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?

[KenRU]

Some discrimination is harmful; it remains to be shown that all discrimination is.

We have modern day examples around the world that show how harmful religious discrimination can be. Is that sufficient?

Hardly.

What, in your estimation, would be sufficient? I see various religious people being persecuted to varying degrees in many countries. Why would Christians being persecuted in Syria, not be a good example? Is religious discrimination there not harmful? If not, why not?

It's also highly ironical how certain views are not tolerated by this 'non-discrimination' measures - like it or not you have to discriminate, even if it's to allow 'tolerant' views and praxis and ban 'intolerant' ones: you discriminate between what you claim 'tolerant' and 'intolerant'.

This sounds a lot like saying "it's wrong to discriminate against those who discriminate".

Nay, it is merely saying that 'you can't avoid discrimination'. When you try to eradicate discrimination from a certain place or public space you are discriminating yourself.

You seem to be arguing semantics. Most posting here are against discrimination in almost all forms. You seem to arguing that not all forms of discrimination is harmful.

Hardly semantics: to discriminate is to make a distinction: I make the obvious observation that by trying to banish the 'intolerant' from a space, one is in that act of banishing discriminating: one making a distinction between who should be allowed to be in business and who shouldn't. So Haven is performing the act of discriminating when she doesn't want certain bakers who refuse services to be allowed to run their business.

So even those who are 'against discrimination' themselves discriminate. Surely they don't find their own such discriminatory actions harmful?

Where is the line drawn, then, in your opinion? Do you believe there should be one?

Unless you are advocating that everyone should feel free to discriminate at will and to any degree (which would result in chaos and subjugation) then the above in bold is indeed a semantics game. What do you propose is the solution?

But of course, I suppose crying 'semantics' is a convenient way to avoid the fact that strict anti-discrimination must both in theory practice involve discrimination.

No tears needed for me to admit that I have no problem discriminating against people who want to discriminate. Why should that bother anyone? Or, more to the point, what harm could possibly be caused by preventing discrimination? Even if it is itself (semantically) discrimination?

I have no problem saying its ok to hit someone back after they hit you. The first blow is far more wrong, imo.

[enviousintheeverafter]

The latter is, of course, a possibility. But if it only remains as such it's like the game FinalEnigma's mentioned: scaremongering.

Scaremongering, eh? Not much of a response (and its hard to see what about that was supposed to scare anyone). And we aren't talking about a far-fetched possibility, but a scenario that is quite likely, given the religious demographics in this country; when you have states like Oklahama or Arkansas that are in the range of 80% Christian, and rural areas where there is only one (if that) of certain kinds of businesses, there are going to be many places where there is a Christian monopoly, as it were, on a given type of business. And so a lack of anti-discrimination protections for gays/same-sex couples has the obvious result that gays could, and likely will, find themselves unable to receive certain products/services in the area in which they live, especially if they live in rural areas. So the "they can find somewhere else to shop" bit isn't going to always/necessarily apply.

[Paprika]

Some discrimination is harmful; it remains to be shown that all discrimination is.

We have modern day examples around the world that show how harmful religious discrimination can be. Is that sufficient?

Hardly.

What, in your estimation, would be sufficient? I see various religious people being persecuted to varying degrees in many countries. Why would Christians being persecuted in Syria, not be a good example? Is religious discrimination there not harmful? If not, why not?

Again, just as all discrimination was conflated with the past discrimination against blacks (cue hysterical screaming about "Jim Crow"), you're conflating all religious discrimination together.

Where is the line drawn, then, in your opinion? Do you believe there should be one?

Unless you are advocating that everyone should feel free to discriminate at will and to any degree (which would result in chaos and subjugation) then the above in bold is indeed a semantics game. What do you propose is the solution?

I propose an actual conversation amongst various parties in society trying to balance out all the harms and goods, instead of asinine reaction against 'discrimination' as if discrimination is both completely bad and completely avoidable.

But of course, I suppose crying 'semantics' is a convenient way to avoid the fact that strict anti-discrimination must both in theory practice involve discrimination.

