talk. Should we make judgments like this? Employers should because employees may be interacting with the public, and will they make a good impression? I digress...)

Which candidate do you hire when both are similar? According to the link, if you are choosing not to hire a particular candidate because of their sexual orientation, you are practicing unlawful discrimination. That's why employers pick some other 'concrete' reason.

Unless you (or your company) believe in 'affirmative action' and/or having a 'diverse' workforce to prove to regulators that you are filling a certain 'quota'... and that's another way to appease more government regulators... and even turn such 'protected classes' into a way to discriminate against those who live, work, and think more like you do.

Now I do agree that there is a class of people who are no longer being protected. Those are Caucasians, married, with traditional families, who have traditional Judeo-Christian values, and go to Church. This class of people USED to be the 'majority'. They no longer are, and should have more protections, because it's unlawful to choose for this group, when the consequences for choosing AGAINST this group are so great.

Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740

[Sharky]

Good on the people of Oregon! Business that make money from the public should not discriminate.

Restaurants, bakeries, doctors and pharmacists, they need to keep their religion out of business and public dealings.

Those two women simply want to have a nice wedding like other people want. Why argue against them?

Except .... most businesses have posted somewhere certain standards:

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"

Too, most businesses have posted somewhere visible a sign that reads:

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service .... " basically saying without reason.

So now does a business owner that "serves the public" have to open their doors & provide services/sales/good to anyone who asks?

Expected Customer Standards & the Merchants Right of Refusal no longer are legal?

[skippy740]

Usually, I've seen the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" in restaurants where public safety and sanitation standards must be met.

I personally can't stand seeing the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I think it turns away more business and is an "in your face" way to remind you what's already in the law - particularly on unruly or disgruntled 'customers'.

But do you have to provide services in exchange for monetary compensation to anyone who asks? Maybe this article will help:

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude? Leanne Phillips - Oct 2007

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740

[Guest]

Hold on. You added facts or situations where I didn't add anything.

I didn't say that the store was a "Catholic" cake shop. I didn't say that it was a religious store of any kind. I called it the 'best cake shop in town'.

I didn't call it anything that required any kind of underwriting - like insurance, or credit, or anything else where a background, medical, or credit check would cause an increase in rates.

I didn't add anything in regards to negative attitude at all.

Your last line is probably the most controversial: "If a photographer thinks you're a wife beater, she should not have to be forced to take your wedding photos." However, that implies that you know something about someone's private life. I didn't add anything like that to the scenario.

I'm not even talking about going to an Orthodox Jewish Kosher Bakery (focused on dairy, not meats... so no eggs in the recipe) to buy a cake and telling them that I want them to put bacon in the cake.

I'm talking about walking into a plain store front that happens to be the "Best Cake Shop in Town"... and wanting to buy a wedding cake that happens to have a picture of the temple on it. They don't know you, and you don't know them... except by professional reputation. They refuse citing a religious difference. That's it.

Yes, we would end up going somewhere else... just to get it done, but I wouldn't just take it. I'd end up complaining because of religious intolerance. Once I would file my complaints, I would call it 'done' and move on.

Now, if I picked a few Catholic cake stores and TARGETED them in order to try to get my goods and services... to spark up controversy and create a complaint scenario... that's not honorable behavior. I won't rule out that it could be the case here, but according to the article, we don't know if they are BRANDED a "Christian bakery" or not.

Should a store be BRANDED a certain way in order to have such protections of it? That would be an interesting discussion too.

You're the one that's veering out of the conversation. We're talking about LEGAL ACTION. Not a personal disagreement among two private parties.

Unless it's a protected class discrimination, I shouldn't have to explain to you why I refuse you service. And it may be just because I don't like the look of your nose. Now, whining about my nasal discriminating policies is one thing - taking LEGAL ACTION is something else.

And about that best cake in town - every business reserves the right to refuse service unless it's a protected class. As a consumer, I have power of the purse. It's stupid to insist service from someone who doesn't want to sell it to you. Chances are, you're going to end up with a cake with icing that got rubbed on their armpits.

So, basically, insisting on service is simply you wanting to force me to change my personal dislike of ugly noses by putting the GOVERNMENT to work for your agenda.

