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?

[Paprika]

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.

I agree that the law is in error.

It is very ironical that in the 'land of the free' one cannot freely associate as one chooses; in fact for certain people unreasonable forced labour is imposed - they must serve under threat of fines, ridiculous lawsuits involving damages for 'emotional hurt' or forced closure of business - when there are so many bakeries which will provide the wedding cake desired.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 21 by Paprika]

Yep. Businesses ought to be able to refuse service or refuse to hire blacks or whites Asians or Christians or Muslims or scientologists or heterosexuals or homosexuals or pansexuals. The business should be able to choose freely.

As for corporations being legally defined as a person and given a person's rights...: how fricking retarded?!?! That's the whole point of being called a corporation...it's NOT an individual person.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 21 by Paprika]

Yep. Businesses ought to be able to refuse service or refuse to hire blacks or whites Asians or Christians or Muslims or scientologists or heterosexuals or homosexuals or pansexuals. The business should be able to choose freely.

So things like Civil rights, equal protection, non-discrimination and all that are wrong (despite the many harms/inequalities/untenable situations which their establishment eliminated/minimized). Hmm. Scary. Thank goodness you're not in charge, eh?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 23 by enviousintheeverafter]

Why should a privately owned business have to serve or hire people that belong to groups that the private business does not support. Would you force a black owned business to sell sheets and supplies to the Klan?

Paprika and I want to live in the land of the free where a private owner is free to sell or buy to/from whom he chooses. If he doesn't want to sell to heterosexual Christians, he should have that right with his own property. If he doesn't want to sell to whites or short people he should be free to descriminate with his own money at stake.

Would you really force a black business owner to sell supplies to the Klan?

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 23 by enviousintheeverafter]

Why should a privately owned business have to serve or hire people that belong to groups that the private business does not support. Would you force a black owned business to sell sheets and supplies to the Klan?

Well, yes, because failing to do so would be inconsistent. Obviously we're less concerned with that case than with more common cases of a majority discriminating against a minority (or a status quo oppressing those without power), such as we saw with african-americans at the hands of the white majority prior to civil rights, or homosexuals at the hands of the hetero/religious majority, but the principle remains the same.

Paprika and I want to live in the land of the free where a private owner is free to sell or buy to/from whom he chooses.

But people are NOT free to shop, work, or receive services as they choose. Both options involve curtailing someone's freedom- either that of the business or the customer- what you're advocating is no more free than the alternative, you're simply picking which side's freedom you prefer.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 23 by enviousintheeverafter]

Why should a privately owned business have to serve or hire people that belong to groups that the private business does not support. Would you force a black owned business to sell sheets and supplies to the Klan?

Paprika and I want to live in the land of the free where a private owner is free to sell or buy to/from whom he chooses. If he doesn't want to sell to heterosexual Christians, he should have that right with his own property. If he doesn't want to sell to whites or short people he should be free to descriminate with his own money at stake.

Would you really force a black business owner to sell supplies to the Klan?

In order for freedom to actually exist, and be something an individual can exercise, this freedom requires a system of boundaries, or limitations. There are individuals who lack any regard for the experiences of others, especially those they identify as sinful or inferior in some other way. "Honoring" that all-too human tendency to have the whole universe revolve around one's self has been shown ad nauseum, to be great set ups for dictatorships, monarchies and oligarchies, where that 'self' is a political or religious body of persons.

Why would we want to 'honor' our lowest tribalist ingroup-outgroup tendencies? Is being able to discriminate at will really a human quality that deserves special accommodation? Doesn't it harken back to some pretty grisly historical incidents? It's not very pro-social, let's put it that way.

If I were queen of the cosmos, I'd not 'encourage' these primitive, fear-based instincts. If anyone wants to more deeply discuss why these 'freedoms' are inappropriately called so, I'm up for it. Until we become an intersolar species, we just don't have the room for it.

In the meantime, I would support the Black linen shop owner in his legal battle for refusing to sell bedsheets to the Klan. Thankfully, what we here deal with on a daily basis is not nearly so grave.

Wootah wrote:

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.

I agree that the law is in error.

It is very ironical that in the 'land of the free' one cannot freely associate as one chooses; in fact for certain people unreasonable forced labour is imposed - they must serve under threat of fines, ridiculous lawsuits involving damages for 'emotional hurt' or forced closure of business - when there are so many bakeries which will provide the wedding cake desired.

The law is the law, in error or not. It's the right of citizens of most first world governments to seek to change laws they disagree with. Unfortunately, the existing laws against discrimination are constitutionally based in the US. They are the same laws, ironically, developed to protect religious groups in early US history.

I find it so ironic that the foundations of the new USA nation were deliberately secular, because it prevented the discrimination and persecution that the first immigrants fled from in England. Now, a number of people of the same religion that sought protection 200 and change years ago are behaving exactly like the Anglican persecutors. Speaking of the original Anglican persecutors, I'm sure they would have flatly denied they were persecuting anyone; they were merely defending and preserving their cherished beliefs against heresy and ungodliness.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 25 by enviousintheeverafter]

I think freedom means being able to hire the people you want to hire and sell to whom you want to sell. If I own a hat store, then all the product/stock is MINE, and the business is MINE. I shouldn't have to hire Christians if I don't want to. I shouldn't have to sell to Christians if I don't want to. It's my business and my stuff.

Government and civil agencies are different and public institutions are different.

I don't think I should have to hire Christians or sell to them, and I don't think a black business owner should be forced to do business with Klansmen. That's freedom to do what I want with MY STUFF (stock and money).

But come on, let's think rationally about this. Hobby lobby's religious and political views are disgusting, but I recognize that they are good at what they do. As much as they dislike homos and nonwhites and nonchristians, do you really think they'd not let them shop at their stores, even if they could prevent every homo and nonwhite and nonchristian? No. They want money too badly. Hobby Lobby (and others who CLAIM certain convictions) will side with mamon over God every time.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 25 by enviousintheeverafter]

I think freedom means being able to hire the people you want to hire and sell to whom you want to sell.

But you don't think freedom also includes being able to shop, work, or receive the available services/products that you want. Um. Ok.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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?

I don't fret the color of his skin, but I do fret the content of his gay character.

2) For those who are for gay marriage: Do you recognize that some churches and businesses have a moral objection to gay marriage?

Yes, many churches and businesses are populated by folks who swear up and down they know the mind of a god they can't even show exists to have 'im one.

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?

No. A business that serves the public needs to do it some service to the public. Fretting over making a cake, like that's gonna bring God's holy wrath, is as goofy as fretting over someone being gay in the first place.


So you're gay, so what? I've yet to meet me the first god who ever declared how upsettin' it was for him to peep into your bedroom, and see what all a disgusting display it was, what y'all did in there. In y'all's bedroom.


What's next? "Can't serve you no oxygen, God don't like him no gayfers havin' 'em no oxygen nigh near as much as it upsets him to know someone baked y'all a cake."


This issue really hits at the problem with errant conclusions based on superstition. Where it is, a cake can divide an entire nation, and that some are happy to know they've got that cake all to themself.

[Hatuey]

[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?