Religious conscience and providing services

[Lovely Jar]

This subject has been discussed adnauseum in these forums.
What is interesting is that in two pages the majority of people commenting are not Christian. When the subject revolves around our faith and values on this issue of homosexual behavior.

Just those who are not religious entering into a flame fest arguing for sodomites civil right to violate the civil right of the religious whom they hold in contempt.

And race? How absurd. Race isn't a corrolary nor has it ever been in this topic.

Race is genetic! And the racist may want to know that there are more than black people that qualify as those who can be involved in an interracial relationship.

While there is no gay gene. This means homosexuality is not genetic. No one is born gay! If they were there would be a gay gene. It's instead a behavior, a lifestyle choice, and an abnormal sexual sin according to Christian doctrine.

The reason Christians concern themselves with homosexual behavior demanding the right to trample our civil rights is because while all people can be said to be sinners, the homosexual sinner demands the right to have their behavior trump the religious civil rights of others. They demand the civil right to trespass and offend. And they bully and are intolerant of the religious, as we see when they target Christian businesses so as to put them out of business when that Christian holds to their faith and does not condone deviant behaviors have a right to parade and flaunt their illness in public.

Yes, Christians should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals! It is not nor will it ever be the same as demonstrating racism. That argument is a category mistake. But those who interject that as an argument are not aware of that and that is why they fail in making that comparison.

 

[bhsmte]

This subject has been discussed adnauseum in these forums.
What is interesting is that in two pages the majority of people commenting are not Christian. When the subject revolves around our faith and values on this issue of homosexual behavior.

Just those who are not religious entering into a flame fest arguing for sodomites civil right to violate the civil right of the religious whom they hold in contempt.

And race? How absurd. Race isn't a corrolary nor has it ever been in this topic.

Race is genetic! And the racist may want to know that there are more than black people that qualify as those who can be involved in an interracial relationship.

While there is no gay gene. This means homosexuality is not genetic. No one is born gay! If they were there would be a gay gene. It's instead a behavior, a lifestyle choice, and an abnormal sexual sin according to Christian doctrine.

The reason Christians concern themselves with homosexual behavior demanding the right to trample our civil rights is because while all people can be said to be sinners, the homosexual sinner demands the right to have their behavior trump the religious civil rights of others. They demand the civil right to trespass and offend. And they bully and are intolerant of the religious, as we see when they target Christian businesses so as to put them out of business when that Christian holds to their faith and does not condone deviant behaviors have a right to parade and flaunt their illness in public.

Yes, Christians should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals! It is not nor will it ever be the same as demonstrating racism. That argument is a category mistake. But those who interject that as an argument are not aware of that and that is why they fail in making that comparison.

How do you know being homosexual is not genetic?

 

[Belk]

This subject has been discussed adnauseum in these forums.
What is interesting is that in two pages the majority of people commenting are not Christian. When the subject revolves around our faith and values on this issue of homosexual behavior.

Just those who are not religious entering into a flame fest arguing for sodomites civil right to violate the civil right of the religious whom they hold in contempt.

And race? How absurd. Race isn't a corrolary nor has it ever been in this topic.

Yes it is. It is a characteristic that certain people poses for which they are discriminated against.

Race is genetic! And the racist may want to know that there are more than black people that qualify as those who can be involved in an interracial relationship.

While there is no gay gene. This means homosexuality is not genetic. No one is born gay! If they were there would be a gay gene. It's instead a behavior, a lifestyle choice, and an abnormal sexual sin according to Christian doctrine.

You are incorrect. However, that makes not a lick of difference. Whether it is an inborn trait or not is not the criteria by which we decide if someone can discriminate against someone.

The reason Christians concern themselves with homosexual behavior demanding the right to trample our civil rights is because while all people can be said to be sinners, the homosexual sinner demands the right to have their behavior trump the religious civil rights of others. They demand the civil right to trespass and offend. And they bully and are intolerant of the religious, as we see when they target Christian businesses so as to put them out of business when that Christian holds to their faith and does not condone deviant behaviors have a right to parade and flaunt their illness in public.

