Religious conscience and providing services

~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up and it is quite possible it will go through a further cleaning. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up.

STOP with the Flaming!!!! You should be addressing the context of the post NOT the poster. If this continues the thread will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with a staff action.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Grizzly said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you present a false dichotomy here.

In theory we could end up in a situation where we only provide services to people who are like us, but in practise I suspect the majority of businesses are more interested in providing services for money than in passing endless moral judgments on their customers.

It's obviously fairly visible when a couple seeking to marry are both of the same sex so anyone who takes objection to gay marriage can easily spot which couples they would rather not do business with. One has to wonder whether the people who are so concerned about supplying anything to a gay wedding would be equally concerned about providing services to the marriage of a couple who cohabited before marriage, who were serial adulterers etc. One has to wonder whether a cab driver would ever expect a potential fare to fill in a form detailing their lifestyle so they can be sure never to pollute their cab by carrying someone with a particular form of sinfulness.

Ultimately it comes back to looking for a fair balance. Free trade is free trade, and if the government demands that I trade with someone the trade isn't free any more. Frankly I'd rather people had the freedom to say "Thanks, but I don't want to do business with you." than ended up having to kludge around the issue pretending to have double-booked, or having multiple price lists to deter undesirable clients, or whatever other subterfuge they employed.

We don't have issues with a nightclub imposing a dress code, and refusing to do business with people based on something as arbitrary as the fact they are wearing sneakers rather than shoes. Why, then, can we not extend similar freedoms to other businesses?

contango said:

It's obviously fairly visible when a couple seeking to marry are both of the same sex

Click to expand...

Not always. Imagine a conservative Christian's surprise when he or she delivers the cake and someone mentions that one of the spouses is intersex or transgender!

Cearbhall said:

Not always. Imagine a conservative Christian's surprise when he or she delivers the cake and someone mentions that one of the spouses is intersex or transgender!

Click to expand...

OK, fair point.

I can't say I know very many gay couples but the few I do know are very visibly of the same sex.

twob4me said:

This thread has gone through a clean up and it is quite possible it will go through a further cleaning. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up.

STOP with the Flaming!!!! You should be addressing the context of the post NOT the poster. If this continues the thread will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with a staff action.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to see why mods hate threads on abortion and same sex relationships.

Ishraqiyun said:

It would be nice that at least on a Christian message board Christians would take the lead in standing up for equality and opposing homophobia but we seem to be remiss in our duties on that front so I don't mind the non-Christians joining in the discussion and bringing important questions up like this.

Click to expand...

Equality is good, it's just not good when some are more equal than others.

If it's important for you that Christians be the ones saying it (maybe the views and evidence provided by non Christians don't count for some strange reason?) I'll add my Christian voice in support of gay rights. A persons religious liberties do NOT allow them to violate the rights of other people. An American is percectly free to believe that interracial marriages or gay marriages are not legitimate, that Thor wants us to kill our Christian neighbors, that Allah wants us to kill all infidels, that Jesus doesn't want us to pay taxes, etc... but you are not allowed to carry through with the actual behavior such beliefs might demand. In a civilized land we don't allow blatent discrimnation of perseucted minorities just because an individual has a religious excuse.

Click to expand...

The eternal question is where one person's rights start and the next person's rights stop.

If we want to get into endless discussion on rights, should a pork butcher be legally required to hire a Muslim even if that Muslim flatly refuses to handle pork? Should a liquor store be obligated to hire a Christian who believes so strongly in temperance that they refuse to actually do any work for the liquor store?

The issue involves discrimination against minorities. In both cases the minority communities have historically suffered abuse and discrimination for being different. Neither community asked to be of a certain race or to be gay either**. To say that it's not an apt connection because race isn't sexual identity is to miss the point. No one claimed they were the same thing.

Click to expand...

People may or may not choose to be gay. Just by looking at someone you'd struggle to tell if they were gay or not. People choose what courses of action they take, so declining to provide services to a gay wedding relates to a choice that couple made rather than something they are.

Even if we were to see a business declining to serve gay customers (which seems unlikely, but you never know), we still have the question of where the customer's rights stop and the business's rights start.

Flame fest? You are the one calling gay people names like sodomite.

Click to expand...

In fairness "sodomite" does imply a certain level of sexual activity, as opposed to desire in and of itself.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

On the contrary, the right to private property (which includes the right to exclude others) is an essential feature of civilization.

Click to expand...

Public businesses aren't the same as private property. Private businesses (an amateur photographer, for example) are private property. If you want to be recognized by the government as a business, then you're going to have to actually serve the public.