No tears needed for me to admit that I have no problem discriminating against people who want to discriminate. Why should that bother anyone? Or, more to the point, what harm could possibly be caused by preventing discrimination? Even if it is itself (semantically) discrimination?
[/quote]
It is by definition discrimination. So you have no problem with such kinds of discrimination? Good; I think it reasonable to conclude then that you believe that some types of discrimination is fine, if not good, if not necessary.

[Paprika]

The latter is, of course, a possibility. But if it only remains as such it's like the game FinalEnigma's mentioned: scaremongering.

Scaremongering, eh? Not much of a response (and its hard to see what about that was supposed to scare anyone). And we aren't talking about a far-fetched possibility, but a scenario that is quite likely, given the religious demographics in this country; when you have states like Oklahama or Arkansas that are in the range of 80% Christian, and rural areas where there is only one (if that) of certain kinds of businesses, there are going to be many places where there is a Christian monopoly, as it were, on a given type of business. And so a lack of anti-discrimination protections for gays/same-sex couples has the obvious result that gays could, and likely will, find themselves unable to receive certain products/services in the area in which they live, especially if they live in rural areas. So the "they can find somewhere else to shop" bit isn't going to always/necessarily apply.

And what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination will occur?

[KenRU]

Some discrimination is harmful; it remains to be shown that all discrimination is.

We have modern day examples around the world that show how harmful religious discrimination can be. Is that sufficient?

Hardly.

What, in your estimation, would be sufficient? I see various religious people being persecuted to varying degrees in many countries. Why would Christians being persecuted in Syria, not be a good example? Is religious discrimination there not harmful? If not, why not?

Again, just as all discrimination was conflated with the past discrimination against blacks (cue hysterical screaming about "Jim Crow"), you're conflating all religious discrimination together.

Just so we don’t have to argue semantics here, when I speak of religious discrimination, I am speaking of current examples already discussed here in this thread: right to marry, selling products etc.

I am not referring to women being allowed to read the Torah.

Do you agree that the types I refer to above cause harm?

Where is the line drawn, then, in your opinion? Do you believe there should be one?

Unless you are advocating that everyone should feel free to discriminate at will and to any degree (which would result in chaos and subjugation) then the above in bold is indeed a semantics game. What do you propose is the solution?

I propose an actual conversation amongst various parties in society trying to balance out all the harms and goods, instead of asinine reaction against 'discrimination' as if discrimination is both completely bad and completely avoidable.

Isn’t that what we are doing here? Forget your perceived “asinine reaction� for a moment and propose a solution. Everyone else here says they are against prohibiting same sex marriage. They are against people being denied services based upon who they are marrying.

How do you propose to resolve this dilemma?

But of course, I suppose crying 'semantics' is a convenient way to avoid the fact that strict anti-discrimination must both in theory practice involve discrimination.

No tears needed for me to admit that I have no problem discriminating against people who want to discriminate. Why should that bother anyone? Or, more to the point, what harm could possibly be caused by preventing discrimination? Even if it is itself (semantically) discrimination?

It is by definition discrimination. So you have no problem with such kinds of discrimination?

I mentioned specifically which kind of discrimination I have no problem with. Is it not clear?

Good; I think it reasonable to conclude then that you believe that some types of discrimination is fine, if not good, if not necessary.

Was I not clear about which I find acceptable?

I’ll repeat: Only one kind: discriminating against those who wish to discriminate (given the CONTEXT of our conversation).

Care to weigh in on your opinion? Which do you find acceptable? Be specific please.

[enviousintheeverafter]

And what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination will occur?

I believe that was already covered- i.e. given the religious demographics in the US, especially in the south where the population is not only overwhelmingly Christian but there are higher concentrations of evangelical protestants (evangelical protestants have the lowest rate of acceptance of SSM according to Pew Research Center- around 25% as of 2015, half that of Catholics and a third of that of the religiously unaffiliated).

[Paprika]

And what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination will occur?

I believe that was already covered- i.e. given the religious demographics in the US, especially in the south where the population is not only overwhelmingly Christian but there are higher concentrations of evangelical protestants (evangelical protestants have the lowest rate of acceptance of SSM according to Pew Research Center- around 25% as of 2015, half that of Catholics and a third of that of the religiously unaffiliated).