[skippy740]

You're the one that's veering out of the conversation. We're talking about LEGAL ACTION. Not a personal disagreement among two private parties.

See the article above. BTW, legal actions are the RESULT of personal disagreements among two private parties.

That's why they need a judge to arbitrate and resolve the matter... because these two people can't figure out how to do it themselves.

Unless it's a protected class discrimination, I shouldn't have to explain to you why I refuse you service. And it may be just because I don't like the look of your nose.

If you shouldn't have to, you had better document your reasons in the event of legal action.

Now, whining about my nasal discriminating policies is one thing - taking LEGAL ACTION is something else.

Agreed.

And about that best cake in town - every business reserves the right to refuse service unless it's a protected class.

And I would agree that there is a lot of whining about this topic lately.

As a consumer, I have power of the purse. It's stupid to insist service from someone who doesn't want to sell it to you.

agreed.

Chances are, you're going to end up with a cake with icing that got rubbed on their armpits.

LOL!

But now one can sue for food poisoning (a true legal ground) and then add in WHY they suspect their cake was targeted. That wouldn't be a very smart idea for any store.

So, basically, insisting on service is simply you wanting to force me to change my personal dislike of ugly noses by putting the GOVERNMENT to work for your agenda.

All businesses must be familiar with and follow their local laws. Laws that everyone agrees to live and work by.

By using your example of "dislike of ugly noses"... that's a personal problem (in my view). But would you support an EMPLOYEE to discriminate with different standards than the owner? I wouldn't.

Refusing service for a non-business reason is grounds for a complaint. And as you know, anyone can be sued for any reason at anytime these days.

Let's talk about goods and services for the cake shop. Does the cake shop reserve the right to not produce "erotic" cakes? I think so. Why? Because they want to maintain a non-sexualized atmosphere. But that's a control of product being produced... not on who is being served with their current products.

Notice the end of the article above: For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

If one wants to avoid legal complaints, it would seem that you should provide equal access for your products & services.

Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740
added in additional clarification in the beginning of the post.

[applepansy]

Let's turn the tables a little bit.

Let's suppose that you're planning to get sealed in the temple at Portland Oregon. Let's suppose that you go into the best cake shop in Oregon and ask them to make a cake with a picture of the temple on it.

They refuse, citing that they don't "believe the way we do".

What would you do?

Now, as good LDS people, we've been taught the value of adversity, no matter how slight. We could argue, and even complain. But we'd probably just shrug it off and find another cake shop.

We would NOT be organizing picketing in front of the store, harassing the owners, threatening vendors or anything else as was described in the article. I do NOT support this action at all.

I was taught growing up that my Pioneer ancestors valued freedom. I value freedom. If a shop owner refused to make a wedding cake with a picture of the temple on it, I would take my business elsewhere. If I couldn't find anyone to make the cake, I would do it myself, cuz that's another thing my Pioneer ancestors taught...self reliance.

[skippy740]

Let's talk about some other areas of "providing equal access":

The Boy Scouts of America - now allows youth with same-sex attraction to join its ranks, but not leaders with openly same-sex attraction. Is this okay? Yes! Why? Because they are classified as a non-profit organization, who has the right to discriminate and choose who can be members of that organization.

All religious groups (should be) classified as non-profit organizations who can choose to discriminate according to their religious preferences.

What about eHarmony? eHarmony didn't want to offer their services to the same-sex attraction community... but due to legal ramifications, must do so today. Why? Because they are a company providing a service to the public across state lines. They didn't want to. They were forced into doing it. It's not what the company is about, but they had to in order to keep their focus where they want.

Now, if you go to ChristianMingle.com or LDSsingles.com to find dating services, you'll see that it has only two options:

- Man seeking a woman

- Woman seeking a man

Why are THEY allowed to do this? Because they have BRANDED themselves with certain religious preferences.

I suppose we could call it a "blackmail" system by using the law against companies that aren't branded with certain protected principles to ensure that anyone's needs can be met by that company without illegal discrimination.

Edited January 22, 2014 by skippy740

[Vort]

Why are THEY allowed to do this? Because they have BRANDED themselves with certain religious preferences.

So you're suggesting that if the bakery had only called itself "Christian Cakes", they would not have been forced to sell a wedding cake to the homosexuals?

I doubt that's the case.