Cearbhall said:

Public businesses aren't the same as private property. Private businesses (an amateur photographer, for example) are private property. If you want to be recognized by the government as a business, then you're going to have to actually serve the public.

Click to expand...

As was discussed a wedding photograher who doesn't want to shoot gay weddings could easy cater to their business to churches that dont' perform gay weddings.

Once you open your doors to the public you don't get to pick who sits at your lunch counter.

contango said:

If we want to get into endless discussion on rights, should a pork butcher be legally required to hire a Muslim even if that Muslim flatly refuses to handle pork? Should a liquor store be obligated to hire a Christian who believes so strongly in temperance that they refuse to actually do any work for the liquor store?

Click to expand...

That's completely different. You're talking about hiring, not serving. If your employee isn't doing his or her job, you have the right to fire that person.

contango said:

People may or may not choose to be gay. Just by looking at someone you'd struggle to tell if they were gay or not.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, seeing as it's an attraction and not a gender.

contango said:

People choose what courses of action they take, so declining to provide services to a gay wedding relates to a choice that couple made rather than something they are.

Click to expand...

What does it matter? Their choice to get married is none of your concern.

contango said:

Even if we were to see a business declining to serve gay customers (which seems unlikely, but you never know), we still have the question of where the customer's rights stop and the business's rights start.

Click to expand...

It happens often, which is why this is an issue right now, and that line was drawn decades ago. I have no idea why some conservatives have gotten it into their heads that orientation is a whole different ballpark when it comes to discrimination.

<staff edit>

Sacred prostitution is a thing. It still exists and is a valid religious practice. A local temple got raided as a den of prostitution a couple years ago.

Phoenix Goddess Temple Raided as Alleged Brothel - ABC News

I've reference it a few times in the context of first amendment protections and the question "Does religious belief or practice justify the commission of a crime?"

The interesting response has been, in a nutshell "That religion's crime should not be protected, but my religion's crime should be protected." That's entirely hypocritical and selfish to believe that your religion justifies crimes but that the crimes you disagree with should not be justified by religion. Either both should be protected, or both should be prosecuted.

I find it equally telling that the same people that are terribly interested in the religious freedoms of Arizona businesses aren't campaigning for the religious freedoms of the members of the Phoenix Goddess Temple. They only care for their own religion's protections from criminal prosecution.

Nope. Sodomite is as sodomite does.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about limiting the use of the term for the straight person who has that form of intercourse with his wife (or with a man in prison) but rather for ALL straight people including those who don't. You are labeling gay people in general sodomites. It would be offensive to label "straight people" (in general / all of them ) sodomites as if the two terms are synonymous. Just as straight =/= sodomite neither does gay =/= sodomite. So even if you choose to use that word under the pretext that it's not really insulting (ignoring the fact that gay people tend to find it extremely insulting**) you are still wrongly conflating terms.

** Heck, even most non gay people outside the far right Fundamentalist Christian millue would admit that it's a flame, name calling, insulting, etc to label the "the gays" sodomites. Just because you personally aren't insulted or you think the word didn't used to imply insult or name calling back in the day doesn't mean you can legitimately ignore everyone elses feelings on the matter.

True, but it was always seen as crude and vulgar word, even in the antebellum South.

Click to expand...

I don't know if labeling an individual a sodomite was considered an attack or offensive hundreds of years ago but it's currently considered very offensive and an example of flaming now. The term Negro wasn't considered offensive at first but times change. Generally Black people don't like it white people call them negros. Same thing with calling homosexuals ( many of whom have never even had intercourse of that variety) a sodomite. This is why people who want to avoid name calling and insults try to use the terms that these minority groups self identify with. You don't see, for example, polite Roman Catholics calling Protestants heretical antichrists or whatnot when they are talking to one another. They call them Lutherans.

It was the standard term for men who have sex with other men have sex with other men from the Middle Ages until the nineteenth century.

Click to expand...

Key word is "was". This isn't the middle ages or the nineteenth century. Now it's considered highly offensive call all the gay people "sodomites". Even if it wasn't offensive it still wouldn't apply to women or men who don't have anal intercourse too so why are using it that way? Probably to flame and be insulting right? To get a rise out of people? Then in the same post you complain about people flaming

Of course the very use of word Sodomite to label "gay people" was itself due to a misunderstanding of the sin of Sodom in the Old Testament. The fact that this misunderstanding has been pointed out and people still use the term makes it even more insulting.

KnowtheSilence said:

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?

