A Philosopher's Blog

Does the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage Infringe on Religious Liberty?

Posted in Ethics, Law, Philosophy, Politics, Religion by Michael LaBossiere on July 1, 2015

In June, 2015 the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the legality of same-sex marriage. Many states had already legalized same-sex marriages and a majority of Americans think it should be legal. As such, the ruling seems to be consistent both with the constitution and with the democratic ideal of majority rule. There are, of course, those who object to the ruling.

Some claim that the court acted in a way contrary to the democratic rule by engaging in judicial activism. Not surprisingly, some of those who make this claim were fine when the court ruled in ways they liked, despite the general principles being the same (that is, the court ruling in ways contrary to what voters had decided). I certainly do see the appeal of principle and consistent arguments against the Supreme Court engaging in activism and overruling what the voters have decided and there is certainly some merit in certain arguments against the same-sex marriage decision. However, my concern here is with another avenue of dissent against the decision, namely that this ruling infringes on religious liberty.

The argument from religious liberty is certainly an interesting one. On intriguing aspect is that the argument is made in terms of religious liberty rather than the older tactic of openly attacking gay folks for alleged moral wickedness. This change of tactic seems to show a recognition that a majority of Americans accept their fellow gay Americans and that shouting “fags” at gays is no longer acceptable in polite society. As such, the tactic acknowledges a changed world. This change also represents clever rhetoric: the intent is not to deny gay folks their rights, but to protect religious liberty. Protecting liberty certainly sells better than denying rights. While protecting liberty is certainly commendable, the obvious question is whether or not the legalization of same-sex marriage infringes on religious liberty.

In general, there are two ways to infringe on a liberty. The first is by forbiddance. That is, preventing a person from exercising a freedom. For example, the liberty of free expression can be infringed by preventing a person from freely expressing her ideas. The second is by force. This is a matter of compelling a person to take action against their free choice. For example, having a law that require people to dress a certain way when they do not wish to do so. Since some people consider entitlements to fall under liberties, another way a person could have liberty infringed upon is to be denied her entitlements. For example, the liberty of education in the United States entitles children to a public education.

It is important to note that not all cases of forbidding or forcing are violations of liberties. This is because there are legitimate grounds for limiting liberties—the usual ground being the principle of harm. For example, it is not a violation of a person’s liberty to prevent him from texting death threats to his ex-wife. As another example, it is not a violation of a person’s liberty to require her to have a license to drive a car.

Given this discussion, for the legalization of same-sex marriage to impose on religious liberty would require that it wrongfully forbids religious people from engaging in religious activities, wrongfully forces religious people to engage in behavior contrary to their religion or wrongfully denies religious people entitlements connected to their religion.

The third one is the easiest and quickest to address: there does not seem to be any way that the legalization of same-sex marriage denies religious people entitlements connected to their religion. While I might have not considered all the possibilities, I will move on to the first two.

On the face of it, the legalization of same-sex marriage does not seem to wrongfully forbid religious people from engaging in religious activities. To give some examples, it does not forbid people from praying, attending religious services, saying religious things, or doing anything that they are not already free to do.

While some people have presented slippery slope “arguments” that this legalization will lead to such forbiddances, there is nothing in the ruling that indicates this or even mentions anything remotely like this. As with all such arguments, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that there will be this inevitable or probable slide. While inter-faith and inter-racial marriage are different matters, allowing these to occur was also supposed to lead to terrible things. None of these happened, which leads one to suspect that the doomsayers will be proven wrong yet again.

But, of course, if a rational case can be made linking the legalization of same-sex marriage to these violations of religious liberty, then it would be reasonable to be worried. However, the linkage seems to be a matter of psychological fear rather than logical support.

It also seems that the legalization of same-sex marriage does not force religious people to wrongfully engage in behavior contrary to their religion. While it is legal for same-sex couples to marry, this does not compel people to become gay and then gay-marry someone else who is (now) gay. Religious people are not compelled to like, approve of or even feel tolerant of same-sex marriage. They are free to dislike, disapprove, and condemn it. They are free to try to amend the Constitution to forbid same-sex marriage.

