1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Religious Freedoms vs. Other Civil Rights

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by chess-z, May 27, 2019.

  1. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    Hey all, it's been a minute or two since I've been active on this forum, and this topic could be like kicking an already fallen hornet's nest, but I think the subject is especially relevant at the moment. Where do religious freedoms take precedence over other civil rights?

    The canonised case is the Baker who refused to bake a cake for the Gay Wedding, but since the election of Donald Trump and the rise of so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, the argument has moved far past "Can you compel a baker to violate his religious principles?" to "You should be able to deny a LGBT+ person health care if your religion opposes it.", especially considering the Trump Adminstration's recent (and ongoing) rollback of Civil Rights in general and LGBT+ rights in specific.

    I want to delineate where religious freedoms take precedence, and quite frankly, don't have a lot of experience with regards to religious civil rights, which is why I want to foster this discussion.

    (theres also the possibility that this subforum is dead like it has been for months in which case *shrug*)
    Majespectre likes this.
  2. Auraninja

    Auraninja Try to understand.

    I find religious freedom (at least its usage) to be a big misnomer. In America, most of these cases involve a person or group of people in the Christian faith.

    Change the scenario to a Muslim who is trying to get a right that is more in good faith, and they may be out of luck.

    So maybe my input doesn't hit all of the bulletpoints, but I see "religious freedom" more of a platform for Christians to deny rights to others while going through the persecution complex thinking their rights are the ones being taken away.

    I may add more depending on if I think of more and if this thread continues to have conversation.
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2019
    WishIhadaManafi5 likes this.
  3. Freedom of religion should mean being able to practice a religion without being persecuted for it. As in, being able to identify as someone from said religion without legal consequences.

    That does not mean you should be able to use it as an excuse for every single stupid thing. Not baking for a LGBT wedding as a baker doesn't mean you're a devout christian, you're just a homophobe. By the logic of "freedom of religion makes you able to do anything your religious book says", christians would be able to own slaves and muslims would be able to carry out their jihad without consequences.

    Personally, I think all religions are a poison to the mind and our species should step away from those bronze age delusions if we wish to advance.
  4. Captain Jigglypuff

    Captain Jigglypuff Leader of Jigglypuff Army

    I think everyone should be allowed to practice what ever religion that they choose as long as it isn’t hurting anyone physically or having human sacrifices. But that also doesn’t give you the right to go around shoving your religion down people’s throats either. Why is it okay for Christians to shove religion into my face and throat but not okay if a Muslim or Buddhist does it? I have nothing against the Christian faith itself. I have just gone through a lot from the religion and know how deceiving some of the stuff some churches do can be. I know not all Christians are against the LGBTQ community and that there are some LGBTQ members that are Christian but they are part of a minority. Being Christian doesn’t give you the right to pray for someone’s soul because they are gay and to try and convert them into being straight. You don’t see any Jews doing that to people. And if anyone stands up to these practices, then they get attacked for violating religious freedom while many are applauded for oppressing and openly discriminating Muslims. Freedom of religion should apply to all of the major religions and not just for one. I also find it funny how people pick and choose what to believe in from the Bible without ever noticing what else it says. You claim being gay is a sin because of one verse in the Old Testament but ignore the fact that the same Book that claims this also says you can’t eat bacon or shrimp and touching a woman during that time of the month is forbidden. That is ridiculous.
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2019
    WishIhadaManafi5 likes this.
  5. Gamzee Makara

    Gamzee Makara Let people enjoy things...

    Puritanism is the foundation of white cishet America.

    Half of the US are bound to this by genetics, culture, and societal trend, exacerbated by social media and pundits.

    Undoing that is no easy task.

    I want a member of the CHURCH OF SATAN(Newly federally recognized as a religion) to ironically invoke Religious Freedom in a federal court case that goes all the way up the ladder, and watch that defense fall apart with the sudden transparency of who that excuse is REALLY meant for by its perpetraitors.
    Majespectre likes this.
  6. satopi

    satopi Go’s Scyther is indestriketible! <3

    Any establishment has the right to refuse to a customer. Baking a cake for a gay couple (and from what I looked into, the baker didn’t refuse service to the gay couple, he just wasn’t willing to decorate the cake because of his religious beliefs. He offered to sell them other things but he wouldn’t decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple because he personally believed in traditional marriage.) I believe that the baker stood by his beliefs and meant no harm. He shouldn’t be forced to do something that goes against his personal beliefs. There are many LGBT Christians (after all, you only have to believe in God to be a Christian) and there are many Christians who give out love and acceptance as they should. I don’t see any problem in him refusing service that goes against his beliefs especially when he was nothing but respectful and this public event destroyed his business, sales, and forced him into stopping production of wedding cakes in general .
    Sham likes this.
  7. Captain Jigglypuff

