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]

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear: what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination against homosexuals will occur?

Because that is the message espoused by the bible?

Please provide support for that statement.

Well that's easy:

Leviticus 18 and 20

• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
• "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

To name just two.

Couple that with this list of states that enacted constitutional amendments banning sex marriage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ns_by_type

So, above you have quoted biblical passages admonishing homosexuality and states that follow said teachings. Are you arguing there is no link?

Seems to me a very logical conclusion to draw that a predominantly Christian area would legislate Christian values.

[jgh7]

This stuff pisses me off. Let's say we have a shoe salesman with a public shoe store.

Everyone would agree that it would be wrong for him to deny a sale of shoes to a person solely because they're gay, even if it's an issue of religious belief. Right?

But what if this gay person is buying shoes for a gay wedding? Then it suddenly becomes okay for this shoe salesman to refuse to sell the gay person shoes because it would entail violating his religious beliefs?

Am I accurately representing the issue here? Why is the second reason okay and the first reason not okay?

Enough with respecting people's plead of religious freedom. It's disgustingly prejudice in this situation. No way around it. Get fined or worse by authorities; you should not be allowed this freedom of prejudice. I support our nation's moral laws of homosexual equal rights. I'm happy it's enforced on prejudice religious people.

[KenRU]

you should not be allowed this freedom of prejudice. I support our nation's moral laws of homosexual equal rights. I'm happy it's enforced on prejudice religious people.

It seems that is the crux, an ironic and hypocritical stance: it is wrong to call some one wrong for being prejudice. It is the equivalent of being called a bigot for pointing out bigoted behavior.

Oh the irony.

[Justin108]

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear: what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination against homosexuals will occur?

It already HAS occurred. Many teachers and military personnel and others lost jobs when their sexual orientation [just a single aspect of one's humanity] was revealed.
The difference now is that it is against the law to discriminate on that basis.

Thank the heavens. An actual argument!

As to addressing it: I have heard of such discrimination (though I am unsure of the numbers or the specifics). There are however, a few points that need to be raised. The first is that we're specifically talking here about discrimination with regards to service. The second is of course that homosexual military personnel are allowed to serve now, so I presume those that lost their jobs were doing so illegally. And last should be the most obvious: to discriminate against homosexuals, nay, to be seen as discriminatory has become taboo. Much has changed - only in 2008 Obama was still against homosexual marriage and the tide has since turned. Whatever 'danger' existed in the past surely is not as great in the present where we have multiple press celebrations of 'coming out', diversity hiring and so forth.[/i]

There is no clear distinction between providing a 'service' and providing goods; and the law makes no such distinction. Is serving lunch in a restaurant a good, or a service? I'll help. It is both. That is why the law refers to "public accommodation."

Thanks for that irrelevant point, but 'providing employment' is not a 'good' or a 'service'.

The point is that protecting employment from various forms of discrimination is a relatively new phenomenon.

Again, the topic has been discrimination of service and not employment.

Essentially there is no difference other than technical terms. They both involve the owners of a business discriminating against others, backing their position with "it's my business, I can do what I want".

Scenario 1.
- I run a business
- I refuse to hire black people
- It's my business, I can do what I want

Scenario 2.
- I run a business
- I refuse to serve black people
- It's my business, I can do what I want


You make an arbitrary seperation of employment and service as both arguments look exactly the same. The point being made is that if discrimination is allowed, it could have a significant detrimental effect on society as a whole.

It is a bit of a pain to have to force businesses to operate in accordance with a law that limits their freedom, but that's just how society works. We are all forced to give up some freedom for the greater good of society. We have no right to refuse to pay taxes, even if forcing us to pay taxes infringes on our right. We have no right to abuse our children, even though forcing us to treat our children according to certain legal standards might infringe on our freedom to parent as we choose. This is how society works. Absolute freedom is anarchy.