A discussion about Religion, Gay Weddings and Pizza.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/indiana-pizza-shop-owners-in-hiding-as-donations-pour-in/ar-AAap2k5


I'm all for equality and all, but this story is just screwy on both ends.

They answered a question, honestly and without any form of agression. The answer was no, and thats it.

People got butthurt about it and started blasting the business on yelp, other people got counter butthurt about it and started making donations(set up by the "supportive" media group, *all the attention these guys got, from this is good for their business) just to spite the inital group of butthurt people.

I can honestly say that I am unable to pretend to be some sort of psuedo-savant and fight for some intellectual middle-ground here.

I'm with the Pizzeria, if they don't want to serve gays then don't make them, they can politely and professional decline the business, its against their belief. I find myself confused as I'm an Atheist and not a Catholic or Christian yet I agree with them on this point 100%.

The Circlejerk loops in on itself and I am dissapointed by the fact that, I see the leftists as the bad guys here though I considered myself a liberal and support gay marriage, pot legalization and all that, tin foil consipiracy/anti-establishment lulz. I just cant bring myself to support this; and by support this I mean express any form of contempt towards the so-called "Evil Homophobic Bigots, who spread hate, in the name of faith"

I'm new to venting about this political jive and would appreciate constructive critisim, I dare you to prove me wrong! no really it's for my own good and broadening of my views in life.

I am against the law and the Pizza place. I know the typical response is, the gays can go somewhere else and it is a person's right to express themselves. It has already been established that it is every person's right to have equal access to jobs, goods and services without being judged for their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, disability and genetics. Many states have included sexuality.

This law covers basically any event or occasion, so it can basically exclude those who don't wish to cater, host or give some service to a gay wedding, but realistically it could be for a host of other religious reasons. Also this law doesn't take effect until June.

So, what if you are in a small town and the only baker won't sell you a cake? The only Hall won't host you? The only photographer won't help either? Naturally you can say a slew of responses to solve this, but why does the guy need to travel to find someone who will? This is denial of goods and services over observance to Religion. This law will not hold in any Court.

Churches are exempt, so don't worry, they can't be sued and lose the right to refuse.

As for your rights. Your rights and freedoms end at someone else's rights and freedoms. The government has ruled that access to goods and services are more important than your right to judge others over matters of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, disability and genetics. This is why protesters can't block doors to a service or even a walkway. Soon it is likely with the SCOTUS's ruling, this will include sexuality.

Prove you wrong? That is easy to do, and I will give a few examples.

The United Nations Charter of Human Rights:

Article 23.
†¢(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
†¢(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
†¢(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
†¢(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Both the bolded areas explain this very clearly, that anyone regardless of sexuality, religion, gender, race, nationality, etc, can not be denied equal access to job based on their background. This would clearly show that if the pizza place is not willing to even sell a pizza to gay couples, they would definitely not hire a gay person. They are in violation of international law which was signed by the United States of America.

Article 21.
†¢(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
†¢(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
†¢(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


The bolded section of article 21 from the same charter of human rights states that everyone has a right to equal access of public services. Under American law all restaurants and pizzerias, bars, etc, are considered public places and public services. This is proven by the easily noticeable public anti-smoking laws which prevent anyone from smoking in a public place, which includes all food places.

Therefor, the law itself contradicts itself. Money does not discriminate. Do you think that the dollar in your pocket loses value because it's been in a strippers G-string or in the pocket of a murderer. It doesn't. There is a reason why business and religion are not supposed to be mixed.

Are you really trying to argue that a privately owned business is a public institution like a govt. agency? The bolded parts in article 23 have to do with employment and compensation, not only that one can say their dignity is being stripped away if they're not allowed to apply religious practices to their business.

I don't think it isn't bad for govt to regulate some aspects of business to ensure customers don't get harmed from products and services and that the market stays open and competitive. But you can't and shouldn't force them to conduct business against their will.

Money may not discriminate but people do. Even if it's for pointless and petty reasons. I'd rather have an open dialogue and an open market than one forced transactions and limited autonomy.

Yes, I am saying that privately owned business is like a public institution. If it wasn't then why do they have to abide by the smoking bans that most places have. Smoking bans only affect public places, and in public places you are free from discrimination. What if it's my religious belief to smoke, but I can't do that can I, because it's illegal.

