Religious conscience and providing services

[KnowtheSilence]

Yes.

No. One (human) man and one (human) woman create One in marriage. Had you kept race out of your question and instead asked if businesses be permitted to refuse transhumans or human animal hybrids specific services in relation to marriage, I would have answered yes.

Thank you.

So if I'm understanding you properly, it's not so much the religious objections of the business in question that is the deciding factor; rather it's society's current understanding of what "marriage" means that takes precedence, yes? But a society's understanding of "marriage" can change (interracial marriage was illegal here at one point), and different societies can have different understandings (polygamy is allowed in some countries). Are you claiming that the idea that it is only one man and only one woman and the race and religion don't factor into its legitimacy is somehow a universal standard?

 

[Deacon001]

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?

All right, let's try putting the shoe on the other foot - what if a straight couple tried to hire a Muslim caterer to serve pork roast at their wedding dinner?

Let's see how the politically correct among us answer that one, although I suspect they will say "that's different".

And by the way, your argument is a non-sequitur.

 

[TLK Valentine]

All right, let's try putting the shoe on the other foot - what if a straight couple tried to hire a Muslim caterer to serve pork roast at their wedding dinner?

Let's see how the politically correct among us answer that one, although I suspect they will say "that's different".

Except it's not different -- if you can't do the job, you probably shouldn't have gotten into that line of work in the first place.

(incidentally, the Muslims who own the deli near my house make the best ham and cheese sandwiches... )

And by the way, your argument is a non-sequitur.

How so? We're talking about refusing to serve someone based on religious objections; precisely on point.

 

[Desk trauma]

All right, let's try putting the shoe on the other foot - what if a straight couple tried to hire a Muslim caterer to serve pork roast at their wedding dinner?

If the caterer offered pork roast to others but refused them the issue would be the same as the bakers refusing the gay couple, if they did not offer pork roast at all they would have no case.

 

[dies-l]

First of all atheists marry Christians all the time.

That just leads to the question of why they are OK with atheist weddings in the first place.

They believe it's wrong for people to be gay and not ashamed of it, therefore they claim it would be wrong to decorate gay wedding cakes.

They believe it's wrong for me to be an atheist and not ashamed of it, but they have no problem with my wedding cake.

So, why don't they have a problem with me marrying?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that atheism and homosexuality are both sinful lifestyles, the distinction is still huge in this context. The fact that you are an atheist and the fact that you get married to a woman (I assuming you're male because forum runner doesn't show me your gender icon) have little or nothing to do with each other. If you were homosexual, the fact that you would be marrying a man is intimately connected to your homosexuality. Participation in an atheist wedding has no implications of supporting or participating in atheist beliefs (except perhaps for the officiant). Many evangelicals reasonably believe that servicing a same sex wedding is, at a minimum, endorsement of homosexuality.

 

[wintermile]

Thank you.

So if I'm understanding you properly, it's not so much the religious objections of the business in question that is the deciding factor; rather it's society's current understanding of what "marriage" means that takes precedence, yes? But a society's understanding of "marriage" can change (interracial marriage was illegal here at one point), and different societies can have different understandings (polygamy is allowed in some countries). Are you claiming that the idea that it is only one man and only one woman and the race and religion don't factor into its legitimacy is somehow a universal standard?

From faith, I am stating we are made in His image. In marriage, one (human) man and one (human) woman become one and remain one in His image. Therefore, because His image is not to be corrupted, religious objections are warranted for SSM and any marriages that involve transhumanists.

Demonstrating my faith is essential for witnessing to those who may understand that a spiritual relationship with Yeshua trumps romance and all forms of relationships. Practicing my faith is essential for honoring the Body of Christ.

 

[TLK Valentine]

From faith, I am stating we are made in His image. In marriage, one (human) man and one (human) woman become one and remain one in His image. Therefore, because His image is not to be corrupted, religious objections are warranted for SSM and any marriages that involve transhumanists.

Religious objections are warranted for whatever a person's personal religious belief may be.

The question is, how much legal weight should those religious objections be given? Where is the line drawn?

Demonstrating my faith is essential for witnessing to those who may understand that a spiritual relationship with Yeshua trumps romance and all forms of relationships. Practicing my faith is essential for honoring the Body of Christ.

Demonstrating your faith to whom? Yeshua, or the world?

 

[variant]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that atheism and homosexuality are both sinful lifestyles, the distinction is still huge in this context. The fact that you are an atheist and the fact that you get married to a woman (I assuming you're male because forum runner doesn't show me your gender icon) have little or nothing to do with each other. If you were homosexual, the fact that you would be marrying a man is intimately connected to your homosexuality.

I can assure you that if I were to be married it would definitely be because I intend to advance my atheist lifestyle by having a bunch of atheist kids.

Many evangelicals reasonably believe that servicing a same sex wedding is, at a minimum, endorsement of homosexuality.

It feels like there is little distinction to be made if someone would refuse to service my wedding because I am an atheist to condemn me, and refusing to service a homosexual wedding to condemn them.

