They're already protected equally by the laws. Blacks need specific protection because of their history and concerted effort by government to deny them basic civil rights, including the right to vote. I don't see where gay people have been denied the right to vote, or hundreds of years of Jim Crow laws. The Christian bakers aren't denying old people or black people or any other protected group. They're not denying gay people either service either - just wedding cakes.
It's not just refusing religious expression that's in question here, it's also establishment of religion by government. Legislating against one religion in ways the favor another is establishment (and yes, Secular Humanism is a religion for the purposes of this question).
Not globally for all things, as for black people. Even so, refusing to bake a cake is not a situation where any real damages occur. Sure, the gay people affected get upset by the refusal, but they're not hurt physically or denied actual rights (like housing, voting rights, etc.), or monetary harm (loss of income or business). If they can make a civil case that they've been done some great mental anguish type of harm, let 'em sue.
A single cake is not damaging in the big picture, I agree (though it is humiliating/degrading, which is a harm itself). The issue here is that if such prejudices are allowed to become normalized, denial of service could become widespread, which would collectively add up to a pretty significant harm. We saw this happen with black people before the Civil Rights Act. Even apart from the obvious physical threats they faced, you could have argued then that a restaurant being allowed not to serve a black person did not cause any great harm--but if many/most businesses choose not to serve black people, it becomes a great harm.
Exactly, it's a slippery slope when you have to come up with a definition under the 1st amendment. Minstrel's post got me to thinking about Scientology, it is a tax exempt "religion" but, from what I understand, doesn't involve worshiping any "gods".
But a Christian/Muslim could use the same argument... they feel humiliated and degraded because their religious beliefs are not respected. Most bakeries don't consider religions and serve everybody. History shows us that, while there is a very long way to go, we've come a long way in improving conditions for those who've been discriminated against in the past and we're not going to go backwards. When does it come to the point where the minority "religious" bakery owners are "protected"?
If you're going to say, "Why can't you be reasonable and bake the cake?" to a religious baker you have to ask, "Why can't you be reasonable and go to another bakery?" to the gay couple. See what I'm saying? Both parties feel their rights are being violated and both parties have a legitimate argument. Clearly the founding fathers didn't see this coming!
The "humiliation/degradation" wasn't the main argument. It was that denial of service can quickly lead to marginalization of a minority in society. I don't think that this can be feasibly reversed: that by providing services to people they disagree with, Christians or Muslims will be marginalized in society.
Spud, discrimination is not a civil right. Period. No one's rights are being violated when a business is asked to do business. Maybe there is only one bakery that makes wedding cakes? Doesn't matter. There is no civil rights violation to being asked to do your damn job. If a baker is unwilling to bake, find another job. If a clerk can't issue marriage licenses, get another job. If a pharmacist can't fill prescriptions, get another job. What if it's hiring? You're a Christian, it offends you that gay people exist, you want us all dead, so your civil rights are violated if you have to hire people regardless of sexual orientation? It's bogus. Fake argument. Persecuted bakers, persecuted Nazis, men pretending to be transwomen, all bullshit. Total complete utter bullshit. Just putting frosting on bigotry. The Congress called hearings on this bill because they consider gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans inferior beings not entitled to the rights heteros take for granted. They called hearings on the month anniversary of a massacre of mostly gay people to underline their contempt for us. All this shit about persecuted Christian bakers and persecuted Nazis is just a big pile of bullshit. No one is proposing a bill that would allow county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to Nazis, they are proposing a bill that allows clerks to refuse to issue licenses to gay and lesbian couples. No one is proposing a bill that would allow employers to refuse Christian employees time off under Federal Family and Medical Leave Act to care for sick spouse or child, they are proposing a bill that would allow employers to refuse gay employees time off under FMLA. No one is proposing a bill that would allow federal contractors to refuse to hire Christians, they are proposing a bill that would allow federal contractors to refuse to hire LGBTQ people. No one is proposing a bill that would prohibit Nazis from using public facilities, Congress is proposing a bill that would prohibit transgender people from using public facilities. Gays, lesbians, bi, transgender people. Not Christians. Not Nazis. So stop spreading the bullshit. You can spread bullshit a mile thick and it doesn't cover up the fact that Congress is proposing the widest ranging antigay bill in history on the one month anniversary of the worst antigay violence in the country's history.
I do, in this case they could be considered the minority because the majority of the bakeries out there are going to sell wedding cakes to everyone. The religious baker is being marginalized when they he is forced to violate his religious beliefs protected under the 1st amendment. You're trying to rank who's rights are the most important but those individual people, whether we agree with their beliefs or not, are just as protected under the constitution.
Christians (or Muslims) will be in no danger of being marginalized in society, even if some of them must sell goods/services to people who's practices they disagree with. Yes, they are. Christians and Muslims are also protected classes and can't be denied goods/services. No one (including gays, blacks, etc) is allowed to deny goods and services to protected classes.
The religious persons' refusal is a form of conscientious objection. They even lost their businesses and were fined big bucks over it and were willing to accept that rather than the trivial act of baking the cake. The party suffering the damage is clearly the business, not the gay persons. The gay couple got a cake elsewhere, I presume.
Yes, but a big part of that is because the discrimination was illegal. If it had been legal, other businesses can follow suit and then it would be extremely damaging to gay people, just as it was when it played out that way for black people. That's the whole point of marginalization. You're essentially affirming that the system worked--it's produced a society where this kind of discrimination rarely happens and, when it does, the gay couple has recourse. As I mentioned, we've seen this play out differently when such prejudice wasn't prohibited.
Judging by the mass quantity of bakeries that have not baked cakes for gay marriages, the republic is doomed! There simply is no there there.
So gay person goes without cake, and gay haters die from diabetes while their business fails. Who gets the last laugh?