I don't understand why we should allow places to discriminate at all against people whatsoever, especially when it's business. Nobody ever said anything about not having an open discussion and an open market, but an open market is inclusive not exclusive. There's a big difference there. It's not an open market is certain people can't participate because others are preventing them based on phony outdated systems of belief.

I want to know, and please answer this, when is it acceptable to stop treating people as human because of who they are. If this business was saying that they only do sales to white people because it's their religious belief, the place would be burned down in minutes. Tell me what the difference is here. If I was a muslim, and they denied me service which I believe they would with their Christian crap, would that be acceptable? It's their business is not an excuse to it. All it does is allow an environment where such bigotry can reproduce. If 1 place allows it, what stops another, and another, and another. What stops the whole state from denying any service at all to anyone who isn't straight, white, Christian. This isn't a give or take situation. It needs to be stamped out.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination is discrimination. There is no acceptable level. Private business or not, they are still registered with the government and under American law are public places, and that means everyone has the same rights as you or me, regardless of belief.

Again, there's rules that a private institution has to abide by, but that doesn't make them a public one like a govt office/service provider. I clearly said that there are laws regulating private business to protect customers. Same reasons why restaurants have laws requiring employees to wash their hands after using the bathroom. Not only because it's a good idea but because it's a standard imposed upon them for the sake of customers. Yes, they are "public" in some sense, but we can't allow you or people like you force others into transactions. You're not even pretending to acknowledge this point and that's beyond disturbing.

And yes, in open markets, people are allowed to be discriminatory, whether it be religious, gender, social-economic status, race, favorite sports teams, education level, age, clothing attire, political beliefs, etc. etc.. If I open up a bank, I'm allowed to tell certain people that I have no interest on giving them a loan, even though it could be beneficial to us both. Open markets are not inclusive in the regards that an individual competing must cater to anyone and everyone despite his personal wishes. Open markets are inclusive as in they allow everyone to compete as long they follow some guidelines. Open markets can allow this businesses to fail too, you are in no way obligated to do business with my bank, or the bigot bakery owners. Open markets should strive to be a meritocracy. I do not consider Freedom and equality to be one in the same. Although I think it's bad for these businesses to turn away customers for such a trivial harmless reason I'm still not going to deny them their ability to do business because they don't agree with me 100%.

Also don't bring up the Muslim vs. White Christian things here. Muslim bakeries deny gay couples wedding cakes all the time and no one even pretends to be outraged. There's a power dynamic here that the Socialists left leaning authoritarians absolutely refuse to acknowledge.

This is America, a country where even the health care system is privatized. This very same law that can be used to deny anyone service of a pizza can be used in the exact same way to deny someone health care because it conflicts if your religion. There is absolutely no stipulation in the law that says this law only applies to certain parts of society. It literally says that it's applicable in all situations unless the government can prove that it hinders other activities of the government.

So unless you're saying that a doctor doesn't get an option, what makes the doctor any difference? Just because the doctor has a different profession? If a doctor is then forced to help someone, why can't a pizzeria get over themselves and make a freakin pizza for someone. Acting as if some people are special and others are not. Bull.

This law is terrible from the get go. All pharmacies are privately owned companies, so I guess they can deny giving you medication because you're gay or a woman, or black, or whatever other bull excuse they want to give that contradicts their religion. Give me a break.

Doctors aren't forced to help someone, it's very unethical for them to not do so though. Ultimately being a guy who just makes and sells pizza and a guy who works for a hospital that may or may not get MASSIVE govt. subsidies and licensing from said govt are completely different. They don't have the same ethical standards, liability, funding or barriers of entry.

You're basically saying that because a govt forces pizzerias not to use expired cheese or have animals roaming around their kitchen, that the pizzerias are now public entities that have the same standards and rules as a govt office. That's outrageous. Unless the govt. or the people subsidies a big chunk of the pizza place's expenses then no, you don't get to dictate anything other than basic health standards. Also not all pharmacies are privately owned, nor are hospitals. And most CHOOSE not to discriminate because it's bad business, bad press, and a lot of them aren't bigots.

If you're arguing on opinions on whether it's not right morally or for business I agree. But I'm not going to force them into making a transaction they don't want to. I'm also not going to be a patron there anymore, because the free market let's me give my businesses to a multiple of different people.