I am no lawyer, but I am fairly sure that eHarmony (or whoever it was) was not legally forced to do what they did to accomodate homosexuals. Rather, the threat of a lawsuit and the expenses it would bring forced them to capitulate. This should be scary to everyone: Just having to pay to defend yourself, even if you're not in the wrong, often makes people do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

[Bini]

I was taught growing up that my Pioneer ancestors valued freedom. I value freedom. If a shop owner refused to make a wedding cake with a picture of the temple on it, I would take my business elsewhere. If I couldn't find anyone to make the cake, I would do it myself, cuz that's another thing my Pioneer ancestors taught...self reliance.

Skippy covered this, and agreed.

[skippy740]

EHarmony settles lawsuit over gay matchmaking - SFGate

eHarmony CEO Says Gay Marriage ‘Damaged’ His Company — and Explains Why He Hired Guards to Protect Against Angry Christians | TheBlaze.com

[carlimac]

I'm wondering something else. Let's say the cake company files a return lawsuit against them for defamation or something. And then the women need to get an attorney. What if the attorney they go to thinks the lesbians acted in an unethical manner in the first place. Can the attorney refuse service without getting the same treatment from them as the cake company did?

You know what's remarkable about all this? The public is all in a rage and calling foul and ranting and getting their knickers in a twist. But the bakery seems to be pretty calm at this point. They aren't being cowed, they aren't apologizing for their action. Despite losing their livelihood over this they say they have turned it over to God. I hope their actions ( more Christ like to be sure) ultimately speak louder than the angry lesbians'.

[Guest]

So you're suggesting that if the bakery had only called itself "Christian Cakes", they would not have been forced to sell a wedding cake to the homosexuals?

I doubt that's the case.

I am no lawyer, but I am fairly sure that eHarmony (or whoever it was) was not legally forced to do what they did to accomodate homosexuals. Rather, the threat of a lawsuit and the expenses it would bring forced them to capitulate. This should be scary to everyone: Just having to pay to defend yourself, even if you're not in the wrong, often makes people do things they otherwise wouldn't do.

AWESOME POST VORT!

This is the problem with America. This is the problem that ruined the healthcare industry. This is the reason my brother - a unique blend of neurology genius and unbounded compassion - refused to practice in the US!

And this may be the reason devout Christian business owners will become a thing of the past. What you will be left with is a Christian going against his moral fiber to survive in America and, because of America's influence, the rest of the world.

Edited January 22, 2014 by anatess

[Vort]

EHarmony settles lawsuit over gay matchmaking - SFGate

eHarmony CEO Says Gay Marriage ‘Damaged’ His Company — and Explains Why He Hired Guards to Protect Against Angry Christians | TheBlaze.com

These seem to substantiate my point. eHarmony was not legally forced into these pro-homosexuality changes; rather, they decided it was useless to spend the money defending against the charges.

[skippy740]

They were sued for violations of NJ and CA law of non-discrimination.

They decided to settle and find methods and ways to be in compliance with the law, instead of fight it.

Yet, ChristianMingle.com and LDSSingles.net don't have those preferences. That's why (in my non-attorney view) they can 'get away' with not offering services for 'man seeking man' and 'woman seeking woman'. They are specifically serving and are branded for serving a certain segment of the population. eHarmony was not branded in this way.

[Vort]

They were sued for violations of NJ and CA law of non-discrimination.

They decided to settle and find methods and ways to be in compliance with the law, instead of fight it.

They were never found in violation of the law. It was only the activist scumbag attorney generals who decided to sue them. They may well have won in court, but it would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

[carlimac]

Just for anyone else besides me who didn't know...

Pyrrhic victory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Just_A_Guy]

If you are charging the market rates for the cake, all you're doing is making the cake. You are not "supporting" the wedding. You actually have "nothing" to do with the wedding itself. You exchanged money for the product. That's it. There is no 'endorsement' or other support of the wedding of any kind.

Progressives who advocate this kind of rationale are talking themselves into corners when they come back and defend their right to refuse to buy products made by wage slaves, or refuse to do business with patently dishonest or environmentally irresponsible companies, or engage in any other kind of boycott.

Are you sure you want to completely divorce morality from commerce?

Really sure?