    Captain Jigglypuff Leader of Jigglypuff Army

    I can see your point. If someone doesn’t want to decorate a gay wedding cake out of personal religious beliefs but is still polite and offers other goods as a compromise then I don’t see any real issue. But if the baker refused to serve the LGBT community by kicking them out without even letting them into the bakery then that is a problem. Sometimes religious freedom is allowed to be twisted and used as an excuse for discrimination which is never something that should be acceptable.
    Redstar45 and satopi like this.
  8. keepitsimple

    keepitsimple my eggs

    >he offered to sell them other goods as a compromise

    lol what. it's a wedding. if they say they need a cake then they're going to want a cake. still attempting to sell somebody a different product they didn't want after disrespecting them doesn't seem very "polite" to me. even if he was, why would discrimination become okay depending on how polite you are? :confused:

    also why are we going for the baker when we could be discussing how the government has restricted lgbt rights recently
  9. D*N

    D*N Musical Star

    Well, I do think anyone who comes with the argument of "it's just my belief or personal opinion" when it comes to not accepting people loving each other, is wrong and it should be against the law.

    On the other hand, would you really want someone so narrow-minded making your wedding cake? I would honestly just get another baker to do it. The baker who doesn't wanna do it just doesn't get the money and the negative promotion with it so whatever, right?
    Majespectre likes this.
  10. Sham

    Sham Useful

    That's what I was thinking as well. As a Christian myself, I completely agree with @satopi. To him he's not being "homophobic", he's going against his faith and God who he has to answer to someday. I personally don't think I would have refused the couple but there are things as a Christian that I don't participate in because it goes agains't my faith. Also I wouldn't even eat a cake from the man considering you don't know what he could/would do to your food after claiming he doesn't agree with your lifestyle.
    satopi likes this.
  11. FullFathomsFive

    FullFathomsFive Well-Known Member

    I think it's important - in this specific case - not to confuse the core issue with the identity of the customer. Presumably the baker would refuse to make the same cake with the same message for a straight customer.

    I think the more interesting debate is whether the cake counts as a form of expression (which people shouldn't be compelled to make as per freedom of conscience) or whether it's just a generic service which can't reasonably be denied. Context would matter, too, such as the scale of the baker's operations and the relationship with their customers; is this a faceless entity churning out hundreds of cakes a day or does a cake represent significant time and investment for the baker?
    Majespectre likes this.
  12. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    You can't refuse service based on discriminatory reasons. The issue is whether or not being gay should be a discriminatory thing, which is obviously should be. It's like saying a place should be allowed to refuse black customers.

    The court's reasoning was at the time being gay didn't count for discrimination reasons, that law came after.

    Using Religion to justify bigotry is never okay and only serves to give religion a bad name.
  13. Sham

    Sham Useful

    I always attempt to separate race and sexuality (or gender) into two separate categories because they don’t mix and they face completely different circumstances that includes completely different histories of oppression. There’s nothing in any of the religious texts condemning being a certain race. Sure there are a few questionable things about slavery that I will admit but nothing about race. He fears that the deity he serves would be unhappy with him supporting a sin (a sin according to Christianity). It’s all about the intent. He’s more concerned with supporting something his religion deems immoral than being rude because “I hate the gays”. Nine times out of ten if a person is refusing a black or POC person it’s due to racism since there’s nothing else it could be. I’m not saying I would do the same thing in that situation but I do understand where that man is coming from. I’m more than positive a black person would not want to eat from an openly racist consumer anyway for health concerns.
  14. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Then he should get another job where he doesn't have to serve people. We're way past the point where we should be treating LGBT people worse because a long time ago one group of people said so. And it's bad to separate oppression like that, it's better to compare them and realize what the issues at the core that drive oppression in general. If you separate them people treat them like isolated things.

