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]

[Replying to post 15 by Zzyzx]

It's called caring for others. If we grant a spectrum of reasons for homosexuality from nature to nurture (where nurture includes abuse and confusion) then some people might benefit from help in making other lifestyle choices.

[Bust Nak]

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

Because it is the right thing to do? Businesses operate under different rules to private clubs.

[rikuoamero]

[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.

I have to agree here. Most of the time, when I see this topic being discussed, the solution being peddled by those who argue for "free to sell/not sell to whom I want" say "Well, the gay couple can just shop elsewhere".
Meaning that instead of the Christian shop owner having to compromise his beliefs and accomodate a gay couple, instead the gay couple are being told to compromise themselves and go elsewhere.
Well...which one do we pick? It's a thorny problem in my view, with no clear obvious solution. As far as I can see, someone loses out on the freedom metric either way.
The problem I see with the "shop elsewhere" solution is that what if the gay couple are in an area where most, if not all, businesses are free to discriminate against them? Okay, so a bakery is free not to bake them a cake. Where are they supposed to go? The next state over to get a simple cake? Is the bank also free not to give them a loan or a mortgage or not even a checking account?
Of course, the "shop elsewhere" solution has a solution to itself, but one that is not guaranteed - that businesses would open up near the gay couple(s) that would be willing to service them.
As I said - thorny problem.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 32 by rikuoamero]

Yep, it's an inconvenience for the gay couple. That's a shame, and the gay couple now knows much information about that shop owner. Still, it's the property of the proprietor, and he ought to be able to buy and sell from and to be chooses. That way, the black business owner isn't forced to sell sheets and supplies to terrorize and fuel hate to the KKK.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 31 by Bust Nak]

We have different viewpoints. I think a person who has taken business risk by buying stock and retail space ought to have the right to sell or not sell to whomever he chooses.

I don't think black business owners should be forced to sell sheets and supplies used for terror and hate to the Klan. I wish you felt the same way on this issue.

[Hatuey]

[quote="Hatuey"]
[Replying to post 28 by enviousintheeverafter]


General question to all:

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?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 32 by rikuoamero]

Yep, it's an inconvenience for the gay couple. That's a shame, and the gay couple now knows much information about that shop owner. Still, it's the property of the proprietor, and he ought to be able to buy and sell from and to be chooses. That way, the black business owner isn't forced to sell sheets and supplies to terrorize and fuel hate to the KKK.

The 'alternative' to the freedom you describe is NOT encapsulated in "black business owner forced to sell sheets to the KKK." That is just polemics. It's unrealistic, as most conclusions drawn from polemics tend to be. It's to your own benefit that your conclusion be realistic, something that can actually be done in the highly complex world of 'real life'. I mean really, how often are black business owners over the barrel about selling sheets to the KKK? Never? How about a more realistic premise, one that is happening as we speak. We have sects of Christianity who believe their soul or conscience is at risk if they approve a home equity line of credit to a gay couple to pay for adoption fees. How is the integrity of their premise any different than your own?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 36 by Hamsaka]

It's an example. It highlights the benefit of allowing people to sell THEIR OWN STUFF to people they want to and not sell THEIR OWN STUFF to people that they don't want to.

fifty years ago, no one would have dreamed of the issue of wedding cakes for gay couples. Perhaps in fifty years the Klan will have grown as popular as the anti-gay discrimination is today and the issue I raise now will be extremely relevant.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 31 by Bust Nak]

We have different viewpoints. I think a person who has taken business risk by buying stock and retail space ought to have the right to sell or not sell to whomever he chooses.

I don't think black business owners should be forced to sell sheets and supplies used for terror and hate to the Klan. I wish you felt the same way on this issue.

Can we first agree that a business relies on an stable environment, legal protection from the state, and places extra burden on infrastructures, so it's fair enough for it to be subject to extra regulations or taxes, over individual citizens and private clubs?

If so, then we can move onto the next part, what level of regulations is suitable. It's easy to say that a business can choose who to serve when there are easy alternatives, that wasn't the case not so long ago. It's still not the case for some minority. Being able to get the services one needs is too important to risk to spite racists, for example.

The alternative is to allow a black business owner to refuse service to Klan members, but force Klan businesses to serve black people. I am not comfortable with such double standards.

Re: gay wedding cake. Gay couple not being able to get wedding cake is considered a benefit?

PS: I see you have the "Against discrimination of atheists" tag. Isn't allowing a business to decide who they sell to, open invitation for theists to discriminate atheists?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 38 by Bust Nak]

Yes; businesses should have to follow laws, they should NOT be treated like an individual with the rights of a single citizen.....despite the recent legal decision that allows Hobby Lobby to not pay for some medical practices.

Businesses should be allowed to sell to whom they wish and buy com whom they wish because they are risking THEIR PRIVATE capital. They are risking their business not the government's.

We agree that there should not be a double standard and I feel that the problem should not be resolved in such a way that a black business owner MUST launder robes for the KKK in order to keep his laundering business license. He should have the right to refuse his services to those he doesn't want to service.

Of course, the KKK member has every right to open his own laundering service and refuse service to whomever he wants and set prices as he wishes.