CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[church_of_dog]

Few things:

Mama Mia, I am also in California, and no, you don't have to register a vehicle if it's not going to be driven on public roads. But that means not even once during that year will it be driven/parked/stored/towed on public roads. If that criteria is met, one can non-op that vehicle (essentially declare it non-operational with respect to public roadways). It doesn't cost anything to non-op a vehicle.

As for the bakery example, here's the thing. There is no inherent difference between a "gay wedding cake" and a "straight wedding cake". (Maybe which figurines go on top, but that's it.) So the baker doesn't even need to know whether the cake is for a same-sex couple or not, while they are baking it. So, the baker's personal opinions about same-sex marriage are not relevant. Now, as someone mentioned earlier, if you are the baker and someone comes in and asks for a penis cake, you can refuse, if that's just not the kind of cakes you bake. But if you're ok making a penis cake for a straight-guy bachelor or birthday party but not for a gay man's bachelor or birthday party, then that's discrimination. Make sense? You can decide WHAT products you offer, but once you offer something, you can't offer it to some people and not others. (Actually, you can, but not based on those kinds of attributes -- as far as I understand, one can refuse a customer if they are unruly, or if you have reason to believe they can't pay, etc. You can say "no shoes, no shirt, no service" but it has to apply to everyone, not just people you disapprove of.)

[Snarkylark]

In theory, you could say you're not trying to deny rights or the ability to do what someone wants...but how does that play out in the voting booth? It's a rhetorical question, so you don't have to say how you voted. But if, according to your beliefs, you vote against gay marriage or abortion, you are acting to deny someone's rights, and hoping society will align with that vote. You can disagree with something without trying to prevent it, sure, but then I'll assume you're not actively trying enforce your beliefs, say by protesting or voting. But I can't help but think that if you were gay and wanted to be married, someone protesting against that wouldn't be treating you how you'd want to be treated.

It's really good you can stay consistent with patients regardless of your opinions. That would help in the vaccination situations, as well as the scenario I presented before.

If you were a PK, do you mind me asking what faith? You don't have to share, obviously, but I'll say I come from an extremely reformed Pres background, though I do not openly claim it, as you can probably tell in this discussion. (Frankly, that's because at this moment, I'd be a terrible representative of the faith, so I stay hands-off in that sense :lol: )

Also...if anyone wants me to quit asking questions and go back to the vax topic, I'm totally fine with that! I know thread drift is not unusual and I am just very curious, but feel free to hand slap if I'm annoying! :lol:

We are non-denominational but attend a Lutheran church now. As for the voting issue, I've stated I don't know that there is a party for me. I think we tend to vote for what we feel are the lesser of two "evils" for lack of a better word. Do all liberals or all conservatives believe 100% in their party's beliefs or even each candidate's? I doubt it. I think Obama would have made a few more friends if he'd have lit the White House in red, white, and blue for the Fourth of July;) but I digress.

[FundieFarmer]

You know me, always here with a question for everybody! I'm going to try to explain what I'm saying, but if it doesn't make sense, let me know, and I'll try again. I don't at all mean to offend, or to trivialize what happened at the Oregon bakery, or to "victim blame". I just ask knowing what to me feels like common sense, so I'm looking for another perspective.

I know that you shouldn't have to, however...if you have another option, why go somewhere that isn't going to be as invested and excited about your big day as you are, regardless of why? I would much rather go somewhere that the vendor is going to be just as enthused as I am (within reason, they're not the ones getting married :lol: ). Sweet Cakes wasn't the only bakery in town (I checked!), and their media had been pretty vehemently Christian before the couple visited. I'm sure the couple never foresaw this situation, but I feel like that just would've been uncomfortable to go to a bakery that gave off such a judgey vibe just from its Facebook!

I 100% support non-discrimination laws, and I in no way think they should be removed. But at the same time, the law can only be enforced so far, and there's a chance the vendor might just do the bare minimum because they have to. Where's the joy in that? I think that kind of celebration deserves to be a big deal! I personally wouldn't want to go somewhere that I felt the vendor wasn't invested in me, or in delivering the best possible service. There are plenty of places in my neck of the woods where my business is tolerated but not appreciated, so I just don't go there.

Regardless, this cake debacle should never have gotten to the point that it has. I can't say that I think these people are being the good representatives of faith they seem to think they are.

Please don't kill me!

[Mama Mia]

Very bad, vague wording does make things hard to understand in this thread.

Snarkylark, would it be correct to say that you are for gay marriage being legal despite your personal beliefs?

And would it be correct to say that you are for abortion being legal despite your personal beliefs?

