Religiously Based Service Refusal

[thecolorsblend]

All I know Jesus Christ of Nazareth refused no one.
Blessings

lolwut

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
-- Matthew 7:21-23 (DRA)

 

[Maria Billingsley]

lolwut

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
-- Matthew 7:21-23 (DRA)

Your scriptures have nothing to do with OP. I am well aware of false prophets.

 

[Occams Barber]

People get refused service all the time and for all types of reasons. Aside from disturbing the peace, is refusal of service ever justified, in your opinion?

Interesting point but off topic. The OP is very specifically about refusal of service related to religious belief.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Note that this question is markedly different from the question of whether a small business owner actually should deny services based on religious beliefs. IOW, people in this survey are saying they don't want government forcing their behaviour one way or the other; they would like to make up their own minds based on their own religiously-informed consciences. They are not saying they would, or others should, deny services.

The difference between "should refuse" and "should be allowed to refuse" is, in this case, trivial. Agreeing with the right to refuse implies sympathy with the act of refusal given the appropriate religious reasoning.. Conversely disagreeing with refusal is effectively saying refusal should not happen.

One can argue that more harm has been done to our societal comity and political cohesion by the government, usually as a result of Progressive "lawfare" in the courts, forcing business owners to serve the public in ways that violate the owners' consciences, and indeed ruining some of them financially for standing firm on principle, than by what would have been a relatively few denials of service by a small group. IOW, "Bake this cake or we'll destroy you" may be worse than, "Sorry, we can't bake that cake, but there's a shop two streets over that would be glad to serve you."

This is too US specific for me to discuss sensibly . One obvious comment - what happens if the shop "two streets over" is also disinclined to provide service?

One can further argue that it is best to let social change proceed at its own natural pace and to let the balance of civil rights, the dictates of conscience, and marketplace dynamics seek and find its own level.

Libertarian claptrap. Left alone the result will favour those with the most economic or political (or both) power. One can also argue that the game needs rules and an umpire to make sure that there is reasonable equity.
OB

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your scriptures have nothing to do with OP.

The passage wasn't intended to relate to the OP. It was intended to relate to your post.

I am well aware of false prophets.

Excellent. Do you have any thoughts about how that scripture relates to your post which you'd like to share?

 

[Paidiske]

To me, it seems very simple. If you find it objectionable to make, sell or do x for some select customers, then you shouldn't offer to make, sell or do x for anyone. What the law shouldn't allow you to do is do x for some people but not others.

That is, you can choose what you will or won't do, and I'll fight to the last breath to support your right to make that choice in accordance with your conscience; but you don't get to choose to discriminate in who you'll do it for.

 

[Hank77]

To me, it seems very simple. If you find it objectionable to make, sell or do x for some select customers, then you shouldn't offer to make, sell or do x for anyone. What the law shouldn't allow you to do is do x for some people but not others.

That is, you can choose what you will or won't do, and I'll fight to the last breath to support your right to make that choice in accordance with your conscience; but you don't get to choose to discriminate in who you'll do it for.

If a photographer will take photos of a man kissing a woman then he must take photographs of a man kissing a man?

 

[Paidiske]

If a photographer will take photos of a man kissing a woman then he must take photographs of a man kissing a man?

Yes. If he will take intimate photography, he doesn't get to turn some customers away because he objects to their relationship. If he doesn't want to take photos of a homosexual couple, he shouldn't do couples photography.

 

[dzheremi]

Agreeing with the right to refuse implies sympathy with the act of refusal given the appropriate religious reasoning..

This is simply not true, and it would really cut down on the amount of political insanity that we see across the western world if people would stop repeating it in any of its many variations (all of which basically amount to "allowing people to disagree with me is dangerous"). I can agree that people should have the right to drink even if personally have no sympathy for the drunk. I can agree with the KKK's right to march through Skokie, IL (or anywhere, really), even as I would also meet them there to protest them at same march.

If you cannot, that's your problem -- it doesn't necessarily say anything about people who can.

This is too US specific for me to discuss sensibly . One obvious comment - what happens if the shop "two streets over" is also disinclined to provide service?

And again, allowing people to disagree is dangerous. It inevitably leads to more people disagreeing now that they are 'free' to do so, and then nobody can have any gay wedding cakes or whatever.

