Religious conscience and providing services

[RealityCheck]

Freedom of religion is the law, though. Do you think a state's anti-discrimination law should trump federal constitutional law because you feel ought to value the former more than the latter?

A state's anti-discrimination law actually *will* trump federal law if, and only if, state law is broader in protection from discrimination than federal law.

Thus, while federal law may not protect a certain class from discrimination, the state is free to adopt such an anti-discrimination protection. But a state cannot decide to afford, say, women less protection from discrimination than federal law provides.

In any case, "freedom of religion" is not an absolute freedom, any more than freedom of speech or freedom of the press are absolute. Every freedom in the Bill of Rights comes with limits. Usually they are very narrow limits, and are a balance between the freedom granted and the harm to society unbridled exercise of freedom would bring.

 

[Cearbhall]

Freedom of religion is the law, though. Do you think a state's anti-discrimination law should trump federal constitutional law because you feel ought to value the former more than the latter?

I don't see a conflict between the two. There's no reason why freedom of religion should apply to what you do within a public business if you choose to start one. Freedom of religion is limited when you elect to participate in a number of different activities, such as riding a plane.

 

[MachZer0]

I don't see a conflict between the two. There's no reason why freedom of religion should apply to what you do within a public business if you choose to start one. Freedom of religion is limited when you elect to participate in a number of different activities, such as riding a plane.

There's no reason why freedom of religion should not apply when you start a public business. In fact, the law of the land demands that it does apply

 

[Cearbhall]

In other words, the question is whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution would permit the people of a corporation to make business decisions in accordance to their religious beliefs in such a manner as to refuse service to people if providing the service is contrary to their religious beliefs.

This wording is concerning. Excuse the government for not caring that someone might think a certain person's very existence is an insult to their religion.

 

[RealityCheck]

There's no reason why freedom of religion should not apply when you start a public business. In fact, the law of the land demands that it does apply

As has been *repeatedly* pointed out, it does up to the point that it infringes on another person's rights, civil liberties, etc.

And as has also been pointed out, a public business is formed under the laws of the state and nation. It therefore must abide by the laws of such state and the federal government as apply to a business. When the law says "you may not discriminate against customers because of race," the business owners may not try to get an exception based on "free exercise." When the law says "you may not hire solely men in your business," you don't get a religious exception. When the law says "you may turn away gays simply because they're gay," you still do not get any bonus for being religious.

Free exercise of religion is not a trump-all card. It has limits, just as every other freedom in the bill of rights does. There are limits to free speech. There are limits to the right to bear arms. There are limits to a free press. And there are limits to free exercise of religion.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[poolerboy0077]

As has been *repeatedly* pointed out, it does up to the point that it infringes on another person's rights, civil liberties, etc.

I think the problem with this statement is that it overlooks the reality that all laws can be characterized as "discriminatory"—state universities exercise discrimination among applicants based on test scores, GPAs, geographic origin, and so on; employers discriminate when hiring based on education and skill; DMVs discriminate based on age or vision; certain entitlement programs can discriminate based on age; et cetera. You would be on firmer ground if you were talking about invidious forms of discrimination (i.e., unfair discrimination driven by animus based purely on group membership) expressed by the government. Here, however, you have private businesses choosing to provide or not provide the services they want. It's not at all clear that one has a "right" to someone else's business, so speaking of infringements of another's civil rights seems odd here.

And as has also been pointed out, a public business is formed under the laws of the state and nation. It therefore must abide by the laws of such state and the federal government as apply to a business. When the law says "you may not discriminate against customers because of race," the business owners may not try to get an exception based on "free exercise."

That's rather question-begging. The whole point of the conversation on this thread is to ask whether those laws are justified in the first place.

But that's a moot point because many states do not protect gays from private business discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, does not cover LGBT. Whether they should purely out of fairness is another point, one that may be sound. But here we're delving into a deeper conversation.

Free exercise of religion is not a trump-all card. It has limits, just as every other freedom in the bill of rights does. There are limits to free speech. There are limits to the right to bear arms. There are limits to a free press. And there are limits to free exercise of religion.

You are certainly correct that such liberties have a scope, but where we draw the necessary demarcations in order to make clear the extent of that scope requires a sound and valid argument. I am fully prepared to accept any demarcations you lay out provided that you submit the necessary justification. As I mentioned before, it is not at all clear that private individuals have a "right" to another's private business. So to throw your own question back at you, why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[MachZer0]

As has been *repeatedly* pointed out, it does up to the point that it infringes on another person's rights, civil liberties, etc.

And as has also been pointed out, a public business is formed under the laws of the state and nation. It therefore must abide by the laws of such state and the federal government as apply to a business. When the law says "you may not discriminate against customers because of race," the business owners may not try to get an exception based on "free exercise." When the law says "you may not hire solely men in your business," you don't get a religious exception. When the law says "you may turn away gays simply because they're gay," you still do not get any bonus for being religious.

Free exercise of religion is not a trump-all card. It has limits, just as every other freedom in the bill of rights does. There are limits to free speech. There are limits to the right to bear arms. There are limits to a free press. And there are limits to free exercise of religion.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

As has been repeatedly noted, nobody has a right to a cake that I bake or to my services as a photographer, for example. If my religion was to throw the cake in one's face, there would be just cause in preventing me from doing so. But if my religion is to not help others celebrate what I consider a sinful act, there is no just cause in forcing me to do so.