She has said that she thinks it should be legal to discriminate against gay people, something I wonder if she has really thought about. Yes, gay couples could have gone to a different baker but the black people who went and sat at "white only" places and tried to order food could have also gone other places. Does she think the latter were wrong and businesses should be allowed to discriminate?

These bakers are not being persecuted, no matter what Fox news claims.

In another thread awhile back you actually brought up some really good points regarding bakeries / businesses being required to provide services to everyone , regardless of their personal beliefs. I had been hesitant to support that, because my concern is that if I ran a bakery I wouldn't want to be compelled to provide a cake with a swastika ( for example).

You brought up that it isn't as easy as just going to another bakery if you live in many parts of the country. That there are huge rural sections where " the" bakery might literally be the only one within a hundred + miles. So that no, not everyone does have the option of just letting the market play out and penalize the bakers by not giving them business. And that it really isn't that rare a situation. Plus that in many of these rural areas -- even if there are a half dozen bakeries in town - they very well might ALL be unwilling to bake the cake.

As to the road issue --- I'm pretty sure that even if you non- op a vehicle you can't even drive it on private roads, or park it in most apartment complexes, mobile home parks, etc. I could be wrong about private roads - but my son was debating doing this with a broken down car he has and was talking about it recently.

[church_of_dog]

Snarkylark -- the word for someone's sexual orientation is "orientation".

Both "choice" and "lifestyle" imply the ability to choose, and that's not accurate.

Polygamy, however, is a choice -- that is a behavior (or more accurately a series of behaviors) that are under the person's control. (oppression notwithstanding -- obviously some gray areas there).

You have, I think, been conflating whether something appeals to you personally, with whether you agree it should be legally an option. Others have tried to make this clear -- being "pro-choice" does not mean you favor abortions or think they should be chosen casually or carelessly -- it simply means you believe women should have the legal right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. You don't have to want to participate in a same-sex marriage -- and in fact you might *wish* others wouldn't either -- but if you believe that gays and lesbians should have all the same legal rights as heterosexuals, then you are "for" as opposed to "against." Even if you don't like the idea of it. I don't like the idea of people preaching on the street corners -- but I definitely agree that they have, and should continue to have, the right to do so.

[church_of_dog]

As to the road issue --- I'm pretty sure that even if you non- op a vehicle you can't even drive it on private roads, or park it in most apartment complexes, mobile home parks, etc. I could be wrong about private roads - but my son was debating doing this with a broken down car he has and was talking about it recently.

Well, certainly you'd need the permission of the landowner; otherwise it's trespassing. But no registration is required from DMV.

Here is the site I was looking at: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr01

California law requires vehicles to be currently registered if they are driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways at any time during the registration period.

PNO (planned non-operation) means that the vehicle will not be driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways for the entire registration year.

[OkToBeTakei]

But she hasn't said she wants to deny gay people the right to marry. She said that she, personally is against it, but that her religious / personal beliefs shouldn't be used to deny rights to others.

I mean, I shouldn't be jumping in here trying to say what her beliefs are -- but it seems, to me, that she's worded some things so badly / offensively that people aren't really reading the posts where she tries to clarify the difference between her personal beliefs and what she thinks should be the legal position.

She said she is against gay marriage BECAUSE of her beliefs.

For me it was more telling that she appeared to feel more sympathy for the baker being unable to deny the gay couple a cake. The gay couple in her view should just have gone to another bakery, the baker has a 'right' to his belief.

Oh I know this is probably quite a common view point. Religious bigotry always is. I just don't buy this 'I don't mean any harm and only want the best for others, it's just my beliefs, don't you know.'

When describing gays Snarkylark used the word lifestyle. If you check back she felt this sounded better than 'choice.' Uh huh. Civl union is palatable..but marriage...no.

In my utopian world Snarkylarks type of bigotry is long dead. The use of religion to excuse all kinds of intolerant attitudes will be dead. Not to venture too far left field into another subject/ issue, but up thread she mentioned that not everybody believes in God as she does and she would wish they did. It's this common misconception that religion equals morality, equals 'good' equals 'right.' That all the good and moral aspects of society will be lost without it. That this way of life is being threatened. It's not. What is being threatened is using religion as a shield, an excuse to be intolerant, to be bigoted. There are many decent religious people in the world who manage this and feel unthreatened.

Tuesday morning thoughts.

[formergothardite]

I'm hoping that maybe Snarkylark can help out and answer this so we will all know exactly where she stands, which would make the conversation easier.

Snarkylark, would it be correct to say that you are for gay marriage being legal despite your personal beliefs?