Or...things could go another way:

(Eastern Oregon; the most conservative region)

(Virginia)

(Freaking Mississippi, people...I know you're not from the States, OP, but this is a big one, as Mississippi is one of the most, if not the most, stereotypically -- and actually -- socially conservative states in the country.)

My point is not to say that there is nothing to the worry of multiple refusals, but that it seems to be taken as something of an inevitability that if you are in a conservative area, you will be likely to be met with refusal after refusal. I'm not entirely convinced that this is true, given how much most people like money, and this is all a question of business transactions. (Note the language on the Mississippi sticker.)

One can also argue that the game needs rules and an umpire to make sure that there is reasonable equity.
OB

Ah, yes, the mythical unbiased umpire in the realm of politics. Do tell us when you find one anywhere, ever.

 

[dzheremi]

To me, it seems very simple. If you find it objectionable to make, sell or do x for some select customers, then you shouldn't offer to make, sell or do x for anyone.

Now, I know that religion is not treated exactly the same as secular business in United States law (religions are all basically treated as 'non-public', in the sense of containing a recognized formal membership that does not include anyone who just happens to show up), but you seem to be framing this as a matter of principle anyway, so I do wonder: if someone were to come to you, outside of your communion or maybe even inside of it, and you knew that they were not properly disposed to receive, would you commune them anyway out of your commitment to the principle that it is not right to deny to one what you would not deny to another?

And if you are allowed to discriminate, then why are you allowed what others are not? Doesn't that in itself violate this principle of not denying some people something (the right to discriminate) that others (you) are allowed?

(As in the other posts I've made in this thread, I'm playing Devil's advocate. Really I want to know people's responses because this sort of thing has obviously shaped up to one of the main dividing claims or issues of our time in western societies, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't sympathize with both sides in different ways.)

 

[Hank77]

Yes. If he will take intimate photography, he doesn't get to turn some customers away because he objects to their relationship. If he doesn't want to take photos of a homosexual couple, he shouldn't do couples photography.

Thank you for your response.

 

[Paidiske]

Now, I know that religion is not treated exactly the same as secular business in United States law (religions are all basically treated as 'non-public', in the sense of containing a recognized formal membership that does not include anyone who just happens to show up), but you seem to be framing this as a matter of principle anyway, so I do wonder: if someone were to come to you, outside of your communion or maybe even inside of it, and you knew that they were not properly disposed to receive, would you commune them anyway out of your commitment to the principle that it is not right to deny to one what you would not deny to another?

And if you are allowed to discriminate, then why are you allowed what others are not? Doesn't that in itself violate this principle of not denying some people something (the right to discriminate) that others (you) are allowed?

Well, several things.

1. I'm not in America, and I'm not really aware of how this might or might not play out under American law.

2. Let me note that this is not entirely a hypothetical in my own experience; I have on occasion been refused service because I'm a woman. And while that hasn't been a large feature of my experience, it has certainly coloured my attitude on this.

3. My own church doesn't give me unilateral power to refuse a baptised person communion. I can do so only under grave circumstances and after consulting with my bishop. (The question of whether it's discriminating to refuse an unbaptised person could be fraught, but my argument would be no, because I would be willing to resolve that problem by baptising them; so it's not really refusal so much as putting things in the right order).

4. I don't think receiving communion is a "service" in the same sense that, say, buying a cake or a shirt or photography (or whatever) is. For one thing, it's not a commercial exchange (you don't pay for communion, although you may choose to give a donation to the church while you're there). But more than that, communion is part of a bigger "package," if you like. (And this comes back to the question about baptism). Nobody is refused the "package" of church participation, but nor can they necessarily come along and demand one or two stand-alone elements of that package without taking the rest. (Just as I can't do a wedding for a couple neither of whom have been baptised; not because I'm discriminating against the unbaptised, but a) for complex legal reasons, and b) because our wedding service would make little sense in the lives of that couple!)

 

[Hank77]

Yes. If he will take intimate photography, he doesn't get to turn some customers away because he objects to their relationship. If he doesn't want to take photos of a homosexual couple, he shouldn't do couples photography.

I have another question.
Does that mean you would officiate a gay wedding?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The passage wasn't intended to relate to the OP. It was intended to relate to your post.

Excellent. Do you have any thoughts about how that scripture relates to your post which you'd like to share?

Jesus Christ of Nazareth came not to be served but to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). To lay down his life for the sheep (John 10:15). To bear our sins in his body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). To provide us with a righteousness that comes, not from our law-keeping, but through faith (Philippians 3:9). And to reconcile us to God (2 Corinthians 5:18; 1 Peter 3:18).
All the children of wrath may become children of the Father through Jesus Christ.

 

[Paidiske]

I have another question.
Does that mean you would officiate a gay wedding?

At this point, it is not legal for me to do so where I live.

That said, if you see my comments in post #32 about church participation as a "package," it would at this point make little sense for me to do so.

If we ever get to the point where Australian law and/or the canon law of the Anglican Church of Australia change to the point where this would be a real possibility (which I don't anticipate in the foreseeable future), I have not yet decided whether or not that will fundamentally call into question my commitment to priesthood in this church. I suspect *how* that change came about would be the deciding factor. And then, if I stayed, I would have to work out how to operate within the new reality.

What I am trying to say is that God has surprised me before and I do not want - at the age of not-yet-forty - to declare that I will "never" do something. But at this point, the circumstances which would make it possible for me to officiate a gay wedding with any integrity do not exist.

 

[Hank77]

At this point, it is not legal for me to do so where I live.

That said, if you see my comments in post #32 about church participation as a "package," it would at this point make little sense for me to do so.

If we ever get to the point where Australian law and/or the canon law of the Anglican Church of Australia change to the point where this would be a real possibility (which I don't anticipate in the foreseeable future), I have not yet decided whether or not that will fundamentally call into question my commitment to priesthood in this church. I suspect *how* that change came about would be the deciding factor. And then, if I stayed, I would have to work out how to operate within the new reality.

What I am trying to say is that God has surprised me before and I do not want - at the age of not-yet-forty - to declare that I will "never" do something. But at this point, the circumstances which would make it possible for me to officiate a gay wedding with any integrity do not exist.

I see. Well, thanks again for your honest and thorough answer.
God Bless

 

[Hank77]

Yes. If he will take intimate photography, he doesn't get to turn some customers away because he objects to their relationship. If he doesn't want to take photos of a homosexual couple, he shouldn't do couples photography.

If I were a photographer in living in 22 states in the US I would not legally have to take a photo of a same-sex couple kissing, or bake them a cake if I were a baker because sexual orientation is not a protected class in those states and it's not a federally protected class.

 

[Occams Barber]

There's an elephant in this room (ok …survey) which no-one has yet raised.

The question asked is:
A small business owner in <their state> should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to < group> , if doing so violated their religious beliefs”

For each Group the reason for refusal remains the same i.e. 'if doing so violated their religious belief". Why would the survey find a difference in the level of acceptability of a gay/lesbian violating their religious belief compared an African American violating their religious belief compared to an atheist or Jew violating their religious belief? They are all accused of doing the same thing and yet the level of acceptance varies.

One obvious reason is that the survey is not really measuring the acceptability of a particular group violating religious belief. It may actually be measuring the underlying acceptability of that group. Hence the different results for different groups. If this is correct, then the result has nothing to do with violating religious belief - it's an indirect measurement of prejudice.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

If I were a photographer in living in 22 states in the US I would not legally have to take a photo of a same-sex couple kissing, or bake them a cake if I were a baker because sexual orientation is not a protected class in those states and it's not a federally protected class.

That doesn't make it ethical to refuse, though.

 

[Occams Barber]

If I were a photographer in living in 22 states in the US I would not legally have to take a photo of a same-sex couple kissing, or bake them a cake if I were a baker because sexual orientation is not a protected class in those states and it's not a federally protected class.

As a general observation Hank - I've reached this point a number of times before with American posters. The often expressed view is that the law or Constitution or Bill of Rights, allows or disallows a particular activity therefore it is acceptable/morally correct. I suspect it has a little to do with the semi-sacred view that some US Christians have of your founding documents.

Laws vary across countries. What we should be looking at is not what my law or your law says is OK or not. We need to look at principles.
OB