Just the same as inter racial marriage. You may disagree with the interpretation of those who found it anti-biblical but that is neither here nor there. The law is agnostic with respect to "True" religious beliefs.

Yes, Christians should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals! It is not nor will it ever be the same as demonstrating racism. That argument is a category mistake. But those who interject that as an argument are not aware of that and that is why they fail in making that comparison.

Perhaps one of these days you will actually bother to address my rebuttal to this incorrect labeling of a fallacy.

A category mistake only occurs when "a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. Thus the claim that "Most Americans are Christians" is not a category mistake, since most Americans are Christians. On the other hand, "Most bananas are Christians" is a category mistake.

Category mistake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since humans are capable of being both black and homosexual it is not a category mistake. Further the arguments against interracial marriage can be exchanged word for word with the arguments against homosexual marriage.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

This subject has been discussed adnauseum in these forums.
The subject has, yes, but I can't recall ever encountering an answer to my specific question.

And race? How absurd. Race isn't a corrolary nor has it ever been in this topic.
When I brought the racial issue into the question, it was not to suggest that race and sexual orientation are the same or whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Those issues are irrelevant to my question. What is relevant is that there are people whose religious views lead them to believe that interracial marriages are wrong, just as there are some people who view same-sex marriage as wrong. I'm asking if legal protection for the religious conscience of a person who objects to same-sex marriage should also extend to people who object to interracial marriage (or interreligious marriage, if you're prefer an example that involves something that is chosen).

Yes, Christians should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals! It is not nor will it ever be the same as demonstrating racism.

I agree. It is not the same as racism. But if the issue is the business owner's freedom to act on their religious conscience, why would that argument work for denying services to same-sex weddings but not to interracial or interreligious weddings, provided they had a religious objections to those unions? That's what I'd like to hear.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Illegal discrimination implies denial of rights. These couples certainly have many more venue choices to pick from if denied by a few who find it objectionable. Why go where you're not welcome?

 

[keith99]

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.

Drawing a line becomes difficult. Well except for one. The minister is actually officiating and blessing the union. That is a clear distinction that and the religion IS the business.

But I can think of one other way to draw a line, one that it seems most ignore and in fact it is a line already drawn, we just don't think about it.

The legitimate interest of the state is making sure that some segment of society is not denied basic services. At this point we seem to be drawing the line at a business having to provide such services themselves. I think we need to consider redrawing that line. Instead the responsibility of a business should be to provide an adequate referral.

But I have a feeling a lot of the people who are involved in these cases would not like that as just about every case that makes the press seems to have AT LEAST one side that seems to be petty and looking for a fight.

 

[bhsmte]

Illegal discrimination implies denial of rights. These couples certainly have many more venue choices to pick from if denied by a few who find it objectionable. Why go where you're not welcome?

You would then be ok for muslim business owners to deny Christians then, if the business owner decided they were not welcome because of religious beliefs?

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

The legal system agrees, and has always steered clear of entangling itself in religious affairs except where absolutely necessary. I know of no case where a minister could be compelled to perform a wedding or any other sacrament against his will, for example.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

The answer is obviously "yes".

Most (all?) states have antidiscrimination laws. Most states include sexuality (either hetero- or homo-) as a protected class, alongside gender, race, religion, etc.

The people who are freaking out about having to cater to a gay marriage should try to remove sexuality from the antidiscrimination laws. That's really what they want. And it would be a lot easier to adjudicate than the laws being proposed now to try to carve out a weddings-only exception to antidiscrimination laws.
But like the people who would like to discriminate against people of different races, they know they are not very likely to get the antidiscrimination laws changed. Because that would take something like a majority of voters to achieve, and the majority of voters has already passed them by on the acceptance of homosexuality, and it rapidly passing them by on the issue of gay marriage.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And race? How absurd. Race isn't a corrolary nor has it ever been in this topic.