It might be argued that religious people are compelled to allow other people to engage in behavior that is against their professed religious beliefs and this is a violation of religious freedom. The easy and obvious reply is that allowing other people to engage in behavior that is against one’s religion is not a violation of one’s religious liberty. This is because religious liberty is not the liberty to impose one’s religion on others, but the liberty to practice one’s religion.

The fact that I am at liberty to eat pork and lobster is not a violation of the religious liberty of Jews and Muslims. The fact that women can go out in public with their faces exposed is not a violation of the religious liberty of Muslims. The fact that people can have religions other than Christianity is not a violation of the religious liberty of Christians. As such, the fact that same-sex couples can legally marry does not violate the religious liberty of anyone.

It might be objected that it will violate the religious liberty of some people. Some have argued that religious institutions will be compelled to perform same-sex weddings (as they might be compelled to perform inter-racial or inter-faith marriages). This, I would agree, would be a violation of their religious liberty and liberty of conscience. Private, non-commercial organizations have every right to discriminate and exclude—that is part of their right of freedom of non-association. Fortunately, the legalization of same-sex marriage does not compel such organizations to perform these marriages. If it did, I would certainly oppose that violation of religious liberty.

It might also be objected that people in government positions would be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, perform the legal act of marrying a same-sex couple, or recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple. People at the IRS would even be compelled to process the tax forms of same-sex couples.

The conflict between conscience and authority is nothing new and philosophers have long addressed this matter. Thoreau, for example, argued that people should follow their conscience and disobey what they regard as unjust laws.

This does have considerable appeal and I certainly agree that morality trumps law in terms of what a person should do. That is, I should do what is right, even if the law requires that I do evil. This view is a necessary condition for accepting that laws can be unjust or immoral, which is certainly something I accept. Because of this, I do agree that a person whose conscience forbids her from accepting same-sex marriage has the moral right to refuse to follow the law. That said, the person should resign from her post in protest rather than simply refusing to follow the law—as an official of the state, the person does have an obligation to perform her job and must choose between keeping that job and following her conscience. Naturally, a person also has the right to try to change what she regards as an immoral law.

I have the same view in regards to people who see interracial marriage as immoral: they should follow the dictates of their conscience and not take a job that would require them to, for example, issue marriage licenses. However, their right to their liberty of conscience does not override the rights of other citizens to marry. That is, their liberty does not morally warrant denying the liberty of others.

It could be argued that same-sex marriage should be opposed because it is objectively morally wrong and that even officials should do so on this ground. This line of reason does have a certain appeal—what is objectively wrong should be opposed, even if it is the law and even by officials. For example, when slavery was legal in the United States it should have been opposed by everyone, even officials of the state. But, arguing against same-sex marriage on moral grounds is a different matter from arguing against it on the grounds that it allegedly violates religious liberty.

It could be argued that the legalization of same-sex marriage will violate the religious liberty of people in businesses such as baking wedding cakes, planning weddings, photographing weddings and selling wedding flowers.

The legalization of same-sex marriage does not, by itself, forbid businesses from refusing to do business involving a same-sex marriage. Legal protection against that sort of discrimination is another, albeit related, matter. This sort of discrimination has also been defended on the grounds of freedom of expression, which I have addressed at length in other essays.

In regards to religious liberty, a business owner certainly has the right to not sell certain products or provide certain services that go against her religion. For example, a Jewish restaurant owner has the liberty to not serve pork. A devout Christian who owns a bookstore has the liberty to not stock the scriptures of other faiths or books praising same-sex marriage. An atheist t-shirt seller has the liberty to not stock any shirts displaying religious symbols. These are all matters of religious liberty.

I would also argue that religious liberty allows business owners to refuse to create certain products or perform certain services. For example, a Muslim free-lance cartoonist has the right to refuse to draw cartoons of Muhammad. As another example, an atheist baker has the right to refuse to create a cake with a cross and quotes from scripture.

That said, religious liberty does not seem to grant a business owner the right to discriminate based on her religion. For example, a Muslim who owns a car dealership has no right to refuse to sell cars to women (or women who refuse to fully cover themselves). As another example, a militant homosexual who owns a bakery has no right to refuse to sell cakes to straight people.

Thus, it would seem that the legalization of same-sex marriage does not violate religious liberty.

