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?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 38 by Bust Nak]

Choosing not to sell to someone is discrimination and it should not be done to Klansmen or atheists. Some actions are wrong but do not require a law or the governments involvement.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 28 by enviousintheeverafter]

Correct. A black business owner should not be forced to sell HIS STUFF to the Klan if he wishes to not sell HIS STUFF that HE BOUGHT to the people who consider him an animal.

Why do you want to force a black business man to sell HIS items in HIS store to a Klansman?

I already answered your question, not sure why you are just repeating it (without addressing any of the other things I said either).

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 41 by enviousintheeverafter]

You said that you would force a black business owner to service/sell to the clan for the sake of consistency. My solution is equally consistent and does not force a black business owner to service/sell to the Klan: business owners who risk their own capital to purchase items that THEY THEN OWN and risk their own capital on a storefront should be able to NOT offer their products or services to anyone they wish. It's not about right or wrong, it's about ownership and who is taking the business risk.

As to unaddressed points you made, i either did not think they were worthwhile of my time or I thought my previous ideas covered them. If you would like to repost them, I will reconsider them, though.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 41 by enviousintheeverafter]

You said that you would force a black business owner to service/sell to the clan for the sake of consistency. My solution is equally consistent and does not force a black business owner to service/sell to the Klan

The point isn't that consistency is a merit for its own sake, but the fact that its a consistent extension of the more relevant and crucial application of the principle of non-discrimination. Which is, of course, that a dominant status quo/majority simply excludes and marginalizes whatever group they happen to dislike- blacks, gays, women, whatever. As was rampant prior to the establishment of the sorts of laws you're objecting to (and the cause of many social harms). The point is that, in order to free the black business owner from having to do business with racists, you also have to allow the much more frequent cases of racists refusing to do business with ethnic minorities, or homophobes refusing to do business with gays. The extreme and unlikely type of case you mention seems pretty clearly insufficient to balance out this extreme negative of your position. On the other hand, I'm willing to bite the bullet in such unusual cases to address the more significant and common harm of legalized prejudice/discrimination.

As to unaddressed points you made, i either did not think they were worthwhile of my time or I thought my previous ideas covered them. If you would like to repost them, I will reconsider them, though.

I'm not going to repost, the original post didn't go anywhere. And if you don't consider your selective concept of freedom to be worth addressing, I'd say you need to reconsider.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 43 by enviousintheeverafter]

I'm giving the freedom to the individual who has spent his money and is at a financial loss to turn away business, but it's his money and resources to burn. My freedom is NOT SELCTIVE as you accuse, but is the exact same for every single person in the same situation. (Business owners). There is no excuse for your LIE about my stance, since I have made my opinions so often and so well

Please apologize for lying about me.

I wish that more people (and you) felt that people have rights over their own property and wished for less government involvement. A friend of mine had to shut down her business because there was no way for her to make it accessible to handicapable people. (She managed to service her handicapable clients just fine, though, without a ramp or lift. Simply and easily. But that she was able to do this and follow the spirit of the law made no difference to the letter of the law).

I think that if I take the risk of paying for a storefront and if I take the risk of purchasing stock, then I should be able to decide who I can refuse service to. To me it seems right and fair, and if I discriminate, people can protest and break in at night and loot and steal and burn the place down or go to another business.

I regret that you feel it is right for the government to tell people what they can and can't do with their own property.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 43 by enviousintheeverafter]

I'm giving the freedom to the individual who has spent his money and is at a financial loss to turn away business, but it's his money and resources to burn. My freedom is NOT SELCTIVE as you accuse, but is the exact same for every single person in the same situation. (Business owners). There is no excuse for your LIE about my stance

There's no lie, you just confirmed it; you favor the freedom of the business owners over that of the consumer or general public. Even if that entails a majority/status quo systematically discriminating against and thereby effectively excluding an entire group of people. You simply have no right to characterize your view as being in favor of freedom simpliciter, when what you're doing is simply preferring the freedom of one group over another.

I wish that more people (and you) felt that people have rights over their own property and wished for less government involvement.

And I wish that more people (and you) felt that people have a right to equal protection under the law, non-discrimination, and the freedom to work, shop, and receive the offered services they choose without fear of arbitrary exclusion (as the constitution guarantees)- moreover, I wish that people who disagreed had a substantive basis for rejecting these principles instead of just a repetitive motto.

I think that if I take the risk of paying for a storefront and if I take the risk of purchasing stock, then I should be able to decide who I can refuse service to. To me it seems right and fair

So, again, just to be clear, the systematic exclusion of an entire group of people, on the arbitrary basis of their membership in that group, strikes you as right and fair by the same token? If yes, that says enough about your position right there, if no, then you're being inconsistent, as this is just a further application of the principle you're endorsing.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 43 by enviousintheeverafter]

I'm giving the freedom to the individual who has spent his money and is at a financial loss to turn away business, but it's his money and resources to burn. My freedom is NOT SELCTIVE as you accuse, but is the exact same for every single person in the same situation. (Business owners). There is no excuse for your LIE about my stance, since I have made my opinions so often and so well

Please apologize for lying about me.

I wish that more people (and you) felt that people have rights over their own property and wished for less government involvement. A friend of mine had to shut down her business because there was no way for her to make it accessible to handicapable people. (She managed to service her handicapable clients just fine, though, without a ramp or lift. Simply and easily. But that she was able to do this and follow the spirit of the law made no difference to the letter of the law).

I think that if I take the risk of paying for a storefront and if I take the risk of purchasing stock, then I should be able to decide who I can refuse service to. To me it seems right and fair, and if I discriminate, people can protest and break in at night and loot and steal and burn the place down or go to another business.

I regret that you feel it is right for the government to tell people what they can and can't do with their own property.

Moderator Warning


Do not accuse other posters of lying. If you believe that another poster is giving incorrect information, or saying untrue things, address those things and make your argument. Do not make negative comments about other posters.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 45 by enviousintheeverafter]

Nope YOURE LYING. You know you are. It surprises me that you would stoop to dishonesty in this case.

All people who own business and own product have the same rights. I'm saying that NO ONE has the "right" to buy from anybody. Purchasing or doing business isn't a right, it's a privilege. You have to have money, don't you? Or do you next want the law to say that everyone has the right to go into anyone's business and just take whatever they want off the shelves? What, are you supporting inequality?? Oh my, it's so unjust!!! All the people without money can't get the same stuff people with money can get!!!

Your argument that my model is unfair is equivalent to saying we don't have true freedom until everyone can go into any store and take anything that they want. Are you sure you want to argue for that sort of "equality?"

Stop lying.

Stop lying.

It's beneath you.

What weakness you exhibit.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

No, stop the liar. If this forum allows lying, then it's worse than worthless, it's evil.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 45 by enviousintheeverafter]

I've been extremely clear on this issue, and you are acting shitty to claim otherwise, you liar.

I am saying that ALL business owners have the right to sell or not sell to WHOMEVER they choose. It's their product they bought with their money for their business. It's simple. You can frame it any way you want to, but my model is fair to those who have purchased storefront and product and have the business risk. Customers don't have any risk or rights when it comes to SOMONE ELSES property and who they sell to.


Now go lie some more, liar. It'll make you feel better, I guess.