Click to expand...

It is my comprehension that, if one manages a business incorporated, titled, or licensed under state bylaws, then the business must operate according to the rules established by the state. By incorporating or obtaining a license or title from the state, one affirms that that the business is owned by the state, and you are managing it by contract according to their rules (whatever they may be). In the same way, if a business engages in commerce using FRNs, then the business must operate according to the rules established by the creator of FRNs (Fed. Resv. & IRS). These businesses are operating under private law (private contracts & voluntary servitude), which exists outside of the Constitution for the Republic. They have no reasonable expectation of "religious rights", but only "religious privileges".

On the other hand, if a man or woman operates in the Republic by not incorporating, not accepting their titles of nobility, nor accepts their licenses, and accepts only gold and silver coins (non-private money) as tender in payment of debt, then one operates in the Republic and is perceived to possess all the rights recognized under the Constitution for the Republic, including religious rights.

KnowtheSilence said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the line should be drawn wherever a group of people are socially incapacitated by such discrimination to, say, not be able to purchase food at supermarkets or not be able to get medical care? The government, through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has carved out an exception to "public accommodations" though gays are not a group that are protected under it.



I have a question as well: Why should the national discussion on business services offered be restricted to religious liberty accommodations only and not free association rights generally?

poolerboy0077 said:

I have a question as well: Why should the national discussion on business services offered be restricted to religious liberty accommodations only and not free association rights generally?

Click to expand...

Because that would defeat the argument immediately. Free association rights mean the government cannot prohibit association.... and that's it. Business entities only have the ability to determine whom they do business with for business related reasons.... and that's it. Religious beliefs are not a business related reason. Businesses cannot hold religious beliefs.

Cearbhall said:

That's completely different. You're talking about hiring, not serving. If your employee isn't doing his or her job, you have the right to fire that person.

Click to expand...

You are required to accommodate your employees' religious practices if you can without hardship. Obviously, in those two cases, it would not be practical.

It happens often, which is why this is an issue right now, and that line was drawn decades ago. I have no idea why some conservatives have gotten it into their heads that orientation is a whole different ballpark when it comes to discrimination.

Click to expand...

Change in thinking is difficult.

DaisyDay said:

You are required to accommodate your employees' religious practices if you can without hardship. Obviously, in those two cases, it would not be practical.

Click to expand...

And important to note that the employee is under no obligation to accommodate employer's Religious practices. Thus an employee of a catholic hospital need not abstain from using birth control.

[Quotw]

Change in thinking is difficult.[/QUOTE]

And outright impossible if there's no thinking going on.

RealityCheck said:

And important to note that the employee is under no obligation to accommodate employer's Religious practices.

Click to expand...

Except if it is part of the job at a religious institution - leading prayers for a chaplain.

Thus an employee of a catholic hospital need not abstain from using birth control.

Click to expand...

But he can be forbidden from dispensing birth control or the information how to obtain it.

Religious schools used to be able to fire teachers for having sex outside marriage - has that practice been banned?

And outright impossible if there's no thinking going on.

Click to expand...

DaisyDay said:

Except if it is part of the job at a religious institution - leading prayers for a chaplain.

But he can be forbidden from dispensing birth control or the information how to obtain it.

Religious schools used to be able to fire teachers for having sex outside marriage - has that practice been banned?

Click to expand...

There is a subtle but an important difference in the two examples, between the hospital and the school.

In the case of a Catholic hospital, in almost all cases they tend to be classified as a non-profit that is run by a religious organization, whereas Catholic schools are typically considered a part of the religion. The difference is in who they hire and who they serve.

In the case of the hospital, they typically hire the best qualified candidate, regardless of their religious beliefs and serve the general public. By contrast, the Catholic schools are typically run by Catholics (typically priests and/or nuns) and most of the staff is Catholic. Additionally, the point of the school is to offer a Catholic education, often with religious rituals (such as confession) included as part of each student's schedule. Additionally, the school is not technically open to the public -- instead you must apply and being Catholic is one of the factors that is considered for acceptance.

So, despite both being Catholic, the hospitals and schools typically have completely different laws governing them. Schools, being considered a part of the church, can create employment rules that restrict employees actions, based on religious beliefs, when they are not at work. The hospitals, since they are not considered a part of the church but as an affiliated non-profit, wind up being subject to civil rights laws that the church is exempt from, and cannot limit the actions of their employees by Catholic religious beliefs. Most states, however, do allow Catholic hospitals to limit treatment of patients (at least in non-life threatening cases) to Catholic religious standards.