And would it be correct to say that you are for abortion being legal despite your personal beliefs?

She has said that she thinks it should be legal to discriminate against gay people, something I wonder if she has really thought about. Yes, gay couples could have gone to a different baker but the black people who went and sat at "white only" places and tried to order food could have also gone other places. Does she think the latter were wrong and businesses should be allowed to discriminate?

[formergothardite]

Yes.

I don't think buying a cake is a right. So I don't think that not baking a cake for a couple denies them rights. Make sense?

I think that forcing pastors to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs is wrong. Some pastors will not marry someone because they have been divorced before. I think that's along the same lines. It's a union they don't agree with and as such shouldn't be forced to perform it. Or a ceremony between one person that is in the particular faith or religion and one isn't. I don't see that as denying rights.

Do you think that running a public business and being able to discriminate against a group is a right? Would you feel this way if the baker had turned the couple away because they were black? Do you realize that there would be entire areas with only "white only" businesses today if the laws didn't force businesses to serve everyone? Is that something you are comfortable with?

No one is making pastors in churches marry people they don't want to. A church and pastor not that long ago refused to marry a couple because they were black. That was legal. If a pastor started a public business preforming marriage ceremonies he can't say that he discriminates. If a pastor wants to discriminate the solution is to not run a public business. You seem to be coming from a place of privilege where you have no clue what it would be like if businesses could discriminate against you. You don't seem to be able to fathom what it would be like to take your excited daughter to a store to pick out a birthday cake and be turned away because they don't serve "people like you".

Try some empathy and compassion for people who are being discriminated against instead of for the people who want to discriminate. Think about why you are on the side of discrimination.

[VelociRapture]

Ok. I thought I was using the right word. I was not trying to offend anyone.

Just saw this (sorry!) The way I look at it, LGBTQ rights and acceptance is still a relatively new concept for a large number of people. There are a lot of people who don't care to try and understand the correct terms, but there are also people who simply have never been taught - I feel like there is going to be a big learning curve for a while as people attempt to learn more about the proper terms and how to be respectful.

If you're unsure of how to word something to avoid being offensive, please feel free to ask. I know I can be rather tough in my opinions and views at times, but I promise I'm actually a pretty nice person most of the time.

Yes.

I don't think buying a cake is a right. So I don't think that not baking a cake for a couple denies them rights. Make sense?

I think that forcing pastors to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs is wrong. Some pastors will not marry someone because they have been divorced before. I think that's along the same lines. It's a union they don't agree with and as such shouldn't be forced to perform it. Or a ceremony between one person that is in the particular faith or religion and one isn't. I don't see that as denying rights.

I think I understand a bit more what you've been attempting to say. The way you were wording it made it tough to try and understand for a while.

The way I look at it, you don't have to agree with something or understand it completely. . . so long as you treat everyone equally and you do your best to remain respectful. That means not supporting bills and legislation and politicians that want to limit equal rights for all regardless of gender or sexual identity or race or anything else.

If that's how you view things then I don't see an issue. I'd love it if everyone viewed LGBTQ rights the way that I do (because life would be so much easier :lol: ), but if you're trying to understand and trying to be respectful and fair that's really all I can ask for.

As for performing marriages - the Episcopal Church last week passed new guidelines regarding marriage ceremonies. They took out gender specific words (for instance, replaced "husband and wife" with "the couple") and made it official that gay and lesbian couples can be married in any Episcopal Church in the country. They also made sure to include that members of the Clergy who aren't comfortable performing those marriages or ceremonies don't have to - they can be married in a different Church or another Pastor can perform the ceremony.

I feel like that's a pretty good compromise for now and I would love to see more religions adopt that approach. As time goes on I think more and more members of the Clergy will become open and accepting - and eventually, I think most Clergy members won't feel like performing the ceremonies compromises their beliefs.

(As for the cake, I still don't agree at all. If you open a business and you're serving the public then you need to serve all your customers equally and fairly. A wedding cake is a wedding cake regardless of who is getting married - either bake the cake for all couples or don't sell wedding cakes at all)

[formergothardite]

You know me, always here with a question for everybody! I'm going to try to explain what I'm saying, but if it doesn't make sense, let me know, and I'll try again. I don't at all mean to offend, or to trivialize what happened at the Oregon bakery, or to "victim blame". I just ask knowing what to me feels like common sense, so I'm looking for another perspective.

