Religious conscience and providing services

[MachZer0]

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.

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.

That's government sanctioned discrimination.

Odd how many liberals avocate discriminating against the people they don't particularly care for. I guess that's called tolerance

 

[MachZer0]

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

Regardless of what business law says, forcing me to provide a service doesn't mean you have a right to it

 

[Maren]

Regardless of what business law says, forcing me to provide a service doesn't mean you have a right to it

They aren't forcing you to provide a service, they are merely saying if you choose to offer a service you cannot refuse to provide that service to a group that is protected by civil rights laws.

It's your choice whether or not to offer your service to the public.

 

[Cearbhall]

Odd how many liberals avocate discriminating against the people they don't particularly care for. I guess that's called tolerance

Nah, you're just really trigger happy about crying wolf on oppression of the religious. You wouldn't want to live in a society that has unlimited religious freedom. You'd probably be dead.

It would be paradoxical and counterproductive for a government that strives to respect the equal rights of its citizens to recognize a business that fails to do so. If you don't want to serve the public, then don't start a public business.

 

[MachZer0]

Nah, you're just really trigger happy about crying wolf on oppression of the religious. You wouldn't want to live in a society that has unlimited religious freedom. You'd probably be dead.

It would be paradoxical and counterproductive for a government that strives to respect the equal rights of its citizens to recognize a business that fails to do so. If you don't want to serve the public, Then don't start a public business.

Nice hyperbole. this isn't about unlimited religious freedom. It's about not forcing people to do things that violate their beliefs.

 

[MachZer0]

They aren't forcing you to provide a service, they are merely saying if you choose to offer a service you cannot refuse to provide that service to a group that is protected by civil rights laws.

It's your choice whether or not to offer your service to the public.

You self contradicted

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's about not forcing people to do things that violate their beliefs.

We've done it before. What's different now?

 

[MachZer0]

We've done it before. What's different now?

What's different is that what was done before was encoded in the law. What's proposed is allowing people freedom to make their own decisions based on their religious beliefs

 

[essentialsaltes]

What's different is that what was done before was encoded in the law. What's proposed is allowing people freedom to make their own decisions based on their religious beliefs

Segregations was encoded in law. And now integration is encoded in law. In neither case were people allowed the freedom to make their own decisions, in contradiction of the law.

 

[bhsmte]

Nice hyperbole. this isn't about unlimited religious freedom. It's about not forcing people to do things that violate their beliefs.

Allowing people to do whatever their religious beliefs tells them, is unlimited religious freedom, especially when it impacts people in the public.

 

[MachZer0]

Segregations was encoded in law. And now integration is encoded in law. In neither case were people allowed the freedom to make their own decisions, in contradiction of the law.

What you just did is equate Jim Crow Laws with current law. In that we're in agreement. Both are wong

 

[MachZer0]

Allowing people to do whatever their religious beliefs tells them, is unlimited religious freedom, especially when it impacts people in the public.

The discussion here is about allowing people to NOT do something. Big difference

 

[Maren]

You self contradicted

No, I didn't. The fact you think I did merely highlights your bias.

 

[loveofourlord]

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?

Problem is thats how the laws were back during Jim crow laws, with signs that said, "Whites only." do we allow descrimination of any kind, where a prodominatly muslim town can say, "Muslims only." or a racist town say, "Whites only" and so on? Or are only certain beliefs protected? In which case yuor saying X belief is more important then another. Someone who hates gays, or what ever you will allow's rights to descriminate trump a racist, or someone who hates certain religions or such. I'm not comfortable with saying certain beliefs should be protected over others,and I'm not comfortable with protecting all beliefs from laws like this.

It opens a pandora's box, that as has been shown time and time and time again when religions are given special rights you get those you don't want to have that same right having to have it. If you want christian prayers in schools you will soon find yourself with schools having muslim prayers because the principle is a muslim or so on.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Problem is thats how the laws were back during Jim crow laws, with signs that said, "Whites only." do we allow descrimination of any kind, where a prodominatly muslim town can say, "Muslims only." or a racist town say, "Whites only" and so on? Or are only certain beliefs protected? In which case yuor saying X belief is more important then another. Someone who hates gays, or what ever you will allow's rights to descriminate trump a racist, or someone who hates certain religions or such. I'm not comfortable with saying certain beliefs should be protected over others,and I'm not comfortable with protecting all beliefs from laws like this.

It opens a pandora's box, that as has been shown time and time and time again when religions are given special rights you get those you don't want to have that same right having to have it. If you want christian prayers in schools you will soon find yourself with schools having muslim prayers because the principle is a muslim or so on.

And that's where the whole facade of "Religious Freedom" crumbles -- as soon as those fighting for those freedoms realize that it's an all-or-nothing proposition.

If your religion demands that you refuse to serve homosexuals, then the guy next door's religion will demand he refuse to serve blacks, his neighbor's religion demands that he refuse to serve Jews, etc... and they all have you to thank for it.

 

[MachZer0]

No, I didn't. The fact you think I did merely highlights your bias.

You said people aren't being forced to provide a service, they just can't refuse to provide it. that's a self contradiction

 

[MachZer0]

And that's where the whole facade of "Religious Freedom" crumbles -- as soon as those fighting for those freedoms realize that it's an all-or-nothing proposition.

If your religion demands that you refuse to serve homosexuals, then the guy next door's religion will demand he refuse to serve blacks, his neighbor's religion demands that he refuse to serve Jews, etc... and they all have you to thank for it.

I don't know of any religion that demands it's members to refuse to serve homosexuals.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What you just did is equate Jim Crow Laws with current law. In that we're in agreement. Both are wong

At least we agree that, as a matter of law, religious freedom is not absolute.

Now we can work on determining where the boundaries are. Anti-discrimination laws that include both race and sexual identity treat them both the same. Religious freedom does not allow business owners to discriminate on the basis of race. Therefore, it does not allow business owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual identity.

 

[MachZer0]

At least we agree that, as a matter of law, religious freedom is not absolute.

Now we can work on determining where the boundaries are. Anti-discrimination laws that include both race and sexual identity treat them both the same. Religious freedom does not allow business owners to discriminate on the basis of race. Therefore, it does not allow business owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual identity.

What anti-discrimination laws are being used for is to force people to commit acts they consider sinful. that's a gross violation of the First Amendment

 

[iluvatar5150]

What anti-discrimination laws are being used for is to force people to commit acts they consider sinful. that's a gross violation of the First Amendment

There are people (even people I've seen on this board) who believe the bible says that blacks and whites should not intermarry. If they ran businesses that served same-race weddings, but refused to service mixed-race weddings, currently anti-discrimination laws would force them to commit acts they'd consider sinful (at least according to your logic).

Do you disagree with those laws?