Religious freedom and discrimination.

I havent commented here in months (since last year), so just gonna say a quick welcome back.

The reason I (and many others-including people I know who support gay marriage) support Indiana's latest "infamous" law is because nobody should be forced or even legally required to do things that go against their religion. Nobody supports the general concept of discrimination-it is wrong to not give somebody service or treat them differently just because they are different or of a certain group.

I understand the idea of religious people discriminating upsets people. While there's so question some people in those situations have sued because they had a legal excuse to make money, I understand many of the gay couples who sued did so because they were geniunly upset-which is a valid arguement against the Indiana law and similar ideas. Not valid in the sense I agree with it, but valid in the sense the idea makes sense and I respect it, despite my disagreement.

Anyway, back to the main point I'm trying to make.

The religious individuals themselves in these "discrimination" circumstances have no issue with providing any service to gay people just because of their lifestyle, like baked goods, or photography. Jack Phillips in Colorado said the concept of selling his goods/services to gay customers wasnt something that he was against-it only bothered him to make cakes for gay weddings-because he feel he would be participating in an event he viewed as sinful. That is what I am emphasizing here.

What religious people do by denying services to gay couples in certain situations is a unique circumstance. They have no problem giving services to any group, even including gays, but their only issue is when the service means they must participate in celebrations of what they view as sinful.

Their heart and actions are not the typical person who discriminates-it's a unique circumstance. It's not discrimination in the "traditional" sense.

I did say earlier I am against not give somebody service or treat them differently just because of a group they belong to, but Christian buisnessowners arent doing what they do just because their customers are gay. It has nothing to do with that itself. It only has to do with not doing things that go against their faith.

Religious exemptions for certain services isnt a crazy idea, especially taking the concept of religious freedom into consideraton.

Religious freedom allows people to do many things not otherwise allowed-like kids parents refusing to give them vaccines. Normally CPS would take them away (at least temporarily), but religious exceptions allow them to choose to not get vaccinated.

 

It is discrimination in the typical sense, discrimination is discrimination reguardless of the reason. AA is discrimination, quotas are discrimination, profiling is discrimination, and not baking a cake for customer a while providing the same service to customer b is discrimination. That isn't to say it isn't needed, warranted, or legal.

I completely agree that small business, offering a non essential service that would not put a significant burden on the individual should be allowed to discriminate for any reason they should choose; religious people should not have more or less rights than everyone else.

 

I made another post in this section that you may agree with.

It's very hard to speak about this in generalities because the devil is in the detail, so to speak. The issue is filled with nuance, and I would agree that the compromises that are in place are on occasion too extensive, or not extensive enough, depending on the circumstance. The compromises don't always make everyone happy, hence where the problems arise.

The details probably differ from place to place, but I think the compromise in place basically requires "identical products". A bakery may be required to bake a generic wedding cake, but they might not be required to customize it with messages that they disagree with. This nuance was made manifest in a recent case in Colorado where a bakery declined to bake a cake for someone who asked for "anti-homosexual" quotes from the bible to be put on to a cake, which the bakery declined to do. They were sued, and cleared. A generic cake is protected, but businesses can deny personalized messages that they find objectionable. I assume that the same would be for a gay couple asking for a wedding cake. An identical cake as any other they might make is required, but they don't have to personalize it with objectionable messages.

That's kinda where the compromise is at. Should this line be moved? Should no service be required at all for something you disagree with, even if the product itself is identical? Does it depend on how "essential" the service is? like emergency medical treatment? Can an ER doctor decline to deliver a baby to a lesbian couple, if a bakery can deny that same couple a cake for their baby shower? The nuances can get complicated, which is why I believe that we've "settled" on the current compromise, which naturally will make people unhappy.

If you were to ask my opinion, I would be fine if a small bakery denied services to anybody for any reason. The only time I could possibly make a case for government involvement is in a case where "substantial harm" would be caused by denying service. When there are plenty of alternatives, there is no harm. I think this would be a more fair compromise... but it is also much more vague. Administering the current compromise is much more straight forward, as opposed to having to evaluate "substantial harm" on a case-by-case basis. Basically, I just think we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I understand both sides of the argument, I'm just pressed to imagine a solution that would be both practical and make everyone happy.

