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?

[Wootah]

It holds up. Freedom of association is fundamental. The error is already there in the law making it a crime to refuse to serve people and it is being compounded again and again.

Market forces work. Just shop where you feel comfortable.

A person should be allowed to have a child free restaurant if they want, a women only book club, a men's only scrabble association and any other combination of height, weight, color that they imagine works for them.

[acapiz]

Limits to religious liberty?

I generally agree with Wootah, with regard to the market place having a naturally occurring corrective within it. This is more of a fix than a solution however. Australia has introduced fairly draconian laws against it's biker gangs in an attempt to curb their influence within society. Their approach is worth a look and it would appear that the laws are extremely invasive to the 'liberties' of the people involved, the vast majority of whom are free thinking and normal citizens.

Imagine if a particular religious denomination was responsible for an organized catering embargo at same sex marriage weddings. It would appear possible to infringe on that church's liberties, using the same logic as Australia has used to focus it's laws on the bikers. You are responsible for what your people do, especially if they wear your badge.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/s ... on/6661540

[Divine Insight]

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?

The problem is where this ultimately leads. You can't just be thinking about a few restaurants that use religion to support their racial bigotry. This then actually ends up where landlords don't need to rent to black people, and real estate agents don't need to sell houses to black people, and motels, gas stations, etc, don't need to serve black people.

In short, you don't just end up with a few religious bigots refusing to merely cater to an interracial wedding. You actually end up with huge bigoted white communities refusing to allow blacks to even enter their space at all.

Where do you draw the line? This is why it ends up being that if you are going to run any sort of business at all, you simply can't discriminated even if religion is your excuse for being bigoted.

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?

It's the same situations here. If it's ok to refuse to provide cakes for gay weddings, then it must also be ok to refuse to rent to a gay couple, refuse to sell them a home. Refuse to employ them. Refuse to enroll them in your schools, etc.

Why should wedding cakes be an exception?

Also, just because you sell someone a wedding cake or cater to their wedding doesn't mean that you need to morally approve of the wedding. There's no way that it could be seen as a "sin" to merely obey the laws of land when the person themselves is not taking part in the actual behavior that they believe to be a sin.

Therefore religious objections aren't valid objections. There is no reason why a religious person who believes that gay marriage is a "sin" couldn't still serve that ceremony for a fee.

IMHO, the religious objections to this are nothing more than an attempt to force their bigotry onto the surrounding society. As I say, what if these people were into reading apartments instead of catering to weddings? Should they then have the right to refuse to rent to gay married couples?

What's the difference between a cake and an apartment on this issue?

If you can refuse one you should be able to refuse the other. And vice versa.

Think of how complicated the laws would need to be if people were allowed to use religious bigotry as an excuse to not service some commodities but could not use religious bigotry to refuse to service others?

From a legislative point of view, it's far more reasonable to simply say, "all or nothing". It's either legal to use religion to support bigotry, or it's not.

You can hardly make laws saying that it's ok to refuse to cater to certain weddings, but you still have to rent to all married couples.

This would be a law that allows bigotry in some situations but not others. And that would become extremely complicated.

Can you refuse to sell gasoline to gays?
Can you refuse to sell insurance to gays?
Can you refuse to enroll gays in your schools?
Can you refuse to hire gays?

Where does it stop? Why can you refuse to cater to a gay wedding, but not be allowed to refuse any other service?

It really needs to be all or nothing. And it can't be all, so it has to be nothing.

This is just the way it has to be if a person wants to go into business. You need to be open to everyone. No bigotry permitted in business, not even for religious reasons.

Once we allow religion to be an excuse for bigotry where does it stop?

[DanieltheDragon]

It holds up. Freedom of association is fundamental. The error is already there in the law making it a crime to refuse to serve people and it is being compounded again and again.

Market forces work. Just shop where you feel comfortable.

A person should be allowed to have a child free restaurant if they want, a women only book club, a men's only scrabble association and any other combination of height, weight, color that they imagine works for them.

Market forces do work. I went to an all white high-school that banned the attendance of African Americans this of course was after 1990(don't want to give away my exact age ). I am not proud of this, but it was legal to do so. It was not a public school but a private institution.

Private clubs and associations reserve the right to discriminate those in their membership. If you offer wedding services but do not wish to offer public accommodation, simply re-organize as a private religious organization that only accommodates weddings of a particular religious affiliation.


If it is beneficial to only accommodate those within your religious belief structure and economically feasible you will see a shift in this direction.

[Divine Insight]

Private clubs and associations reserve the right to discriminate those in their membership. If you offer wedding services but do not wish to offer public accommodation, simply re-organize as a private religious organization that only accommodates weddings of a particular religious affiliation.


If it is beneficial to only accommodate those within your religious belief structure and economically feasible you will see a shift in this direction.

It may not be as simple as you think.

Many, (possibly even the vast majority) of gay people are also Christians!

There are even openly "Gay Christian Churches" that encourage gay membership, but they do not refuse non-gay members. So in this sense they are not discriminating against anyone.

So what would a Christian Church use as an excuse to not marry gay Christians?