Race is genetic! And the racist may want to know that there are more than black people that qualify as those who can be involved in an interracial relationship.

While there is no gay gene. This means homosexuality is not genetic. No one is born gay! If they were there would be a gay gene. It's instead a behavior, a lifestyle choice, and an abnormal sexual sin according to Christian doctrine.

Race is genetic, but racism can come from many sources, including religion.

The God-fearing Christian who finds miscegenation to be an abomination has as much legal right to put their beliefs into practice as you do in order to keep teh gheys down.

The question is, how much rope (no pun intended) are you going to give in the name of "religious liberty"? hopefully not enough to hang yourself with.


If you can refuse to hire, associate with, or serve homosexuals in the name of God, then the racist Christian can refuse the same to blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc., etc... for the same God. You don't get to tell him he's wrong, and the government cannot afford to listen to one and ignore the other.

The reason Christians concern themselves with homosexual behavior demanding the right to trample our civil rights is because while all people can be said to be sinners, the homosexual sinner demands the right to have their behavior trump the religious civil rights of others. They demand the civil right to trespass and offend.

Since when did you have a civil right to not be offended? And where is the homosexual "trespassing" that they are not allowed to be?

Yes, Christians should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals!

Or blacks! Or Hispanics! Or Jews...

It is not nor will it ever be the same as demonstrating racism.

Because you don't want it to be.

And yet, the God that tells you to refuse the homosexuals also tells your Christian neighbor to refuse the blacks.

The government cannot say you're right and he's wrong, so what shall it say?

That argument is a category mistake. But those who interject that as an argument are not aware of that and that is why they fail in making that comparison.

And you failed in demonstrating the mistake -- race is genetic; racism is not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you know being homosexual is not genetic?

I have a gay nephew whose older brother is straight. Same parents, but the differences in their relationship at the time of conception of these boys was as different as night and day. They both were a little off when the oldest was conceived, but emotionally were both a complete disaster when the younger was conceived. A side note: My brother and I both noticed the feminine characteristic of the little guy when he was barely two years old; long before he or his mother had any idea. In fact when he 'found out' he was gay, somewhere in his teens, he was quite angry about it. His mother (my sister) immediately went into denial, not admitting to herself that her son was gay until he was nearly thirty.

My point is that perhaps the mental state of parents can influence sexual orientation, even before birth. We know parents (and others of course) can screw up a kid while they are growing up. Why not before they are even born?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I appreciate everyone's responses. A lot has been said, but not much of it actually relates to the question I asked, but I think that's probably my fault for lack of clarity. I'm going to try to simplify it:

YES or NO: should businesses be able to refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings if such unions violate the owner's or employees' religious principles?

If NO, thank you for your response. Your work here is done.

If YES, that's okay. I'm not passing judgment or calling you a bigot or anything like that. But I do have a follow up question for you:

YES or NO: should businesses be able to reuse to provide services to interracial or interreligious weddings if such unions violate the owner's or employee' religious principles?

If YES, thank you for your response. Your work here is done.

If NO, I want to know what it is that makes it okay in the first instance (same-sex wedding) but not in the second (interracial/interreligious wedding).

 

[steve_bakr]

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?

You have a point. One thing the civil law must do is to clearly define exactly what religious freedom is. We are free to practice our own religion unimpeded. But denying a civil right does not fall under the purview of religious freedom.

A religious conscience is supposed to regulate OUR behavior, not other people's behavior. This is an interesting problem and will certainly see more courtrooms.

 

[bhsmte]

I have a gay nephew whose older brother is straight. Same parents, but the differences in their relationship at the time of conception of these boys was as different as night and day. They both were a little off when the oldest was conceived, but emotionally were both a complete disaster when the younger was conceived. A side note: My brother and I both noticed the feminine characteristic of the little guy when he was barely two years old; long before he or his mother had any idea. In fact when he 'found out' he was gay, somewhere in his teens, he was quite angry about it. His mother (my sister) immediately went into denial, not admitting to herself that her son was gay until he was nearly thirty.