 

A business could refuse to participate in a gay wedding but it would amount to a civil rights violation if a coffee shop or restaurant refuses to serve gay customers and asks them to leave on religious grounds just because gays make other customers uncomfortable. But a Christian or Muslim school should be able to refuse to enrol gay students and it could be wrong to impose gay culture on explicitly Christian businesses like Memories Pizza, which may curtail Christian business owners' religious freedom.

 

That is an interesting argument but does not represent the argument of all Christians. What about Christians who would discriminate and deny any service for gays based upon their interpretation of their religion? Is that covered by the 1st Amendment? Where is the line in the sand? What the woman at the bakery said "I am not discriminating but I will not sell a cake to gays" (paraphrasing) is in my view oxymoronic.

The 1st Amendment protects freedom religion and a business is not a Church thus it is subject to the laws of the State.

By the way OP, thanks for making a well thought out argument devoid of the usual hyperbole that normally accompanies posts on this controversial subject.

 

I don't believe this is accurate. There are countless religious practices that are indirectly or directly prohibited or restricted by law and countless things which could be or become religious practice that would be. The idea that anything that is deemed religious is automatically above the law is legally, practically and morally wrong. Clearly there is a valid question of religious freedoms but this exists alongside a whole load of other factors (not least other personal freedoms, even contradictory religious ones) and should be balanced against them.

Of course they do. There are plenty of people who honestly believe some groups of people should be treated differently to others. If such people didn't exist, we wouldn't have any anti-discrimination laws in the first place.

The idea of anyone discriminating upsets many people. The idea of excusing discrimination on religious grounds upsets many people further, including many religious people.

I think "no issue" is open to question. While some people do have a clear line regarding same-sex marriage alone (not that this stops it being discriminatory), there clearly are people who hold wider objections to homosexuality in general who would favour further discriminatory treatment if they thought they could get away with it. Also, while "slippery slope" arguments are generally flawed, they're no more flawed in either direction.

It might not seem a crazy idea here, in relation to (somewhat) mainstream Christian views on gay marriage but there is no moral or logical basis to limit it to that.

 

Religious freedom applies to people, not businesses. If you found a business, you're creating a separate entity from yourself that advertises itself as open to the public. If you don't like dealing with people that aren't identical to you, don't found a business.

 

If the product is identical, service should be rendered, absent the customer's inability to complete the transaction or any factor that threatens the ability to conduct business.

No to all.

That would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, burdening those targeted for undue discrimination with having to constantly sue to enforce their rights and show "substantial harm", relying on the courts.

As someone originally from a rural area, I find "plenty of alternatives" to be a rather bogus argument. I'll address the 'harm' a bit later in this post.

And thus the problem. Vagueness in the law isn't completely avoidable, but the more vague the law is, the more difficult it becomes to administer, the more that vagueness will be exploited by those seeking to discriminate, and the more harm that will come to those targeted.

Exactly.

It's not the purpose of the law to make everyone happy. The purpose of the law, at it's core, is to balance and protect people's rights.

Now, about 'harm': The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to prevent harm before the fact; not only to individuals, but to the peaceful cooperation between them necessary for a stable society. Which is more burdensome - having to prove 'substantial harm' every time it happens? Or having to provide identical services? It's pretty clear to me that the 'harm' in the latter situation is minimal, if it can be shown to exist at all. A claim of harm is not the same thing as proving that harm. Having to provide identical services doesn't require a person to worship or believe differently. Unless the person is required to witness or actively participate in a religious ceremony, I don't see any infringement of their religious freedoms. What I see is a made-up claim, trying to stretch the protection of religious freedoms in an attempt to turn it into a shield protecting the desire to harm by practicing undue discrimination.

