Religiously Based Service Refusal

[Chrystal-J]

• Q. Do you believe that discrimination is wrong?
• A. Yes, because discrimination harms people by cutting them off from opportunities and suggests that they are less able than others
• Q. Why should Christianity be able to discriminate and consequently harm people?
• A. Because it always has?

OB

What about Muslims? (That hypocrisy was my point.)

 

[Occams Barber]

he first one depends on which denomination one is but it's not discrimination because it depends on their interpretation of a couple of the scriptures. Women in those denominations wouldn't believe they should be preaching.

By secular standards it's discrimination and there are a variety of interpretations of scripture. There are a number of denominations where women are struggling for equality

The second is particular to the Catholic church only, as far as I know. The women, nuns, are also celibate.

Why is it OK because it's "just the Catholic Church". Remember Catholicism is one of the major Christian religions. Nuns are not allowed to become priests

The third one I don't understand what you are referring to.

It's a reference to teaching positions in certain schools being restricted to a particular religion, typically Catholic

And the fourth one, in my view, either one could be a wonderful caregiver. I'd rather have a skilled Buddhist caregiver than an unskilled Christian one.

In my country aged care centres set up by Churches will often restrict their staff to their centre's religion
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

What about Muslims? (That hypocrisy was my point.)

The same principles apply.
OB

 

[Hank77]

• Q. Do you believe that discrimination is wrong?
• A. Yes, because discrimination harms people by cutting them off from opportunities and suggests that they are less able than others
• Q. Why should Christianity be able to discriminate and consequently harm people?
• A. Because it always has?

OB

It's so harmful to have to go to another baker or photographer, that's so, so harmful.

But it's not harmful to insist that someone must sin against their God or give up their business and livelihood that supports them, their employees, their family, and any charities that they share with.
That's not harmful at all, or so much less harmful that it just doesn't count.

 

[Chrystal-J]

What if a white supremacist wanted a black bakery to make them a racist-laced cake? Would the bakery refusing (as I hope they would), be justified?

 

[Occams Barber]

Okay, kids, note this so you can see where this is all going.

Noted. Thanks for the warning
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

It's so harmful to have to go to another baker or photographer, that's so, so harmful.

But it's not harmful to insist that someone must sin against their God or give up their business and livelihood that supports them, their employees, their family, and any charities that they share with.
That's not harmful at all, or so much less harmful that it just doesn't count.

In the broader society it is wrong to discriminate because its harmful to others. We've spent years trying to rid ourselves of discrimination based on race, gender, etc. etc. Why should we give one institution the right to discriminate when we give it to no others unless they have a compelling practical argument? Scripture is not an argument - it is an assertion; an assertion based on a Middle eastern culture from 2000 years ago. Even Christians will argue about the correct interpretation of scripture. It seems a pretty flimsy basis to use a reason to accept discrimination.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

What if a white supremacist wanted a black bakery to make them a racist-laced cake? Would the bakery refusing (as I hope they would), be justified?

There's no law I know of (NB I'm not from the US) which prevents you from refusing to provide a "racist laced cake". The groups we've been talking about have usually been granted special protection under the law because of past significant levels of discrimination.
OB

 

[Chrystal-J]

Apparently there's no law that requires anyone to bake a specific cake for anyone.
Supreme Court engages on same-sex marriage cake case, hands win to baker, for now

 

[Hank77]

By secular standards it's discrimination and there are a variety of interpretations of scripture. There are a number of denominations where women are struggling for equality

Why is it OK because it's "just the Catholic Church". Remember Catholicism is one of the major Christian religions. Nuns are not allowed to become priests


It's a reference to teaching positions in certain schools being restricted to a particular religion, typically Catholic


In my country aged care centres set up by Churches will often restrict their staff to their centre's religion
OB

That is what I said, there are different interpretations within denominations so whatever church one attends that is what they are going to abide by, men and women alike. It's not because men want to discriminate against women.
I do agree that some women, and men too, are advocating in their churches to allow women to preach but they're doing that by taking a closer look at what some women in Paul's ministry were doing.

First I didn't say nuns could be priests, that's ridiculous they're nuns. Do Catholic women want to be priests? I highly doubt it because Catholics are very much in support of their doctrines.

Christian schools need to have all their staff on the same page.
Catholics wouldn't want their kids going to a Baptist school where they might learn things that a different from what they believe and Baptists would be generally the same about their kids and Catholic beliefs. So within the school, all the staff needs to be able to convey the same information to all the kids no matter which class they teach.

If it's a Catholic home then it will usually be Catholic patients or at least Christian patients. Again it's a matter of all the staff being on the same page when talking and praying with the patients.

Think of customer service in a business. Would a company want its people to be telling customers different things or do they need to be consistent for the sake of the customers and the company?

 

[Occams Barber]

Apparently there's no law that requires anyone to bake a specific cake for anyone.
Supreme Court engages on same-sex marriage cake case, hands win to baker, for now

No - but there are laws designed to prevent discrimination in all its variety of forms. This US cake thing isn't yet settled. We'll see where it leads. Remember - what is legal and what is ethical aren't always the same thing.
OB

 

[Hank77]

In the broader society it is wrong to discriminate because its harmful to others. We've spent years trying to rid ourselves of discrimination based on race, gender, etc. etc. Why should we give one institution the right to discriminate when we give it to no others unless they have a compelling practical argument? Scripture is not an argument - it is an assertion; an assertion based on a Middle eastern culture from 2000 years ago. Even Christians will argue about the correct interpretation of scripture. It seems a pretty flimsy basis to use a reason to accept discrimination.
OB

You think sinning against one's God is a flimsy excuse. Well, then there isn't any reason to think you would ever understand.

