As the two chosen beliefs make clear, the First Amendment Defense Act is not about the First Amendment; it is about legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ Americans in the name of a god.
But what about the bakeries and florists and other businesses who are “forced” to serve all customers, even those condemned by their faith? Isn’t this bill just allowing them to act out their faith? Remember, the right to act on religious beliefs is not absolute. Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court, writing 100 years apart, used the same obvious example to prove this important point: human sacrifice.
If a person believes a god is commanding them to sacrifice their child — as has been known to happen in the Bible — do they have a right to act out their faith? Obviously not. They can believe that command is real and divine, but they are not exempt from laws against murder because of that belief.
Nobody is telling bakeries or florists or any business that happens to be run by a Christian that the owner cannot hold or even express their beliefs. But just as belief is not a license to murder, it is not a license to discriminate.
I agree the law is oppressive.
those that demand others to perform functiions against their will are worse oppressers.. If a wildlife photorapher is a member of PETA should I be able to force them to photograph a hunting trip. Under the law we may need to have business treat all the same. As fellow humans, we should be sensitive to the desires of others. Forcing others to do things against their beliefs is rude at best.
Anything that requires that you actively participate in an activity, I can understand the importance of being able to decline, but your example is far different from the baker or florist... A photographer can state that they do not participate in hunting activities and decline the offer.
Here's a better example: Say I'm a Christian hairdresser. I've been doing Betty's hair for years, and I've always styled it in loose waves. Betty is getting married to a woman and has asked me to style her hair for the wedding. She wants an up-do. I can climb on my soapbox and tell her she'll burn in hell and I'll not participate in her satan-themed event, and face legal prosecution. Or, I can regretfully remind Betty that I haven't the talent to create an up-do and refer her to another stylist who will be able to make Betty's day special. Maybe I'm declining because I really can't do an up-do (and I better not ever do one after this), or maybe I really am an asshole who thinks I can profit from a person for years and then hurt them when they ask me to help them make their day extra special.
If you bake cakes for weddings, that's what you do. If you've never baked a wedding cake, but a gay couple comes in and asks you to, you can honestly turn them away because they're asking for something you don't offer. There's no such thing as a gay cake, so if you make and sell cake, you better be ready to sell it to anyone who walks into your bakery. Same for a florist. A DJ... well, that's more like the wildlife photographer... do you really want someone with a homophobic/Christian axe to grind to have a microphone at your gay reception?
As for the hate-message cakes, courts have upheld the rights of bakeries to decline to create the message. They must provide the cake, and may provide the icing to be used for the message, but they are not required to create the message.
If Nazis come to a bakery and request a cake with a loathsome emblem drawn on it, must the baker comply? I’m not equating your hypo and mine in an effort to prove that LGBTI and Nazis are equivalent. Nazis are unacceptable. LGBTI people are just like you and me. My point is that people’s first amendment freedoms may clash. I think that a case involving facts like the ones you present will be decided by the Supreme Court at any time. If it has reached that stage, it’s because its facts are not as obvious as the ones in the human sacrifice hypothetical that you described.
When I was younger, there was a saying, "your rights end where anothers begin." It was to point out that decency and respect of others shouldnt be ignored just because you have a right to do something. All rights come with a corresponding responsibility-- We can speak but not slander.
But this concept that a business has these same rights is scary nonsense. Regardless of subsets, we are all americans. If you operate a business, you should not have the right to discriminate against anyone for no other reason than before long, it will be everyone being discriminated against.
No, but the bakery shouldn't be permitted to deny them the same cake they sell anyone else. If they want a hate-cake, they can modify it after they leave the premises.
I think people and businesses should be able to discriminate as much as they want.
If I owned a bakery, I should be able to say no Westboro Baptist Church, I am not making a “God Hates Fags” cake. No NAMBLA, I’m not doing any business with you.
Under the current law you don’t have to since those things don’t fall under protected classes.
It was really "God Hates Figs".
I would absolutely bake a cake for those people, but if they offer you some of my cake; I would suggest that you politely refuse.
You can refuse to decorate ot with certain things without discriminating against the individual.