Limits to religious liberty?

[WinePusher]

My problem comes in when they (gay couple) sue me because I refuse to participate in their religious ceremony....

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has the right to make someone else violate his or her religious beliefs in order to have a wedding.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=190

The argument here is that a business cannot be compelled to participate in a gay wedding or service gay people due to the right of freedom of association and the right of religious liberty. I used to buy this argument, and I still do to a certain extent, but then I asked myself how this argument would hold up if it were applied to black people.

Since the 1964 civil rights act it has been illegal for a business to refuse service to anyone based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. So it would be illegal for a business owner to refuse to provide wedding cakes for an interracial marriage, EVEN IF the business owners religious beliefs condemned interracial marriages.

And it wouldn't only be illegal, it would be completely heinous for a business to deny service to a couple based purely on their race. So, how is it not completely heinous for a business to deny service to a couple based purely on their sex/gender/sexual orientation? The same arguments against gay marriage were once used against interracial marriage. These arguments held no merit then and they hold no merit now.

Questions:

1) For those who are against gay marriage: Suppose a racist business owner hated black people and refused to service them based on a religious belief. Do you support this?

2) For those who are for gay marriage: Do you recognize that some churches and businesses have a moral objection to gay marriage? Shouldn't their beliefs be respected and shouldn't they have the right to refuse to service gay couples and provide cakes for gay weddings?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

You make your association linked to specific churches in the area and provide one of these thingies:

http://www.minthillbaptist.org/index.ph ... &Itemid=28

I believe that, by law, it's still permissible to have exclusive non-profit "clubs" especially under the guise of "religion". And that churches themselves are not required to provide actual marriage ceremonies to everyone.

That wouldn't be the same as being in a catering "business".

That's why it is not a business the same way my high school was not a business. My high school openly discriminated against blacks and refused their admittance.

They could possibly only offer catering services to specific churches.

[enviousintheeverafter]

2) For those who are for gay marriage: Do you recognize that some churches and businesses have a moral objection to gay marriage?

I recognize that they claim to have a moral objection to gay marriage. But upon analysis, the moral objection turns out to be incoherent; moral condemnation for something which is neither volitional nor indeed an action at all (i.e. homosexuality) is unintelligible. Moral praise/blame is only meaningful with respect to volitional actions.

Shouldn't their beliefs be respected and shouldn't they have the right to refuse to service gay couples and provide cakes for gay weddings?

Even if they had a coherent objection, no, they shouldn't have any such right- freedom of religion only extends as far as the rights of everyone else, including non-discrimination. In other words, your freedom of religion includes everything which does not violate other peoples rights, or existing laws. But gays have a right to equal protection, due process, non-discrimination, and all the rest, which precludes the religious from having any "right" to discriminate against gays. A political/legal arrangement where freedom of religion trumps all other legal considerations is obviously both unfeasible and dangerous.

[Hatuey]

Businesses should be allowed to offer or refuse services/products to anyone. People should be allowed to shop or not shop wherever they wish.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

You make your association linked to specific churches in the area and provide one of these thingies:

http://www.minthillbaptist.org/index.ph ... &Itemid=28

Trust me grew up in the deep south I am well versed in systemic oppression. most churches have a variety of views you are correct. However, the argument you posit here could be used against any religious organization. This does not legally hold up though as you can't force a church into giving a gay wedding just because other churches recognize it as a religious rite.

If your religious organization specializes in providing wedding services to a specific type of religious creed there is not much that can be done about it.

If a religious organization wants to only provide their services for Christians, I believe there are legal options for them to do so. If their relationship with their god is such that they believe their 'soul' is at risk, then they have their choices to make. It's not like the current anti-discrimination laws haven't been around long. Christians in the US and abroad have lived with these laws as long as I have, and their current dilemma is of their own 'making', so to speak. It is not the secular world's problem, though we can be respectful and supportive while they figure out what they're going to do.

Religious liberty for theists has been gracious and permissive, to the point I believe they've come to expect 'special treatment'. Perhaps it's something most Christians haven't thought about before. There's no reason these religious-inspired dilemmas can't be dealt with by Christians themselves -- it is their religious-inspired dilemma, after all. To feel victimized by laws that have been on the books for decades is not reasonable. Or responsible.

[Zzyzx]

.
Good topic.

