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?

[Haven]

[Replying to post 87 by Paprika]

Adverse affects on who? Bigots? Why should anyone care?

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 87 by Paprika]

Adverse affects on who? Bigots? Why should anyone care?

That's quite discriminatory of you. You only care about the adverse effects on some, but not those you regard as 'bigots'.

Again, to exclude the 'intolerant' is itself an act of discrimination.

[KenRU]

Discrimination is harmful, and cannot be tolerated in a secular society.

So you and others assert.

Do you think discrimination is not harmful?

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?

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. Can you provide an example of a form of discriminating that you don't find harmful?

For context, we are talking about discriminating based upon religious preferences, so a like anaology is what I'm asking for.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 79 by Clownboat]
The answer can be quite nullified now, as I am already doing. We simply ask: why should the law be as it is?

Given that what I'm doing is questioning the law, your answer still remains useless.

Being a Buttinski here . . . I think this is a good question for everyone to ask themselves regardless of their position on this matter.

I'll give mine. The law as it is was developed to promote a reasonable level of well-being for as many of the people and groups as can be reasonably given, most of the time.

The tables will always turn, and those who want to preserve their 'right' to discriminate for 'religious conscience' will inevitably find themselves looking down the barrel of that gun. Not to mention the resentment and outrage building against the sects of Christians so openly hostile. Not everyone is even tempered enough to take the high road, that is just a fact. History is our teacher there, as well as current events in the Middle East. I believe this train of thought is implicit in the Federal Antidiscrimination laws and the various iterations amended to it over the years. The laws were 'thinking ahead' and addressing facts of human nature, and the intent was that everyone be reassured, not just whoever the privileged majority happens to be at any given time, because that has changed and will continue.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 79 by Clownboat]
The answer can be quite nullified now, as I am already doing. We simply ask: why should the law be as it is?

Given that what I'm doing is questioning the law, your answer still remains useless.

Being a Buttinski here . . . I think this is a good question for everyone to ask themselves regardless of their position on this matter.

I'll give mine. The law as it is was developed to promote a reasonable level of well-being for as many of the people and groups as can be reasonably given, most of the time.

The tables will always turn, and those who want to preserve their 'right' to discriminate for 'religious conscience' will inevitably find themselves looking down the barrel of that gun. Not to mention the resentment and outrage building against the sects of Christians so openly hostile. Not everyone is even tempered enough to take the high road, that is just a fact. History is our teacher there, as well as current events in the Middle East. I believe this train of thought is implicit in the Federal Antidiscrimination laws and the various iterations amended to it over the years. The laws were 'thinking ahead' and addressing facts of human nature, and the intent was that everyone be reassured, not just whoever the privileged majority happens to be at any given time, because that has changed and will continue.

I agree 100%. In fact, lol, this is what I was trying to say all along, You have done a much better job than I.

Grumble grumble. And I was an English major in college.

all the best,

[FinalEnigma]

Hmm. Nobody has replied to me thus far.

If it were legal for a business to refuse service for religious reasons, then what stops a person from doing just as I suggested earlier?

It would be perfectly legal for someone to buy every store that sells food in a small town, and refuse to sell to anyone who is not of their religion. Is this okay? should this be legal?

It would be perfectly legal to buy the only grocery store within 10 miles in a food desert in a black neighborhood, and refuse to sell to black people. Should this be legal?

[Hamsaka]

Hmm. Nobody has replied to me thus far.

If it were legal for a business to refuse service for religious reasons, then what stops a person from doing just as I suggested earlier?

It would be perfectly legal for someone to buy every store that sells food in a small town, and refuse to sell to anyone who is not of their religion. Is this okay? should this be legal?

It would be perfectly legal to buy the only grocery store within 10 miles in a food desert in a black neighborhood, and refuse to sell to black people. Should this be legal?

I almost responded earlier to say I lived in a "food desert" for a few years in north Idaho, up an eight mile switchback grade ascending about 1800 ft. The saw mill had moved across state, and the only folks up there any more (there were two towns) were snow birds or on disability. They had a great food bank but prices at the 'market' store and mini Mart were out of control.

I see your point loud and clear, and it seems like the perfect argument against making some forms of discrimination 'legitimate'. Seems obvious to me?. The problem is, you made your example too clearly of 'discrimination', which is flat out denied (via loads of semantic maneuvering). Denying conventional definitions of words is a method of avoiding the issue. I wonder if the Christians in question truly see their behavior as discriminatory?.

They are perhaps merely being obedient (in their own view). That's not discrimination, it's obedience and devotion?. Which disqualifies the accusation, I guess?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 95 by FinalEnigma]

As I see it, religion has no place in the establishment of our laws. If it is illegal to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, then it is illegal to drive a motorcycle without a helmet, if you are a turban wearing Sikh. If it is illegal to refuse service to blacks at the lunch counter, then it is illegal to refuse service to blacks at the lunch counter if you are a member of a white supremesist cult. If it is illegal to discriminate against gays, then it is illegal to discriminate against gays if you are an evangelical Christian.

[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? [/quote]
Hardly.

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?

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.

[Paprika]

Hmm. Nobody has replied to me thus far.

If it were legal for a business to refuse service for religious reasons, then what stops a person from doing just as I suggested earlier?

It would be perfectly legal for someone to buy every store that sells food in a small town, and refuse to sell to anyone who is not of their religion. Is this okay? should this be legal?

It would be perfectly legal to buy the only grocery store within 10 miles in a food desert in a black neighborhood, and refuse to sell to black people. Should this be legal?

It wasn't a reply to you but I did mention that the game you mentioned can be in many cases mere scaremongering.