My point is that perhaps the mental state of parents can influence sexual orientation, even before birth. We know parents (and others of course) can screw up a kid while they are growing up. Why not before they are even born?

That is not exactly scientific. I have a gay brother and he was brought up in an environment no different than the other 3 who are straight.

There is debate on this issue, with some scientists thinking they have found a trait that actually develops while the baby is in the womb.

There is no definitive evidence that being gay is genetic or is not genetic, at this point in time.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Race is genetic! And the racist may want to know that there are more than black people that qualify as those who can be involved in an interracial relationship.

While there is no gay gene. This means homosexuality is not genetic. No one is born gay! If they were there would be a gay gene. It's instead a behavior, a lifestyle choice, and an abnormal sexual sin according to Christian doctrine.

Religion is not genetic. Do you advocate removing religion from the list of protected classes/traits in civil rights laws?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Religion is not genetic. Do you advocate removing religion from the list of protected classes/traits in civil rights laws?

Brilliant! In seeking the right to persecute others, Christians open the door for their own legalized persecution.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is not exactly scientific. I have a gay brother and he was brought up in an environment no different than the other 3 who are straight.

There is debate on this issue, with some scientists thinking they have found a trait that actually develops while the baby is in the womb.

There is no definitive evidence that being gay is genetic or is not genetic, at this point in time.

I was thinking less genetics and more hormones during pregnancy. They can swing pretty wildly. My sister also had a severe outbreak of psoriasis when she was pregnant with her gay son. She has a rare form of the disease and the horrific outbreaks are triggered by stress. It put her in the hospital for two weeks during which time she was an emotional mess.

 

[Belk]

I was thinking less genetics and more hormones during pregnancy. They can swing pretty wildly. My sister also had a severe outbreak of psoriasis when she was pregnant with her gay son. She has a rare form of the disease and the horrific outbreaks are triggered by stress. It put her in the hospital for two weeks during which time she was an emotional mess.

That is actually one of the current hypothesis being tested.

 

[Sadalbari]

This subject has been discussed adnauseum in these forums.
What is interesting is that in two pages the majority of people commenting are not Christian. When the subject revolves around our faith and values on this issue of homosexual behavior.

Just those who are not religious entering into a flame fest arguing for sodomites civil right to violate the civil right of the religious whom they hold in contempt.

And race? How absurd. Race isn't a corrolary nor has it ever been in this topic.

Race is genetic! And the racist may want to know that there are more than black people that qualify as those who can be involved in an interracial relationship.

While there is no gay gene. This means homosexuality is not genetic. No one is born gay! If they were there would be a gay gene. It's instead a behavior, a lifestyle choice, and an abnormal sexual sin according to Christian doctrine.

The reason Christians concern themselves with homosexual behavior demanding the right to trample our civil rights is because while all people can be said to be sinners, the homosexual sinner demands the right to have their behavior trump the religious civil rights of others. They demand the civil right to trespass and offend. And they bully and are intolerant of the religious, as we see when they target Christian businesses so as to put them out of business when that Christian holds to their faith and does not condone deviant behaviors have a right to parade and flaunt their illness in public.

Yes, Christians should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals! It is not nor will it ever be the same as demonstrating racism. That argument is a category mistake. But those who interject that as an argument are not aware of that and that is why they fail in making that comparison.

Actually Christianity is just a lifestyle choice

 

[dies-l]

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?

Yes. And, for this reason, as much as I hate to admit it, anti-discrimination laws often do violate the Constitution. I am glad for the effect that legislation like the CRA have accomplished in our society of marginalizing racism. Nonetheless, I can't help but notice that the idea that a person is not free to live according to their views, just because a certain number of people in our society (myself included) find those view offensive, attacks the very heart of the 1st Amendment.

I hate racism. But, I also hate the idea of government deciding whose views are acceptable and whose aren't. Just because my views are, for the time being, held as favorable by the government, doesn't make such government overreach any more acceptable.