Religious conscience and providing services

[variant]

Not going to bother continuing to respond to someone who can't bother to read my posts before responding to them. You are making assumptions about me that are just plain wrong.

That's fine, you've not been really addressing any of my points and simply asserting yours.

Which assumptions are those?

You think the first amendment means you can use a buisness to treat black people like crap and make their lives miserable, what assumptions do I really need?

Personally I think overall, religious freedom would be better served, and more secure by people not constantly wrapping their bigotry in it and trying to pass that vileness off as a positive thing.

 

[Savior2006]

No. They're not. I can't tell whether you actually cannot see the difference between, "I won't serve you because you are gay" and "I won't serve you in a way that celebrates your choice to 'marry' a person of the same sex".

You are saying the exact same thing in a slightly more polite way.

 

[dies-l]

You are saying the exact same thing in a slightly more polite way.

So, all homosexuals marry?

 

[variant]

So, all homosexuals marry?

Very few of them that are buying wedding cakes, aren't getting married.

I mean there was that dog wedding mentioned in one of the links that the baker was OK with.

And I have it on good authority that Larry Byrd ate 7 wedding cakes in two and a half weeks once (he's not a homosexual but the sort of thing is done).

 

[dies-l]

That's fine, you've not been really addressing any of my points and simply asserting yours.

Which assumptions are those?

You think the first amendment means you can use a buisness to treat black people like crap and make their lives miserable, what assumptions do I really need?

Personally I think overall, religious freedom would be better served, and more secure by people not constantly wrapping their bigotry in it and trying to pass that vileness off as a positive thing.

I agree with your last statement. But, there's a huge difference between "society would be better off if people would stop acting like jerks" and "society should make it illegal to act like a jerk". The right and the left in this country seem to have an equally hard time understanding the difference.

 

[Savior2006]

So, all homosexuals marry?

In the context of the topic of the wedding cake, you are saying the exact same thing.

 

[dies-l]

In the context of the topic of the wedding cake, you are saying the exact same thing.

If all the bakery does is wedding cakes, then I'd grant your point.

 

[variant]

I agree with your last statement. But, there's a huge difference between "society would be better off if people would stop acting like jerks" and "society should make it illegal to act like a jerk". The right and the left in this country seem to have an equally hard time understanding the difference.

Fair enough.

My point is that this particular liberty to refuse people buisness to admonish them or because you don't like them doesn't have a very good history, so I would be wary of picking up the mantle of the people who fought that fight.

 

[Vylo]

How about this, people who serve the public just do their dang jobs and serve people, and if you might be offended by people who have to serve, make your business a non-profit religious one. Or you know, just stay out of that business, because chances are you will always find someone who offends you.

 

[dies-l]

Fair enough.

My point is that this particular liberty to refuse people buisness to admonish them or because you don't like them doesn't have a very good history, so I would be wary of picking up the mantle of the people who fought that fight.

Jim Crow and the history of discrimination isa horrible legacy. But, the precedent of expecting government to make people play nice, especially where anything short of tacit approval is deemed not nice, is a horrible precedent. I used to think that there was no way that conservative Christian pastors would be forced to perform same sex weddings or that they could be punished for expressing a view that homosexuality is immoral. I was convinced that those who claimed that such things were on the horizon were paranoid. Watching how this conversation has evolved overt the past decade has me convinced that the writing is on the wall that both of these things are inevitable unless we change course and defend the right to hold, express, and exercise even the most offensive opinions.

 

[variant]

Jim Crow and the history of discrimination isa horrible legacy. But, the precedent of expecting government to make people play nice, especially where anything short of tacit approval is deemed not nice, is a horrible precedent.

In the sense that the people on the other side of this debate are asking homosexuals to live as second class citizens and not enjoy all the same rights as everyone else I think the precedent is grand.

I used to think that there was no way that conservative Christian pastors would be forced to perform same sex weddings or that they could be punished for expressing a view that homosexuality is immoral.

If they are being punished by the government I agree. If they are punished by their employer that's exactly the right you just argued for.

I was convinced that those who claimed that such things were on the horizon were paranoid. Watching how this conversation has evolved overt the past decade has me convinced that the writing is on the wall that both of these things are inevitable unless we change course and defend the right to hold, express, and exercise even the most offensive opinions.

We'll see I guess, the civil rights act didn't really get out of the box in this manner, people weren't forced to preform interracial marriages for instance.

If such a case were to come up it would have to be clergy that offer non-religious services widely available to the general public upon request.

 

[Cearbhall]

Jim Crow and the history of discrimination isa horrible legacy. But, the precedent of expecting government to make people play nice, especially where anything short of tacit approval is deemed not nice, is a horrible precedent.

Why is it horrible? I'm really glad we have it.

I agree with your last statement. But, there's a huge difference between "society would be better off if people would stop acting like jerks" and "society should make it illegal to act like a jerk". The right and the left in this country seem to have an equally hard time understanding the difference.

So you want to go back to the days when people could be refused service for their race?

I'm not going to provide a detailed argument against segregation as a form of freedom.

No point in rehashing an argument that was lost by your side before I was ever born.

No kidding. Why does this debate even exist? A few business owners are ignorant and think that anti-discrimination laws somehow don't apply to the LGBT community. That's it.

 

[dies-l]

In the sense that the people on the other side of this debate are asking homosexuals to live as second class citizens and not enjoy all the same rights as everyone else I think the precedent is grand.

If individuals, even those who happen to own business, want to treat x group as "second class", I don't like it, but it's their right. When government does so, that's a problem.

If they are being punished by the government I agree. If they are punished by their employer that's exactly the right you just argued for.

I agree. But, it is government, in many cases, that is now demanding that bakers provide wedding cakes for same sex weddings. If this were a matter of liberal groups boycotting, complaining, petitioning, etc. against bakeries that they believe are discriminatory, I would advocate for their right to do so (as I have many times). But, when the government steps in and decides that one set of views is acceptable and another is not.


[qupte] We'll see I guess, the civil rights act didn't really get out of the box in this manner, people weren't forced to preform interracial marriages for instance. [/quote]

That's a fair point, but we live in a very different time now. We have seen a progressive in our government, away from faithfulness to the Constitution, especially under the Bush and Obama administrations (FTR, I voted for Obama twice -- mea culpa, but in each case the major party alternative was even worse) and towards a mentality of accomplishing one's goals, by any means necessary. And, by and large, the American people see this is an acceptable response when the politicians happen to agree with them.

If such a case were to come up it would have to be clergy that offer non-religious services widely available to the general public upon request.

It might start there, but it is unlikely to stay there.

 

[Cearbhall]

If individuals, even those who happen to own business, want to treat x group as "second class", I don't like it, but it's their right. When government does so, that's a problem.

You must be reading a really old textbook.

I agree. But, it is government, in many cases, that is now demanding that bakers provide wedding cakes for same sex weddings. If this were a matter of liberal groups boycotting, complaining, petitioning, etc. against bakeries that they believe are discriminatory, I would advocate for their right to do so (as I have many times). But, when the government steps in and decides that one set of views is acceptable and another is not.

I don't see a problem. I wouldn't want to live in a country where people can be turned away from public businesses at the whim of the owner. I don't know why anyone would.

 

[dies-l]

Why is it horrible? I'm really glad we have it.

It is horrible because it is subject to the whims of public opinion. When merely being not nice is a violation of law, all that needs to be done to persecute the unpopular group is to declare them not nice. In the past, I warned my conservative friends that open persecution of homosexuals sets the precedent for open persecution of the church. At this point in time, although I don't think that conservatives are really persecuted yet (in the US anyway), I'd give my liberal friends the same warning. I don't like the idea that the party in power gets to decide which opinions are okay to express and which aren't.

So you want to go back to the days when people could be refused service for their race?

I'll admit I struggle with this question. Do I want my kids to have to worry that Joe's Grocer won't sell them food because Joe happens to be a bigot? Not at all. But, am I willing to say that Joe can't faithfully exercise his bigoted beliefs just because I find them offensive and he might use his power as a grocery store owner in a way that harms people I care about?

No. I honestly don't know the answer -- I do know, however, that in the Jim Crow era, the problem wasn't just that Joe was a bigot; it was that it was more profitable, in many parts of this country, for Joe to be a bigot than for him not to be. In fact, in that time, in those places, it could be dangerous for Joe to openly welcome non-whites into his store. Perhaps, that problem persists in some parts of the country, but I would think that there has to be a middle ground that doesn't involve Joe being denied his right to be an idiot but doesn't give him the opportunity to force his competitors to adopt his views.

 

[dies-l]

You must be reading a really old textbook.

Okay? Do you have something of substance to add to that?

I don't see a problem. I wouldn't want to live in a country where people can be turned away from public businesses at the whim of the owner. I don't know why anyone would.

But, people can be turned away from public businesses at the whim of the owner . . . so long as the owner's reason is not included on a relatively short list of reasons that are deemed unacceptable under the law (race, sex [sometimes], religion [sometimes], disability [sometimes], and sexual orientation [sometimes] -- please correct me if I've missed any).

 

[Cearbhall]

It is horrible because it is subject to the whims of public opinion. When merely being not nice is a violation of law, all that needs to be done to persecute the unpopular group is to declare them not nice.

It would be wonderful if this were just about playing nice on the playground. I think you're failing to grasp the importance of anti-discrimination laws. We're talking about having access to what might be the only drug store in town. We're talking about making sure that being part of a minority population doesn't set you back in life by giving people the ability to determine where you can reasonably live. This is about having equal access to food when there's a snowstorm and every block you drive increases your chances of having an accident.

What's horrible is the idea that religion is somehow more important.

 

[variant]

If individuals, even those who happen to own business, want to treat x group as "second class", I don't like it, but it's their right. When government does so, that's a problem.

Which would ignore how pervasive allowing such things would be in peoples lives.

That's a fair point, but we live in a very different time now. We have seen a progressive in our government, away from faithfulness to the Constitution, especially under the Bush and Obama administrations (FTR, I voted for Obama twice -- mea culpa, but in each case the major party alternative was even worse) and towards a mentality of accomplishing one's goals, by any means necessary. And, by and large, the American people see this is an acceptable response when the politicians happen to agree with them.

It might start there, but it is unlikely to stay there.

You're arguing for something that hasn't happened in half of a century of practice with interracial marriage will become apparent now simply because what was done in 1963 is being applied to being gay people.

So yeah, a little paranoid.

 

[Cearbhall]

Okay? Do you have something of substance to add to that?

Only that you're factually wrong. That's not their right.

Do I want my kids to have to worry that Joe's Grocer won't sell them food because Joe happens to be a bigot? Not at all. But, am I willing to say that Joe can't faithfully exercise his bigoted beliefs just because I find them offensive and he might use his power as a grocery store owner in a way that harms people I care about?

What exactly does Joe the grocer get out of exercising his bigoted beliefs? All it does is make his business less profitable. Regardless, what gives him the right to exercise them through ownership of a public business? Owning a public business is about serving the public and making money. If he has other goals, then he should do something else with his life.

 

[variant]

No kidding. Why does this debate even exist? A few business owners are ignorant and think that anti-discrimination laws somehow don't apply to the LGBT community. That's it.

Because the people who advocate for an absolute right of property never had to live through being discriminated against in the manner we are speaking of.