 

 

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

42 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Anonymous said, on July 1, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    Mike,

    One of the main reasons many conservatives are against things like gay marriage, is because they know they and/or others will be forced by the government to do things they believe are wrong. I said the same thing about allowing gays in the military. I’ve been proven right. The slippery slope fallacy is again proven not a fallacy. Liberals don’t just want equality. They want total control. And since they were usually picked last in kickball, they get a distinct pleasure out of season their opposition squirm. It’s Revenge of the Nerds.

    • Anonymous said, on July 1, 2015 at 2:58 pm

      out of *seeing

      Magus

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 2, 2015 at 11:41 am

      True, the state does impose heavily on liberty. However, I am still waiting to see a link drawn between legalizing same-sex marriage and compelling people to behave in ways they regard as morally wrong. When the military was integrated, doom was foretold. When inter-racial marriage was legalized, doom was foretold. And so on.

      Sure, some liberals want total control as do some conservatives. Perhaps they are angry over kickball, but that seems like an odd analysis of political behavior. Maybe it is because they never got the magical unicorn they always wanted.

      • magus71 said, on July 2, 2015 at 2:00 pm

        Doom? There’s no doom when blacks have to ride at the back of the bus, either.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 2, 2015 at 6:33 pm

          Do you mean being forced to ride in the back because they are black? That is rather bad. Not doom, but still not cool.

  2. jtteop said, on July 1, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    Absolutely right. There is no way that it violates religious liberty. In the bible there are slaves but it doesn’t interfere with religious liberty to free the slaves! Religious liberty isn’t license for stupidity!

  3. ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 1, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    You have a laissez faire understanding of liberty, and religious liberty in particular.

    No need for government protection of minorities who disagree with the majority — due to their religious or other beliefs.

    The unfettered “free market” decides who “thrives” and who “goes under”.

    For example,

    “…Brendan Eich was hounded out of his job at Mozilla by a virtual mob of intolerant tweeters and campaigners. His crime? Failing to genuflect at the altar of gay marriage, which is now the closest thing our otherwise godless, belief-lite, morally vacuous societies have to a sacred value. For refusing to bow down before this new sainted institution, and for having the temerity to donate money to a campaign group opposed to it, Eich was found guilty by the mob of sacrilege and was hounded out of public life as a modern-day heretic…”

    Read more: Same-sex marriage: coercion dolled up as civil rights | Brendan O’Neill | spiked http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/same-sex-marriage-coercion-dolled-up-as-civil-rights/14967

    Might makes right.

    Bullying and violence works.

    Only the politically correct deserve liberties.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

      I certainly am against bullying people for expressing their believes. If I believe someone is in error and I think it is worth discussing the matter with them, I try to engage with arguments. That said, some opinions are not worth engaging.

      The legalization of same-sex marriage is distinct from the behavior of the folks who hound via Twitter. Some of them are perhaps motivated by misguided morality and some are simply eager for digital blood, regardless of the cost. People should be free to express their condemnation of same-sex marriage, but they must expect that people will respond. The response should, of course, be at least as civil as the initial remark.

      I am a firm believer in the principle of civil discussion. I don’t always meet that ideal, but I will never just spew hate at someone or even swear (a lot) at them.

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 2, 2015 at 7:35 pm

        Here’s the thing…. homosex is now — or soon will be — a state protected class. Soon it will become illegal for anyone to refuse to hire someone because they are homosexual. And it will become legal to not hire, fire, fine, and imprison someone for being anti-homosex. Homosex, unlike race, is a behavior. This fact has never been disproven. This is why some people will never acseed to the homosex agenda: it is not like race… it is a behavior, and a degenerate behavior at that.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 3, 2015 at 8:44 am

          But religion is also a behavior and that is protected, no matter the nature of the religion. So, even if being gay is entirely a chosen behavior, that would put it on the same footing as religion, which is clearly a chosen behavior.

          • ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 3, 2015 at 10:17 am

            Let’s not confuse “beliefs” with “actions”. Religion is a belief, which establishes rules of approved and disapproved conduct. Governments also establish rules of conduct. Usually government and religion agree upon what is good and evil conduct. Homosex is an action, which religion and government in the USA disapproved of, until now. Now some religion and government approves of homosex. But homosex is an action. Can an action define someone? Is a moral person moral because of her actions? Is an immoral person immoral because of his actions? Are people born kind? Are people born hateful? Are people born moral? Are people born immoral? Or are people defined by what they chose to do? If a man steals he is called a thief. If a man has sex with other men he is call a homosexual. Our behavior indicates what type of person we are.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 3, 2015 at 4:05 pm

              Religion is a belief, but does not amount to much without taking actions (like praying).