After all the gay Christians would point to the fact that Jesus himself stated that to love your neighbor and God is the whole of the law. And obviously since they are both Christian and gay, they clearly see no reason in Christ to consider being gay a sin.

So this then boils down to an "internal argument" within Christianity.

If congregations started splitting up because they have different views on what Christ stood for there would be no organized Christianity left. In fact, that's pretty close the way things truly are. Christians claim to be a very large religion, but in truth what Christianity actually amounts to is many small disagreeing denominations who do indeed discriminate against each other for religious reasons whenever they butt heads.

In short, if all that existed were these Christian denominations, the religious bigotry would not stop.

The very idea that any of these bigotries belong to some giant religion called "Christianity" is already a delusion. There are many Christians who aren't even gay who see nothing wrong with gays getting married.

So to even hold this up as being some sort of "absolute" with respect to Christianity in general is actually a false illusion. There are many Christians who believe that to judge others as being "sinners" is the same as casting the first stone which Jesus forbade.

[beeswax]

I'm a member of the Father Christmas Church and demand that our beliefs should overturn any secular laws. We have services every Saturday as we tend to work on other days getting ready for the ONE special day on 25th Dec. We refuse to serve tea and biscuits to any non believers and we insist on all our members wearing Santa outfits. Beards are essential like other faiths. We also have communion every month when we sample fruit cake and wine and mark them accordingly. The best ones are baptised with almond paste.

We DEMAND tax relief like any other religious organisation and we call our leaders Pastorisers who all have to complete a 5 year course in Santamania. We demand tax exemption on their stupendary. Millions already believe in this faith as they all tell their kids, that Santa delivers all their presents on Christmas day. So it must be true like all the other religious faiths do when they refer to the number of believers. No court in the land has denied our existence or return mail.

We also demand a public holiday like the others get. Not Christmas day as we are all busy and working that day. Possibly, June 1st when we visit the North Pole to check on the transport.

We are strictly male only as nobody has ever heard of 'Mother' Christmas and so no new precedents are needed. We already break the equality laws like other churches do and nobody seems to mind or care. Everyone recognises our Special Cakes and we want tax relief and ingredient protection that go back 2000 years. We sing songs at our services and they all end in a Ho! Ho! Ho1 crescendo and ALMEN which is strictly sexist but we need protection for that as well..

No child is excluded and we have a Newcine Creed that is chanted at the beginning of each service and we do lock the doors during the service as free thinkers think we stash all our presents under the floorboards but everyone should know that's ridiculous as they are kept in all the department stores the whole time as kids need to know what is on offer each year..

This year its a computer game called the trinity vs the three bears. Its bound to be a sell out and we all look forward to another good day soon.

We tag along sometimes after some other evangelists have called and you would not believe what a different reception we get. Nobody slams the door in our face and calls us bad names and its a pleasure to see their smiles and see you soon remarks. The kids have realised that our creed is 100% true which is to ask anything of your father and it will be delivered, to honour them and us...Simple really. Its been like this way before most other religions and so no doubt its true. Other faiths fail with similar requests, ours never do! We look forward that one day one of our group will open Parliaments and Congress with our creeds.

Ho! Ho! Ho!..

[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

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.

[Divine Insight]

[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".

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

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?

First, excellent topic and well crafted on your end

Yes, of course I recognize for some, there is deeply felt and uncomfortable (for them) moral objections. It is very easy to relate to -- everyone has found themselves in situations where their ethics/morals are challenged, even severely. There's nothing unique about having a religious moral objection, or being secular and having ethical/moral objections.

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?

Yes, religious beliefs ought to be politely respected in civil society, whether one agrees with them or not. It's just being a decent person.

But there is no special significance to religious objections except to religious persons. A Christian-based moral objection is as significant as a secular moral objection in a secular society and government. Respecting a particular Christian moral does not automatically lead to refusing services, not in a secular society with a secular government.

I have a hard time 'buying' that the Christians being sued (in the news) were NOT aware of the public accommodations laws preventing them from denying service to persons based on race, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital status and so on. This disclaimer is EVERYWHERE, and it doesn't mean 'everyone but Christians'.

I see (perhaps naturally so) tha Christians feel passionately about their religious objections, and there are some who may believe God will punish them if they don't hold forth about homosexuality being a sin, or how SSM violates their view of marriage. Unless one is a Christian, why should Christian moral objections be elevated above civil laws protecting folks from discrimination? Even if there are Christians who believe they'll be punished or go to Hell for 'participating' in SSM, that's still no reason. That's a personal issue and this is a secular society.

Christians with moral objections they hold so dearly need to re-license their businesses, at least be 'smart' about existing civil law instead of martyring themselves in INEVITABLE lawsuits. What do they expect? More special consideration, or so it appears. I believe there is a way to resolve this so as to preserve the dignity and freedom from discrimination for LGBT and preserve Christian moral integrity. But as long as one side or the other insists their 'rights' are more important than those of others because they are 'religious', we can expect more martyrs.

Do religionists realize they take for granted their own 'protected class status', that it's entirely arbitrary, a decision made 200 and so years ago for the sake of their freedom to practice their religion?