Limits to religious liberty?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Limits to religious liberty?

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

dianaiad wrote: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?

enviousintheeverafter
Sage
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am

Post #61

Post by enviousintheeverafter »

[Replying to post 59 by Paprika]

Meaningful to say to what? There was nothing meaningful to respond to; you made a funny joke, so I gave the appropriate response. Or would a smiley/laughey face emoticon have been better?

Paprika
Banned
Banned
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:07 pm

Post #62

Post by Paprika »

enviousintheeverafter wrote: [Replying to post 59 by Paprika]

Meaningful to say to what? There was nothing meaningful to respond to; you made a funny joke, so I gave the appropriate response. Or would a smiley/laughey face emoticon have been better?
Apparently you can't recognise a serious point when you see one. Or maybe you've bought in too deeply into the cult of Égalité that you cannot admit the possibility that attempts to achieve it while possibly succeeding to certain degrees have had serious side-effects and caused other problems.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #63

Post by dianaiad »

Paprika wrote:
Apparently you can't recognise a serious point when you see one. Or maybe you've bought in too deeply into the cult of Égalité that you cannot admit the possibility that attempts to achieve it while possibly succeeding to certain degrees have had serious side-effects and caused other problems.
:warning: Moderator Final Warning

Enough. Please read the rules of this forum. Do not make personal negative comments to or about the author of a post. Address the content of it. You have been warned about this several times now.

It is quite possible to make your point without getting insulting and uncivil.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

enviousintheeverafter
Sage
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am

Post #64

Post by enviousintheeverafter »

Paprika wrote: Apparently you can't recognise a serious point when you see one.
I can, which was, of course, the problem; evidently you just expected me to fill in the blanks until we arrived at a serious point.
Or maybe you've bought in too deeply into the cult of Égalité that you cannot admit the possibility that attempts to achieve it while possibly succeeding to certain degrees have had serious side-effects and caused other problems.
Admit the mere possibility? Sure, virtually anything is possible- but that's exactly why the mere possibility doesn't get you anywhere. And while obviously there are consequences of anti-discrimination protections, such as business owners then being "forced" to comply with the law (as they are with respect to all other applicable regulations/restrictions/laws), there doesn't appear to be anything serious or especially problematic about that (I don't really consider racist or homophobic business owners being grumpy about having to comply with anti-discrimination laws to be a serious problem, in any sense of the phrase). Anti-discrimination protections are pretty clearly a net positive, despite your rhetorical and (almost assuredly intentionally) vague claim to the contrary.

Paprika
Banned
Banned
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:07 pm

Post #65

Post by Paprika »

enviousintheeverafter wrote: I can, which was, of course, the problem; evidently you just expected me to fill in the blanks until we arrived at a serious point.
Sure, did expect some level of background knowledge.
Admit the mere possibility? Sure, virtually anything is possible-
That's a good start.
but that's exactly why the mere possibility doesn't get you anywhere. And while obviously there are consequences of anti-discrimination protections, such as business owners then being "forced" to comply with the law (as they are with respect to all other applicable regulations/restrictions/laws)
Forced labour, for one. Loss of freedom of association, for another. Yet another is imbalance of power: consumers can boycott suppliers but not vice versa.

And this is only with respect to one anti-discriminatory measure.
(I don't really consider racist or homophobic business owners being grumpy about having to comply with anti-discrimination laws to be a serious problem, in any sense of the phrase). Anti-discrimination protections are pretty clearly a net positive
A net positive in what sense? That it's such a boon for people to get a certain cake service at certain places despite the fact that they can get it at many others?
The response to the refugee crisis has been troubling, exposing... just how impoverished our moral and political discourse actually is. For the difficult tasks of patient deliberation and discriminating political wisdom, a cult of sentimental humanitarianism--Neoliberalism's good cop to its bad cop of foreign military interventionism--substitutes the self-congratulatory ease of kneejerk emotional judgments, assuming that the 'right'...is immediately apparent from some instinctive apprehension of the 'good'. -AR

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #66

Post by Haven »

[Replying to post 64 by Paprika]

Why should bigoted business owners be given a pass at all? If a business wants to discriminate, it should be shut down. End of story. I don't see how that equates to forced labor. If someone doesn't want to serve (insert group here), then they have the right to go out of business and find another line of work. That's not forced labor.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

Paprika
Banned
Banned
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:07 pm

Post #67

Post by Paprika »

Haven wrote: [Replying to post 64 by Paprika]

Why should bigoted business owners be given a pass at all? If a business wants to discriminate, it should be shut down.
Why? Why should they not have the freedom to serve as they choose? It's their business after all. And if the law says they should, why should the law not be otherwise?