The religious demographics are granted as fact. Yet the inference remains unjustified.

[Paprika]

Just so we don’t have to argue semantics here, when I speak of religious discrimination, I am speaking of current examples already discussed here in this thread: right to marry, selling products etc.

I am not referring to women being allowed to read the Torah.

Do you agree that the types I refer to above cause harm? [/quote]
No, because the examples you give are so varied and vague. Please elaborate further.

I propose an actual conversation amongst various parties in society trying to balance out all the harms and goods, instead of asinine reaction against 'discrimination' as if discrimination is both completely bad and completely avoidable.

Isn’t that what we are doing here? Forget your perceived “asinine reaction� for a moment and propose a solution. [/quote]
There was no actual conversation at first; there was only 'it's discrimination and discrimination's baaaaad!!' until I pointed out that in itself is discriminating. And I have proposed a solution: freedom of association.

Everyone else here says they are against prohibiting same sex marriage. They are against people being denied services based upon who they are marrying.

How do you propose to resolve this dilemma?[/quote]
People disagreeing makes a dilemma?

Was I not clear about which I find acceptable?

I’ll repeat: Only one kind: discriminating against those who wish to discriminate (given the CONTEXT of our conversation).

So we are agreed that not all discrimination is bad.

Care to weigh in on your opinion? Which do you find acceptable? Be specific please.

Oh, for example I'm all for differential treatments for those who break the law as compared to those who don't; in law certain behaviours and practices are discriminated against.

[KenRU]

Just so we don’t have to argue semantics here, when I speak of religious discrimination, I am speaking of current examples already discussed here in this thread: right to marry, selling products etc.

I am not referring to women being allowed to read the Torah.

Do you agree that the types I refer to above cause harm?

No, because the examples you give are so varied and vague. Please elaborate further.

I propose an actual conversation amongst various parties in society trying to balance out all the harms and goods, instead of asinine reaction against 'discrimination' as if discrimination is both completely bad and completely avoidable.

Isn’t that what we are doing here? Forget your perceived “asinine reaction� for a moment and propose a solution.

There was no actual conversation at first; there was only 'it's discrimination and discrimination's baaaaad!!' until I pointed out that in itself is discriminating. And I have proposed a solution: freedom of association.

Everyone else here says they are against prohibiting same sex marriage. They are against people being denied services based upon who they are marrying.

How do you propose to resolve this dilemma?

People disagreeing makes a dilemma?

Was I not clear about which I find acceptable?

I’ll repeat: Only one kind: discriminating against those who wish to discriminate (given the CONTEXT of our conversation).

So we are agreed that not all discrimination is bad.

Care to weigh in on your opinion? Which do you find acceptable? Be specific please.

Oh, for example I'm all for differential treatments for those who break the law as compared to those who don't; in law certain behaviours and practices are discriminated against.

The following is neither varied nor vague and has been discussed in this thread multiple times:

Still unanswered: Do you agree that legally prohibiting SSM causes harm to the individuals being denied this opportunity?
Still unanswered: Do you agree that denying people services based upon who they are marrying causes harm to the people being denied services?

Presented in this thread is the very real concern that in highly religious parts of the country people will not have access to services based entirely upon who they marry. That is a dilemma and a legitimate concern. How do you address this?

[Paprika]

Still unanswered: Do you agree that legally prohibiting SSM causes harm to the individuals being denied this opportunity?

The following is neither varied nor vague and has been discussed in this thread multiple times: [/quote]
Perhaps, but you need to elaborate (as you now have) instead of merely mentioning "right to marry".

Still unanswered: Do you agree that legally prohibiting SSM causes harm to the individuals being denied this opportunity?

I do not.

Still unanswered: Do you agree that denying people services based upon who they are marrying causes harm to the people being denied services?

I do not.

Presented in this thread is the very real concern that in highly religious parts of the country people will not have access to services based entirely upon who they marry. That is a dilemma and a legitimate concern. How do you address this?

If it is merely cakes for the wedding, I hardly see how it is a great concern. As to denial of all services altogether, I have already asked the following question:

And what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination will occur?