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?

[dianaiad]

Precisely so because of all the harms, inequalities and untenable situations that their establishment has created.

(buh-dum-cshh!)

Moderator Comment

Please use the token system to show approval of a post. Don't use one-line comments that do not advance the conversation. Using the token system still leaves your approval public, and it gives the poster tokens to use/distribute.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[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.

Think of it this way. There are numerous reasons to start a public company. Let me list a few...

Advantages:
- There is limited liability for the shareholders.
- The business has separate legal entity. There is continuity even if any of the shareholders die.
- These businesses can raise large capital sum as there is no limit to the number of shareholders.
- The shares of the business are freely transferable providing more liquidity to its shareholders.

Disadvantages:
- You cannot be a discriminatory bigot.
- Others, but the above is the only one I find relevant.

If a person starts a business for the advantages above, they need to be aware of the disadvantages as well.
You cannot start a public company and expect to be able to discriminate. If you want to discriminate, stay private.

No?
You just can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Hamsaka]

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.

It's easy to say that if you are not a member of 'one of those' groups who do experience ongoing discrimination. No, it's not like it used to be, these things take time, and we're moving in the right direction. That discrimination is 'much less of a problem now' only means the state and feds stopped sanctioning it, not that everyone all at once decided it was 'bad'.

If a person's conscience is so fragile that 'serving' a SS couple in a way that would contribute to their marriage makes them suffer, it looks like they have a problem, especially after June 26, 2015. How much of that problem should be foisted upon the people who have no problem at all with it? What is with the entitlement to demand the state and feds FIX IT? If you have a problem, find a way to fix it yourself. If it is SO important to one's conscience that they never participate in any way in what might become a SSM, and there are enough of them to form a lobby, then for gosh sakes start writing up some recommendations to specifically address the issues, rather than listen to Glen Beck pour gas on the flames for his ratings. Let's go into problem solving mode, hey?

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'?

Oh, when refusing to provide a cake or photos is just the tip of an iceberg (the rest of the iceberg isn't well disguised either). Another straw man in place of a reasonable, thoughtful counter argument.

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.

You've distorted and distracted from the obvious issue. Discrimination is harmful, and cannot be tolerated in a secular society. No one believes this is about butt-hurt feelings over a few cakes and photographs. The secular principles the US was founded on were chosen in response to the history of religious oppression. With a secular government and freedom of religion, all religions are free to worship and practice; individuals from one religious ideology are protected from oppression by other religious ideologies. If one's ideology is secular, they are protected from unwanted and unnecessary (to them) religious oppression. It's the only fair way for everyone to have their sacred and cherished beliefs. No discrimination.

There are those who want to reduce this anti-discrimination situation to mean ole homos grinning evilly while the poor 'forced' Christian squeezes icing on a giant marzipan penis. But even they know better. There will be no need to 'force' anyone to do anything, and I'll be right there regardless of my persuasions to protest Christians being 'forced' against their conscience. Until someone is actually forced -- which has not happened in the US (Denmark, I think) -- there is no problem, just a lot of polemics and fear mongering

[KenRU]

Questions:

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?

Churches will not be forced to perform any function under the current law. They are exempt. And rightfully so.

Businesses are not exempt and rightfully so. Otherwise, economically, commerce could become a popularity contest. Those who hold the most mainstream views could easily get service, while the rest are forced to hunt and scour around for like minded business owners. Does this really strike anyone as fair/just or proper?

-all the best

[Hamsaka]

Questions:

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?

Churches will not be forced to perform any function under the current law. They are exempt. And rightfully so.

Businesses are not exempt and rightfully so. Otherwise, economically, commerce could become a popularity contest. Those who hold the most mainstream views could easily get service, while the rest are forced to hunt and scour around for like minded business owners. Does this really strike anyone as fair/just or proper?

-all the best

Not to me, or most persons without a particular religious 'dog' in this fight. I'd never thought of it that way -- the bit about the 'popularity contest'. I have a feeling this will be stuffed with straw before long, but before that happens, one should take a thorough look-see into history, where the clear disadvantages and their results are laid out in plain sight.

For the most people to benefit most of the time from the commercial market, ALL people must tolerate some limitation of their preferences. I realize a religious person whose conscience is triggered wouldn't appreciate their beliefs to be called 'preferences', but from the perspective of another, without those beliefs, that's what they amount to be. I agree people and their beliefs ought to be respected and accommodated to a reasonable degree, which they are.

[FinalEnigma]

For those who advocate freedom for the business, to what extent do you believe it should be allowed?

I used to participate in basically a game where people came together a made laws to govern their nation as part of a UN like organization. one of the common pastimes was to find ways to exploit these laws to do horrible things to your people, to prove that the laws were flawed. with a businesses-can-be-bigots law, this would incredibly easy.

For those who don't know, there are places in cities called food deserts.
This is an area that is inhabited mostly by the poor, where there are few or no regular grocery stores to buy food.
In many cases, the stores in the places raise their prices, because the nearby resident are too poor to drive halfway across town for cheaper prices, or don't even have a car. These areas are actually significant contributors to hunger in America.

Should it be legal for a store that is the only food store in a food desert to charge higher prices to black people? or to refuse to serve black people altogether?

Should it be legal for me to move to a small, poor town and buy every grocery store and every store that sells food in the town, and then refuse to sell any food to anyone who isn't a white Buddhist?

Should ALL goods and services be able to be refused to anyone you want at will?

[Paprika]

[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.

Think of it this way. There are numerous reasons to start a public company. Let me list a few...
(snip)

That's not answering my question at all.

I asked "why should they not have the freedom to serve as they choose? " Your answer is merely 'they shouldn't'. That's hardly helpful.

[Paprika]

It's easy to say that if you are not a member of 'one of those' groups who do experience ongoing discrimination. No, it's not like it used to be, these things take time, and we're moving in the right direction. That discrimination is 'much less of a problem now' only means the state and feds stopped sanctioning it, not that everyone all at once decided it was 'bad'.

That's quite disingenuous and inaccurate. White guilt has been stimulated eg. the taboo of using the 'n-word'. It's not merely that government doesn't sanction racism anymore but that racism is now socially taboo when it was socially commonplace.

If a person's conscience is so fragile that 'serving' a SS couple in a way that would contribute to their marriage makes them suffer, it looks like they have a problem, especially after June 26, 2015.

If not getting a cake service from a supplier that they can easily obtain from others makes you suffer, emotional harm that can be sued for, then they really do have a problem.

Oh, when refusing to provide a cake or photos is just the tip of an iceberg (the rest of the iceberg isn't well disguised either). Another straw man in place of a reasonable, thoughtful counter argument.

You assert and allege the existence tip of the iceberg, but you don't demonstrate it. Why should I assume that it exists?

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.

You've distorted and distracted from the obvious issue.

Hardly. The claim was made that it was not forced labour, and I addressed that claim

Discrimination is harmful, and cannot be tolerated in a secular society.

So you and others assert. It's also highly ironical how certain views are not tolerated by this 'non-discrimination' measures - like it or not you have to discriminate, even if it's to allow 'tolerant' views and praxis and ban 'intolerant' ones: you discriminate between what you claim 'tolerant' and 'intolerant'.

No one believes this is about butt-hurt feelings over a few cakes and photographs.

As long as you do not demonstrate otherwise, there's little reason for me to think otherwise.

[KenRU]

Discrimination is harmful, and cannot be tolerated in a secular society.

So you and others assert.

Do you think discrimination is not harmful?

It's also highly ironical how certain views are not tolerated by this 'non-discrimination' measures - like it or not you have to discriminate, even if it's to allow 'tolerant' views and praxis and ban 'intolerant' ones: you discriminate between what you claim 'tolerant' and 'intolerant'.

This sounds a lot like saying "it's wrong to discriminate against those who discriminate".

[Clownboat]

[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.

Think of it this way. There are numerous reasons to start a public company. Let me list a few...
(snip)

That's not answering my question at all.

I asked "why should they not have the freedom to serve as they choose? " Your answer is merely 'they shouldn't'. That's hardly helpful.

Let's try this again shall we?

You asked: Why should they not have the freedom to serve as they choose?

A person that sees a benefit in having a public company with the benefits that come along with such a company (listed previously) should not have freedom to serve whom they choose because public companies are not allowed to discriminate.

You are basically asking why aren't they allowed to break the law.
Paprika, none of us are allowed to break laws.
This is very simple IMO and I'm not sure why you don't find such a straight forward answer to your question helpful.

Public companies cannot discriminate. Therefore, if you want to discriminate, you should not have a public company.
My answer is not that 'they shouldn't' like you falsely claimed. My answer is that it is not allowed by virtue of it being against the law.

Get discrimination laws changed and this simple answer would become nullified. Until the law is changed, you might as well be asking why people are not allowed to murder.