              Homosexual actions are actions, as would be religious actions. There is some debate about whether taking an X action makes one X: does praying make a person religious? Some folks claim that having sex with a person of one’s own sex does not make a person homosexual-a person once explained to me, at length, how straight men work in gay porn because it pays better. However, it was also argued that if a person has that kind of sex, then (as you say) they are thus homosexual as defined by their actions. To use an analogy, if someone runs all the time and enters road races but says “I’m not a runner, I just run a lot and run races”, then that would be a bit odd.

              I’m not sure if a person’s sexual orientation counts as a belief. If people are born that way, then it would not be a belief. If people choose their orientation, then it would seem to be a belief system about sexual values, thus making it analogous to religion.

              Whether or not actions are the basis of ethical assessment depends on which moral philosopher you ask. Kant would say that it is acting in accord with the correct moral law that defines the goodness or badness of actions. Mill would say that it is the consequences that matter. Aristotle would note that the actions shape character, making a person virtuous or not.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 3, 2015 at 5:24 pm

              Here’s the thing… a person’s moral actions make him a moral person; and a person’s immoral actions make him an immoral person. Of course no one is perfectly moral or immoral, and I am speaking in general terms. We could say a person’s moral lifestyle — indicating a long time pattern of behavior — makes her a moral person; and a person’s immoral lifestyle — indicating a long time pattern of behavior — makes her an immoral person. Example and Question: Was the Marquis de Sade a moral or immoral person? Another question: Who’s to say?

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 7, 2015 at 3:46 pm

              de Sade seems to have explicitly rejected morality, but I don’t much about him beyond the usual reputation (sadism and all that). He certainly has a bad reputation, though.

              I’m a proponent of objective ethics, so I hold that there is an answer to the question of his morality or immorality. As you say, a person’s life can be morally complicated. To assess, we’d need to consider the ethics of the persons actions, the morality of the consequences of those actions, the morality of the person’s motives and the ethics of a person’s character. This could involve vary different ethical assessments for each. For example, a person of good character might take actions that have horrifying consequences-yet do so for excellent reasons. Since I am working on some sci-fi stuff now, consider a research team that develops nanites that correct genetic defects and actually modify the genes to make those of children better (more resistant to disease and so on). Imagine that the government decides to stop their research, so to bring the benefits to the people, they release the nanites just as the government agents arrive. As promised, the nanites improve the the young-but they also change them so no longer think like the “old humans”, and this eventually results in a war between the old and the new.

            • ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 7, 2015 at 9:31 pm

              Read this quote, and ask yourself: “Did Sade advocate moral or immoral behavior? Your buddy Foucault was quite enamored with Sade… “The Marquis de Sade produced graphic celebrations of sexual violence, incest, torture, and murder during a period that encompassed the end of the ancient regime, the French Revolution, and the reign of Napoleon. His most notorious works are a series of novels in which wealthy, powerful “libertines” systematically rape, torture, and kill an assortment of victims—primarily women and adolescents of both sexes—while articulating elaborate philosophical justifications for this behavior. Rejecting the existence of a Supreme Being, Sade posits a lawless and destructive Nature as the only rational guide to behavior; sexual cruelty and the will to power, being natural human impulses, should be fostered rather than discouraged. His reputation inspired the nineteenth-century psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing to attach the author’s name to the concept of sadism, sexual gratification through the infliction of pain on others.”

              Source: Marquis de Sade: http://www.enotes.com/marquis-de-sade-essays/sade-marquis-de

  4. WTP said, on July 1, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    TJ, Magus, possibly others…y’all might be interested in reading this piece. I didn’t read the whole thing as I knew where it was going and I’m not terribly interested in excessively reiterating to myself what I already am on board with, but it’s very good…the beginning, anyway.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357628.php

    • T. J. Babson said, on July 1, 2015 at 11:11 pm

      Nice.