I know that you shouldn't have to, however...if you have another option, why go somewhere that isn't going to be as invested and excited about your big day as you are, regardless of why? I would much rather go somewhere that the vendor is going to be just as enthused as I am (within reason, they're not the ones getting married :lol: ). Sweet Cakes wasn't the only bakery in town (I checked!), and their media had been pretty vehemently Christian before the couple visited. I'm sure the couple never foresaw this situation, but I feel like that just would've been uncomfortable to go to a bakery that gave off such a judgey vibe just from its Facebook!

I 100% support non-discrimination laws, and I in no way think they should be removed. But at the same time, the law can only be enforced so far, and there's a chance the vendor might just do the bare minimum because they have to. Where's the joy in that? I think that kind of celebration deserves to be a big deal! I personally wouldn't want to go somewhere that I felt the vendor wasn't invested in me, or in delivering the best possible service. There are plenty of places in my neck of the woods where my business is tolerated but not appreciated, so I just don't go there.

Regardless, this cake debacle should never have gotten to the point that it has. I can't say that I think these people are being the good representatives of faith they seem to think they are.

Please don't kill me!

It could have been that they had tasted cake from that baker and really liked it. I honestly didn't care if the baker who made my cake was excited about making my cake or even if it looked really fancy I just wanted it to taste good. I really liked the way the cakes sold by the baker who did my wedding cake tasted. I would have been crushed if I had walked in and been told that he didn't serve people like me.

Also, they might have been doing it to make a point. Kind of like the group of black guys who would go sit at the counters and try to order food even though they knew that the places didn't want to serve them. They did it to push the point and make it clear that discrimination isn't okay

[FundieFarmer]

I didn't think about the taste of it; I saw a couple of other bakers in the area and thought their cakes looked better, so I forgot the most important part :lol:

Thanks for the answer, FG.

[formergothardite]

I didn't think about the taste of it; I saw a couple of other bakers in the area and thought their cakes looked better, so I forgot the most important part :lol:

Thanks for the answer, FG.

I had been to so many weddings where the cake looked amazing but tasted awful so my main goal was to find a baker that could make a cake that tasted good. :D

I don't think Snarkylark has really thought about what it would be like to live in a world where it is okay for businesses to discriminate against groups of people. All you have to do is look into the not so distant past and see what it was like. Is that the world she really wants to go back to?

[bekahdimples]

I was thinking, California and the other states aren't actually making anyone get fully vaccinated and it really does correlate to like the laws about driving cars with insurance. In my state I can buy a car, I can drive my car on private roads, but if I want to use the public roads I have to buy insurance. In California you can have an unvaccinated child, you can send your unvaccinated child to private school, but if you want to use the public school system then you have to vaccinate unless you have a medical exemption. Why is one okay for snarkylark, but one isn't. What is it about it being medical that makes it okay to put the rest of society at risk?

See for me this makes a lot of sense on the car insurance thing and I feel like that is a good loss of privilege for not having insurance but your vaccine shouldn't affect your schooling maybe it could affect your health care rates? or something that is actually related to them getting the vaccine

[Firiel]

See for me this makes a lot of sense on the car insurance thing and I feel like that is a good loss of privilege for not having insurance but your vaccine shouldn't affect your schooling maybe it could affect your health care rates? or something that is actually related to them getting the vaccine

The schooling thing isn't a punishment, for heaven's sake. It's protection for the other kids. If you don't get your vaccine and you go to school, if you get the measles you will be contagious for four days before the symptoms show. That's four days where you could spread the measles to someone who was medically exempt from getting the vaccine, one of the 7% of people for whom the vaccine was not effective, or even the not-yet-vaccinated infant of a mother there to pick her child up from school.

It's about public protection, not punishment or the loss of a privilege. It's not punitive, it's for the good of the rest of the population.

[VelociRapture]

The schooling thing isn't a punishment, for heaven's sake. It's protection for the other kids. If you don't get your vaccine and you go to school, if you get the measles you will be contagious for four days before the symptoms show. That's four days where you could spread the measles to someone who was medically exempt from getting the vaccine, one of the 7% of people for whom the vaccine was not effective, or even the not-yet-vaccinated infant of a mother there to pick her child up from school.

It's about public protection, not punishment or the loss of a privilege. It's not punitive, it's for the good of the rest of the population.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[louisa05]

Apologies because this is likely an off-topic rabbit trail...

Do people actually still get the little bride or groom figurines on wedding cakes? I have not seen those for years. Like decades. It is all flowers and cutesy theme related decorations. The last wedding I went to, in May, had a rustic barn thing going along with a general camo/hunting theme and had deer figurines on the cake. Those were the first actual plastic figurines of any kind I'd seen on a wedding cake in decades.

[VelociRapture]

Apologies because this is likely an off-topic rabbit trail...