Once the ownership of goods is transferred through a sale, how those goods will be used is no business of the person selling it. If you don't have ownership, then you aren't 'participating'. So the claim that making a cake is somehow participating should be given no credence. I also fail to see any real burden or harm when one's desire to prevent a particular usage one finds disagreeable is not fulfilled. It's likewise telling that the target is same-sex couples and their marriages, when business owners are perfectly happy to sell goods for other uses and to other groups that one could reasonably expect them to find similarly disagreeable, based on their alleged religious beliefs.

I have no problem with recognizing the free speech claim that someone shouldn't be forced to produce goods bearing a written message or depiction that would amount to compelling their speech against their will. Perfectly happy to exempt them from that. But this claim that a person is harmed, unduly burdened, or that their religious freedoms are infringed by having to provide identical goods for a same-sex couple's wedding, characterizing such as 'participation' in the event, seems completely bogus to me.

 

Like what? Human sacrifice is obviously banned, but you cant compare that to refuse to baking a cake. I'm talking about religious freedom to not do something you find against our beliefs, not the " religious freedom" of some psycho like Jim Jones to force everyone to drink poisoned kool aid.

 

Fear of discrimination is not a valid reason to discriminate.

 

Such comparisons are irrelevant because you're arguing for any religious freedom to be unconditionally protected. Extreme examples support my point. You can certainly make an argument for religious beliefs to be taken in to account but you can't establish a principle that any religious freedom automatically trumps any general law.

For example, I recall a story from some time ago where a driver claimed that God would protect him and the law requiring him to have insurance was an insult to his faith. I'm pretty sure he lost and rightly so (insurance covers damage to other vehicles you cause, not just your own). By your argument, he and any other religious person would be free to make the same claim.

 

No, I'm not, I'm talking only in the context of not giving a service that violates religious conviction. I'm talking about a set of specific circumstances, not a general law.

 

Then make the justification for that exemption in the law, bearing in mind that the law is not obligated to make anyone happy or give preference to their religious beliefs over the rights and beliefs of others.

 

If it's against your beliefs to bake a cake, Don't be a baker.

 

If baking a cake violates your religious convictions, you ought not be a baker. I don't believe the people that ordered the infamous cake asked that orphan blood be one if the ingredients. Nor do I believe it was required that the baker sacrifice a goat to Odin or Baal.

So what convictions were violated?

 

Would you force a Jew to cook pork for you? no. its the same thing im triyng to say in the op.

 

It isn't. A baker who bakes cakes is not being asked for something they don't already normally offer.

 

this particular point seems debatable to me. I'd say in most business transactions, people are generally ignorant as to the purpose that the product is used... but that's not to say that I wouldn't understand someone objecting to a particular use if they happened to know. Take pharmaceutical companies that are refusing to sell drugs to the state that will ultimately be used to lethally inject death row inmates. They're allowed to deny to sell their product to the state for moral reasons. I might not particularly like selling a cake to a group that plans to use it at an event that promotes pedophilia or rape. Should I be required to do so? Maybe... but if I am required to do so, I would argue that it is only the result of an imprecise compromise set in place for pragmatic reasons, rather than it being right or appropriate to do so in principal. The only valid reason I can imagine for the requirement for me to sell such a cake is because I'm "caught up" in a much larger issue of protecting people who don't deserve to be discriminated against from discrimination, which is a compromise I would be willing to make. This, however, doesn't preclude the discussion of the merits of the compromise or possible alternative solutions.

And this, I would agree, is a very valid point. While the current compromise is not perfect, the down-fall of it is minor... thus the need for an alternative is minimal. Still, that's a subjective opinion I suppose. If I believed that my God opposed something, I personally can't imagine why God would object less to my supporting it with an identical product than a more personalized one... That seem ludicrous to me. Putting that aside, an overriding need for equitable treatment still convinces me the compromise is reasonable. If you can't compromise for religious reasons, then pick a different business.

basically in agreement then, eh

Hmmm, depends on the case I would imagine. The pizzeria that recently made the news said they would not "cater" a wedding. This sounds a bit different than simply providing pizza, as opposed to having to attend and serve at the wedding itself. The same can be said for photographers that have been involved in lawsuits. But I would agree, if there are cases where participation is minimal and the product is identical, they should get over it. People will still pounce on it anyway, I'm sure.