For those who are for gay marriage: Do you recognize that some churches and businesses have a moral objection to gay marriage? Shouldn't their beliefs be respected and shouldn't they have the right to refuse to service gay couples and provide cakes for gay weddings?

Federal anti-discrimination law (primarily Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) applies to businesses but excludes (with some possible exceptions) private clubs and churches.

Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose.

Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_la ... igious.htm

It is advisable to contact an attorney familiar with federal, state and local laws which may apply in each instance. Determination of "bona fide private club" status can be particularly problematic.


Note: I am neither for nor against gay marriage. Choice by others of marriage partners is none of my business. I favor individual right to choose a mate (assuming consenting adults) -- and have encountered no rational argument to justify limiting anyone's right to choose. Since I am heterosexual, I have no interest in a homosexual relationship for myself; however, I recognize that others may choose differently.

It seems silly for so many people to expend so much energy and emotion focused on the sex lives or practices of other consenting adults. Incidentally, many of those who most vocally and adamantly denounce homosexuality have been outed as closet homosexuals. I keep that in mind when reading these threads -- and trust that readers do also.

[micatala]

2) For those who are for gay marriage: Do you recognize that some churches and businesses have a moral objection to gay marriage?

I recognize that they claim to have a moral objection to gay marriage. But upon analysis, the moral objection turns out to be incoherent; moral condemnation for something which is neither volitional nor indeed an action at all (i.e. homosexuality) is unintelligible. Moral praise/blame is only meaningful with respect to volitional actions.

I disagree, and I think you have not really thought this position through.

First, moral praise or blame is not the same as access to the market. I am OK with individuals considering homosexuality 'blameworthy,' whether it is volitional or not.

I am not OK with discrimination against gays, whether volitional or not.

Secondly, do you really want to make volition a relevant criteria? Consider that a persons' religion is a choice they make. Can we discriminate against religion in general or some religions in particular because people choose their religion?

What about being married versus single?

What about any of a number of 'lifestyle choices?'

It seems to me gays should have their rights respected, including the right to marry, regardless of whether sexual orientation is volitional or not (although I accept it is not).

[beeswax]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Yes and one was an Ex Scottish Cardinal who preached against homosexuals while being one himself and had to resign when he was abusing young men in the Seminary. He could have done so much good in telling the Pope that biblical teaching on this was routed in the stone age. I think an unmarried priesthood is unhealthy and cause paedophilia and gay clergy to remain in the closet..

Its another nail in the coffin for the bible as the word of God imo.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 10 by Hamsaka]

Yes of course I understand how precarious my freedoms are and how cavalierly I take my faith in Christ when it has never been tested.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Human sacrifice is illegal no matter how sincerely the participants are. There has always been limits to religious liberty as far as the law is concerned. I don't thing that much is debatable.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I disagree, and I think you have not really thought this position through.

First, moral praise or blame is not the same as access to the market. I am OK with individuals considering homosexuality 'blameworthy,' whether it is volitional or not.

You've missed my point. Moral evaluation of non-actions, non-volitional actions, much less anything that is neither volitional nor an action, is unintelligible. To say X is immoral is to say one should not do (or have done) X- but clearly this cannot apply if X is not something one can do (i.e. an action), or something one could not have chose to do or not do (volitional). Moral evaluation presupposes both of these features, and so moral blame/praise in their absence is incoherent.

Secondly, do you really want to make volition a relevant criteria? Consider that a persons' religion is a choice they make. Can we discriminate against religion in general or some religions in particular because people choose their religion?

Being volitional is certainly a necessary condition for moral blame/praise, but not necessarily a sufficient one- everything that is morally blame/praiseworthy is necessarily volitional but not everything that is volitional is necessarily morally blame/praiseworthy. And I'm not sure why you''re bringing up discrimination- we're talking about whether its coherent to raise a "moral objection" (a logical question), not what is a justifiable basis to discriminate against someone (a political/legal question).

It seems to me gays should have their rights respected, including the right to marry, regardless of whether sexual orientation is volitional or not (although I accept it is not).

I agree- but this doesn't have much to do with what I said. The point is that since sexual orientation is neither volitional nor an action, the moral objection against homosexuality (mentioned in the 1st question in the OP) is incoherent- a category error, comparable to saying that the number 3 smells good.