You two sure went at it, I'm still processing most of what you guys said.

Let me put in simple and probably not as intelligent words and reasoning(of my own volition of course).

These good folks from Indiana, truly believe without a doubt that homosexuality is a sin. They would rather NOT serve them their products goods or services as much as possible.
I really don't know think its okay for an angry mob to make death threats and destroy the busines on yelp with ratings based only on the comment on the hypothetical question: "Would you cater a gay wedding"

Lets put it this way, I am a straight guy and the new restaurant in town has an expensive yet very appetizing meal( stupid example Pot infused bacon) however when I go to the establishment, workers politely and professionaly refuse to let me in, because I am straight, or maybe because I'm an Atheist). I would not be as buttmad as to go out of my way and protest about it. I can eat somewhere else.

These people aren't going to any minorities, lgbt or other religious groups and putting an effort into saying, "we can't serve you or your kind isn't welcome here" its those people who happen to go the business and ask.

If people are supposed to be truly accepting of race, religion and sexual orientation.

Why can't they have the right to deny service based on their genuine faith?

One guy on the internet commenting "why do gays want to wed in churches that clearly do not want them, when they can wed in a lot more places" is what led me to this.

Want equality? lets try and accept the fact that I think two men doing it is gross and I want to participation in it what so ever, yet I will not claim the any sort of right to put effort, time and money to tell them how wrong they are.. because I can be wrong and I may not even know it.

Yes, my version of acheiving peace and tolerance, does look like a step backwards; but when you look at it, people will hate and discriminate. Don't like it? don't participate. That goes for both "sides".

Conclusion:I guess I'm just really dissapointed that I agree with the "bigots" on this one because to me it seems like the "oppressed" can be strong and experss their beliefs and sexuality, and we all have to like it, or be labeled a racist.

Thanks so far to all of you in the thread for giving me things to think about. That goes for everyone :D!

Now this response really made me think. Thank you, :). I would agree that discrimination against other people, denying them of basic services they would in no way be a good thing especially if none are available. However the owners of the Pizzeria were clear, they will feed and serve anyone regardless of who they are. The reporters who were fishing for a bad response asked a hypothetical "Would you cater a gay wedding" the owner said no. They genuniely thing gay marriage is wrong.

From that question, it was just not about feeding the customers or serving them pizza in on their tables like they are supposed to do every time they open for business, its having them actively participate in the planning and execution of a gay wedding they do not believe in(catering). Why does that warrant so much hate?

I'm not saying that these people be straight up, ultra biggoted racists and really force people out of their town to create some sort of bigot utopia and, there has to be a limit or a point here that the law was trying to accomplish(albeit failed because of the hate vortex, that formed arround it) such as these people have the right to refuse some service to a certain extent.

Think of the homophobic cake incident from a while back. The baker did not want to write the message the Anti Gay Cake but gave the customers the means to do it themselves(compromise) yet those people made a big stink about not getting someone else to hate gay people for/with them.

Hence, these business owners should provide basic goods and services but should have the rights to deny service for extra's such as the gay wedding and other things that conflict with their beliefs. All the hate really covers up what I think(hope?) the law makers were trying to do when creating this law.

Everyone has the right to be provided things that they need and deserve, no one however deserves to force their "equality" on to other people. I'd serve my food to anyone who has the means to compesate me if I were to run a business.

That doesn't mean I should be happy or even be forced to organize a gay bashing party no matter how lucrative it is, they REALLY need my cooking because no one else can do it?. Here is the food, here are the arrangements, have a wonderfull time at your anti-gay party. We aprreciate your business however we ask that you set the party up yourselves. :)

"You are so goddamn right" as a certain Heisenberg would say. You sir have my point accross in a more inteligent light(as I consider myself very new to this). I did not factor in, the difference between giving people services they need, based on how they need it.

To address this I'll use a rather extreme example but it's actually something that happened in real life and is very relevant.

September 1919, Adolf Hitler joins the German Workers Party. Before everyone starts to get all bent out of shape because I'm making second world war references, hear me out. In Germany it a cultural custom to listen to authority without criticism. It is something that has been trained into children since birth. Those who hold authority, are often unquestioned. This was scene by the "following orders" operandi during the Nuremburg trials. The reason this is important is because many people, often thought to be the majority of Germans during this time did not agree with the hatred and discrimination that was being produced at the time. But they chose to as you have put it, "not participate". They failed to act and take a side early in the conflict which could have prevented the whole thing.