Do people actually still get the little bride or groom figurines on wedding cakes? I have not seen those for years. Like decades. It is all flowers and cutesy theme related decorations. The last wedding I went to, in May, had a rustic barn thing going along with a general camo/hunting theme and had deer figurines on the cake. Those were the first actual plastic figurines of any kind I'd seen on a wedding cake in decades.

I'm getting married this fall and we won't be having cake toppers. Now that I think of it, none of the weddings I've been to in the past few years have had the traditional people cake toppers either.

[formergothardite]

Apologies because this is likely an off-topic rabbit trail...

Do people actually still get the little bride or groom figurines on wedding cakes? I have not seen those for years. Like decades. It is all flowers and cutesy theme related decorations. The last wedding I went to, in May, had a rustic barn thing going along with a general camo/hunting theme and had deer figurines on the cake. Those were the first actual plastic figurines of any kind I'd seen on a wedding cake in decades.

Now that you point it out, the weddings I have attended recently haven't had them either.

You know what I haven't seen in forever? Those wedding cakes with plastic bridges leading to smaller wedding cakes. :lol:

[nokidsmom]

Mr No. and I had we had a topper made from leftover silk flowers from the bridesmaid bouquets. Really I can't remember any plastic bride and groom for years.

[lawlifelgbt]

Now that you point it out, the weddings I have attended recently haven't had them either.

You know what I haven't seen in forever? Those wedding cakes with plastic bridges leading to smaller wedding cakes. :lol:

We had a cake topper! I found one on Amazon that was for two brides, and the figurines even looked like us (one redhead in a dress and one blonde in a suit!) It was too good to pass up.

[FundieFarmer]

I had been to so many weddings where the cake looked amazing but tasted awful so my main goal was to find a baker that could make a cake that tasted good. :D

I don't think Snarkylark has really thought about what it would be like to live in a world where it is okay for businesses to discriminate against groups of people. All you have to do is look into the not so distant past and see what it was like. Is that the world she really wants to go back to?

That's a great point. When I originally typed out my post (I re-wrote it a million times hoping not to sound like a bitch!) I said that we are just starting to move past the ingrained and accepted discrimination. A lot of us either remember, or directly heard about it, and I think we are loathe to create a situation like that again- rightfully so.

[Mama Mia]

Well, certainly you'd need the permission of the landowner; otherwise it's trespassing. But no registration is required from DMV.

Here is the site I was looking at: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr01

California law requires vehicles to be currently registered if they are driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways at any time during the registration period.

PNO (planned non-operation) means that the vehicle will not be driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways for the entire registration year.

Wow. This is , weirdly, actually a really good example of how your life experience completely impacts your world view and even how you view language.

In my adult life I've always lived in mobile home parks, condominiums or apartments. The majority of my friends/ family have also. So, to me, those places fall into " public" . As in I would have to register and insure any car I owned. But from your view ( which is the obviously legally correct one ) - those places fall under a private indivual and it would be trespassing if they didn't want the car there and it's a non- issue.

Sorry, just I think really interesting how these really obscure, tiny things impacts how we think, speak, interpret the world. Kind of not surprising we have difficulty understanding each other when it comes to discussing the big issues!

[church_of_dog]

Wow. This is , weirdly, actually a really good example of how your life experience completely impacts your world view and even how you view language.

In my adult life I've always lived in mobile home parks, condominiums or apartments. The majority of my friends/ family have also. So, to me, those places fall into " public" . As in I would have to register and insure any car I owned. But from your view ( which is the obviously legally correct one ) - those places fall under a private indivual and it would be trespassing if they didn't want the car there and it's a non- issue.

Sorry, just I think really interesting how these really obscure, tiny things impacts how we think, speak, interpret the world. Kind of not surprising we have difficulty understanding each other when it comes to discussing the big issues!

I can see the tendency to think that way though -- because an apartment or mobile home park, etc, isn't just one person's home, it's many people's home, and the list of residents changes at that -- so anyone could drive in there and other people don't immediately know if the car is a resident, a guest, or someone not welcome. Same with an office building with a parking lot, I guess. But while those areas are functionally public as you point out, they are not government land, they are privately owned by someone.

I like the type of insight you shared here -- I enjoy noticing what shapes our individual worldviews.

[church_of_dog]

I'm getting married this fall and we won't be having cake toppers. Now that I think of it, none of the weddings I've been to in the past few years have had the traditional people cake toppers either.

I am obviously way out of date on my wedding etiquette :lol:

Not surprising considering that I've only been to one wedding in years -- my type of crowd tends towards the backyard BBQ/casual hippy wedding or just living in sin. :pearlclutch: