Religious conscience and providing services

[poolerboy0077]

Religious beliefs are not a business related reason.

But why should that matter?

Businesses cannot hold religious beliefs.

Many businesses do. Chick-fil-a comes to mind.

 

[RealityCheck]

But why should that matter?


Many businesses do. Chick-fil-a comes to mind.

No. The owners might, but not the business.

 

[Bedford]

Many businesses do. Chick-fil-a comes to mind.

Here is their website. Chick-fil-A: Chick-fil-A Home

I thought I would find their religious beliefs posted, alas I was disappointed. I don't think the business holds a religious belief.

 

[RealityCheck]

Here is their website. Chick-fil-A: Chick-fil-A Home

I thought I would find their religious beliefs posted, alas I was disappointed. I don't think the business holds a religious belief.

Have to admit, would be an interesting Supreme Court case along the lines of Citizens United, if anyone ever wanted to put that forward.

 

[morningstar2651]

Frying chicken is not, to my knowledge, a Mormon religious practice.

I haven't studied the Book of Mormon as I have studied the Bible, so I could be wrong.

 

[super animator]

I'm starting to see why mods hate threads on abortion and same sex relationships.

Because of the reports that is generated?

 

[morningstar2651]

Because of the reports that is generated?

Because they are big hairy bugbears. These are the emotional topics that political parties use to divide us clearly into one camp or the other. These are emotional subjects, and when we react emotionally, our logic and reasoning tends to get shut down.

• If you're strongly pro-life, then you may believe that only political option is the Republican party even if you disagree with their fiscal policies or foreign policy.
• If you're gay and would like equal rights, then you might believe that your only political option is the Democratic party even if you're fiscally conservative.

When we discuss things like foreign aid, taxation, or the economy, we're likely to reach some common ground. We may disagree on the means to the end, but we all want a functioning American economy and we all agree that unemployment is a bad thing.

The abortion discussion will never be settled. Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago. We've had 40 years of Republicans making promises about upending Roe v. Wade and 40 years of Republicans promising to outlaw abortion. There comes a time when you have to realize politicians would never make this change even if they could because they could no longer guarantee themselves the votes of fiscally liberal Republicans who vote on this one topic alone. If they ever solved the problem to their constituent's satisfaction, then the constituents would vote reasonably instead of emotionally.

To turn this argument around to the Democratic party, this is also why they will never use federal legislation to legalize gay marriage - instead they will leave it to the states. If the inequalities facing homosexuals were solved, we'd actually see more gay people vote for the Republican party because they would be voting based on practical concerns rather than their own civil rights.

I won't discuss the morality behind abortion in this thread because I don't want it getting shut down - I will simply state where my position lies on the subject. I am both pro-choice and pro-life. I occupy the middle-ground between two emotional extremes because I divorce myself from the emotions associated with the discussion and approach it logically. If my position on this subject makes you curious, I'll gladly continue the explanation in private.

 

[super animator]

Because they are big hairy bugbears. These are the emotional topics that political parties use to divide us clearly into one camp or the other. These are emotional subjects, and when we react emotionally, our logic and reasoning tends to get shut down.

• If you're strongly pro-life, then you may believe that only political option is the Republican party even if you disagree with their fiscal policies or foreign policy.
• If you're gay and would like equal rights, then you might believe that your only political option is the Democratic party even if you're fiscally conservative.

When we discuss things like foreign aid, taxation, or the economy, we're likely to reach some common ground. We may disagree on the means to the end, but we all want a functioning American economy and we all agree that unemployment is a bad thing.

The abortion discussion will never be settled. Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago. We've had 40 years of Republicans making promises about upending Roe v. Wade and 40 years of Republicans promising to outlaw abortion. There comes a time when you have to realize politicians would never make this change even if they could because they could no longer guarantee themselves the votes of fiscally liberal Republicans who vote on this one topic alone. If they ever solved the problem to their constituent's satisfaction, then the constituents would vote reasonably instead of emotionally.

To turn this argument around to the Democratic party, this is also why they will never use federal legislation to legalize gay marriage - instead they will leave it to the states. If the inequalities facing homosexuals were solved, we'd actually see more gay people vote for the Republican party because they would be voting based on practical concerns rather than their own civil rights.

I won't discuss the morality behind abortion in this thread because I don't want it getting shut down - I will simply state where my position lies on the subject. I am both pro-choice and pro-life. I occupy the middle-ground between two emotional extremes because I divorce myself from the emotions associated with the discussion and approach it logically. If my position on this subject makes you curious, I'll gladly continue the explanation in private.

If anything, we need to reform our political system to allow more than 2 major political parties.

 

[Maren]

Frying chicken is not, to my knowledge, a Mormon religious practice.

I haven't studied the Book of Mormon as I have studied the Bible, so I could be wrong.

I'm a bit confused, as I don't understand what Mormonism and fried chicken have to do with this discussion, or Mormonism and Chick-Fil-A if that is what brought fried chicken into the discussion?

 

[bhsmte]

Here is their website. Chick-fil-A: Chick-fil-A Home

I thought I would find their religious beliefs posted, alas I was disappointed. I don't think the business holds a religious belief.

As a business, chick fil A does practice religious beliefs. They are not open on Sunday's, for this very reason.

 

[RealityCheck]

As a business, chick fil A does practice religious beliefs. They are not open on Sunday's, for this very reason.

Nnnahhhhh.... they're not open Sunday's because of the owners beliefs, not the businesses. The "corporation" doesn't decide when to open itself or close itself. Just like a corporation cant perform religious rites, attend church, receive communion, be baptised or circumcised.....

 

[poolerboy0077]

No. The owners might, but not the business.

Obviously businesses are not conscious entities. We speak of businesses reflecting beliefs, here, as shorthand for the owners advancing certain ideologies, values, beliefs, etc. as part of the company ethos.

But you didn't answer my initial question: Why should it matter whether or not religious beliefs — or any other beliefs — are relevant to the business? If it's one's private business, why should one not be at liberty, at least generally, to have said business reflect whatever image and values one wants it to convey?

 

[RealityCheck]

Obviously businesses are not conscious entities. We speak of businesses reflecting beliefs, here, as shorthand for the owners advancing certain ideologies, values, beliefs, etc. as part of the company ethos.

But you didn't answer my initial question: Why should it matter whether or not religious beliefs — or any other beliefs — are relevant to the business? If it's one's private business, why should one not be at liberty, at least generally, to have said business reflect whatever image and values one wants it to convey?

So long as such practices are not in conflict with the laws and constitution of the US and state, they're fine.

If they are in conflict, religious practice gives way to the law. Religion is not a legitimate "business reason" to get an exception. A business cannot fire a person for being black. Religion doesn't help get around that rule, no matter how sincere the belief.

That's how you run a secular country.

 

[NotreDame]

Nnnahhhhh.... they're not open Sunday's because of the owners beliefs, not the businesses. The "corporation" doesn't decide when to open itself or close itself. Just like a corporation cant perform religious rites, attend church, receive communion, be baptised or circumcised.....

A corporation is nothing more than a group of people, much like a church, club, fraternity, political party, etcetera. As a result, your remark above is not a sufficient rebuttal to the comment you were addressing.

 

[NotreDame]

So long as such practices are not in conflict with the laws and constitution of the US and state, they're fine.

If they are in conflict, religious practice gives way to the law. Religion is not a legitimate "business reason" to get an exception. A business cannot fire a person for being black. Religion doesn't help get around that rule, no matter how sincere the belief.

That's how you run a secular country.

Except for the fact the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically for purposes of this dialogue, the Free Exercise Clause, does not distinguish between individual belief or the beliefs of a group of people coalesced into a formal group, such as a church, club, organization, fraternity, etcetera, they are all protected. 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. The fact they are a corporation does not render the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment as inapplicable to them, unless of course a textual argument can be made in which the text of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment distinguishes between different groups of people, which the text clearly and plainly doesn't, or distinguishes between an individual and groups of people, which the text again clearly doesn't.

In addition, there is also the federal law, RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act).

 

[RealityCheck]

Except for the fact the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically for purposes of this dialogue, the Free Exercise Clause, does not distinguish between individual belief or the beliefs of a group of people coalesced into a formal group, such as a church, club, organization, fraternity, etcetera, they are all protected. 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. The fact they are a corporation does not render the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment as inapplicable to them, unless of course a textual argument can be made in which the text of the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment distinguishes between different groups of people, which the text clearly and plainly doesn't, or distinguishes between an individual and groups of people, which the text again clearly doesn't.

In addition, there is also the federal law, RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act).

A corporation is distinctly different from a social club, church, or other group. Corporations, and other businesses, are state approved entities. They are chartered or licensed or whatever by the state to run a business under business laws. They therefore must comply with those laws. So again, if business practices conflict with the law, guess which wins .

Businesses are treated differently like this because they are essential to the secular economy of a state, and to the employment of the populace. Churches and social clubs are not. That's why a a business is required to accommodate an employees religious practices (e.g. not working on Saturday) but other organizations may not be. A business cannot require its members to practice some religion or another, but a church can. Businesses generally must be equal opportunity employers and equally available to the public.

Thus a business can be barred from "free religious exercise" as a business, even if its individual members can individually practice their religion.

 

[RealityCheck]

A corporation is nothing more than a group of people, much like a church, club, fraternity, political party, etcetera. As a result, your remark above is not a sufficient rebuttal to the comment you were addressing.

See above. Businesses actually ARE more than merely a collection of people.

 

[poolerboy0077]

If they are in conflict, religious practice gives way to the law. Religion is not a legitimate "business reason" to get an exception.

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?

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

One has to gauge which 'trumps' which based on the context. While the Supreme Court has ruled that religious freedom trumps laws against animal sacrifice, it would not, I imagine, do the same for human sacrifice.

Similarly, although no one seems to be interested in forcing ministers to perform gay marriages as a religious ceremony, I think it is reasonable to assume that baking a cake is not a religious ceremony.

Religious objections to interracial marriage do not allow business owners to discriminate against interracial couples. The same should be true for sexual orientation in places where sexual orientation has the same legal protection in anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Cearbhall]

Similarly, although no one seems to be interested in forcing ministers to perform gay marriages as a religious ceremony, I think it is reasonable to assume that baking a cake is not a religious ceremony.

Religious objections to interracial marriage do not allow business owners to discriminate against interracial couples.

I think the key difference is that religious marriage ceremonies aren't part of a public business. The problem is that some Christians seem to think that everything they do should be considered religious and be protected as such, since they want everything they do to be for God. This used to be an issue with race. It just so happens that most US Christians no longer think that God cares about race.