 

Kinda a bad example... presumably this Jew doesn't cook pork for anybody, so he's not discriminating agaisnt anybody when he declines to cook pork. The issue here is an identical product that is already provided to others, so it's not a matter of what the Jew is making or doing, it's who (or what) he is doing it for. I agree with you in principal, I just think we've settled on a more pragmatic solution that attempts to burden all sides as little as possible. Identical products should be provided to the general public, but you shouldn't be required to write messages or otherwise participate more than necessary. This compromise seems reasonable to me.

 

Your OP started on the principle that "nobody should be forced or even legally required to do things that go against their religion". That's pretty generic. You can't only focus on the issue of Christian bakers providing cakes for same-sex weddings but ignore all the other consequences and concepts the wider principle introduces. If you're only seeking exemptions for specific people in specific circumstances, you can't use generic religious freedom as a basis (certainly not on its own).

 

Eh, people make generic claims all the time. Sometimes all that there is are generic principals which have to be compromised against each other. I suppose that means that there is a greater principal that regulates the compromise.... still, I wouldn't begrudge someone their lower principals.

 

`
1) The vast majority of all businesses owned by Christians do not discriminate against anyone, including homosexuals. This is important to remember because people are using a phrase called "Christian bakers" as if they advertise themselves as such and/or belong to some vast clandestine network aligning themselves with the politically involved religious right, which is not the case. Anyone who claims to speak for this mythical business group is talking fantasy.

2) I'm kind of ambivalent about this part. If a person has a sincere religious belief that to serve homosexuals in any capacity is contrary to their faith and will cause them spiritual harm, then they may discriminate but only after sufficient scrutiny of the beliefs is applied. Unfortunately, this opens the door for the formation of religions that discriminate for other reasons such as race, gender, national origin, other creeds (such as Catholics and Muslims) age, etc. This is further complicated by the fact that in my opinion, any so-called Christian sect that teaches that to even serve a homosexual in a business manner, will harm their soul and/or condemn them to hell, is not a Christian religion.

3) I've noticed here, and on other forms, there is a plethora of Christian or right-winger who are self-proclaimed experts at the constitution. They seem to be laboring under the false assumption that God has given them miraculous insight into the minds and souls of the framers of the Constitution and our founding fathers. So they claim their interpretation of the Constitution, the one that makes the U.S. a Christian nation and therefore gives them the right not only to discriminate against gays but to hate them, is the correct interpretation. When such an onerous belief like that reaches a level of blind faith, you cannot argue with them. I've tried and failed many times. I just don't bother anymore. It's like

I believe in the freedom of worship without government intervention. I do not believe that any Christian has the special right to publicly discriminate.
`

 

Agreed. Religious belief is the burden of the person who holds those beliefs. They shouldn't be used as an excuse to create a burden to members of the general public that one has invited to do business.

Well, here's the thing about that (and a point I think I raised earlier?): Are they actually attending the wedding itself, thereby being forced to witness participate in the rites that join a couple in marriage? I would exempt them from that, and I'm not convinced that they're being required to attend anyway.

What they're objecting to then, is having to provide service to an event after the wedding rites. I'm not seeing how that is unduly burdensome or an infringement of their rights. I'm waiting for someone to provide me a well-reasoned and persuasive argument that it is.

Photographers may be a different case. I've personally never seen a photographer taking pictures during the ceremony. That strikes me as tacky and distracting - I certainly wouldn't want that going on during my wedding. What I have seen is them taking pictures before or after, with the couple sometimes posing in ways that simulate the things that take place during those rites. But I've also been told by someone here that as a photographer, they have been expected to provide services during the actual wedding rites. I have to take them at their word, and I think they should be exempted in that case.

 

Why do they want to discriminate against one faction of the population. Isn't there other people who commit a sin, according to their religion, they should not serve because it goes against their "belief?"
Those living in "sin" by living together before married, having sex before they are married, or if they are divorced and re-marrying.
Makes one wonder, why just this section of people.

 

When Christians are eventually discriminated against in the most ugly ways, just watch some things 'change'.

It's only a matter of time.