 

[Hank77]

No - but there are laws designed to prevent discrimination in all its variety of forms. This US cake thing isn't yet settled. We'll see where it leads. Remember - what is legal and what is ethical aren't always the same thing.
OB

What do you mean it's not settled. I haven't heard of another case going before the SCOTUS.

 

[Zoii]

SOURCE: Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals | PRRI

Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals

In April 2019 the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) conducted a random, representative phone survey of 1,100 American adults to assess support for religiously based service refusal directed at a number of minority groups.

The survey, conducted by professional interviewers, was based on responses to this statement:

“A small business owner in <your state> should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to < group> , if doing so violated their religious beliefs”​

The groups were:

• Gay/Lesbian
• Transgender
• Atheists
• Muslims
• Jews
• African American

Where data was available, the results were compared to a similar survey conducted in 2014.

This bar chart summarises the overall results. Note that acceptance of service refusal has significantly increased since 2014:
View attachment 270098

This chart (below) shows support for refusal by religious affiliation. Across the board, white Evangelical Protestants or white Mainline Protestants were most likely to agree with refusal of service.
View attachment 270099


In 4 out of 6 groups, Republican support for refusal of service was more than double that of Democrats (see chart below):
View attachment 270100
SOURCE: Increasing Support for Religiously Based Service Refusals | PRRI
I can understand why services would be refused to any one of those groups. Its obvious to me that if I served those individuals I would have a greater tendency to be a Jewish African American with gay tendencies. I can't condone that.

 

[Zoii]

I can understand why services would be refused to any one of those groups. Its obvious to me that if I served those individuals I would have a greater tendency to being a Jewish African American with gay tendencies. I can't condone that.

 

[Occams Barber]

What do you mean it's not settled. I haven't heard of another case going before the SCOTUS.

From Chrystal's article:

For the second time in as many years, the Supreme Court on Monday engaged on a major religious liberty case involving same-sex marriage, but is sidestepping for now the substantive issue of alleged religion-based discrimination.

The court granted the petition of Christian bakers in Oregon who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of their religious beliefs and wiped away a lower court ruling against them. The justices sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration.

Instructing the appeals court to reexamine the matter in light of a similar, narrowly-decided case last year from Colorado, the justices left open the key question of when discrimination on religious grounds can override civil rights protections written into law.
​

Supreme Court engages on same-sex marriage cake case, hands win to baker, for now
OB

 

[Hank77]

From Chrystal's article:

For the second time in as many years, the Supreme Court on Monday engaged on a major religious liberty case involving same-sex marriage, but is sidestepping for now the substantive issue of alleged religion-based discrimination.

The court granted the petition of Christian bakers in Oregon who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because of their religious beliefs and wiped away a lower court ruling against them. The justices sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration.

Instructing the appeals court to reexamine the matter in light of a similar, narrowly-decided case last year from Colorado, the justices left open the key question of when discrimination on religious grounds can override civil rights protections written into law.
​

Supreme Court engages on same-sex marriage cake case, hands win to baker, for now
OB

Wow, I totally miss that, thank you.

 

[Occams Barber]

I can understand why services would be refused to any one of those groups. Its obvious to me that if I served those individuals I would have a greater tendency to being a Jewish African American with gay tendencies. I can't condone that.

Hi Zoii

I have to run off and cook something for dinner before I die. I'll leave you to play. The natives are friendly.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

I don't watch movies containing immoral acts so why would I support one with my own actions?

The idea that selling a product or providing a service to someone is supporting any immoral act that person might commit is fallacious. You are selling a product or providing a service, not endorsing their actions.

I don't believe that I should be put in the position of giving up my family's livelihood or doing something that I believe would compromise my relationship with my God.

Nobody is arguing that, though. They're saying tailor your services to what you can, in good conscience, provide to every customer who walks through the door. There are plenty of baked goods a baker can sell; plenty of events a photographer can photograph; etc etc. If weddings are such a conscience issue for you, just don't do wedding cakes or photography. Nobody will starve.

The first one depends on which denomination one is but it's not discrimination because it depends on their interpretation of a couple of the scriptures. Women in those denominations wouldn't believe they should be preaching.

There are many, many women with frustrated vocations in those denominations, waiting and praying for the day when change will be possible.

What if a white supremacist wanted a black bakery to make them a racist-laced cake? Would the bakery refusing (as I hope they would), be justified?

The issue is the difference between the product and the customer.

A baker should never have to make a cake with a racist message, or any other message they don't want to send (not have to provide a product which is objectionable to them). The problem is when the baker will happily make a cake for one person, but not make an identical cake for another person. The issue there is not that the product is objectionable, but that they are not treating the customer equitably.

It's not because men want to discriminate against women.

Some men really do, though. Enjoy a privileged position relative to women, and want to keep it that way.

Do Catholic women want to be priests? I highly doubt it because Catholics are very much in support of their doctrines.

As I said, there are many Catholic women with frustrated vocations. Most Catholics I meet are, in fact, in favour of the ordination of women, and angry and frustrated with their church's refusal to do so.

 

[muichimotsu]

It basically left me speechless.

I will make one small observation. If I were a gay, African American atheist living near a white Evangelical community, I would be very, very worried.
OB

I'm a white male asexual atheist in an evangelical white community and I still feel more privileged because of the first two traits I have, while the other 2 could create issues, but my friends who are minority religions, LGBTQ, etc and live in similarly Bible Belt areas, are arguably more a concern for me in terms of discriminatory practices that could affect their livelihood, etc.