The clear alternative, of course, is 'live and let live'.
End of story.
That's a fine way to punctuate an assertion.
I don't see how that equates to forced labor. If someone doesn't want to serve (insert group here), then they have the right to go out of business and find another line of work. That's not forced labor.
It is forced labour because they're being threatened penalties that will be enforced if they do not labour to serve X group. Going out of business is hardly a trivial thing; and they are being coerced with that consequence (and others eg fines for 'emotional damage').
The response to the refugee crisis has been troubling, exposing... just how impoverished our moral and political discourse actually is. For the difficult tasks of patient deliberation and discriminating political wisdom, a cult of sentimental humanitarianism--Neoliberalism's good cop to its bad cop of foreign military interventionism--substitutes the self-congratulatory ease of kneejerk emotional judgments, assuming that the 'right'...is immediately apparent from some instinctive apprehension of the 'good'. -AR

User avatar
Haven
Guru
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
Location: Tremonton, Utah
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 52 times
Contact:

Post #68

Post by Haven »

[color=olive]Paprika[/color] wrote:
Why? Why should they not have the freedom to serve as they choose? It's their business after all. And if the law says they should, why should the law not be otherwise?
Because others will suffer. Before anti-discrimination laws, black people could not even find a place to use the bathroom when driving through the South because of "whites only" businesses. People had trouble finding medical care because of segregated hospitals. Do you really want to go back to that?
[color=green]Paprika[/color] wrote:The clear alternative, of course, is 'live and let live'.
Bigots won't let marginalized groups "live and let live," so why should they have that right?
[color=indigo]Paprika[/color] wrote:
It is forced labour because they're being threatened penalties that will be enforced if they do not labour to serve X group. Going out of business is hardly a trivial thing; and they are being coerced with that consequence (and others eg fines for 'emotional damage').
There's a solution to this: don't discriminate.

If someone wants to discriminate, then they should lose their business and face other societal consequences (heavy fines, revocation of licenses, lawsuits, etc.). It's not "forced labor" because they have the option not to work (slaves weren't afforded this right).

Bigotry is not OK.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥

Hamsaka
Site Supporter
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:01 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Post #69

Post by Hamsaka »

[Replying to post 64 by Paprika]
but that's exactly why the mere possibility doesn't get you anywhere. And while obviously there are consequences of anti-discrimination protections, such as business owners then being "forced" to comply with the law (as they are with respect to all other applicable regulations/restrictions/laws)
Forced labour, for one. Loss of freedom of association, for another. Yet another is imbalance of power: consumers can boycott suppliers but not vice versa.

And this is only with respect to one anti-discriminatory measure.
I hear violins. Forced labor? Loss of freedom of association and imbalance of power? It sounds like you are talking about the Gulag. Is that really what it feels like for you and your anti-SSM opponents? Such straw men, and such self pity. It is detrimental to the cause you claim to support.

(I don't really consider racist or homophobic business owners being grumpy about having to comply with anti-discrimination laws to be a serious problem, in any sense of the phrase). Anti-discrimination protections are pretty clearly a net positive
A net positive in what sense? That it's such a boon for people to get a certain cake service at certain places despite the fact that they can get it at many others?
If nothing else, 'we progressives' have been successful at preventing a good secular country from becoming the Republic of Gilead. How's that for a straw man? They are popping up like crazy around here, instead of thoughtful, reasonable and logical refutations.

Paprika
Banned
Banned
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 3:07 pm

Post #70

Post by Paprika »

Haven wrote:
[color=olive]Paprika[/color] wrote:
Why? Why should they not have the freedom to serve as they choose? It's their business after all. And if the law says they should, why should the law not be otherwise?
Because others will suffer. Before anti-discrimination laws, black people could not even find a place to use the bathroom when driving through the South because of "whites only" businesses. People had trouble finding medical care because of segregated hospitals. Do you really want to go back to that?
Given that racism is much less of a problem now, even if freedom of association were reenabled the problem would scarcely be as bad as in the past. Forcing people to choose between their conscience and closing their business also causes them to suffer.
[color=green]Paprika[/color] wrote:The clear alternative, of course, is 'live and let live'.
Bigots won't let marginalized groups "live and let live," so why should they have that right?
Hardly. How does someone's refusal to provide a certain cake/videograph service prevent these groups from 'living'?
[color=indigo]Paprika[/color] wrote:
It is forced labour because they're being threatened penalties that will be enforced if they do not labour to serve X group. Going out of business is hardly a trivial thing; and they are being coerced with that consequence (and others eg fines for 'emotional damage').
There's a solution to this: don't discriminate.

If someone wants to discriminate, then they should lose their business and face other societal consequences (heavy fines, revocation of licenses, lawsuits, etc.). It's not "forced labor" because they have the option not to work (slaves weren't afforded this right).
Slaves could also not work (cue Sartre's Radical Freedom). They just faced severe consequences should they refuse to work.

On the contrary, being refused a cake service hardly causes significant harm. There is no need to enforce the cake service, but then 'living and let live' was hardly the goal of the LGBT movement.
The response to the refugee crisis has been troubling, exposing... just how impoverished our moral and political discourse actually is. For the difficult tasks of patient deliberation and discriminating political wisdom, a cult of sentimental humanitarianism--Neoliberalism's good cop to its bad cop of foreign military interventionism--substitutes the self-congratulatory ease of kneejerk emotional judgments, assuming that the 'right'...is immediately apparent from some instinctive apprehension of the 'good'. -AR

Post Reply