      A culture without any rough parts, without any Proud Nails that won’t be pounded down, without any Strangeness that people just insist upon because it’s Their Culture, That’s Why, is not a culture at all.

      It’s a fucking shopping mall. It’s a fucking Airport Neutral Palate Color Scheme. It’s the gray paste they feed to people in comas.

      It’s nothing. Nothing.

      A lot of people seem to dream of America as a great bland nothing.

      And they’re winning, too.

      There is a strand of thought that is often found among conservatives, which is itself actually not conservative. And that is the tendency towards a fairly pronounced Corporatism.

      Let me explain what I mean by that. When you are at work, you are under a series of rules and codes designed to reduce your individuality. Businesses — Corporations — do not want the full flower of your individual expression. They don’t want you dressing flamboyantly, they don’t want you talking about deviant sex or, actually, non-deviant sex either, they don’t want you proselytizing, they don’t want you arguing about politics, they don’t want you offering your views on the relative accomplishments of the various Races of Man.

      Let me say: I have no problem with this. This makes perfect sense. When you are in a working environment, you’re not there to let your freak flag fly. The business does not want to know you as a Special Snowflake in all your oddball glory.

      Someone who insists on festooning themselves with all their cultural/sexual/religious/political signage at work gravely mistakes how interested anyone at work is in learning about them as a person. People at work do not, by and large, want to know you as a person. Some might; most don’t.

      People at work want to keep this impersonal and polite but not familiar, because impersonal and polite but not familiar is the general code of conduct for not angering strangers one is forced, by circumstances, to be within close proximity to.

      Manners, in all their artificiality, do not exist to navigate relations with your close relations. Manners are an artificial code of conduct designed to reduce frictions and any chance of showing disrespect or causing offense among strangers and semi-strangers.

      I have no problem with the Corporate Code of Conduct at the corporation itself. When I’m forced to be at work, yes, of course I will abide by the “no hot political talk” and the “no sex talk” and “no cursing” and “no ethnic slurs” rules. Partly because I was raised that way, but also partly because I wish the benefit of the bargain– I myself would like to be free of other people’s Freak Flags. I don’t want them gratuitously offending me, or assuming an over-familiar posture with me, so I will, to modify my own behavior and dress so that it is corporate bland and business casual.

      But while I completely understand and endorse the Business Casual system of empty, gray dullness at work, I do not and will not accept it outside of work.

      It is one thing to demand that I comport myself as if I am walking on eggshells for 9 or ten hours a day, at work. It is another thing entirely to further insist that when I get Home, and rest at my metaphoric Castle, that I must continue to follow the Corporate Rules of Conduct.

      Here’s my answer to that: Go fuck yourself. You cannot pursue me from work to home and hound me with your constant need for Conformity in all things.

      http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357628.php

  5. TJB said, on July 1, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    Mike, when the Nazis forced Jews to wear a yellow star did it interfere with their religious liberty?

    Something similar will now happen to Christians.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 2, 2015 at 11:50 am

      Marking people as part of a campaign aimed ultimately at genocide presumably violates a wide range of liberties.

      Really? Most Americans are Christians and the majority of those in power are Christians. So, who exactly will be forcing all these people to be marked with, I guess, a cross? What about all those folks with guns? Will they just say “well, okay, slap that genocide marker on me.”

      What is your timeline for this? Will the police be involved? Will Congress (which is mostly composed of professed Christians) be passing the laws?

      I didn’t think a Nazi analogy would come out so quickly…

      • TJB said, on July 2, 2015 at 12:46 pm

        Godwin’s law in action🙂

        Seriously, marriage has a religious dimension in addition to a civil dimension, and many religions are not OK with gay marriage. People who speak out against gay marriage will be called haters and bigots and will be marked. It will be decided that they are not fit for employment, and they will suffer other penalties…

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 2, 2015 at 6:32 pm

          Much would depend on how they speak out against it. If someone expresses a calm and principled dissent, then those who respond with hate would be in the wrong. If someone brings the hate, they can expect consequences.

          • WTP said, on July 2, 2015 at 8:19 pm

            If someone expresses a calm and principled dissent, then those who respond with hate would be in the wrong. If someone brings the hate, they can expect consequences.