    It's a cliched line but the Bible is against so many modern or mundane things it's odd that hating gay people is the one thing that somehow sticks out.

    It's a contradiction at it's core too "Love all people, except these specific people because reasons"
    Ignition and WishIhadaManafi5 like this.
  15. Xuxuba

    Xuxuba Well-Known Member

    Religious freedom is what allows people to believe whatever they want, but it does not mean you can do whatever you want based on your religion without suffering any consequences for your actions.

    You are free to believe in God. Does that mean you can kill someone because you thought God wanted you to kill that person? No.

    Every right has it limits and they shouldn't jeopardize other people's rights. We study that in law school.
    WishIhadaManafi5 likes this.
  16. Sham

    Sham Useful

    Of course the Bible speaks on a couple of things that are sinful (which are just as important to heed imo). I think it’s better to separate things like that. Yes it’s all an umbrella for oppression but mixing them up erases the historical circumstance of each individual case. We have to talk about each circumstance and analyze why it happened. Black people had slavery, Jewish people were mostly the targets in the Holocaust, gay bashing/hate crimes before it was discussed so much. That’s just my opinion however. I think he’s in the correct career. If I am a minority, I’d rather the consumer be up front with me than have the wrong person make my stuff. The Bible might be made by a group of old people that holds no relevance to you (which is fine) but to some people it’s sacred. The only time I think it shouldn’t be up for discussion is when laws are in place. We live in a country that’s separates church and state. So I don’t agree with it being used as a lever to oppress a group of people but a self owned baker who feels he shouldn’t make a cake due to his morality? Nah.
  17. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    The choice is really simple here. Should a person's bigotry be justified and allowed at the expense of the persecuted group, or should it be accepted?

    One of those choices is wrong by the way.
  18. Sham

    Sham Useful

    Of course not.
    For a hot minute the Bible was used to support the idea of slavery (as I said slavery is an iffy topic in the Bible) which is wrong. If it is used to oppress a group of people then I’m not for it. What I’m hoping is that this is an isolated event and that no more gay couples experience this. I hope the courts ruling doesn’t inspire other establishments to refuse gay people services because that’s just plain wrong. So back to what I was saying; I’m not arguing for what he did, just simply his mindset and where it came from. He’s an old white Christian dude so I’m not expecting him to be this mass liberal. Would I refuse the couple if I were the baker? No of course not first of all the the entire thing is trivial and money is money but I do see why he did what he did.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2019
  19. Gamzee Makara

    Gamzee Makara Let people enjoy things...

    Your freedom to PICK your theist belief does NOT give you the right to force others to comply with such. THAT is infringing.

    When a non-theist or a different theist is forced to act according to or in compliance with other theist ANYTHING, it is infringing.

    But don't pretend that this will be applied to anyone but Christians. This whole thing is about giving white Christians more ability to oppress in the name and for the fear of Old Testament God and incorrectly hateful Jesus, with the endgoal being killing, burning the possessions of and worse things toward nonbelievers and the recapture of Jerusalem from brown people...a classic power move over those they want to hurry and send to Hell, but the murderers will totally get off scot free because their cause is "just" and that prayer, worship, confession and forgiveness are totally get out of jail free cards regarding sin.

    Unless PoC members the Church of Satan members are allowed to deny service to a conservative white Christian(s) based on their beliefs and is allowed to by the court, I'm calling all of this as further extensions of The Crusades(Which, in reality, have never ended).
    Majespectre likes this.
  20. satopi

    satopi Go’s Scyther is indestriketible! <3

    Christianity isn’t the only religion out there that sees Homosexuality as a sin and I don’t believe the owner should just not be allowed to serve people just because of his personal beliefs. Once again, the owner stated that he would’ve sold the gay couple a cake but he wouldn’t decorate the cake with something that goes against his religion. It’s the gay couple’s fault for going into a Christian business and causing a stink which cost the owner to lose his way of making ends meet and reputation. The owner lost a lot, he’s probably more traumatized by the whole ordeal while the gay couple hasn’t lost anything but cause an uproar. Bottom line is, you can’t force a religious man to do something he doesn’t want to do. Same with established religious churches who don’t recognize gay marriage. It’s a form of disrespect. The gay couple could’ve happily went to another bakery and shaming the man for something he considers to be apart of his identity is no different than shaming a person’s sexuality.

Share This Page