A new kind of cake baker
Last night, the owner and staff of a Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave within minutes of her arrival. The restaurant's staff reportedly raised concerns about serving Ms. Sanders to the owner out of their concern for the protection of their moral values - specifically regarding Trump administration actions on transgender persons in the military and the separation of families at our southern border, as well as her past failures to tell the truth when at the White House briefing room podium. Upon consulting with the staff, the owner asked Ms. Sanders to leave, and she did.
When cake bakers didn't want to create wedding cakes for same sex couples due to strongly held religious beliefs, by and large the conservatives in these forums endorsed the cake bakers' right to refuse to do so. What say you about this Virginia restaurant? By all reports, the owner and her staff chose to refuse service to Ms. Sanders due to their strongly held moral values. Do you similarly support the owner's right to refuse her service because they disapprove of her employer's policies as well as her lack of truthfulness?
In my view, it was wrong for the restaurant to refuse her service, just as it was wrong for the cake bakers to refuse service to same sex couples. I think there might be a line somewhere - e.g. perhaps neo-nazis who ask to have a dinner/convention meeting in a restaurant's private dining room - but a government employee coming in for an evening meal does not cross it.
What say you?
Comments
-
This is HARDLY the same scenario.
-
@reformed said:
This is HARDLY the same scenario.I accept that you think the scenarios are "hardly the same," reformed, but I don't know what you think of the actions of the restaurant owner in Virginia. Do you support his right to refuse service to customers in defense of his moral values?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
This is HARDLY the same scenario.I accept that you think the scenarios are "hardly the same," reformed, but I don't know what you think of the actions of the restaurant owner in Virginia. Do you support his right to refuse service to customers in defense of his moral values?
First, I hardly think it was in defense of moral values and he would be hard-pressed to prove that. It is not against his religion that someone works for the Administration. If that were truly the case he would not live in this country.
Second, his actions were despicable.
Third, this is not the same as the baker that actually has documented religious grounds for not serving the gay couple by making a cake for their "wedding" as he did not want to be seen in support of their so-called (and immoral and unbiblical) "marriage".
-
Thanks for sharing your views.
@reformed said:
First, I hardly think it was in defense of moral values and he would be hard-pressed to prove that. It is not against his religion that someone works for the Administration. If that were truly the case he would not live in this country.Second, his actions were despicable.
I bet there were advocates of same sex marriage rights who judged the cake bakers' actions to have been "despicable." I doubt their judgments persuaded you to change your point of view.
Third, this is not the same as the baker that actually has documented religious grounds for not serving the gay couple by making a cake for their "wedding" as he did not want to be seen in support of their so-called (and immoral and unbiblical) "marriage".
I'm struck that you question the ability of the restaurant's personnel to "prove" that their action was in defense of moral values. How did the cake bakers "prove" that baking cakes for same-sex couples was in violation of their religious beliefs? I know they said provision of such cakes violated their religious beliefs, and they said they believed the Bible commanded them to hold their religious beliefs. But how did they prove - to the same extent that you want the restaurant's personnel to prove violations of their moral values - that those were their religious beliefs?
-
I like Sanders response. Do the American thing. Take your business elsewhere.
Oh Bill. You and your nebulous proofs. I doubt you believe them and for sure no one else does.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Thanks for sharing your views.@reformed said:
First, I hardly think it was in defense of moral values and he would be hard-pressed to prove that. It is not against his religion that someone works for the Administration. If that were truly the case he would not live in this country.Second, his actions were despicable.
I bet there were advocates of same sex marriage rights who judged the cake bakers' actions to have been "despicable." I doubt their judgments persuaded you to change your point of view.
Third, this is not the same as the baker that actually has documented religious grounds for not serving the gay couple by making a cake for their "wedding" as he did not want to be seen in support of their so-called (and immoral and unbiblical) "marriage".
I'm struck that you question the ability of the restaurant's personnel to "prove" that their action was in defense of moral values. How did the cake bakers "prove" that baking cakes for same-sex couples was in violation of their religious beliefs? I know they said provision of such cakes violated their religious beliefs, and they said they believed the Bible commanded them to hold their religious beliefs. But how did they prove - to the same extent that you want the restaurant's personnel to prove violations of their moral values - that those were their religious beliefs?
That is simple Bill. The bakers can show reasonably that they believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and having anything to do with it.
I doubt the restaurant owner can show anything from an established religion that would support his case. That's the difference. This was political, not moral, from an area that is filled with snowflakes.
-
@GaoLu said:
I like Sanders response. Do the American thing. Take your business elsewhere.Oh Bill. You and your nebulous proofs. I doubt you believe them and for sure no one else does.
Exactly!
