You have certain talents that you can market to make a living, but to do so, you have to work for anyone who asks, even those who wish to make use of your talents to promote a cause you disagree with.
You can’t make use of anyone’s talents if they disagree with your cause. For instance, a Christian can be turned away from goods and services if those offering them can show that they promote a different social agenda.
Neither outcome is great. Which do you think is the lesser evil?
I would disagree with your premise. “promote a cause” and “different social agenda” are very vague and ambiguous. However something that promotes a cause or agenda that is sinful is unambiguous, and we are obligated to reject that which is sinful.
And my human reasoning says that an African American owned catering service shouldn’t be required to provide services to a KKK rally. The same applies to same sex unions and other things. Nor should a sign maker be required to make signs supporting any given politician or political party if they opposed to what they represent. And a non-Catholic service should be permitted to not provide services to something like a Catholic conference. It is their right not to do so.
It is not discriminatory to not provide services for an event which celebrates that which I am opposed to.
I already said as much. A non-Catholic service should have the same right to deny services for Catholic events.
Please note, that there is a difference between providing services for an event vs. providing services to an individual.
A person cannot be denied services based on their beliefs. But the events themselves, or the making of signs, t-shirts, etc which promote or support such beliefs can be denied. That is an important distinction
I’m assuming this topic has come up because of the recent Supreme Court case. In my opinion, they are really arguing the wrong case. A similar case was argued on the grounds of freedom of religion and this recent one was argued on freedom of speech.
To my ears, this sounds like “my freedom of religion and/or speech allows me to discriminate”. It sounds to me like they are trying to legally discriminate. And that falsely represents the argument. But I think that is what the judges and the population hear.
Events are not people. Events cannot be discriminated against. Events do not have rights that can be violated. As long as the denied service is because of what the event promotes, celebrates, etc and not because of the individual people who hold those views and will be participating in it. If it is denied because of the individual people participating in the event, than that would be discrimination.
I hear what you are saying. Would that mean that any business could deny goods and services to any organization or person arranging a Christian event if they could show that they do not support the values being promoted? For instance, could the entirety of the citizen body that supports LBGT deny goods and services to Christian events? Legally?
For if the court rules in the baker’s favor it will have established that both parties have opposing values. This law appears to be applicable both ways between these groups and applicable by any group against any other group who claim opposing values.
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If they believe that Christians teach a policy of hate towards LGBT, than in good conscience, they should have the right to deny supporting that. Do you think any of these business owners would want to participate in an event held by the Westboro baptist church? All you have to do is look at their website to know that they might have a problem with that.
Example: Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the celebration of birthdays. If a business owned by a JW were asked to supply goods in order to celebrate a birthday, they should have the right to decline their services. It doesn’t matter how other people view birthdays, it only matters that they view them as evil celebrations.
Another example: A website designer should not be forced to design websites which are pornographic. But this trend, will absolutely require that if it ever has to be decided by judges, because precedence is already being made. It is not an exaggeration to say that it leads to tyranny.
I feel pretty certain that the ruling will be something close to, “Goods or services cannot be denied to patrons upon the basis of race, color, religion (creed), gender, gender expression, age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or military status.”