This has been shown in many journals recorded by defectors and traitors of the state, which appeared during the trials against the regime.

It comes down to something my mother always told me, "all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing."

This is not a world in which ignoring our problems make them go away. This is precisely the issue. I am an atheist like yourself, and I believe that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe but they do not have the right to act on their belief when it affects another person.

This discussion highlights a neat contradiction in the nature of freedom that is a central tension in western society today.

On the one hand, there's the belief in freedom as freedom of market and speech. The ability for the individual to be autonomous in what they want, think and do and the ability to sell products as they see fit, regardless of what they portray. So on so forth.

On the other hand, it is the belief that freedom exists in equity. In which difference shouldn't be discriminated against but accepted, and in which everyone has a right to all the services of everyone else. Taken further, it means no one's specific difference from another should cause them harm even in indirect ways. Media should be responsible for their portrayals of difference and thus censored should a portrayal be deemed harmful etc.

The two positions on what freedom means are kind of antagonistic to one another. They're both problematic. I hate seeing censorship/backlash against sexy stuff in vidya for example but I also recognize that the media can at times inform and perpetuate damaging views and I believe everyone should be treated on the basis of their personality and actions and not their specific external identity markers. I think it's a contradiction we all grapple with.

Nicely said. The only difference in what I would see is that for example the censorship/backlash against sexy stuff in video games for example, I would only argue this is freedom of expression provided there is no intent of harm. I would rather have people complain that something they don't like is available to everyone than having something everyone wants available to only a few.

That is where I come down on this issue from the beginning. That is my understanding of a free market, it's all about choice. Everything is available but you can choose not to partake.

Not entirely true. Differences aren't protected in the open market of ideas and free trade, not everyone has a right to force others into servitude.



Nice quote, but you're still suggesting an authoritarian style control of private businesses and thought. And when you get to the point where speech, discussion and free market principles(inb4 slavery since slavery depends on the unwillingness of one party) are a hindrance towards your political and moral compass then you become what which a lot of us fear.

The section that you quoted from my post was my summary of the view of freedom as equity, as opposed to open market and free speech, so what I said in it is true to that view point or at least when it is taken to its extreme. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by forcing others into servitude. It does involve forcing specific views on people certainly. No discrimination, must accept everyone. That kind of deal. But I wouldn't go as far as servitude even though I don't agree with it either. Anyway, I think you miss read my post amd thought the above quote was my view of what freedom should be?

Your freedom ends when the freedom of the next begins.

Offering a service where nobody is authorized to trade with you except individual persons named by you (and not groups) is what we call a private transaction. Offering a service where everyone are authorized to trade with you is what we call a public transaction, so you don't have to write 7 billion names. A private restaurant is not a public entity, but it is offering a public service, thus, in the public part, they must respect people's right to access to any public service without discrimination.

Limits: If that person will not pay you, it is passing over your right to remuneration. If that person is breaking a law at requesting a trade with you, is passing over society on average, thus loses some of its freedom. In any case, you can kick em' out.

On this speculative scenario, the pizzeria is not breaking the law and they have the right to say anything they wish. Everyone else also have the right to reply that anyway they wish (with words and not employing their right to trade with the pizzeria). People have the right to stop trading with them and talk as much as they wish about the pizzeria (as long they aren't saying lie, otherwise it - can - be defamation). Market is working because the pizzeria decided to blast part of its competitiveness for the sake of religious belief.

I agree with theotherjacob by other hand.

I think I get what you're trying to say here. But I would still have to stick point in the situation.

Freedom comes with consequences. In a sense it's a false reality, in which freedom doesn't really actually exist. As the great George Carlin has said "It's not freedom if someone can take it away, and that's what we have, a list of temporary privileges."

I think this is the important part of discuss in the end. How far does one persons freedom go over another. If I'm not mistaken, I think someone else mentioned that what if this pizzeria for example was the only one in the town, or perhaps they are the best pizzeria in town with the highest quality product. There is a created demand, which is obviously the problem because it if was just one pizzeria that makes medium quality pizza, it would never have been news worthy. There must be something about this situation that is being completely missed.