 

[Cearbhall]

There's no reason why freedom of religion should not apply when you start a public business.

Yes, when it conflicts with another right, something has to give, and making public businesses serve all people is better for society than allowing them to deny whoever they want based on an ancient text.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes, when it conflicts with another right, something has to give, and making public businesses serve all people is better for society than allowing them to deny whoever they want based on an ancient text.

Again, nobody has a right to my services. And even if they did, why should their "right" override mine when the right to the free exercise of religion is enumerated in the Constitution whereas the "right" to buy a cake is not?

 

[morningstar2651]

Again, nobody has a right to my services. And even if they did, why should their "right" override mine when the right to the free exercise of religion is enumerated in the Constitution whereas the "right" to buy a cake is not?

No. We've explained it to you countless times why you are wrong. If you can't be bothered to scroll up and read what we've written, then we can't be bothered to continue this discussion with you.

 

[Maren]

Again, nobody has a right to my services. And even if they did, why should their "right" override mine when the right to the free exercise of religion is enumerated in the Constitution whereas the "right" to buy a cake is not?

Nobody has a right to your services UNLESS you offer them to the public (by opening a business). At that point, you cannot discriminate based on someone being in a protected class per the civil rights laws in the location where you open your business.

 

[bhsmte]

Nobody has a right to your services UNLESS you offer them to the public (by opening a business). At that point, you cannot discriminate based on someone being in a protected class per the civil rights laws in the location where you open your business.

That would be correct, otherwise you would have blatant discrimination all over the place.

And, if and when the supreme court gets a hold of this, they WILL NOT ALLOW people to be discriminated against in businesses that serve the public.

 

[Grizzly]

That would be correct, otherwise you would have blatant discrimination all over the place.

Some posters in this thread would argue that all forms of discrimination should be allowed.

And, if and when the supreme court gets a hold of this, they WILL NOT ALLOW people to be discriminated against in businesses that serve the public.

We can only hope.

 

[bhsmte]

Some posters in this thread would argue that all forms of discrimination should be allowed.



We can only hope.

Yes, there are some who feel religious beliefs should be allowed to excuse certain behaviors as simple, religious freedom.

I have stated this before and since I believe in transparency and the free market, I would be fine with allowing public business owners to refuse service to others based on religious beliefs with the following caveat:

The business owner must post their religious position to inform potential customers of his/her position and inform them under what circumstances they would refuse someone service.

If their religious freedom is so precious to them, I see no reason why they would have any issue with this, right?

 

[Maren]

Yes, there are some who feel religious beliefs should be allowed to excuse certain behaviors as simple, religious freedom.

I have stated this before and since I believe in transparency and the free market, I would be fine with allowing public business owners to refuse service to others based on religious beliefs with the following caveat:

The business owner must post their religious position to inform potential customers of his/her position and inform them under what circumstances they would refuse someone service.

If their religious freedom is so precious to them, I see no reason why they would have any issue with this, right?

The issue with this approach is that you could essentially end up with single religion cities in places where there are a high number of a single religion. Perhaps to use Utah as an example, there are towns in Utah that have a high percentage of Mormons, so they post they will serve Mormons only -- and pressure (to keep Mormons coming to their store) -- would make other business owners feel the need to post similar signs.

Of course, I can also see this happening in some other states, only with Protestant Christians being the only people stores in the town/city would serve.

And that is ignoring what could happen with gays or other groups.

 

[Cearbhall]

Again, nobody has a right to my services.

Then you don't have a right to be recognized as a business by the government. You're welcome to provide private services instead, depending on the industry. The government shouldn't care that you think a citizen with equal rights doesn't deserve your services when you're receiving government benefits.

And even if they did, why should their "right" override mine when the right to the free exercise of religion is enumerated in the Constitution whereas the "right" to buy a cake is not?

As a handful of people have told you numerous times, once you choose to do something like run a business, ride a plane, care for a child, etc., you are subject to different rules that are necessarily enforced for the good of society. If you can't understand this, then I guess we're done here.

 

[MachZer0]

No. We've explained it to you countless times why you are wrong. If you can't be bothered to scroll up and read what we've written, then we can't be bothered to continue this discussion with you.

No. I've explained it to you countless times why you are wrong. If you can't be bothered to scroll up and read what I've written, then I can't be bothered to continue this discussion with you.

 

[MachZer0]

Nobody has a right to your services UNLESS you offer them to the public (by opening a business). At that point, you cannot discriminate based on someone being in a protected class per the civil rights laws in the location where you open your business.

Regardless of what I offer, nobody has a right to it

 

[Maren]

Regardless of what I offer, nobody has a right to it

I'd advise you to do some studying on business law. The law, including Supreme Court decisions. does not support you.

 

[MachZer0]

The issue with this approach is that you could essentially end up with single religion cities in places where there are a high number of a single religion. Perhaps to use Utah as an example, there are towns in Utah that have a high percentage of Mormons, so they post they will serve Mormons only -- and pressure (to keep Mormons coming to their store) -- would make other business owners feel the need to post similar signs.

Of course, I can also see this happening in some other states, only with Protestant Christians being the only people stores in the town/city would serve.

And that is ignoring what could happen with gays or other groups.

That opens a market niche for an entrepreneur willing to serve Mormons and non-Mormons.