Religious conscience and providing services

[KnowtheSilence]

Question: If it is a violation of religious freedom to require certain businesses (florists, bakers, DJ's, venue owners, etc.) to provide their services in support of a same-sex wedding when such unions violate the owner's religious conscience, is it not equally as great a violation if a business owner is required to provide services for interreligious or interracial weddings when they have a religious objection to those?

I've wondered this since I started hearing about bakers and florists getting fined or sued for not wanting to be a part of a same-sex wedding, and now that we're hearing about states trying to pass legislation that will prevent those penalties from being leveled against business owners in those situations. I understand that current laws would not make it possible for a business to refuse service if the reason has to do with the client's race or religion, but don't those laws violate religious liberty just as much as the laws that would require providing services to same-sex weddings?

If the answer is "yes," what, if anything, should be done about it?

 

[bhsmte]

Question: If it is a violation of religious freedom to require certain businesses (florists, bakers, DJ's, venue owners, etc.) to provide their services in support of a same-sex wedding when such unions violate the owner's religious conscience, is it not equally as great a violation if a business owner is required to provide services for interreligious or interracial weddings when they have a religious objection to those?

I've wondered this since I started hearing about bakers and florists getting fined or sued for not wanting to be a part of a same-sex wedding, and now that we're hearing about states trying to pass legislation that will prevent those penalties from being leveled against business owners in those situations. I understand that current laws would not make it possible for a business to refuse service if the reason has to do with the client's race or religion, but don't those laws violate religious liberty just as much as the laws that would require providing services to same-sex weddings?


If you open the can of worms for those who won businesses that serve the public and allow them to deny service based on religious beliefs, where do you draw the line.



If the answer is "yes," what, if anything, should be done about it?

I have stated the same many times on these boards.

Those who have denied service for gay marriages state it is against their religion and they don't want to promote sin. Ok, what is going to stop a business owner from refusing to serve; a mixed marriage couple, someone who is divorced and remarried, someone who is living with their significant other out of wedlock, people with different religious beliefs, etc. etc.

Where would it end and who would decide whether it was a legit religious belief they were basing the denial on?

 

[Grizzly]

To me, the real question is what kind of America do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a society where businesses can deny services to whomever they please based upon whatever the owner(s) believe? Or do we want to live in a society where free-trade is unrestricted and based solely on the value of the exchange of goods for service? I know where I land on this issue. I believe we would live in a dystopian nightmare should we all begin to only provide services to people that are like us.

 

[Marius27]

I have stated the same many times on these boards.

Those who have denied service for gay marriages state it is against their religion and they don't want to promote sin. Ok, what is going to stop a business owner from refusing to serve; a mixed marriage couple, someone who is divorced and remarried, someone who is living with their significant other out of wedlock, people with different religious beliefs, etc. etc.

Where would it end and who would decide whether it was a legit religious belief they were basing the denial on?

I have a feeling you won't hear much about those cases of discrimination since Fundamentalists seem to tolerate/endorse any "sin" except the "evil gays"!

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I have stated the same many times on these boards.

Those who have denied service for gay marriages state it is against their religion and they don't want to promote sin. Ok, what is going to stop a business owner from refusing to serve; a mixed marriage couple, someone who is divorced and remarried, someone who is living with their significant other out of wedlock, people with different religious beliefs, etc. etc.

Where would it end and who would decide whether it was a legit religious belief they were basing the denial on?

Understood and thank you for the reply.

I'm trying to keep this topic limited specifically to business providing services related to a wedding ceremony or celebration. If it branches out to discuss things like a restaurant being able to refuse to serve a cohabitating unmarried couple, the information I'm looking for would be too difficult to spot.

 

[bhsmte]

I have a feeling you won't hear much about those cases of discrimination since Fundamentalists seem to tolerate/endorse any "sin" except the "evil gays"!

I think that is kind of the point, many Christians cherry pick what they want to hang their hat on.

I would love to see a muslim business owner refusing to serve a Christian, because they claim in goes against their religious beliefs.

 

[Desk trauma]

If your religion prevents you from offering your services to a section of the public then being open to the public is a very poor choice.

 

[Marius27]

I think that is kind of the point, many Christians cherry pick what they want to hang their hat on.

I would love to see a muslim business owner refusing to serve a Christian, because they claim in goes against their religious beliefs.

They would cry persecution complex and claim everyone hates Christianity, because they're in allegiance with Satan.

 

[Desk trauma]

They would cry persecution complex and claim everyone hates Christianity, because they're in allegiance with Satan.

I suspect that they would also do a 180 on the issue suing those who disregard non-discrimination legislation.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

To me, the real question is what kind of America do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a society where businesses can deny services to whomever they please based upon whatever the owner(s) believe? Or do we want to live in a society where free-trade is unrestricted and based solely on the value of the exchange of goods for service? I know where I land on this issue. I believe we would live in a dystopian nightmare should we all begin to only provide services to people that are like us.

That is part of the question, but I do see the need for protection of religious liberty as well. I think it would be wrong for a Christian minister who thinks same-sex relationships are sinful to be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding, for instance. But the line should be drawn somewhere, and I'm trying to see where other people think it is.

 

[Desk trauma]

I would love to see a muslim business owner refusing to serve a Christian, because they claim in goes against their religious beliefs.