I remember when this issue came out when chick-fil-a came out against same sex marriage, it became a much larger controversy because of the size of the corporation. Where do we draw the line on what is an expectable form of expression based on belief.

Let's say for example that this pizzeria is part of a chain or an independent that happens to give monetary support to a political member. Is this now acceptable? That a place of business is influencing politics with it's dollars, or maybe it's owner/employees happen to support a political party? This is influencing politics and no longer remaining neutral.

In the better interest of keeping the market free, it must remain neutral. It is the same issue that already aggravates me to no end about politics. We have people who are acting on religious belief. It's hard to be inclusive when you are excluding others based on mental and physical differences (sexuality, race, gender, etc)

Absolute freedom means you can do anything you wish, with the consequences being lower to what would strain you. Absolute freedom does not exist for many practical reasons. Then, what we have? A partial freedom that, sometimes can be close to absolute, sometimes close to null. Now, what differs is how we want to distribute that freedom, that is limited on nature, and what is the most practical method to archive such thing.

Some argues that aspiring to full autonomy while avoiding anarchy is the way to go. Being that an attempt to give people more control about themselves and their possessions, even in the face that would limit the autonomy of someone else. This make a quite simple cycle: those with weaker power will have a limited autonomy, as those with higher power will uses their possessions in a way that will limit the use of your possessions. Naturally, freedom is distributed clearly unequally, but obviously you aren't an egalitarian to start with if you are up to this, so you don't care about that, more so, even you can agree it is the correct way.

I said avoiding anarchy for a reason. Nobody truly believes on full autonomy because it is anarchy in practical effects, but you don't have to be a hardcore extremist to like to stick as close as possible to this. People sharing the belief for this people thus will always think about control and laws "as minimal as possible".

Some others, including me, argues that we should strive to distribute that freedom in an equal way, with a limited autonomy where you can't pass over the autonomy of other, avoiding communism. We employ the uses of rights and we design them in a way nobody can pass over other's right while also preserving their rights. This does not guarantee a perfect distribution of freedom nor isn't against free market, but at least it gives a base where everyone can know for sure they at least have that freedom on that thing, making it easier to work around any deficiency.

Actually, we live in a world were we are using part of both philosophies, even if they contradict themselves. How? Easy, employing one in certain areas and employing the other in other areas. This is called pragmatism and is necessary to have the best of what each method has to offer, while avoiding more efficiently per benefit their negative side. Even moderns the U.S or Cuba are more close to the center than they do of the extremes. Ignoring people who believes in the extremes or very close to them, discussions should resolve around what is the best deal to have the greater sum of practical effects, moral effects and sustainable effects.

Oh, and yes, cruz, all health-care force is forced to try (and the try must be serious) help people, this is even true in the U.S. The oath does have legal effects indeed. The unique moment in with a health-care worker can avoid this added responsibility is when they are retired, or avoiding getting near people who can request their services like never going to a hospital (basically, avoid working at all). This can or not overlap certain rights like vacations, depending the circumstances. You did see episodes of medics avoiding offering their services to nonpaying patients under the right to remuneration, but this was overridden for health as the big majority of those episodes weren't for unwillingness to pay but inability to pay.

That won't stop a private practitioner from saying no, or a doctor from quitting. Again, most of these hospitals aren't really private entities, they're heavily reliant on Govt. and the people's tax dollars to continue running. Not only that there's different ethical standards for both groups, which was my main point.



1 place denying service doesn't magically take away your right to buy pizza anywhere else. There being only pizza place in a town doesn't make it a public service open to all. Make a big fuss about it until everyone decides to try something different or ask the owner to change his business model or lose his patrons.

I don't agree with the owner of Chick Fil A's views but he did stick to his guns in a professional and polite way. He and his company never denied gay people service or employment. I don't care how immoral you think he is for following his illogical religious beliefs, he's not imposing his will through force, he hasn't cornered the market of fast food, and he's not being discrete about what he's doing with his money. Why and how do you suggest we limit his freedom expression?

In order to keep the market free you don't further strip people of their rights. When a government in pursuit of good intentions tries to force change the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests groups, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Govt. should be a referee, not an active player.