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?

[KenRU]

Still unanswered: Do you agree that legally prohibiting SSM causes harm to the individuals being denied this opportunity?

The following is neither varied nor vague and has been discussed in this thread multiple times:

Perhaps, but you need to elaborate (as you now have) instead of merely mentioning "right to marry".

Still unanswered: Do you agree that legally prohibiting SSM causes harm to the individuals being denied this opportunity?

I do not.

Just so I can understand more fully, if the situation were reversed, do you believe it would cause harm if heterosexual couples were prevented from being able to marry?

Still unanswered: Do you agree that denying people services based upon who they are marrying causes harm to the people being denied services?

I do not.

Same logic here, if reversed, would it cause harm?

Presented in this thread is the very real concern that in highly religious parts of the country people will not have access to services based entirely upon who they marry. That is a dilemma and a legitimate concern. How do you address this?

If it is merely cakes for the wedding, I hardly see how it is a great concern. As to denial of all services altogether, I have already asked the following question:

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

History is replete with examples. Womens right to vote for one. There is biblical support to make such a claim and consequently, all women regardless of religion, could not vote.

Inter-racial marriages were once illegal in many states.

These are just some examples of wide ranging discrimination that did occur when a predominant religion/morality ruled.

[Paprika]

Just so I can understand more fully, if the situation were reversed, do you believe it would cause harm if heterosexual couples were prevented from being able to marry?

As is clear, all couples, or thruples or whatever can undergo whatever private ceremonies they wish. The question is whether the government should recognise them. So no, there is no harm if the government doesn't recognise heterosexual couples so long as they are allowed to carry out their own private ceremonies.

Still unanswered: Do you agree that denying people services based upon who they are marrying causes harm to the people being denied services?

I do not.

Same logic here, if reversed, would it cause harm?

I do not.

/viewtopic.php?p=736569#736569]Paprika[/url]"]

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

[/quote]
History is replete with examples. Womens right to vote for one. There is biblical support to make such a claim and consequently, all women regardless of religion, could not vote.

Inter-racial marriages were once illegal in many states.

These are just some examples of wide ranging discrimination that did occur when a predominant religion/morality ruled.[/quote]
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear: what reason is there to think it likely that such wide-ranging discrimination against homosexuals will occur?

[KenRU]

Just so I can understand more fully, if the situation were reversed, do you believe it would cause harm if heterosexual couples were prevented from being able to marry?

As is clear, all couples, or thruples or whatever can undergo whatever private ceremonies they wish. The question is whether the government should recognise them. So no, there is no harm if the government doesn't recognise heterosexual couples so long as they are allowed to carry out their own private ceremonies.

Still unanswered: Do you agree that denying people services based upon who they are marrying causes harm to the people being denied services?

I do not.

Same logic here, if reversed, would it cause harm?

I do not.

Thank you for answering my questions. I better understand your position now.

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

History is replete with examples. Womens right to vote for one. There is biblical support to make such a claim and consequently, all women regardless of religion, could not vote.

Inter-racial marriages were once illegal in many states.

These are just some examples of wide ranging discrimination that did occur when a predominant religion/morality ruled.

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

Because that is the message espoused by the bible?

[enviousintheeverafter]

The religious demographics are granted as fact. Yet the inference remains unjustified.

The inference is obviously justified; evidently you don't have any actual rebuttal so you're just going with "nuh-uh!".

[Paprika]

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

Because that is the message espoused by the bible?[/quote]
Please provide support for that statement.

[Paprika]

The religious demographics are granted as fact. Yet the inference remains unjustified.

The inference is obviously justified; evidently you don't have any actual rebuttal so you're just going with "nuh-uh!".

Hardly, trying to go from 'there are a lot of evangelical protestants there/evangelical protestants dominate there' to 'therefore there will be wide-ranging discrimination against gays in those places' leaves much to be demonstrated.

It's your claim, so you need to provide evidence for it.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Hardly, trying to go from 'there are a lot of evangelical protestants there/evangelical protestants dominate there' to 'therefore there will be wide-ranging discrimination against gays in those places' leaves much to be demonstrated.

You're the one who introduced this phrase "wide-ranging discrimination"- the claim was that, contrary to the frequent suggestion that gays just "go find somewhere else to shop", there could, and likely would, be cases where this wasn't feasible. And no, there isn't anything left to be demonstrated here- given the religious demographics of the US, the level of support for/opposition to SSM among Christians, and the patent fact that many places don't have multiple businesses offering the same products/services, it is quite probable that there will be cases where gays cannot simply find somewhere else to shop.

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.

[Paprika]

Hardly, trying to go from 'there are a lot of evangelical protestants there/evangelical protestants dominate there' to 'therefore there will be wide-ranging discrimination against gays in those places' leaves much to be demonstrated.

You're the one who introduced this phrase "wide-ranging discrimination"- the claim was that, contrary to the frequent suggestion that gays just "go find somewhere else to shop", there could, and likely would, be cases where this wasn't feasible. And no, there isn't anything left to be demonstrated here- given the religious demographics of the US, the level of support for/opposition to SSM among Christians, and the patent fact that many places don't have multiple businesses offering the same products/services, it is quite probable that there will be cases where gays cannot simply find somewhere else to shop.

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.

Hardly. We've only seen refusal to provide a narrow range of services all relating to a specific event - homosexual marriage - by a small number of Christians. To extrapolate that claim that it is likely that there will be a wide-ranging discrimination (my term, but you also evoke the concept) by many Christians to a degree that will cause harm is something that has yet to be demonstrated.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Hardly. We've only seen refusal to provide a narrow range of services all relating to a specific event - homosexual marriage - by a small number of Christians. To extrapolate that claim that it is likely that there will be a wide-ranging discrimination (my term, but you also evoke the concept) by many Christians to a degree that will cause harm is something that has yet to be demonstrated.

Maybe, but that "there will be a wide-ranging discrimination by many Christians to a degree that will cause harm" is not something I've said here. And I think I've been pretty clear and explicit about what I am claiming- that its probable that gays will not always be able to simply find somewhere else to receive the same product/service (as you, and many others, have suggested they do). But if your disagreement is limited to a strawman and not my actual claim, I suppose there's nothing more to be said.

[Paprika]

Hardly. We've only seen refusal to provide a narrow range of services all relating to a specific event - homosexual marriage - by a small number of Christians. To extrapolate that claim that it is likely that there will be a wide-ranging discrimination (my term, but you also evoke the concept) by many Christians to a degree that will cause harm is something that has yet to be demonstrated.

Maybe, but that "there will be a wide-ranging discrimination by many Christians to a degree that will cause harm" is not something I've said here.

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

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

I believe that was already covered (snip)

But if your disagreement is limited to a strawman and not my actual claim, I suppose there's nothing more to be said.

I refer you to your own post. If you wish not to acknowledge it, there's little that can be done.