I didn't say that the store was a "Catholic" cake shop. I didn't say that it was a religious store of any kind. I called it the 'best cake shop in town'. . . .

Should a store be BRANDED a certain way in order to have such protections of it? That would be an interesting discussion too.

If you're implying that my changing the name of my store to "best Christian cake shop in town", or "Traditional Wedding Experts" will cause the EEOC to leave me alone--that's not how it works, unfortunately.

It would be interesting to see what the law would do if Christian service providers tried to set up some sort of "club membership" and only offered their services to club members (sort of like in Utah, alcohol by-the-glass can only be sold by "private clubs", so you walk into the bar and instead of a cover charge there's a "club membership fee"). But I think we all know how that charade ends, ultimately. The gay-rights lobby has not come this far to see a bunch of businesses put up signs that say "Conservative Christians Only".

However, that implies that you know something about someone's private life. I didn't add anything like that to the scenario.

Skippy, surely you're not trying to say that it's utterly irrational for a store owner to deduce that a gay couple, after getting married, is going to have sex?

All religious groups (should be) classified as non-profit organizations who can choose to discriminate according to their religious preferences.

That didn't help Bob Jones University (racial discrimination). And gay rights advocates are already asking why the federal government is "subsidizing" (as they see it) discriminatory groups through "preferential" tax treatment. I think we will see a serious and coordinated effort to revoke nonprofit status of conservative Christian groups (and non-religious orgs like the BSA, within the next two decades.

I'm wondering something else. Let's say the cake company files a return lawsuit against them for defamation or something. And then the women need to get an attorney. What if the attorney they go to thinks the lesbians acted in an unethical manner in the first place. Can the attorney refuse service without getting the same treatment from them as the cake company did?

Lawyers, bless them, have a knack for insulating themselves from the standards they impose on others:

(b). . . a lawyer may withdraw from representing [Or decline to represent--JAG] a client if: . . . (4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement; . . . (7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.

(The ABA rules are not, in and of themselves, binding; but most state bar associations have rules that align with the ABA rules.)

[skippy740]

Progressives who advocate this kind of rationale are talking themselves into corners when they come back and defend their right to refuse to buy products made by wage slaves, or refuse to do business with patently dishonest or environmentally irresponsible companies, or engage in any other kind of boycott.

Are you sure you want to completely divorce morality from commerce?

Really sure?

No, I'm not 'really sure'... because I'm talking about the transaction made in the article, not about a global stance.

If you're implying that my changing the name of my store to "best Christian cake shop in town", or "Traditional Wedding Experts" will cause the EEOC to leave me alone--that's not how it works, unfortunately.

So far, on the surface, it seems to work. Of course there will end up being some rule or law against it, but I'm only going off of what I've seen and read about.

It would be interesting to see what the law would do if Christian service providers tried to set up some sort of "club membership" and only offered their services to club members (sort of like in Utah, alcohol by-the-glass can only be sold by "private clubs", so you walk into the bar and instead of a cover charge there's a "club membership fee"). But I think we all know how that charade ends, ultimately. The gay-rights lobby has not come this far to see a bunch of businesses put up signs that say "Conservative Christians Only".

We already have something like that, but it's called a Temple Recommend - issued by our private religious organization. Someone not of our faith might call it a "private club". But you can't eat in the temple cafeteria without having such a card, right?

Now, imagine that someone wants to eat at the temple cafeteria, but they aren't a card-carrying member. Could they sue for discrimination? I know that's a reach, but it's the only comparison I can think of. (And I'm pretty sure the temple cafeteria food isn't that great.) :)

Skippy, surely you're not trying to say that it's utterly irrational for a store owner to deduce that a gay couple, after getting married, is going to have sex?

Are they going to have sex in their store and in front of the store owner? What people do in their bedrooms should stay in their bedrooms.

That didn't help Bob Jones University (racial discrimination). And gay rights advocates are already asking why the federal government is "subsidizing" (as they see it) discriminatory groups through "preferential" tax treatment. I think we will see a serious and coordinated effort to revoke nonprofit status of conservative Christian groups (and non-religious orgs like the BSA, within the next two decades.

Yes, I agree that this will be a future course of events and that's a serious cause for concern in regards to religious freedoms of religious institutions that are classified as such.

But we are talking about 'for-profit' businesses offering products and services to the general public.