I think a more apt comparison would be a catholic refusing to cater any wedding not sanctioned by their church.

 

[Marius27]

That is part of the question, but I do see the need for protection of religious liberty as well. I think it would be wrong for a Christian minister who thinks same-sex relationships are sinful to be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding, for instance. But the line should be drawn somewhere, and I'm trying to see where other people think it is.

Churches have never been forced to marry anyone they don't want to in this country. They can reject black marriages, interracial, inter-religious, fat people, etc.

Businesses and government services are a different entity.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Churches have never been forced to marry anyone they don't want to in this country. They can reject black marriages, interracial, inter-religious, fat people, etc.

Businesses are a different entity.

I know. The question is, should businesses get the same ability, and should they be limited in what criteria they use?

 

[Desk trauma]

That is part of the question, but I do see the need for protection of religious liberty as well. I think it would be wrong for a Christian minister who thinks same-sex relationships are sinful to be forced to officiate a same-sex wedding, for instance.

Unless this theoretical minister offers his services to officiate marriages to the general public he need not worry. Catholic Priests are not forced to preform remarriages and ministers who do not agree with same sex unions need not fear being forced to preform them.

 

[Marius27]

I know. The question is, should businesses get the same ability, and should they be limited in what criteria they use?

Since unlike Churches, businesses are bound by secular law and involve public transactions, I would say no.

 

[Desk trauma]

The question is, should businesses get the same ability, and should they be limited in what criteria they use?

Despite my libertarian leanings I would say that businesses who are open to the public should not be allowed to refuse to serve those who need their services.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The real question is, does any business have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason (excluding the immediate need of medical services).

 

[mickey30981]

This question presents a false dichotomy. Religious liberty as given to us by God and defined in the Constitution has NEVER said ANY religious activity is permitted. I cannot sacrifice babies in my pagan ritual! The US Constitution has been clearly defined by the Supreme Courts of the United States to restrict the free exercise of religion to only the very select cases in which there is a VERY significant state interest , such as public safety and egregious cases of discrimination, such as discrimination by race or gender. While some may wish to argue that discrimination based on sexual orientation is such an egregious discrimination, the Court has yet make that determination. It is NOT a simple case. For one, NO one is refusing to provide service to homosexuals per se. A baker provides bakery items to any individual homosexual. I have not heard of ANY cases of a baker or photographer refusing service solely because a person is a homosexual. They have refused service NOT because of ones sexual orientation but because of the event they did not believe they could participate in. By the same token if a "Germans for Hitler" member requested services from a photographer for their upcoming "Deport Jews" rally, would the photographer be racist if he refused to provide this service. NO, of course not! The Christian photographer would argue it is against his faith to support such an effort. He is NOT discriminating based on individuals race or sexual orientation. He is discriminating against an event he considers an act against his faith. This is a huge distinction. If you are a homosexual, would refuse service to a member of Evangelicals Against Homosexuality committee? Probably not. How would you feel if you had to make banners for their upcoming rally that read " Homosexuality is Evil, Make Sodomy a Crime"? If you refused, one could argue you are discriminating based on their religion. "Oh but, homosexuality isnt a choice, religion is", you might argue. Nevertheless, religion is a protected class and the free exercise of religion IS protected by the Constitution.

Before one starts squawking about how ones religion cannot allow them to discriminate against anything they want, realize NO one is saying they can. But the state has to present a VERY high standard to demonstrate the states interest in restricting the free exercise of religion granted in the Constitution. And showing the damages of not being able to get a particular photographer or a wedding cake for a gay "marriage" is really a low, low standard of evidence. Of course I realize the real damage is allowing discrimination to exist in this country. But the courts will have to determine whether this is legal or illegal discrimination. I would think any homosexual would want to think much more carefully about this issue before they are forced to print a banner that reads "Sodomy is Evil, Deport Homosexuals", at least while this country still allows Free Speech.

 

[mickey30981]

And, by the way, businesses are allowed to refuse service all the time! The TV networks have refused to take public ads that they found too controversial, usually religious messages, for the Super Bowl and other sporting and public events. Businesses CAN and do have the right to refuse business from nearly anyone! They just cannot illegally discriminate.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

This question presents a false dichotomy.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

For one, NO one is refusing to provide service to homosexuals per se. A baker provides bakery items to any individual homosexual. I have not heard of ANY cases of a baker or photographer refusing service solely because a person is a homosexual. They have refused service NOT because of ones sexual orientation but because of the event they did not believe they could participate in.

Right, and I'm trying to keep this focus just on providing services to the wedding. I'm not aware of any incidents like a baker refusing to serve a single homosexual, either, but even if that was going on it's not what I'm trying to talk about here.

But the state has to present a VERY high standard to demonstrate the states interest in restricting the free exercise of religion granted in the Constitution. And showing the damages of not being able to get a particular photographer or a wedding cake for a gay "marriage" is really a low, low standard of evidence.

Would it be any lower if an interracial couple couldn't get a particular photographer or baker for their wedding.

I appreciate your input, but I didn't see a clear answer to the question in the OP. Rephrasing it a bit, is it okay to make a photographer, baker, etc. provide services to an interracial or interreligious wedding despite their religious objections to such unions while allowing them to opt out of same-sex weddings because of their religious objections?