            Dunning-Kruger and quite lacking in awareness of the identity group to which he owes his allegiance. I could spend weeks trying to explain the fascism in this statement that, were certain other groups involved he’d be writing numerous “obviously…obviously…” posts about. The only reality that matters is the one between his ears. Wow, as the kids say.

      • magus71 said, on July 2, 2015 at 2:03 pm

        So, I should be forced to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? Forced by the government? Even the Soviets didn’t get that deep in to people’s personal lives.

        • TJB said, on July 2, 2015 at 4:47 pm

          Yes, you will be forced by the government to love Big Brother.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 2, 2015 at 6:36 pm

          If you are selling cakes, then you don’t have the right to discriminate in selling your cakes. If you are asked to make a custom cake that includes statements supporting same-sex marriage, you have every right to refuse. This is just like how a black cake seller cannot refuse to sell a cake to someone because she is white, but can refuse to make a Confederate cake or one showing the KKK lynching a black person.

          • magus71 said, on July 7, 2015 at 7:37 pm

            “If you are selling cakes, then you don’t have the right to discriminate in selling your cakes.”

            Totalitarianism. What about “Ladies Night” at clubs? Reduced fees for women.

          • magus71 said, on July 7, 2015 at 7:40 pm

            And somehow I don’t think your legal argument pans out in reality.

            • wtp said, on July 7, 2015 at 9:42 pm

              Yeah…that narrative thingy…not getting it.

    • magus71 said, on July 2, 2015 at 2:42 pm

      Morale is lower than ever, in the Army. Mark my word, we will lose if we fight Russia or China. Here’s what the Army is doing to chaplains. There’s lots more going on. Mike refuses to see the problems.

  6. magus71 said, on July 2, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    And for the record, I’ve never said that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. But there are zero net advantages to marriage as it now stands. Any advantages conveyed to one party is balanced by a disadvantage to the other. Unlike the economy, it’s a zero sum game.

  7. nailheadtom said, on July 3, 2015 at 10:17 am

    Why should the gay marriage thing, which can’t inspire more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the population, be an issue at all? And, aside from that, why should marriage be the business of any level of government? The state has the right to legitimize the co-habitation and sexual relations of supposedly free peoples? It’s none of the state’s affair if two people of whatever gender wish to eat breakfast together or sit side by side on the couch and watch “Seinfeld” re-runs. Every proposition that the aggressive gays put forward in their drive for the legal recognition of same sex marriage can easily be accommodated through various contractual devices. That, however, is not enough. Logically, and rightly , the next marriage frontier will be the legal and social acceptance of polygamy and polyandry.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm

      Some years ago, I argued for three types of “marriage.” One would be the theological union, which would have no legal status but would be controlled by religious institutions. People would thus be free to define “marriage” as they wished. There would also be legal unions-legal contracts that would define the relation between people and between people and the state. Finally, there would be love unions in which people could profess their love.

      Problems solved.

  8. ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 3, 2015 at 9:11 pm

    Gresham bakery ordered to pay $135K for refusing same-sex wedding – WFSB 3 Connecticut http://www.wfsb.com/story/29465050/gresham-bakery-ordered-to-pay-135k-for-refusing-same-sex-wedding-cake

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on July 7, 2015 at 3:47 pm

      True-but the lawsuit is because they broke the anti-discrimination law. If they had refused to bake a cake for a Jew or a Latino, they would face the same lawsuit.

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 7, 2015 at 9:22 pm

        That’s exactly the point… being a Jew of Latino isn’t an immoral behavior…. it’s an ethnicity. Are you sure you teach morals? Or do you teach political correctness and junk science?

      • wtp said, on July 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm

        They did not refuse to bake a cake for the couple because they were homosexual, they refused to bake a WEDDING cake celebrating a gay WEDDING. But you don’t want to admit that. You will stand on your head and close one eye and squint reeeeal hard to view this as discrimination against someone for being gay when it is obviously a case of refusing to bake a cake that celebrates a lifestyle which violates their religious beliefs. Because you’re not wrong, reality is.

        Again, this has been pointed out time and time again, if a Jew walks in to a bakery owned by a Palestinian and asks for a cake with a blue Star of David on it, who is going to force that Palestinian to bake that cake?

  9. ajmacdonaldjr said, on July 7, 2015 at 3:22 pm


Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: