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?

[enviousintheeverafter]

No, it's merely something you've argued for:

Nope, not on this thread.

And what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination will occur?

I believe that was already covered (snip)

That's it? That I didn't correct your (mis)use of this phrase to describe what I actually have claimed doesn't mean that it magically becomes my position.

I refer you to your own post.

Well, unsuccessfully; not only did I not make any such claim in the post you quoted (as above, at most I merely failed to correct you there; not the same thing at all, obviously). And you won't find any of my posts where I argue that "there will be a wide-ranging discrimination by many Christians to a degree that will cause harm". This is an obvious strawman, as you (and everyone else) can see from my posts; the claim is, and always has been, that its probable gays won't always be able to just find somewhere else to shop. That you persist in this strawman can only mean you don't have any rebuttal to the real claim.

[Danmark]

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?

Some, chiefly in the past I hope, have cited their religious beliefs to refuse to associate with or serve certain groups and they have acted on those beliefs. The problem we see more frequently today is the absurd lengths of bad logic and hypersensitivity they engage in to claim they are "participating" in an activity they consider immoral or that violates their "religious beliefs."

Selling flowers or baking a cake is not "participation." Selling condoms is not participating in a sex act. Even if such acts did offend the extraordinary sensitivities of these Pharisees, they do not have to carry condoms in their inventory; they do not have to be in a public business that sells flowers. Following their 'logic' a lumberyard could refuse to sell wood if it were used to build a floral arch for a gay wedding.

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?

This question is it lumps churches in with businesses open to the public. The law in regard to this issue only deals with "public accommodation."

A church is generally exempted; however the law is not so naive it cannot pierce the veil pretense and fraud. But a genuine church cannot and is not forced to actually participate in activities it has declared immoral.

[Elijah John]

Though I suppose its telling that, rather than provide some substantive response to this fact- like saying why this isn't a problem, or how it could be avoided aside from anti-discrimination protections- you've chosen to simply stomp your foot and deny it.

Moderator Warning


You DID address the content of post, but this part:

"you've chosen to simply stomp your foot"

is uncivil and is a personal attack.

Please refrain, and stick only to the topic


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.

[Danmark]

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear: what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination against homosexuals will occur?

It already HAS occurred. Many teachers and military personnel and others lost jobs when their sexual orientation [just a single aspect of one's humanity] was revealed.
The difference now is that it is against the law to discriminate on that basis.

The United States and other countries have a long history of religion inspired discrimination against people because of their gender, their religion, their ethnic background, their race. Despite some good things about religions they have a HORRIBLE track record for inspiring hate and discrimination.

It is only in the last decade or so that civil, secular government has successfully countered this evil. In fairness, one should also concede that many Christians have also changed their stance on this issue which in this democracy has been an important factor in the secular government changing its position.

My personal view is that the most important factor in this change comes from he fact it has become more and more obvious that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. We have all encountered just too many people and too many stories that make it clear that very good and decent people have a sexual orientation that is not a matter of volitional control. Our basic sense of fairness has trumped ancient superstition and belief.

[Paprika]

No, it's merely something you've argued for:

Nope, not on this thread.

And what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination will occur?

I believe that was already covered (snip)

That's it? That I didn't correct your (mis)use of this phrase to describe what I actually have claimed doesn't mean that it magically becomes my position.

No, you claimed that the point I raised was "already covered":

And what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination will occur?

I believe that was already covered- i.e. given the religious demographics in the US, especially in the south where the population is not only overwhelmingly Christian but there are higher concentrations of evangelical protestants (evangelical protestants have the lowest rate of acceptance of SSM according to Pew Research Center- around 25% as of 2015, half that of Catholics and a third of that of the religiously unaffiliated).

So you were espousing the position, but now you don't want to. It's all right to concede things, but to portray me as the one retreating? How desperate.

[Paprika]

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear: what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination against homosexuals will occur?

It already HAS occurred. Many teachers and military personnel and others lost jobs when their sexual orientation [just a single aspect of one's humanity] was revealed.
The difference now is that it is against the law to discriminate on that basis.

Thank the heavens. An actual argument!

As to addressing it: I have heard of such discrimination (though I am unsure of the numbers or the specifics). There are however, a few points that need to be raised. The first is that we're specifically talking here about discrimination with regards to service. The second is of course that homosexual military personnel are allowed to serve now, so I presume those that lost their jobs were doing so illegally. And last should be the most obvious: to discriminate against homosexuals, nay, to be seen as discriminatory has become taboo. Much has changed - only in 2008 Obama was still against homosexual marriage and the tide has since turned. Whatever 'danger' existed in the past surely is not as great in the present where we have multiple press celebrations of 'coming out', diversity hiring and so forth.[/i]

[Danmark]

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear: what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination against homosexuals will occur?

It already HAS occurred. Many teachers and military personnel and others lost jobs when their sexual orientation [just a single aspect of one's humanity] was revealed.
The difference now is that it is against the law to discriminate on that basis.

Thank the heavens. An actual argument!

As to addressing it: I have heard of such discrimination (though I am unsure of the numbers or the specifics). There are however, a few points that need to be raised. The first is that we're specifically talking here about discrimination with regards to service. The second is of course that homosexual military personnel are allowed to serve now, so I presume those that lost their jobs were doing so illegally. And last should be the most obvious: to discriminate against homosexuals, nay, to be seen as discriminatory has become taboo. Much has changed - only in 2008 Obama was still against homosexual marriage and the tide has since turned. Whatever 'danger' existed in the past surely is not as great in the present where we have multiple press celebrations of 'coming out', diversity hiring and so forth.[/i]

There is no clear distinction between providing a 'service' and providing goods; and the law makes no such distinction. Is serving lunch in a restaurant a good, or a service? I'll help. It is both. That is why the law refers to "public accommodation."

The point is that protecting employment from various forms of discrimination is a relatively new phenomenon. But for the law, the discrimination would be worse. That it still goes on is proved in daily news accounts. Kim what's her name, the clerk is only the most recent public example. Usually the discrimination attempts to be more subtle. Man of the 'wrong' race is told,
"I'm sorry sir, but we don't seem to have your size in stock. Please check back with us in two weeks [or two years]. Thank you for your business." If you get a chance watch Gregory Peck in "Gentlemen's Agreement" about discrimination against Jews, or Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men" about bias in juries.

The law sets limits against what a religion can allow. The Jehovah's Witnesses cases provide guidance on both sides of the law. The Supreme Court reversed itself and finally held the JW's could not be compelled to salute the flag. The Court also held that parents cannot endanger the health of their children by citing religious liberty.
The freedom to believe is absolute; the right to act on that belief is not. In American courts there is no doubt: the child’s welfare trumps the parents' religious beliefs.

For a more in depth look at how the courts have dealt with the issue, there are many sources. Heres one from a medical blog:
http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full

[Paprika]

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear: what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination against homosexuals will occur?

It already HAS occurred. Many teachers and military personnel and others lost jobs when their sexual orientation [just a single aspect of one's humanity] was revealed.
The difference now is that it is against the law to discriminate on that basis.

Thank the heavens. An actual argument!

As to addressing it: I have heard of such discrimination (though I am unsure of the numbers or the specifics). There are however, a few points that need to be raised. The first is that we're specifically talking here about discrimination with regards to service. The second is of course that homosexual military personnel are allowed to serve now, so I presume those that lost their jobs were doing so illegally. And last should be the most obvious: to discriminate against homosexuals, nay, to be seen as discriminatory has become taboo. Much has changed - only in 2008 Obama was still against homosexual marriage and the tide has since turned. Whatever 'danger' existed in the past surely is not as great in the present where we have multiple press celebrations of 'coming out', diversity hiring and so forth.[/i]

There is no clear distinction between providing a 'service' and providing goods; and the law makes no such distinction. Is serving lunch in a restaurant a good, or a service? I'll help. It is both. That is why the law refers to "public accommodation."

Thanks for that irrelevant point, but 'providing employment' is not a 'good' or a 'service'.

The point is that protecting employment from various forms of discrimination is a relatively new phenomenon.

Again, the topic has been discrimination of service and not employment.

[Danmark]

Thanks for that irrelevant point, but 'providing employment' is not a 'good' or a 'service'.

The point is that protecting employment from various forms of discrimination is a relatively new phenomenon.

Again, the topic has been discrimination of service and not employment.

Thanks for the irrelevant point. Discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation are closely related and fall under the same laws. The topic is Limits to religious liberty. It is not limited to a single aspect of religious intolerance that inspires discrimination. The relevance of the recency of protection is lost on me.

[Paprika]

Thanks for that irrelevant point, but 'providing employment' is not a 'good' or a 'service'.

The point is that protecting employment from various forms of discrimination is a relatively new phenomenon.

Again, the topic has been discrimination of service and not employment.

Thanks for the irrelevant point. Discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation are closely related and fall under the same laws. The topic is Limits to religious liberty.

It was at the very start. But the conversation you entered was about discrimination with regards to service.

It is not limited to a single aspect of religious intolerance that inspires discrimination. The relevance of the recency of protection is lost on me.

That's a point you made, not me. Are you're finding a claim you yourself made irrelevant?