In fact, Sarah Sanders did what the gay couples should do. Get over it, move on. She has more class than any of the gay couples bringing their lawsuits to promote their filth.
-
I'm struck that you question the ability of the restaurant's personnel to "prove" that their action was in defense of moral values. How did the cake bakers "prove" that baking cakes for same-sex couples was in violation of their religious beliefs?
@reformed said:
That is simple Bill. The bakers can show reasonably that they believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and having anything to do with it.You've moved the proverbial goal posts, reformed.
In your previous post, you expected the restaurant staff to "prove" that they took their action with regard to Ms. Huckabee-Sanders in defense of their moral values. But when I ask how the cake bakers "proved" that provision of service to same-sex couples would violate their religious beliefs, you say what the bakers can do is "show reasonably" that they took their action based their beliefs about the Bible.
Which is it? Do you want the restaurant staff to "prove" moral value violations, or to "show" them "reasonably"? If you hold the staff to the new "reasonably show" standard, then I amend the question of my previous post: How did the cake bakers "reasonably show" violations of their religious beliefs to the extent that you expect the restaurant staff to do so?
I doubt the restaurant owner can show anything from an established religion that would support his case. That's the difference. This was political, not moral, from an area that is filled with snowflakes.
Your reply here conflates the rationales for the bakers and restaurant staff. When you revisit media reports about the restaurant incident, you'll note that the staff did not assert violations of their religion(s); they asserted violations of their moral values, which are not necessarily grounded in religion.
The staff's action was "political" not "moral"? Please prove - or "show reasonably," if you don't want to work as hard - how you know this to be true.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I'm struck that you question the ability of the restaurant's personnel to "prove" that their action was in defense of moral values. How did the cake bakers "prove" that baking cakes for same-sex couples was in violation of their religious beliefs?
@reformed said:
That is simple Bill. The bakers can show reasonably that they believe the Bible condemns homosexuality and having anything to do with it.You've moved the proverbial goal posts, reformed.
In your previous post, you expected the restaurant staff to "prove" that they took their action with regard to Ms. Huckabee-Sanders in defense of their moral values. But when I ask how the cake bakers "proved" that provision of service to same-sex couples would violate their religious beliefs, you say what the bakers can do is "show reasonably" that they took their action based their beliefs about the Bible.
Which is it? Do you want the restaurant staff to "prove" moral value violations, or to "show" them "reasonably"? If you hold the staff to the new "reasonably show" standard, then I amend the question of my previous post: How did the cake bakers "reasonably show" violations of their religious beliefs to the extent that you expect the restaurant staff to do so?
You really like to argue semantics don't you?
I doubt the restaurant owner can show anything from an established religion that would support his case. That's the difference. This was political, not moral, from an area that is filled with snowflakes.
Your reply here conflates the rationales for the bakers and restaurant staff. When you revisit media reports about the restaurant incident, you'll note that the staff did not assert violations of their religion(s); they asserted violations of their moral values, which are not necessarily grounded in religion.
Exactly. That's not protected which makes this different as I have contended all along.
The staff's action was "political" not "moral"? Please prove - or "show reasonably," if you don't want to work as hard - how you know this to be true.
Because it was because she worked for the POTUS. That's political, not moral. If you can't see that, you are hopeless.
-
Which is it? Do you want the restaurant staff to "prove" moral value violations, or to "show" them "reasonably"?
@reformed said:
You really like to argue semantics don't you?No. I really like to assume that posters in these forums choose their words intentionally. And because "proving" something is by definition different from "showing" something "reasonably," I assumed that you had adopted a different standard in your most recent post. Are you saying that for you, those two words/phrases have the same meaning?
Your reply here conflates the rationales for the bakers and restaurant staff.
Exactly. That's not protected which makes this different as I have contended all along.
Are you saying that had the restaurant staff proven/shown reasonably that their objections to Ms Huckabee-Sanders reflected violations of their religious views, you would have supported their right to refuse her service? Even if YOUR religious values would NOT be violated by Ms Huckabee-Sanders' presence in a restaurant?
Because it was because she worked for the POTUS. That's political, not moral. If you can't see that, you are hopeless.
When your revisit media interviews with the restaurant owner, you'll discover that she did NOT ask Huckabee-Sanders to leave "because she worked for the POTUS." To quote from a Time.com piece...
Wilkinson told the Post that she generally tries to avoid politics, and disagrees politically with several of her regular customers, but ultimately felt that Sanders’ public defense of the Trump Administration qualified as an exception.
“This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals,” she told the Post. Wilkinson said she told Sanders “the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.”