[Guest]

Are they going to have sex in their store and in front of the store owner? What people do in their bedrooms should stay in their bedrooms.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have this thread. Because the fiance's wouldn't bother to publicize what they do in their bedrooms by form of protest.

Okay, okay, you must have noticed by now I didn't read the article....

[The Folk Prophet]

...within the next two decades.

Very generous of you. Within the next two years may be more like it.

[Just_A_Guy]

No, I'm not 'really sure'... because I'm talking about the transaction made in the article, not about a global stance.

So why should I be free to act on my moral views in situation A, but not situation B?

So far, on the surface, it seems to work. Of course there will end up being some rule or law against it, but I'm only going off of what I've seen and read about.

Fair point; but I think you never will read about it because it's just so obvious that a simple gambit like changing the name on your storefront isn't going to work.

We already have something like that, but it's called a Temple Recommend - issued by our private religious organization. Someone not of our faith might call it a "private club". But you can't eat in the temple cafeteria without having such a card, right?

Now, imagine that someone wants to eat at the temple cafeteria, but they aren't a card-carrying member. Could they sue for discrimination? I know that's a reach, but it's the only comparison I can think of. (And I'm pretty sure the temple cafeteria food isn't that great.) :)

Fair point; but AFAIK not only are cafeterias non-public; but they aren't even profit-generating. A cafeteria buried in the basement of a temple, is a very different thing than a bakery in a strip mall with a "Christians Only" or "Flee-From-Babylon-Private-Club-Affiliate" in its name (or even on a sticker on the window).

And I think it's a mistake to assume that public access to Mormon temples isn't part of the long game here; but that's a different discussion altogether.

Are they going to have sex in their store and in front of the store owner? What people do in their bedrooms should stay in their bedrooms.

As long as American law continues to endorse, among other features, dram shop liability; and as long as we as Mormons have a document on the books proclaiming that "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"; the assurance that "if it doesn't happen right there in your store, it's not your problem even if your commercial activity is enabling or encouraging the conduct" is going to ring pretty hollow.

But we are talking about 'for-profit' businesses offering products and services to the general public.

All "for-profit" really means is that the business owner's livelihood is tied to the commercial viability of the business. So what your position seems to boil down to, is that an institution can say what it wants unless the owner is dependent on that institution for his survival. In which case, the owner may act according to his religiously-based moral scruples or he may continue to earn his living--but not both.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

As long as American law continues to endorse, among other features, dram shop liability; and as long as we as Mormons have a document on the books proclaiming that "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"; the assurance that "if it doesn't happen right there in your store, it's not your problem even if your commercial activity is enabling or encouraging the conduct" is going to ring pretty hollow.

Let's finish off the quoting of the Proclamation:

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

How do we go about this as responsible citizens?

One, is at the voting booth (which most governments seem to ignore or overturn these days).

Two, strengthening our own families at home. It's hard to preach truth if we aren't living it ourselves. (Not a jab at anyone, just something to check ourselves for.)

Three, be nice and courteous neighbors. "Who we are speaks so loudly, that your words I cannot hear."

It's a lot easier to win people over with honey than with vinegar. By discriminating against same-sex couples, and letting that repulsion known... you are not "winning friends and influencing people".

All "for-profit" really means is that the business owner's livelihood is tied to the commercial viability of the business. So what your position seems to boil down to, is that an institution can say what it wants unless the owner is dependent on that institution for his survival. In which case, the owner may act according to his religiously-based moral scruples or he may continue to earn his living--but not both.

There are plenty of non-profit organizations where the organizer derives their primary income from as well. We can think of other religious organizations with a paid ministry. We can also look up other reports on what non-profit CEOs earn.

The difference between a for-profit and a non-profit, is that a non-profit is supposed to be helping the world be a 'better place' through religious or other causes... and as such, is not subject to taxation.

For-profit businesses are for those people who are bringing a product or service for personal gain, and are then subject to taxation.

[The Folk Prophet]

It's a lot easier to win people over with honey than with vinegar. By discriminating against same-sex couples, and letting that repulsion known... you are not "winning friends and influencing people".

Right. And there is strong historical evidence showing that legalization and social acceptance of any given behavior is the most effective means of eradicating said behavior.