The point is as you said is expressing condemnation.

They simply don't do it to me regardless of their condemnation of my lack of beliefs.

No one should think that baking a person a cake is an endorsement of homosexuality any more than baking me a cake would be an endorsement of my atheism. It would just mean you didn't want to be a jerk to me to make a point.

 

[cow451]

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?

The answer is "No". Next question?

 

[bhsmte]

I have stated this before, but I will repeat it again here.

The can of worms that would be opened if a person who owns a business that serves the PUBLIC was allowed to refuse service to individuals for religious reasons, would be endless. You could then have; muslims refusing to serve Christians, Christians refusing to serve remarried people who are committing adultery, etc. etc. etc.. And, if the claim is religious based, all of the above would be just as valid as refusing to serve couples or individuals who are gay.

With that said, I would have no problem with something like this; allowing all public businesses to refuse service to anyone they choose, but to do so, they must post a list of who they will refuse service to that is easily accessible to those who may frequent their business (the public).

If a religious person has a genuine need to refuse serve to certain individuals, then why would they have a problem informing the public ahead of time, who those people are, to avoid embarrassment for all parties involved?

Post a sign on their webpage and business store front such as this:

We reserve the right to refuse business to the following:

-gay people
-anything to do with same sex marriage
-anyone who is divorced and remarried and is committing adultery
-anyone who does not believe in the Christian God

And the list could go on and on and on. People would be informed ahead of time and the religious person could stand by their desire to refuse service to certain individuals.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

From faith, I am stating we are made in His image. In marriage, one (human) man and one (human) woman become one and remain one in His image. Therefore, because His image is not to be corrupted, religious objections are warranted for SSM and any marriages that involve transhumanists.

Demonstrating my faith is essential for witnessing to those who may understand that a spiritual relationship with Yeshua trumps romance and all forms of relationships. Practicing my faith is essential for honoring the Body of Christ.

I see. So it's not based on respecting the business owner's religious convictions or supporting a societal norm for the sake of norm itself, but is based solely on supporting your theology's interpretation of marriage. Thank you.

 

[Flashlight]

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?

I would get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. A person doesn't have a right to another person's services.

 

[Lovely Jar]

How do you know being homosexual is not genetic?

Because science has yet to discover the so called gay gene.
Homosexuality is a behavior, a compulsion. Or as some believe, a spirit.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Yes, in the first instance. Because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a behavior.

No, to the second question.
Because race is genetic, not a lifestyle choice or a behavior.

Someone doesn't choose to be Chinese.
While the same can not be said for homosexuals.
When homosexuals have said they chose to turn gay for whatever reason that individual sharing that intimate truth gives, anyone who advocates for homosexuals can not condemn that personal testimony and still claim to respect the choice or the individual homosexual.

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).

 

[Marius27]

Because science has yet to discover the so called gay gene.
Homosexuality is a behavior, a compulsion. Or as some believe, a spirit.

You're wrong as usual. Nobody claimed it was caused by a single gene. It is, however, genetic/hormonal. It's not a behavior, it's an attraction.

Epigenetics may be a critical factor contributing to homosexuality, study suggests -- ScienceDaily

Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

Gay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientists - Medical News Today

Using scanning technology, researchers in Sweden found that the brains of gay men and women were wired differently to the brains of heterosexual people of the same sex, but were similar to the brains of heterosexual people that were of the opposite sex to them. Thus a gay man's brain was in some ways more like the brain of a heterosexual woman than a heterosexual man, and the brain of a gay or lesbian woman was more like that of a heterosexual man than a heterosexual woman.

The authors concluded that the brains of homosexual subjects demonstrated "sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections". These differences could not be explained simply by "learned effects", and they suggested a "linkage to neurobiological entities".

 

[Marius27]

Yes, in the first instance. Because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a behavior.

Attractions are not a choice, and you're violating the board rules. Stop it.

While the same can not be said for homosexuals.

Gays don't choose to be homosexual. A homosexual virgin is still gay. Again you are absolutely 100% wrong, without question.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes, in the first instance. Because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a behavior.

Even if that were true, I can't imagine that you would want businesses to be able to discriminate against you based on your choice of religion.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Because science has yet to discover the so called gay gene.

There was a time when science hadn't yet discovered the electron, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist then.

When homosexuals have said they chose to turn gay for whatever reason

When did you choose to be straight?

 

[Cearbhall]

Because science has yet to discover the so called gay gene.

It's probably epigenetic, but I don't see what that has to do with the law. Unless someone is acting in a way that would prompt you to call the police, there's no legal argument against having to serve them. Running a public business comes with responsibilities.

 

[Deacon001]

If the caterer offered pork roast to others but refused them...

If it was against his religion to handle pork why would he offer it to anyone?

The issue is not that dinner parties are against his religion, it's that handling pork is against his religion.

Marriage is not against the Christian baker's religion any more than dinner parties are against the Muslim caterer's religion.