While I disagree strongly with the owner's decision, it's clear she made it a) in consultation with her staff, and b) in response to what she believes is Ms. Huckabee-Sanders' "defense" of the Trump presidency, a presidency whose actions, she believes, violate some of the restaurant's core values ("honesty, compassion, and cooperation")
As for my being "hopeless," you're probably right, though for confirmation you really ought to look up that former CD poster named David Taylor. He frequently used such simplistic, dismissive, and off-topic characterizations of posters with whom he disagreed. In fact, he's the only poster in this latest version of the CD forums who's called another poster "hopeless." I think you two would REALLY hit it off.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, it was wrong for the restaurant to refuse her service, just as it was wrong for the cake bakers to refuse service to same sex couples. I think there might be a line somewhere - e.g. perhaps neo-nazis who ask to have a dinner/convention meeting in a restaurant's private dining room - but a government employee coming in for an evening meal does not cross it.What say you?
Can a shop owner refuse services to anyone, for any reason or no reason at all? What's the law? If he or she can, there, you have it. It was a tit-for-tat, simply that.
It's also obvious, that the Red Hen owner didn't want or needed Sanders' money, just like the cake baker refused the same-sex couples. It's the law that drives this train because you can't legislate morality. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Bill_Coley said:
In my view, it was wrong for the restaurant to refuse her service, just as it was wrong for the cake bakers to refuse service to same sex couples. I think there might be a line somewhere - e.g. perhaps neo-nazis who ask to have a dinner/convention meeting in a restaurant's private dining room - but a government employee coming in for an evening meal does not cross it.What say you?
Can a shop owner refuse services to anyone, for any reason or no reason at all? What's the law? If he or she can, there, you have it. It was a tit-for-tat, simply that.
It's also obvious, that the Red Hen owner didn't want or needed Sanders' money, just like the cake baker refused the same-sex couples. It's the law that drives this train because you can't legislate morality. CM
Except you can, and do, legislate morality. Example: Murder is illegal. That is legislating morality.
-
@reformed said:
Except you can, and do, legislate morality. Example: Murder is illegal. That is legislating morality.
I disagree. Laws legislate conduct, not morals.
Laws against murder don't punish people for believing murder is moral; they punish people for committing the act of murder. Conduct, not morality.
I certainly acknowledge that people may avoid illegal conduct because they think breaking the law is immoral. But you seem to be saying that laws define and enforce the morality of the actions they govern, and as to that I disagree.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Except you can, and do, legislate morality. Example: Murder is illegal. That is legislating morality.
I disagree. Laws legislate conduct, not morals.
Laws against murder don't punish people for believing murder is moral; they punish people for committing the act of murder. Conduct, not morality.
I certainly acknowledge that people may avoid illegal conduct because they think breaking the law is immoral. But you seem to be saying that laws define and enforce the morality of the actions they govern, and as to that I disagree.
Bill the common usage of "legislating morality" is not about legislating beliefs, but rather, legislating behavior. So yes, we do legislate morality.
-
Best hope for Democrats: I had to laugh.
Gonna miss that stubborn donkey running around. But we can still hear him bray in the distance.
Jim Bakker makes claims that Trump is America's reprieve before the apocalypse. I am skeptical of that, yet Trump is clearly a gift to America in troubled times. God is using him to give Western Christians and America one more day of grace, one more day of redemption from liberal nonsense such as the cake baker foolishness in the OP. What will Christians do with that gift?
-
@reformed said:
Bill the common usage of "legislating morality" is not about legislating beliefs, but rather, legislating behavior. So yes, we do legislate morality.
I don't doubt that in your experience the common usage definition of "legislating morality" has to do with conduct rather than morality. A Google search on the phrase yielded a variety of definitions, including both yours and mine. But in my experience, to "legislate morality" is to change people's moral views through legislation, something which, my view contends, can't be done.
So according to our respective definitions of the phrase, we're both correct.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Bill the common usage of "legislating morality" is not about legislating beliefs, but rather, legislating behavior. So yes, we do legislate morality.
I don't doubt that in your experience the common usage definition of "legislating morality" has to do with conduct rather than morality. A Google search on the phrase yielded a variety of definitions, including both yours and mine. But in my experience, to "legislate morality" is to change people's moral views through legislation, something which, my view contends, can't be done.
So according to our respective definitions of the phrase, we're both correct.
That must be "liberal truth"
-
@reformed said:
That must be "liberal truth"The fact that legislating morality has always meant something different to me than it has to you need not be a liberal or conservative outcome at all. Take fifteen minutes to conduct an authentically objective Google search on the question, "What does it mean to legislate morality?" - i.e. look through more than the first page of search returns, and in sources whose point of view might be different from yours - and you will discover a variety of meanings to the question. In ways quite apart from partisan political orientation, those differing meanings produce different outcomes to the question of whether we can legislate morality.
